tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-63822558646618467352024-03-14T18:50:04.873+00:00TheFatBigot OpinesTheFatBigothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.comBlogger418125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-35683323768975664582017-01-17T06:30:00.000+00:002017-01-17T06:30:40.872+00:00This Brexit thing<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">One problem I have enjoyed all my life is the inability to understand fancy theories. My brain can only understand simple things, so I like to go back to principle in everything and, once I have identified the principle to my satisfaction, I know the foundations to which Rococo details can be added. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So, what about this Brexit thing? In order to know what leaving the European Union means it seems pretty obvious to me that it is necessary to identify what the EU is. Once that is defined, we know what the people voted to extricate the country from and can reach a principled view of what the government must do. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So, what is the EU? </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The answer must be that it is the legal framework that locks the member states of the EU together. It is not the institutions of the EU (such as the Commission, Council of Ministers, European Parliament and Court of so-called Justice), nor is it the people who work within those institutions. The UK is only involved in those institutions because it is legally obliged to be involved through its agreement to various treaties that require us to be involved. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Everything else flows from that, including various aspects of the EU that are administrative rather than institutional. We are signed-up to the Common Agricultural Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy, the single market, the customs union and various other arrangements that are set-up by the EU institutions by virtue of being party to treaties that establish the institutions. We are not involved in the CAP and the CFP voluntarily but because it is a necessity as result of the effect of the treaties to which we are a party. Importantly we are not in the CAP and such by virtue of a stand-alone treaty, we are in it because we are a party to treaties setting-up the EU institutions. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I was thinking of writing a piece citing the relevant treaties and analysing their major provisions, but I cannot be bothered because principle is principle and stands by itself without citation of authority. We can only leave the EU by no longer being bound by the the treaties. Necessarily that means we are no longer members of the EU institutions. It also means we are no longer bound by any policies of the EU that are not already incorporated into law in this country. Many EU policies are part of law in the constituent countries of the UK by virtue of domestic legislation but many are not. For example, CAP, CFP, single market and customs union bind us by virtue of EU policy not by virtue of domestic law in the UK - they bind us because we are members of the EU but our parliaments and assemblies have not adopted them as part of domestic law. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">That is not to say there is nothing to negotiate. As a result of our membership of the EU, the EU has undertaken obligations to various citizens of the UK. Former MEPs, Commissioners and civil servants are entitled to EU pensions. We cannot just wash our hands, no matter how tempting it might be, and claim to have no on-going obligation to contribute to those pensions. In fact it goes much wider than that, the EU has entered into numerous contracts with individuals and companies which will have consequences for many years to come, it has also entered into agreements with artistic and sporting groups, NGOs and non-EU countries that involve an obligation to make payments for years to come. We were members when those arrangements were made and cannot wash our hands of the obligation to continue to make contributions in this field as well. That is what "terms of exit" are all about. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Matters such as our future trading arrangement with people and businesses within countries that will remain members of the EU are nothing to do with leaving the EU. They are about what happens after we have left. There is, for example, no question of remaining a "member" of the single market. Our government might, if it is so minded, negotiate an arrangement under which the UK has exactly the same trading access to EU countries as it has currently, but that is a post-Brexit arrangement not a term of leaving the EU. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Mrs May, who remains something of an enigma to me because I cannot recall ever hearing her expound her personal political philosophy, has said many times "Brexit means Brexit". I hope she stands by her words and makes clear there is no such thing as "hard" or "soft" Brexit. Brexit means withdrawing from the treaties. No more, no less. Everything else is an arrangement of the position once we have exited. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
TheFatBigothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-14021682627586024512016-08-31T05:33:00.000+01:002016-08-31T05:33:53.952+01:00The Irish Apple hoo-hah<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There is something very troubling about the "ruling" of the EU Commission that a company that has a base in Ireland should pay more tax than the laws of the Republic of Ireland require to be paid. That the company is a hugely profitable international enterprise with its home in the USA is neither here nor there. The Commission has decreed that carefully and deliberately drawn laws of a member state of the European Union are not acceptable and must be replaced by something the Commission considers better. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The magnificent Mr Paine has written on the subject (<a href="http://www.thelastditch.org/2016/08/am-i-alone-in-seeing-in-this-a-golden-opportunity-for-britain-post-brexit.html">http://www.thelastditch.org/2016/08/am-i-alone-in-seeing-in-this-a-golden-opportunity-for-britain-post-brexit.html</a>) and I agree with every word he wrote. I want to look at the matter in a different context. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Mr Paine's argument is that the UK can benefit enormously because international corporations could find an advantage by basing themselves here in the post-Brexit world rather than being subject to the risk of capricious retro-active laws being imposed by what remains of the EU commisariat. He is undoubtedly correct. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I respectfully suggest that two consequences can follow from what the EU Commission has done, neither of which will further the European Union "project". The first is that the Republic of Ireland (and possibly other states) might consider it an appropriate reason to consider whether their own membership of the European Union is sustainable now that the Commission has made clear that it considers itself a better judge of domestic tax laws and, therefore, of domestic economic policy than the nation states that form the EU. The second is that international companies, whether based in the USA or elsewhere, will have to think very carefully about establishing in EU countries now that they know their liability to tax (and, no doubt, to other policies that are bad for business) can be changed at the whim of the unelected Eurocrats. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is, I think, important not to get too excited about this issue. As things were believed to be before the Irish Apple "ruling" international companies trading in any democratic country, EU or not, were at risk of changes of governments and changes of policy. Included in what can properly be called the "democratic risk" was the risk that a new government would take a radically different approach to taxation that would negate the whole basis on which the company trades with that particular state. We know that risk always exists because we have seen it so many times - every time it involves the populace electing a government that is opposed to the very idea of the market being the determinant of business success. They always call themselves socialists when in fact they are the particular brand of socialism that is known as fascism. It has happened all over the world and it can happen in an EU state if the people decide that is what they want. Fair game, people can vote for whatever they want but they have to face the consequences. I will chip-in with the obvious point that when the poor vote for the fascist form of socialism they are always the ones who lose the most; at least reality gives them the chance of thinking about what they have done and changing their choice at the next election. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The context of the Irish Apple issue I want to address is something rather different, something more fundamental about the whole EU "project". The Commission's "ruling" is, I believe, the clearest example yet that the EU "project" requires the elimination of the nation state. It is one thing for the EU to make laws requiring uniformity in the regulation of health and safety rules at work or setting standards for the state fruit and vegetables should be in before they can be sold to the great unwashed. It is something wholly different for it to rule that one nation state cannot adopt taxation policies that might give it an economic advantage over other EU states that choose a different tax strategy. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Behind this is the need to eliminate competition between EU states in relation to their dealings with the rest of the world. The government of the Republic of Ireland has adopted business taxation policies that it believes will be of the greatest benefit to the people of Ireland. Whether those policies are or are not beneficial to the people of Ireland can only be tested over time, but they have been adopted because the Republic of Ireland is a democratic nation state and it is for the people of that state to decide at the next election whether those policies should remain or be replaced by whatever alternative(s) are offered at that election. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The EU Commission clearly believes that decision is not for the electorate. It believes, as all forms of unelected dictatorship have believed throughout political history, that it knows better. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but whose decision should it be? On something as fundamental at business taxation - something Ireland itself proves to be a major factor in attracting business activity to a country - there is a stark choice. Either it is for the nation state or it is not. If it is not, the very concept of the nation state becomes redundant. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">My mind is taken back to one of the big television debates held prior to the referendum. I think it was hosted by the BBC. On the "remain" side there was a woman who holds a senior position in a trade union or possibly in the Trades Union Congress. I cannot remember her name. She bleated on about how leaving the EU would destroy what she quaintly referred to as "workers' rights". I listened to her whitterings and was incredulous that those debating against her did not make the most obvious retort. If our Parliament - that bunch of people who stood for election and were returned to our Parliament to make our laws - wanted to change "workers' rights" laws they have every right to do so. The changes might or might not be welcomed by the trade union whitterer, but they will be legitimate changes because they are made by our Parliament. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We now know that the legitimacy of laws passed by democratically elected parliaments of nation states is not recognised by the EU Commission. Some of us will say we have known it for a long time. The Irish Apple "ruling" is undeniable proof that the EU "project" involves the destruction of the nation state. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
TheFatBigothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-86297616937742593442016-07-19T04:43:00.000+01:002016-07-19T05:46:17.537+01:00Where has all the chaos gone?<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So here we are, approaching a month since the modest victory for Brexit at the referendum. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Something that might or might not have been surprising was in the headlines for several days. Apparently it's generally known as "buyer's remorse" these days. People who voted leave were spread around every pore of the BBC telling us what a dismal thing they did because the country was plainly collapsing around their ears and all because the UK voted to extricate itself from the European Union. Calls for another referendum were promoted by the State broadcaster at every opportunity. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In a way it was surprising because the vote actually changed nothing constitutionally or economically, we were as much in the EU on Friday the 24th of June as we were before the polls opened the day before. We had not exited the EU, we did not find our exports to and imports from EU countries subject to tariffs, we did not need visas to visit countries in the EU and their citizens did not need visas to come here, citizens of other EU countries living here did not need to leave and Brits in EU countries were not expelled. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">That, however, does not reflect the rhetoric employed by both sides of the "official" leave and remain campaigns. Overstatement is often the currency of politicians, no doubt it has always been so yet when there is only one issue at stake it is perhaps inevitable that it will be amplified and each side will say voting against them will result in disaster. That, of course, cannot be said in a vacuum, it must be backed by reasoned argument and under the scrutiny of questioning by both journalists and, more tellingly, the ordinary people it is probably impossible to resist putting flesh on the bones even though no one on either side was in a position to know what that flesh should be. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Extremes were promoted on both sides. Very silly extremes spouted in the hope people would be fooled rather than in the expectation they would ever prove to be accurate. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And so it was that remainers panicked and reacted to wobbles in the share and currency markets as proof they had made a disastrous mistake. That reaction is no more rational than the silly exaggerations employed by both leavers and remainers during the campaign. Now things seem to have calmed down. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The swift-ish ascendance of a new Prime Minister appears, so far, to have led to a further thinning of mindless panic. I have to confess that my initial hope was that Mrs Leadsom might be up to the job but she went desperately flaky when the going got tough and had the good sense to leave it to Mrs May to do her best. Mrs May has the advantage of not having to face a Parliamentary opposition except from the neo-Communist Scottish National Party whose representatives in the House of Commons really are piss-poor. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">My local MP is someone called Jeremy Corbin. I last saw him on the day of the London mayoral election when he was outside my polling station with a couple of similarly wispy-bearded, middle-aged, naive, scruffy Trots. He and they approached certain voters but, in a rare example of good judgment, realised their time would be wasted on me. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I sometimes wonder whether Mr Corbyn knows that the mass migration to Labour Party membership comprises predominantly two categories of people: (i) some opposed to hard-line Socialism who have joined to ensure he remains leader and, thereby, ensure Labour is unelectable and (ii) rather more who are even more hard-line Socialist/Communists than Mr Corbyn. Whether the latter group really think a policy platform that would make Enva Hoxha envious would make Labour electable is an open question, the religious nature of Socialism/Communism makes me think they probably do. Not only does the SNP have piss-poor MPs, Labour has two piss-poor people trying to stand against Mr Corbyn. Angela Eagle has, through her tears, proved herself at least as flaky as poor Mrs Leadsom - far too emotional to take serious decisions on any big issue. Her opponent, whose name eludes me because I don't think I'<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">d</span> heard of him before the last few days, seems to have few policy platforms to distinguish him from Mr Corbyn and no public profile. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">That's where the chaos seems to be this week. Things might change next week but I doubt they will. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The noises coming from the Cabinet ministers responsible for extricating us from the EU and making new trading agreements with countries outside the EU are exactly what I had hoped to hear. Securing free trade deals with as many non-EU countries as possible provides, in my view, the strongest negotiating platform against the EU on issues of trade barriers. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, South Korea, Brasil and India all want free-trade deals as soon as possible (you can ignore President Obama's suggestion we are at the back of the queue so far as his country is concerned, we are absolutely at the front for recent historic reasons of comity and because it's an easy deal compared to anything they could negotiate with the EU and because he only has months to serve). How long it takes is impossible to tell, although Australia, New Zealand, Canada and India shouldn't take even a year - and the same applies to various smaller countries who export a lot of stuff to us; for example Chile makes wines we like, Kenya sells us vegetables out of our season, food exports are also an important part of the economies of most Caribbean islands and we buy loads. China is probably a harder nut to crack, although Hong Kong might be the key because it undoubtedly wants to maintain it's very good trading relationship with this country. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">If, and it is a big if, deals with these and more countries can be agreed in principle the EU's negotiating position will be undermined. As it is we know we buy far more from them than they do from us so any tariffs are more likely to hurt them than us; and they will all have to pay more into the EU's coffers when we go so they are risking what I believe the young people call a "double-whammy". </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Who knows? Maybe further chaos will emerge in the months to come. At the moment the only chaos I see is between a parliamentary Labour party that i<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">s</span> far to the left of any that has been electable since 1974 and the Corbyn faction that is so far to the left it makes Michael Foot's famous "longest suicide note in history" seem like a lullaby. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">We'll see what happens, at the moment I am enjoying observing it all </span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<br />
