Twitter hacked – not the end of the world, no surprise, and a badge of honour.

Posted on December 18, 2009 by Joe

There’s a scene in the movie ‘Blazing Saddles’ where the Waco Kid, being asked why he’s ended up in prison for drunkenness, bewails the fact that when he was the well known gun-slinger everyone wanted to try and get him, so they could be the new number one. He tells how he eventually hung up his guns when he heard a voice yelling ‘Draw’, turned around to fight, and nearly shot a 5 year old child.

He turns his back on the little brat, who then shoots the Waco Kid in the ass…..

Life in the online world gets like that, too.

Apparently Twitter was hacked last night by an outfit called the Iranian Cyber Army. The story broke on the Mashable web site – I have to say that were I not receiving Tweets from Mashable I wouldn’t have known, as I’ve been getting (I think) Tweeted over the period of the hack and I can quite happily see their home page. The fact that this is now being reported as a DNS based attack means that it wasn’t so much Twitter that was walloped as that traffic to Twitter was diverted elsewhere for a while …

Anyway, let’s face it – this is a slap in the face to Twitter (indirectly) but isn’t the end of the world. At least some of us – if not most of us who’re not using the DNS system that was compromised – are still Tweeting and the world will not slide to DEFCON1 because the global inanity stream was temporarily interrupted for the Digerati.

But, assuming these chaps ARE who they claim to be – a group with Iranian sympathies – we shouldn’t be surprised. A campaign was organised through Twitter earlier this year to protest about the clamp down on civil rights in Iran. This attack may be regarded by the originators as ‘payback’ and goes to show that in Cyberspace, as in the real world, ‘people power’ is not a one way street. The big boys do sometimes have their day of successful protest as well. Governments can quite easily learn the fine arts of online civil disobedience, and do it with greater ease than the folks running the protest.

When people use a site as a base or launching ground for civil disobedience, campaigning or protest then it will become a target for those who object to the issues being promoted. That kickback may come in the form of debate, negative campaigning against the site, abuse of people on the site, legal efforts to remove or silence the site, or, as here, technical efforts to remove the site. Which means that more and more sites used by people to organise campaigns will either have to become ‘hardened’ to protect against attack or stop carrying legitimate material that someone, somewhere, is pissed enough about to want it removed.

We may be heading in to a period of ‘big boy’s rules’ in cyberspace where sites that permit the exposition of people power are simply taken down by this sort of online activity. But if that happens to your favourite site, and the cause is just, don’t be sad; regard it as a badge of honour that your activities have upset someone enough to want to take you down.

Remember the words of Winston Churchill ‘ ‘You have enemies; that’s good – it means that you have stood up for something sometime in your life’.

The Dr Johnson License….

Posted on December 8, 2009 by Joe

I appreciate that this is likely to be one of those posts that will annoy some folks, but, here we go. A couple of days ago I was invited by two or three separate people to join Facebook Groups and sign petitions against the UK Digital Economy Bill. Now, I believe that we need a Digital Economy Bill like I need a hole in the head; what we actually need is less red tape and a more hands off approach from Central Government to let entrepreneurs get on with the job without requiring a chit from a bureaucrat to go to the toilet. However, I didn’t sign any petitions or join any groups; why? Because the total pre-occupation of everyone was whether it’s right to have a legal structure in which it’s possible to remove or restrict someone’s Internet access if they’re guilty of or accused of sharing copyright materials.

There are some truly stinky parts of that bill, like there are with most pieces of New Labour legislation – but I want to look today at the filesharing issue in a wider sense.

Let’s start with the ‘The Internet is an essential part of modern life and it shouldn’t be possible to be cut off from it.’ argument. Bollocks. Water is essential. A roof over your head is essential. Electricity and Power are pretty important. And yet you can lose all of these by simply not paying your mortgage and utility bills, ultimately resulting in being thrown out of your house and living in a cardboard box. If that’s possible, why on Earth does anyone living in the real world and not in Second Life think that your Internet connection should have some sort of God-given right of protection? And as for essential – quite a few people manage quite happily without an Internet connection, thank you very much.

In the context of this argument, what the Internet HAS done for some people is to allow them to access, free of charge, a large tranche of media that they would have had to borrow off of their friends 20 years ago. The actually physical act of borrowing and copying probably restricted copying in that few people had the brass neck (or stamina) to borrow 20 CDs from a friend and copy them in one sitting, for example. The Internet is, no doubt, an essential tool for people in ripping off media. I’ve heard most of the arguments, and there are some good points on both sides of the debate. Rather than re-hash the usual debates, here are a few observations to provide food for thought for anyone approaching this argument with an open mind.

