The ThunderDragon

As John Reid refuses to rule himself in or out of a leadership battle, it seems that Gordon Brown wants to challenge him to a battle of wills long before any election, by questioning Reid’s “get tough” crime policies.

As even Tony Blair moves towards the coronation of Brown, what will Reid’s decision be? Fight for the top job, or trade it in for a guaranteed Cabinet post under Brown?

Only time will tell.

BBC News: “Up to half of all disabled parking badges in London are being used illegally, according to the Local Government Association (LGA).
It is estimated that badges are now changing hands on the black market for up to £500.”

I can’t believe that some people can be so callous! The badges are for the use of those who are disabled and therefore can’t travel as easily. Not for the use of those who are too lazy or simply don’t want to have to pay to park.

The disabled badge scheme needs to be overhauled so that the badges cannot be sold or used after the death of the disabled person - and certainly to prevent the badges being reissued after the death of the disabled person!

Panorama has found that there has been a “20% rise in hospital admissions in England over the last five years” due to excessive alcohol consumption. “Using NHS statistics, Panorama found 20 cases a day of under-18s diagnosed with conditions like alcohol poisoning.” (BBC)

I’m not surprised that there is such a large number. I’m sure that the level of under-25s is far higher than that as well.* The rise in this is due to the increasing popularity and availability of alco-pops. Personally, I find them vulgar and sickly-sweet. But there is no denying that for younger people, they are far easier to drink than more traditional alcoholic beverages. And they also look like fizzy drinks enough that they can easily be transferred into empty fizzy drink bottles and drunk anywhere without suspicion.

The traditional and completely knee-jerk reaction to this is to call for higher alcohol prices. That call has been duly made by the Royal College of Physicians and the Health Secretary, Patricia Hewitt (although she made the call last month). Raising prices will make little difference. All that will do is cause more crime as money is stolen rather than earned with which to purchase alcohol. There needs to be social change rather than legislative change.

The most sensible comment has come from Alcohol Concern spokesman who said that there was a need for

“broader social changes… to tackle underage drinking…. He said the changes needed included from parents talking to their children about alcohol in the same way they would discuss safe sex and pubs and other alcohol retailers being more proactive in asking for proof of age.” (The Guardian)

Binge drinking will not be cured, or even affected much, by just raising the price of alcohol. Just look at smoking as an example. The price of cigarettes keeps rising, but kids continue to take up the habit. They need to understand the issues of alcohol and how it affects the individual. An example of this can be seen in the image in this post (click to enlarge).

*I have no statistical knowledge to support this. Only my own experiences as a drinker and as a first aider.

Sources: BBC, The Guardian

The Dutch government has backed a proposal to ban the wearing of a burqa and other clothing that conceals the face in public areas. A burqa is different to the veil that sparked comments in Britain just a month or so ago on which I posted then. A burqa, as illustrated by the BBC here, covers the face entirely, leaving the woman who wears it looking out only through a mesh of fabric.

The Immigration Minister who proposed the ban, Rita Verdonk, said that the reasons for the move were because:

“The cabinet finds it undesirable that face-covering clothing - including the burqa - is worn in public places for reasons of public order, security and protection of citizens.” (The Guardian)

The proposals have been criticised as being an “over reaction to a very marginal problem” by the main Dutch Muslim opposition, and generally as a breach of human rights.

I think the reason that this has got as much publicity as it has is because of the Muslim-related aspect of the ban - even though it includes all clothing that covers the face, such as helmets with visors. If it was specifically aimed at the burqa, it would be a great overreaction (since all the sources I have read have the number of women in the Netherlands who wear the burqa at somewhere between a few dozen and a few hundred), but it includes all face-covering clothing. As it is, this proposal is a bit of an overreaction at least - but since the Dutch are to go to the polls next week, there is always the fact that it could be an election initiative designed to gain votes.

Sources: BBC, The Guardian, Expatica

Junk food adverts on TV are now to be banned under new Ofcom guidelines. A total ban will be imposed during children’s programmes and on children’s channels, as well as on general entertainment programmes watched by a “higher than average” number of under-16 year olds.

Whilst I understand that there is a problem with obesity in our society, it really is not an “obesity epidemic” that requires complete and immediate abstinence from all forms of junk food. What is needed is better education about how to eat healthily rather than draconian regulations. Banning junk food ads during children’s TV programmes makes sense, as does banning them on children’s channels, but extending that into general entertainment is just nanny-state interference.

