<$BlogRSDURL$>

Monday, February 28, 2005

Why Blair is wrong about emergency legislation 

  Tony Blair believes that emergency legislation, allowing the Home Secretary to place terrorist suspects under house arrest, is justified. He's wrong. His argument is essentially that Her Majesty's subjects have a right not to killed, and that that right outweighs the right of terrorists not to be detained indefinitely without trial. I can see why his argument is attractive, after all good people should be protected and bad people... well, bad people deserve what they get. Right?
  The trouble is, who decides who the baddies are? In cowboy films they wore black hats (either that or they were Indians or Mexicans), but there are no such handy divisions in 21st-century Britain. Blair's argument is perfectly logical: people who've committed illegal acts do deserve to be punished. The illogicality rests on his connection of that argument with the new legislation. Terrorist suspects are not the same as terrorists. The law cannot regard them as such until their guilt has been proved.
  And this isn't wishy-washy liberal hand-wringing. While the Government might have a duty to protect us against specific dangers, we do not have a right to protection against any unspecified threat. (If that were the case, then I'd be demanding my 'right' to protection against being killed by a falling tree.) The right to trial is a fundamental element of our civil society.
  If there is enough evidence to show that a place is going to be attacked, then the authorities can prevent the attack happening. If there's enough evidence to prove that an individual is going to take part in the attack, then there's enough evidence to arrest the individual under normal law, try him, and imprison him. If the evidence isn't good enough to obtain a conviction, then how can it be good enough to put an individual under house arrest?
  I suspect that there are two reasons for this legislation: The first is political, and that is that the present Government thinks that it can scare people into believing that they are in constant danger, and that only 'strong leadership' can protect them. The second is that what evidence is available to the Home Secretary comes from the Intelligence Services, and such evidence would either be inadmissible or would make the spooks uncomfortable. Inadmissible evidence is, however, inadmissible, and there's a good reason for that.
  In the end, I do not have a right not to be killed in unspecified incidents, but I do have a right not to be detained without trial.



Saturday, February 26, 2005


Friday, February 25, 2005




Good job I don't believe... Oh, urm... 

The Dante's Inferno Test has banished you to the Seventh Level of Hell!
Here is how you matched up against all the levels:
LevelScore
Purgatory (Repenting Believers)Very Low
Level 1 - Limbo (Virtuous Non-Believers)Very Low
Level 2 (Lustful)High
Level 3 (Gluttonous)Moderate
Level 4 (Prodigal and Avaricious)Moderate
Level 5 (Wrathful and Gloomy)Very High
Level 6 - The City of Dis (Heretics)Very High
Level 7 (Violent)Extreme
Level 8- the Malebolge (Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers)Very High
Level 9 - Cocytus (Treacherous)High

Take the Dante's Inferno Test

Monday, February 21, 2005



Friday, February 18, 2005



Thursday, February 17, 2005



Wednesday, February 16, 2005



Monday, February 14, 2005

My life has been rated: Click to find out your rating! See what your rating is!


Created by bart666

Sunday, February 13, 2005



Saturday, February 12, 2005



Friday, February 11, 2005



Thursday, February 10, 2005


Wednesday, February 09, 2005


Tuesday, February 08, 2005

EDIT: For those of you with NTL who are desperate to watch Teachers' TV, it's channel 803.

Friday, February 04, 2005



Wednesday, February 02, 2005



Tuesday, February 01, 2005