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]
|
The other day I wrote about the charms of Suffolk, that county in East Anglia in which I was brought up. A place famous for gentle, flattish countryside, nice buildings, coastal scenery, fine beer and a once-very-good football team (Ipswich Town FC won the FA Cup in 1978 and the European UEFA Cup in 1981 in the glory years when the team was managed by Sir Bobby Robson).
Alas, Ipswich is now likely to be known some time for very different, appalling reasons.
Now is not the time to really go into much analysis of the crimes themselves. My heart goes out to the friends and families of the victims and like most people, I hope the piece of scum that carried out these killings is quickly brought to justice. While I have my doubts about using the death penalty in a world when so much of our Common Law has been damaged by stupid governments, it is hard not to feel sympathy for despatching such a lowlife rather than leaving him – I assume it is a he – to rot in jail for years at the taxpayer’s expense.
The victims in this case are described as prostitutes. Blogger Tim Worstall has thoughts about the nexus of drug use and prostitution and, being the pro-liberty guy he is, reckons that the women who ply this trade would be safer if prostitution was legalised. I agree (I had quite a joust with an authortarian if probably well-meaning chap by the name of Martin on Tim’s comment thread). I think that a person who sells his or her sexual favours for cash is entitled to do so with consenting adults and it is no business of the state to say otherwise. The harms that people usually associate with prostitution stem from the fact that it is often illegal and thus controlled by organised criminals, many of them drug-pushers as well. Legalising it, and taking prostitution out of a legal twilight zone is not a cure-all for the ills some people associate with it, but it would reduce problems, I think, such as sexually transmitted diseases, and perhaps reduce the sort of horrors that we have seen in the Ipswich area. Of course, if this monster strikes again and this time attacks someone from a very different set of circumstances, then the debate will shift.
This terrible saga also prompts me to wonder what could and should be done to encourage people to learn and practice self defence, but that is a whole topic in itself and I don’t have the time right now to explore it, but I am sure that commenters will want to think about it. I’d be interested to know if there are comparable recent incidents from other parts of the world and what happened subsequently. Send in any examples.
Perceptive article on the local area by Times columnist Libby Purves.
(Update: fixed silly typo in original).
So now that odd organisation Interpol has joined the ever more multi-national hunt for Alexander Litvinenko’s assassins. This all completely pointless. If the Kremlin or anyone else had wanted Alexander Litvinenko dead with no one knowing who had killed him, they would have simply have hired some thug in London to push him under a bus or stick a knife in him. But no… instead the murderers chose an absurdly sophisticated method of assassination by using an exotic toxic isotope only available to someone with access to the resources of a nuclear industry. The conclusion to draw from this is screamingly obvious: Vladimir Putin wants his critics to know who killed Litvinenko in order to frighten them into silence. I can see no other plausible explanation.
So why keep pretending it is a mystery who murdered this man? He was killed in London by agents of the Russian government and as a result the only discussion needed is how to react to a foreign government using violence to decide who can say what about people in Britain. At least the sort of response directed at Iran in the aftermath of the Salman Rushdi affair must be implemented. At the very least.
Let us consider, my lords, that arbitrary power has seldom or never been introduced into any country at once. It must be introduced by slow degrees, and as it were step by step, lest the people should see its approach. The barriers and fences of the people’s liberty must be plucked up one by one, and some plausible pretences must be found for removing or hoodwinking, one after another, those sentries who are posted by the constitution of a free country, for warning the people of their danger. When these preparatory steps are once made, the people may then, indeed, with regret, see slavery and arbitrary power making long strides over their land; but it will be too late to think of preventing or avoiding the impending ruin.
– Philip Dormer Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield, to the House of Lords in 1737 (though reported rather later)
“We will not steal on your behalf unless we like you” … that is more or less what Tony Blair has said to the Muslim community in the UK.
