Looney Right Tabloid Trash

CCTV-phobia

The minions of the Looney Right regularly assail this blog.

They are all teetering with anger. The tabloids and the Telegraph have wound them up. Their minds are daily poisoned by three very rich newspaper proprietors with extremist views.

Up to two thousand a day read this blog. It acts as an antidote to the mind bending propaganda that they have ingested from the Daily Mail.  They spout totems and mantras and are filled with irrational fears. One howled her banshee of variegated venom to this blog yesterday. There are obvious streaks of paranoia in the hate storm. They are convinced that the Government is out to get them. One of their phobias is CCTV cameras. They are also part of the eccentric fears of David Davis the resigning MP who wasted £200,000 of public money on his vanity election.

I asked one CCTV-phobic today the source of his dread. His feeble answer was that there are a lot of them about and they are not very efficient. ‘They don’t stop crime’ he says, ignoring their deterrent effect and their help in identifying criminals.

Today the explanation for the double murder at Osbaston farm came from a CCTV camera. Without that the police could have wasted weeks seeking the culprit. There are thousands of other cases where the cameras have earned their money. The CCTV-phobics are not thinkers. They uncritically accept the scare of the week that the Daily Mail stuffs into their compliant brains.

In spite of the total absence of any sinister intent, surveillance cameras are added to the basket of grievances that build the construct of an avenging Government out to persecute the people.

I have long opposed identity cards and the 42 days detention plan. They are not necessary, will not deter terrorism and will be counter productive. But the tabloids have played on the gullibility of their readers to manufacture a fantasy that drives them into paroxysms of self-destroying rage.  This blog provides a very useful therapy for their mental health by allowing them to ventilate.

For a real cure the advice is,

" Stop taking the tabloids".

Polly’s wisdom

Polly Toynbee delivered a tour de force in Newport’s Riverfront Theatre today. The sanest and bravest of all journalists, her topic was poverty. Rightly she said that the happiest societies are those that are most equal. In Nordic countries the gap between the income of the highest and lowest earners is a narrow one.

Here it’s huge and widening. As I pointed out in a question to her, the problem is that rich are very good at getting richer by doing the things that made them rich in the first place. She gave a fascinating account of how the super-rich are isolated from reality.

She assembled some City bankers and lawyers in the top 0.1 per cent of earnings and present them with the facts. They gasped to discover that 90 per cent of British people live on less than £40,000 a year. One thinks he is on average income at £200,000. Asked what constitutes poverty, they suggest £22,000 a year – which would mean a majority of British people are in poverty. "I have no idea how they survive on the incomes they have," one banker says. But when it is suggested they pay taxes to start putting this right, they dismiss the proposals as "all kinds of bullshit crap."

What about the opposite end of the telescope? A statistically typical single mum in Birmingham: Alison Murray, a 32 year-old whose husband left her. "I never have new clothes, [it's] all charity shop for me and [her sons], but I don't mind that much. It's the things you can't do for them... They never go swimming. They never go to the cinema. They never take a train. They never have a day's holiday." Yes, this poverty is relative, not absolute – but it still hurts. And the chances of her kids moving up and out in Thatcherised Britain are smaller now than for a generation.

Polly provides her own solution, "We can change social destiny, if there is the political will and popular assent for the tax to fund it." It's not sci-fi: Norway abolished child poverty in 2003. She praises government programmes that have made a difference – like SureStart, or one-on-one reading teaching – and call for them to be super-charged.

She also suggest a  High Pay Commission which would name-and-shame egregious bonuses, and recommend a reasonable national average. The super-rich will scream through their tabloid outlets.

Polly was the guest speaker at the annual meeting of the Gwent Social Entrepreneurs Solas.

Polly agreed that the Government had implemented a great deal of stealth re-distribution of wealth through the minimum wage, pensions credit, child benefits, tax credits and increased benefits and additional allowances. After the first five years of the Labour Government the share of wealth of the bottom 10% of society increased by 12%. But the super rich have done even better for themselves.

In the 1992 election the Sun convinced their readers that a Labour Government would increase taxes for all by a £1,000. People who pay no taxes whatsoever turned against Labour. Tax to the tabloid trash is regarded as a form of oppression, rather than the means to create a contented society on Scandinavian lines.

Take courage, Gordon and let us have some swingeing taxes on the super rich. They can afford it.

Comments

[Jolly Roger]

Here we go again, another point missed.
I'll just remind you, if you insist.
The CCTV at Osbaston Farm,
Was on Private Property, therefore, no harm.
The ones referred to by Sarah et al.
Are focussed on our every movement, old pal.
State interference in liberties civil.
Ensure that our freedoms just dry up and shrivel.
But have no fear Paul, my dear.
You'll be out on your ear in a couple o' year.

