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]
|
It is all so clear to me now and I must say that I feel like such a fool for having been so taken in by the pantomime of ‘co-operation’ that was put on by our 15 naval personnel for the benefit of their Iranian captors and the wider world. Yes, I use the word ‘pantomime’ because what we all perceived to be a humiliating milquetoast submission was, in fact, a mere ploy to disguise a fiendishly brilliant plan to kill all the Iranian Guards by means of death from dehydration as a result of relentless and uncontrollable vomiting:
That was the last time Arthur saw Faye for six days as they were both put in solitary. Guards tried to make Faye crack by cruelly telling her she was the last of the 15 being held captive.
But, speaking of the moment they were reunited, he told how he wept and begged the 26-year-old for a hug. Arthur said: “I missed Topsy most of all. I really love her, as amumand a big sister. Not seeing her and not knowing if she was safe was one of the hardest parts of the whole thing.
“Then on the sixth day, when I was just about giving up hope, I was pulled from my bed in the early hours of the morning.
“They led me down a corridor and into a room, where I saw Topsy in a corner.
“I can’t describe how that felt…just every emotion rolled into one. I ran up to her, threw my arms round her and cried like a baby.
“When I’d calmed down, she asked, ‘Do you need another hug, a mother hug?’ and I said, ‘damn right’. She was just as pleased to see me because they’d told her I’d been sent home.
“Topsy said she’d always be there for me, to protect me and look after me.
Here endeth the lesson, Ahmedinejad. Those Iranian johnnies will never again make the mistake of underestimating the heroic professionalism and grim resolve of the Royal Navy.
Today’s news has two splendid examples of how holding a ‘high office’ (in a company, institution or government) is in no way an indication of intelligence or good judgement (and therein lies the reason I am in favour of having as small a state as possible).
We have just seen the Royal Navy and UK government suffer a P.R. debacle at the hands of Iran, so if there was even the faintest glimmer of wit to be found within the Ministry of Defence, one would assume that they would be working to make sure this whole affair passes through the news cycle and flushes down the memory hole as quickly as possible. Right?
Hell no. Against the usual practice (and therefore involving a proactive decision by the Minister to ‘do something’ rather than just shrug his shoulders and say “sorry, my hands are tied, it’s the regulations, you see.”), for some inexplicable reason the MOD has said the fifteen former captives can sell their stories to the press, thereby guaranteeing this whole event will stay ‘live’ for as long as possible. Very clever. Clearly this government has passed mere ineptitude and moved into its terminal senile dementia stage.
The second one is not an indication of a spectacular (almost comical) lack of political acumen on display but rather an example of a truly moronic moral calculus. We see senior British clerics berating Britain for not thanking the Iranian state for returning the servicemen and woman they took from Iraqi waters at gunpoint. I am sure there is some commandment in the Bible about the victims of a crime thanking the unrepentant perpetrators of the crime but I cannot off-hand think where that is.
It is moments like this that I am almost moved to ‘thank God’ (yes, I am being ironic) for the fact I managed to shake off the mental shackles of youth and become entirely God and Church-free.
I think Colonel Tim Collins has it about right:
Col Tim Collins, who led the 1st Battalion Royal Irish Regiment in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, said: “It’s a close call as to which organisation is in the deepest moral crisis – the Church or the Ministry of Defence.”
Indeed.
If this story about Britain’s so-called ‘public service’ state owned broadcasting channel is true, the end of the BBC cannot come to soon.
Amid the deaths and the grim daily struggle bravely borne by Britain’s forces in southern Iraq, one tale of heroism stands out. Private Johnson Beharry’s courage in rescuing an ambushed foot patrol then, in a second act, saving his vehicle’s crew despite his own terrible injuries earned him a Victoria Cross.
For the BBC, however, his story is “too positive” about the conflict. The corporation has cancelled the commission for a 90-minute drama about Britain’s youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq.
To be honest I find it hard to believe the people who run the BBC could be so overt in imposing their tax funded biases on the channel. If this is true, even I am shocked by the crassness of it.
Is Britain a defeated nation?
UK Chancellor Gordon Brown has, as we now know, ignored the advice of his civil servants and plundered the private sector pensions industry to fund a massive public spending splurge. More than 800,000 jobs have been added to the public sector payroll since 1997, what might be regarded as a large group of folk with a vested interest in keeping the gloomster and his fellows in office. Vast sums have been spent on education and health, to debateble effect (some good has been done probably but not to the extent that would justify all that money). But one of the proudest boasts of Brown and Blair has been how this effort has reduced poverty since the dark, satanic era of the Conservatives (sarcasm alert).
