Yes I know, posts have been sporadic at best this week. It's essay season, and I've got a freelance contract to complete. So sit tight and visit the blogs in my sidebar for a good read.

Will be back soon!

"The British National Party isn't about selling out its ideas, which are your ideas too, but we are determined now to sell them, and that means basically to use the saleable words, as I say; freedom, security, identity, democracy. Nobody can criticise them."
- Nick Griffin, speaking at a Ku Klux Klan rally, Texas (2001)

I think the very fact that I'm blogging about this advertisement means that it has had its desired effect.
Hardly surprising that it attracted complaints. I'm glad to hear that the ASA hasn't upheld them. I like the idea behind this advert but I would have to disagree with the statement at the bottom. ID Cards have never worked well anywhere!

Okay that's an exaggeration. There is a time and place for the standard kind, but the biometric aspect puts the kind we are to be subjected to in a whole new category of wrong. They won't stop crime, identity theft, benefits fraud or terrorism - the usual justifications - biometric or not. About the only benefit is that of the ease of having all information stored on one card and that's not exactly a watertight case for them, considering the costs involved and the threat to civil liberties they pose when they can be so easily cracked or cloned.

So, more adverts like this please.

And the winner is... David Cameron.

Then again, look at the competition. Nobody else in the Conservative Party has really stepped up in any huge way over this past year, though there have been moments (good and bad it must be said). Almost every senior Labour politician has been at the centre of some scandal or another. The Liberal Democrats haven't made many inroads either - aside from Nick Clegg possibly - although they have managed to stay relatively scandal free after their implosion last year. If you're going to judge Politician of the Year it really seems a bit of a one horse race.

Our man Cameron has changed the political landscape of this country drastically and has pulled the party more or less back from the brink. For that alone I respect him, even if I don't agree with everything he says. I have no idea if this award is worth winning or not, but if it is, then I'm glad his work has been recognised.

I went out campaigning again today with a couple of the guys from my CF branch, this time to the Hertford Ward to help David Chambers in the local by-election. Since it's between him and Patricia Ann Scott of the BNP, I thought it a pretty important one to go help out on.
The towns we visited were beautiful (Hunmanby and Muston outside Scarbourough - mmmm sea air). Here's hoping David, who clearly loves the area he's standing for, manages to kick the BNP to the curb tomorrow. Since Scott is standing purely on national issues, and has lost a few other elections around the area already, I'm hopeful the "local boy" can win it. The last thing we need is for the BNP to get a foothold around Scarborough. Watch this space, I guess.

Just a quick note to say that I'm taking a bit of time off to get a headstart on Uni work and complete some freelance work. I'll be back pretty soon!

From the Press Gazette:

"Before the year is out the government plans to push through two fundamental changes. The first would allow public authorities to aggregate the costs of all FoI requests made by one individual or organisation and refuse their request if costs exceed £600 for government organisations and £450 for other bodies."

Okay, now that is pretty ridiculous but it's just about passable.

"The second would allow bodies to refuse any request that involves a lot of "thinking time" on cost grounds. This would take into consideration whether the issue had been raised before and whether they are politically contentious."

And there is the kicker. In a nutshell, they would first delay as long as they wish, which will have an impact on the media if they are making the request for information. Then they might refuse to release information if it has been sent out before - forcing one to go hunting for it. Another measure which will take up time. Then, the most sinister clause follows; they want the power to refuse to release any information on "politcally contentious" issues. Hmmmm, am I the only one who thinks that could be applied to just about anything they like? And how exactly might one contend with their definition? It's not as if one could take the DCA or whatever public body is holding information back to court to get them to release information, for the cost alone.

I may be missing something here but these changes sound, frankly, barmy in every possible respect. You have to wonder what the motivation for this is. If it was all about merely upping the cost I could just about understand, since upholding FoI has been far more costly than anticipated according to the latest independenty commissioned report about it [PDF link].

But those extra clauses strike me as being somewhat more ominous. I can't see how they are justifying them.

