Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
– C.S. Lewis
A lot of people have been talking to me about the pubs of Yeovil this week. Not because of my unwise enthusiasm when young for rough cider. But because of this, first covered at the beginning of the year:
Revellers in the Somerset town of Yeovil, often seen as Britain’s answer to the Wild West on a Friday and Saturday night, were this weekend getting to grips with a unique scheme which is more science fiction than Wild West. Customers entering the town’s six main late-night drinking and dancing joints were being asked to register their personal details, have their photograph taken and submit to a biometric finger scan.
That’s from a report in The Guardian in May, which went on to explain:
The clubs and Avon and Somerset police, who are supporting the scheme, argue that it is not compulsory. Nobody can be forced to give a finger scan, which works by analysing a fingertip’s ridges and furrows. However, the clubs admit they will not allow people in if they refuse to take part in the scheme.
But things have moved on. “Don’t like it? You can drink elsewhere. Let the market sort it out… let these awful surveillance clubs go out of business and free-wheeling ones thrive,” was my immediate reaction. It appears that was naive. While it may be “voluntary” for drinkers, it appears that it is not voluntary for pubs and clubs. Not any longer. The Register explains,
“The Home Office have looked at our system and are looking at trials in other towns including Coventry, Hull & Sheffield,” said Julia Bradburn, principal licensing manager at South Somerset District Council.
Gwent and Nottingham police have also shown an interest, while Taunton, a town neighbouring Yeovil, is discussing the installation of fingerprint systems in 10 pubs and clubs with the systems supplier CreativeCode. […]
The council had assumed it was its duty under the Crime and Disorder Act (1998) to reduce drunken disorder by fingerprinting drinkers in the town centre.
Some licensees were not happy to have their punters fingerprinted, but are all now apparently behind the idea. Not only does the council let them open later if they join the scheme, but the system costs them only £1.50 a day to run.
Oh, and they are also coerced into taking the fingerprint system. New licences stipulate that a landlord who doesn’t install fingerprint security and fails to show a “considerable” reduction in alcohol-related violence, will be put on report by the police and have their licences revoked.
The fingerprinting is epiphenomenon. What’s deeply disturbing here is the construction of new regimes of official control out of powers granted nominally in the spirit of “liberalisation”. The Licensing Act 2003 passed licensing the sale of alcohol and permits for music and dancing – yes, you need a permit to let your customers dance in England and Wales – from magistrates to local authorities. And it provided for local authorities to set conditions on licenses as they saw fit.
Though local authorities are notionally elected bodies, and magistrates appointees, this looked like democratic reform. But all the powers of local authorities are actually exercised by permanent officials – who also tell elected councillors what their duties are. And there are an awful lot of them.
Magistrates used to hear licensing applications quickly. They had other things to do. And they exercised their power judicially: deciding, but not seeking to control. Ms Bradburn and her staff have time to work with the police and the Home Office on innovative schemes. I’ve noted before how simple-sounding powers can be pooled by otherwise separate agencies to common purpose, gaining leverage over the citizen. I call it The Power Wedge.
They are entirely dedicated to making us safer. How terrifying. “A Republic?” said the Seagreen, with one of his dry husky unsportful laughs, “What is that?”
GIve me the foul air of corruption, if that is the only way I may be permitted to breath at all.
New licences stipulate that a landlord who doesn’t install fingerprint security and fails to show a “considerable” reduction in alcohol-related violence, will be put on report by the police and have their licences revoked.
And that to me is the scary part and indicative of the NueArbeit approach to State control – get the private companies under the thumb and on the teat and they will dance more energetically than any State enterprise ever could.
Funny how the Police appear less than zealous when it comes to louts terrorising old people. Too difficult, I suppose.
Yes, as you correctly say in your blog – a displaly of arbitrary power.
It would be lovely if some of the people running these pub chains had the simple guts to tell the licensing authorities to sod off, or something much ruder. But it appears that all too many big business types are sheep. Let’s face it, the management elite of big business are indistinguisable from bureaucrats. Although supposedly capitalist, their work patterns, views, cultural assumptions and habits are interchangeable. They take their holidays in Tuscany and the South of France, go to the same schools, have the same sort of friends, go to the same dinner parties, and would never be seen dead in an old fashioned English boozer, never mind a nightclub.
I can see many many people agreeing to this on entry to pubs and clubs as they want to go to the same place as their mates. Thus the initial sign up will be large as most people will see it as no different than getting an ink stamp on their wrist.