We have a number of open licenses like Creative Commons, Open Source, etc. Why shouldn’t it be possible, therefore, for a creator of software, film or music put their material out through a proprietary license that requires payment to use the material? After all, I am restricted with what I can do within the GNU licence, for example; I have to allow other people to copy the material – it’s part of the GNU licence and I am more than happy to play along with that. If you want to have a recording of a film, then you should surely, by the same logic, abide by the license of that film. Typically pay money and don’t copy it. No one is forcing you to adopt that license – you have the choice not to buy the DVD. Similarly with Open Source; if I don’t want to pass on my source code to other people, I choose to write my own code and not use the GNU license. I can see no difference.

I’d be interested to know how many people who regularly engage in file sharing of copyrighted materials have ever created something non-trivial and original and have tried to sell it. I may be wrong but a quick poll of folks I know (outside the professional digerati) would indicate that the answer is ‘not many’. Perhaps to have experienced running a small business that deals with created works like software, or publishing a book, etc. might change people’s attitudes a little. Same argument as above; if I wish to place material I create in the public domain or under GNU or CC, then it’s my right to do so, and your right as consumers of media to take advantage of my action. If, on the other hand, I choose to publish under what I might start calling the Dr Johnson License (‘Only a fool writes and doesn’t get paid for it!’) then you have a right to not purchase what I produce, and I have the risk of not seeing my works go out in to the world. If you make an illegal copy of my work, then I have a right to pursue you to make you abide by my Dr Johnson License – just as the creators of software licensed under the GNU license can pursue someone who breaches that license under the law.

I’ve heard the argument of ‘try before buy’ and it’s a good one. Which is why I have a Spotify account – legal music downloading, free of charge, some advertising, no actual physical ownership of the music outside the service even if I pay a monthly fee (which removes the ads). I have to say that I find the latter a pain in the rear – there are some advantages to having physical ownership of the files – but then again, it’s THEIR license and I choose to go with them or not. It’s an imperfect system. If you download stuff on a ‘try before buying’ basis, then perhaps the case could be made to allow you to download any piece of media with a built in duration, that renders the media unplayable after, say, 30 days unless you buy it – the act of purchase then generates an unlock code. The argument has been expressed that downloaders tend to be purchasers of music – again, I’m yet to be convinced. Anecdotal evidence from people I know would suggest that whilst they may purchase material, the value of that that they download illegally vastly exceeds that which they purchase.

To all the freetards, can you explain why wrong for me to put the material I’ve created out in to the world, want to be paid for it, and take action when I’m not? I am exercising my personal, creative freedom to want to be paid for my work. If my view of my own value is wrong, don’t pay me – but don’t copy either.

Book Review – ‘Fantasy Island’ by Dan Atkinson and Larry Elliot

Posted on November 9, 2009 by Joe

No, nothing to do the 1970s TV series with Ricardo Montalban as a bloke who made wishes come true on an Island with a combination of technology, actors and smoke and mirrors. Although….. Nope, this is a review of a book by Larry Elliott and Dan Atkinson, published by Constable in 2007, ISBN Number 978-1-84529-605-6. Before the NuLab apologists come scuttling out to bleat that Dan Atkinson is a writer with the Daily Mail, and so is biased, I’d suggest they read the book anyway and follow up on the statistics therein. One final warning – this is a scary book for anyone who cares about the state of the UK after 12 years of NuLab Governance and it will almost certainly make you very angry indeed.

The book is well written – I digested it in two sittings – although the statistical bits (not too many) and the explanation of why the economy is going to crap out may require a couple of readings. It’s worth noting that this book was written before the recent financial meltdown, which it predicts to a great degree.

In the book, the authors examine the rise to power of the new Labour philosophy, and then highlight in 7 chapters the ‘big lies’ that have turned Great Britain in to the ‘Fantasy Island’ of the title, where we can have endless debt with no comebacks, enjoy highly paid jobs for which we are unqualified, have limitless growth without environmental impact and where the state machine is apparently being made leaner whilst increasing in size. All being paid for by jobs in the ‘creative economy’. Oh, and how we can project military force around the world and play the part of a super-power whilst cutting back on defence expenditure. Some of us have been banging on about the impossibility of this for some time now – I wish that I’d encountered this book a couple of years ago as it pulls together all the material one needs to take a good hard swing at New Labour and the Blairite nightmare.