On a lighter note, I'd just like to draw attention the section of the above report entitled "requests that are not in the spirit of the Act". Whoever wrote it had a sense of humour at least. I particularly liked these entries:

• A request for the total amount spent on Ferraro Rocher chocoloates in UK embassies.
• A request for the number of eligable bachelors in the Hampshire Constabulary between the ages of 35 and 49, their email addresses, salary details and pension values recieved from requestor "I like men in uniform".
• A request for the number of statistics of reported sex with sheep and any other animal in Wales for 2003 and, if possible, since records began.

Must be a laugh working in that department!

"I feel ashamed. I have been a Labour Party supporter for 48 years - ever since I was 15-years-old. Corruption is rife. It is shambolic and disgusting. The public is being deceived and betrayed by a Government hell bent on staying in power. We are being run by a dictatorship. Democracy has simply been swept away."
- Former Councillor Bryn Sidaway; whistleblower on Labour's latest funding scam

"An internal review of the hospitality policy of City of London police was ordered yesterday after revelations that officers had been accepting invitations, dinners and gifts from the Church of Scientology worth thousands of pounds."

I think the pertinent question is, do the police get perks from other religious organisations too? Or is whoever did this review just picking on the scientologists? What I mean to say is, would this report have made the papers if it was the Church of England giving out goodies to get an insidious foothold in the upper echelons of the police force?

Just wondering.

Here I was, idly typing in "Teresa May" into google to get to her home site, clicking through the top link without really looking at it, and look where I ended up: at the homepage of Teresa May, porn star!

Waaa! I hate google sometimes. That'll teach me not to read the full title of a link before clicking through.

Now all I can think is, poor Teresa May (the MP, that is). Knocked off the top spot by an adult entertainer. Shocking.

My main objection to the last Pope was his standing by and allowing millions of people, particularly in Africa die of AIDS, when a simple edict from him with regards to condom use could have helped a great deal in the prevention of it.

This Pope isn't exactly more progressive, but at least those around him appear to be. Apparently the papal officer in charge of health issues, Javier Lozano Barragán, is going to urge that condoms be permitted in cases when one partner in a marriage is HIV positive. The old "thou shalt not kill" is being used as justification for this sidestep towards logic. Makes you wonder why they never thought of that before.

It's a start I suppose. It would be great if the Vatican got off its high horse and approved widespread condom use in or out of matrimony. However since that isn't going to happen for a long while yet this is a welcome compromise. Better one step forward in a race against time than just standing still forevermore.

Uh oh, Dizzy got me with a meme. This is actually a tricky one. It's so much easy to say things I'd like to do, rather than things I wouldn't.

Ah well, here goes. Ten things I would never do:

1. Willingly sit through another Adam Sandler movie
2. Get any sort of riské piercing
3. Eat a burger from McDonalds
4. Accept Jesus as my personal saviour
5. Take the stairs if I can get away with taking the lift
6. Turn down a cuddle
   
7. Get drunk enough to wake up in a strange place
8. Share a secret I'm sworn to keep
9. Join the Fabian Society
10. Watch the soaps

In the spirit of sharing (natch), I'd like to nominate the following to continue this meme: Strange Stuff, Trevor Ivory, Tory in the Wilderness, This Scepter'd Isle and of course, President Ahmadinejad of Iran. One of these days, he'll pick up on these memes.

Via Strange Stuff, this is a perfect example of why the National Identity Register is a disaster in waiting (as if we needed more evidence than we already have). The incompetence on display on the part of the department is utterly astonishing.

Read "How I Became An Offical Zombie" and weep.

EDIT: Okay, it's been pointed out to me that it's a spoof. Shame, it was a great story...

Okay, I cheated. Wally isn't pictured on this Christmas card. Wally is the one sending it.

This is the card Gordon Brown plans to send out this Christmas. Now, it's very cute, I'll give it that. But surely it's far too childish to be made his official one? What is that supposed to say? And I'm really puzzled about the girl looking at the red Budget Briefcase with a clueless air. What is that supposed to represent?