Banning junk food adverts will cause a severe drop in revenue for commercial children’s channels and kids sections on other channels (of about £39million), which will in turn will lead to lower-quality children’s programmes being made.

What is needed is more children’s programmes like LazyTown. Magnús Scheving, who created, writes, directs, produces and stars in the show says:

“What Sesame Street does is easy… You know? Don’t get me wrong ­ I love Sesame Street. It is a great programme. But what does it do? Two things. It teaches kids their ABCs, and reminds them to be decent people. Just two things.
On LazyTown, on the other hand ­ sure, we do the ABCs, we teach the kids to be nice to each other. But we also, ­ three! ­ get kids fit and active, we get them ­ four! ­- eating healthily. By comparison, Sesame Street, a couple of puppets. Easy.”

Through LazyTown, he claims to have reduced childhood obesity in his native Iceland by 16% - a feat acknowledged even by the politicians. What we need to beat childhood obesity is less legislation and more motivation. Instead of telling parents and children what they shouldn’t eat, help them understand what they should - and why. Otherwise obesity is here to stay.

Sources: BBC, The Telegraph, The Times, The Times Magazine

The issue of Lords reform came up on 18 Doughty Street tonight, and I got to thinking about what is needed.

What is the point of the House of Lords? It is there to act as a check on the House of Commons, to bring their “wisdom” to bear on the issues, to ensure that legislation is fully thought through and to prevent elected totalitarianism.

What do we want a reformed Lords to be? A democratic second chamber which does not seek to challenge the primacy of the House of Commons, and is not dominated by any one political party or partisanship.

How can we get this? Elect members of the second chamber by proportional representation through the national vote figures from general elections. This ensures that no political party can dominate, and ensures that the primacy of the House of Commons is maintained.
The best way to do this is to have 100 people added to the second chamber along PR lines after each general election, up to 500 people. After five general elections, the first 100 would be replaced by a new intake. This would ensure that partisanship would be weaker, and that compromise would be higher.
This way the second chamber would do what it should and does, but without the political stigma of being undemocratic.

Of course this is not perfect and needs refinement, so please make suggestions in the comments!

Disgracefully, First Direct have decided to start charging for the ability to have a current account – unless you deposit £1,500 per month, or have a balance of over £1,500. But lots of people can’t do that.

Once one bank starts charging, the others are likely to follow, as The Times reports:

“Financial commentators said that the move would herald a rush by other banks to do the same. NatWest and Lloyds TSB said last night that they had no plans to introduce fees to their current accounts, but refused to rule it out.”

This is ridiculous. Why should we pay to be able to have an account? I don’t understand exactly how banks make their money, but they certainly seem to make enough anyway. Banks in other countries may charge people to have accounts, but I certainly don’t think that we should move in that direction. Banks control all our money, especially with the decrease in the usage of cash. I don’t see why they should get paid to have my money in their bank.

Sources: The Times, BBC

Today one of the strangest things happened - I suddenly felt old! I’m only 21 so I shouldn’t feel this way!

This happened because whilst at my university Mountaineering Club climbing session tonight some of the Freshers were talking about what they were going to do after the session (which ended at 10pm). And I just intended to go straight back home after, maybe, a trip to the bar for a pint or two.

It just makes me feel old.

Of course I came home to watch 18 Doughty Street, but it still makes me feel old!

BBC News: “Six prisoners and former inmates forced to stop taking drugs by going ‘cold turkey’ are to receive payments, sources at the High Court have said.
The out-of-court settlement followed claims the practice amounted to assault and their human rights were breached.”

So, criminals who have broken the law, been caught, convicted, and sentenced, and are now serving time are to get thousands of pounds because they were forced to go ‘cold turkey’ on their addictions to illegal drugs, including heroin.

Why should they be provided with illegal drugs, or their substitutes, when they are serving time at Her Majesty’s Pleasure? They are in prison for a reason - they have broken the law and the nexus of society - so why on earth should they get “compensation” for not getting their hit? And why should they be able to justify it on human rights grounds?!

Convicts are not part of society during their time in prison. They have been separated from society to be punished and to protect everyone else. They don’t have “rights”. They lost their “rights” when they broke the law. You cannot gain from society unless you obey it’s rules.

As David Davis says, it really is “a massive failure of political nerve by Dr. John Reid and a massive failure in his core duty to protect the public.”

Sources: BBC, The Times, Conservative Party News