[Rich]

For one of the few MPs I respect, you do sometimes talk a lot of nonsense. It ought to be clear that CCTV did not "solve" the Osbaston Farm case. Even the stupidest policeman would have worked it out quickly from little details like the gunshot wounds to the bodies and the final location of the gun.

Anyway, one story is not "data". The police themselves say CCTV doesn't work:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/06/ukcrime1

Even the Home Office produced this wonderful bit of double-talk:

"Out of the 13 systems evaluated six showed a relatively substantial reduction in crime in the target area compared with the control area, but only two showed a statistically significant reduction relative to the control, and in one of these cases the change could be explained by the presence of confounding variables."

In other words, only 1 of 13 systems showed a statistically significant reduction in crime, and if you read the rest they basically say it's fine for stopping crime in car parks, but ineffective at preventing violent crime - not surprising since drunken yobs aren't likely to realise they're being watched by CCTV, but would take much more notice of actual police officers.

Source: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors292.pdf

[valleylad]

I wouldn't allow the Wail in the house. I don't read tabloids, I prefer the berliner format myself. As for right wing, well maybe in Gaitskellite v Bevanite discussion but I view the current govt as the unacceptable face of the far right.

I don't want to live in a panopticon. I've not seen any peer reviewed evidence that CCTV in public spaces reduces or deters crime, and anyway I'm sure a policeman would be better.

When Davis resigned, Tony Benn said "I never thought I'd be in the house of commons when the Magna Carta was repealed". I'd rather stand with Benn, but I could not disagree with a word in Davis's resignation speech.

I remember reading the phrase "there are good socialist reasons for supporting ID cards" on your website a few years back (pre-blog).

We need a bill of rights to protect decent people from the intrusion of government and its agents.

I believe a good govt should enhance civil liberties (0/10 for the current shower), and through a fair progressive wealth/income taxation system manage inequality (say, 2/10).

Lets be clear, after a decade with a strong zanu-labour govt, our civil liberties have been massively eroded, and moving to "Polly's Wisdom" ...

The gap between the richest and poorest 1% in society has not been wider since before the great depression - and has got much worse under nu-labour.

[patrick]

challenge to Jolly
with the Blues massively in front , what a brave prediction that PF will lose his seat.
You could well be the new 'Mystic Meg'.
Instead of the tiresome, repetitive, predictable trite how about a poem promoting policies that you would support?

[Sarah]

Now I have nothing, been taxed and squeezed 'til the pips squeak by this government, but I don't agree with taxing people into oblivion just because they have more than me. It seems Nulab haven't lost all their old labour charms, they still maintain the politics of envy, and who more than most stands out, why John Prescott, of course.

What Toynbee doesn't say is that Nulab have helped make the rich, richer, and that those on the lower scale can't afford to go to the pictures, have new clothes etc., because this government have bled them dry, did she conveniently forget that. What Toynbee and her ilk have always wanted is for everyone to be equal, equal pay etc., as long as her ilk are more equal than others.

Why is she not standing up attacking Nulab policies that have caused untold poverty to millions of people, especially pensioners, or berating politicians for their greed. No Toynbee is very selective about equality. As is expected from Guardianistas.

[Sarah]

I'll ask on here Paul why have you deleted my last 2 posts on the other thread.

Did you enjoy Huw & Patrick denigrating me, but when I had the gall to retaliate you didn't find it as amusing, or was it because I pointed out aspects of your richer & libertarian Britain claim that you didn't want posters to see. After all there was nothing that would've offended anyone, only you and perhaps Huw & Patrick.

No the truth doesn't seem to be your strong point Paul. Still I suppose it's typical of politicans, if they can't waffle their way out of it, erase it.

[Carlos]

Im shocked Paul that you even consider calling yourself libertarian considering through your blog you are all for curbing civil liberties on most aspects.

[paulflynn]

That certainly brought the CCTV-phobics out of the woodwork.

SARAH - none of your posts have been deleted. Follow the chevrons. They are on the second page of the thread.

[paulflynn]

VALLEYLAD- you are right. You have recalled something I said at least 7 years ago.

I supported the bill of Jeff Rooker on an ID scheme similar to one we had in the war.

I have always opposed the present proposal because of its complexity and its impracticality. If you have been following my site for that long you should have seen the many critical blogs I have written on the present proposal.

[paulflynn]

What point are you making Rich? Are CCTV cameras a terrible threat of some kind? What is the source of CCTV-phobia? I'd really like to know.