Then again, the drawing does ooze political correctness from every corner, so perhaps it is more fitting for Gordon than it appears at first glance.

Has anybody else stumbled onto 17 Doughty Street, the "satirical next door neighbour" of the more famous no. 18 on Youtube? Looks like Chad Noble and his UKIP chums have moved in next door.

I'm baffled as to why it's calling itself satirical to be honest. I mean, I can see the funny side of a lot of what David Cameron gets up to, and I can sort of see what they're trying to do. There is great potential for mockery of him which as yet nobody seems to be able to get it right. And boy are they trying. This attempt just isn't all that amusing though. I get the sense that their re-ordered speeches could have been a lot funnier if done better, as the various George Bush ones floating around have shown.

Still, at least they're not just stealing clips from Time Trumpet. That's a step up at least.

I had to roll my eyes at the news of "State Supernannies" getting ready to be shipped out by the government to problem families. While there may be a small amount of merit behind the idea, it is quite obviously a case of closing the gate after the horse has made it all the way to the horizon. Just a headline grab; like saying "I locked the gate - honest".

Yep, it's yet another costly "initiative" designed to try and fix yet another mess of their own creation. The sad fact is, if they hadn't have systematically stripped parents and teachers of the power to discipline children properly, for fear of infringing upon their "human rights", we wouldn't be having such widespread and serious trouble.

Then there's the fact that 80 nannies aren't exactly going to stretch far. Who are they trying to kid here? It's clearly just another piece of government spin, designed to try and give the impression that they are doing something about the social degredation they have caused.

If only they'd have the guts to do what actually needs to be done, like suring up the social services we have already and restoring the power of schools and parents to punish their children, rather than making a mad rush for the headlines with something which will cost a fortune to set up, do barely anything, and which will be forgotten by next week as another gimmicky "crack down" is announced. Then we might see some progress.

I can hardly believe it. And this celebration comes during an amazing week too. I've had record visitors, thanks mainly to 18 Doughty Street (big thank you guys!) and I got onto the front page of the politics section of Blog Top Sites for the first time as well. Also there are a whole host of new links in my sidebar so do check them out.

Now, in the spirit of introspective celebration, here are some of the most amusing search terms which have sent people to my blog and my reaction:

photos of john mcririck
That's a frightening prospect for any blog

ruth kelly gay
Now you come to mention it, she has had some suspect hairstyles over the years...

all good things to those who wait
And now you found my blog!

who the fuc is alice
I'd really love to tell you

tony blair's daughter
If I were his daughter that would be headline news

cameron rhymefest
Hammer run, slammer done, whammer son, glamour fun...

christian outrage
I can't help it if I provoke a bit of a reaction sometimes

fit for purpose definition computing
1110010110 011010101001 1000100110

christian police sketch
Uh oh, am I wanted?

hell on earth catholic
Is that anything like a fundamenalist one?

chronically bored
You've come to the right place. Uh... oh

david cameron lookalike blog
What a great blog that would be!

patricia yep
Any relation to Patricia Nope?

wingbat sailing
Oh the mental image that conjures

poser foreskin
Why on earth does that keep leading people to my blog?!

what is the rate for old aged pensions for having their hair set cut and perm
I'll do it for a tenner, no questions asked

reid blair's bulldog
A better description of John Reid you may never find

bnp membership
Don't do it! You have so much to live for!

banning competitive sports tory government
I think you'll find that's more of a Labour government fetish

different to me now martine
How so? I'm intrigued

quite pretty, i grant you
Why thank you *flicks hair*

free hardcore transvestite pics
Eh?!!! I think someone took a wrong turn at Weeeeeird Junction!

"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of ligtening."
- Calvin, Calvin & Hobbes

I'm still not happy about all this business of Lords reform. Hilary Benn was on Andrew Marr this morning and bizarrely brought it up as a solution to lack of participation in politics. I had the strangest urge to go smack my head on a wall, his argument was so patently weak.

EDIT: It seems I misread the Tory plans this morning. It's not 20% elected, 80% non - it's the other way around! That's even worse than Labour's badly thought out 50:50 and "3-terms only" plan (which I consider to be a non-starter). I'm hugely disappointed.