I wonder how long they will be keeping the records of who went to which club for how long, on which dates, etc etc.
Indefinitely, I expect.
Just in case the data is needed one day.
Looks like I’ll be doing more drinking at home in future.
andrew duffin writes:
You aren’t the only one. Domestic violence is apparently up in the town. A case of simple displacement, or the oppressed population going crazy?
Myself, I have no intention of beating my girl friend, or of entering any premises with such a scheme in place. Its a red line too far for me.
Simon
I think this shows how quickly and completely the ‘need’ to have an ID card with you at all times to access services you never imagined you’d be forced to use it for will occur after introduction.
Absolutely outrageous!
This is somewhat tangential, but it shows how out of control bureauocracy has become.
I went to the library the other day, only to find that my ticket was out of date. No problem I thought, they will surely just swap the old one for a new one. Oh dear me no. They took the old one off me and pushed a form across the desk. This I had to fill out and re-present with an item of ID. I have many items of ID but none with my name and address on. So I went to Italy for a week and went back afterwards with my passport.
Dang me! they almost didn’t take that, on the grounds that it didn’t have my address on it.
But after five minutes of withering sarcasm on my part, they gave me the card.
But why oh why didn’t they just swop the old one for the new??? The countries gone crazy.
I think we can define an appropriate phrase for such a measure as “oppression grooming” by the state – i.e. they are acclimatising us to the fact that nothing we do henceforth will be private and all will be recorded for use by whomsoever the state decrees, private enterprise or otherwise.
Given that one place to be tested is Hull, dare we hope that that well-known alco-criminal John Prescott will be bagged and tagged as well?
I’d love it if a suitably high-profile group of people vowed to boycott any pub or club employing such laws, took the piss out of them on television, and generally made them a laughing stock.
When the revolution comes, there won’t be enough lamposts ……
When the revolution comes, there won’t be enough lamposts
Not since they removed the cross-bars from them.
Wonder how many you can hang off a speed camera?
From my vantage point on the other side of the Atlantic, things look pretty hopeless over there in Britain. Unlike most Americans, I have long recognized that Tony Blair is a thorough-going Socialist tyrant who just happened to be willing to resist Islamists overseas. Domestically, he is a craven appeaser. Mention was made of a high profile consumer boycott and “taking the piss out of them” on television. Might I offer that the Puritans of Lord Protector Blair’s party would love for pubs to go out of business? And further, that from what I understand, your television is controlled by the government you would be de-urinating? Probably not going to happen.
Sadly, I fear that the number of lamp posts will be a moot question, as you have to have someone to do the hanging. Once again, from what I understand, your people are disarmed and basically ….. well, your former “sturdy yeomen” are placid Helots and your “Hearts of Oak” are blades of grass. With the exception of your military; which is highly professional, deadly [your SAS is what our Delta Force wants to be when it grows up], and extremely atypical from the general population; the world sees nothing but subservience, regardless of the provocation. Am I missing something vital here? Is there really a chance of a resistance there?
With a government and society that seems like a bastard cross between the movie “V for Vendetta” and the book “Londinistan” I don’t see where you can resist anything. Oh, the concept of drinking at home …. what happens when they extend the scheme to the point of sale? Home brew moonshine? I can’t see that level of resistance to your version of the “revenoo-ers”.
Barring the admittedly laughable concept of Scotland breaking free and providing a haven for those who will not be slaves; perhaps the best plan for SAMIZDATISTAS is to keep their passports current and a back door in mind.
Subotai,
Barring the admittedly laughable concept of Scotland breaking free and providing a haven for those who will not be slaves
Now that is laughable, but not for the reason you suppose. Scotland is the source of most of our troubles: politically, because 41 out of 59 Scottish seats are in Labour hands, and it gives the government its majority; personally, because the ruling clique of New Labour are Scots and the priggishness of their hectoring regime echoes a particular puritanical element in Scottish culture.
Does anyone have an objective comparison between Yeovil and Slough?
Best regards
The trouble with republics, or other forms of government based on universal suffrage is that the rulers have virtual carte blanche to impose any kind of regulatory regime. After all, the government, or those who appoint the bureaucrats — is elected, and in theory, the popular will can act in the manner provided by law to change its masters.
But in reality, this does not happen: it’s too cumbersome; and since the mechanism by which the nanny state imposes its fiat is thought of as generally fair, people may, as I’ve said elsewhere, object to a law…but it is, the Law.
