We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
There is a story in the UK media (see here for the Daily Mail version) about how local residents in the Bournemouth area of southern England have banded together to form “vigilante” groups – working with local police, it should be noted – to deal with crime.
When temperatures hit the mid-30s last month, brawls broke out in broad daylight, while a woman in her late teens was raped in a beachside public toilet just days later leading to the arrest of a man who has now been released on bail.
And many residents have had enough, with more than 200 volunteers including security professionals and first aiders signing up to the Safeguard Force to tackle the tourist hotspot’s descent into lawlessness.
The group, set up by local businessman Gary Bartlett, aims to ‘protect the most vulnerable in our town – especially women, children and the elderly’.
They have already raised more than £3,000 through a GoFundMe campaign to buy body cameras, stab vests and radios.
It would be easy to focus on the continued degradation and decline of the UK, the nastiness, nihilism, scruffiness and genuine shitty state of it all. Reeves. Starmer, etc. But I want to take a slightly different tack.
The tack – hauling in the mainsail, lads! – is that this shows that when pushed sufficiently, people can and do band together to bring certain outcomes about, and seek to frustrate others. A few weeks ago I re-read, after many years, Alexis de Tocqueville’s famous book, Democracy in America. He noted the enthusiasm with which American citizens formed associations of all kinds, from the frivolous to the deadly serious. Around the time he wrote that book (in two volumes, the first was completed in the 1830s, the second in the 1840s) the UK had gone through the experiment, under Sir Robert Peel, of forming official police forces, starting with the Metropolitan Police, aka “The Met”. His principles of how a police force should operate are still referred to. In the 18th and 19th centuries there were societies for the “prosecution of felons” – a classic case of a private provider of a “public good”.
There is, in most developed countries, a sort of social compact: The State will take on the role of seeking to catch and deter criminals, and in return, the citizens will abjure the freedom to take the law into their own hands. This compact has to work to a certain level of effectiveness. When police become distracted by politically motivated rubbish, such as “non-crime hate incidents” and so forth, and morale is damaged (many coppers have left the forces, because they are angry about such nonsense), you get a problem. Crime clear-up rates are low; I come across complaints that people rarely bother to log crimes out of cynicism that not much will be done. And then there are worries that crimes against persons and property appear to be treated more leniently than fashionable concerns. Result: the compact is fraying to the point of breakdown.
And so we have what is happening in Bournemouth. This will spread. I can expect to read more articles about people learning self-defence, increased community patrols, and controversies about what the limits are in being able to enforce laws. (It is worth remembering that at this point, it is legally difficult for UK citizens to use lethal force in self-defence.)
Nature abhors a vacuum, in public policy as much as anything else. There are going to be consequences. Edmund Burke’s “little platoons” are going to be more in evidence.
News comes to me that an advert, a video in the style of a musical, for something called Coinbase, which I understand is some form of crypto set up, which is why the advert has been banned, and about which I know nothing more, (and this is not advice or recommendation on financial matters) is not permitted in the UK by the regulator, OFCOM. Not that I doubt that OFCOM are interpreting the regulations correctly. That the advert might be termed mildly satirical would be a fair description, and take a look at the shop names. It’s almost an updated Oliver Twist. Has it been made by people familiar with modern Britain? I would say so.
As Burns said in his ode ‘To a louse’:’O wad some Power the giftie gie us / To see oursels as ithers see us!’.
Thanks to comedian Andrew Lawrence for the tip.
There are too many laws and too many policemen… police persons. Don’t you ever feel that? Every new regulation diminishes us. We’ve got to the point where we do more harm than good.
– Inspector Bert Lynch, Z-Cars (last ever episode), 1978. The episode was written by Troy Kennedy Martin who had – appropriately enough – created the long-running series in the first place.
War Footing Latest, against you that is, not the Russians
– Think Defence
The BBC says “According to Ofcom, platforms must not host, share or permit content encouraging use of VPNs to get around age checks.”
I encourage the use a VPN to get around all state abridgement of people’s right to access the internet, including age checks. Say no to police state Britain, not to mention a VPN enhances your security online.
The free and open internet has now ceased to exist in the UK. Since Friday, anyone in Britain logging on to social media will have been presented with a censored, restricted version – a ‘safe’ internet, to borrow the UK government’s language. Vast swathes of even anodyne posts are now blocked for the overwhelming majority of users.
