Sunday, November 28, 2004
It seems odd that David Blunkett wants to strip people of their rights and bring an end to the permissive society when he has those rights and that society to thank for being able to continue in his job. John Major talked about a 'back to basics' policy which opened the floodgates on revelations about almost every member of his government taking cash for questions, or amyl nitrate for kinky sex games. Though Blair talks equal guff about being a 'pretty honest guy' journalists have so far restricted themselves to asking him to square the circle of lying to the Commons and the country in order to go to war, not to ask why a guy who insists on 'doing the right thing' has not sacked his home secretary. After all, Don Juan de Blunkett HAS had an affair, with a married woman. He MAY have got her pregnant. And now he's ACCUSED of using his position to get a visa for his lover's foreign nanny. It seems incredible that everyone is currently playing along with how Blunkett wants the situation to be viewed, it is not wrong for him to have sex with the wife of another man, it is wrong for people to complain about that. Although Blair has avoided giving hostages to fortune like 'back to basics', New Labour was supposed to be better than the Conservatives. All this seems to mean is less scandals rather than no scandals. If we have the kind of 'moral' society that Blunkett has expressed a fondness for in the past, he would be out of a job, out of the government and probably left to wander a blasted moor somewhere with a Fool.
Blunkett wants to take away people's right to a fair trial and to allow them to be imprisoned without ever going to trial. Yet for himself he seems to want to be treated under that old and 'insufficient' system. The new measures, we are told endlessly, are to deal with terrorists: One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism (The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons). Blunkett has repeatedly made pronouncements of policy that amount to unlawful (as decided by British and European courts) AND threatened use of force or violence by the organised group known as the police against people with the intention of intimidating and coercing society into supporting the British Government for ideological and political reasons. Is there no reason why, under his own rules, Blunkett shouldn't be locked up to await a trial that never comes?
I forget where I heard it, but someone in the media pointed out that as there is going to be a general election next May, most of Shiteye's insane proposals in the Queen's Speech were not there to be actual proposals but were there just to look good, to appear to be 'tough on terror, tough on what we say are the causes of terror, ie: Muslims', starting the Home Office's pitch to be re-elected next May now. I'm not saying that it's shocking the Government acts in such a way as to get the people of Britain to re-elect the Government, of course not, but yet again, Blunkett is using terror to coerce the people of Britain to vote Labour next Spring.
Blunkett wants to take away people's right to a fair trial and to allow them to be imprisoned without ever going to trial. Yet for himself he seems to want to be treated under that old and 'insufficient' system. The new measures, we are told endlessly, are to deal with terrorists: One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism (The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons). Blunkett has repeatedly made pronouncements of policy that amount to unlawful (as decided by British and European courts) AND threatened use of force or violence by the organised group known as the police against people with the intention of intimidating and coercing society into supporting the British Government for ideological and political reasons. Is there no reason why, under his own rules, Blunkett shouldn't be locked up to await a trial that never comes?
I forget where I heard it, but someone in the media pointed out that as there is going to be a general election next May, most of Shiteye's insane proposals in the Queen's Speech were not there to be actual proposals but were there just to look good, to appear to be 'tough on terror, tough on what we say are the causes of terror, ie: Muslims', starting the Home Office's pitch to be re-elected next May now. I'm not saying that it's shocking the Government acts in such a way as to get the people of Britain to re-elect the Government, of course not, but yet again, Blunkett is using terror to coerce the people of Britain to vote Labour next Spring.
