Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
Fiddypee wants YOU - Ed's journal
Fiddypee wants YOU
There's a new fiddypee challenge

It's to post a photo of the tackiest christmas tree lights in your area.

In other news, you may be aware that David Blunkett is no longer home secretary. Resigned in a flurry of allegations.

It's a bit of a dilemma for me. You see, I rather like David Blunkett. It's rather refreshing to encounter a politician that isn't afraid to speak out, and say what he means.

On the flip side, some of his more recent 'security' policies have been rather disturbing - I wouldn't have been voting for the introduction of ID cards at the next general election for example.

The problem is, that he more or less got torn to shreds by a bunch of hyenas, when in my opinion, "what he did wrong" is still very tenuous. The allegations appear to be that he 'sped up' a visa application, and shared some train tickets.

By the letter, they're naughty. But really, as things go, they're very minor. The _real_ reason he was torn to shreds was because of his biography, where 'frank' assessments of fellow ministers are published.

In many ways, I'm rather shocked that someone can be bullied out of parliment by the ravening horde, stirring storms in teacups.

One way or another, he's gone. The new home secretary is to be Charles Clarke.
Who on the Today program, on Radio 4 this morning, asserted that he would be continuing Blunkett's policies, including the ID card bill in the next few weeks.

I'm concerned that we've now got Blunkett Mk. II, but who doesn't have the same measure of character as the original, which is going to turn the ID card bill into an annoying but otherwise pathetic wet fish, or a draconian set of controls on people's lives.

There's always been an argument of balancing security vs. liberty. Security cameras, for example, are intrusive, but I think many would accept that they're very effective in tracking down crime.

ID cards though, are more intrusive. And I still don't see how they would help 'increase security'. I mean, if you're a terrorist, you're probably already entering the country under a false passport.

Blunkett has now been deposed, and it's clear to me, in about as undemocratic a fashion as you can get. Trial by lynch mob, who are using a pretext to take out their major aggravation.

I for one, am becoming increasingly concerned at the adoption of the "Guantanamo Bay" standards of justice. How long has it been now? How long have those undisclosed number of people (although thought to be around 75) been held in prison, without charge or trial?

That's really unacceptable. Unfortunately, I can't think of anything to do about it, but write it here, and spam my MP occasionally.

In any other situation, imprisoning someone is considered a crime. I think that the human rights act is being over used as an excuse to sue and whinge. (I mean seriously, if you buy a house next to an airport, is it really any surprise at all that there are aircraft flights). But I also think that it's an important piece of legislation. It's a declaration of what we, as civilised beings, consider acceptable.

And being shut in a prison, indefinitely, for unspecified crimes is not something I consider acceptable.

(Apologies, it's a bit of a waffle, but...)
1 comment or Leave a comment
zaitan From: zaitan Date: December 16th, 2004 12:47 pm (UTC) (Link)
I am wondering if anyone will try the "David Blunkett" defence in court. He steals from his employers, i.e. the taxpayers, and then tries to get out of it by giving the money back. Claiming he did not understand the rules, or some such twaddle. As pointed out some time ago, ignorance is not a valid defence. Pretty crap if the Home Secetary cannot understand rules and regs.
1 comment or Leave a comment