[paulflynn]

CARLOS-when have I called myself Libertarian.`/

[Carlos]

like throughout your blog.

[paulflynn]

You have gone into AUTO_RANT, JOLLY ROGER. Very disappointing.

Expalin CCTV-phobia please No-one else has.

REPEAT: I HAVE BEEN AGAINST, AND VOTED AGAINST, 90 AND 42 DAYS.

[paulflynn]

Jolly Roger, at least 90% of the CCTV cameras are private ones. David Davis says there are too many. Which ones cause CCTVphobia? Will you get rid of all anti-crime cameras?

[Jolly Roger]

Well, being as you've asked, I'll tell you.
I've no spin or line to sell you.
I just don't like being continually spied on,
By observers whom I can't rely on.
Who are these people, what do they want?
Why do they need my image, so wan and so gaunt.
Council officials, police and security.
Provide me with little sense of surety.

I've done nothing wrong and have no wish.
So why should I be monitored and under suspish.
I can support the monitoring of traffic flows.
But really that's as far as it goes.
I simply don't feel the need,
For them spying on my every deed.
It seems that I can't even scratch my arse.
Without some busybody peeping through glass.

[paulflynn]

Your objections to CCTV are pretty trivial JOLLY ROGER . They amount to little more than annoyance. What would you do? Ban most of them?

Do you see value in the way they deter crime and give peace of mind? They are essential for traffic control to ease congestion and cut accidents. That you admit. A rational approach would be that on balance they are of value. They and DNA (Another right wing phobia) are useful crime detecting tools that have brought some very nasty criminals to justice.

Why should they be a reason for right wing fury? Who will get rid of them? ISN'T IT ALL A RESULT OF TABLOID MANIPULATION?

Thank you for being the only CCTV-phobic prepared to state your reason. Even though they do not amount to much. Sorry to disappoint you, but no-one is interested in your rather unpleasant public personol habits.

[west2]

CCTV-Phobia?

The issue is simple. You seem to advocate for more CCTV. The evidence fails to show they are effective in the reduction of crime. The home office report supports this view.

The cameras maybe be efficient at some things, yet effective is a different matter.

Some people seem to be CCTV-phobic as you suggest and some may, for whatever reason, feel uneasy about them. I asked if you were aware of a study about this, are you?

Rather than decry these concerns, surely acknowledging them and perhaps asking for a study to get some answers would be a way forward, wouldn't it? This must be far better than jumping to the conclusion that it is some right wing tabloid hysteria or that those who object are 'deluded', surely? Why the need to denegrate peoples concerns?

I was being practical, on the issue of crime reduction, as your arguments are very weak on CCTV effectiveness in this area. Why, given this weakness, are you so strongly advocating more of them?

west
----

[Rich]

Dear Paul,

I'm not sure I said in the second comment on this posting that I was CCTV-phobic. I simply pointed out that there are reasons to believe they are not effective. Since they cost a great deal of money ("billions" if you believe the Grauniad) could the money be better spent elsewhere?

The police are currently wiring many cameras up to ANPR systems so they can track cars, and lo: a car which was recorded near an arms industry demonstration in Brigton is later stopped in the City of London and the occupants searched. (Source: http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news6252.htm) Maybe I should be CCTV-phobic after all? It might be affecting my freedom to associate or merely to carry out my daily business without being stopped and searched.

Anyhow, at the moment I'm a great deal more concerned with this governments plan to introduce complete surveillance of UK internet traffic, including I suppose this very communication between a citizen and an MP. If you don't see why that might be a problem, I suggest you read the book "Stasiland".

(source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/20/central_government_database_proposed/)

Rich.

[Tony]

CCTV attempts to treat the problem , not the cause of crime. Can't afford the police required so this is a way of at least recording the crime and maybe 'solving' it - rather than preventing it. The problem is that it does not seem to work very well at either.
I think my concern about the CCTV culture is that I value my privacy and I do not see why the government should know so much about me. The principle is that they know what they need when I use services - not blanket surveillance
..and as for their incomparable ability to loose data , well thats does not help !
And before you say its a private contractor that lost the Prison detail ask yourself - how were they in a position to download the data ? Thats the negligance and lack of care that Jackie Smith is responsible for - no if's or buts (to use a benefit fraud slogan)

[Frank Davis]

People approve of CCTV cameras when they think of them being used to catch shoplifters, criminals robbing banks, and so on. They probably see them as preventing crime to some extent as well. That's how I used to look at them, leastways.

But behind that was the assumption that the criminals were other people, and that decent ordinary people had little or nothing to fear from CCTV cameras. But all it needs is the stroke of a pen to convert decent ordinary people into criminals. What had been perfectly ordinary behaviour one day can become a offence the next day.

