And another thing…

RONNIE, who started his primary education this year, will be appearing in his class’s nativity play soon.

He will not be playing Joseph. “Good!” said I to his mother. “Rubbish part. The best part is the innkeeper.”

“How so, oh wise husband of mine?” said Carolyn (okay, that’s not exactly what she said, but you get my drift).

So why does the innkeeper play such an important part in the whole First Christmas broo-haha?

Well, remember that part where the Imperial Star Destoyer captures the rebel blockade runner in its tractor beam at the very start of Episode IV? And then the droids escaped to the surface of Tatooine with the Death Star tapes in the escape pod? Well, remember the Imperial gunner who almost shoots the pod down? And then he doesn’t because “there are no life forms on board”?

Well that bloke is recognised among theologians Star Wars fans everywhere as the most crucial, pivotal character in the whole original trilogy. If he had followed his orignal instinct and blown the escape pod to bits, then the droids wouldn’t have made it to Tatooine or into the ownership of Luke Skywalker. Obi-Wan would have stayed in retirement, Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru wouldn’t have been slaughtered by storm troopers and Princess Leia’s execution aboard the Death Star would have gone ahead as scheduled. The Death Star’s fatal weakness would not have been uncovered and would not have been destroyed, so, eventually, would have destroyed the Rebel Alliance.

All because that gunner opened fire on the escape pod. Which he didn’t.

“Are you drunk?”

So, anyway, back to Bethlehem 2000 years ago. The innkeeper could easily have gone that extra mile for his last-minute customers, Mary and Joseph. He could have found a room somewhere. Or he could have sent them packing with a warning not to use his stable or else he’ll get the centurions onto them. Where would the Nativity have been then?

Shepherds are rarely allowed into hotel lobbies, for a start. The Wise Men (the number of whom is not specified in Scripture) would have been hard pressed to track down the actual room number. So no Frankincense, gold or myrrh – and no tradition of prezzies at this time of year!!

Theologically speaking, the Lord being born in a manger provided a powerful message about the humility of His beginnings; a Travelodge doesn’t quite have the same impact.

So, to sum up: the innkeeper’s the part you want to go for, son.

“He’s playing a king,” said Carolyn. “And I fell asleep during Star Wars.”

Right.

♫ "... and a Happy New Year!" ♫

PERHAPS I should offer some sort of prize, because a major milestone has been reached: today I approved the 30,000th comment to be published on this blog.

That means I have actually read 30,000 of your innermost thoughts – plus many others I deemed too offensive, libellous or stupid even to bother publishing. No bloody wonder I’m going grey…

So thank you, James O’Malley, with your apparently odd obsession with Whitehall cuts (the paper variety) which turns out not to be as weird as I originally thought. Oh, and top name for a blog, also.

A virtual bottle of House of Commons whisky is winging its way to you even as I write (and by “virtual”, I of course mean “non-existent”, but you knew that, didn’t you?).

POLITICIANS  and political pundits like to pretend that we know our history.

The next election will be 1979 all over again, they cry. Or it will be a re-run of February 1974, say others. Perhaps it will be like 1992 say some.

Except it won’t: it will be exactly like 2010 and it will be different from every preceding election, just like every election is unique in some way. The estimable Bagehot of The Economist has written an excellent piece on the subject:

History never really repeats itself. Rather, as Mark Twain put it, it sometimes rhymes. The fit is almost always partial rather than exact—and the echoes and patterns are often visible only at a distance. In the case of the forthcoming general election, British politics may have been too convulsed for previous contests to be of much use in predicting the outcome.

I would recommend you read the whole piece here.

I’VE BEEN entertaining myself by having a look at the lists of Freedom of Information requests submitted to the Commons over the past few years.

Most of them, as you might expect, are for details on MPs’ expenses. Others are from people simply hoping the Commons authorities will carry out their research work for them. Many are sensible.