The 7 core chapters deal with the following issues:

Britain’s debt timebomb – well, that one went off in our faces around the time this book was published.
Reliance on the Creative Economy – some statistics on the true value of the ‘creative economy’ to Britain make it clear that it was indeed bullshit to rely on it. Having spent time working in the film industry in the early 2000s, I can definitely concur – the UK film industry, for example, is one where, in 2000, over 60% of films made in Britain stayed unreleased after being finished and where film-makers made films that they thought punters should see – the cultural colonialism of North London. By 2004, the balance of payments credit due to film was a paltry 160 million. At least it was a credit – that due to TV was in deficit to the tune of over 300 million. Music is also in a mess. If we follow the NuLab plan we may be relying on ‘The X Factor’ winners to get us out of the hole….
Shrinking Prices AND increased living standards – the fantasy being that we get our cheap toys and non-essential goodies at the EXPENSE of our standard of living.
Failing Public Sector – deals with issues such as educational ‘grades inflation’ and how the PFI has allowed the private sector to cream off lots of money without any real improvement in productivity.
The Workforce – attempting to keep unemployment down whilst ploughing in lots of new legislation – resulting in a highly exploited workforce with lots of outsourcing.
Defence – increasing military commitments as the US’s bagman, whilst reduction in real terms of defence budget to suit New Labour doctrine.
Environment – trying to con us all that we can have everything AND not screw up the planet. Although New Labour aren’t alone here.

Not very pleasant reading – although there is a chapter that offers a couple of alternative paths to take. Learning to be frugal is something we’re likely to have to get used to over the next few years, anyway, so that will be easy medicine to take – the vast majority of us have no real alternative. And one other thing after reading this book – it reinforces the old saw that Labour are not fit to govern – which is a dreadful thing for those of us who once had such hopes for the Left in the UK.

It’s a worthwhile book to get a feel for how we in the UK have been royally screwed in the last 12 years. Regard it as a companion piece to Nick Cohen’s ‘What’s Left’ – but please don’t read them both in the same sitting and blame me when your head explodes…

At least on the TV show, all ended well for the people who’d bought their fantasy. Just where are the two guys in the white suits when we need them?

The ‘Why should I give a fuck?’ award for today goes to….

Posted on November 8, 2009 by Joe

OK – first of all apologies for the title. It’s just that the trivial background behind this post made me very angry this morning. I may just be having a grump, heading for a cold or suffering from fast-food overdose, but I guess I’m allowed to throw a strop occasionally.

So, what was it that generated the bile? It was the headline on ‘The Sun’ newspaper. Something about ‘2 Brits win Euro Lottery’. Like I said in the title ‘Why should I give a …?’ Genuinely. This matters to the people who won, their families, possibly their communities. It’s not really a matter of national importance worthy of large headlines on the same day that other news stories include:

The shooting dead at Fort Hood of 13 people and the wounding of 30+ others
The possibility that all of the new proposals for managing MP’s Expenses will not be introduced
The UK Government is saying that it’s unlikely that a legally binding climate treaty will be worked out at Copenhagen
Three ex-Chief of Staffs have criticised Gordon Brown for his support of UK troops.

But what’s more important, according to the tabloid press, is 2 anonymous Brits winning a lottery. I suppose that I should be grateful that it’s not being held up as another great British victory over the perfidious Europeans to match Agincourt, Waterloo or the Battle of Britain!

Unfortunately I expect to see more of this sort of thing as the months unfold this winter. It’s going to be a hard one; we’ll continue supporting a regime as bent as a hairgrip in Afghanistan, we’ll continue being in recession here at home and we’ll no doubt continue witnessing the political establishment carry on trying to worm out of it’s responsibilities. The Media will rise to the occasion with lots of stories like this, a good few about our new (apparent) National Treasure Cheryl Cole and almost certainly a good number of stories like that about Philip Laing and this latest pair of Chav thugs. Oh, and don’t forget The X Factor and the rest of the ‘reality’ shows.

Years ago, I guess we might have considered this to be a modern application of the old Roman method of keeping the Proletarians happy by liberal application of pannen et circuses – bread and circuses, with cheap credit supplying the bread and the media providing the circuses. One thing is definitely certain today – the media is able to provide circus entertainment by the bucket full with reality TV, lottery winners, ‘national treasures’ and a good few examples of throwing folks to the lions.