The prime example, of course, is that it was perfectly normal and acceptable behaviour until last July to smoke cigarettes in public. Now you're risking a fine if you do that, even outside in the open air. And you might well be caught on CCTV camera lighting up a cigarette, or stubbing one out, or tossing one away. So smokers who were once indifferent to these cameras, because they didn't regard themselves as committing any crime (and they weren't) now suddenly realise that it's not the criminals who are being watched, but ordinary people like them. And smokers comprise a quarter of the population. Fully a quarter of the population are now likely to find themselves faced with swingeing fines for doing something they've done all their lives.

And all that's needed is another stroke of a pen to convert absolutely ANY other piece of ordinary behaviour into an illegal act.

You don't have to be right wing or loony to be deeply disturbed by this sort of development. You really have to be a bit daft NOT to be disturbed by it.

[Frank Davis]

Furthermore, you don't need to read the Daily Mail to find out that you've been denormalised and excluded and criminalised. You know it perfectly well yourself when you take out a cigarette somewhere, and hesitate while you wonder if some little hitler is watching you and is going to come over and slap a fine on you. You really don't need the Daily Mail to tell you what you already know perfectly well yourself. All that the Daily Mail does (if you read it at all) is to provide the slight reassurance that somebody else feels the same way about it as you do.

So the whole idea that this is being got up by the tabloid press is a delusion. The tabloid press is simply reflecting what decent ordinary people are increasingly thinking anyway. I wish they did a better job of it. It's one of the reasons why the comments are usually much more interesting than the articles under which they appear. Like here on this blog, for example.

[Tony]

The best way to lift people out of poverty is enable them to work - that means education now that manufacturing is not the major employer. You also need jobs to be created, so you need entrepreneurs and a business climate that helps that happen - I would suggest that 'swingeing tax increases' won't help in an open economy like ours.
The other thing that is interesting is that the financial markets are devoid of sentiment and the performance of the pound against the dollar and euro is a damming verdict on the UK economy.

[PaulFlynn]

Your comment West2 is a typical instance of the non-thinking responses that are discouraged on this site. We must keep up the standards.

You start by saying:

"The issue is simple. You seem to advocate for more CCTV."

Completely, absolutely utterly untrue. You then attack the absurdity of your own creation with this baseless conclusion:

" Why, given this weakness, are you so strongly advocating more of them? "

You start with an invention then that becomes a certainty by the end of your comment.

You miss the whole point of this issue is one CCTV cameras should cause such unreasonable wild phobias among right wingers?

[west2]

I wrote:
"The issue is simple. You seem to advocate for more CCTV."
Paul Flynn repled:
"Completely, absolutely utterly untrue."

If you are not advocating for increased use then that's ok and is a position supported by the evidence. I am glad we are in agreement.

Paul FLynn wrote;
"You miss the whole point of this issue is one CCTV cameras should cause such unreasonable wild phobias among right wingers?"

The issue was addressed in asking you if you knew of any studies or if you were prepared to initiate one (in the middle of my note). I was not specific to 'right wingers' though.

In order to at least speculate on the answer, would you be more specific on what you mean by 'unreasonable wild phobias'?

A phobia by its very nature is irrational and so if you use the term you immediately have the answer to your own question.

This is why I ask you to be more specific. Are there concerns that people have that need to be addressed that only seem to affect 'right wingers'?

west
----

[Sarah]

Apologies Paul.

[Sarah]

In this country there used to a things called 'liberty & privacy.' Unfortunately with the policies introduced by Nulab and the 1000's of Directives, Rule & Regs issued from Brussels the liberty of the law abiding, ordinary people have been eroded.

Privacy, the policies of Nulab have ensured that only the law abidings privacy has been eroded on a massive scale. CCTV is only one of the 'so-called' phobias people are concerned about, I do not have a criminal record, yet Nulabs policies have ensured that if I put a potato in the paper bin I will be subject to a fine, or if I take rubbish to the tip, (CCTV's watching you) and I put the rubbish in the wrong place, I will be subject to a fine, failure to pay said fine will result in a court appearance and criminal record, and you have the nerve to say we have nothing to worry about.

Under this money grabbing, greedy lot governing us we've gone from a country once proud of its roots, tolerance & freedoms to one that's constantly spied on, fined or end up with a criminal record for the most trivial of things, and you call this living in a democracy. Well I'm sorry Paul your idea of democracy is as warped as your statements insisting people that are phobic about CCTV surveillance are all ring wing Daily Mail readers. Such assumptions bores out how out of touch politicians are with the elctorate. MPs, most who were probably ordinary decent people, against state instrusiveness before they were elected somehow seem to lose the plot once they get a bit of power to lord it over the plebs.