Monarchies, and rulers of other stripes, who do not derive legitmacy from the popular will, but from popular silence, can less afford to be busybodies, because they must keep popular objections to their rule below some threshhold that will cause widespread objection to their rule.
Look at the history of the First World War – the more or less democratic states, France and Britain, were ultimately much more successful at obtaining popular consent for sacrifices necessary to win the war than the German, Austro-Hungarian and Russian autocracies. The democratic states, based on popular will, could afford the social costs of being more organized. As the nanny state teaches us, that’s a mixed blessing.
El Jefe, you have it upside-down! All manner of tyrannies and abuses such as this have stemmed from GB’s “Constitutional Monarchy” where the self-serving politicians are given faux legitimacy by an equally self-serving Queen who is determined at all costs to keep the royal ‘firm’ in being.
A president Blair or Thatcher or Beckham may be unpalatable, but remember under a written Constitution and with limited/restricted terms in office, plus an elected upper chamber, the government would not be able to get away stunts like biometric databases, abolition of jury trial, uncontrolled immigration, VAT or outsourcing sovereignty to Brussels
Perhaps they could both do with a
Betjeman/ Bin Laden
Touch.
Imagine if it goes wrong. No-one will be prepared to help you because they can’t help you if your card number doesn’t match the one the computer and if you don’t have that you’ll have to call a helpline every fifteen minutes for three days. Our will to rebel will be crushed not by room 101 but unmanned call centres.
Only marginally preferable to it working.
Incidentally, does anyone have a problem with large corporations taking marketing information off you for advertising, if they give you something in return? Like money, for instance. This is a hip idea in advertising at the moment.
But Stuart, is Britain really a monarchy any more ? Certainly not a traditional one. Yes, yes, there is a Queen and all the normal royal hangers on…but real power looks vested in the cabinet with the majority in the House of Commons from here, and in the bureaucracy controlled by the cabinet and, well, by the EC. . .All very republican whatever the thing is in theory.
My own comment above was written with America in mind, but it looks to me to as easily to apply to Britain ?
What does a republic get GB that it doesn’t have already ? Yes, gets rid of some expensive royals, upkeep on properties, etc., but what really changes ? At bottom, the modern “republican” state is invincible because its legitimacy is in theory based on a popular will that is in practice damned hard to call into action against the will of the political classes. My point was that the very precariousness of the oldline monarchies greatly restricted their freedom of action. Britain, now, is not such a state.
So, does it really matter if Blair is President or PM ?
That is the way the socialists prefer it. Business owners usually abide the law, so the left will pass laws on everything they can think of until everything they oppose dies.
On the point about private companies being able to apply a totalitarian agenda more efficiently than the state itself.
Recently I was “asked” by my employer to complete a form with my name, address and racial origin. I didn’t submit the form by the requested deadline. I was asked again to submit it. I edited the form to show my race as “human.” I was told to leave the form unaltered and check only one of the options. I replied that I would prefer not to and explained that I was concerned about how the information might be used and thought that there was no legal requirement to supply this sort of information. I was told, in writing, with a copy to my boss that I was “totally out of line.”
I have checked, there is no legal requirement to provide this information but in an “at will employment” state the company is able to put considerable pressure on me to comply.
They abide the law….or use the law as a weapon with which to shackle down competitors, or inhibit the development of competition. Certain parts of the business community do right well out of socialism.
El Jefe/stuart –
I wasn’t suggesting any particular form of Government as the cure, or that ours is to blame. We are dealing with problems of the culture of the law, and of its application, not how it is made. The Carlyle quotation is of the ‘incorruptible’ Robespierre: a further illustration of how we are unsafe in the hands of those who would do good.
Moved from London to Beijing for a few months. China has plenty of problems, but nonetheless it seems to me that at the moment Beijing is a pretty relaxed, indeed, pretty pleasant place to live. It seems at ease with itself.
More so than London, that’s for sure. In London, one’s every move is monitored by CCTV cameras (I seem to remember that on average, a Londoner gets caught on CCTV 76 times a day), and counterchecked by other electronic devices. In London, if the authorities want to find you, they can, in a moment’s notice. No public surface in London is complete without its little red and white sticker warning you what you’re banned from doing: no smoking, no eating, no littering, no shouting, no mobile phones, no carrying children – there’s no end to it. Meanwhile, take just two headlines from the British press from the last two days: Blair wants the entire nation to be DNA-sampled; there’ll be £1,000 fine if you don’t let a local council “snooper” into your home on demand. China’s Communists could only dream of this level of untrammelled power. As for the British media: I doubt even Central China TV has the ideological purity/monotony and market domination of the tax-funded BBC – and frankly, its journalistic standards are probably higher.