Thanks to some diligent digging by the weekly UK magazine, The Business, it turns out that the bottom 10% of the UK population have actually got poorer. Last Friday, it was the Times, meanwhile, which won a long-fought campaign to expose the pensions issue. It is nice to see old-style Fleet Street journalism at its best.
It is not turning out to be a great spring for the Scot. Have a happy Easter.
Following the release of the 15 British sailors from Iranian captivity, the Prime Minister Tony Blair has issued the following statement:
“I am sure that I speak for everyone when I say how delighted I am that the Iranian goverment has released our 15 naval service personnel. This has obviously been a traumatic ordeal for all of them and their families and an extremely trying and difficult time for everyone else in involved in this unfortunate episode. Thankfully, common sense and cooler heads have prevailed. I must, however, make it categorically clear that we did not, nor would we ever, make any concessions, strike any bargains or agree any deals in order to secure their release. It is the unwavering policy of Her Majesty’s government to stand firm in the face of threats and to strenuously resist any attempts at blackmail or intimidation of any kind. That said, all that remains for me to do is join in with the rest of the nation in offering up our prayers and thanks to merciful Allah and his last prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him. Thank you.”
<child’s voice>
“Stand still, citizen! Facial recognition software has identified you and made a cross-check with the national ‘Good Citizen’ data base.”
“You have not denounced anyone for…thirty… days… please remember that community policing is a civic duty and reporting people is easy and fun! Just use your mobile phone and send a text SMS to Whitehall 1212 with the name, address and crime of a school mate, family member or co-worker!”
“And remember, if you accumulate ten ‘Good Citizen’ points for denouncing smokers, homophobes, people eating high fat food, anyone making racist jokes in private, people making unauthorised D.I.Y. repairs to ‘their’ houses, anyone using illegal light bulbs, anyone questioning the unanimous and state approved scientific truth about global warming, home schoolers or people who buy banned war toys for ‘their’ children, you will get to appear on the Big Brother reality TV show by having your home’s internal CCTV footage broadcast live for seven days!”
</child’s voice>
From the linked article: “According to recent studies, Britain has 4.2million CCTV cameras – one for every 14 people in the country – which amounts to 20 per cent of the global camera total.”
Welcome to modern Britain.
This story in the Telegraph is no doubt just crazy right-wing paranoia, and we have in fact no need to worry, get annoyed or even become the tiniest bit cheesed off. Oh no. Polly has explained it all for us. To be worried about the surveillance state is a middle-class thing, apparently. All true denizens of a socialist Britain should be proud to carry ID cards and be photographed constantly.
If Polly Toynbee did not exist, we would have to invent her. Not even Ian Fleming could cook up a female villain as good as this woman. Henry Porter, meanwhile, has scathing remarks on his fellow Guardian columnist. Good for him.
Of course, if CCTVs are installed in privately owned streets, shopping malls or other privately owned buildings, I do not have a problem so long as it is pretty clear that such cameras are installed. But that is not quite the issue.
On the one hand, she could be deliberately downplaying expectations:
Hopes for the imminent release of 15 sailors and Royal Marines held in Iran were dampened yesterday when Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, urged “caution” over the chances of a swift end to the crisis.
But, and on the other hand, I am reluctant to give this woman credit for any degree of calculation that is not immediately connected to the furtherance of her own career. Let’s just say that nobody seems to have any idea as to how long our hijacked naval personnel will have to continue celebrating Iranian culture. That leaves us only with speculation.
So, who thinks that the RN personnel will be released:
A. Before the end of this month?
B. Before the end of this year?
C. Within 2 years?
D. Within 5 years?
E. Within 10 years?
F. Within 20 years?
G. Never?
Over the weekend, news got out – thanks to the diligence of journalists at The Times (of London) that UK finance minister Gordon Brown was warned back in 1997 that removal of tax relief on pension funds’ equity dividends would create a massive future problem. It did. More than 5 billion pounds a year have been snatched from corporate pensions as part of Brown’s tax-and-spend binge over the past 10 years. Tens of billiions of pounds have been taken from pension schemes, forcing firms to shut down the final-salary pensions and significantly reduce the likely benefits people will get in retirement. Of course Brown cannot be entirely blamed for this. We live longer, and the fall in the stock market in 2000, and the sharp rise in the cost of bonds, hit pension funds hard. But Brown did a huge amount of damage. His tax raid aggravated the stock market losses, and by forcing firms to steer more money to schemes, hit investment and growth. He has not expressed one whit of regret, and now, exposed as the dogmatic man that he is, Brown’s lickspittles are now lying about the arguments put to them at the time by big business groups such as the CBI. Former CBI Director-General Adair Turner, a decent man, has called the government a bunch of liars. It appears that the CBI and other groups, supposedly charmed by the recent cuts to corporation tax, but also realising that smaller firms got clobbered by the March budget, are furious at the Treasury’s dissembling on the pension tax issue.
Brown’s chances of becoming Prime Minister took a palpable hit this weekend. The gloomster may still be in 10 Downing Street by the end of this summer, but at least the British electorate have had another chance to see what a devious and foolish man Brown is.
The broader implications of all this should be obvious to regular readers of this site. By undermining private sector pensions and long-terms savings, Brown and his supporters increase reliance on the state, much in the same way as David Lloyd George and others torpedoed the Friendly Societies in the first decade of the 20th Century by his pension and welfare changes. (There is some debate on whether Lloyd George was aware of the effects of his actions). Aneurin Bevan, that over-rated demagogue of the 1940s, deliberately shafted the independent, non-state medical services that had already began to serve Britons, including poor ones, before the Second World War. Wherever one looks, one sees evidence of socialists/so-called liberals acting to wreck patterns of private privision or non-state mutual support. It is shameful, and the consequences for civil society are immense.
Just think of how, had the Friendly Societies and the rest been allowed to flourish. We would now have a broad and deep savings culture, enormously strong, and underpinning a culture of self reliance and personal responsibility. And people like Gordon Brown, never performing an hour of honest toil outside the halls of government, destroyed it.
The British government has issued a formal apology for Britain’s conduct during the Second World War.
Speaking from the House of Commons, Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett described Britain’s conduct in the 1939-1945 period as “shameful”:
We recognise that British military aggression between the years of 1939 and 1945 led directly or indirectly to the deaths of many, many people in Europe, Asia, Africa and elsewhere. It is time to acknowledge this fact and to apologise for it.
The opposition Conservatives roundly condemned the Foreign Secretary’s remarks as not going far enough and being “too little, too late”. They urged the Government to issue a further apology for all the environmental damage inflicted on the world by British forces during the war and since.
In Germany, a spokesman for an association of SS veterans described the apology as “a good start”.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has increasingly wielded its regulatory powers in recent years, as infertility treatments have become more common and diverse. Some of the regulator’s decisions have been criticised as arbitrary or inappropriate, using an ethical calculus to coerce parental choice when it is not required. Their latest intervention is controversial, though based upon clinical outcomes.
At present, multiple embryos are implanted in the womb to increase the probability of a successful birth. This has potentially undesirable consequences if the health of the mother or the children is impaired. Studies have monitored infertility treatments and demonstrated these drawbacks.
Half of the mothers of IVF twins give birth prematurely and the babies are below the minimum ideal birth weight of 5lb. They run a much higher risk of dying, lung and heart problems, having cerebral palsy or developmental difficulties and facing chronic conditions as adults. Many spend time in special neonatal care units in hospitals. Mothers who conceive more than one baby after IVF are far likelier to suffer a miscarriage or dangerously high blood pressure than women who have one child naturally.
This should be viewed as additional information that clinicians would take into account when advising their patients and making a diagnosis or a recommendation. If the regulator had drawn attention to these studies and noted that inspectors would wish to see these taken into account during diagnosis, no observer could criticise such diligence. However, we live in New Labour Britain, home of targets and micromanagement:
Shirley Harrison, the HFEA’s chair, will this week defend the decision to put medical safety above the rights of childless women to choose how many embryos are transferred. She will cite research showing that having just one embryo implanted does not reduce a woman’s chance of conceiving.
Doctors will retain the freedom to use their clinical judgment to decide if a woman rated a ‘poor responder’ to fertility treatment should still get two embryos. Clinics will be told to reduce the number of multiple births through IVF over time from 25 per cent to somewhere between 5 and 10 per cent.
This is a decision that should rest between the doctor and the patient. If the patient is aware of the risks and responsibilities, they may then take the difficult decision required in this matter. It is not up to HFEA to usurp clinical practice and private judgement in this matter.
|
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.
|