And I am sick to death of hearing the mantra 'if you've got nothing to hide' this is the biggest crock I've ever heard. Sure if you don't mind all and sundry knowing your private business, want your DNA, medical records (celebrities/[politicians/rich exempt) and every other aspect of your life put on a government database, fine, that's your right, I don't happen to want someone I know that works in the council etc., to know why I go to the doctor or what I earn etc., and I certainly, as an innocent person don't want my DNA on a database all because I may dropped a sweet wrapper and been photographed and bullied by one of Nulabs army of enforcers.

I've nothing to hide, but I don't want to be followed everywhere I go by CCTV. I want to be left alone to get on with my life, privately.

Power is absolute, absolute power corrupts.

Global Warming, Recycling, Passive Smoking will go down in history as the three biggest money making scams of the 21st century.

An idea Paul, to put to your colleagues, table a motion to have our pay paid straight to the government and then they can take what they want and give us back pocket money. They might just as well do this as people have hardly anything left after all the taxes, fines etc., are deducted. And this can't all be blamed on the credit crunch, Brown & Co., have been bleeding us dry for a decade.

And not content with this the green taxes are being piled on, on the basis that we're killing the planet, all based on the dodgy hockey stick graph evidence and the looney envirnomentalists, and not forgetting those with a vested interest in keeping it going.

If you want to call me a ring wing Daily Mail reader, feel free Paul. What about Sun readers, or are you keeping quiet about them for now in case Nulab need Murdoch again in the run up to the election.

[patrick]

Sarah
No sane person is saying we are killing the planet. It's only the species that inhabit the planet that are under threat. The planet is under no pressure at all.

If you were to ask any Eight year old child they could point out to you the advantages of recycling. It's to do with landfill space for one Sarah. The idea is to re-use glass , metal , tin etc for the benefit of us all including your children/grandchildren.
But you would rather believe it's all a big conspiricy.
Never mind there is hope , todays kids are very bright!

[Sarah]

Look Patrick, can't you just accept we don't hold the same opinions, you believe all this crap, I don't, and without any encouragement from the Daily Mail, (which I believe has the same outlook as yourself) but my own research, so instead of trying to do me down each time try being a bit more polite, if you can't ignore my posts, because I don't want to get into the nastiness again but believe me if you carry on I'll show you just how nasty I can be, and as stated I don't want to go down that road.

[Sarah]

Oh forgot to mention Patrick, I don't mind recycling, but I object to the bin police and people being fined for putting the wrong things in the wrong boxes. Because this country can't meet the landfill diktats issued from Brussels is the reason we are all having to pay. And I do know something about the scams from the councils on this, my relation is a dustman, oh sorry an hygiene operative.

And I don't believe in global warming, done too much research on the subject to believe otherwise, it's just a money making exercise and a tax raiser, and Nulab are not on their own here. By all means if you don't object to paying all the green taxes do so, but I, and many other to object to being conned out of our hard earned.

[patrick]

Sarah
In what way does the Daily Mail share my outlook?

[Sarah]

Patrick, they are of the same mind as you on recycling and global warming, absolutely fanatical about carrier bags.

[paulflynn]

Sarah, New Scientist returns to the hockey stick issue this week. The magazine has a great reputation for their objectivity. Their conclusion is the hockey stick graph is valid. Independent evidence, from ice cores and sea sediments for instance, suggest the last time the planet approached this degree of warmth was during the interglacial period preceding the last ice age over 100,000 years ago. It might even be hotter now than it has been for at least a million years.

Further back in the past, though, it certainly has been hotter - and the world has been a very different place. The crucial point is that our modern civilisation has been built on the basis of the prevailing climate and sea levels. As these change, it will cause major problems.' This is so much more important than some irrational right wing conspiracy theory.

'Updated: See final section.

In fact, later studies support the key conclusion: the world is warmer now than it has been for at least 1000 years

The "hockey stick" graph was the result of the first comprehensive attempt to reconstruct the average northern hemisphere temperature over the past 1000 years, based on numerous indicators of past temperatures, such as tree rings. It shows temperatures holding fairly steady until the last part of the 20th century and then suddenly shooting up .

It provided yet more evidence that the rise in greenhouse gases due human activity is causing warming, although the case for this was already very strong. The conclusion that we are making the world warmer certainly does not depend on reconstructions of temperature prior to direct records.

The hockey graph was first published in a 1999 paper (pdf) by Michael Mann and colleagues, which was an extension of a 1998 study in Nature. The graph was highlighted in the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Since 2001, there have been repeated claims that the reconstruction is at best seriously flawed and at worst a fraud, no more than an artefact of the statistical methods used to create it (see The great hockey stick debate).