The Online Safety Act was passed by the last Conservative government and backed enthusiastically by Labour. Both parties insisted it is necessary to protect children. Supposedly, its aim is to shield them from pornography, violence, terrorist material and content promoting self-harm. Age-verification checks, we were assured, would ensure that children would not be exposed to inappropriate content, but adults could continue using the internet as they please. Yet as we have seen over the past few days, on many major tech platforms, UK-based adults are being treated as children by default, with supposedly ‘sensitive’ content filtered from everyone’s view.
– Fraser Myers
Police state Britain needs nothing less than a revolution.
The High Court in England & Wales has handed down a judgment declaring that the Chief Constable of Northumbria Police – a force covering Northumberland, Newcastle and Sunderland, (basically the upper part of north-east England) acted irrationally in letting her officers participate in and support a ‘Pride’ event in 2024.
In short, the issue was that the Claimant (‘Plaintiff’ to our friends over the Ocean), a ‘gender-critical lesbian’, objected to members of the local Police Force Force and/or members of the Force associating themselves with the views of supporters of gender ideology and transgender activists by actively participating in the ‘Northern Pride Event in Newcastle in July 2024. The Claimant’s belief is that as a person who is ‘gender-critical’, she believes that a person’s sex is an immutable characteristic and that “gender ideology”, which recognises a person’s gender identity, is “wrong and dangerous“. To cut a long story short, the learned judge, Mr Justice Linden, upheld the complaint. Putting it simply, the judge looked at the Chief Constable’s reasons for authorising her officers to participate in the Pride Event and found them to be irrational, i.e. there was no way that the decision could have been taken by a rational Chief Constable.
The crux of the case was that police officers have a duty to be impartial and to appear to be impartial, the Chief Constable decided that the duty to be ‘impartial’ was subject to the ‘public sector equality duty’ (a general duty used wrongly here as a ‘catch-all’ to justify any deviation from the norms of acceptable conduct), but the judge said that it was the other way around, the duty to be impartial is an absolute duty, and the ‘public sector equality duty’ is a duty to have regard to the need to achieve equality, rather than the need to achieve it. The Equality cart was put before the Impartiality Horse. At the end of the judgment is a rather stinging finding about the Defendant, the Chief Constable, in paragraph 136:
I have already explained that the Defendant’s reasoning did not provide a rational basis for her decision. After careful consideration I have also concluded that the effect of the activities challenged by the Claimant was sufficiently obvious for the Defendant’s decision to be outside the range of reasonable decisions open to her.
I should point out for our readers that in England & Wales, judges are appointed by a commission, and the notion of a judge being akin to an ‘Obama judge’, a ‘Biden judge’ or a ‘Trump appointee’ is alien here, but of course the exalted echelons of higher legal circles contain in the main the sort of people who, holding a conference on law to all comers, would see nothing untoward in sneering at a Conservative government’s legal difficulties or Brexit, and the ‘Overton window’ in the legal community is more like a pinprick hole in a camera obscura, but that is not the point. What I would say is that in England & Wales, the more senior judges will tend to stick to the law and this may produce apparently surprising results, like this case.
So what happens now? Well in respect of last year’s event, nothing other than this court’s finding. However, this judgment, although from a judge who is in the first-level of the English courts, amounts to a legal ‘slap in the face with a wet fish‘ to activist police officers and will no doubt embolden those who seek to reduce or dilute the endless stream of ‘agitprop’ we see coming from our police forces, and to an extent in the wider public sector. It also helps to show that there is a difference between the activist version of the law and reality. Will the Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria take any steps like asking the irrational Chief Constable to resign? Well, I’d be more surprised by that than the Second Coming.
“Voting age to be lowered to 16 in UK by next general election”, the Guardian reports.
No, this does not mean you can leave school. You are too young and irresponsible to make such a big decision.
Homebuilding and Renovating Newsletter is not usually a place where one would expect to see a story to make the blood boil. But it has this: “Council’s £70k error stayed hidden for years, until one man refused to back down”.
Steve Dally never expected a minor tweak to his home improvement plans would end in a life-altering legal standoff.
What began as a routine planning permission amendment, spiralled into a punitive bill, threats of repossession, and five years of unrelenting pressure.
Now, Waverley Borough Council admits it got it wrong, but only after one man forced their hand.
In 2018, Dally received planning permission to rebuild his rear extension. It was exempt from the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).
A year later, he made a minor amendment, but the council treated it as a brand-new build and to his surprise the council issued a £70,000 charge.
“I was blindsided,” Dally said. “It was a technicality. But it nearly ruined us.”
The council refused to budge. Letters, threats, and interest charges followed. “You wouldn’t treat a dog this way,” he said in 2024.