It’s a shame we haven’t got bread any longer, though – I do wonder how long teh circus will keep the punters distracted when the bills start piling up and the larder starts getting bare.

All hail the scapegoats!

Posted on November 6, 2009 by Joe

In ancient Jewish society, the scapegoat was a normal goat that was ceremonially loaded with all the sins of the community, and then driven from town in to the wilderness, as part of the ceremonies around the Day or Atonement. The goat would almost certainly die in the desert, and with it would die the sins of the community. The term has passed in to general usage, as we all know, to refer to someone who gets to carry the can when the crap hits the fan.

Earlier today I blogged on the topic of Philip Laing, the student in trouble here in Sheffield, and was reminded of a comment made by my better half about whether the venom being expended towards this fellow was actually a form of scapegoating. We’ve had over two years of miscellaneous nonsense here in the UK – the banking crisis, MP’s expenses, the Recession, the War in Afghanistan and Iraq – the list goes on. Then conveniently along comes someone who we can all have a go at, who isn’t rich and powerful and who’s actually done something that is pretty damn stupid and manages to annoy vast numbers of people.

In fact, the perfect scapegoat!

Here’s a quick guide for you to help you play ‘Spot the Scapegoat’ – a useful parlour game for this winter preceding a general election when we can expect the Government and Media to try and blame anyone and everyone – except the genuine culprits – for the wrongs of the world.

Plausibility

A scapegoat must be plausible. there’s little point in picking on someone totally innocuous. You need someone or a group of people who’ve been bad, been caught out, and for whose behaviour there can be little excuse. Little old ladies caught exceeding the speed limit by 5 miles per hour don’t really meet the requirement.

Powerless

An ideal scapegoat would be suitably powerless. After all, we don’t want them coming back at us, do we? Really powerful people will rarely become scapegoats unless they’ve upset some even more powerful people. The media don’t want to upset someone with muscle who could make the media look like horse’s bottoms.

Scalability

Having found a plausible, powerless person to act as scapegoat, their bad behaviour has to be ‘scalable’. Scalability is a technical term for the ability of a system to cope with heavier loads than expected without needing a lot of work. So, if we want a good scapegoat on which we can unload a pile of public anger, the scapegoat’s behaviour must be something that can be ‘worked up’ in some way. So, Mr Laing’s offence can easily be used to indicate that it’s the start of the end of Western Civilisation as we know it as respect for all that is good in society declines, etc.

Publicity

If you want a good scapegoat, they have to be public figures or elevated in to the rank of public notoriety by the media or the Internet. If you can get a good gossipy campaign going, apparently driven by the general public, you’re in clover.

No apologies

Your perfect scapegoat should ideally be photographed with a black cloak and a Victorian moustache, eating babies and shouting that they are sorry for nothing. If this ideal scenario can’t be achieved, then a lack of apology will do. If the scapegoat attempts a half-arsed apology, all the better. But if they go for the genuine apology, their value as a scapegoat is diminished.

Have something ready to sneak out

Apart from deflecting blame from the real culprits, the exposure and persecution of a good scapegoat can offer the Government and other people of power and influence the opportunity to sweep other things under the carpet. If you have a scapegoat, never waste the opportunity to get a few bad-news stories out at the same time.

When Ministers are right to fire advisors

Posted on November 4, 2009 by Joe

I think it’s safe to say that these days I rarely agree with the behaviour of Government Ministers. Part of it is a knee jerk reaction (:) ) and part of it is that Government Ministers rarely seem to exhibit a capability in their jobs above that of Jim Hacker – without the aid of Sir Humphrey. But, much to my dismay, I found myself agreeing with the Home Secretary with regard to the firing of his Drug’s Advisor, Professor David Nutt. Now, I have no intention in getting in to the rights and wrongs of Cannabis classification or whether illegal drugs are more dangerous than alcohol and tobacco. My thoughts here are on teh roles and responsibilities of advisers.

It’s inevitable and highly desirable that Ministers will have access to a wide range of advisers to help them and their departments come to policy decisions. The role of any advisor is to advise; that statement may appear to be a tautology but it seems that some advisers believe their role is to actually make policy. It isn’t. When a Government policy fails, it’s incumbent on the Minister to fall on his or her sword. (OK…that’s how it should be, but I appreciate that that doesn’t happen much these days!) the advisor responsible for giving the advice that led to a policy being made is almost certainly going to be unknown to the public. The process is that the advisor gives their advice, the Civil Servants and the Ministers and Secretaries chew it over, and eventually the Minister decides and takes it to Cabinet for approval.

