Blunkett resigns

[Russethouse]

>>Sorry SB, I shall refrain from telling you how much I laughed at the programme (and am laughing now at Little Britain) <<<

Me too - really very funny - then switched to QI, Stephen Fry etc - another good laugh

[Mazan]

The thing I got fed up most with was the endless personal jibes and insults and name-calling, which you have neatly summed up.

You really take the biscuit, since you have returned you have made a point of insulting anyone on here who does not entirely agree with your thinking, even to the point of insulting persons who you have no real idea about.

You compound your error. At no point have I said anything derogatory about anyone on this or any other forum unless they have insulted me first. I do not make personal comments without reason.

So if I accuse a nation being a load of racist b******s and that they were all no good smelly thieving louts and were just a bunch of lazy p****s, that's OK ? as no one was insulted, try telling that to a newspaper in that country.

You are not insulting anyone personally. Therefore no harm is done, except in the imagination of the feeble-minded. Does anyone here take offence because Napoleon called the British a nation of shopkeepers? Of if Osama Bin Laden calls the US the great Satan? Or if Yasser Arafat says the West is 'caduc'? (Whose leaves fell first, Yasser?)

You talk about clowns popping out the woodwork, therefore insulting those people you have no idea about,

Go back and read what was written in another thread (about greetings cards, would you believe). I made a general comment and someone popped up and called me a bigoted racist (quite incorrectly as my comment had not been made about a race). At no time had I addressed any comment to him previously and I was insulted first.

So, if someone takes public office, we are then full entitled to call him what we like, yes I suppose we can but you are just insulting someone that you simply detest, reasoning is not there it is just boring hysterical ranting.

Blunket is a proven liar and an admitted thief of taxpayers' money. He has shown himself to be highly vindictive in public. His private life proves him to be obsessive, to say the least. I would say insane.

I am entitled to say all that. By putting himself in the public eye he accepts that this may happen. Prescott does too. There is nothing personal about commenting on public figures.

Ah but didn't you say you left the forum due to similar posts? But that was others I guess, this is Mazan and fully entitled to do so then

No, you have missed the point. I dislike personal attacks. This forum (and many others) is full of them as can clearly be seen in this very thread and others. Comments on public figures, nations, ways of life or anything else bother me not one jot as they are not personal.
Anyone is welcome to say here that British expats in France are racists or bigots or both. I don't care. I may bother to reply or I may not. To say that I or you or anyone else here personally is a racist or a bigot is a different thing entirely.

[Miki]

 Sorry Mazan, you have twisted and turned and distorted it all until nothing makes sense any more. You really have become a very bitter sod. Let me know where you socialise so I can give it a bloody big swerve. That's how I see it and couldn't give a monkey's if I am the only that thinks so. To me you are so full of hypocrisy, that I no longer see any point in discussing this matter, as whatever one says, you come up with total b******t in reply.

 

[Iceni]

Gosh children I certainly got you throwing your toys around when I initiated this thread.

Now, what can I post about religion ?

Saw a news snippet about PC Britain and the number of primary schools NOT having traditional nativity plays. A spokesperson (teacher ?) then commented on the unlikelihood of Islamic schools not celebrating Dhiwali (sp?) or Eid - so I'm not the only one who is confused.

John

[SaligoBay]

I'd be surprised too to see Muslims wholeheartedly celebrating Diwali!

But I get your point, and isn't it all very silly?   If they (whoever "they" are) encourage us to learn about Diwali, respect Ramadan, etc, then it should work both ways, non?

We're basically telling the world that our traditions (religious or otherwise) aren't worth anything.   I suspect that many Muslims just think we're completely mad to treat our heritage with such disdain and sling it off so easily.

There. 

[0BRIAN WOODHEADI,m here in franceddMMyyyy0Falseen-USI,m here in franceTrue]

Christmas might get removed from christian schools but eid never will,it will be easter next for the chop.Bon noel.

[I1]

Whilst I would not wish ill on anybody, I have over the last few years become increasingly concerned about some of the UK governments policies in relation to human rights. It appears (to me) that the UK government is going very much along the lines of the US neo-conservatives. They seem to use the “terrorism” argument to justify laws that violate human rights (at least what I would call human rights violations) e.g. locking people up indefinitely without charge and without appearing before a court. Basically imprisonment by politicians. I personally find this totally intolerable. Many (myself included) argue that the US should not be holding their “illegal combatants” at Guantanamo Bay without charge or court involvement – yet the UK is doing the same (holding them in prison, without charge, for over 3 years, etc.). As to how much was Blunkett and how much others who knows the real truth. However, he was responsible for such laws so if he disagreed with them he should not have argued for them.