<br />TheFatBigothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-77165643232845765832016-02-24T03:49:00.000+00:002016-06-14T05:09:48.009+01:00The EU thing<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Well, here we are, at long last the referendum is to happen. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Before the 2010 General Election both parties that formed the 2010-2015 coalition government promised an In-Out referendum. Of course everything changed when the coalition agreement was forged. The Conservatives couldn't agree to a referendum because the Liberal Democrats wouldn't agree the terms the Conservatives wanted, and the Liberal Democrats couldn't agree to a referendum because the Conservatives wouldn't agree their preferred terms. It was all jolly convenient for the career politicians at the head of both parties for whom the European Union was the perfect model for established party elites to be guaranteed not just well-paid jobs for life but also political influence long after they lost electoral support in their own constituencies and countries. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The repetition of that promise in the 2015 Conservative Party manifesto coupled with that party's win in the election forced the Prime Minister to do something about it. His chosen course was a renegotiation of the terms on which the UK is a member of the EU and then the presentation of that new deal to the common people of the UK. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Mr Cameron did not, in truth, have any other option open to him. Successive manifesto commitments could not be ignored so something had to be done. His choices were to give us a "take it or leave it" referendum against the existing relationship between the UK and the EU or to try to change that relationship and then offer the vote. I am happy to accept that he went into the renegotiation on the basis he claimed - namely, with the intention to return certain law-making powers to the UK Parliament. As it is, he returned with a deal that returns no law-making powers and merely tinkers at the edge of a few minor matters of detail on how existing EU laws will be implemented. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I must make clear that I am not criticising Mr Cameron's achievements in the negotiation process. I believe he achieved the absolute most that could be achieved. He is a clever man, a determined man, a clear communicator and a Prime Minister who wants the best possible deal for the UK. And therein lies the problem. Despite his determination to return powers to the UK Parliament and the use of his clever and clear ability to communicate, he achieved nothing of substance. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">He never could achieve anything of substance because of two aspects of the way the EU works. He was facing not only the self-perpetuating, superannuated bureaucracy in Brussels; he was also facing the honest and understandable national self-interests of the leaders of the other member states of the EU. The bureaucracy would never allow a return of substantive powers and the other member states would never allow anything to be done to diminish their citizens' access to the benefits of living and working in the UK. Against this background, to achieve even the tiny change he did is a matter of great credit to Mr Cameron. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Since the referendum was announced we have been subjected to a bombardment of ludicrous guesswork about how an exit from the EU will affect the UK economy. The simple fact is that no one knows how it will affect our economy. Let me give an example of the main arguments I have heard on a central economic issue. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Those in the "remain" camp assert that we will be excluded from trading with EU countries. That seems extremely unlikely, although the terms on which we deal with them might well change. How will they change? No one knows. What we do know is that we buy a greater value of goods from the other EU states than we sell to them, so excluding us from trading with them will (in monetary terms) hurt them more than us. That doesn't mean we will necessarily be allowed to continue to trade without tariffs. It's something that will have to be negotiated. Whether - in the short, medium and long term - the UK economy will benefit cannot be predicted. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Those in the "leave" camp assert, with great confidence, that we will continue to trade as we do now because we buy more from them than they do from us. That is not necessarily so. They will be much bigger than us and might use their ability to freeze-out our goods in order to secure a trading agreement which is to our detriment compared to the current position. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In reality both sides are saying the same thing. They both say that we will continue trading with the EU but they do not know whether the terms of trading will be the same. So what? If we stay in things will change that might or might not benefit the UK. If we leave things will change that might or might not benefit the UK. The whole economic argument is a nonsense because no one knows whether the next year of economic activity will be good or bad for the UK, or for France, or for Spain, or for Germany, or for Italy, or for any other country - be it an EU country or one of the 168 countries not currently in the EU. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">For me the most important issue in this referendum is not economic, it is political. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I believe that the most powerful force in maintaining stability in any country is the general populace having the power to remove its current government and replacing it with another. Everyone knows that elections every four or five years do not allow Mr & Mrs Ordinary direct power over everything. They do, however, allow millions of Mr & Mrs Ordinarys to make their decisions and, if, collectively, they are so minded, to remove one government and replace it with another. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There was, I believe, something very significant in the result of last year's general election. Despite being bombarded by the BBC and every entertainer and "celebrity" who was given airtime that the Conservative Party promotes the interests of the rich and seeks to oppress the poor, that party was returned with a Parliamentary majority. It was returned through the votes of people of all ages, races and levels of wealth. A secret ballot allowing the quiet people to take a decision in private can overturn the consensus view of any self-appointed elite. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">For me the most important issue in the referendum, indeed the only issue of any importance, is the need for the people of the UK to be able to have as much control as possible over those who govern them. That control occurs not just through the ballot box but also through the ability to influence politicians in numerous other ways. Some of those ways are affected only very indirectly by the ordinary people, for example they have little direct influence over what the newspapers say and how television and radio stations report issues. But opinions polls, phone-in programmes and petitions are legion. In addition MPs attend their constituency surgeries and numerous public events at which views are expressed. No doubt a huge number of people take no part in any of these means of communicating their views to their governors, nonetheless they are direct means of not only influencing politicians' opinions but also of holding them to account for their previously-expressed opinions. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">If you think our politicians are idiots you might or might not be right. But they are our idiots and we can, in so many ways, hold them to account. In my lifetime there have been so many that held high office but were rejected by the little people once they were accountable to Mr & Mrs Ordinary making a choice with a stubby pencil in a voting booth. They had no right to political power unless it was given to them at an election because government exists for the people and not for the politicians. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">We have absolutely no control over the unaccountable powers of the EU. We have MEPs but they have virtually no power - they cannot even introduce proposals for new legislation. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I am a great believer in self-determination. I believe in it for individuals and I believe in it for countries. The more the little people have the ability to influence politicians, the more likely it is that those politicians will have to think carefully about every decision they make and the more likely it is that the parish, district, county, constituency and country will be stable. Influence is not enough, the power to say yea or nae to a particular politician continuing to have the possibility of power is fundamental. The two most high-profile recent examples are Michael Portillo and Ed Balls - politicians of the highest profile ejected from any political power by the greater power of the stubby pencil in the voting booth. Long may it continue. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Whether we stay in the EU or leave, the power to influence our own politicians will remain unless the EU passes laws to the contrary. I don't expect it to, but it has the power to do so and there will be nothing we can do about it. I would rather keep that power with Mr & Mrs Ordinary and their stubby pencils rather than with politicians who have been rejected by their own national electorates and been rewarded with more power as part of the EU commissariat. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Self-determination has kept this country stable for a long time. Long may it continue. That i<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">s</span> much more likely outside the EU than within. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
TheFatBigothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-18001288522354818152015-04-17T05:24:00.003+01:002015-04-17T05:24:57.125+01:00The election for jobs<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The last time I offered some thoughts to the great and good of the world it was on the subject of the love of Scotland to use English money in furtherance of its Socialist dream. Now we are in the midst of a general election campaign and we are hearing much more of the same, although this time the Welsh nationalists and the Greens are also being heard - spouting the same economically ignorant garbage. What is interesting to me is that the SNP have now firmly planted themselves in the overtly Communist ground of their Welsh and Green fellow-travellers. Nationalise this, that and the other; hike taxes on a chosen group of victims; promise vast increases to spending on health, education and social services and assert that every problem can be solved by government having more power. Well, it persuaded voters in Venezuela so why should it not persuade the British? </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">These dangerous extremists all start with the same punch-line. They want the end of "austerity". </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">It is a start I simply do not understand. What is austere about the country's government spending roughly £90,000,000,000 more in the current year than it will receive in tax and other revenues? Of course it must be accepted that the overspend this year is only about half the overspend in the last year of the preceding Labour government; but it is still a massive overspend which adds £90,000,000,000 to the already vast debt on which we must pay interest every year. As I understand things, the interest payable this year on the vast sums our governments have borrowed but not repaid is in the region of £30,000,000,000; about as much as the government spends on education, about as much it spends on defence and about a quarter of what it spends on healthcare. At an interest rate of just 1% this year's overspend will add £900,000,000 to the annual interest bill. That is not austerity, it is reckless extravagance. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I have long been worried about politicians blabbering on about "the deficit". Countless times in the campaign so far "the deficit" has fallen from the lips of superannuated politicians of all parties. I wonder what that piece of jargon actually means to people with little or no interest in politics or economics. Everyone can understand what is meant by the government borrowing money and having to pay interest on it out of our taxes. Everyone can understand what is meant by the government owing more and more money every year and having to pay more and more interest on that borrowed money each year out of our taxes. Everyone can understand that if the government continues to spend more money than it receives the result will be an ever-increasing amount of taxpayers' money that must be used to pay interest rather than being used for the cuddly things that make taxpayers' lives better. Why do they not use simple language to explain simple concepts? </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">We know why the dedicated Socialists do not use simple language. Straight talking promotes straight questioning and none of them can explain how their dreams of spending ever more money can result in anything other than greater debt and greater interest payments. When push gets somewhere near to shove and they try to give an explanation they fall back on the very theory that seduced the moronic Gordon Brown. Spend more and the economy will be boosted thereby resulting in greater tax revenues that are self-sustaining and will allow accumulated debt to be repaid. Yes it worked well for him, didn't it? It worked well in the USSR, didn't it? It worked well in Greece, didn't it? It worked well in the UK during the 1960 and 70s, didn't it? It works well in Venezuela, doesn't t it? It works well in Zimbabwe, doesn't it? It works well in France and Spain, doesn't it? </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">We also know why the slightly less Socialist Conservative Party does not use simple language. Much of that party's problem is caused by a catch-phrase used by the current Home Secretary in a speech some years ago. She wished her party to cease to be perceived as "the nasty party". In doing so she gave that very label to her party, no doubt that was not her desire or intention (and nor was it the substance of her speech), but these days catch-phrases capture public attention in politics as they do in entertainment and she gave her party a brand with which it is still, well, branded. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Mr Cameron has one winning message. So far it has featured as part of the narrative however it has not risen to the top of the debate. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">We must be realistic, what matters to most voters is whether the policies of the incoming government will improve the lot of them, their families and friends. They are not, I think, interested in fancy theories or in jargon-dominated statements of principle. They are, I think, more interested in three things above everything else: (i) having more of the money they have earned to spend for themselves, (ii) limiting the amount of their taxes that go to non-taxpayers and (iii) jobs for their children and grandchildren. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I might be wrong but I believe the overwhelming majority of people in this country want to earn an honest living and benefit from doing so. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">They accept the need to pay tax but expect income tax rates to be modest on modest incomes. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">They support a limit on the total amount of benefits that any one family can receive because they earn less than the amount handed-out to some; the current cap is £350 a week for single adults, £500 a week for a couple, and £500 a week for single adults with one or more children living with them. £350 a week is £18,200 a year, £500 a week is £26,000 a year. These are very substantial sums and it is hardly surprising that those working for £18,200 (on which they pay tax) or £26,000 (on which they pay tax) feel it is unfair for others to receive more in benefits than they receive from working. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I might be wrong but I believe the overwhelming majority of people in this country consider it right that their children should inherit whatever they have accumulated. If someone does not believe in inheritance he or she can always make provision to ensure their children get nothing, my opinion is that most want their children to receive the cash value of whatever assets they have accrued during their lives. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I might be wrong, but I believe the overwhelming majority of people in this country want their children and grandchildren to earn an honest living. They also know that some peoples work deserves a greater return than others. Most importantly they want there to be jobs so that their children and grandchildren have the maximum possible opportunity to earn whatever their endeavours are worth and be self-sufficient. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">It was a few years ago now that George Osborne caused his party to leap ahead in opinion polls by announcing a policy to increase the Inheritance Tax threshold to £1,000,000. The benefits cap caused no great difference to opinion polls, although I am yet to meet anyone other than a wealthy Islington Socialist who opposes it. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Mr Cameron's strongest hand is jobs. Five years in government and around 2,000,000 new jobs created in the private sector. I don't suggest that government policy had a lot to do with it, although it undoubtedly had some effect simply by appearing to be more business-friendly that the student union drivel spouted by the millionaire Marxist leader of the opposition. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In a country that is so solidly dominated by the concept that government has magical powers it is not necessary to explain how government policy has caused anything, it is assumed by far more than it should be that anything good or bad is the result of government action (or inaction). </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Mr Cameron has one and only one election winning message. He can assert that his has been a government of 2,000,000 new jobs. That is a fact, undisputed by anyone. He says (incorrectly) that his government has created 2,000,000 new jobs. It did not create them. What it did was pursue policies that gave sufficient confidence to sufficient job-creators that they were prepared to take a chance and employ people. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">If he has any chance of winning an outright majority Mr Cameron must push the jobs figures. Mr Milliband, the millionaire Marxist, asserted that the policies of the current government would result in mass unemployment. Like so many idealistic politicians he is not interested in the truth. He will not accept he was wrong. The substance of his argument is that they are the wrong type of jobs so they don't count. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">So far the election campaign has been about fluff and nonsense. Not just that but it has been dominated by the concept that the more the government does the better things will be. We can't be surprised, it has been the prevailing consensus of opinion in the BBC and the political and press elite for more than 20 years. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Mr Cameron would be foolish if he did not use the remainder of the election campaign to use one simple fact to his advantage. It does not matter whether government caused, contributed to or had no effect at all on employment and unemployment figures; it will be believed by lots of voters to be responsible. Unemployment is at the lowest level for ages but unemployment is a negative thing. Employment, on the other hand, is a positive. He should shout 2,000,000 million new jobs from the rooftops and challenge those who dispute the quality of those jobs by saying "so, you would rather those people had no job rather than the perfect job?" </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">This election is the election for jobs. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </span></div>
<br />TheFatBigothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-85023347146626929252014-09-18T05:39:00.003+01:002016-06-14T05:23:09.690+01:00Yes, please, North Britain<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So the native and adopted Jockanese have a vote to decide on the fate of England. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I</span>t's all been rather interesting. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Most interesting of all has been the opportunity to hear coverage of the hustings on BBC radio. These days television for me is restricted to test cricket, a few football matches that seem like they could be of very high quality, the major golf tournaments and the occasional drama (but only if the cast is good and the name of the show indicates a likelihood of gory death). I have not watched television news for several years and restrict my radio listening to BBC 5 Live and Radio 4 (I will add the shameful part in parentheses, sometimes I listen to football commentary on Shout Sport which, for reasons that make no sense at all, calls itself Talk Sport). No doubt that has resulted in a somewhat skewed vision of the main arguments being fought-out in the streets of Scotland, but there it is. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Politics in Scotland seems rather different from politics in England. Ancient religious bigotries still dominate much of the discourse, with the obvious result that there is little discussion and an inordinate amount of certainty and bitter shouting from all sides on every issue. Part of the religious bigotry that seems to hold greater sway than the Protestant-Catholic divide is the position of Socialism as the religion of choice in North Britain. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">For someone who finds it difficult to accept theistic theories, it is even more difficult to understand the widespread belief the Scotch seem to have in the religion of Socialism. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Theism cannot be disproved by events, not least because its very nature makes it incapable of proof or disproof by reference to concrete fact. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Socialism, on the other hand, has been proved beyond doubt to be a political, social and economic system that results on every occasion it is applied in an accumulation of power and wealth to a self-appointed political elite, the repression of dissent by social ostracism and criminal laws aimed at thoughts rather than acts, the stifling of industrial innovation, systemic corruption in all public bodies, a consequent systemic inability for the poor to make themselves richer and the bankruptcy of the State. Every single State that has run itself on avowedly Soclialist lines is evidence of these appalling degradations of the human spirit. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The voters of Scotland have chosen their MPs and MSPs predominently from the hard left. It is hardly surprising that this is so. A country divided by religion just as profoundly as Northern Ireland is divided can only be united by a common cause that allows the Protestants and Catholics to find a common enemy. That enemy is the English. Labour and SNP politicians have espoused the English as the enemy for more than forty years and with that comes the need to define what it is about the English that should be despised. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Unlike their English fellow-travellers, the Scotch Socialists do not wage a class war. They cannot do so because class is not a Scottish phenomenon. There is no identifiable Scottish upper class to be blamed for the current condition of the poorest Scotch people. Instead they have to aim higher and argue that capitalism is the cause, English capitalism. English capitalism causes misery, English capitalism steals Scotch wealth, English capitalism deprives all Scotch people of opportunities, English capitalism deliberately keeps the Scotch suppressed in order to fill the bank vaults of a select few down in that London. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">From this position of racist hate-crime (they invented it, don't blame me for using the phrase), they argue that only a Socialist independent state of Scotland can deliver milk and honey to the poor down-trodden masses. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">If they vote No, the foolish "leaders" in Westminster have promised them powers that almost deliver the same as a vote of Yes. Save for one thing. The thing that is at the heart of any economic system that will ever have a chance of surviving and delivering a more comfortable life for the least wealthy people. And that thing is the threat of having to face the painful consequences of failure. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The man who, in his own words, saved the World - one Dr James Gordon Brown - decided that the little people should shoulder the losses caused by banks following his direction when they advanced too much money to people who could not pay their debts. By making those loans they increased GDP and made him look good for a while, but like any Ponzi scheme it could not last. The Bubble burst and he used future taxes to bail-out the banks when the banks did what he directed them to do and came a cropper. I say "future taxes" because he had no money in the vaults to hand to the bankrupt banks, instead he borrowed it - a massive debt that could only be paid from future tax revenue. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Now that same man has taken charge of the campaign to keep the Scotch in the UK. For once, probably the first and last time, I commend him for his consistency. He used future taxes to bail-out the banks and now he is promising future tax revenue to bail-out the Scotch when its Socialist government bankrupts it, as it will. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Within my ample stomach there is a rumbling discontent because there seems a greater chance of the Scotch voting No than Yes. Were they to vote Yes, the consequences of inevitable economic failure will lie at their door. Were they to vote No they will be given sufficient powers to introduce the bankrupting policies the Yes campaigners believe will lead to Nirvana and the English will have to bail them out. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There is hope. Dr James Gordon Brown is in charge and everything he has ever touched has turned to excrement. Perhaps it is too much to hope for that his intervention has not come too late and that he can still wield his magic sword of failure to guarantee a Yes vote. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Let them have their Socialist paradise, is what I say. Free England from the yoke, rid the House of Commons of 47 hard-left and 11-fairly-hard-left MPs. Let England have its chance. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I'm not hopeful because when push comes to shove a big change is a difficult thing for people to vote for. In fact I would be very surprised if the privacy of the voting booth, where loudmouthed lefties cannot hold the majority of attention, did not register a clear verdict in favour of continued subsidisation by England. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But I hope. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And I end as I started. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Yes, please, North Britain. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
TheFatBigothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-68867456484658300182013-11-17T06:17:00.000+00:002013-11-17T06:17:29.596+00:00The age of consent<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Apparently a barrister in a set of chambers known as Hardwicke (it used to be Hardwicke Building but decided to get trendy and have a single word title, perhaps paying pretend experts a lot of dosh for the idea) has suggested that the age of consent for sexual intercourse should be reduced to thirteen. On reading of her suggestion I cast my mind back more than forty years and tried to remember what happened in terms of jiggy-jiggy among my classmates. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It was not difficult to remember. There were the religious ones, saving themselves for the person their god has chosen for them. There were the demure ones for whom sexual activity was not appropriate at the time. There were the ugly (and usually spotty) ones who had no chance whatever they might have desired. And there were those who felt it right at the time to have a stab at it, or, as the case may be, receive a stab. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Names could be named because those who "did it" at the age of 13 were known to be doing so, but nothing would be served by giving the names. What matters is the truth of what was happening and why. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The why is really simple. They did it because they decided to do it. They knew it was against the law but they felt it was right for them at the time. I have no idea how many, if any, now regret those actions, what I do know is that those who did it were among the most self-assured and wordly-wise boys and girls in my year. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Needless to say I was in the ugly and spotty category and had to wait several years to learn the inadequacy of my sensual performance. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The barrister who spoke-out is called Barbara Hewson. You can read a little about her <a href="http://www.hardwicke.co.uk/people/hewson-barbara" target="_blank">here</a>. I know Barbara Hewson and I know Hardwicke very well. Barbara is not a crank she is a highly intelligent woman and thoroughly practical. She knows that teenagers will play the jiggy-jiggy game whether or not their parents or the law like it and suggests that it would be better for the law to reflect reality than for it to criminalise something that involves no abuse and will happen regardless of any outside influences intended to prevent it. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Naturally the BBC has <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22459815" target="_blank">swooped on</a> her expression of opinion and given tacit support to those who criticise it as a molesters' charter. No doubt they believe there is a host of dirty old men currently suppressing their urge to seduce thirteen year-olds who would lose all inhibitions were the age of consent reduced by three years. We have to be realistic, no doubt there are some in that position. Currently they fail with sixteen year-olds and will fancy their chances with younger prey. But why will they fancy their chances with younger prey? It seems to me there is only one answer, namely that younger girls or boys will have less strength to resist their "grooming". Since we have to be realistic it seems inevitable that this would be the case because that is how human being are. Yet it does not justify teenagers who in fact consent to sexual activity being subject to criminal prosecution simply because the law decrees their consent to be inoperative. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Perhaps studies have been conducted into the effect of previous reductions to the age of consent. If so it is tolerably clear they have not produced alarming results or they would have been all over the press and I cannot recall reading anything of the sort. In particular the age of consent for male homosexual activity has been reduced from twenty-one to eighteen and then to sixteen within the last fifty years, each proposed reduction being met by howls of indignation from those who predicted an epidemic of middle-aged men in dirty macs inviting impressionable young boys back to view their etchings. As far as I know nothing of the sort has happened, although it is inevitable that more approaches will have been made than before and that more will have succeeded, the numbers of such do not seem to have caused panic in the police so it might be reasonable to infer that no real problem arose. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I think it important not to be too flippant about this issue. It is easy to say that using the power of age to make a sexual conquest is not a problem because abuse of that power is a criminal offence and anyone doing so is liable to prosecution. That is the case but prosecuting such matters is difficult because everything usually happens between the participants with no external witnesses and the young complainant is, rightly, subject to cross-examination in court that he or she is usually less able to deal with than the older defendant. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Barbara Hewson raised a point that is a true dilemma. How do we de-criminalise genuinely consensual sexual conduct between young people and, at the same time, maintain protection against the exploitative dirty mac brigade, however large or small their brigade is? </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">That dilemma actually raises a a false dichotomy. Preventing the young from being exploited by older people is a matter of effective enforcement of the law whereas de-criminalising consensual activity is a matter of the law reflecting what actually happens and will always happen and, I would suggest, harms neither of the parties involved. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I do not believe there is a massive horde of dirty old men in dirty old macs just waiting for the age of consent to be lowered so they can realise their previously unfulfilled dream of a bit of teenage totty quivering beneath their flabby torsos. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Look, your old pervs fall into three categories. There are those, very few in number, who don't care about the law and try it on anytime they can, for them the age of consent is irrelevant. In reality they are of the same mind-set as the rapist. Then there are those who keep to the law and will try their luck with anything legal, for them the age of consent is important because it draws the line between legal and illegal. And there are those who just fancy someone regardless of age and law, for them it is an emotional matter of the connection they have (or think they have) with the object of their desires. The second and third categories would never force themselves on anyone although they might be a terrible nuisance. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">An age of consent is an arbitrary line. There is an argument - the argument made by Barbara Hewson - that it should reflect what young people do these days. That is the view to which I subscribe, although I know too little about young people today to say whether it should be sixteen, thirteen or lower. The threat of the dirty mac brigade falls away once one realises that they will only get some legal jiggy-jiggy with the consent of the other person. Indecent approaches will be made and some will succeed and leave the young recipient of their two inches slightly upset and very disappointed, against that must be weighed the young people who have sexual intercourse because they both want to. It is difficult to understand that their consensual activity should be a crime. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />TheFatBigothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-60761319685994164452013-09-25T07:06:00.000+01:002013-09-25T12:18:29.387+01:00Moronic Mess from Miliband the Millionaire Marxist <div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Those of us interested in matters political feel a strange compunction to listen to speeches uttered by those who might be in position to turn their desires into law. Today it was the turn of Miliband the Millionaire Marxist. Today he showed what commentators on the radio seemed to consider his true colours. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The speech itself was actually quite interesting with a sickly amalgam of sentimental sob stories, prices and income policies straight out of HG Wells' time machine, a novel variation on British Jobs for British Workers, proposals to nationalise land and wholescale criticism of the very policies he personally supported and put to the British people at the last two general elections (and some which he helped to create as a Labour Party policy advisor in the election of 2001). </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">How refreshing it would be to hear a senior politician say "We introduced a policy which didn't work, we took a lot of advice, considered it carefully and thought it would work but we were wrong. We are very sorry for our mistake and understand what you are entitled to doubt our judgment. Nonetheless we now put forward a different policy and ask you to consider it carefully". But no, for Miliband his previous policies are all the fault of the current government and he is and always has been right. This fundamental and transparent dishonesty is displayed by the leaders of both main parties, less so by the leader of the third party, but is shown in full measure by the leader of the fourth party (the current Deputy Prime Minister). One day they will realise people see through them and laugh at their inability to admit they make errors of judgment - we all do it, usually several times a day, and the absurdity of these superannuated oafs pretending to be different does them no favours. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">At the core of every one of Miliband's policy initiatives announced today is the belief that government has magical powers to influence the private sector economy for the good. Now it goes without saying that different people will have different ideas of what is "for the good", but my point is valid regardless of anyones opinions on that. You see, I ask what government can do and it is the answer to that question that explains why magic has nothing to do with it. The answer is obvious provided you start from the correct position. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The private sector comprises businesses providing goods and services (usually but not necessarily for profit). By definition these businesses incur costs in making their goods and services available and can continue in business only for so long as the selling price matches or exceeds all the costs (they can, of course, run at a loss for a while but will eventually have to fold when lines of financial support are exhausted). A business that makes a profit can do various things with it - retain profits for investment with a view to expanding the business, pay a dividend to investors and/or a bonus to staff, retain it to provide a cash buffer in case things turn south, give it to the Battersea Dogs' Home and more. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">From that starting point it becomes clear that the only things government policies can affect are costs, selling prices and profits. Don't get it wrong, don't think government can do anything that affects a business other than to influence costs, selling prices or profits. It cannot. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We had examples of policies intended to affect all three of these in Mr Miliband's speech. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Small businesses are to be taxed less. The idea is to reduce costs by reducing the amount of tax that must be paid as everyday overheads. He promotes this as a benefit being provided to small businesses by his government. It is nothing of the sort. He is proposing reducing an impediment to business that the current government, and the government of which he was previously a part, impose on business. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">He said this is a way to create more jobs. For once I agree with him. If you reduce the costs of business the prospect of profit is increased and, inevitably, so is the prospect of that business expanding and taking on additional staff. The same applies to all cost imposed by government as overheads - land taxes, employer's National Insurance contributions, VAT and countless regulations that require expenditure to be incurred (usually pointlessly) on monitoring compliance with random targets and standards that have no substance beyond the egotistical commands of single-issue bigots. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">For big businesses he wants to take more of their profits in tax. No reduction in costs for them, jobs that might be created by reducing the costs of big businesses are of no interest to him. To the Millionaire Marxist big business is just a cash cow, to be milked and punished to the fullest extent possible. How ironic it is that his plans require the big businesses he despises so much to make the largest profits possible. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Having said that, taxes that apply before sales are made increase the prices businesses have to charge to break even. An example I have given before is of a furniture manufacturer that spends £50 on raw materials and £50 on labour to create a table, leaving aside other overheads the table cannot be sold at £100 to achieve break-even. Because VAT at 20% will have to be added the sale price must be £120. There might not be a market at that level, although there might be at £105 or £110. If you get rid of VAT and tax profits instead the business has an increased chance of expanding and creating more jobs. Get rid of land tax (business rates) as well and and pre-sale costs fall further. I am all in favour of taxing profits and dispensing with all taxes that stress profit-margins. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Mr Miliband has put on the metaphorical hat he bought when supporting the policies of East Germany in his youth and decreed that electricity and gas prices will be frozen for 20 months if he becomes Prime Minister. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Give me strength. Government dictating sale prices of any goods or services is a truly desperate policy. Some of us are old enough to remember the prices-and-incomes policies that formed a cross-party consensus in the 1960s and 1970s. Lest anyone does not know how it operated, by law prices and incomes could only be increased by the maximum figure dictated by government. Yes, you read that correctly. No matter how much the cost of imported raw products increased, that increase could not be passed on to customers if it resulted in the finished product going up in price by more than the percentage the government decreed to be acceptable, the manufacturer had to bear the cost or go bust. No matter how much more profit a business earned in one year compared to the last, employees could not be given a pay rise greater than the percentage decreed by government. It was utterly mad. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yet Mr Miliband obviously thinks it wonderful because he wants to do it again. The first basis on which he sold it is entirely meritworthy, he claimed to want to keep energy costs down for the little people. So say all of us, except those who supported the appalling Climate Change Act 2008 that requires the cost of energy to rise again and again. Oh hang on a moment, the Climate Change Act was the only major piece of legislation piloted through the House of Commons by a certain Marxist Millionaire called Miliband when he was in government. No qualms about hitting the little people in the pocket then, so what has changed? If what has changed is that he has become an honest politician he would want to repeal all parts of his own legislation that increase cost for Mr & Mrs Ordinary, but no. He wants to punish energy companies because they make profits. It is no more sophisticated than that, as he admitted when giving the second reason for this proposed policy. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">He does not understand profit - he doesn't need to because he and his slimy brother inherited a fortune through careful tax avoidance and has oiled his way onto the political gravy train so there is no need for him to understand anything about anything other than his own self-interest. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The full consequences of freezing electricity and gas prices cannot be foreseen although some things are pretty obvious. Prices are likely to rise in advance of the freeze at least to counter 20-months of inflation, investment by the energy companies is likely to be reduced because they will have less money to invest and the pressure for crippling price rises once the freeze is lifted will be difficult to resist since 20 months of investment activity will have to be caught-up as soon as possible to try to keep the lights on. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Labour Party professes the desire to seek full employment. For decades their means of seeking this has been to increase tax and create public sector jobs of little or no value. Despite that unemployment has been higher at the end of every Labour government than at the beginning. The only realistic chance of increasing employment is by reducing government impediments to business - both taxes that increase day-to-day overheads and taxes that reduce the funds available for investment. You cannot expect a Millionaire Marxist to understand that, and poor Mr Miliband is no exception. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
TheFatBigothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-56725693817842869072012-08-06T05:39:00.002+01:002012-08-06T05:39:32.807+01:00Saturday with Sir Mo<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Saturday evening was rather good fun</span>. I went to a favourite local restaurant to watch the athletics because there seemed a decent chance it would be a good night for the Brits and best enjoyed in company. </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What was rather strange was that Miss Ennis's romp to triumph was met with smiles and a sense of inevitability, while Mr Rutherford's success in the leaping game caused an almost unanimous reaction of "never heard of him". By marked contrast Mr Farah's long trot captivated people from the start. The telly is in the bar area of a very large restaurant divided into a number of sections, a few minutes before the race started diners moved from their tables and crammed into the bar (I was eating at the bar - I've played this game before and guaranteed myself a prime seat). As he accelerated to victory over the last three laps the atmosphere was quite frenetic. Lots of "come-ons", "he's in control" and similar sentiments. When Mr Farah (or Sir Mo as he must surely become if he can nail the 5,000 metre race as well) made his final move at about 200 yards from the tape people were cheering and shouting and even I abandoned my normal reserve by applauding as he crossed the line. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There is something about running that excites people and there is something about Sir Mo that people like. It cannot just be his silky smooth running style or the fact that he sometimes wins the most important races. He does it all with a smile on his face and makes it clear to everyone how grateful he is for the support he receives, that cannot be it either because others do the same. Perhaps the secret to his popularity is that he came to this country as a youngster and was given a home free of the poverty, misery and violence that dominated his early years in Somalia. Not for him moans about discrimination and attachment to the cult of victimhood, he tells us all how lucky he feels and how welcome he has been made here. He is married to a pudgy white girl and has a pudgy brown daughter. He is just like a normal person with an engaging air of modesty about his extraordinary sporting achievements and we all enjoy someone like him being British and running for Britain. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The greatest thing is that his dietary advisor has the surname Fudge. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>TheFatBigothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-55093640179046446192012-07-31T06:41:00.001+01:002012-07-31T06:45:46.944+01:00An Olympic Fuss over Nothing<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I'm rather keen on a nice bit of sport and the Olympic games provide a nice bit of sport. Yesterday afternoon it was a real pleasure to follow the gentlemen's artistic gymnastics team event final and see our boys win bronze then silver then bronze. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Gymnastics is rather like athletics in that it can be understood by anyone. We all have experience of running and jumping and are able to look at these events from a perspective of personal knowledge (for those unfortunate few not in this boat the raspberry games will follow the real sport in a couple of weeks). That Louis Smith performing on the pommel horse bears no comparison to a short chubby schoolboy failing to do anything more than sit on one decades ago does not diminish my admiration for his efforts, indeed it is precisely why I admire them. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I hate swimming. It's the water. Gets up your nose. Very nasty and uncomfortable. But a smile crosses the full width of my flabby jowls when I see magnificent athletes splashing through the pool faster than I can drive to Morrisons, especially when they are like that lovely girl Rebecca Adlington who reacted to being third (rather than first as she was four years ago) with the broadest possible grin and recognition that she had achieved something very rare by winning an Olympic medal. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Unfortunately, exposure of the British public to the Olympic games is in the hands of the BBC so there is always an agenda lurking behind the coverage. Commenting on the sports while they are taking place gives little leeway for even the BBC to promote its editorial policy so gaps in and between events have to be utilised and they have done extraordinarily well in their "empty seats" campaign. It was evident in the first couple of days that a chunk of seats in prime locations were not occupied by spectators, this was most apparent during the qualifying competitions in gymnastics. It really looked very shabby and disrespectful both to the competitors and to those who had applied for tickets and been unsuccessful. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The BBC's editorial line was apparent from the off, big business had bought the seats for fat cats who were too busy eating babies to attend thereby depriving lesbian unpartnered mothers of what was rightly theirs. An enquiry was demanded. Of course when the enquiry took place it was discovered that the gaps were caused not by drunken indolence on the part of rich corporate sponsors but by members of the so-called "Olympic Family" not taking-up free tickets that had been made available for them. It's their official title, not a piss-take by me, certain people involved in Olympic sports are categorised by the International Olympic Committee as members of the "Olympic Family". Quite sickening. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">That seats are kept aside for those the organisers consider worthy of a free ticket does not rankle with me at all, it would be extraordinary and irrational if that didn't happen. A long-deceased comic drunk and wife-beater is reputed to have once asked the Queen whether she likes football. On her replying that she didn't he asked if he could have her tickets to the FA Cup Final. As far as I can recall the Queen hasn't attended the Cup Final for a very long time but there would be a seat available if she wanted to, just as seats were found for Princes William and Harry at the gymnastics yesterday afternoon. It is a relatively small extension of the same principle for seats to be left for those of importance in various national Olympic Committees. If they don't take the seats there will be gaps. It's not a tragedy, it's just a few empty seats. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Having gaps where big-wigs could be sitting has been a common feature of major sporting events for as long as I can remember. I've seen it in person at Wembley stadium, Wembley arena (the Empire Pool as it was known the first time I encountered the phenomenon), the Docklands Arena (which, I believe, no longer exists - it used to be opposite Asda on the Isle of Dogs) and even the Royal Albert Hall. </span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">This time a big mistake was made. </span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Having those seats placed immediately in front of the main television cameras covering an event is novel. Usually they are spread around the arena in little clumps or placed en masse behind the main cameras in order to avoid exactly the fuss over nothing that has so excited the BBC. Placing the non-existent big-wigs immediately in front of the cameras gives the impression of a stadium half-empty because only 15% of the crowd is accommodated within the main shot, when they switch to a camera showing the whole arena you see it packed to the gills and can hardly notice a little bald patch. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I am really enjoying watching supreme athletes competing at the very highest level and also enjoying those trail-blazers who have no hope of finishing their race before the winners have had time for a shower and a three course meal. Over the weekend the rowing events included a gentleman from Niger and a lady from Iran who trailed in long after their opponents and received justified rapturous applause for having the guts to turn up and do their best. They are a much better story for the BBC than a few empty seats. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />TheFatBigothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-12446042054792484432011-10-20T01:42:00.004+01:002011-10-20T03:53:15.548+01:00Let's not have a referendum<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:arial;">I suppose it should be mildly encouraging that the House of Commons is to debate and </span><span style="font-family:arial;">vote on whether there should be a referendum concerning the UK's membership of the European Union. The BBC informs me (<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15354203">here</a>) that what will be debated is whether a referendum should be held giving the great British public three choices: (i) remaining in the EU, (ii) withdrawing from the EU and (iii) staying in but renegotiating the terms "in order to create a new relationship based on trade and cooperation".<br /><br />My initial reaction was to wonder at the absurdity of offering three options. Nothing seems to be said about the proportion of votes required for any single option to be deemed the winner. Will it be more than one third or more than half? If the former it will lack legitimacy, if the latter it will set a very high hurdle for each option. 40% for staying in, 30% for withdrawal and 30% for renegotiation could be contrued as 70% for staying in but trying to change the unchangeable or as 60% for changing the status quo without any obligation on government to do anything about it. Either way it is completely unsatisfactory.<br /><br />My second reaction was to ask whether there is any difference between the first and third options and, indeed, between the second and third options.<br /><br />Staying in does not prevent renegotiation of the terms of membership, so option (iii) (if acted on by the government) merely adds a requirement to enter negotiations. What it cannot do is dictate the outcome of those negotiations because, by definition, negotiations only lead to a change if all parties to the discussion agree on a specific outcome. As I understand it an outcome in favour of option (iii) would not require the government to do anything, although it would be bad politics for them not to make at least a token gesture of trying to change the terms of EU membership. And even if they were constitutionally obliged to negotiate that would not guarantee any particular result.<br /><br />Leaving the EU cannot take place in a vacuum. The UK has numerous trade treaties with countries around the globe, absent such treaties practical business cannot be conducted and just those sorts of treaties will be required if we are to deal in a sensible manner with the remaining EU nations. Withdrawal from the EU necessarily requires new treaties to be negotiated with the new, slightly smaller, EU because country-by-country treaties with EU members are not an option - the EU as a conglomerate has control over such matters. In other words, withdrawal will require negotiation "in order to create a new relationship based on trade and cooperation" - so what of option (iii)?<br /><br />The terms proposed for a referendum look like a hopeless and confused committee-created fudge. A referendum on the terms proposed is likely to achieve only one thing, namely to kick the issue into the long grass for the foreseeable future. Only a straight in/out question is appropriate.<br /><br /></span><br /></div>TheFatBigothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-42741847166213892562011-09-30T03:32:00.002+01:002011-09-30T04:26:25.927+01:0080mph? Oh no, the planet is at risk.<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The government has suggested that the national maximum speed limit might be increased from 70 mph to 80 mph in two years' time, in the interim they propose a consultation exercise. Whether the outcome will be a change in the maximum permissible speed of motorcars on our roads is pretty much irrelevant to me. I have held an unblemished driving licence for decades and will not knowingly exceed a speed limit because I want it to remain unblemished. Consider me a boring prig if you will, but I prefer to live within the law whether or not I agree with it. <br /><br />Today on my way back from a hack around the golf course I heard an item on this issue on BBC Radio 5 (actually not so much of a hack, I went round in 78 gross on a par 72 course, something went wrong with my usual ineffectual sporting technique - I only throw this in because I'm very proud of it and will almost certainly never do it again). <br /><br />A number of statements issued by people and organisations involved in the motoring business were read and a few people were interviewed, including a former racing driver and the current Secretary of State for Transport. Some supported the proposal, some opposed it and some said it was necessary to investigate the likely consequences before changing the law. Fair enough. <br /><br />What was not fair enough was that almost all contributors, including the Secretary of State, said a relevant consideration was the effect of an increase in the maximum lawful speed of motor cars on British roads on the amount of carbon dioxide exuded into the atmosphere. <br /><br />It really is quite flabbergasting that the anti-carbon dioxide religion has taken hold to such an extent that a minor change in the law of England, Wales and (I believe) Northern Ireland should be thought to have a potential impact on emissions of CO2 that can be of relevance to the well-being of our planet and/or human life on our planet. <br /><br />The UK (including Scotland which is in charge of speed limits through its own so-called Parliament and is unaffected by the proposed change) produces less than 2% of all carbon dioxide spewed forth by human activity. Traffic on roads carrying a speed limit lower than 70 mph will not be affected by the proposal and not all those travelling on roads to which the national speed limit applies will drive faster and spew more CO2 as a result of the maximum permissible speed being 80 rather than 70. <br /><br />Against that background it is obvious beyond doubt that any additional CO2 coming from those cars that will be driven at higher speeds because of the proposed change will be such a small amount that it can make no difference to anything. It will be a small percentage (if, indeed it even reaches 1%) of the less than 2% of world emissions coming from the UK. <br /><br />You can close down all human activity in the UK and the result will not have any measurable effect on the climate. Even if we accept the very direst predictions of those who claim additional human-produced carbon dioxide will cause great changes to the climate and that those changes will be detrimental to human existence, the removal of the 2% currently produced by the UK cannot affect matters to a measurable degree because other countries (especially China and India) are increasing their emissions by far more every year. <br /><br />To take a proposal that might increase the UK's emissions by a tiny amount and seek to include that effect as a consideration that should affect the decision to accept or reject the proposal is, frankly, moronic. <br /><br /></span><br /></div>TheFatBigothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-37099020023435574352011-09-17T03:30:00.003+01:002011-09-17T06:44:39.007+01:00An Immigration Fraud<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Immigration is a curious issue in British politics. Twenty and more years ago it was a core issue about which senior politicians would debate vigorously on national television and gain headlines in newspapers. Today there is the occasional soundbite but nothing more than that. All parties say they will be strict on abuses of the system but put forward nothing other than generalisations about how they will do it. When the party in power changes, nothing of any real substance ever seems to change.<br /><br />In one important respect there is nothing any UK government can do because citizens of member States of the European Union have an almost unfettered right to come to this country. In another important respect there is nothing they should do because genuine refugees from the grimmer areas of human habitation must always be given a safe haven.<br /><br />The point of today's waffle is something called the Ankara Agreement (for a summary of the parts that matter for present purposes, see <a href="http://www.ergensharif.co.uk/AnkaraAgreement.aspx">here</a>). One provision of the agreement allows Turks to apply for permission to enter and work in the UK if they intend to establish a business and show they have the financial means to do so. It is important to understand that an applicant who meets the criteria will be given the right to come and work here, there is no residual discretion to refuse an application that ticks all the boxes. What is required of an applicant is the intention to set-up a business and the money necessary to do so. The whole thing is about allowing in entrepreneurs, joining an existing business or working for a new business set-up by someone else is outside the Agreement. One might think very few people would qualify.<br /><br />A whole industry has grown up around this aspect of the Ankara Agreement. There are firms of so-called immigration consultants who formulate applications for anyone who will pay them a fee.<br /><br />These firms have template business plans they print-out with little or no amendment for scores of applicants. It goes without saying that the applicants are almost exclusively young men. One business plan that has been doing the rounds is the establishment of a bicycle taxi service in the West End of London. This was devised by one of the consultancy firms and has formed the basis of applications for permission to stay in the UK by dozens of men who came initially on student visas. It should be no surprise to anyone with a smidgen of common sense that most of them were not genuine students at all, they were the nephews (or sons of friends) of Turkish people already settled here and came to be part of their established businesses. They signed on as students at a language college of greater or lesser repute and worked in the uncle's (or father's friend's) restaurant or shop and then wanted to find a way to stay here when the period of their student visa was due to expire. From the beginning they came here to work and establish a life rather than to study, the student visa was simply a means to an end.<br /><br />The Ankara Agreement is also treated as a means to an end. Recently I met a friend of a friend who used the bogus bicycle taxi business plan and was refused permission to stay because the judge saw through the scam. The applicant himself was disappointed but not surprised, he knew his intention was to continue working in his uncle's restaurant in the midlands and that he would rather smear his scrotum with toothpaste than operate a bicycle taxi. He knew the application was a scam, took his chance and lost.<br /><br />I know others who have been given leave to live and work here under the Ankara Agreement despite having no intention at all to set-up their own business. Some just want to live a western life rather than a repressive Islamic life, others simply want to avoid national service in the Turkish army, most want both.<br /><br />When discussing this topic with local Turks it is obvious that there is no desire to harm the UK behind the fraudulent applications that are made. There is no intention to scrounge benefits or to engage in criminal activity, the intention is simply to come here, work hard and make a life in the UK rather than in Turkey. A few days ago the excellent Mr Raedwald wrote about the Turks (<a href="http://raedwald.blogspot.com/2011/09/im-with-turks.html">here</a>), his piece encouraged me to write on the subject because his positive view of Turks is the same as mine.<br /><br />In the normal run of things I would be inclined to denounce systematic fraud of the type behind the hundreds of bogus applications made under the Ankara Agreement each year. I find it hard to denounce people who come here under student visas to see whether life here will suit them and, when they decide it will, want to find a way to remain so that they can earn an honest living. Of course there is a conflict between the honest lives they want to lead and the dishonest means they use to secure a right to remain here. It could be said that they do not want to lead honest lives at all because the lies told in their applications show them to be seriously dishonest. I understand that argument entirely and part of me agrees with it, the other part of me asks why people who want to work for a living should not be allowed to do so. Although their applications are fundamentally fraudulent they are not intended to harm anyone and, as far as I can tell, they do not harm anyone.<br /><br />Until a few weeks ago I had never heard of the Ankara Agreement. Since then I have been talking to a number of local Turks I have known for years, what they told me about the way the Ankara Agreement has been used for decades accorded exactly with the way it was used by people whose applications were recently allowed or refused and who allowed me to look at the paperwork. Some of it was quite astonishing, particularly the successful application of one man who applied on the basis he was planning to start a website design business when he has worked as a waiter in a Turkish restaurant since he came here two years ago and still does the same job today. He just wanted to stay here and continue his life here, the alternative was at least a year in the army followed by starting from scratch. He was lucky, his bogus application succeeded. Frankly, this country is better for having him here because he is good at what he does and benefits the business that pays him. It sould surprise no one that a Turkish restaurant keeps its customers happier by having good Turkish waiters rather than employing Wayne or Jermaine, why should there be any obstruction to a good Turkish waiter living here so that he can provide that service?<br /><br />The Ankara Agreement induces fraudulent applications because it establishes an avenue for people from one culture to live a new life in a more appealing culture. Indeed, so appealing is the new culture that a whole business has developed around finding ways to use the opportunity provided by the Agreement. It is a massive fraud.<br /><br />A better course would be to allow everyone in provided they pay their way - no benefits, no right to housing, no hand-outs. Earn your way or go home. The young Turks wouldn't be going home in a hurry.<br /><br /></span><br /></div>TheFatBigothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-61347639716885206062011-09-03T03:56:00.003+01:002011-09-04T06:45:33.377+01:00Tobacco companies and open goals<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Eid Mubarak.
