the fourth place

In a complete contrast to the heartwarming story linked to just now I have this example of the beaurocratic state gone mental. They stand accused of planning to check your cellar for hidden home improvements, and taxing you (again) for each one.

The partisan Tory Party web site thoughtfully provides a press release and video presentation of a similar scheme in acion.

Should the Tories be believed then the level of fines is absolutely huge. £1,000 for refusing to co-operate and £200 a day after that. This level of fines seems deliberately chosen to ensure that refusing to comply on the grounds of privacy is an option only for the extremely rich or blisteringly well-organised.

The chances of a sucessful refusenik campaign winning this one are slim. Refuseniks will be imprisoned and probably still need to pay thousands of pounds in fines. I'm not opining as an expert but the options seem to be invoking the Human Rights Act, rioting, or voting for a low or flat tax system such as that proposed by UKIP.

Reader Kate points out this speech by a Muslim cleric in Oz:

If you take a kilo of meat, and you don't put it in the fridge, or in the pot, or in the kitchen, but you put in on a plate and placed it outside in the yard. Then you have a fight with the neighbour because his cats ate the meat. Then (inaudible). Right or not?

If one puts uncovered meat out in the street, or on the footpath, or in the garden, or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, then the cats come and eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem! If it was covered the cat wouldn't have. It would have circled around it and circled around it, then given up and gone.

If she was in her room, in her house, wearing her hijab, being chaste, the disasters wouldn't have happened. The woman possesses the weapon of seduction and temptation. That's why Satan says about the woman, "You are half a soldier. You are my messenger to achieve my needs. You are the last weapon I would use to smash the head of the finest of men. There are a few men that I use a lot of things with, but they never heed me. But you? Oh, you are my best weapon."

His discritpion of rape as a "disaster" as if it is random or accidental, his portrayal of men as cats - tame but prone to stray from civility, and his absolution of the owner of the cat - a metaphor for leadership all convince me that this is an example of a man that see's women as a pure evil and men as forced into rape.

I should point out that he was describing a story invented by another and we know who else got into trouble by doing that recently, but this telling of the story is in the speakers own words and there is no other original content in this part of speech. The purpose is to relate teachings made by others and therefore I think we can hold this man accountable for selecting and presenting the story as he did. We can also look further up the text of the speech, where it is clear he is not relating any specific work:

in the event of adultery, the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time with women. Why? Because the woman possesses the weapon of seduction. She is the one who takes her clothes off, cuts them short, acts flirtatious, puts on make-up and powder, and goes on the streets dallying. She is the one wearing a short dress, lifting it up, lowering it down, then a look, then a smile, then a word, then a greeting, then a chat, then a date, then a meeting, then a crime, then Long Bay Jail, then comes a merciless judge who gives you 65 years.

Kate, writing from Australia claims the "Long Bay Jail" and "65 year" references refer to a specific gang rape, if true, then the abscence of a clear comdemnation of that act is telling.

Why am I caring about this? because within my inner circle are several Muslims with whom I have perfect trust that they do not beleive anything of this sort. Yet here is an example of a preacher not only clearly holding these views in his own mind and not quoting anybody but attempting to spread these views.

Part of me thinks that to protect those friends it would be best to silence this preacher and ensure that thuggish members of my society here in Britain do not hear or read this speech and react violently. Another part of me recognises that the views are harmful and would not want them to be shared by those in the audience, and I understand this speech was delivered to a mosque full of worshippers at Ramadan, where it would have been a larger than average crowd.

The fact is though, that denying the existence of these points of view denies us the opportunity to condemn and challenge them, to point and laugh and express disgust. Had we passed a law stating that blaming women for force used against them is illegal, then would the view go away? I don't think it would. I think the idea is obvious enough to exist on its own, and to be frequently re-invented. At the same time its problems are not sufficently obvious that it will die out on its own. It is a strong meme that requires refutation, and it is only by hearing the view expressed that we are able to determine that it is held and in need of refutation. It is also only by hearing it expressed and refuted openly in context that we are able to work out patterns, such as whether some, many, or all Muslims - or members of any other group - think as this one does.

The Internet Governance Forum is taking a battering both on email lists and its own blogging platform. Even if these voices are ignored there seem to be structural issues that will effect the perception and legitamacy of the forums decisions.

I'm quite happy with the idea that an organisation concerned with Governing the Internet will end up doing nothing - the Internet needs less Government, not more - but if the energy of activists is soaked up pointlessly then that will be a shame. Perhaps it is best that it only acquires teeth once its policy decisions are known to be favourable towards liberty.

You may remember the creepy authoritatian communist state of Yeovil introduced fingerprinting technology into its pubs to allow for the exclusion of drunken thugs. Clearly, simple staffing measures such as keeping the same doormen on the same doors and simple communicaiton technologies such as radios were not suficient to allow the tracking troublemakers as they were in smaller metropolises such as Bristol.

What was the effect of this measure on the bustling international city of Yeovil?

[A spokesperson was unable to] say if fingerprint security in Yeovil had displaced crime to neighbouring towns, but she noted that domestic violence had risen in Yeovil. She could not give more details until the publication of national crime statistics to coincide with the anniversary of lax pub licensing laws on 24 November

Could it be that the local thugs were staying at home or is it perhaps that the persecuted population started to go mad?

Regardless of such teething problems the Government, in its wisdom, sees the scheme as a sucess and wishes to roll it out to wider audiences in the UK's mega-cities:

"The Home Office have looked at our system and are looking at trials in other towns including Coventry, Hull & Sheffield," said Julia Bradburn, principal licensing manager at South Somerset District Council.

Gwent and Nottingham police have also shown an interest, while Taunton, a town neighbouring Yeovil, is discussing the installation of fingerprint systems in 10 pubs and clubs with the systems supplier CreativeCode.