Religious groups will have to prove their commitment to integration before being awarded taxpayers’ cash, Tony Blair said today, as he reignited the row over Muslim headscarves. […] “Very good intentions got the better of us,” Mr Blair said. […] Mr Blair warned that public money had been too easily handed out to organisations “tightly bonded around religious, racial or ethnic identities”
After decades of pushing ‘identity politics’ and ‘multiculturalism’, the very architects of that approach are acting surprised now that many Muslims in the UK have taken that the establishment at its word. Of course all this really means is that Muslim groups which occasionally make the right sort of sounds will soon be receiving plundered tax money in abundance as never before as a sign that the making token gestures whilst coming from a threatening alien community is the way to enrich yourself in modern Britain, regardless of what even a cursory examination reveals about what you really think (see the government and media’s bizarre characterisation of Sir Iqbal Sacranie as a ‘moderate’ Muslim).
Although every Hindu I have ever met do not seem to have a problem with Britain, If I was a Hindu I might start taking note and begin making threatening noises about ‘saffron fascism’ and ‘disaffected youth’ and then just wait for the dosh to start rolling in for those willing to make some small obeisance to nice Mr. Blair… and what about the Jamaicans? And the Poles? And the Jews? Start making a fuss guys, hold a few scary demonstrations and then set up some organisations which make government approved “tut, tut” sounds and just wait for the money to start flowing. Do you think that is not what is going to happen?
Following on from Johnathan Pearce’s article yesterday, I see more and more articles in the media about the issue of Britain’s military being asked to fight two wars without proper funding by a government which seem to know sweet FA about military affairs. Is this a sign that the issue is gaining some wider political traction? If so, I expect to see Dave Cameron suddenly develop an interest in military matters (perhaps a Tory spokesman will soon ask why the UK treasury has been skimping on military equipment funding and thus failing to fit more eco-friendly engine in the army’s clapped out Warrior APCs).
Cynical? Moi?
As a minarchist (rather than an anarchist) I regard managing the military as one of the few legitimate roles of the state and thus find myself in the unfamiliar role of arguing for more tax money for a state endeavour… how weird is that?
This is a weird story. From The Mail on Sunday, 2nd December 2006:
Estate agents secretly selling home details to tax inspectors
Snooping: tax officers can now find out exactly what your home is worth.
Government officials have been given access to a vast database of properties, revealing their sale prices and detailed floorplans, under a deal with the website Rightmove.co.uk.
The site, run by four of Britain’s biggest estate agents, contains information on 800,000 properties – and the contract, which runs until 2008, also gives inspectors access to old records.
The Valuation Office Agency – the department of HM Revenue & Customs that allocates a council tax band to every home in England and Wales – will be able to use the data to find out about improvements such as double-glazing and conservatories that may increase tax bills.
What’s weird is this: Property sales in Britain now involve a direct return to the Revenue as part of the new Stamp Duty Land Tax regime. And the Lands Registry has a definitive record of all such transactions, now online, which ought to be accessible to the Revenue. Unless the transaction is registered, you haven’t bought the property. And a house’s recent, actual, sale price is going to be pretty conclusive evidence of its valuation.
So why pay a website whose coverage can be at best partial? Either HMRC is wholly incompetent (possible). Or they think transactions are being under-declared in the hot market (difficult in most cases, when two sets of solicitors and bankers are involved). Or the Mail on Sunday is missing the point and HMRC is not targeting sellers but renters and landlords. Or this is a publicity exercise, and HMRC is engaging in its favourite hobby: public intimidation of the public.
I count myself as a very fortunate man in many respects. I have a job I enjoy – most of the time, anyway. I am in decent health, have a lovely wife, no serious money troubles, and a supportive family. One of my greatest pieces of good fortune, I reckon, is to have been born in the county of Suffolk. Yes, it may not pulsate with the energy of London or New York, and East Anglia is a part of the world that is unlikely to become one of the great tourist sites of the world. But it has its charms: its ancient churches, pink-washed cottages, attractive seaside towns like Aldeburgh, and a heritage of art and literature that holds up well against all-comers. Gainsborough was a Suffolk man, while Charles Rennie Mackingtosh, whom one normally associates with the city of Glasgow, spent some time painting in Suffolk in the small seaside town of Southwold (which has a great little pier). I grew up in the country on a farm, and am probably the only person in my company who can claim to have driven a combine harvester, ploughed a 300-acre farm and shot game birds.