<br />
<br />That is the traditional greeting given at the end of Ramadan, despite having lived in an area with a substantial Turkish population for more years than I have lived anywhere else I only learned that this week. Saying it elicits the same smiley response as Merry Christmas in the middle weeks of December. Now that Ramadan is over I no longer have to abide by the dietary strictures I imposed upon myself a month ago, so tofu and cauliflower need be avoided only on the ground of their venal characteristics and not for any other reason.
<br />
<br />Talking of venal characteristics, on Thursday I made the mistake of turning on the radio on my way to golf and was assaulted by an absurd anti-smoking zealot spouting forth on the Victoria Darbyshire show on BBC Radio 5. His name was Professor Gerard Hastings. The good Mr Puddlecote knows more about him than I do and has posted (<a href="http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.com/2011/09/vindication-in-one-day-and-indirect.html">here</a>) on the very subject that lies behind today's missive.
<br />
<br />I can summarise the background quickly. Professor Hastings leads a department at the University of Sterling (an establishment with a fine reputation he is doing his best to destroy). That department is funded by taxpayers and has the remit to identify every possible fact or inference that can possibly be used to argue against the consumption of tobacco products. One of his latest wheezes was a survey of teenagers with the view to ascertaining their opinions of smoking tobacco and the factors that influenced them or might influence them into taking up that particular hobby. The survey, as I understand it, comprised asking a series of questions and recording the answers.
<br />
<br />If that is all that had been done, one might ask why it was done, but of course it is not all that was done. Once the answers were received they were "interpreted" by Professor Hastings and his merry men and conclusions were drawn. Conclusions which he is proud to contribute to public debate on the issue of what, if anything, government should add to its current panoply of anti-smoking legislation and regulation. I put it in those terms very deliberately because there is no possibility at all of Professor Hastings reaching any conclusion suggesting that anti-smoking laws or regulations should be relaxed in any way. He is paid specifically to find fault, something he is very happy to do and is perfectly entitled to do provided he does so honestly and is prepared to justify his position. His interview on the radio suggested that one result of his so-called research supported the argument for plain packaging for cigarettes - I know not what other contentions it contained but this is the one he pressed to Miss Darbyshire.
<br />
<br />A tobacco company, which uses the trading name Philip Morris, asked for details of the facts behind the conclusions/inferences drawn by Professor Hastings and his team. The request was, of course, made to the University not to the Professor himself so I cannot ascribe the patently unlawful refusal to give any information to him, nonetheless he was keen to associate himself with it on national radio.
<br />
<br />On this occasion the BBC also allowed time for Philip Morris to give its side of the story, and it is this that is the substance of my ramblings. A woman, whose name I cannot recall, answered the more absurd points put forward by the Professor. For example, he said the survey was conducted on the basis that the answers would be strictly confidential and that this means the answers could not be disclosed. Being a man with a fine title but no common sense, he failed to realise just how stupid a point he was making. If the answers could not be disclosed he could not publish any conclusions drawn from them because, by doing so, he was disclosing the answers. That might not be quite as stupid as his argument that his University should not have to disclose the findings of fact on which his "research" was based because it is just a university yet Philip Morris employs tens of thousands of people around the globe. Quite what that has to do with the Freedom of Information Act is beyond me. Were I a professor maybe I would understand, as things are it sounds like illogical nonsense.
<br />
<br />Now, back to the Philip Morris woman. When asked to justify her company's request for the data behind Professor Hastings' tendentious conclusions she warbled on about a need to know "the basis of the research". This was Radio 5 in the morning. The audience could not reasonably be expected to know ins-and-outs of the way anti-tobacco "research" operates or, indeed, of how proper scientific research operates, still less can they be expected to know the heavily-nuanced phrase "the basis of the research". The good Professor provided her with the killer point but she did not grasp it and undermine his credibility as she should.
<br />
<br />Professor Hastings wants all employees of Philip Morris to lose their jobs, he wants the company closed, he wants its business to cease to exist. He said as much when Miss Darbyshire prompted him to do so.
<br />
<br />The Philip Morris lady's best point was to assert that her company's business is lawful, employs tens of thousands of people (some thing the Professor seems to consider an evil), contributes vast quantities of tax to the Treasury and is entitled to protect its business against unfounded attacks. So, if it is attacked, it is entitled to ask whether the attack is well-founded or not. The purpose of the request for disclosure of the data behind Professor Hastings' conclusions can only be to see whether it supports the conclusions he asserts. If it does, it does; if it doesn't it doesn't. No one can know unless they are able to see the data and analyse it for themselves. She didn't get within spitting distance of making this obvious and decisive point. It is a point that knocks all of Professor Hastings' smug self-justification into a cocked-hat.
<br />
<br />Professor Hastings "research" led to the assertion of conclusions designed to damage Philip Morris's lawful business and put all its employees out of work. Given that this might be the result of his conclusions being adopted in legislation, Philip Morris is entitled to ask whether his conclusions are sound. That can only be known by seeing the factual evidence from which he drew inferences. He can assert until the trump of doom that his conclusions are well-founded but no sensible person should be expected to accept that merely on the basis of his assertion. Unless the raw material from which he draws inferences is disclosed, he is asking for Philip Morris's business to be damaged purely because of his subjective interpretation of material no one else can examine.
<br />
<br />Were we lucky enough to have independent-minded people of substance in Parliament, his conclusions could be challenged there. Instead we have far too many MPs who are constantly asking whether what they do will damage their hopes of re-election or advancement within their party. Going against current accepted wisdom can damage both, so they chicken out regardless of their personal views.
<br />
<br />I do not know whether the Freedom of Information Act allows Philip Morris access to the anonymised answers given to Professor Hastings and his team (and Mr Puddlecote is wrong in suggesting that the Scottish Information Commissioner ruled that it has such a right, he ruled that the University must either disclose the information or give a good reason under the Act why it should not do so). Whether the Act does or does not allow access to the information deflects attention from the real issue. The real issue is whether a lawful business should be damaged because someone - in this case Professor Hastings - asserts that information he refuses to disclose supports the doing of harm to that business.
<br />
<br />In the real world occupied by fair-minded people, substantiated reasons are required before government harms a lawful business. Fairness requires businesses to be able to ask why government proposes to do them harm. To rely on nothing more than the word of a fanatical academic whose salary and department are dependent on him giving the answers government wants to hear is to replace fairness with random bigotry.
<br />
<br />It really is time the tobacco companies fought back and pointed out that a lot of people, something over one-fifth of the adult population of this country, choose to consume tobacco products and pay blistering amounts of tax for the privilege. Narrow-minded, bullying bigots might try to stop them by producing skewed analyses of data that is statistically insignificant in any event. Professor Hastings could fall into this category, he certainly doesn't approach the subject with an open mind as he admitted freely to the dozens of people listening to his irrational rantings on Thursday morning.
<br />
<br />People like him are an open goal for any tobacco company with guts. Maybe the prevailing narrative is that smoking is an unmitigated evil with nothing in its favour, it certainly seems to be so from my perspective here at FatBigot Towers. When a prevailing narrative is based on a fundamental flaw, it takes someone with guts to stand up and say "hold on a minute, is that right?". It is an Emperor's new clothes scenario. Tobacco companies can afford guts and they can afford to face-down those who seek to attack their lawful business by publishing conclusions that are unsound. I know not whether Professor Hastings' conclusions are unsound, what I do know is that he cannot be trusted to be objective.
<br />
<br />We cannot expect poor quality MPs to investigate whether his conclusions are correct, and nor should we. He is attacking lawful businesses who should fight their own corner. The first step in doing so is to put forward spokespeople on national broadcasts who avoid quasi-scientific jargon and get to the point.
<br />
<br />This is an issue on which there is a chance of common sense replacing bigoted dogma. If the tobacco companies cannot grasp the lifeline provided by the truth we might well be destined to a future of having to accept falsehoods because they are "officially" decreed to be the truth.
<br />
<br />
<br /></span></div>TheFatBigothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-51607179971528192072011-08-04T04:32:00.002+01:002011-08-04T06:20:27.070+01:00Nationalise money - problem solved<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;">I pity the governments of Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain (the PIIGS). They are doing their best to keep the wolf from the door but at every turn private investors pose impertinent questions and scupper their initiatives. <br /><br />The truth is really very simple (what follows is a distillation of many research papers helpfully collected together - <a href="http://atoryblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/silly-week-2011.html">here</a> - by a fellow blogger). <br /><br />Governments print money. If they run short, perhaps because of the additional overtime paid to equality and diversity SWAT teams whenever a duskily hewed homosexualite has been refused promotion, all they need do is print another few million and the problem is solved. Or, to be exact, it would be solved if it weren't for those pesky private sector investors complaining that the additional tenners swishing through the system dilute the value of their cash reserves. And why would the problem be solved? Why does the printing of more ten pound notes not cause problems to anyone other than conspiratorial facist investors? For the answer to that question we need a short lesson in very modern economic history. <br /><br />You see, it's Gordon Brown. He understood and we should all learn at his feet. More government spending means more economic activity. More economic activity is good, therefore more government spending is good. Got a town that's looking a bit crummy? Simple. Print 20 million tenners and spend them in that town building skate parks, healthy eating clinics and climate awareness centres, then print another 20 million to pay salaries. A crummy town? Not any more it isn't. It has skate parks, healthy eating clinics and climate awareness centres, it has a thousand people on good salaries manning these essential front-line public services. Misery has turned to universal joy and happiness. Crummytown is renamed Brownsville and all is right with the world. We know all this to be true because this was the basis of the economic miracle forged by Gordon Brown in his decade in the Treasury. <br /><br />Only one group ever argued against Mr Brown as he stood triumphant before the World. That group was people and companies who forced Mr Brown to borrow money from them rather than just continually print more on the old hand platen that has been in the back bedroom at 11 Downing Street since 1805 (it proved a little inconvenient while the Blair family lived at Number 11 but Brown had a key and he was delighted to find the printing press was in the boys' bedroom). <br /><br />One might think he should have just printed more, however that was fraught with political difficulties. If Gordon Brown is one thing, he is a man of the big tent. Not for him the marginalising or exclusion of any group, least of all those who might complain that he was acting out of small-minded, party-political spite. He simply had to keep the international financiers happy, to do otherwise would strike at the essential core of inclusive humanity that defines his moral compass. Much though he hated to do so, he knew his duty - that duty was to borrow hundreds of billions on the money markets in order to prove his fair-mindedness. It wasn't a problem because he only needed to spend a few more hours with the plates and ink in the back bedroom, a task that could be undertaken at any time once the usurous financiers had been repaid. <br /><br />To complete this short history I must refer to what some have called "Brown's Bunker". The theory goes that Gordon Brown surrounded himself with a small group of yes-men, working out of one room at Number 10, insulated from and antipathetic to any voices of disagreement. Papers recently disclosed by an impeccable source prove beyond doubt that the only bunker in Downing Street during the Brown years was that specially created to house the enormous printing presses and stocks of "paper" required for Gordon to stimulate the economy after the wicked international bankers had made such a mess of their businesses they had to be bailed-out. <br /><br />What cannot be ignored is that Gordon Brown's economic miracle would have continued unabated, and he would now be President for Life, were it not for the nasty private sector pretending its money was as pure as that produced in Downing Street. He was a victim of his own fairness and honesty because he could not bear the thought of a single banker's child losing their pony or being deprived of lacrosse coaching. In the circumstances of the time he was, of course, absolutely right, as he remains on every topic to this day. Nonetheless, his fairness created a bit of a pickle - a pickle for which he is not in any way to blame, we know this because he tells us so every time he is paid many thousands of pounds to give a speech. <br /><br />It will be a matter of great regret until my dying day that the general election of 2010 came just before Gordon Brown had the chance to put into effect the final piece of his masterly jigsaw. Having, he thought, proved that all economic ills are caused by private sector businesses, the time was ripe for nationalisation of the funds held by these wicked shysters. No need for printing presses, a simple CHAPS transfer to HM Treasury would do the trick. There would no longer be any private sector investors involved in the UK economy, everything would be under the benevolent hand of the greatest economist the World has ever known - the man who knew that every hitch could be overcome by creating more bank notes. <br /><br />All across the Eurozone we now see the greatness of his wisdom. Why is Greece in a mess? It's simple, private financiers are demanding repayment of their investments with interest. What an utterly absurd state of affairs it is. All Greece need do is nationalise the money it has been lent and its problems will be over. It will owe nothing. The slate will be wiped clean. What's more, it could then turn on the printing presses and boost its economy just as Gordon Brown did to the UK economy from 2003-7. So too for the rest of the PIIGS. They are foreigners so they would face no moral impediment as Mr Brown had with the bankers. <br /><br />A country's credit rating cannot be downgraded if it never borrows, even more so if there are no credit rating agencies and there would not be once the vital step to economic harmony and perpetual glee was put in place. Mr Brown understood this. All you need do is nationalise all money and the problems not just of the PIIGS but also of every nation would disappear at a stroke. <br /><br /></span><br /></div>TheFatBigothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-33178850936867247952011-07-29T05:18:00.002+01:002011-07-29T06:53:33.521+01:00A pincer movement of sheer lunacy - Part II<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;">In Part I (<a href="http://thefatbigot.blogspot.com/2011/07/pincer-movement-of-sheer-lunacy-part-i.html">here</a>) I bemoaned the absurd overreaction by the professionally smug to the non-news that newspapers buy information obtained by illegal phone tapping. A week has now passed since a Parliamentary committee manned by incompetent cross-examiners conducted a kangaroo court trial of three people connected to a particular newspaper and failed to pin a tail anywhere near the donkey's anus. The only public outcry of which I am aware concerns the distasteful bugging (tapping, hacking, call it what you will) of telephonic communications involving the families of deceased people. Reprehensible though I consider such activity to be, there is no evidence that disclosure of any improperly obtained material has caused inconvenience, embarrassment or upset to any family members. In short the whole thing is a bit of a non-issue over which politicians - sniffing the chance to pass laws preventing their own sordid secrets being exposed - have whipped themselves into an unnecessary lather. <br /><br />Part II is about the apparent intent of all our main political parties to make electricity oppressively expensive. I am not going to rehearse the unanswerable arguments against reliance on generating electricity from wind and waves, nor am I going to rail against those in rabid servility to every scare story promoted by those whose financial position rests on acceptance of the catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis. My concern is with something much more basic and, in my view, important. <br /><br />As recently as twenty years ago I doubt many would have argued with the proposition that elected politicians in the UK had one duty above all other - to do what they considered to be in the best interests of the people they represent. Of course there can be honest disagreements about what is in the best interests of the little people but the focus of the exercise was unaltered by the outcome of the debate. MPs were in parliament to represent their constituents by acting in what they considered the