In May, the Tory leader said: "A strong and effective Parliament needs a strong and effective second chamber. The current House of Lords lacks authority and legitimacy. In my view, the Lords must have a significant elected element if it is to play a full and proper role."

Wrong wrong wrong. The current House of Lords doesn't need any extra authority and legitimacy. At the risk of repeating myself like a broken record as to why, I wrote an extensive post on this subject here.

Over the past week I have been seeking out helpful Conservative (or right-aligned at least) bloggers for a research project I am going to be doing on the subject for my degree at University.

Basically, it will be a questionaire seeking to gather information about the types of party members (or potential party members) taking up blogging, with emphasis on their various attitudes, outlooks and reasons why. I want to see if there are any correlations and if there are, to try and explain them.

I would like to have 50-100 bloggers taking part. At the time of writing, so far 31 have kindly agreed to lend a hand. My hearfelt thanks to the owners of these blogs:

Dizzy Thinks, Burning our Money, Clive Davis, James Cleverly, Archbishop Cranmer, Ellee Seymour, Tory Radio, The Croydonian, Conservative History, Kevin Davis, Trevor Ivory, Dodgeblogium, Natalie Solent, Mr Eugenides, Tim Roll-Pickering, ContraTory, Peter C. Glover's Wires, Cunning Title, Freedom and Whisky, Vote Franco, PragueTory, The Thunderdragon, Raw Carrot, Unenlightend Commentary, Tory in the Wilderness, Curly's Corner Shop, Cynical Chatter from the Underworld, USS Never Dock, IstanbulTory, The Last Ditch and An Englishman's Castle.

But I still need another 19 volunteers to hit my minumum target. There are bloggers out there I have tried to reach but who do not include their email on their blog, so if that's you, please get in contact me to join in with the research.

I can be reached at me@martinemartin.co.uk or if you'd prefer, leave a comment here with an addy I can reach and I'll get in touch with you.

Criterium:

• I'm studying Conservative-aligned blogs only (at any end of the spectrum within that bracket)
• I'd like to concentrate on personal blogs on politics only
  
• If you have more than one blog you will need to choose one
  
• If you post on a blog with more than one contributor, you can join as the sole representative though I'll need to check it out to see if it's suitable for this research first
  

The questionaire will hopefully be done and sent out before Christmas, but if not, then some time in January will be about the mark. It will go out by email, or will be created online if I can get the software I'm tinkering with to work.

So be a saint and help out a student in need. Any questions, use the comments section or email me.

Courtesy of the Telegraph today:
And all I can think is, 1999 was not a good hair year.

On a related topic, has anyone noticed how Mr and Mrs Blair have a strange habit of always managing to steal all of Gordon Brown's limelight with a throwaway comment, just when he really needs the publicity? At the Labour Conference, during the big speech Gordon made in an effort to show himself as a leader in waiting, Cherie did it. Now, as Gordon makes his first trip to Iraq in Prime Ministerial fashion, Tony has done it.

Well, they do say that timing is everything in politics...

This picture was taken a few hours before Katie Holmes' groom arrived at the castle they have chosen as their wedding venue.

No offence to the happy couple, but if I were about to marry Tom "Scientology rules my life" Cruise, that's exactly how I'd look.

Giant hat tip to The Last Boy Scout for finding this one:

"Quite pretty, I grant you."
- Patricia Hewitt on David Cameron (according to ConHome)

Up on Downing Street Says today:

"Put that it was currently being reported that the Labour party Chair had briefed the Prime Minister on the conversations she had had with the police about cash for honours, the PMOS said that, as always, this was an on-going police investigation and he refused to comment on any aspect of it. Asked if the police had been to No10, the PMOS replied: no."

Now I'm no expert when it comes to the law, but surely there must be some issue with somebody interviewed as a witness by the police briefing somebody under investigation as a suspect about what they discussed. That can't be legal, surely?

