And another thing…
The personal blog of Tom Harris, Labour's Candidate for Glasgow South
Advertisement
44
I MIGHT as well endear myself to the salivating anoraks Libertarians even further by welcoming in advance the gift of a copy of Animal Farm by George Orwell.
When I described Nineteen Eighty-Four as “a rollicking good read” after receiving a copy from Old Holborn in the post last year, I provoked a deluge of indignation. Now, so I’m told, he’s preparing to send me a copy of Animal Farm (you know – the one you read for your O-levels if you don’t have time to read Nineteen Eighty-Four).
Which is great news. I have a very old copy and it’s always nice to get a new replacement. I might even read it again.
I’ve always been amazed that Disney never adapted it. Admittedly, it’s a bit depressing for a fairy tale, but so was the original version of The Little Mermaid before the kingdom of the mouse lightened it up a bit. All you’d need is a few good tunes (“You got four legs and he’s got two, let’s work together and we’ll see this through…” Or how about “I’m more equal than you, he’s more equal than me, everyone’s equaller than everyone else, just leave the math to me!” And who can forget the tear-jerking “So long Boxer, goodbye old friend, just because it’s a glue factory doesn’t mean it’s the end…”)
Roll on November 5th.
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):
Love the “ID card by the back door” conspiracy theory!
I’ve been CRB checked for my work with children. It was done by filling in a form with my address and previous address in order that police checks could be carried out. I may have had to name my employer. I didn’t send any fluids.
But, of course! The envelope or stamp would have been used to extract my DNA. And then, of course, there were my fingerprints on the letter. And my handwriting. And the CCTV camera by the post box. It’s all true, they have stolen my DNA. B****Y NEW LABOUR!
Seriously, though, the actual point of your post, about whether Chris Grayling would feel able to repeal this legislation, is right. I seem to remember the screams from the tabloids for greater protection for children after the terrible events in Soham.
Sadly, no matter how many rules and checks and regulations are put in place, it will never be possible to protect every child from attack by a stranger. Paedophiles can be very clever, very plausible and very, very patient in building up a child’s trust. And while it may be true that 90% of abuse happens in the home, that still leaves 10% of incidents that involve non family members. Even after the new regulations begin, we’ll never really know how many children’s lives have been saved. Although we’ll certainly know how many “freedom fighters” have been mortally offended by the assumption that they are all guilty until proved innocent. They’re jumping up and down all over the Blogosphere. So much outrage, so much hot air.
But who would be a politician facing the press, having revoked this legislation, after a tragedy involving a child and someone they thought they could trust because they met them at a club, or at school, or at the library?
Surely we have all sorts of legislation and checks that question whether we can be trusted.
Do we need speed limits? I can be trusted to drive at a sensible speed for the road.
Do we need security tags on items in shops? I can be trusted not to steal anything.
Do we need ticket inspectors? I wouldn’t travel without a ticket. I could go on.
This is children we’re talking about. Are they worth £60 a check? Or £100? Or not.
OCCASIONALLY I will write a post which will provoke an almost unanimously hostile reaction. Anything on civil liberties, ID cards or state surveillance will do the trick.
Last year, in response to this post, I received more than 200 comments, the overwhelming majority of which were in sharp disagreement with my own viewpoint. At some point in such a thread, a wag will write something lie: “Well, Tom, you’ve received a kicking from the public on this subject so why don’t you admit that you’re wrong?”
Such comments, I assume, are not meant entirely seriously; no-one believes that comments threads on British political blogs are representative of the wider view of the public (the public’s views of the current expenses scandal being an exception, I admit). If the antipathy and downright hatred of the Labour Party among those who comment on this and other blogs were reflected in the electorate, we would have had difficulty reaching double figures in any opinion poll over the last five years (“Just wait and see, the opinion polls are over-stating your support, Labour always leaves the country in a mess and the Tories have to clear it up, etc…” – Johnny Norfolk).
Not that all such comments can therefore be dismissed. Perfectly valid points can and do emerge, even from the screeching and hyper-ventilation of the libertarians who seem to spend most of their waking lives trawling the blogscape for opportunities to vent their ever-present and ever-growing anger.
Which brings me on to the vexed question of why the British blogscape is so dominated by the Right, including Tories but also libertarians. I recently tried to add to the many theories trying to explain this fact, and suggested that timing had something to do with the fact that Guido and Iain Dale are the two most popular political blogs in the country.
But I’m drawn now to the conclusion that, certainly as far as libertarian readers are concerned, the blogscape offers them an outlet and a range of opinions which the mainstream media have never provided. If you’re “mainstream” Left, Right or Centre in your politics, then the blogscape doesn’t really offer much that isn’t already found in newspapers or TV news. But if you’re a libertarian, the blogscape has become your first port of call.
Back to top
Tom’s Twitter updates
"Will you turn that damn computer off?"
Recent podcasts
Archives
Tom’s blogroll
