And another thing…

I’LL TRY to keep this short…

Alcohol abuse is a huge problem in this country, much greater than problems caused by illegal drug abuse or by smoking.

I don’t know how to tackle it, I really don’t, because our culture venerates the act of getting drunk. Too many people go to the pub at weekends not to have a drink but to get drunk. As a nation, a significant minority of us seem to be incapable of enjoying a drink without actually becoming paralytic.

“Ah!” say our very civilised, sophisticated (dare I say “middle class”?) moral guardians. “It’s the working classes that are the problem. We, of course, have enough disposable income to enjoy a nice Chablis when the mood takes us, and that’s as it should be. But it’s simply not good enough for the Burberry-wearing classes to be able to afford their own favourite tipple, in boxes of 48, out of the local Asda.”

If we genuinely believe that the only way we can stop people over-indulging is to make alcohol too expensive for “them” (and we know who “them” are, don’t we?), then we might as well throw in the towel right now.

Something in Jessica's body language suggested it might be time to review our relationship

First off, it’s patronising. Secondly, it wouldn’t achieve any long-term cultural or attitudinal change, which is what’s really required if Britain is going to get over its love affair with drunkenness.

And thirdly – and by far most importantly – minimum pricing of alcohol won’t work. Do you imagine that the type of person who gets blitzed on a 12-pack of Carlsberg from the local supermarket is going to see the new, increased price label and say to himself: “No, I can no longer afford to indulge my drinking habit. I will therefore save my money and spend it instead on books for my children.”?

If someone wants to get drunk, then you know what? They’re going to get drunk. If they have to go into debt or deprive their families of the bare essentials in order to do it, then that’s what will happen. And given that for those in work, levels of disposable income are higher than ever, you’d have to push prices up a hell of a lot before it would have even a marginal impact on consumption.

People drink alcohol for many reasons, and the price of it may well be a factor. But I doubt if it’s anywhere near the most important one. I hope the government doesn’t end up on the wrong side of this argument, as Paul Waugh hints today.

Of course, if people were allowed to have a fag in the pub then perhaps they’d be less inclined to buy cheap booze from the supermarket and drink it at home. But let’s not go down that road again…

YESTERDAY I poked fun at right-wing and Tory blogs for their refusal to criticise Philip Davies MP for his green-inked rants against political correctness.

Today it may be the other side’s turn for criticism. This story in the Mail on Sunday may not be entirely accurate. There may be some details left out. But for the moment, it’s all we have, and the facts appear to be that a Christian teacher has been sacked after offering to pray for a sick child’s recovery. This, apparently, could have been interpreted as bullying (hat-tip to Iain Dale).

So the question I want to ask is: what do the left-wing and Labour-supporting blogs have to say about this apparently appalling example of moronic discrimination against Christians? What is the left-wing saying? There is no left-wing intellectual analysis that would justify this chain of events as they have been reported this morning. Are there any who are expressing indignation? Given that the overwhelming majority of voters – including a massive majority of traditional Labour voters – will share my own anger at this story, the Left risks looking utterly out of touch by remaining silent.

Why must we allow the right wing to claim that white, middle class Christians are the only minority group in the country that the Left don’t give a damn about?

Someone offering to pray to a God in whom you do not happen to believe is not bullying, even when you haven’t invited such intervention on your own behalf. I have prayed for lots of people who are not Christians and I will continue to do so, with or without their permission.

Christians are also accused of “bullying” whenever they seek to evangelise. “How dare a Christian tell me I should convert to their faith!” is the shrill, defensive nonsense we often hear. Well, I’ll tell you what: if you don’t want to become a Christian, don’t become one, okay? Problem solved. No bullying, just an exchange of views with no minds changed. Move on.

Christians are instructed by Jesus Christ to evangelise on His behalf. If non-Christians – and yes, that includes Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Seikhs and buddhists as well as atheists – feel offended by this form of outreach, well that’s a pity, but they’ll just have to deal with it as best they can.

UPDATE: Humble pie time for Harris, it seems, and rather than delete the above post (which was my first instinct, to save my blushes) I’ll simply add this: Bob Piper has done the rest of us a favour and has actually read to the very end of the article – which is what I should have done had the red mist not descended after the fourth paragraph and motivated me to open my laptop. Bob rightly accuses Ian Dale (and by inference, me) of a Pavlovian response to this story, and of failing to acknowledge that the (supply) teacher in question is simply under investigation – the normal procedure when a complaint is made.