But some of them are simply bizarre. Below is a sample of them, with a summary of the request, the response and the date the response was made:

• Ethnicity, Sexual orientation, religious beliefs of the personnel in House of Commons – Information supplied where held  – 21/04/08

“Sexual orientation”? Who on earth would ask that, and who has the right to divulge that information other than the individual whose sexual orientation is being discussed?

• How many times has the present speaker called MPs from each party to speak in PM question time and oblige – Information available by other means. Section 21 exemption applied – 02/05/08

The end of this request is cut off, so we don’t know what the requestor was going to ask after “and oblige”. But this is an example of someone who can’t be bothered having to trawl through Hansard himself. It’s also probably someone who thought Michael Martin called more Labour than opposition MPs at PMQs and wants the facts to substantiate his theories. in other words, someone who doesn’t understand how the Commons works; the Speaker always calls for questions from government and opposition benches alternately.

• Details of any policy that may exist on the use of fish from sustainable sources in parliamentary catering operations – Some information supplied other information not held – 10/04/08

Hmm… fish!

• When did a named MP eat or sleep and what is the make of her car? – Pre-2002 information held provided. [Provided in full.] – 26/04/07

Whoever said some FOI requests were intrusive?

• Cost of lease on the fig trees in PCH (Portcullis House) and whether there are arrangements on expiry of the current lease – Information provided in full – 18/07/07

Yes, those trees are leased. Don’t ask.

• How many .mp3 or other media files are stored on HoC computers? – Unable to determine whether files contain music, however total number of MP3 & WMA files on network provided – 24/05/06

Someone obviously wants to know about my Barclay James Harvest collection.

• Request for further info on: a) Internet browsing habits b) Email traffic c) Electronic parliamentary procedures – Information provided in full, though some information not held in form requested – 18/08/06

MPs’ internet browsing habits?! And was that request rejected? Oh, it was… phew…!

• The number of accident reports and near-miss reports filed relating to paper cuts over the last year in the Palace? – Information not held – 21/12/06

Paper cuts? Seriously? That’s elf ‘n’ safety gone made, that is…

• Brand, softness, and quantity of toilet paper bought by the Palace – Figures provided for 10/04 – 12/05. Information for previous years not held – 12/01/2006

“MPs get to use soft toilet paper? At our expense? Just shows how out of touch they are, the blimmin’ troughers, etc, etc…” But seriously, someone actualy wasted seconds of their life submitting this request?

DAMN that Tory Bear… Damn him!

That’s it – that blue bear’s really had it now…

ON THE way out of the House of Commons chamber following Prime Minister’s Questions this afternoon, David Cameron said to Ed Balls across the despatch box: “You were quiet today!”

Nothing ususual with that, you might say. After all, Ed has been known, occasionally, to have been rather – shall we say, enthusiastic? – in his support for the PM at these sessions. And today he wasn’t, hence Dave’s remark.

What was unusual about the quip is that twenty minutes earlier, as Dave was getting his backside roundly kicked up and down the gangway by the Clunking Fist, he responded to Labour heckles by pointing to Ed and shouting: “It is not just Back Benchers, Mr. Speaker – the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families is up to his old tricks again!”

Now, given that Ed had deliberately avoided twitching a muscle as he sat there on the Treasury bench, this was unexpected. And Cameron’s words at the end of the encounter confirmed that even Dave knew Ed had been on his best behaviour.

So why did the ‘Leader’ of the Opposition accuse the Children’s Secretary of being “up to his old tricks again”?

Simples: it was written down on the notes in front of him.

It didn’t matter that the accusation was falsely made – the TV audience would simply have assumed Ed was mooning him or whatever. It was on Dave’s notes, so he had to say it, regardless of whether it was justified.

Prime Minister-in-waiting, eh?

NEWS that Sarah Brown’s Twitter account was accidentally accessed by her young son brought back memories of this series of Twits from earlier this year…

NOT SURE why, but I seem to be on the mailing list for “Vote For Change”, the campaign to hand permanent Cabinet seats to the LibDems change the electoral system.

Last night I received this email from Willie Sullivan, who helps run the campaign:

Tom

I’ve just heard some great news for the campaign – and I wanted to tell you straight away. It’s what we’ve been asking for all along.