Details of the claims and counterclaims involve lengthy and arcane statistical arguments, so let's skip straight to the 2006 report of the US National Academy of Science (pdf). The academy was asked by Congress to assess the validity of temperature reconstructions, including the hockey stick.
"Array of evidence"

The report states: "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world".

Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can – and has – been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century.

It is true that there are big uncertainties about the accuracy of all past temperature reconstructions, and that these uncertainties have sometimes been ignored or glossed over by those who have presented the hockey stick as evidence for global warming.
The problems

Climate scientists, however, are only too aware of the problems (see Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period), and the uncertainties were both highlighted by Mann's original paper and by others at the time it was published.

Update: as suggested by the academy in its 2006 report, Michael Mann and his colleagues have reconstructed northern hemisphere temperatures for the past 2000 years using a broader set of proxies than was available for the original study and updated measurements from the recent past.

The new reconstruction has been generated using two statistical methods, both different to that used in the original study. Like other temperature reconstructions done since 2001 (see graph), it shows greater variability than the original hockey stick. Yet again, though, the key conclusion is the same: it's hotter now than it has been for at least 1000 years.

In fact, independent evidence, from ice cores and sea sediments for instance, suggest the last time the planet approached this degree of warmth was during the interglacial period preceding the last ice age over 100,000 years ago. It might even be hotter now than it has been for at least a million years.

Further back in the past, though, it certainly has been hotter - and the world has been a very different place. The crucial point is that our modern civilisation has been built on the basis of the prevailing climate and sea levels. As these change, it will cause major problems.'

[Huw O'Sullivan]

If Sarah were slightly less hysterical and over the top, big ask I know, she would not try to claim that some incidences of ludicrous and inappropriate action by individual councils is somehow government policy. She would further realise that it is unlikely that many, if anybody here is in favour of, or would be supportive of such counter productive, foolish and unacceptable actions.
She would also not try to blame Brussels for setting targets on landfill, or is she under the impression that all over the country there are communities simply begging to be allowed to have a new one near them.

Naturally she disbelieves in Global warming.
So then we are off from being over the top on things that have some vague semblance of a basis and out into barely explored international irrational space.
Its all a scam by all these governments and international organisations all over the world, just to take Sarah's money.
The governments just love taking the money even though they aren't keeping it for themselves because when they hand it over to scientists, researchers and put it into projects to try to ameliorate the harm, if at all possible, they get their kicks from imagining Sarah's face when she had to pay out.

Paul has tried details, but Paul has made an error, details to Sarah are either so much folderol or mean minded offensiveness.

Even the fuss about passive smoking is a money making scam, quite how is less than clear unless someone is under the delusion that people who use NRT to help quit the habit will keep using it for the rest of their lives, and people who have never smoked start taking NRT for kicks.

We may never understand the world from Sarah's point of view but we should count ourselves lucky that that is the case.

Power corrupts,
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Ignorance is bliss unfortunately Hysteria is hell,
after all it leads to embarrassing contradictions
Sarah said
"Global Warming, Recycling, Passive Smoking will go down in history as the three biggest money making scams of the 21st century."
Sarah later said
"Oh forgot to mention Patrick, I don't mind recycling"

So one of the three biggest money making scams of the 21st century is one she can live with.

I will leave it at that and look forward to hearing how horrible and mean I've been and tremble in fear at the possible consequences where Sarah might show just how nasty she can be.

[patrick]

Huw ,I agree with every point above but we must not be to hard and remind ourselves of the title of the post.

[west2]

Huw, Patrick

While we are on the subject of 'Global Warming' a couple of things.

1 Were Hansen's predictions made in 1988 accurate?

2 How much warming has there been in the 21st century?

3 Would you accept there is a difference between AGW and GW? It is the AGW part that in the main is being questioned.

4 Steve McIntyre over at Climate Audit looks at Mann's work. If you are interested.

5 Also worth reading is the 'Jesus Paper' over at Bishop Hill's blog.

Sarah expresses things in a forthright way and though you seem to agree that there is some substance to what she says, why are people not speaking out about the exesses yourselves highlight?

As Huw noted
"She would further realise that it is unlikely that many if anybody here is in favour of, or would be supportive of such counter productive, foolish and unacceptable actions. "

Unfortunately actions of this nature have a habbit of becoming the norm if people do not highlight and oppose them.

west
----

[Sarah]

Huw, you really are the most ignorant, stupidest, nastiest, bigoted piece of work I've come across in a long time.

God help Wales if they're all like you.