Fabulous.

I admire this description for sticking mostly to the facts, with only a little colour and some opening personification:

When you come out of your house first thing, I'm watching. And I'm with you every step of the way — to the shops, to work, wherever you go. I'm there on the bus just behind you. I recognise your car, too. I know where you bought it. And I've a list with every trip you take and which way you went. I take notes, lots of notes.

Sounds like a description of a stalker, but if the Government had a single mind this might just be how it thought. It would not be a threat, but a promise and a well intentioned promise at that. A promise to keep you safe without really asking permission (Labour's share of the total possible electorate was 22%. calculations)and without any regard to how you might feel about the process.

Guy has done an excellent job of rounding up this years news on privacy and offering a little historical perspective about how we got here. I'm not convinced by his implication that everyone saw the images of Jamie Bulger and thought "that's horrible, lets put a camera in my shop just in case another kidnapped child walks by". I think other more frequent horrors such as drunks, bad drivers and shop-lifters would have been the justification for each new CCTV camera at the time, but it is an interesting possible explanation for public compliance.

Here's the instructions for those who missed the show, or who are especially keen, to watch it all again.

Almost certainly worth a look.

Update: My earlier understatement was uncalled for, its a good show. Those who find politics dull may not become engaged, but for those engaged in politics it will be a welcome change.

Prepare my cell, I shall not have an identity card

Joanna Lumley, top bird.

Update: Samizdata also captured the quote, but slightly differently, let it not be said that I deliberately misrepresented Joanna, though my version is probably more T-shirt friendly.

The BBC on the costs of ID cards.

The usability of flags as symbols to denote langauge - highly relevant to this blog.

Some music by Sting.

A crazy security system rudely discards customers. Also from Anderson, a summary of why identity theft has nothing to do with identity owners and why certain harms against identity owners are essentially libel. Persuasive.

This video posting over at web cameron shows up a bizzare difference, not only of opinion, but also of world view between video correspondant Rachel Elnaugh (not a Tory) and John Redwood (a Tory right winger). Rachel is all in favour of "wealth creation" and "support" for entrepreneurs, but when it comes to tax cuts she speaks of them as offering tax cuts as the incentive to vote conservative. Never does she let us know that tax cuts would help individuals to generate wealth, or consider even for a moment that tax cuts are simply good policy.

If you are persuaded that low tax is a good idea not only for yourself but for the whole of society, then you do not need to be bribed with them. Tax cuts targetted at those with salaries under £15,000 would hardly constitute a bribe for me, but I would vote for them regardless because the whole economy would benefit and because it is morally right.

Let's lock up Ian Blair now and see how he likes it.

The UK Independance Party are offering a sensible if not exactly radical policy on Tax, just as the "conservative" party in this country promises no such inhuman behaviour.

Of course we know that taxation is theft, (no, it really is) but I think we do need some tax to pay for a strong anti-trust body, an army, police, toll-free roads, clear waterways, a CCTV licencing body, etc etc. The important thing is that the amount of tax remains low, chairties are able to function and that there is competition to garauntee the quality of essential services such as bin emptying and education. Also, tax should preserve market incentives to do well so that everybody becomes as rich as possible, rather than staying on welfare or in a low-paid job rather than breaking out into enterprise.

This is what I have come to know as standard capitalist thinking, odd then that UKIP - often derided as a fringe loony racist right-wing bunch of nutters - are the only people talking about these things!

UKIP are proposing a couple of things that strike me as dead sensible. Rolling NI into income tax should save us all a great deal of effort. If you believe the graph on page 5 then NI creates extra taxation to kick in for those on incomes around £5000 - less than the minimum wage. Scrapping NI would mean less tax for the poorest people. They also suggest a higher tax threshhold - set at £9000 - which would be an extra bonus for the poor as well as lowering the burden on HMCE for the benefit of us all. A high tax threshhold makes the final proposal of a flat 33% tax (25% for pensioners) an acceptably progressive measure.

That is all great for the poor, including members of my immediate family, but what about me?

I'm just below the upper tax threshhold which means if I earn anymore, its taxed at 40%. Under UKIPs proposals I can go on earning at much more money as I like and its taxed at 33%, sweet, but here's the sweetest:

Income from self-employment would be taxed at the same rates as income from
employment (no more class 2 and class 4 NI contributions and no more arguments
about who is self-employed and who is an employee).

Does this mean no more IR35? Yee haa! It will be nice to be able to invest more than 5% of my revenue in my business without risking being forced to invest it in my own salary!

Well, that was my own excited and somewhat one-sided analysis. I haven't read every word, but so far I unashamedly like this policy announcement. There are not any posts out there criticising it yet, as far as I can tell, but a good more detailed analysis is offered by Devil's Kitchen who also has his own more radical ideas. If you spot any more critiques, then post a comment, and post a comment if you disagree with anything I've said or linked to here.

this sums up how I feel very nicely.

Guido Fawkes has done a good job of highlighting the flow of money from the tax payer into the sparse coffers of the Labour Party.

Simon worries that Guido's irreverant style conceals the seriousness of the situation. Nearby tittle-tattle encourages us to dismiss this as more of the same, but its not, it's quite serious. I mean, its like theft a tax a fraud or something. Can't they stick to selling peerages?

I hope Guido doesn't mind me borrowing his bandwidth to spread the message in this boring old blog of mine. I'm sure he'd say, better that, than posting such earnest comments on my blog...

Tessa Jowell has some research on BBC pricing.

Research found people would pay an average of £162.66 for the BBC's services

it doesn't say whether they'd like it.

Comment is free are running a bit on some scary new US anti-terror laws.

Steve Yegg talks about the downsides of Agile software development.

If you think that's an odd mix of links for one post, then welcome to my brain.