His policy on ID cards is flawed in that the technology he proposed is inadequately developed. I am quite happy to carry an ID card and my comment is not about carrying a card but rather that the biometric data he proposed to include on the card is “flawed” in that it does not at present uniquely identify somebody and can lead to mis-identification. Do people remember how little the UK government did when the US asked the South Africans to hold a pensioner for the CIA (for quite some time). I also think the proposed charges somewhat excessive to the point where it becomes another way to raise government revenue. Also, I do not consider ID cards will help prevent terrorist acts being carried out (as the terrorists will have ID cards s well).

From a political perspective I an glad he has gone as I consider he did not work for the interests of the British people but rather for his own political goals. I accept that unfortunately all politicians do this, but he was rather forceful about it – he’s doing what he wants despite the: “Human rights Impact”, “European Laws”, “Technology is not ready”, etc. A sort of “plough on regardless.

I also consider these subjects very relevant to those of us living in France. Many of us are still British and the actions of the UK government reflect on how others view our country (and indirectly can affect how some people react to us). I have been accosted at a social do about “how to we cope/justify having a royal Family, etc.” (not is a nasty way but it did remind me that I am viewed as a British citizen by the local French).

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote]Whilst I would not wish ill on anybody, I have over the last few years become increasingly concerned about some of the UK governments policies in relation to human rights. It appears (to me) that the...[/quote]

I1 - I don't think that these laws have really that much to do with enhancing the nation's security. Consider the following: despite the all the additional "security" measures put in place at ports and airports in the UK, the flow of illicit drugs and clandastine migrants has continued apparently without significant inconvenience to the perpetrators. If these trades can continue then the smuggling of bomb components, poisons, biological agents and the personnel qualified to deploy them can occur with equal ease.

I've no idea what is really going on, but I can't help feeling that perhaps the UK government (and plenty of others) are taking full advantage of the situation to have a good chip away at individual liberty. An Icelandic friend of mine (now there's a nation that keeps it's political class firmly under control and in their place - the only perk that their PM gets is his own parking space) commented to me that the apparent ease with which the US and many European governments could persuade their populations to give up liberty and privicy for no clear benefit was a constant topic of conversation between him and his friends.

The acivities of government should be of interest to us all. To accept the dictates of politicians without questioning them is foolhardy. These people are, after all, supposed to be our servents, not our masters. We should take every opportunity to remind them of this while we still have the freedom to do so.

[Dick Smith]

"I'd be surprised too to see Muslims wholeheartedly celebrating Diwali!"

So would I, but I'd be equally amazed if they criticised Hindus for doing so. As I said in another thread this over-sensitivity is not requested by other faiths - the Muslims particularly want Christians to get on and celebrate - they would rather be speaking to people of faith than not, it seems.

There is some very woolly and confused thinking in some schools, especially primaries, when it comes to this sort of thing. As far as I know only some Muslim fundamentalists and some Christian groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses actually prevent children from learning about other faiths It certainly isn't government policy not to celebrate Christmas, Easter etc.

The guidance on RE says: 'Under the Education Act 1996 schools must provide religious education for all registered pupils, although parents can choose to withdraw their children. Schools, other than voluntary-aided schools and those of a religious character, must teach religious education according to the locally agreed syllabus. Each agreed syllabus should reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian, while taking account of the teachings and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain.' The locally-agreed syllabus is devised by representatives of all the faiths in the Local Education Authority.

But there is a difference between RE and nativity plays, or so some schools seem to think.

Schools should also hold a daily act of worship, again according to the religious character of the school. If the school is non-religious this can be humanist, simply non-religious or it can at certain times of the year reflect a faith group represented in the school.

So it's all a bit more complicated than just a play!

[Dick Smith]

"These people are, after all, supposed to be our servants, not our masters."

A very good point, Jond. Will you tell them, or shall I?

I actually agree that DB has gone a very long way towards an authoritarian model for the UK, some of which may be justified (such as ID cards) and other parts reflect concerns, realistic or otherwise, of some sections of the people and their press. In general I feel that if you aren't doing anything wrong you don't have anything to hide, but that is not everyone's point of view. Some take that to extremes, however.

What worries me is that we can't ever know whether or not we are really under threat unless the worst actually happens - and as I work in Westminster that worries me a bit. The recent spate of press stories (led by the Guardian of course) that there wasn't a threat was false and misleading. It's genuinely hard to see where the balance should be struck. ID cards - OK, detention without trial - dodgy.