best interests of their constituents. On local issues they would fight for what they felt was best for the constituency, on national and international issues they would broaden their remit to cover all the people living in the UK because the interests of their constituents were the same as the interests of every other person in the country. <br /><br />Is it in the best interests of those living in a particular constituency and those living in all constituencies for electricity to be cheap or expensive? To my mind that is not a difficult question and should permit only one answer. Cheaper electricity eases pressure on household budgets and reduces the costs of doing business, as such it is a blindingly obvious desire for any right-thinking person whether or not he is a Member of Parliament. More expensive electricity hits the poorest hardest and hampers our businesses in their aim of selling goods and services to overseas customers. It takes a weirdly warped sense of priorities for any MP to promote a policy that impoverishes his own constituents and the country as a whole. <br /><br />We all know why they continually pass laws making electricity ever more expensive. In part it is because they have fallen for the great global warming scam. In part it is because they hope it will bring in additional tax. In part it is because they want to set a pointless example to other countries in which politicians are not so craven to Saint Al of Gore and his distinctly unmerry fellow-travellers. In part it is because they have fallen for the "green jobs" scam. In part it is because they are scared of the party whips. In part it is because they think there might be votes in presenting themselves as "green". All these things explain why they support a particular line of policy, but none justifies voting for measures that hurt their constituents and damage the economy of the whole country. <br /><br />Never let it be said I will miss an opportunity to state the obvious, and today is no exception. The reason we in the UK enjoy our current standard of living is that we have found ways of making physical comfort cheaper than it was before. Human beings have always been doing this and over the last two hundred years or so we have done it so successfully that we now measure material deprivation in the UK not in terms of basic housing, food and clean water but in terms of access to the internet, holidays and mobile telephones. Material comforts that are now taken for granted and deemed essential to subsistence living were either science fiction or oppressively expensive as recently as forty years ago. This happy state of affairs has been brought about by the amazing ability of human beings to invent new things and improve old things so that a luxury lifestyle of the 1950s is attainable on the minimum wage in 2011. <br /><br />At the heart of all this improvement in the quality of everyday physical comfort is electricity. The cheaper it is, the better we all live. And do not ever forget that those earning good money will always be able to afford comfort, what really matters is allowing those of modest means the ability to get more comfort for their limited money. That is a fundamental part of the duty of MPs to act in the best interests of their constituents and of the country as a whole. However tempting it might be to satisfy international or party agendas, their duty is to their constituents and to the UK. Electricity costs are at the heart of all our lives, especially those of modest means, and any MP with his or her eye on the ball should be fighting against any government measure that increases its price. <br /><br /></span><br /></div>TheFatBigothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-85095532427451260212011-07-28T01:25:00.004+01:002011-07-28T05:00:41.199+01:00A pointless Olympic junket<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Apparently the start of the Olympic Games in London is now just a year away. Tickets have been sold and many eager sports fans left disappointed by not being able to gain access to even a first qualifying round of an obscure event. The very nature of an Olympic Games means that promotion, advertising and encouragement to either watch or participate are wholly unnecessary. Many more than the number that can be admitted to watch have applied for tickets already and all those with a realistic chance of competing have been well aware of next year's event for years. <br /><br />For some reason the prior anniversary of the start of the event has been deemed an appropriate reason to spend millions of pounds on promotional events around the world. The BBC reports (<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14309651">here</a>) that yesterday London was subject to a rally in Trafalgar Square at which the head of the International Olympic Committee invited competitors to London and the design of the medals was unveiled, the Olympic swimming pool was opened and both the Mayor of London and the Prime Minister made speeches saying what a jolly good games London will host. And (<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14290323">here</a>) it reports that promotional events were hosted at British tax payers' expense at "nearly 100" foreign venues "to encourage visitors, businesses, students and sports people to get involved". <br /><br />Has there ever been a more fatuous waste of money? I know the competition is stiff but this really does stand out as a piss-up-wall venture of heroic proportions. It's the bloody Olympic games for crying out loud. No one needs encouragement to visit London during the games, or to use it as an advertising medium (which is its only relvance to businesses) and absolutely no sports people are unaware that the Olympics come round every four years wherever they are held. As for students - what on earth have they got to do with the price of fish? I can't help thinking that these events exemplify three worrying phenomena. <br /><br />First, we have domestic politicians lending their names and time (and our taxes) to an occasion of no relevance to anything domestic other than the standing of those same politicians. Had there been no rally in Trafalgar Square, no formal unveiling of medals and no formal opening of the swimming pool the games would happen next year just the same. As it is, events were organised. That gave a fine opportunity for politicians to divert from their selfless path of public service in order to be there and look good in front of the cameras of the world. They had the option of doing something useful instead and allowing the IOC to spend its own money promoting its own event without assistance from the UK tax-payer. Sadly, there are few votes and no fame to be gained by staying in the office and getting on with work. <br /><br />Secondly, we have an unaccountable supra-national organisation flying a delegation into town and being treated like visiting heads of state. Why? The games will be held here next year and never again in my lifetime or the lifetime of anyone involved in the IOC. The venues will either be ready or they will not, the medals will either be pleasing to the eye or they will not, new rail and bus routes will either prove efficient or they will not, security measures will either prevent bombs being planted and/or detonated or they will not, visitors will either find hotels in their price range or they will not, everything else involved with the games will either work well or it will not, a visit by delegates of the IOC will make no difference to anything. All that will be achieved is the reinforcement of the concept that such people are special and are due special treatment. That, in turn, reinforces their unaccountability and the prospect of corruption. <br /><br />Thirdly, we have an enormous waste of money with no one in power questioning a penny of the expense. It's only a few thousand, a few hundred thousand or a few million; chicken feed in the scale of government spending so it doesn't matter. To me it matters an awful lot. There are countless examples of local and national government throwing money at events of no value simply because the sum involved is minuscule compared to the total budget. I really don't care whether the total of all such sums would make a significant dent in the overall budget because they are a waste of money and should not happen regardless of their overall effect on a balance sheet. <br /><br />I find myself asking why the Olympic Games is not treated like any other commercial venture. Be in no doubt, for the IOC it is a commercial venture just as the football World Cup is a commercial venture for Fifa. Those organisations rake in millions for their own use (and that of their officials) regardless of how much they then distribute to national sports associations. They operate like the EU. What comes first is the organisation at the top, everything lower down the pyramid of power is beholden to the, always unaccountable, Politburo. <br /><br />In principle national governments are not beholden in the same way because they are not dependent on finance from the supra-national body, however the "ahem" in the woodpile is politicians. Politicians want votes and think, probably correctly, that associating themselves with those in charge of major sporting events is likely to gain more votes than it will lose. The unfortunate downside is that bribes have to be paid. I don't mean brown envelopes stuffed with folding cash (not in this country, anyway), what I mean is spending tax-payers' money to keep the international bureaucrats comfortable and to put on events that make them happy so they will heap praise on the hospitality given to and the respect paid by the Prime Minister to the august body they represent. There is no benefit to the people of the host country, all benefits land safely on the plates of the international bureaucrats and the domestic politicians who laud them. <br /><br />The result is ever more power and influence being exercised by supranational sporting bodies. For so long as a national government wishes to gain prestige by securing the right to host a major sporting event it must butter-up the small coterie of bureaucrats at the top of the organising body. It would make economic sense for the Olympics to have a permanent venue because country after country that has spent many millions on stadia has found little demand for those facilities once the games ended. Well well, what a surprise. Were there a domestic demand for such facilities they would have been built and then paid for by the fees charged to the people who use them. As it is Olympic stadia for numerous sports are built in a closely defined geographical area which has never before witnessed any demand for such facilities. <br /><br />Giving the Olympics a permanent home would remove the scope for the supranational body to exert influence, receive favours and bestow honour on incumbent politicians. That is why it will never happen. <br /><br /></span><br /></div>TheFatBigothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-87663975118913145382011-07-23T06:21:00.002+01:002011-07-23T06:26:00.158+01:00Michael Gove plays with his organ<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Looks like Michael Gove to me. <br /><br />Bloody good playing anyway. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWClq1Pr7hM">Here</a>.<br /><br /><br /></span></div>TheFatBigothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-49871049429006958032011-07-15T00:26:00.005+01:002011-07-15T04:53:14.304+01:00A pincer movement of sheer lunacy - Part I<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;">In the curry house yesterday I was asked whether I had been out in the sun, apparently my forehead was bright red and deeply blistered. The reason is not exposure to sunlight, it is relentless frustration with the stupidity of current political debate that has caused the vigorous and repeated application of palm to head. At the moment our Parliament seems to be dominated by two topics - the activities of the press and the government's desire to make electricity prohibitively expensive. Both subjects seem to have a magical power over MPs such that they spout complete and total nonsense without any comprehension of the lack of common sense behind their analyses. I'll deal with the press today. <br /><br />The basis of Parliamentary hysteria seems to be the "revelation" that a tabloid newspaper published information gleaned from illegal phone taps and computer hacks. Well, well, what a surprise, who'd have thought any such thing has occurred in this country? Everyone, that's who. Another, secondary, "revelation" is that journalists paid money in return for information the law requires to be kept confidential. Well, well, what a surprise, who'd have thought such a thing has occured in this country? Everyone, that's who. <br /><br />There is only one sensible reaction to these "revelations". It is to get the police to investigate the matter and charge anyone against whom there is sufficient evidence. The activities complained of are already illegal under our law so there is no need for any more laws. The one and only thing that should be done is to enforce existing law. <br /><br />Instead a Court of Appeal Judge is going to be kept out of court for a year or more so that he can conduct an inquiry which will be called a whitewash if he says current laws are fine and a witch hunt if he says new laws should be passed. <br /><br />In Parliament we have witnessed the unedifying spectacle of buckets of sanctimonious hogwash being sprayed around by hundreds of MPs, each trying to out-outrage the previous speaker with the level of their ignorant and hypocritical humbug. <br /><br />Everyone with a brain larger than a pea knows newspapers act in underhand and, sometimes, unlawful ways to get attention-grabbing information they can plaster across their front pages. They all do it. Locals, nationals, broadsheets, tabloids - they all do it. <br /><br />How do you think the Yokel Local Chronicle learned about the intention of Big Supermarket PLC to buy farmer Giles's front field for a new shop? It's obvious, someone working for the company leaked the news, probably in return for a fee or favour. In that instance the person working for the supermarket company broke the terms of his contract of employment and risked summary dismissal. He had to balance the benefit he gained against the risk of losing his job. The newspaper knew he was breaching his contract but also knew there was no realistic chance of being sued, so it published anyway in order to have a good headline, a reputation for having it's finger on the local pulse and the chance of greater circulation in future and higher advertising revenues. The only question that would trouble the editor is whether the information was true. <br /><br />Paying for information obtained in other unlawful ways is different only in degree from paying for leaked confidential information about the intentions of a supermarket chain. The degree might be higher or lower, but the substance is the same each time. That some information results from activities that amount to criminal offences and other "feeds" involve a breach of contract but not a crime is a distinction without a difference in this field. We have laws against this sort of activity. Those laws provide a penalty for anyone proved to have breached them. There is one reason and one reason only why those laws were broken - the people breaking them considered the benefit of the breach to outweigh the risk of being caught and/or the penalty for being caught and pursued to judgment. Making the activity doubly unlawful will not change this because it is a matter of human nature rather than of law. <br /><br />Increasing the penalty can make a big difference to how people behave but it brings up a wholly different matter that makes serious penalties impossible. How does phone tapping or hacking emails compare to burglary, or stabbing someone or holding-up a bank with a shotgun? Obviously infringements of privacy are not in the same league, so what maximum penalty can be justified without the law becoming absurd? There is no certain answer to that question although the general answer is that the maximum penalty, and the penalty actually imposed in any particular case, is unlikely ever to be so severe that it would deter those offered a chunky financial inducement. <br /><br />Members of Parliament can huff and puff all they want about how morally reprehensible it is to tap the phones of the families of deceased soldiers and victims of crime. I doubt that there are many in the country who have not huffed and puffed in disgust. Nothing MPs say and no amount of hot air they expel can change anything. Newspapers will still use whatever means they can get away with to obtain the information they think their readers want to read, because more readers means more advertisers and that is where the money is. <br /><br />A theme that ran through contributions in the debate in the House of Commons was a call for regulation not just of how newspapers obtain information but of what they publish. This deserves to result in blistered foreheads across the nation. Do these people really think the interests of the people of this country as a whole are best served by newspapers being constricted in what they are permitted to print and how in buggery do they think such restrictions can be imposed? <br /><br />Only two restrictions can ever be justified. First, they should not publish things that are untrue. The law covers that already (albeit imperfectly) through the law of libel. Secondly, they should not publish anything that causes them to lose business. This is nothing to do with the law, it is all about the little people voting with their feet. Editorial judgment must be exercised to decide whether a story will be good or bad for circulation. If it will be bad it should not be published, if good it should be published, if it appears good but turns out to be bad the paper can look for a new editor. No other restrictions can have any justification under any circumstances. I hear you cry: what about kiddy porn? Simple, advertisers will disappear overnight, only a few pathetic dribblers will buy the paper, the publisher and numerous editorial staff will face lengthy time behind bars and next week there will be no newspaper. <br /><br />The very suggestion that there should be any sort of State control over the content of newspapers other than the law of libel is so absurd as to be obscene. Some might suggest it is part of a plot by politicians to protect themselves from criticism, I do not agree. I believe it to be nothing other than an irrational knee-jerk reaction to extremely distasteful newspaper activities that have been exposed recently. The politicians want to be heard expressing disgust so they can have their local paper report they have stood up to be counted. OK, fine, let them say it and get their favourable editorial, then they can return to the real world and acknowledge that what was done was unlawful so no new law is needed and that any attempt to censor the press is bound to fail. <br /><br />The question they are really addressing is this: should Parliament legislate to prevent publication of the truth? Sadly, they do not seem to be willing or able to understand that this is what they are doing. In any event, how can Parliament legislate to prevent publication of the truth? The key here is "prevent publication". How can Parliament - which can only do anything through the laws it passes - prevent someone doing something? As the law now stands there are penalties for doing naughty things once you have done them, and only then if you are caught and there is sufficient evidence to prove you did them. It is the risk of penalty that is preventative. Short of physical restraint, all the law can do is threaten a penalty in the hope the threat will prevent naughtiness. <br /><br />So, how do you prevent the truth being told? The simple answer is that you cannot, all you can do is pass laws imposing penalties for telling the truth and therein lies the fundamental flaw in all the guff spouted in Parliament. They can moan about invasions of privacy and the extreme distastefulness of some of those invasions until they are any colour in the face they choose, but they cannot produce a rational argument for the truth being suppressed. If that truth is not to the taste of a newspaper's readership there is a risk to advertising revenue, if it is to their taste the till will ring triumphantly. The little people will vote with their £1 coins. Parliament is an utter irrelevance on this issue. Honourable members should shut up and keep their fingers crossed that their peccadillos remain below the radar. <br /><br /></span><br /></div>TheFatBigothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-69450944504458999582011-06-28T02:24:00.004+01:002011-06-28T05:13:11.102+01:00What is justice?