A lot of Christians I meet have this strange idea that secularists are out to get them. "Nonsense!" I cry. "You have a persecution complex!"

And then issues like this come up and I have to wonder.

"THEY are the earnest-looking, clean-living young men and women who hand out leaflets asking “Do you know God loves you?” and hold prayer meetings while other students are busy watching the boat club captain strip naked after ten pints in the college bar... the Christian unions claim that their existence is at risk by a secular agenda that opposes their core religious beliefs.

But after 83 years of prayer breakfasts, Bible study groups and freshers week stalls, the future of the Christian union on university campuses is under unprecedented threat from students who claim that the societies are homophobic and exclusive."

Hold the phone, somebody thinks Christians are homophobes? Well of course. Somebody is always bound to. But does that really give them the right to systematically force an end to their University societies? Don't the religious deserve the right to commune, socialise and express their free speech as much as anybody else?

I do say this as an atheist and a secularist, by the way. I can't deny that I find the Christian Union's outlook and literature offensive according to my own values. However it's not my right to translate that into discrimination. Nor is it anybody else's. This matter gives secularists a bad name. I mean, if we are going to be just as "exlusive" as the Christians allegedly are, why on earth should non-religious societies take any precedence at all?

David Davis, the patron saint? of Hull Uni Conservative Future branch came to the University today for a Q and A. He seemed very laid back and nice, and shook my hand firmly, though stepped back a little when he was told I was a blogger! I assured him I could be discreet, and he said he'd heard that before; so I asked if he had anything to declare... Sadly he did not! But he then named three blogs he knows of - Iain Dale, Conservative Home and Guido Fawkes - and revealed that although he hadn't been on them as yet he was interested in checking out Guido's blog, as he's been told it's very entertaining. So keep an eye out Guido.

On the whole he was very articulate, not just about the ins and outs of the government's policies but about why he disagreed with them and what he would do instead. I couldn't find anything I disagreed with him about particularly, surprisingly enough. His arguments against ID Cards, 90 days detention and the Fraud Bill were very sound. Perhaps the most interesting topics that came up were the subject of the homosexual age of consent, the death penalty and my question about a rift between him and David Cameron...

A Labour attendee asked Davis why he had voted against lowering the homosexual age of consent in line with the heterosexual one, and asked if he was homophobic. Davis took it in his stride, saying that he didn't think that he was and had voted against it due to concerns about predatory adults taking advantage. In an effort to prove his non-homophobic credentials he said that he attended his first Civil Partnership ceremony very recently and made a speech at it.

On the subject of the death penalty, he said he still believed in it but that it would probably always be a minority view in Parliament. He made the stipulation that he only supported it in cases of serial murder where several different crime scenes have yielded the same DNA evidence. I myself am not a particular proponent of a death penalty but in that particular form I would not be against. So another good argument there.

Yesterday, The UK Daily Pundit reported a Shadow Cabinet rift between Davis and Cameron, leading to Davis considering his position. Since just prior to that he had been talking about his being the next Home Secretary, and was very sure that he would be, it seemed silly to ask about him considering resignation. So I just asked if there was a split over the line being taken with regards to crime and such - that old Hug a Hoodie argument - between him and David Cameron.

He didn't exactly refute that they didn't always agree, though he said that he and Cameron got on well and did tease each other. He related how he'd asked Cameron about cracking the "I too would hug a hoodie, only I'd do it harder and longer" gag in Parliament and Dave had laughed his head off. I got the feeling they did butt heads occasionally but generally worked it out for the sake of getting things done. So nothing too shocking in there, I think.

I stumbled upon this last night....
It's funny because it's true.

The most fundamental rule about human nature is that if there is a way to beat a system, any system, somebody has already found and exploited it. It applies to tax loopholes, record alterations, company accounts, trading carousels and all kinds of manipulable systems.

So why on earth are the Home Office so convinced that their biometric ID cards and passports will be any different, when time and time again it has been proved that they are nowhere near secure? Take this report in the Guardian today for example. Set a computer whizz on the problem and the entire RFID system has been cracked, allowing him to discover every detail about a card holder's life, right down to academic qualifications and home value. And it only cost around £200 or so to achieve. That's before we even get started on the flaws inherant in relying on biological signatures and a national ID database.