[Sarah]

Ah Patrick, your fellow henchman say's jump and you say how high. How very sad, a grown man, (well that's debateable really jugding by your posts) cannot think for himself but has settle for being a sidekick.

Let's hope Comrade Huw doesn't ask you to think for yourself, I dread to think the outcome.

[political umpire]

Why did Polly bother going all the way to Canary Wharf? Why not just nip upstairs and ask her editor - who is paid over 400 grand a year for his piffle?

Or perhaps she should have wondered where she herself fits in the grand scheme of things: went to a fee paying school, sent her three children to fee paying schools, and has a second home in Italy, to which she no doubt commutes via CO2 emitting budget airlines.

I too would be able to stump up a few pennies more by way of taxation if I was as well off as her.

BTW I once asked her in private correspondence to explain why she only focused on relative, rather than absolute poverty; her reply wasn't worth the electrons it appeared in. Suffice to say that North Korea was less poor than Britain on the Polly scale of things, but by most sane people's not so ...

[patrick]

west2
I realise Sarah could do with some support but the imbecilic rants above clearly suggest a bigger trouble.
The GW Question that was explored some threads ago.I think it's a good idea to think outside of artificially insulated human lifestyles. It's easy for us with double-glazed, centally heated homes etc to feel superior and not connected with nature.
But ask yourself-
Why are animal and plant species moving north?
why are Animals breeding earlier than ever on record?
Just Two Questions suggestive of GW.

[PaulFlynn]

If your letter to Polly Toynbee, political umpire, was as boorish as your (deleted) comments to this site, I'm surprised that she answered you.

It's greatly to her credit that she was not corrupted by a privileged upbringing. If the champagne lifestyle is good enough for the super rich, it's right for the workers too. She is great journalist who regularly challenges our venal dis-functional press.

[Carlos]

Patrick it is nature- you all said it before that in Roman times and sometime in the middle ages Britain and other places were much warmer than they should have been. What caused the ice ages in history then?

[political umpire]

1. Was I in the wrong in anything I wrote that you cowardly deleted?

2. Don't go into politics if you can't cope with robust criticism. Still less should you run a political website. Dismissing people as 'boorish' because they take you to task is intellectual cowardice.

3. Polly is a rank hypocrite too. But with a thicker hide and better manners than you, given that she took the time to reply to valid intellectual criticism. Maybe she had a better upbringing.

4. Stephen (from whose site I found this one) and I usually agree, occasionally robustly disagree (eg our debate on WWI pardons); those are the discussions I enjoy the most. You might find the same too in the blogosphere, free from party whips.

5. How about not deleting this, and un-deleting my other posts, and putting it to the readers for a vote on who is boorish, and who deserves what other epithets? (it'd be stacked in your favour given presumably most who read this blog actually like it). Or does Labour not like democracy anymore? Fair dibs given recent results I suppose :-)

[PaulFlynn]

Oh Dear, Political Umpire. You are priceless. Perhaps I should encourage you to come on the site more often. You are delightfully priggish and pompous.

As you well know, some of your comments were deleted because I do not think that a political row about a child's disease was a suitable subject for an exchange of knockabout party insults.

You demand attention because I am an MP. I am not your MP and this blog is privately funded.
Your self - righteous patronising tone would be an entertaining ornament to the site and cause amusement to my readers who know me well. They will see hw off-target you are.

Please drop in and entertain us all again.

[political umpire]

Accepting your invitation, here is my response:

You call me "delightfully priggish and pompous". No real argument there, though I'd observe that they are amusing insults from a Member of Parliament, which sadly for many years now has had all the decorum of a hoodies' tea party.

I put a comment regarding Mrs Palin which you deleted. At the time you said, both on the blog and in an email, that this was because the subject had been 'done to death'.

(Section of comment deleted because it seeks to raise a matter that has been rightly banned from this site)

I was expecting a response because that is the norm, or used to be, in conversation if a person makes pertinent criticisms, not because you weren't my MP. I mentioned you being an MP because I would like to expect high standards from one. You are also a member of the executive. Like it or not (I don't) your wages are paid by my taxes. I expect certain standards from everyone in public life and higher still from public officials. You seem to think this is pomposity, I think it is manners.

[PaulFlynn]

Thanks for coming on the site, political umpire. But you do not learn.

You cannot be allowed to resurrect this unsavory part of the argument. All other references to this, made by others, have been removed. There are plenty of other issues that are fair game for discussion about the animal baiting, global warming-denier creationist that is President in waiting Palin.

Your gratuitous insult to a named contributor to these comments has also been deleted. As an anonymous contributor, you have no right to do this. This applies to all comments. This site will not be reduced to a vulgar slanging match. I have decided not to notice your similar intemperate and ignorant remarks about me on your blog.