<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:arial;">A nasty fat scrote was convicted last week of the murder of a thirteen year-old girl by the name of Amanda "Milly" Dowler (<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-13875507">here</a>). Her murderer, as he was eventually proved to be, pleaded "not guilty" when put on trial so the forensic process that has developed over centuries was put in train. English law, as it stands at present, requires the prosecution to prove the guilt of an accused person beyond reasonable doubt and has a complex system of procedural rules to try to ensure that no innocent person will be convicted of a crime. Only a fool would suggest that the system is perfect, nonetheless it is as it is as a result of thousands of minor adjustments over hundreds of years. Further adjustments will be made as time passes, I can only hope they all bear in mind the overriding consideration that the innocent should not be convicted.<br /><br />The procedural rules cover four main areas. First, there are requirements for the police to conduct their investigation subject to certain limits, for example questioning suspects must not involve oppressive actions. Secondly there are limits to what can be put before a jury - this is the law of evidence that, for example, allows hearsay evidence only in certain circumstances. Thirdly there are limits to how a lawyer may put a case in court, these are imposed by the codes of conduct that apply to barristers and solicitors. Breach of the codes of conduct can, in extreme cases, lead to someone being disqualified from practising law and in less extreme instances there can be suspensions of practising certificates or fines. Fourthly, trials are presided over by judges who have a wide discretion to prevent lines of questioning if they consider them insufficiently relevant. It is not without reason that judges can only preside over serious cases if they have earned a "ticket" to do so.<br /><br />Over the last few days the conduct of the lawyers defending Milly Dowler's murderer has been subject to a great deal of ill-informed criticism. I need not explain the errors of the critics because it has been done already by Ms Wig (<a href="http://beneaththewig.com/justice-rip">here</a>), to which I was alerted by the good <a href="http://www.thelastditch.org/lastditch/">Mr Paine</a>. My comment today is not about the details of that case but about something much more troubling, namely a false definition of justice.<br /><br />One thing we must get clear right at the beginning is that the victim of a crime is the victim - not the victim's family and friends, not the readers of a newspaper, not people with children of the same age or bearing some physical resemblance to the victim, not people of the same racial or social grouping as the victim, but the victim and only the victim. Milly Dowler was the victim and only Milly Dowler was the victim, desperately distressing though her death was to her parents they were not the victim, Milly Dowler was the only victim in the murder of Milly Dowler.<br /><br />Justice in the case of the murder of Milly Dowler could be delivered only by convicting her murderer of murder and having him sentenced according to current sentencing laws. That is an exercise between the State and the accused. It is absolutely not an exercise between the victim's family and the accused.<br /><br />Far too often I read or hear references to a criminal trial bringing justice for the victim or the victim's family, that is utter nonsense. It will, no doubt, give them a degree of comfort that someone has been convicted; frankly they would receive the same degree of comfort whether the person convicted was the murderer or someone who was completely innocent. The administration of criminal justice is exercised by the State on behalf of the general populace and is intended to reach a true result whether or not the victim or victim's family is happy with the outcome. I say again, in serious cases the victim and/or victim's family often wants someone convicted, anyone, and they have no interest in whether the convicted person is guilty of the offence. The system of justice is designed, albeit not perfectly, to convict only those proved clearly to be guilty. If that means a family continues to mourn a murdered person and never discovers who committed the heinous crime, so be it.<br /><br />The system must be unemotional and impersonal. The system must acquit anyone it cannot prove to be guilty. He or she might be guilty in fact but if we, as a general society, are to impose a penalty we would not volunteer for ourselves we must do so for good reason. A crime committed against a famous or popular person deserves no greater investigation and no lower standard of proof than one committed against a homeless crack addict with no family or friends to wail in public. Each requires the over-weaning powers of the State to result in a penalty against an individual only if the State can prove that a penalty is justified.<br /><br />It is inevitable that some very serious crimes are never solved. No matter how thorough the police investigation, nothing can happen unless it turns-up evidence of sufficient weight to justify prosecuting a suspect. And even when the Crown Prosecution Service believes it has enough to justify a prosecution, that will only be enough to justify a conviction once a trial has been conducted, the defendant's lawyers have challenged the prosecution case as well as they can and a jury has returned a verdict of guilty. Unsolved cases involved victims and family of victims just as much as solved cases.<br /><br />Criminal justice is about the defendant not the victim or the victim's family. There is no such thing as justice for the victim or the victim's family because, by definition the victim has already undergone his or her trauma, sometimes fatal trauma, and his or her family have suffered their consequential trauma. All that is left is the chance of identifying, convicting and sentencing the perpetrator. The only question is whether there is sufficient evidence to satisfy a jury that they should say "guilty" rather than "not guilty".<br /><br />Pandering to victims and, in particular, to consequential or vicarious victims is no way to administer justice. If we give them any special protection in court from the questioning that would be relevant of a non-victim / non-victim family member, we risk placing their peace of mind above justice. I know it it will sound harsh to those of a certain mind, but it must be said loud and clear - no victim and no victim's family is entitled to see someone convicted and given a penalty. Whether someone is convicted and given a penalty depends not on the feelings and desires of anyone, it depends on cold, hard proof of guilt to the strict standard that is imposed to ensure (so far as possible) that only the guilty face the serious penalties resulting from conviction for criminal offences.<br /><br />In this field, as in so many, meaningless feel-good concepts have been developed by psychologists with too little to do. One such concept is that of "closure" ( I occasionally comment on a "bad word", this is one). I watch little television but I do enjoy quasi-documentary programmes about real crimes, especially murders, a lot of which feature on a channel called Crime and Investigation. Time and again there is a police officer spouting words he has learned but never analysed, he says "we are pleased to have given the family closure" or some such twaddle. Anyone with half a brain understands that the death of a loved one is something that lives with you for ever. That someone is convicted of killing the late lamented loved one gives a degree of comfort but the pain continues and will continue until the end of your life. "Closure" is a concept designed to make victims or their families feel good but it has nothing to do with justice.<br /><br />Criminal justice is not personal, it is not something delivered to victims, it is wholly and utterly about the State imposing a penalty against those proved to have broken laws. It is, so far as the system can ensure, impartial, impersonal, unbiased, unbigoted and aimed at only the defendant. Any attempt to change these principles will result in more innocent people being convicted, that is not something I would welcome.<br /><br /></span><br /></div>TheFatBigothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-25530783937369427992011-06-27T02:54:00.004+01:002011-06-27T05:45:58.185+01:00Chinese PM: "Scrap the Euro"<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:arial;">They're dashed clever these oriental types and they grow up in a culture in which loss of face is a serious matter. Whenever an established position needs to be altered you will not witness an admission of error or even of change of mind, the switch will be effected either by sacrifice of the career and reputation of the person nominated to take blame or by a series of gradual shifts of emphasis, each explained as an incremental development of existing policy in the light of new circumstances.<br /><br />Their approach mirrors that of most modern western European politicians, these days only the rarest instance arises of an overt and admitted change of mind. Here in the UK we saw a sea-change in the mid and late 1990s as the spin machine of the Blairite Labour opposition pounced on any division, indecision or flip-flop on the part of the incumbent Conservative government. It was a well-organised (but patently dishonest) approach and it presented the image required for electoral purposes. Since then a united front and a consistent position have been seen as fundamental to the prospect of gaining political power, it allows only limited scope for a change of mind, indeed I would suggest the only exception is when both main parties have to abandon a previously advocated stance because of external factors.<br /><br />The main players of the EU are even less inclined to change their positions, albeit for a different reason. No ballot box can oust them but they are on a mission to remove all powers from individual EU member states and create a single political system under the dictation of the EU oligarchy. In order to achieve this they must appear strong, so strong that national governments have no realistic chance of challenging or overturning the position the EU's permanent rulers have decreed to be correct. Perhaps the greatest exemplar of this is the Euro. The Euro is the means by which the aim of unified political control can be achieved. For some us it is also seen as the means by which unified political control can, should and will be defeated but that is not the topic for today.<br /><br />Buttering-up the locals publicly is a necessary part of international diplomacy, often accompanied by quiet expressions of criticism being made behind the scenes. Criticising the locals publicly is an inevitable part of international power-grabs, often accompanied by soothing words of support to incumbent politicians in private until they are no longer of use. When it comes to business, the ideal situation to find is one in which others are acting in a way that will be of enormous benefit to your business in the long term. In that situation you would be mad to point out their errors, so you adopt your public diplomatic hat and say nothing else, safe in the knowledge that it will deliver you economic power that you could not achieve by criticism. That is what China's Prime Minister, Mr Wen, is doing very successfully during his short tour of Europe. We are told (<a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jFJzP6Q_x-WmRY1g_9k8HMbAZzbQ?docId=0f2d5176239f4ab2b534f39257dadac7">here</a>) he said "China will consistently support Europe and the euro." Well, yes, of course, he would be mad to say anything else. Supporting Europe is a fine sentiment that is totally without substantive meaning. The final three words are, however, in a different category.<br /><br />Why would China want to support the Euro? A strong Euro zone full of throbbing economies making lots of goodies to sell to China would undoubtedly provide all the benefits history proves to arise from efficient, competitive production but the same would arise from those throbbing economies having their own individual currencies - as it did throughout the industrial era until the Euro was established. Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain (the PIIGS) are living proof that the Euro does not have magical powers and cannot turn idleness into profit or house-price bubbles into genuine wealth. The economies of these countries are not throbbing and nothing about the Euro can make them throb. If truth be told they would probably not throb outside the Euro but they would have the chance of stability at their own sustainable level of economic activity. Out of the Euro these countries can offer China greater trading opportunities than they can while still inside but that is not of any great interest to Mr Wen.<br /><br />Mr Wen is playing the second half of the game China played during the boom years of 2003-7. Then China cashed-in on the additional money (I stress money, not wealth) sloshing about Western Europe due to the expansion of credit beyond sustainable levels. That it was not sustainable made no difference to China, it sent us washing machines and we sent it money. Washing machines lose value far faster than money, they need to be replaced so China says thank you and sticks another wad in the bank. Now that the PIIGS are having to face up to their earlier folly and are unable to ease their situation by devaluation, they need to raise money. The EU considers it necessary to keep them in the Euro zone and the only way that can happen is by increasing their debt enormously in the short term in the vain hope of something coming along later to allow repayment. One thing can come along in pretty short order, namely Chinese money. After all, China has lots of money in the bank that came from the PIIGS in exchange for washing machines and other jolly delights of modern life.<br /><br />Buttering-up the locals is easily done when you have lots of money. The course chosen by China is to buy Euro currrency bonds issued by the insolvent PIIGS, to send a signal of confidence that is in fact nothing of the sort because they are safe in the knowledge that those bonds are essentially backed by all Euro zone economies (including Germany) due to the EU's need to support the Euro project. All the while the PIIGS will remain insolvent unless they can raise large sums of money. China is awash with the profits from years of washing machines, that is all very well except that cash can only fall in value over time whereas turning cash into capital assets stands a chance of giving a positive return over the longer term.<br /><br />China's plan is to buy capital assets at below par value, a plan that is easy to achieve when the current owner is desperate for cash and is willing to hold a fire sale just to get something in the bank. It happened with the MG Rover site in Birmingham and it will happen with state-owned and privately-owned land and businesses throughout the EU. The UK and most of those in the Euro zone gave them the money to do so by creating credit we could not afford and spending it on Chinese goods, now that we need additional money (either because we are illiquid or because we are insolvent), the very money we created is being used to save us however in return we must give capital assets we can have no hope of ever recovering.<br /><br />Of course China supports the Euro. Maintaining the Eurozone with its current participants means there are five countries (the PIIGS) in such dire need that there are rich pickings for Mr Wen and his merry men.<br /><br />When Mr Wen says his country will support the Euro he is not giving it a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, he is shouting as loud as he can that the Euro is a disaster and must be scrapped to prevent the wholesale transfer of capital assets to his country.<br /><br />They're dashed clever these oriental types.<br /><br /></span><br /></div>TheFatBigothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-72495655802541130762011-06-22T02:50:00.009+01:002011-06-22T06:35:39.416+01:00The truth about Greece<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Now look, there's no need to get yourself into a twisted-knicker situation, it's all really very simple.<br /><br />Individuals, families, businesses, clubs, towns, cities, counties, countries or federations of countries only have so much wealth. Wealth is measured in money but money is not, in and of itself, wealth. Money is a system of tokens that we give and receive in place of real stuff. The true value of money is dictated by the stuff it represents. I grow a pound of runner beans and you like to eat runner beans so you are prepared to give me something for those runner beans. What should you give? Well, that's up to you. You decide what my pound of runner beans is worth to you. You might offer two pounds of potatoes, or a small diamond, or twenty minutes with your wife, or you might offer money. You must value my runner beans and offer what you consider to be a fair exchange. What is essential is that you offer something of substance because I have no incentive to give up a pound of delicious green scrumptiousness unless I receive something that I value as highly as I value the finest vegetable god ever created.<br /><br />Our transaction is not about money, it is about stuff. It is about something substantive. I give you something to enhance your life and you give me something to enhance my life. Were I to accept potatoes, diamond or fleeting fleshy pleasures with a lady who has seen better days, we exchange no money. Except that we do. Money is involved in all trades, even barter, because money is just a language by which we value stuff. Money is involved in a swap of a pound of runner beans for two pounds of potatoes just as it is involved in the swap of a pound of runner beans for a £2 coin. The reason it is involved is that the trade comes first, the stuff comes first, and money is just a way we can assign value to the goods we exchange. That exchange involves £2 for £2. My £2 is runner beans, your £2 is ten minutes access to a scrawny dry crone, although the reality is the other way round - £2 is the token we assign to represent each side of what is actually exchanged. Without stuff behind it, £2 means nothing. It has no value of itself.