the fourth place

So, I went to Peru.

I had a really good time but came back feeling very mixed up. I loved the country and met many friendly locals, almost exclusively make, but came back sad at the oppression of Peruvian women and the poverty that results from that. I lost 5 kilos and my knees still ache but I feel more energised. I missed my girlfriend insanely but our reunion was calm and measured with - initially - none of the tears that welled up for both of us when I left. I'm setting myself new career goals but feel less productive at work even compared to when I left.

And then, there is blogging. I still want to monitor the news, but am perhaps less keen on processing it to the extent necessary to blog. My previosuly waning enthusiasm for progamming and fixing up the blog has now completely dissappeared, but I've been enjoying reading blogs more and in greater variety and have spent hours already marking up and describing my Flickr stream.

I don't think this blog will last much longer, but I think there will still be a time stamped stream of content here - I like having a mental fourth place where everything is centralised and shared. I need more structure, to take away the need for writing prose and I want to take down the long history of cringeworthy postings.

A new start for me means a new start for my blog too.

in Peterborough. Supervision and derision. Nice.

At least, much of it is. Sean Gabb concludes his list as follows (with my emphasis):

If anyone wants to contest this, I’m open to argument. I really would like nothing more than to believe I’m hopelessly in the wrong and that we are returning to those values which - far beyond any mere expansion of territory or power - set this country apart from all others. But I don’t think I can be accused of having misunderstood the drift of things. Whatever was promised, whatever may now be said, the Thatcher Government has brought into being the full coercive apparatus of a police state. As yet, this has had scarcely more to do than stand in reserve. Prosperity and a lingering habit of obedience have kept us sufficiently governable. But let either of these falter, and then, in their regular, familiar use, we shall see the potential of the new powers made actual.

I posted the list for this Labour Government a while ago.

I guess I must go and fix my dodgey comment processing after posting this one... ho hum.

I've been watching the BBC for about 2 hours looking especially at the footage of kidnapped soldiers and the analysis of the whole incident. And I think Robert over at Samizdata (not to mention the Biased BBC blog and Mr Aitken in the wider context) have a seriously good point. I'll get really specific here: BBC TV does not mention international law in the context of the current Iranian incident - even when talking directly about the scope and scale to which the action is "unacceptable" - despite traditional protection of POWs from display and public curiosity.

The two people who have mentioned international conventions were Liberal Democrat and Conservative spokesmen whose information doesn't appear to have been followed up. The theme instead seems to be that the line between Iraqi and Iranian waters is disputed and that the pictures are not a provocation but have been shown by the Iranians to reassure Britain. The confession of Leading Seaman Turney to obviously being in Iranian waters is qualified but is also repeated often. The specific claim from an "expert" on "maritime borders" that there is no internationally recognised line was followed up on and put to interviewees the next time around. I'll continue to watch and see if the international law angle is followed up on in the next loop.

First, let's look at what comes up under "Geneva Convention" on the BBC News and Sport search page.

News - Q&A: US military tribunals

BBC News explores the military tribunals being set up to try some of the detainees at Guantanamo.

80% relevance | 27 Mar 2007

News - Profile: International Committee of the Red Cross

Key facts, figures and dates

87% relevance | 3 Mar 2007

News - Guantanamo - black hole or vital tool?

The BBC's Paul Reynolds look at the issues surrounding the Guantanamo Bay camp five years after its first prisoners arrived.

78% relevance | 21 Feb 2007

News - Red Crystal gets official status

The Crystal joins the Red Cross and Crescent as a symbol of the world's best-known humanitarian organisation.

79% relevance | 14 Jan 2007

News - Settlements 'violate Israeli law'

A report says that 40% of settlements are built on private Palestinian land, in violation of Israeli law.

78% relevance | 21 Nov 2006

So, articles all mentioning the US and Israel but, despite being sorted by date, no mention of Iran thrice breaking the Geneva Convention as described by Robert:

The Iranians have just committed yet another violation of the Geneva Conventions: publicly displaying the British sailors they captured last week.

This makes the third violation of the Geneva Conventions by Iran: threatening to try soldiers in uniform for espionage, interrogation of captured soldiers, and now public display of captured soldiers.

There is debate about whether the Geneva convention applies, and I am not an expert, but the Iranians are certainly sailing pretty close to it. LibDem and Conservative have mentioned it or other conventions, but when the BBC receive an email from a viewer asking specifically what the Goverment's problem is with the Iranians showing the footage, what do they say?

They prefer "consular access". Huh?

I'm not sure if the Home Office have repeated this lie 1.7bn times, but they are trying hard.