You obviously suffer with an irrational MP phobia. Who is your MP? I'd be happy to provide you with a fair objective assessment of whether s/he is worth the wage.

[Huw O'Sullivan]

As for Political Umpire

I have a theory that people who like to fall back on "my taxes pay your wages you know" are generally those who pay the least in taxes and who would do better to realise they probably are contributing perhaps 10p to any mp's, policeman's, soldier's, nurse's, teacher's salary.
There's getting value for money and then again there's being cheap.

What is on this site is not a conversation it is a blog with comments, Paul is good enough to attempt to answer questions in these comments but it is not a conversation or a debate of the many with Paul. That would be impossible to keep up with for one person.

Paul does tolerate robust criticism with ease as I have had plenty of fundamental disagreements with him and he has never deleted any posts of mine, for him to have deleted posts of yours will have been with cause.

If you wish people to vote on what you say then by all means stand for election and they will or perhaps you realise that they would not.

[paulflynn]

Political Umpire. I inadvertantly deleted all your last posting. My intention was to delete onlt that part that seeks to continue a pointless argument.`please re-post if you wish.

I am sure there was no intention in the original letter to highlight that matter. It was the next commentator who wanted to raise that and nothing else that made it an issue.

You describe people you do not know as liars and weasels. That will not permitted on this blog.

[political umpire]

I didn't save it elsewhere and really can't be bothered to start from scratch, given the lateness of the hour and the expectation that chunks of it will be deleted yet again.

You can think I'm being unfair etc, it's up to you. But frankly I think it would be a better policy not to delete anything (unless the language was obscene or something similar) and let the readers decide for themselves.

Anyway, unadulterated versions of what I had to stay remain on my own and Stephen's blog, so I will leave it there.

[Johnny Boy]

Paul Flynn MP is once again got such a chip on his shoulder about anti-CCTV 'extremist views' he cannot see the facts (like the smoking ban issue) that they don't work.

While Mr Flynns' advise amounts to "don't take the tabloids" his own Blogs contain more factual inaccuracies and more misleading headlines than all of them combined. Here's some facts for Mr Flynn to digest (though he's shown a dunces capacity to do so on the smoking issue!) ;

Crime has declined 30%, not just in Britain but worldwide, over the past 5 years, 40% decline since 1998. Yet the Marxist-Lennonist Party, sorry Nu Labour, and their centralist State paranoia has them spending expodential sums on spy-cameras on every street, attempts to DNA the country, fingerprint school children and ID Card everyone.

Crime declines 40%. Spying on civil citizens (er, crime detection) budget increases 40%. Houston we have a spending problem!

Despite a 30-40% decline in crime Police detection rates (cases solved) are flat as a pancake. So despite having far less crime to solve, the extra time available and vast sums on spy cameras, which Labour claims help detect and solve crime, there's zero increase in productivity. It suggests a 30-40% decline in detection not an increase at all. Houston we are being lied to.

Mr Flynn contends about CCTV cameras we are "ignoring their deterrent effect and their help in identifying criminals". Mr Flynn ignores speed cameras create criminals when speed has no relationship to accident rates a fact road engineers have known for 40 years which the Dept of Transport ignores.

Car accident rates have remained flat for 50 years despite an increase in car ownership. Speed cameras have not changed accident rates despite 6 years of proliferation to over 4,000 spy-cameras. Accident rates have not changed one iota yet fines have quadrupled. Houston, we have a State spy-camera cancer and its out of control.

Mr Flynn purports "minds are poisoned daily" and "In spite of the total absence of any sinister intent, surveillance cameras are added to the basket of grievances that build the construct of an avenging Government out to persecute the people."

Yet Labour have 'manufactured' 1,600 new laws a year to help criminalise an ever more law abiding society, why?

Jack Straw wrote last month he wants to be "tougher on crime" yet Britain is already the toughest, has the hardest sentances, the longest prison sentances and locks up more people than any country in the world bar America.

So Mr Flynn. Given all the evidence of declining crime in a more civil law abiding society whilst Marxist Labour increases spy cameras and attempts expodential spending on interfering, databasing and more laws to criminalise citizens how do you ever imagine in your tiny corrupt mind your Government is not the paranoid enemy and not the civil citizen?

Why are you hell bent on a public policy that criminalises law abiding citizens, locks us up for petty activity, spend expodential sums on decling crime rates?

[paulflynn]

You read without understanding Johnny Boy. All your points answer themselves in what I have already written. You are hopelessly confused on my views. Please read more on my past blogs.