There is no disputing the facts that the entire system is not, and never can be, secure. So why are they so adamant? Is it because they are too far deep into this they have to believe it, whatever the contradictory evidence?

I heard a theory once that the reason the Labour government has been voted in time and time again, despite their obvious failings, is simply because people don't like to admit they were wrong the first time round. They will only change their mind if they absolutely have to.

This desperate grasping at straws by the government and the Home Office feels very much in the same vein. The question is, what will it take to make them give this illogical push for a technology that is nowhere ready for mass use up? A few billion down the drain and identity fraud leaping off the scale, perhaps?

Or would even that be insufficient?

*** Hat tip to Wigan Libdems for the Blair ID Card Graphic

Normally making a manip would take a few hours. This has taken all week due to my computer problems! Gah!

Anyway, I was making this just in case we never get to see this day due to political interference. But now that Guido Fawkes (and Iain Dale) have broken a certain letter from Yates of the Yard which implies this may actually be going somewhere, it's looking encouraging.

And so I present to you, Tony Blair's dream exit from Downing Street... making a panicked run for it.

"It was a lesson with a difference for sixth-formers at the St Marylebone Church of England High School first thing yesterday morning. After all, stand-in teachers are not supposed to show their glee at the prospect of the Prime Minister being arrested over the "cash for honours" affair. Nor, for that matter, do they often admit that "the trouble with politicians is they're incredibly vain"..."

Who else could it be but dear old Boris Johnson playing teacher for the morning. As usual, he is spot on in several respects, especially with regards to the House of Lords reform. It sounds like it was quite a fun lesson; there's no hilarity to be had quite like hilarity of having a teacher or lecturer who can't work the technology that has been foisted upon them. I speak from experience.

I have heard worrying reports today that Boris is possibly lined up for the next Celebrity Big Brother. All I can say is, "noooo Boris, don't do it! You're better than that!"

" Race watchdogs have launched a probe into a relaunched 1939 Dandy annual after claims it uses racist and inflammatory language. The children's annual, which has been reprinted for the Christmas market, has been branded racist for using the word 'nigger.'

The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) has launched an investigation into the annual after a series of complaints. A spokeswoman for the CRE said: 'We will look at the book and make a decision on whether it is inflammatory.'

But the publishers are unrepentant over reissusing the annual saying times had obviously changed since those terms were used and the annual should be judged in its historical context.

Talk about trying to rewrite history. How utterly ridiculous. Thank heavens the publishers are holding fast, though I would lay money on the CRE pressing for censorship and forcing the issue.

When you start trying to rewrite history for the mere pupose of political correctness you know the world has turned on its head. What will be next for the edit? How about these funny little snippets from old Batman comics I ran across a short while ago:


How long until the prudes decide that references like that, whose meaning have been transformed over the passage of time, could somehow warp the minds of today's children and hence need to be removed? This is quite a slippery slope to start on.

Not that I don't see why they're doing it; I just very much dispute that anything considered offensive to somebody should automatically be censored, especially when it's a matter of historical accuracy. It's that same old Danish Cartoon debate rearing its head yet again, just with different lines drawn in the sand...

"GORDON BROWN suffered an embarrassing blow to his standing last night after he was booed at an awards ceremony for Britain’s music industry.

Whistles, shouts and boos from some members of the audience greeted the Chancellor as he appeared on the stage at the Alexandra Palace, in London.

Mr Brown appeared as a surprise guest to present an award to Sir George Martin, the Beatles’ producer known as the “fifth Beatle”, and induct him into the UK Music Hall of Fame."

I almost feel sorry for Gordon Brown. Oh wait, no... it's just indigestion. It sounds like this was quite a chuckle-worthy spectacle, with Gordon having to repeat himself over and over to be heard. Especially as it couldn't possibly have been a planned demonstration; he was a surprise guest after all.