Still, an object lesson in blogging to end the year on. Thanks to A Very Public Sociologist for alerting me to my mistake.

Still, I trust lots of left-wing bloggers (including Bob) will come out in support of this woman in the run-up to the internal investigation…

LET’S explode some myths on this one, shall we?

MYTH #1: Computer hacking is not a serious crime.

Yes it is, and it causes millions of pounds of damage every year. People who hack into other people’s computers should be charged and tried. If convicted, the sentences should be severe.

MYTH #2: McKinnon was pursuing a harmless obsession about UFOs.

In that case, why did he leave this message on one of the US Defense Department computers?

US foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days? It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand-down on September 11 last year…I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels

Doesn’t this suggest that his motives were not only political but malicious? Doesn’t sound much like a “moral crusade” to me.

MYTH #3: Asperger’s sufferers shouldn’t be extradited.

Why not? Would this argument be made in favour of an Asperger’s Syndrome sufferer who had committed a less “acceptable” crime, like murder or child abuse?

MYTH #4: The extradition treaty with the US is one-sided.

There is some truth in this, but because of the role of the US constitution, not the UK legislation itself. But are we saying that because of this, no British citizen should ever be extradited to America? If Gary Glitter’s extradition was demanded by the US authorities, would there be the same level of oposition on the grounds of a lack of reciprocity?

MYTH #5: McKinnon cannot expect a fair trial in America.

Nonsense. The US legal system is one of the fairest in the world and McKinnon will have his chance to plead his case in open court in exactly the same way as any US citizen. And the highest courts on this side of the Atlantic – including the Court of Appeal and the European Court of Human Rights – have already given McKinnon a fair hearing and have found against his request to remain in the UK.

MYTH #6: McKinnon will receive an unduly harsh sentence.

Unlikely. This is from Corante Blog:

(Federal) sentencing guidelines are referred to in Lord Brown’s ruling, but they are rarely referred to in UK coverage. McKinnon was offered a plea agreement if he pleaded guilty to two of the seven charges.

From the ruling: “On this basis it was likely that a sentence of 3-4 years (more precisely 37-46 months), probably at the shorter end of that bracket, would be passed and that after serving 6-12 months in the US, the appellant would be repatriated to complete his sentence in the UK.”

If you are seriously interested in the facts of this case, and not the unthinking Daily Mail spin, I would recomment Gary McKinnon: The truth is out there, just not in the British press and Socialist Unity, which has taken a brave and principled stand on this issue, unlike many on the Left.

UPDATE at 4.45 pm: There’s a fantastic comment by a “paddy garcia” on this subject over at Socialist Unity which I reprint here in full:

Please tell me what is wrong with hacking into US military computers? How can any socialist oppose bringing down the US imperialist war machine by this or any other means? Anyone who tries to this is a hero. Please explain all this alleged Brit nationalism stuff? I have not heard Gary McKinnon say anything that could be interpreted as such. Obviously the gutter press have their own agenda but that doesn’t mean that this man should be extradited.

Doesn’t add much to the debate, I’ll grant, but a real hoot!

DESPITE a very polite invitation, I am unable to meet with Old Holborn and Tory Bear today in the Westminster Arms where, they say, I was to have been presented with a copy of Orwell’s Animal Farm.

The gesture was planned after I posted an article suggesting that Orwell’s classic tale of agricultural shenanigans and glue factories was a charming children’s fable, just ripe for Disneyfication.

But today, being a celebration of a major victory against terrorism, is full of tradition. And one of the best loved, and more recent, traditions is Old Holborn (“I’m not mad – I’m furious!”) dressing up as that bloke out of V  For Vendetta and trying to march into the House of Commons, only to be asked by a police officer to remove his mask and go through the x-ray machine like everyone else, and then writing a blog post about how we’ve become a police state under Labour.

Which all just goes to show how lucky we are to live in a  country where people still have the right to demonstrate against not having the right to demonstrate about not having the right to protest.

Anyway, I’ve already got a copy.

TODAY was the second occasion on which I have presented a Ten Minute Rule Bill (TMRB) to the Commons.

In fact I kind of inherited this one from Ann McKechin, my colleague who represents Glasgow North and who is now a Scotland Office minister. She asked me to take it up when we found ourselves swapping our respective positions in government and on the back benches.

Here’s a trade secret: there is no Bill. Unlike a government Bill, which is fully drafted before its first reading, TMRBs are essentially a short and a long title. You make your speech and choose a date for it to return to the Commons for its next reading. But the Bill, in any form that could be drafted into law, doesn’t exist.