It’s similar to some of the consultancy work I do – I (as Advisor) am briefed on a problem by my client (Minister). I advise the client to the best of my professional abilities, and the client then takes the choice to go with my recommendations as given, implement part of what I suggest or use my consultancy report to line his cat’s litter tray. I obviously hope that it won’t be the latter.

But that’s the prerogative of the client, whoever they are – to take or not to take your advice. Whilst you’re on the payroll you may argue your case strongly within the confines of the organisation, but if you don’t get what you want you have two – and ONLY two – choices. Shut up or quit.

That is all – if you feel very strongly about your advice not being taken then the only intellectually honest and principled thing to do is to quit the job. As a consultant I’ve done it maybe once or twice in 20 odd years. My own thoughts were that there was no point in me being paid and giving advice if it was never taken, I felt I was just taking money for nothing, so I quit.

What you don’t do is mouth off to teh media or outside the organisation in a way that’s likely to get attention whilst you’re still employed. That is, in my opinion, disloyal.

For me, the role of an advisor is like that of an Executive Officer on a ship. You advise the Captain, you may even question the Captain’s decision, but once that decision has been made you fulfill whatever duties you have in making that decision work. If you can’t, then ask for a transfer or ersign your commission; don’t try and organise a mutiny.

A bundle of needs…

Posted on October 30, 2009 by Joe

I appreciate that this is likely to be read as a massive attack on the Welfare State by some, and that I’ll be suspected of channeling the political spirits of Norman Tebbit, Margaret Thatcher and Atilla the Hun by others. However, that’s not the intention. As some of you will know, I hold Libertarian views and am a believer in as small a Government as is practicable, but that does not mean that I take the view that the State should not intervene to help those in genuine need.

This entry grew out of the ongoing study-tidying process that’s been going on for a few weeks now here at the Towers. I came across a newspaper article that I’d clipped in June of this year, and in the article was an interesting observation from William Beveridge – the architect of the modern UK Welfare State. In 1948, 6 years after he originally wrote the report that gave ultimately gave birth to the benefits system, he expressed his fear that the reforms he’d introduced might encourage people to be passive about their needs.

The Government of the day didn’t take his words on board; the rest, as they say, is history, and we’re now able to look at the society that was created and wonder whether the result of 65 years of cradle to grave Welfare State has been, in the words of the journalist Camilla Cavendish who wrote the piece, to reduce people to a bundle of needs.

And I agree with her; one of the side effects of the Welfare State, especially in the increasingly Nannyish manner that it has been implemented in the last 12 years, is that many people have been dumped in to a dependency culture. The risk to entitlements and benefits if a job is taken means that many people are not going to run the risk of taking a job that will result in them losing money from their weekly income – and I can see their point. For all the talk of dignity of work, self respect, etc. the bottom line is that if you don’t have as much money coming in to the household then, in the words of Quark, the ferengi bartender from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine – “Dignity and an empty sack is worth the sack”.

In 2007, roughly a third of all Government expenditure was in the from of State Benefits. This constituted around 11% of GDP, and about half of the population of the UK were recipients of some form of state benefits. Now, we live in a system where inevitably some people are going to slip to a point where they need state intervention to keep a roof over their heads. And it’s appropriate that they get that help. But half the country? This is obviously not half the households; many households on benefits slip will involve a number of adults. Some households can’t get much help at all; anyone who runs their own business or is self-employed will understand that if their business hits trouble they are very much on their own unless children are involved.

But for those households and individuals who are dependent on benefits, and in many cases have their whole lifestyle driven by the need to maintain their access to the benefits system, let’s take a look at what this means:

There are restrictions on paid and voluntary work that can be done whilst claiming benefits. In other words, you are effectively being paid to do nothing for part of your week.
The crossover between benefits and work is fraught with problems – it’s very easy to get a nice little job and lose out bigtime in the ancillary benefits that your household may be entitled to.
The problems in moving in to and out of benefits – as may take place if you do contract / temporary work or find yourself on a series of short term contracts (not uncommon in a recession when piece work may be increasingly common) again discourages people from stepping out of the benefits pit to seek ongoing work.
Some people with occasional illness that will prevent them working for a month or so here, a month or so there, again find it easier to stay on sickness and disability benefits rather than step in and out of the workforce and lose the regularity of cashflow of being on benefits.