[…]
“The system was set up with no safety net,” admitted Liberal Democrat councillor Liz Townsend. “Even when mistakes happened, we had no way to fix them.”
“No way to fix them”… that awkward feeling when you admit that you wrongfully demanded tens of thousands of pounds from someone and you’d quite like to put it right but you can’t because there isn’t a procedure in the manual.
Evidently a way was found eventually, because on July 8th the council formally admitted its mistake and confirmed Mr Dally would have his money refunded – but I suspect that if it had been someone in the private sector making a spurious demand that the council pay them seventy thousand quid, the discovery of a way to put things right would have taken somewhat less than six years.
Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, and Anne Hidalgo, the Parti Socialiste mayor of Paris, have written a joint article for the Guardian called “In London and Paris, we’ve experienced vicious backlash to climate action. But we’re not backing down”. They write,
“We welcome efforts such as the EU’s Digital Services Act, which requires online platforms to counter the spread of illegal content, including disinformation, and lays the groundwork for holding platforms accountable. But much more is needed. For example, the UK’s Online Safety Act could be strengthened by explicitly recognising climate disinformation as a form of harmful content.”
It is remarkable how people who would be ashamed to support a law to “counter the spread of illegal speech” happily praise a law that “counters the spread of illegal content.” The magic of words: just re-label “speech” as “content” – as being inside something – and it can now truly be contained, as in “restrained or controlled”.
The same people regularly proclaim that Europe is a place which has banished censorship of the press. That is almost true, although both the EU and the UK governments are working to restore their old powers. In the meantime they are willing enough to temporarily refrain from censorship of ideas spread by old technology if it gives them cover for censoring ideas spread by new technology.
Do not go along with their word games. The term “Freedom of the press” is not restricted to words conveyed to the public by means of a a mechanical device for applying pressure to an inked surface resting upon a print medium. Nor does “freedom of speech” only refer to words that come out of mouths by the action of tongue and lips. In the words of a source they claim to respect, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says,
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Emphasis added.
And while I’m emphasising things, let me also emphasise this: the minute I learn that an idea is being censored, I give that idea more credence.
No, that does not mean that I automatically believe any censored idea entirely. (How could I? A million contradictory falsehoods are censored alongside the truth. The problem is that the act of censorship destroys our ability to tell which of them is the truth.) It means that I strain to hear what is being said behind the gag. It means that I start to wonder how real the claimed consensus is, if those who depart from it are silenced. It means that I start to wonder why the proponents of the “accepted” view feel the need to protect it from counter-arguments.
I said in 2012 that my belief in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) was two and a half letters to the left compared to most commenters on this blog. Damn, it should have been one and a half letters to the right. Oh well, you knew what I meant. With regard to CAGW or whatever they are calling it now, whether I phrase it as my belief moving to the left or my disbelief moving to the right, the surest way to make that movement happen is to pass a law defining “climate disinformation as a form of harmful content”. Then I will know that the so-called scientific consensus on climate change is no such thing. If certain hypotheses cannot be discussed, not only is there no scientific consensus, there is no science.
-*-
A related post, but focussing on self-censorship rather than the government censorship that Mayors Khan and Hidalgo favour: “Bubbles, lies and buttered toast.” Any form of censorship is fatal to science.
P.S. Before sharing this article with your friends and family, please be aware that the Government’s Prevent anti-radicalisation programme has recently declared that concern about mass immigration is “terrorist ideology”. A Prevent training course hosted on the Government’s website lists “cultural nationalism” as something that could cause you to be referred for deradicalisation.
Prevent, you’ll remember, is the programme to which the Southport murderer Axel Rudakubana was repeatedly referred from as young as 13. He went on to stab a number of children and adults, 3 of whom died.
Usman Khan, the terrorist who committed the London Bridge attack in 2019, was under Prevent monitoring when he carried out his attack in the middle of a prisoner rehabilitation event for which he had travelled to London. Prevent officers tasked with monitoring him had “no specific training” in dealing with terrorists.
According to the Prevent training guidance, if you believe that “Western culture is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups” you will be referred to the very programme which failed to deal with them.
This is Britain. So think before you think.
– Konstantin Kisin (£)
And Hermer’s characterisation of historical events is in any case cobblers, of course. International law did not stop the actual honest-to-goodness Nazis first time around; American industry and Soviet manpower did that. The idea that if only we had had the ECHR in 1933 all of the unpleasantness of World War Two and the Holocaust could have been avoided is, to put it politely, absurd. One doesn’t constrain a belligerent regime through an ‘international rules-based system’; one does it through force, or the threat of it.
– David McGrogan
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
