Cllr. Gavin Ayling

James asks whether, as religion and politics don’t mix, do sport and politics?

And the answer is sort-of (in my humble opinion):

I believe the protests in London and Paris about the transportation of the Olympic flame through the cities on the way to Beijing was appropriate and laudable. If our government was abusing human rights I would expect us all to be protesting. Now that our government is supporting those that abuse human rights we should still be protesting.

Tibet should be free of oppression by China.

That all said, Britain should not withdraw from the upcoming Olympics because that would be unfair on a generation of athletes, achieve less than nothing and be an inappropriate way of protesting.

And this latest return to form for the English football team will probably bolster take-up of rugby among school children and those aspiring to be stars. I have rarely commented about football on this blog but I feel that it is only too appropriate right now.

First, I think the commentary was wholly unfair when it came to David Beckham. Commentators and pundits all said that Crouch was the only player on form, but I believe Beckham, when he came on eventually, was outstanding.

Second, I must share with you this exclusive scoop from Southern Counties Radio just now. They know the name of the next England coach. Obviously it needs to be a safe pair of hands, someone the English can rely upon. Most of all it needs to be someone we can trust and someone who rarely makes a wrong move.

That is why it will be Alistair Darling.

Diego Garcia is an island in the Indian Ocean claimed by Mauritius, ‘owned’ by the United Kingdom and leased to the United States.

When the UK gave independence to Mauritius in 1968, Diego Garcia was not included in the group of islands that was granted that independence. However, worse than that, the formerly-inhabited, islands were purged of their people.

This is clearly morally wrong, but now that they have been allowed to reside in the UK, we’re refusing to treat them as British citizens! Surely, having committed such an atrocity, we should (as a caring, compassionate and just nation) be bending over backwards to make the rest of their lives better.

Wandering slightly off topic, it has long been my belief that victims of miscarriages of justice — those people who are not just found to have ‘unsafe’ convictions, but those people who are fully acquitted — should be given more than enough money to live on for the rest of their lives. If you have had your liberty taken, potentially other horrendous things happen to you, you should not then be required to return to the grindstone and continue to pay taxes to the state that wronged you so heinously.

Staggering back to the topic in hand, this is far more sinister than a miscarriage of justice; this is a meditated act by the State and should be resolved with humility, generousity and apology. Act Mr Brown, act like a liberal rather than a left-wing facist.

Instead, we are denying these people the basic rights a citizen is afforded by other taxpayers: benefits. See today’s BBC News article on the Diego Garcians.

Hopefully I can use that headline all over again after the poll.

The question is, why wouldn’t Boris win? The English have an interesting humour and I would guess the vast majority of English people would vote for him purely because he appeals to them.

Correcting myself, then, the question should be: Is there enough cultural Englishness left in London for the natural winner of this contest to win? The answer will likely be the poll result — I hope and expect the answer to be “Yes”.

Vote for the blue buffoon that we all think is nuts!

I don’t doubt Tim’s seat is safe: he’s been a brilliant MP to almost everyone who has contacted them and, when he disagrees, he tells you so and why.

But it is interesting that Emily Benn will stand against him at the next election (BBC).

Emily’s blog and Tim’s website

Maybe I’m age prejudiced, but I now know what I didn’t know at seventeen and, frankly, I wouldn’t want seventeen-year-old me to represent anyone. Won’t Emily feel the same in eleven years?

And won’t she be too young if we have a snap-election? Is Emily to dictate Mr Brown’s decision!?

I have a frequent debate with one particular person about large companies. Her argument is that where they behave in an unethical way or in a way which, were it an individual, would be illegal, they should be rebuked somehow (our discussions never extend to what form that rebuke should take).

And now the Trade Unions, having failed at ruining domestic businesses thanks mostly to Mrs Thatcher (for all her social-engineering faults) are going to try to destroy multinationals instead in a new form of traditional socialism: TUC on multinational businesses.

But I remain confused by this attitude. The trade unions, even now domestically, believe that in private companies where there is genuine competition (and not oligopolies) direct action is a reasonable response to poor behaviour by companies. Surely, actually, companies are the greatest examples of genuine free democracy? Information about publicly listed companies is available to all and, just like Acts of Parliament or decisions made at local government, the people do not read them — they have better things to be doing. But they have access.

So, when people choose to shop at Evil Corp. plc, they are choosing to support exactly what that company is doing. When people boycotted Nestle in the mid-90s, they were reacting, democratically, to what they considered unacceptable behaviour by that company. I am proud to admit I joined in with that boycott and evangelised too.

Trying to react, from within, and unilaterally against a company (as Trade Unions might) is to defeat the general will of the buying public who are exercising their democractic beliefs. Much like terrorism or violent protest (as opposed to civil disobedience, voting and peaceful protest) trade union action is a disproportionate response against what the majority want. And, hopefully, the tyranny of the majority will be avoided by the twin impactors of minor intervention by the State (regulation) and the empathy of that majority acting in the interests of all.

I was appalled, incidentally, to read in Scientific American a while ago (and it came back to me as I wrote today) an article which stated as fact that pure libertarianism was an outdated and simply wrong ideology. I intend to tell you not only why it is not wrong, but also what impact it has on speed limits, in a future post. Please keep comments related to speed limits for that post.

So Mr Cameron, our resurgent leader, believes it is up to society to solve the crime-crisis does he?

Well let me tell him that that’s not right. Society is told by the police not to intervene; society watches as the police chase car drivers for speeding offences (which by themselves hurt no-one) while not appearing to do anything about muggings, common assault, petty vandalism or theft. Does society have anything to gain getting their collected selves killed trying to intervene in the stead of an absent police force (sorry it’s ‘police service’ these days)?

Mr Cameron needs to propose a disincentive element to the justice system rather than, the current, corrective emphasis. The people would respond well to a punishing justice system that not only tries to release effective members of society (as is apparently the aim of the current system) but also tries to make those people scared and respectful of the state’s rules (that are there to protect, afterall, the rest of society).

When I first heard that there were televisions in prison cells (I was very young) I was amazed and asked my parents whether prison wasn’t about punishment. But now television is the least of the benefits. Don’t misunderstand, I don’t think prison would suit me at all, but if you were the bully at school, another school-like setting where you can rule those around you is hardly off-putting.

If people were not punished for intervening, if people could be sure the law would protect those who were acting in society’s greater interest, if people could defend others and themselves with force that the law currently considers ‘unreasonable’ from the safe confines of the courtroom, then (and only then) would people and society start to turn on those among them who were antisocial, violent and intimidating.

Like many things, it doesn’t seem that hard so long as you purge the pink fluff which takes the place of a spine in many politicians.