There are some people for whom a loosening of the restrictions around working whilst on benefits would be a great advantage. For example, allowing someone on benefits to do a paid job for a couple of months without losing access to benefits might seem strange, but think about what it would permit:

Ongoing guaranteed income over the first month or so when pay in a new job may not be immediately available.
No sudden shock to the family finances.
The work is bringing in extra money for a month or so – it is worth doing.
At the end of this period then the benefits can be stopped.

There are people for whom this sort of movement in and out of the workforce would never be possible, due to illness or disability, and it should therefore be possible to allow them to do voluntary work / temporary work as required again with no financial loss.

This would require a synchronising of the Tax and Benefits system. And the Government would also need to make it very clear (and structure tax and benefit regimes accordingly to ensure it) that if you wanted to sit on your backside you could do, but that your income would be less than someone on benefits who is working as and when they can.

The aim is to encourage self-value, self-determination and get out of the need trap. We cannot carry on like we are doing producing multiple generations of families in which no one has worked. This is wrong, it’s perverse and we simply cannot afford it financially or as a society.

The braying voices….

Posted on October 28, 2009 by Joe

A little while ago I turned the TV on to get the lunchtime news, and was staggered to find Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) on 3 BBC Channels – BBC News, BBC Parliament and BBC 2 – and also on Sky news. I took a look at what was going on, and was seriously unimpressed. There’s a line in an old Billy Bragg song that refers to ‘those braying voices on the right of the House’ and it’s as relevant today as it ever was, with the exception that the braying voices now seem to come from all sides of the House.

It seemed to be less a matter of gaining useful information from the PM and his Ministers and more a sort of political ping-pong – soft shots from his colleagues, attempted bouncers from the Opposition party members. Just what is the point of this nonsense, and why bother broadcasting it over so many channels? Even with the two major issues of the day – the results of the Nimrod Accident Enquiry and the latest report in to MP’s Expenses, the whole thing still had the atmosphere of knock about farce.

Once upon a time this weekly political wrestling match might have had relevance – it may still have relevance today if the whole thing weren’t so clearly stage managed and organised to attempt to put the PM in the best light (difficult with the current fellow) and portray the opposition as witless morons (not so difficult with the current lot). It’s not made any more palatable by the follow up reporting from Sky News, I believe, where as much time was spent on the body language of the Prime Minister than on what he actually said! It was like watching ‘Lie to Me’ without Tim Roth or a storyline!

For our Parliamentarians, PMQ could be a weekly opportunity to show us how seriously you’re all taking the situation we’re in. It actually seems to be an opportunity for us to once again question why the Devil we voted you in in the first place. Folks, I seriously suggest you reverse the televising of Parliament – it really is doing you no good whatsoever.

BNP support increase – why the surprise?

Posted on October 25, 2009 by Joe

For anyone who’s been asleep or under a particularly soundproofed rock for the last few weeks, here’s a quick ‘catch up’. Nick Griffin, leader of the UK’s Far Right British National Party, was invited on to BBC Television’s flagship political debate programme, ‘Question Time’. This generated a great deal of fuss and bother. Anti-Fascist groups demonstrated, Griffin himself objected about the format of the show, and it was one of the least edifying sights I’ve seen on TV for some years. A survey today reveals that after Griffin’s appearance on the show, support for the party has increased. Peter Hain is saying that this was exactly the sort of thing that led to Nazi Germany…sorry…that was Basil Fawlty…Peter Hain is saying that this was exactly the sort of thing he was afraid of. And even insiders at the BBC are stating that the way the program was handled was a farce and that Griffin was subjected to ‘attack dogs’.

Woooo…..serious stuff. Let’s just stop for a moment shall we? First of all, let’s make it clear to all and sundry that I’m no BNP supporter or fellow traveller. I say that now because I know from experience on certain Internet Forums any attempt to look at the phenomena that is the BNP or any aspect of multicultural politics in Britain tends to result in you being called a Nazi, racist, sympathiser, etc. So let’s nail that one first and now discuss the issue like grown-ups.

In terms of voting intention for an election tomorrow, the proportion who said they’d vote BNP was 3%. Last month, it was 2%. So, oodles of free publicity, massive TV coverage, the sort of profile that Griffin might have only gotten by leading a Wetherspoons Putsch and all that happens is an extra 1% of firm vote support. Pardon me, Peter, if I don’t get too panicky just yet? Yes, 22% of voters suggested that they might seriously consider voting BNP, but there’s many a slip between poll and ballot box.

