A Pavlovian response

At the risk of sounding troublingly like a particularly hysterical Daily Mail headline, why is it that just about everything this Government announces makes one groan with baffled dismay, before expectorating a vivid "fuck you"?

Police may get more data powers

Jacqui Smith has set out plans to give the police and security services more powers to gather phone and e-mail data.

The home secretary said police risked losing the ability to fight crime and terrorism without new laws.

Reports suggest the government wants a single database to store details of every UK phone call and e-mail sent.

Ms Smith stressed the "content" of e-mails would not be stored but she said consultation would be launched in the New Year on what the new laws would be.

Plans to collect more data on people's phone, e-mail and web-browsing habits are expected to be included in the Communications Data Bill, due to be introduced in the Queen's Speech in November.

Ah, yes, this is why.

Please consider this my response to your consultation: "fuck you".

Fuck EU

Via Mr Eugenides, I see this appeared in yesterday's Telegraph:

Marianne Mikko, an Estonian centre-left MEP, is concerned that growing numbers of blogs are being used by individuals with "malicious intentions or hidden agendas".

"The blogosphere has so far been a haven of good intentions and relatively honest dealing. However, with blogs becoming commonplace, less principled people will want to use them," she said.

Mrs Mikko has proposed that bloggers should be required to identify themselves and that some popular blogs should come with a declaration of interests.

It is, remarkably, still possible to find people who consider the EU to be a good thing. But quite why an Estonian MEP should be given direct influence over my life is something I suspect even the most witless pro-EU sort would struggle to justify.

Now, this isn't a popular blog, nor is it ever intended to be. I find that articulating my anger about the sheer shitness of certain people does wonders for my capacity to remain tranquil as their assaults upon common sense multiply. And that's why I do it.

But just in case...

Here's my identity: someone who absolutely fucking detests Mrs Mikko. That's all you need to know.
Here's my declaration of interests: I can say what I want, because this is a free country, and your frankly fascist attempts to change that will never succeed. This means calling a twat a twat, which I enjoy, and you are in desperate need of being reminded of.

"We do not need to know the exact identity of bloggers. We need some credentials, a quality mark, a certain disclosure of who is writing and why. We need this to be able to trust and rely on the source," she said.

The cream rises to the top. There are lots of excellent and very popular blogs, and invariably they link to their sources, state their reasoning and if enough people like them, they remain popular. The crap ones, like this one, remain little more than a way of channelling the rage. Blogging is much more open than the mainstream media, which invariably lifts stories without accreditation, or simply fabricates them.

Chris Heaton Harris, a British Conservative Euro MP, has rejected any moves to "regulate and restrict independent media sources".

"Mrs Mikko obviously does not understand that blogs have become the life blood of a vibrant democracy," he said.

"I hope these proposals are kicked out.

Quite.

Thursday's vote in the European Parliament is not legally binding but is an indicator of growing EU concern over the influence of blogs on the internet.

A recent internal European Commission report, leaked three weeks ago, found that the EU was losing the battle for hearts and minds online.

This may be directly linked to the fact that the EU is shit, and is being exposed as such. If the EU stopped being shit (or better still, was dismantled altogether), people may stop being so horrid.

"Blog activity remains overwhelmingly negative," it said.

Stop being a set of cunts, then.

Up yours, comandante

Via ConservativeHome, three cheers for Boris Johnson:

gingeral: Are you going to cancel Ken Livingstone's planned celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Cuban revolution next year (bearing in mind that Castro killed more people in his first three years in office than Pinochet managed in seventeen!)?

You can rest assured this is a dead plan. It is no more, it has ceased to be, it is an ex-plan! My administration will not be treating taxpayer’s money with the lax attitude of the previous administration.

Marvellous.

Of course, it won't help any of the people imprisoned by Castro for such crimes being gay or disagreeing with his regime, or bring back those killed by his deranged murderer-in-chief Che Guevara - but Boris' decision raises a little smile nonetheless...

Two little letters

We've mentioned before the difficulty the EU had in comprehending Ireland's response to their invitation to ratify the Lisbon Constitution.

It appears that stupidity is contagious.

In common with over 26,000 others, I signed a petition asking the Government to take the scarcely contentious decision to respect the decision of the Irish and decline to continue with our own ratification.