So my guess is that for the average person having an average time, the presence and demands of the state in Communist Beijing weigh less heavily than on the average Londoner.
What about openness? Well, yesterday I rang up a ministry in Beijing with some questions, and this morning I wandered into the building, unannounced and identity unchecked. The senior official talked to me for two hours sometimes distinctly “off-topic.” Try that in London and see which cell you end up in.
What about democracy? Well, what is it, 70% of British laws now emanate from Brussels. I didn’t vote for that.
Now I know that one proper response to my observations is that the test of democracy & civil rights vs dictatorship and totalitarianism only comes in extraordinary circumstances. (Eg. What happens if I’m wrongly arrested for murder in Beijing vs London.) And of course that’s right. But for the rest of the time . . . .
How worried should a libertarian be by such heretical thoughts?
PS. Love the concept of “oppression grooming.”
Yes, gets rid of some expensive royals, upkeep on properties, etc.,
I was under the impression that they were, in fact, very cheap – something in the region of 60-70p per person per year, if I recall correctly. This low cost, together with the fact that HM doesn’t actually do anthing, makes our monarch an ideal head of state.
Also, if we lose the monarchy then the opportunity for something similar to Mussolini’s end is lost.
the fact that HM doesn’t actually do anthing, makes our monarch an ideal head of state
And that quality would make the royal family a bargain at twice the price.
I’ve long regarded myself less as a monarchist and more of an anti republican, purely because of the “mandate”. Charles can spout off to his heart’s content and we can ignore him in great detail because he is there by accident of birth. President Blair, Branson or whoever spouts off and we “have to” listen because he has a mandate from the voters.
Hmmm. Seems some colonists in North America held a tea party in Boston a few years back over similar attempts to control them….
The lights are going out all over Europe again, and the government bodies are complicit in it.
Actually Kim, the tea party was a protest at the British Govt reducing tariffs on imported tea!
In to America of course
I am almost speechless. I had no idea my friends across the pond dealt with such oppression. The danger of all this is we are undertaking an epistemological shift from individual sovereignty to subjugation. Before 1776 man was bound or owned by some state, some king, some pope, etc…. The concept that man was not owned or bound to someone or something else began in England and took hold in the US. We changed the thinking so that you “owned” yourself. Your life is your own, not to be disposed of by someone else to advance their ends (the state, the King, the Pope, etc..). The government (especially in the US) was devised to provide people freedom, not for people to sacrifice their freedom to advance the state. The concept of individual sovereignty has been lost. The state has now reasserted its claim of your life under the ruse of safety and harmony. Once they have secured their claim, however, they can dispose of their property as they see fit.
And I thought it was bad in Colorado!
Resident Alien
The behaviour of your employer is totally outrageous.
But you have a simple remedy.
Tear the form up and tell them you quit.
“is Britain really a monarchy any more ? ”
Yes it is, under the principle of the ‘Sovereign in Parliament’ the PM is effectively the monarch. A perfect example being the “Queen’s speech” which has nothing to do with her at all, merely the political agenda of the ruling party leader.
“What does a republic get GB that it doesn’t have already ?”
Seperation of powers for one. (The President does not necessarily come from the dominant political party.)
Also a Head of State that is chosen by the people, usually with the power under a written constitution to constrain the wilder excesses of the ruling party in the way that royal ‘influence’ did in the 19th century (and is supposed to in GB now)
Glenn,
Before 1776 man was bound or owned by some state, some king, some pope, etc….
I think that’s a gross simplification, according the American Revolution an original significance it doesn’t have, and ignoring the vast complexity and assortment of social structures over previous human history. It even manages to misrepresent American history, since it denies the status of the colonial population. (It also implies the subsequent United States did not treat men as property. As Perry points out in this discussion the US, according to its own laws, is more like an owner of its citizens than almost any state on earth.)
Three words: Home-brewed beer.
Until that, too, is outlawed.
“yes, you need a permit to let your customers dance in England and Wales”
In New York City, too.
Dave Fordwych,
The point isn’t that RA can move on. The point is that as a resident of a supposedly “free country”, he shouldn’t have to to put up with this sort of over-bearing, Lord Acton-confirming crap.
You sound like a middle manager who’s tired of the “peasants” questioning your competence.