What was obvious from the furore surrounding this edition of ‘Question Time’ is that :

A large number of protesters attempted to prevent the leader of a legal UK political party – how represehensible we might find the opinions of that party is irrelevant – from taking part in a debate on UK television.
Various high ranking political figures appeared to apply pressure to the BBC to not allow the broadcast to take place.
The format of the broadcast DID appear to be different to usual – it had all the hallmarks of a bear baiting session and I venture to suggest that the chairing of the programme could have been better.

The overall result of this has been to allow Griffin to be able to call ‘foul’ and play the ‘Martyr’ card – that well beloved ploy of all political extremists who know that their chances at the ballot box are pretty slim in any other circumstances. Griffin performed incredibly poorly on QT – despite the possibly loaded deck, which to be honest he and his advisers might have expected – his answers were not brilliant and he made teh error of getting a few cheap shots in at his political opponents. But, the overall impression that his supporters will take away and propagate through their publicity machine is that ‘We were censored and muzzled by the political establishment, the BBC and the far left’ – the very last impression that this appearance SHOULD have been allowed to give. The UAF, Government and BBC have managed by their total cack-handed handling of this issue to give the BNP the origin of their very own ‘stab in the back’ myth.

The ‘No Platform’ issue is a well worn one. Basically, it’s a policy by the left to attempt to remove any possible platform for Far Right parties in the media – or on Internet Forums, discussion groups, public venues, etc. Short for ‘No platform for Fascists’ it is supposed to starve the Far Right of the ability to publicise themselves and gain recruits. There’s one problem with this approach – it doesn’t work. It simply allows the sort of nonsense we’ve encountered over the last week to play out, gaining the Far Right more recruits and support than if they’d been allowed to quietly get on with making total arses of themselves in public.

To me, ‘No platform’ is simply a censorship operation by the Left, in the style that Stalin and Mao would recognise. Totalitarianism is alive and well on both sides of the political fence. But it is counter productive and dangerous in a wider sense than that of stifling political debate. By permitting teh right to say that they are being censored, their words are heard by more and more people. The British people are not getting more racist; but many are now perceiving that the country is changing it’s cultural make up in a way that doesn’t benefit them:

The Government and main political parties are thought by many people – particularly working class and those in the poorer economic groups – to be totally out of touch with people’s fears and concerns about immigration. Until very recently it’s been difficult to discuss these issues without being howled down in ‘Islington Circles’ as a racist monster who eats babies for breakfast and kicks small dogs.
People have seen the economy got to hell in a basket, and in many cases are now experiencing real pain. They also start noticing immigration – note I said NOTICING – for the first time. Even with no proven factual, causal link between their decrease in standard in living and the number of immigrants that they feel are coming in to the country, they irrationally believe and fear that there IS a causal link.
When the Government produces statistics that disprove any link between immigration and economic well being, or even suggest that there is a positive link, people are not believing it. This is partially because there are often other reports and statistics that prove the other point of view. Debating the issue then turns in to a game of ‘URL Tennis’ as participants fling references around like intellectual hand-grenades, attempting to trip up the logic or mathematics in the report and, if that fails, the credentials of the authors.
The Government is seen as being a bunch of lying bastards. The Government have been seen to lie on numerous issues – the 2003 Iraq War being a biggie, for example. If they’ll lie to take us to war, folks quite rightly believe they’ll lie on other policies. And as if by magic…in today’s Daily Mail there is a story of how Jack Straw and Tony Blair planned to pull an immigration ‘fast one’ on the people of Britain.
People wonder why the main parties are unwilling to discuss immigration and multiculturalism. People perceive an ‘elephant in the living room’ event taking place. The lack of debate or willingness to debate makes people fear the worst.
Media stories and programs bolster peopel’s fear of immigration and multiculturalism, especially in the absence of open, factual debate. For example, we get the ongoing ‘No Christmas Decorations’ sort of bollocks every year, programs like UK Border Patrol that show the efforts of the UK’s Border Agencies to keep undesirables out, etc.

In other words, there is an overwhelming perception for many people that this country is changing – no, is BEING changed by the Government – to a multicultural wonderland in which the views of the indiginous majority are being ignored. And the only people who’re paying attention to this is the BNP. And when these folks feel and fear that the BNP is being censored – and the BNP themselves can point to violent demonstrations to attempt to stop their leader speaking on TV – then people may well start thinking ‘What are these bastards trying to hide from me?‘

So, what’s to be done?