[I1]

An example of one of the problems of such oppressive laws was a couple of years ago. There was an arms fair in London and (agree or disagree) there were peaceful protestors outside. Nothing illegal, nothing excessive, the sort of thing that happens all the time.

However, the idea of the fair was to sell weapons to our current friends and the protestors were an “embarrassment”. So they were all held by the police using anti-terrorism laws for the duration of the arms fair. Nobody actually thought they were terrorists but by saying they might be the police could immediately invoke additional powers. Questions are raised about this in parliament but (as far as I know) no answers were ever given.

Not in itself too horrific compared to other things going on in the world, but each time such things happen makes it easier for them to happen again and more open laws to be introduced, etc.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

Dick - you are right, balance is required. ID / entitlement cards - fine, but a compulsion to carry them at all times? Would that be a step to far, or not? The comment about "if you are doing nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear" is often voiced, but is, I think, very naive, because (as I1 has pointed out) the definition of "wrong" can shift very suddenly.

[Dick Smith]

I take your point - but often the civil liberties lobby just sounds like the criminals' trade union. I don't mean a bit of naughtiness, I mean serious criminal activity. Whether or not I am unfaithful, spend too much time in the pub etc. - I don't see that being very important to the security services unless I am doing something else more serious as well. Of course what a lot of people who are objecting to ID cards are doing is working illegally or claiming benefit when working, using an alias for illegal purposes etc., so have a good reason not to. That's the kind of law-abiding I mean.

As for having to carry the card - I think I would do so voluntarily in the same spirit as carrying my photo-ID driving license - if I need to prove who I am I can. I think the security situation would have to get a lot worse before we needed compulsory carrying of cards. Or at least I hope so. I imagine it would be like the driving license/vehicle documents position, you are required to have them and can be made to produce them within 7 days or whatever if necessary.

[I1]

I think most people would not see having to carry an ID card as too much of an infringement. In fact I would quite like a Carte du Sejour (so I don’t keep having to carry round my passport). However, I think politicians are treating us with contempt when they start arguing that the ID cards will help in the fight against terrorism (assuming it became compulsory to carry an ID card at all times). What will the punishment for not having your ID card – immediate arrest until the services could establish who you are. I doubt it (as there would not be enough room). Probably a fine – so your suicide bomber gets stopped, told he’s a naughty boy and given a fine and sent on his way.

I am also of the opinion that most terrorists will be in the UK legally and will thus have ID cards.

To my (simplistic) mind, unless they routinely spot check Ids and hold anybody who does not have an ID, then it can have no impact of any fight against terrorism. I have only once in my life been asked for any ID (and that was to take my drivers licence, insurance, etc. to a police station within a few days).

As far as I’m aware, there is no common standard between countries such that an ID card in one country will work in another country (that might be useful). When travelling you will still need your passport. So why do we need these ID cards.

I think rights and liberty infringements often come in small acceptable steps. The major and sudden infringements (like politicians deciding to hold people in prison for many years without trial) are clear cut and create a lot of public objection. However, eat away at rights and liberties slowly little by little and people don’t notice and even when they do it is a small step so little objection. ID cards has the potential to be the first step in such restrictions.

I am against the scheme as I can see no benefits yet loads of disadvantages. I thus (cynically) see it as another daft government waste of money. However, I hope I have an open mind and value opportunities to exchange opinions and thoughts on such forums, and I thus welcome the opinions of others.

Aspects of such a forum is a form of debate and discussion. It is fairly unique in that it encourages discussion between a wide range of people, often people with widely differing opinions and experience, people who should they meet might not strike up even a conversation. Often discussing such issues with close friends just serves to re-enforce ones existing opinions rather than introducing new and different thoughts. It is only by discussing things that we can form and refine our own opinions.

[Alane]

I have to agree with Jond. I firmly believe that we should give the authorities the absolute minimum of control over our lives consistent with maintaining a stable society.

If I had heard a single argument that truly demonstrated the need for ID cards then I would comply with the requirement to hold one. The arguments simply aren't there. If there is no compulsion to carry the card then perhaps someone could help me to understand how it stops benefit fraud, illegal immigration and terrorism.

I would wager a tidy sum that within a short time of the cards being issued, even, probably, in advance of their issue, that counterfeit cards will be available that will evade all but the most stringent of checks. Most likely allowing cheats and frauds to steal the identity of some hapless person. Determined fraudsters and criminals will always find a way around the system. The most likely reaction of the goverment will then be to up the ante. How long before carrying the cards is made compulsory with police powers to demand to see them on the spot?