Even more amusing is the fact that they were calling for Tony! That's got to be a blow to the ego.

Via Labourhome:Left is a hostage taker from the 1979 takeover of the US Embassy in Iran, during which 52 American hostages were held for a 444 days. On the right is the current President of Iran.

Or are they the same person?

Personally, I can see their very similar attributes but I'm really not sure it's the same guy. The picture of President Ahmadinejad has obviously been specifically chosen because the resemblance between them is maximised, and that suggests more to me that somebody wants us to believe it's him. Still, would really we be all that surprised if it was?

Not too long ago, Mike Ion over at LabourHome had a piece questioning whether MPs should ever debate with the BNP.

My immediate reaction was a definite no. It's the old "oxygen of publicity" argument; why provide a platform for such intolerable views? Indeed, the Labour government all deserve honourary BNP membership badges for the explosion of publicity the trial of Nick Griffin produced for his party. Talk about a home goal there.

Still, it has got me thinking far more about this. And I now feel very much that it is wrong not to engage with them in debate. Just as it is wrong to try to silence people like Nick Griffin by laws, or in the best traditions of dictatorships, to change the law when it doesn't rule to your liking.

There is a subtle difference between what Griffin said on the topic of Islam and what should be illegal. He called it a "wicked, vicious faith" and then launched into a racist tirade. Now, had he said something more along the lines of "it's a wicked, vicious faith and we must kill them all", before handing out pitchforks and torches, I should think he would easily deserve to be banged up. There is a difference between incitement to hatred and incitement to violence. We all know the consequences of violence; they are clear and empirical. But incitement to hatred? Who sets the scale there?

Anyway, my point is simply this. When they rob people like Nick Griffin of his right to speak his mind, they rob me of my right to argue him down over it.

Surely it's better to use logic and evidence to battle such views than simply slap another law in place and hope it does the trick - oh by the way, sorry to the comedian sent to jail for a non-PC joke or the drunk guy down the public moaning about losing his job to a cheaper-paid migrant and proclaiming his hatred. Didn't mean to get you too, but oh well, one down all down.

When you engage with parties like the BNP you have the opportunity to show the world just how ridiculous they are. When you use the blunt hammer of the law to silence them instead, you run the risk of giving them martyr status in the eyes of a disaffected population.

This is a problem that will continue to grow if we simply ignore them. They need to be exposed as illiberal thugs playing on peoples' fears to gain power for themselves, and that can only be done with real debate and discussion. Or else be prepared for many more photo ops like this one:

Have you heard? The government is setting aside £65,000 for the preservation of albatrosses in the UK.

More money for John Prescott then I assume.

Boom boom chhhsssssshhh.

With thanks to Tory Radio for this one.

http://www.myheritage.com

Britney Spears?!? Aaah! Conclusive proof this really isn't an exact science!

"Organised religion doesn't work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate." He added: "The world is near escalating to World War Three and where are the leaders of each religion? Why aren't they having a conclave? Why aren't they coming together?"

The musician said people were too busy blogging on the internet to protest for what they believed in.

"They seem to do their protesting online and that's not good enough. You have to get out there and be seen to be vocal, and you've got to do it time and time again.

Most of the media seem to be focusing on the 'Elton John says religion should be banned' bit of his interview, which seems a bit of a non-story to me. Lots of people say that all the time. Just because he's a famous singer shouldn't kick off a debate about something that could simply never happen. Religion will always be with us. We just have to pray it will one day learn to keep itself to itself.

No I was far more outraged by the comment about bloggers! What he patently fails to realise is that bloggers tend to be the sort of people who do go out and get vocal. It is a tool of organisation just as much as it is one of protest. And it's the best one we have right now.

"When the Government says some of these job losses are not actually people being made redundant, what are we meant to do - lift our hands up in the air and shout 'Yippee'? If they are freezing a post, that's still a doctor that's not able to carry out operations; if they are not replacing a nurse, that's a nurse that cannot be beside a patient's bed."
- David Cameron

Well I just got home from a day with Hull Conservative Future, leafleting with