baldysblog.co.uk

The main problem with Parliament is that it is full of ignorant busybodies who lack any grasp on reality and plain old fashioned common-sense. A good example is the whole identity card fiasco, if MPs even half understood the key technical issues; the project would have been abandoned long ago or never started in the first place.

In touching on this, I’m not arguing about whether or not there are ‘Civil Rights’ issues, merely the technical and IT problems that will have real world impacts that clearly have not been considered by Parliament because MPs are basically too stupid to grasp the technical concepts involved and are consequently wasting billions of £s of taxpayers’ money. But there is more…

Total Incompetence

The Labour Government has fallen from grace not just because of Gordon Brown, he certainly hasn’t helped but the real issue lies in the fact that it is totally incompetent Administration with the wheels spinning off in all directions, the saga of the 8 Chinook helicopters so desperately needed in Afghanistan being another prime example. The Chinook story goes back to when Geoff Hoon was in charge of Defence and a less inspiring man it would be difficult to find in the whole of the Commons he was certainly not the person one needed in charge at a time of war.

Whilst it is true that Brown in particular took all the credit for the “boom years” and therefore can’t escape the blame for the current turndown particularly as it transpires that his past policies have made present matters worse, just how does any government get to this position ? The answer lies in two things, bad management and the wrong people in post in the first place.

The basic task of any MP is to oversee how the taxpayer’s money is being raised and spent, in theory though not in practice; their primary loyalty is to their constituents rather than any political party. The ideological froth that many are addicted to is irrelevant, the job is about controlling expenditure which is why every proposal is called a “Bill” because it will cost the taxpayer money.

Their job changes if they become a member of the Government with a Cabinet post and a department to run. To do this, they need to have established management skills and specifically, people handling skills honed in another environment concerned with project management and budget accountability.

The Institutional Investors in the City will not allow just any old tramp off the street to be appointment as the MD or CEO of say M&S or Rolls Royce Aero Engines and yet, we allow total idiots to run a Department of UK plc which has a larger “spend” than either – it really doesn’t make much sense does it ? It can certainly come as no surprise when they fail or become totally dependent upon their Senior Civil Servants who then manipulate what happens – “The Minister is being brave… says Sir Humphrey !

The Latest Distraction

The consequence of all of this and particularly emphasised since 1997 is the hectoring, bullying policy lurch to give the MPs a distraction and the feeling that they are doing “something important” even if in the event, it is just more worthless foam from the mouth and even more pointless legislation.

There are a number of classic examples going the rounds currently – the 42 Days – storing up legislation for future potential use, a bit like john Reid’s sending troops to Afghanistan and expecting to withdraw them 3 years later without a shot being fired !

The 42 Days will be quickly deployed because the “Cyclops” will want to show he was right, even if it means ‘fitting someone up’ on phoney charges or “discovering” a highly questionable plot based upon even more questionable intelligence.

A Classic Distraction

The following is a classic NuLab distraction as far as the key elements go the first of which is a statement that you cannot argue with. “Paedophilia is evil and everything must be done to stamp it out !”

Their game is not only to lay down a marker you can’t argue against so that by extension, you cannot argue against whatever foolish legislation they then come up with which inevitably will include lazy lawmaking that shifts the burden of proof onto the individual to prove their innocence rather than the prosecution to prove “Beyond a reasonable doubt…” that they are guilty.

The current proposal is that the law be changed to include the ownership of drawings and animations of child sex abuse and this does have some interesting elements to it that are worth looking into.

Key Elements

The question is whether there is more paedophilia today than there has ever been and the probable answer is that like rape, probably not but it is more reported and has a spotlight shone upon it now whereas in previous generations, it might have been swept under the carpet.

However, there are some key differences today compared with the past, travel being one of them with its attendant “sex tourist trade” particularly in the Far East. Then there is the Internet which having evolved as a means of trade, offers paedophiles the opportunity to buy and sell pictures, videos and even “live events” all of which, we should be keen to close down. The problem with people paying for this kind of material is obviously if there is a commercial demand, more children will get abused to satisfy it.

The third element concerns people trying to avoid prosecution by having “drawings or cartoons” rather that photographs or videos and this does need a little explanation. Totally innocent and legitimate computer software does exist whereby it is possible to take original pictures or film footage and convert them to drawings/paintings and animations.

The Apparent Proposal

The amendment to existing legislation is that the ownership of such material be made illegal and a criminal offence but interestingly, this does open up a whole new can of worms and the age old conflict over what the very nature of “Art” is. In fact it is from this aspect that the British Artist David Hockney has written a letter criticizing the proposal and fundamentally, he is right because I wouldn’t want some “Mr Plod” deciding what is or is not pornographic because fundamentally, they are not qualified to do so.

In simple terms, this is a typical piece of wrongheaded “do something” Labour legislation that serves no practical purpose because it has not been thought through properly and it has not been thought through properly because the people proposing it are frankly too stupid and lazy to even think beyond their next expenses fiddle. Let’s look at the real issues to illustrate the point.

The Realities

It is certainly true that cutting into the “sales chain” so that more people face a certainty of discovery and punishment will reduce sales and demand which will do a lot to reduce the numbers of children exploited in this way so to interdict a business like this; you want to disrupt and cut off the money supply. To do this, you want to work with the Credit Card, Credit Clearing Companies and the Banks and the IT industry because over a period of time, patterns will emerge that can be used to target both the suppliers and their customers. It isn’t glamorous, Ministers cannot brag about “I did this…” and it is gut grinding stuff but, very effective.

It always strikes me that we often hear of defendants caught with such material saying, “I was only doing research” as an explanation or excuse but if so, where are the other supporting materials, documents, outlines etc that would be inevitable if such a statement is true. It is a bit like the alleged ”Airplane Bombers” currently on trial in Woolwich whose explanation of their “martyrdom videos” is that they were part of a protest film they were making to put on YouTube and in which case, where is the other footage that you were going to include ?

Context

I would suggest that if commonsense is applied, it is not the type or format of the material, it is not by itself even the volume or amount of it, it is the “context”. The difference between Murder and Manslaughter is the “intent” the physical fact that someone has died, remains the same. In a similar way, if someone has a lot, 100s or 1,000s images of “child porn” on the hard drive of a computer, the format is irrelevant, the context is all and the question is why ?

The practical reality might be a degree of carrot and stick; potential confiscation of substantial personal assets such as the house they live in, if found guilty balanced against US style “plea bargaining for reduced penalties in return for co-operation in tracking down other offenders or suppliers that they are connected with.

In terms of trying to protect children and reducing this “trade”, I would suggest what I have outlined above would be rather more effective than some daft amendment that describes drawings as porn as opposed to just photographs. If someone comes before a Jury and admits they had 4,000 pornographic images of children, they would need a darn good explanation to offer that Jury, whether the images are photographic or “drawn in some way” would be irrelevant to the verdict I suspect. Also there must be a difference between original “ink on paper” drawings as opposed to a mechanical rendition of a photograph to look like a drawing. And why just drawings ? Why not bass reliefs, sculpture, mosaics, lithographs, wood blocks, lino prints, silk screen prints, oil paintings, water colours etc. etc. Why not “lurid thoughts” ?

No I’m afraid that whichever way you look at it, the House of Commons is stuffed with brainless Muppets and if we feel we deserve better, let’s make sure come May 2010, we the electorate have a good cull of the buggers from all parties.