The Government’s Democratic Reform Council met yesterday: they have decided to call a vote in the Commons on a legally binding clause that will provide for a referendum on the voting system.

This is the first time the Commons will be able to vote on holding such a referendum in decades.

It’s huge – and it’s down to your hard work for our campaign.

But we haven’t won yet – opponents of reform, especially in the unelected House of Lords, will do their best to kill the bill and stop voters from having their say.

Tomorrow, the press will report this story. It’s going to be big news. But we haven’t won until a referendum is actually called.

We need to put pressure on the politicians – opponents of reform need to know we won’t let them stand in our way. With your help, I know we can do it.

Thanks for everything you have done,

Willie

And here’s how I replied:

Thanks for the alert, Willie – I’ll make sure I’m there to vote against.

Tom

YOU OFTEN hear claims that the treaty under which Gary McKinnon’s extradition is being sought was constructed specifically for dealing with terrorists.

This is false.

The explanatory notes to the Extradition Act 2003 state:

The Government set out its proposals to reform the law on extradition in a consultation document “The Law on Extradition: A Review” in March 2001.

That was six month before 9/11, incidentally. Crucially, it states:

Crime, particularly serious crime, is becoming increasingly international in nature and criminals can flee justice by crossing borders with increasing ease. Improved judicial co-operation between nations is needed to tackle this development. The reform of the United Kingdom’s extradition law is designed to contribute to that process.

Extradition is an important tool in dealing with international crime: no one should be able to escape justice by simply crossing a border. The law should provide a quick and effective framework to extradite a person to the country where he is accused or has been convicted of a serious crime, provided that this does not breach his fundamental human rights.

So, no mention specifically of extraditing terrorists, although we can assume that terrorism falls under the “serious crime” heading.

And yet a myth – one of many in this case – has developed that Gary is to be extradited under legislation “intended” for terrorists. And I have been asked quite a few times on my Twitter page whether I think Gary is a terrorist. To which my answer, of course, is “no”. If he were facing terrorist charges in the US, the indictment would have made mention of the fact.

The Extradition Act 2003 was framed in order to deal with serious crimes. And, as Alan Johnson told the Commons today:

Gary is accused of serious criminal offences. He is alleged to have repeatedly hacked into US Government computer networks over a period of 13 months, including 97 US military computers from which he deleted vital operating systems and then copied encrypted information on to his own computer, shutting down the entire US army’s military district of Washington’s computer network for 24 hours. During interviews under caution, Mr. McKinnon admitted to much of the conduct he is accused of.

And another thing…

Regarding our allegedly “imbalanced” extradition trearty with the US, Alan told the Commons:

…members of both main Opposition parties have argued about this point. That argument was made in 2003, when the treaty was being concluded. What has happened since? In how many cases have we failed to get extradition from the US? None. Zilch. Nil. None whatsoever. Every case we have made to the US using probable cause has been successful. In contrast, there are seven cases in which the US has sought extradition from this country that are still held up in the system

I wonder if that fact will be covered by tomorrow’s Daily Mail? Hmm…

(You can read #1-6 of the Gary McKinnon myths here.)

ALAN JOHNSON, the Home Secretary, made a statement in the Commons this afternoon in response to an Urgent Question (they used to be known as “Private Notice Questions”) from Gary McKinnon’s MP, David Burrowes.

Alan dashed the hopes of campaigners hoping he would intervene in the extradition process. At the risk of boring you all, I thought it would be useful to reproduce Alan’s entire openign statement, since it is the most comprehensive and logical response to the “Free Gary” campaign I have heard.

Gary McKinnon is accused of serious criminal offences. He is alleged to have repeatedly hacked into US Government computer networks over a period of 13 months, including 97 US military computers from which he deleted vital operating systems and then copied encrypted information on to his own computer, shutting down the entire US army’s military district of Washington’s computer network for 24 hours. During interviews under caution, Mr. McKinnon admitted to much of the conduct he is accused of.