Here's my response to this article from, you guessed it, the BBC.

I wonder if anyone at the BBC has actually looked at the 1.7bn figure. I have and - though I'm not an expert - frankly I think the Home Office are being simply deceitful in publishing this figure and that campaigners have failed to present the level of actual and potential mendacity involved. I can only imagine they are being deliberately conservative in their criticisms.

As for the BBC it is pathetic that the figure is repeated without any qualification and without reference to previous criticisms from experts. I am left believing that BBC employees must simply be partial to the ID scheme and feel compelled to complain to you today on that basis. Certainly, the statistic is worthy of specific scrutiny as an example of Home Office dishonesty.

In the meantime I would expect the article to be amended to include a reference to prior criticisms of the 1.7bn figure and for the BBC to put in place tougher procedures to ensure that examples of factual bias are not presented on the BBC web site again and that no article can be published on bbc.co.uk before it is scrutinised.

I just had an interesting conversation with a guy from Shelter who'd been doorstepping me for a few days and I'd managed to fob off several times.

He did a pretty great job of not showing his real anger when I finally got around to telling him I wan't going to give to Shelter because they lobby Government for hand outs. I told him "I don't want Governments to do things, to build houses", which I don't. I'm simply not persuaded that it would really help, certainly without propping up house prices, or creating bigger issues such as the flooding of homes built on flood plains.

The particular thing they want from the Government was more housing and better lawyers and legal support for people in danger of loosing their homes. At the same time though, he was able to tell me that Shelter do provide their own lawyers in these situations and that this makes a lot of difference. If I was able to support that - only - I'd have been sold. We also agreed that buildings are frequently wasted. I can think of at least three buildings just on the highstreet that are empty and this is, in the least, a shameful waste of great architecture.

We had a conversation about how this could be addressed by charities. He advocated state action to confiscate property and I demanded statistics on how many approaches to buy property from landlords had been unsucessful.

I guess this boils down to a philosophical point. The use of force to acheive moral aims being wrong, or not. Do we use veiled threats to force taxpayers to pay for homes or give them up, or do we ask those able to pay or provide properties to do so vountarily? Is charity action a replacement for the use of force or an excuse for the Government to avoid unpopular taxes? I've listened to the arguments for voluntarism and the only half decent argument I've heard against it is that the scale of the problem is too large, with which I counter that the ambitions of charities involved in direct action are deficient.

I feel rubbish for dragging this poor guy out in the cold only to be turned away. I also feel rubbish walking by homeless people knowing thatits best not to give to them directly but not bothering to find someone better to give to. That's why I want to hear about openly right-wing charities that agree with me philosophically and which refuse to act as mere proxies for the begging that goes on in the streets.

This charity would need to work on preventing homelessness, providing cheaper housing to people without a home, or both.

Mr Bird of the Big Issue seems like a good starting point based on his assertion that:

A lot of homeless organisations never give people the opportunity of growing up and looking after themselves.

My big beef is that I think homeless people are kept homeless by the generosity of the public. That generosity gives people hope, we don't give them opportunity.

Someone at some stage has to put some big bucks into prevention, because the bath is filling up faster than it is being emptied

At first glance Emmaus look like a good active charity. Crisis let themselves down by showing off thier policy and research unit and (again at first glance) Centrepoint seem to fall into Mr Bird's category of mollycoddlers with an emphasis on short term acommodation and policy and research.

So, lots of reading, but I hope to solicit a recommendation through this post. In the meantime, I need to look after number one and find myself a meal.

Though everyone in comercial premises and vehicles in the country (from some date to be announced) will be forbidden to smoke, and might be expected therefore to be aware of that fact (painfully aware, if an addicted smoker), Lambeth Council wishes me to know it will be a criminal offence not to display a no-smoking sign at the entrance to our office.

I almost wish I smoked. Cigars, preferably.

Guy Herbert

No. He gives the false impression that he's breaking the story at some personal risk Simon admits to falling for it at first:

if the Attorney General does want to serve an injunction, you know where to find Guido

The truth appears to be that he's merely providing the bluer unedited version of speech originally paraphrased by the BBC and appearing thusly at Order Order:

Oh ****, Levy Has Asked Me To Lie For Him

It's not clear he's even seen the document, but I choose to trust he has, since he tends to get stuff from time to time. He's just also prone to exaggerate in his own way.

Anyway, the BBC broke the story having got their day in court:

the BBC was granted permission to report the reasons an injunction was served

Guido and the rest of the world can take this as a signal that they won't be getting in any trouble for reporting the same facts.