<br /><br />That is not to say that the production of a pound of runner beans that gives me a £2 coin is a transaction without consequences. I take that coin to Mr Patel's Minimart and exchange it for a super-sized condom (in preparation for my next visit to Madame Fifi's Sauna and Hanky-Panky Parlour) thereby giving Mr Patel a bit of profit and justifying the profit he has already paid to Mr Choudery's Cash-n-Carry who have already given a bit of profit to the manufacturers of the intimate rubber item of gentleman's apparel. Their profits are the consequence of me producing something new. But that tells the story from only one side. Kingdong Condom Ltd also produced something, something rather big actually, and it is the combined action of turning what I produced and what they produced into economic activity that gave work and profit to Mr Patel and Mr Choudery. The whole thing is sustainable because it is based on stuff that people value sufficiently to be prepared to exchange their own stuff for it.<br /><br />Economic activity that is not part of the production and exchange of stuff is a drain on the wealth of a national economy. What each country has to do is decide how much of the profit derived from the production of stuff can justifiably be committed to activities that drain wealth. Some government expenditure supports and contibutes to the production and exchange of stuff, sadly the things that buy votes are usually nothing other than a drain.<br /><br />Greece suffers from one thing and one thing only, its government spends far too much money on things that do not support and contribute to the production and exchange of stuff.<br /><br />There is only so much wealth in any national economy. It can go up and down from year to year but each year and each decade it is limited by the amount of stuff that is produced and exchanged. Wealth comes from the production and exchange of stuff and from nothing else.<br /><br />Governments can produce more money but they cannot produce more wealth because they cannot produce more stuff. They can produce money by diluting their currency through either the printing press or devaluation, in each case they reduce the value of each unit of currency in circulation; they do not, however, change the substance of their national economy. The substance is dictated by the production and exchange of stuff. Currently the government of Greece can produce neither money nor stuff. It cannot turn on the printing press and it cannot devalue because it is tied into the ludicrous Euro, yet it is spending far more on non-productive governmental activity than the Greek nation's output of stuff can sustain.<br /><br />Greece is bust, it's a simple as that. Nonetheless it still has a valuable economy, it's just that it is overvalued because it is tied into the Euro. Released from the straitjacket of the Euro the true value of it's economic activity will be reflected because there will be adverse effects to every part of its economy from its government continuing to overspend. Only then will there be any chance of the Greek economy becoming sustainable.<br /><br /></span></div>TheFatBigothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-59835047028792313652011-06-13T02:24:00.003+01:002011-06-13T06:03:04.051+01:00Privately collected taxes<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;">My old chum Mr Wadsworth regularly puts forward a proposition I just can't understand (as he did <a href="http://markwadsworth.blogspot.com/2011/06/spot-difference.html">yesterday</a>). The starting point, as I understand it, is that governmental activities sometimes result in people making money they would otherwise not make. No one could dispute that. This government-inspired profit is described as "privately collected tax", and that is the concept I cannot grasp. <br /><br />I suppose it all depends on where you start. The blankest page is one of anarchy, a situation in which there is no government and, therefore, nothing we would describe as law. Onto that blank page we put a system of government or, to be more precise, we put a system of law. The most basic effect of any system of law is prohibition of particular activities accompanied by sanctions for breaking the prohibition. Every prohibition that impinges on economic activity results in people either gaining or losing money compared to how things would be in the absence of the prohibition. I can illustrate what I mean with a simple example. <br /><br />Two factories make motor cars. A law is brought in requiring all new cars to meet a particular standard of robustness in the event of a head-on collision. Factory A's cars meet that standard but Factory B's cars do not and it would cost so much to redesign them that Factory B is no longer viable. Factory B closes and Factory A makes additional sales as a direct result of Factory B no longer being a rival. As I understand it, the theory says Factory A benefits from "privately collected taxes" because it makes additional income because of the new law - that law gives an economic advantage and this advantage is said to be a "privately collected tax". <br /><br />I fail to see this as privately collected tax. To my mind it is an economic consequence of a law but it is not a tax unless you adopt a highly artificial definition of tax. <br /><br />It is hard to find an example of economic activity in the UK which is not affected by law. The costs of manufacturers and retailers are increased by the need to comply with health and safety laws. Those who are unable to comply or who can only comply at a cost that makes their business unprofitable will go to the wall. They do not go bust because of tax they go bust because of the cost of complying with the law. Those who are able to comply do not make "privately collected taxes" they make income by selling their wares within the framework of the law. All businesses that receive income by way of cheques or card payments do so only because there is a framework of law to give such payments a cash value. Businesses that deal only in cash receive valuable income only because the law recognises bank notes and coins to have value. To what extent do the laws that turn cheques, plastic payments, notes and coins into useable value represent "privately collected taxes"? <br /><br />No sensible person could deny that laws allow people to make income they would not make in the absence of those laws. Indeed, I would go further and suggest that no one earning a living in this country would earn exactly the same living doing exactly the same thing without a complex framework of laws affecting the job they do and the field of business within which they operate. Identifying a single law and suggesting that it provides a benefit that should be classified as a "privately collected tax" is, in my view, to take that single law out of context. All other laws that affect the business in question will necessarily increase or decrease income or costs. Any law that increases income must be balanced against laws that increase costs. <br /><br />It is no more realistic to look at those laws that lead to increased income or decreased costs as allowing the business to benefit from "privately collected taxes" than it is to say the laws that lead to decreased income or increased costs amount to "privately incurred tax rebates". And that is the heart of the matter. Once one adopts the language of tax to describe something one must adopt all the language of tax and describe every aspect of the business in the same way. If you describe economic benefits received because of a new law as "privately collected taxes" you have to have a description of losses incurred as a result of a new law. Only "privately incurred tax rebates" could fit the bill yet it is a nonsense because there is no one to pay a rebate. The reality is that some people benefit from new laws and some people suffer a detriment, but neither the benefit nor the detriment is tax in any sensible use of the word. <br /><br /><br /></span></div>TheFatBigothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-88139492446695812432011-06-03T01:16:00.005+01:002011-06-03T03:40:45.198+01:00The PIIGS and one-sided equations<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The good Dr North has been pointing out for some time that things in Europe are not all sweetness and light (for recent examples, see <a href="http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/05/darkness-gathers.html">here</a> and <a href="http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/05/its-happening.html">here</a>). He observes that mass demonstrations are taking place with a degree of regularity in Spain and Greece as the little people give vent to their frustration at the economic mismanagement of their political masters. None of us knows what the outcome will be, nor whether it will be the same in both countries or, indeed, in any of the other countries teetering on the brink of government bankruptcy. <br /><br />What troubles me is not that people are finally waking up and complaining, it is that they are complaining about completely the wrong thing. Their target is undoubtedly correct, politicians have left the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain) deep in the mire through reckless economic mismanagement. Their complaint, however, appears not to be that their governments borrowed and wasted too much but that they do not want their governments to stop borrowing and wasting now that existing debts cannot be repaid. We see exactly the same delusionary behaviour in this country whenever the trades unions wheel out their usual rent-a-mob to bemoan a tiny bit of trimming from departmental budgets to find cash to pay the interest charges incurred by Gordon Brown's feckless stewardship of the Treasury. <br /><br />I am not in the least bit surprised. Governments all over Europe have been winning elections for years by presenting one-sided equations that sound nice but do not stand up to even the gentlest scrutiny. These one-sided equations are the tool of every headline-grabbing initiative and are not restricted to the field of economic policy, we see them all the time in the field of health policy. <br /><br />Smoking / drinking / one food / another food / too much exercise / lack of exercise / salt / lack of salt, or whatever is the scare of the day, is calculated to cost the NHS so-many hundreds of millions of pounds and must therefore be banned. The figures are always wrong, always grossly exagerrated, but that is beside the point; even if they were correct they only look at one side of the equation. Treating medical conditions which might not have arisen had the patient not been a smoker can be seen as a cost caused by smoking, there is nothing unreasonable in that as a general proposition. The problem is that the NHS does not exist in a vacuum and it is not funded in a vacuum, it is funded out of taxes and smokers pay taxes that others do not pay; shops and wholesalers make profits on which taxes are paid, workers in those businesses and in every stage of the cigarette production and distribution network pay taxes on their wages. The taxes gathered from the ciggy network grossly exceed even the most dishonestly overstated costs attributed to adverse consequences of smoking. <br /><br />The same is seen in the moronic argument that "green" production of electricity will be economically beneficial because it will create new jobs. Of course it will create new jobs because no one has been so stupid before to pay people to do anything so utterly pointless, but even so the benefit of these new jobs is only one side of the equation. On the other side lies the fact that employing more people to generate the same amount of electricity means it is more expensive and that cost must be passed on through higher prices. Higher prices for electricity means higher costs for businesses and individuals. Those businesses can be tipped into insolvency causing their employees to lose their jobs and individuals who must spend an extra £100 on electricity have £100 less to spend on other things thereby depriving Mr Patel's Merrymart and Madame Fifi's Sauna and Hanky-Panky Parlour of income, resulting in shed staff and less tax being paid. No one should be surprised that studies in both France and Scotland reveal each "green" job to cause the loss of more than two other jobs. <br /><br />So it is also with the bubble of economic activity arising from an unsustainable expansion of credit. Of course it means people have more money and buy more stuff which means shops and manufacturers employ more staff, make more profit and pay more tax. The government takes credit for the miracle of an ever-expanding economy. Apparent riches for all means votes for incumbents. The other side of the equation in this situation contains what groovy hep cats might term a "double-whammy". <br /><br />Credit cannot go on expanding for ever, eventually you reach a point where you cannot borrow any more because even the most foolhardy lender is not prepared to advance you another penny. At that point the economic expansion arising from credit necessarily stops and in due course it must be reversed as people realise they must repay their borrowings. It doesn't necessarily happen all of a sudden although it did two years ago because banks simply stopped lending. In addition to the reduction in economic activity resulting from the wind-down of credit-based spending we have the second whammy, namely a reduction in tax receipts for the government. The additional sums received in the boom years were used to strengthen their electoral position. Were we cruel people we could suggest they used tax receipts to bribe voters, but we aren't cruel so we will instead describe the spending of this windfall of unsustainable taxes as the result of nothing more sinister than stupidity. Unfortunately the stupidity knew few bounds so the PIIGS, the UK and many other countries find themselves with government spending commitments far in excess of tax receipts. <br /><br />A sober and sensible approach to the problem would recognise that governments handed out treats that could not really be afforded even when times appeared good, so now that they are far from good those treats cannot be given any more. The governments of Spain and Greece are trying to cut back a fraction of the unaffordable treats and it is this that causes discontent on the streets. The people are complaining that something they should never have had in the first place (because it could not be afforded) should be maintained despite government income being substantially lower than it was in 2009, it is utter madness. A particular difficulty arises with government spending compared to individual spending, namely that the consequences of reducing it are highly visible. A million people each spending £50 less is equivalent to government spending £50million less - the former is just a normal incident of life whereas the latter is a headline in every newspaper. <br /><br />I cannot help thinking that pushing one-sided equations at their people and arguing tooth and nail that the equations in question have only one side is the root of current public disquiet in Spain and Greece. There is every sign that the people demonstrating against plans to trim government spending really believe there is only one side to the equation. In a way this should not be surprising, both countries had long periods of socialist government in which the allure of the magic money tree was all pervading - no need to worry, the government will pay for it, the government has a bottomless pit of money because it just plucks some more from the magic money tree. We should be more worried about this reason for mass demonstration than we would have to be were demonstrators complaining about overspending in the past. <br /><br /></span><br /></div>TheFatBigothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-73413123316505173672011-05-29T14:58:00.004+01:002011-05-29T16:47:57.643+01:00Huhne - the car's the key<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Let's take a hypothetical situation and see how we should go about solving a mystery. The situation is this. A man has been in in France for a few days and flies back to England, landing at Stansted airport at about 10.23pm. The same evening his wife is at a function at the London School of Economics, the function commenced at 6.30pm and she is believed to have left by 10pm at the latest. At 11.23 the same evening a motor car registered to the man is photographed speeding on a road between Stansted and London. Either the man or his wife was driving the car at the time the speeding offence was committed. The mystery is to identify which of them was driving. <br /><br />How do we solve the mystery? I know how I would go about it, I would not look at the people first but at the car. <br /><br />Where was the car while the man was in France? On the face of it there are two relevant possibilities, either it was parked at the airport awaiting his return or it was not. Is there a record of cars parked at the airport during the period he was abroad and, if so, was his car parked there throughout or was it removed at some point? If it was there all the time the only chance of the wife driving it back to town from the airport would be by her taking the train to Stansted (say 20 minutes to get to Liverpool Street station and at least a further 45 minutes to Stansted). Quite why she would do so rather than let him drive back is unclear, because the time it would take her to get there is as long as the flight from France so it would have to have been arranged before he left the continent. <br /><br />If there is no evidence of the car being at Stansted throughout I would investigate whether the London congestion charge was levied against the car during the period he was abroad, if it was we know the car was within central London and not at Stansted. Was the congestion charge levied on the day in question? The London School of Economics is within the congestion charge zone, so the charge will have been triggered if the wife had it with her while she was at the college, though her options for parking would have been severely limited unless she was given a spot by the college itself - was she? <br /><br />I would then ask whether the wife had her own car at the time. If she did, it would seem more natural for her to use her own vehicle to collect her husband. Wives often, but not invaiably, use their husband's cars to collect their worse half only when he wants to drive back - men being so much more fussy than women about what they drive. <br /><br />Trying to solve the mystery by reference to where the wife was at various points of time on a date more than eight years ago is fraught with difficulties because of the need to rely on personal recollections. The car is the key. <br /><br /></span><br /></div>TheFatBigothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.com4