The vast majority of TMRBs never see the light of day as independent pieces of legislation. The last one I presented, on increasing penalties for computer hackers, was adopted by the government and incorporated into a Home Office Bill, which was a great result for me, because as a stand alone piece of legislation it stood no chance of becoming law.

With the prorogation of parliament just a few weeks away, and the State Opening to follow, today’s Bill will get lost beneath an avalanche of measures for which the government will want to secure parliamentary time. But the point of today was to draw the Home Office’s attention to the measures in my Bill and hope it can be persuaded to enact some or all of it in government time at some point in the future.

Yup, a glamorous job, this MP lark…

THIS comment from the thread to my last post hits the nail right on the head. Thank you, Rapunzel (if that’s your real name, I like it):

WHETHER or not you agree with the system of checks on anyone who works with children, – even voluntarily three or four times a year (and the fact that you’re reading a blog suggests you’re more than likely to disagree) – this presents a major difficulty for opposition politicians.

Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, says the new rules have “the potential to be a real disaster for activities involving young people.” He adds:

We are going to drive away volunteers, we’ll see clubs and activities close down and we’ll end up with more bored young people on our streets.

Fair enough, although I think his fears are somewhat overstated. But Chris is in a pickle. If he becomes Home Secretary next year, will he repeal these new regulations? As far as I can see, he has made no commitment to do so. I don’t blame him; any relaxation of the regime by any minister would be incredibly dangerous – not just for children, but politically as well. The tabloid newspapers deploring these new rules would very quickly turn their attention on any minister they thought could be indirectly blamed for allowing a pedophile access to his victims.

As to the rules themselves, I’m not comfortable at all about sending out the message to all adult volunteers that they are assumed to be a threat to their charges unless they can prove otherwise. On the other hand, we’ve had a smaller scope vetting system in place for many years now and I recall similar criticisms being made when it was introduced. Yet no-one now is proposing to do away with the checks that everyone who works with children must endure.

No doubt my view is coloured by being a parent. Caron has written a very good piece on this from a mother’s perspective, and takes a much more critical view of the system.

But I’m afraid I take parents’ views on this issue much more seriously than those without children. Everyone has the right to an opinion, but I also have the right to treat with a degree of disdain those who are relaxed about taking risks with the safety of other people’s children.

LIKE Damian Green MP, I’m having my own battle over the DNA database.

Hundreds of thousands of people not charged or convicted of any crime have nevertheless had their DNA taken by the police and stored, despite a European court ruling that “innocent” people’s DNA shouldn’t be held.

So here’s my problem: how do I persuade the police to store my DNA? Why should I, an “innocent” person, be denied the right to have my fingerprint and other personal data included in the national database with everyone else’s, “innocent” and guilty alike?

I feel like my civil liberties are being compromised the longer this outrage continues.

FORMER Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has recorded this message to the American people, warning them not to take The Eccentric Mr Hannan too seriously when he starts to go all swivel-eyed over the NHS.

But in recording the video, JP has identified a crucial area of public policy: why are MPs allowed to record videos on the Terrace of the House of Commons whereas my constituents are frequently told by police officers that they’re not allowed to take photographs?

Honestly, it’s one rule for them MPs and another for the rest of us…

ACCORDING to ConservativeHome, David Cameron wants to get rid of the eyesore peace demonstration seemingly permanently ensconced in Parliament Square, across from the Commons.

I don’t expect this will sit well with the libertarians who are lining themselves up behind the Tories at the moment (“We can’t even march into Central Lobby wearing Hallowe’en costumes without giving advance notice to the authorities! It’s a police state, I tell you!” etc, etc…), but for what it’s worth, I welcome his comments. Parliament Square is simply an embarrassment these days, and not for the reasons the protesters would like it to be. When I first came to Parliament as a tourist, I remember sitting on a bench in Parliament Square with a sandwich, enjoying the view of the Palace. Now you can’t avoid a row of ugly, tatty tents and the back of Brian Haw’s head as he perseveres in his utterly pointless and self-indulgent protest.

The permanent anti-war protest also means, of course, that any other movement or cause must take second place when it comes to positioning across from the Commons. Surely it would be better to allow more groups to protest on set days in such a way that it wouldn’t end up looking, as Cameron rightly says, like a shanty town? Or would that be too democratic?

Is this what you want Parliament Square to look like in a few years? WELL IS IT? Right, then...