And of course Suffolk has the glory that was John Constable. There was a recent excellent exhibition of his works at the Tate. His Hay Wain (spellings of this picture seem to vary) is probably one of the most famous paintings of all time. Thousands of people have his prints on their walls and probably wonder what the scenes of Flatford Mill and the River Stour that Constable depicted look like now. The answer is that not much has changed in terms of the scenery, apart from roads and cars. The village of Dedham is pretty recognisable. One of Constable’s paintings is on the walls of the village’s main church.
It was a grand place to meet up with my parents for a pre-Christmas gathering in the area as I will be spending my Christmas in Malta. But one thing left a sour taste and that was the standard of service I received in a pub/restaurant in the area. It is fair to say that television chefs Gordon Ramsay or Nigella Lawson have no fear of competition from this part of the world. The food was indifferent, and the service and the staff so gormless that I began to wonder whether the old cruel saws about country folk being a bit simple might have some basis in fact.
U.S-based blogger Kim du Toit had a recent similar experience of British pub food and service. At a time when the pound is trading high against the U.S. dollar, it is already expensive for Americans to visit Britain on holiday so it hardly makes sense to make the situation worse by bad service. Constable Country, as the Suffolk-Essex borderland is known, is a well-trodden place for Americans, particularly older people who may have spent some time serving in the US Airforce during WW2 and the Cold War at the many bases dotted all over East Anglia. (The region was one big aircraft base, in fact. Here is a book I recommend for aircraft junkies.)
Anyway, Suffolk has that prince of beers, Adnams Ale. No further reasons to go there are needed, surely.
(Update, well, having thought this through I will name the establishment: The Marlborough, in Dedham high street. Let’s be clear, the place is fine in most respects, but the quality of service on Sunday was just not good enough.)
It is a reflexive tic among libertarian types to describe Britain’s NHS as ‘Stalinist’, in reference to its vast monolithic structure and institutional preference for central state planning. Now some indications that the parallels run a little deeper.
The Department of Health’s first reaction to the campaign for people to opt out of the “Spine” medical records database, that I mentioned a couple of days ago, is not to attack it as ‘irresponsible’ as I was expecting. It is to demand that doctors report any patients who try to the authorities. “Let us deal with them,” it appears to be saying.
The Guardian reported yesterday:
The Department of Health provoked uproar among doctors yesterday by asking GPs in England to send in correspondence from objectors who do not want their confidential medical records placed on the Spine, a national NHS database.
Sir Liam Donaldson, the chief medical officer, said letters from patients who want to keep their private medical details out of the government’s reach should be sent to Patricia Hewitt, the health secretary, for “full consideration”.
You will recall that such suggested letters were personal communications with doctors, asking them personally to do something: to code patients records so that they would not be uploaded to the Spine. That’s something that can only (as I understand it) be done locally. “Consideration” by the Secretary of State defeats it.
It also seems to me that it would be a fundamental breach of confidentiality, and if the letter were posted, possibly a criminal offence contrary to the Postal Services Act 2000, for the letter to be forwarded to the Secretary of State without patient consent.
But neither law nor morals may stand in the way of the great plan.
…
BBC Radio 4 had another example this evening. Its File on 4 programme considered endemic MRSA and other antibiotic resistant bacteria in NHS hospitals. It interviewed a couple of epidemiological specialists who said with the current control regime slow progress was to be expected and the government target of 50% reduction in MRSA infections by 2008 is unrealistic. Andy Burnham MP, usually characterised as one of the brightest and best of the Primrose Hill group of New Labour heirs presumptive, was asked to comment. He said the complacency and defeatism of the clinical scientists was unacceptable: there was a target and the Health Service would meet it.