A great deal has been made of the perceived imbalance in UK-US extradition arrangements in respect of probable cause versus reasonable suspicion. While I am clear that no such imbalance exists, as Mr. McKinnon has admitted the conduct which has given rise to the extradition request, this issue is academic in his case. This aside, under the terms of the Extradition Act 2003, I can prevent an extradition only in very specific circumstances: where the person in question could be sentenced to death if convicted; where there is a chance of that person being tried for crimes committed before that extradition which were not specified in the extradition request; or where the person has previously been extradited to the UK from another country, or transferred here by the International Criminal Court, and no consent has been given to their being extradited elsewhere.

Outside of the statutory extradition scheme, the courts have made it clear that the only circumstances in which I could prevent extradition would be where the evidence demonstrates that extradition would be a breach of human rights. If it would breach human rights to proceed with extradition, I would have to halt proceedings. If it would not, it would be unlawful for me to do so.

Mr. McKinnon has challenged his extradition in the district court, the High Court, with the Law Lords, and in the European Court of Human Rights, all of whom have ruled that the extradition should go ahead. Following the diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome in August 2008, he made fresh representations to the then Home Secretary claiming that because of his medical condition his extradition would breach the European convention on human rights. The then Home Secretary decided in October 2008 that the evidence Mr. McKinnon submitted did not meet the threshold needed to constitute a breach of the ECHR. Mr. McKinnon challenged in the High Court this decision and the decision by the Crown Prosecution Service that there were no grounds for him to be tried in this country.

On 31 July 2009, the High Court handed down both judgments. In its judgment on the Director of Public Prosecution’s decision that Mr. McKinnon should be tried in the US, Lord Justice Stanley Burnton said this:

“It is true that the Claimant’s offending conduct took place in this country. However, it was directed at the USA, and at computers in the USA; the information he accessed or could have accessed was US information; its confidentiality and sensitivity were American; and any damage that was inflicted was in the USA. The witnesses who can address the damage done by his offences are in America…However, it is not for this Court to decide where he should be prosecuted. The decision is that of the DPP. As appears from the preceding paragraphs of this judgment, he cannot be faulted for considering that, other things being equal, the Claimant should be prosecuted in the USA.”

He expressed the view that it would be

“manifestly unsatisfactory in the extreme”

for Mr. McKinnon to be tried in the UK and refused permission for this aspect to be judicially reviewed.

Secondly, the Court ruled on 31 July that the decision of the Home Secretary that the extradition of Gary McKinnon to the US would not amount to a breach of his human rights was also correct. The Lord Justice said:

“Ultimately, I have to weigh the impressive medical evidence adduced by the Claimant against the severity involved in Article 3. I have no doubt that he will find extradition to, and trial and sentence and detention in the USA, very difficult indeed. His mental health will suffer. There are risks of worse, including suicide. But if I compare his condition with those considered in the authorities to which I have referred above, even taking full account of the (in my view undesirable) possibility of his being prosecuted in this country, his case does not approach Article 3 severity.”

Following that decision, Mr. McKinnon’s lawyers made fresh representations, including additional medical evidence. I have carefully considered those representations and I am clear that the information that his lawyers have provided is not materially different from that placed before the High Court earlier this year and does not demonstrate that sending Mr. McKinnon to the United States would breach his human rights.

There are legitimate concerns about Mr. McKinnon’s health, and the United States authorities have provided assurances, which were before the High Court in July, that his needs will be met. It is also clear from the proceedings to date that there is no real risk that Mr. McKinnon, if convicted, will serve any of his sentence in a supermax prison. Should Mr. McKinnon be extradited, charged and convicted in the US and seek repatriation to the UK to serve his sentence in this country, the Government will progress his application at the very earliest opportunity.

As I have said at every stage of these proceedings, we will not commence extradition proceedings until all legal avenues that Mr. McKinnon wishes to pursue have been exhausted. He can lodge a judicial review within seven days of this decision, and he can appeal to the ECHR within 14 days of the same date. I am currently considering a request from Mr. McKinnon’s lawyers for an extension of the seven-day time limit.