The best case scenario will be that, at tremendous cost (to the law abiding taxpayer), the miscreants will carry on regardless while the rest of us have given up more power to the state and created an army of bureaucrats to manage the scheme.

I'm glad Blunkett has resigned but no doubt this half baked scheme will still go ahead.

Best Regards

Alan.

 

[Hoddy]

I share many of the worries expressed here about the gradual erosion of civil liberties. I’d like to add another one on the subject of ID cards. The government’s record of implementing anything computer based is pretty abysmal. The DVLA and the CSA are two prime, national examples. Fellow Private Eye readers will, no doubt, share my concerns that the contracts often seem to go to the same company. I just don’t believe that the government could implement an ID scheme efficiently.

Hoddy

[Iceni]

Suggestion for instigating and installing new UK computer system for new changes in any department.  ie ID cards or NHS.

1 ask for companies to put in bid

2 choose preferably non UK company

3 if not non UK then one that has failed before as they know what to do and how it all works

4 company that gets bid outsources work in bits to other companies

5 other companies outsource work to third parties

6 third parties engage agencies to find them contractors - and because this will be gov work pay well over the average

7 work over runs and costs escalate

8 installation is completed 3 to 5 years late or not at all

9 if installation is completed get outside contractor(s) to train users

10 at the end of this, everyone who knows anything about the system leaves and those that are left behind have to cope with a bespoke system and no support...

of course this is all just a bit of fun and no one would dream of running any computer installation in this way

[0BRIAN WOODHEADI,m here in franceddMMyyyy0Falseen-USI,m here in franceTrue]

Iceni,wash your mouth out with soap and waterthat would never happen.The poster who is banging on about detainees,would one be wrong in saying that the few that are held in the UK are free to go when some other country will accept them,wonder why no one will take them.

[Russethouse]

I think you may be correct, I'm pretty sure they are free to return to the country they came from, but that might not be very useful IF they have genuinely been the subject of threats etc.

[Tresco]

If someone is held for three years as a suspected terrorist, (without charge, just 'suspect') what country would take them? None. You are stuck with them.

The other really stupid thing about that law, whatever it's called, the one that got ripped apart by 9 law lords yesterday, is that only foreigners can be held, thereby inviting, nay, begging the accusation of discrimination, but furthermore turning a blind eye (no pun intended, believe me) to the possibility that there might be a few 'home grown' terrorists that need seeking out and dealing with.

[Dick Smith]

So - Blunkett done it, but didn't know he had done it. No-one knows who done it. But someone done it. None of them can remember who done it. So no-one gets blamed for it.

Perhaps Simon Hoggart done it (oh, I forgot, we found that out at the weekend... and not many times, so that was alright.)

And the first-class rail warrant business:

"Earlier, in a separate inquiry into Mr Blunkett's gift of an MP's spouses rail ticket to his ex-lover, the commons standards and privileges committee said he should have been aware of the rules he had broken.

The committee agreed with the verdict of Sir Philip Mawer, the parliamentary standards commissioner, that the rules had been broken, although it said the "precise circumstances remain unclear".

Officials were unable to find any record of a travel warrant being used for any journey between Doncaster and London King's Cross on or around August 19, 2002

A source on the Standards and Privileges Committee said the committee did not believe any further action was necessary as they accepted Mr Blunkett's apology and explanation."

Am I losing the plot, or what?

[Clarkkent]

Am I losing the plot, or what?

No, Dick. These are honourable gentlemen. Their ways are different from our's.

[0BRIAN WOODHEADI,m here in franceddMMyyyy0Falseen-USI,m here in franceTrue]

Their snounts are in the trough,but they are still equal??

[Iceni]

Blunkett who never done it, was caught by e-mails he never writ, and bubbled by a senior civil servant who will now be punished for telling the truth (one presumes).  This of course scuppered the decision already made and anounced by Blair well before they had even started looking into it. Glad I am just a dim idiot who does not understand what the hell went on.

I also now wonder about the ruling given to Civil Servants to destry all e-mails older than 3 months. ISP's and companies now have to keep e-mails for something like 7 years, the gov is not covered by this and by printing out and then deleting or not printing out and then deleting e-mails, it should ensure that further MP's and ministers who have left e-mail trails will not be able to be caught and or punished.

2 lots of rules - and they wonder why we do not respect them - well there is actually one I respect but only one and he is a real MP, not one of these part time Johnnies.

[Dick Smith]

To be fair we are told to clear out emails pretty regularly, and that we should not speak ill of our betters in them in case they demand to see them! The civil service proceeds by email and 3 months' worth is a lot.