First of all, there needs to be an open discussion on all aspects of immigration and multicularal policies in the UK. It needs to be wideranging and it will involve engaging with very unplesant people on all sides of the argument. there can be no ‘No Platform’ nonsesne.
It must be possible for people to think and say the currently unthinkable in discourse without being howled down. You don’t destroy ideas by stopping them being expressed. You destroy them by exposing them to teh light of reasoned and factual analysis.
Government, opposition and opinion formers MUST realise that they are first of all dealing with perception and belief – in other words, irrational feelings that must be addressed before people can engage in this sort of debate. This will not be easy but is essential. The first stage is to simply say to people ‘We appreciate you’re a bit worried; we’re hear to listen. And then feckin’ LISTEN and don’t hear just what you want to hear.

Put bluntly, we have a fine campaigining season ahead for the bigots, the true racists, the thugs and the idealogues of both political extremes; economic recession, out of touch and dishonest Government, a few instances of corrupt and dishonest politicians stealing public money in their expenses, bankers bonuses getting stupidly high again, increasing unemployment, unpopular wars.

It’s time for Government and the political and media establishments of the UK to do soemthing before it all goes pear shaped. Censoring and demonstrating is not enough – it’s time to engage and defeat the ideas of extremists of both political colours.

Thanks for reading – go forth and get defeating.

The Duke, The Bankers and let them eat cake..

Posted on October 24, 2009 by Joe

There’s a line in Blackadder that sprang to mind today as I read the headlines on the BBC website:

“If a Cannibal opened your head he wouldn’t have enough brain to cover a water biscuit”

The headline was this – “Banker bonuses minute, says duke“, the Duke in question being Andrew, Duke of York. My immediate comment to Twitter was ‘kind of like the Duke’s brain is minute in the scheme of things’, and certainly on the grounds of this comment at this time, not enough to cover that water biscuit.

I’m rarely personally abusive about people in the public eye, but this was one of those public utterances that suggests a number of thoughts.

That Andrew is very much the son of the Duke of Edinburgh; such an ability to put one’s foot in one’s mouth must surely be inherited.
That people with a republican sentiment might just have something going for them.
That people in the public eye should employ a good PR person.
And that playboys who wander around the world playing golf for Britain should perhaps belt up about such things.

OK…rant over. Maybe scope for a ‘Downfall Mashup’ later. But for now, back on topic. Let’s look at what Andrew did, in fact, say:

“I don’t want to demonise the banking and financial sector. Bonuses, in the scheme of things, are minute. They are easy to target. A number will have abused their privilege of a bonus, so get rid of the excesses, but don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.”

According to this article, banker’s bonuses for 2009 will be around £6 billions – yes, billions – due to increased bank profits in 2009 to date. This is up on 2008, when bonuses were a paltry £4 billions.

The word ‘minute’ clearly means different things to people in the commanding heights of the British establishment. The average income for all households in the UK for 2009 is about £30,000. That 6 billion could pay the household income for a year for 200,000 households in the UK. Goldman Sachs have recently said they’re putting aside about 600,000,000 for bonuses for it’s near 30,000 staff. This will result in average bonuses, assuming everyone got teh same, of £20,000. Of course, what this really means is that some of the GS people will get humongous bonuses again. Again, even with that average, ‘minute’ is not a word that I would apply to even a £20,000 bonus, when it’s two-thirds of the average income.

Vince Cable also makes this observation:

“The investment banks more than any other institutions created the culture of excessive leverage, excessive risk and excessive bonuses that led to the downfall of the financial system. Now they are cashing in and the same bonus culture has returned. The result must be that we are being pushed to the edge of another crash.”

Given that he’s been more on the nose than most politicians about recent financial crises, I’m getting worried.

tumbril

Whether Andrew intended his comments to come over as a ‘let them eat cake’ sort of speech is a moot point. That’s how it does come over. And I for one am increasingly sick of being told by people at the top of the heap that things are OK, really, and the guys who broke our economy really do deserve these bonuses, and, hey, it’s great to spend all day gadding about…ah, what the Hell.

Andrew – and the rest of you out there with lots of money, safe sinecures and no other worries in the morning than whether to take the Rolls, the Bentley or the Helicopter – think before you speak.

Think hard, listen to your advisers, look at what is happening in this country. We’re figuratively dying out here.

Where are the bloody tumbrils when you need them?

Joe's Jottings

Being the homepage and blog of Joe…

Category Archives: Politics