There is quite a lot about the affair of the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko (almost certainly by the Russian secret service) in London. Much of it is quite interesting but there was a line in an article in the Sunday Times that really made my blood boil when they quoted an unnamed minister:
Amid signs that his death could cause a diplomatic row, Tony Blair concluded the cabinet meeting by saying “the most important issue” was likely to be Britain’s long-term relationship with Moscow. Another minister present said: “It caused some alarm that this case is obviously causing tension with the Russians. They are too important for us to fall out with them over this.”
I had to re-read that a couple times as I could hardly believe my eyes:
“…They are too important for us to fall out with them over this…”
So a foreign government can murder someone in Britain with a radioactive substance and some shit in the cabinet is more concerned that we retain good relations with the murdering guilty party? I would dearly love to know which minister said this. Did anyone catch a reference to this remark elsewhere which says who it was? If the Russian state murdering people in London is not just about the best and more righteous reason to ‘fall out’ with a foreign government, then what the hell is a good reason to fall out with a regime? Moreover, to make that remark where it would enter the public record more or less tells Putin he can murder anyone he likes in the UK as relations with the Kremlin are what really matter to HMG.
No doubt the mystery minister is peeved that the late Mr. Litvinenko has the temerity to get himself assassinated on British soil for daring to bad-mouth the psychopathic Vladimir Putin. Yes, the sooner this tiresome freedom-of-speech nonsense is suppressed so that intergovernmental relations can return to normal, the better.
Truly, the state is not your friend.
I can not have been the only blog-reader who was struck last week by the difference between this from Iain Dale:
The Browns must be shattered, particularly after the death of their daughter. Things like this bring politics into perspective and make some of the silly political games we all indulge in look absolutely pathetic. I am sure every single reader of this blog would want to put political differences aside and express their good wishes to the Brown family.
And this from Guido:
Now call Guido cynical if you will, but on the day the Charity Commissioners announce their intentions, and the Telegraph articles show the press chase has begun, we learn from a deftly placed story in the government’s favourite mouthpiece, The Sun, that tragically Gordon’s son has cystic fibrosis. A good day to front-page the tragic news?
Because yes, it would seem that there is some funding scandal surrounding Mr Brown which is now coming to the boil.
I think Guido wins. He does not deny the tragicness of the story. But, he notes the timing of the telling of it. He adds something. It is the full page spread in the Sun, which Guido reproduces, that clinches it for me.
And in the unlikely event that it was coincidence, then I am afraid that this is not the kind of benefit of the doubt that most of us are any longer prepared to give to this government.
Blogs and other internet sites should be covered by a voluntary code of practice similar to that for newspapers in the UK, a conference has been told. Press Complaints Commission director Tim Toulmin said he opposed government regulation of the internet, saying it should a place “in which views bloom”. But unless there was a voluntary code of conduct there would be no form of redress for people angered at content.
– BBC
It is extraordinary how people opine without understanding the subject. It seems like Mr. Toulmin understand nothing whatsoever about the internet. There is indeed a “form of redress for people angered at content” on blogs available and that is… blogs. It is extremely simple: go to blogger.com, spend about five minutes doing the ‘three easy steps’ and then start posting your rebuttals on your own damn blog.
As for a voluntary code of conduct… I invite Tim Toulmin to ask his lawyer to write one down on a piece of paper, roll the document up tightly and then stick it wherever his lawyer’s imagination and Mr. Toulmin complacency will allow. I look forward to being told off for that remark when Tim Toulmin sets up his own blog.
For another similar view to mine, see here.
Does anyone in London know who this piece of shit is? This creep assaulted Jackie, one of our intrepid Samizdatistas, so if you recognise him, please either let us know (e-mail link is in the sidebar) or if you prefer call British Transport Police on 0800 40 50 40. For the story, see here.
|
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.
|