They've responded:

In the UK, the Lisbon Treaty has now completed its passage through both Houses of Parliament in the UK following 25 days of debate. The Bill received Royal Assent on 19 June and the UK ratified the treaty on 16 July.

We believe the treaty would be good for the UK and good for the EU. This treaty adjusts existing treaties, in the same way as previous EU amending treaties.

If it's that great, why not set and the case and then ask us? You know, as you promised in your own manifesto?

However, European treaty change rightly requires unanimity across all EU Member States. That is why the ‘no’ vote on the treaty in the Irish referendum on 12 June is important, and needs to be respected.

You don't respect someone's decision by ignoring it. That's so obvious one marvels that it requires pointing out.

The Irish government has made it clear that they need time to analyse the result and its implications, and to consult widely at home and abroad.

The Irish Government, pro-EU, apparently needs time to analyse the word "no".

The British Government is apparently sympathetic to this desire for additional time to decipher a two-letter word.

Further comment seems entirely superfluous.

When no doesn't mean no

Q: When does "no" not mean "no"?

A: When you say no to the EU.

In June, Ireland said "no" to the EU. No, we don't want your constitution, whatever you want to call it, whatever you want to pretend it does, and more importantly, whatever you want to pretend it doesn't do. No.

Unfortunately the EU doesn't do democracy - indeed, it is a notable opponent of it. Ireland only voted because its troublesome constitution compelled a plebiscite; elsewhere in Europe, the people were denied the right of consultation about the transfer of power and authority from national capitals to the famously corrupt EU.

That three million Irish voters were able to hobble the "progress" of the EU did not go down well. Nicolas Sarkozy's reaction was particularly contemptible, stating that the Irish would have to vote again. Just what part of "no" don't you understand, you stupid French twat?

There are two reasons this is an appalling idea. Firstly, if it's so important that the Irish should have to vote again, why should everyone else not get a say? The notion of Ireland getting two votes and the rest of us getting none is ridiculous.

Secondly, and most pressingly for M Sarkozy and his loathsome friends in Brussels, it's a vote he'd lose. 71% of the Irish are opposed to a re-vote. The No lobby is certain to vote no again. There must be a portion of the Yes vote that will be embarrassed at what is being done in its name and will either stay away or vote for the original result to be upheld. And the undecideds? Which way are they likely to swing? No-one likes being bullied, and it's hard to imagine anything other than a majority of them lining up to say no.

So while we can rail until the end of time about the EU and its vile tactics, we can at least celebrate the fact that they are likely to backfire horribly. And this, of course, is before the incoming Conservative government is able to gleefully announce its own referendum, the result of which is a foregone conclusion.

The Irish have said no. So too have the French and Dutch in previous referenda. We British are certain to say no. If the EU has any sense of self-preservation, they would learn that no really must mean no.

If you've got nothing to hide...

I've just finished reading this book:

Readable. Not much more, but more than I've ever done, so let's not start off in too curmudgeonly a fashion. The premise is excellent: set in 1937, Mosley becomes Prime Minister after the King refuses to abdicate, Britain becomes fascist and cosies up to Hitler's Germany, and only one heroic ex-Tory MP and Great War veteran can stop him.

Sadly what doesn't follow doesn't quite do this premise justice. However, there are some neat touches. The portrait of 1930s Britain is excellently drawn - and it is this that produces the book's most arresting situation. It is when a policeman, the archetypal 1930s English constable, now plunged into the nightmare of working for a fascist madman, compels our hero to produce "his papers".

Imagine it - the friendly neighbourhood copper, helper of old ladies, scourge of local ruffians, sporter of luxurious moustache, barking out commands at the behest of a crazed fascist dictatorship. Ugly isn't it?

Which makes this Government's intention to introduce ID cards, and a colossal accompanying database, even less appealing.

• They cost a fortune - some say £18bn, at a time when the economy is in poor shape
• They failed to stop the Madrid bombings, the Conservative point out
• The giant database storing our details will be a hacker's wet dream

Those are compelling reasons to halt this idiocy now. Any vaguely intelliegent government would have done so. But I am more vexed by the fundamental alteration in the relationship between state and citizen.

This is a free country, despite the palpable hostility of numerous Home Secretaries down the years. I do not have to prove my identity to the state or any its agents. Compelling me to do so makes this a less free country. It really is a simple as that.

Perhaps the ex-Communists in the Labour Party think that's a good thing though.