Seems that you can’t even go for a drive in private these days… Well, of course, we all knew that really, but who expected traffic camera images to be transmitted to the US? That reciprocal is it? Yeeeaaaah. Didn’t think so.

Not the only big brother story floating about today.

Came across this Times article on Blears talking about immigration’s effect on communities etc etc. Usual stuff, stretches resources, can’t be sure of the impact, need to gather more data etc, with a throwaway comment towards the end about using footfall in supermarkets to measure population growth. Boggle. I didn’t think too much of that, but someone else did -

Supermarkets ’should spy on migrants’

Ho ho. Paying in cash? Sound foreign? Let our supermarket checkout assistant guess your nationality. Stay off the couscous!

Bit of an overreaction I think, though it’s been a long day and I’m tired. Would you get any meaningful data at all out of supermarkets? Certainly not on nationality - and even straight up population figures are surely going to be skewed by a whole heap of variables in different towns.

It ain’t pretty.

Let me say this - if the idea of subjecting another human being to this kind of treatment for *any* reason doesn’t completely revolt you - get off my ****ing planet.

Want to find out more? Unsubscribe.

Tim is thinking about starting up a new major project. He’s currently juggling two ideas, either tackling UK Libel Law, or having a swing at Rupert Murdoch. Both very good causes - have a read, and add to the discussion.

The Guardian has footage up of the death of Reuters cameraman Fadel Shana, killed in Gaza by a tank shell. Reuters have reported that doctors examining Mr Shana’s body confirmed he had been killed by flechettes (long slivers of metal, burst from a shell exploded in mid-air) fired by an Israeli tank.

There has long been controversy over the use of flechettes by Israel. In april 2003, a petition submitted to the Israeli High Court by several human rights organisations was rejected, along with the statement:

This court has ruled that “the choice of weapons, which the respondents use for the goal of preventing murderous terror attacks, is not one of the topics in which this court sees fit to intervene.” (HCJ 5872/ 01, Bracha v Prime Minister, PD 56 (3)1). Needless to say, the respondents have eased our minds that the scope of use of this ammunition is arranged by the IDF through rules that are binding on the commanders of forces acting in the field. The decision regarding the question as to whether the conditions in the arena of combat, in every given case, justify use of the flechette, is determined by the authorized commander, who in formulating his decision is commanded to act according to professional guidelines, that in principle were intended to prevent harming residents not involved in activities that endanger IDF soldiers or Israeli citizens.

Not our problem, gov.

Journalists risk death whenever they report in areas affected by violence. The use of indescriminate weapons such as flechettes can make it impossible for reporters to work however, and obviously they will kill soldiers, and innocent civilians including children alike. Fadel Shana was killed near a refugee camp - he had been covering the aftermath of an Israeli airstrike that had killed several children.

In the released footage, Danny Seaman, an Israeli press office spokesperson, states:

The tragic loss of life today of a Reuters photographer in gaza is the direct result of the cynical behaviour of the Hamas army. This army which chooses to fire against Israeli civilians also uses the Palestinian civilians as a shield.

Israel has experience with human shields.

You may think that this post is a little one-sided, and that I am holding Israel to a higher standard than Hamas. You’re damn right I am - they’re the ones getting millions of US dollars in aid, and boatloads of arms. ‘Kill them all and let god sort them out’ is a phrase best left to history.

I’ve not read the blog ‘Enemies of Reason‘ before, but this great post caught my eye.

I’m a liberal. In the US, according to stereotype, that should make me a peaceloving, cheek-turning, happy-go-lucky pacifist, who sees no wrong in anyone. Let me tell you this is not the case.

There are a few things which make me see the red mist. One is tailgaters. You’re driving along the motorway, and some twit drives up your exhaust pipe because, although you’re in a queue, he expects you to pull over and let him through. It takes a huge effort of self control to stop myself from hurting people that tailgate me. Another is … (relax Jherad, soothing thoughts), right-wing nutcases who leave nasty, idiotic, bigoted remarks on mainstream news comment/messageboard areas. I sincerely *shudder* to think what happen if I was to meet one of these ‘people’.

There. I said it. It sounds rather ridiculous - it is ridiculous, that I can get so wound up at the petty remarks of some dribbling subhuman fool, but there it is. Do these people really exist? I’m not sure I’ve ever met one in the flesh…

Perhaps there is only one explanation: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/

The Guardian has an article up on a study conducted for the Association of Chief Police Officers, which shows that despite scare stories in the tabloid media about an influx of eastern european immigrants causing a massive crimewave in the UK, crime rates in general have continued to fall - rises in crime numbers have only been proportional to the increase in population. In other words, immigrants are no more likely to commit crime than the British born populace.

Tabloids often like to confuse rates with simple figures - One of the biggest issues highlighted is the burden that immigrants place on infrastructure and public services. Problem is, that despite the increased tax revenue that immigrants bring, public spending has not risen in line. The problem is solveable, but it is much easier to blow a dogwhistle blaming immigration for the deterioration in services, or flat increases in crime figures than to open up purse strings.

This time I couldn’t resist. Daniel Davies has a CiF article up proclaiming the death of the Euston Manifesto.

The Euston Manifesto had a big impact on me when I first encountered it. I’d stumbled from blog to blog reading diverse opinions on the Iraq war, interventionism, and foreign policy in general - the EM was supposed to be a consolidation of ‘decent’ opinion - neither neocons nor islamists. Ho ho. I left a few comments around the blogosphere trying to get a handle on what this manifesto meant, but only slowly came to the dawning realisation that this group had a wildly different political outlook to my own.

The biggest impact (revelations of Jherad,2:1) to me was in highlighting the very real divides in lefty politics. I’ve learned to be a little more cautious these days - I’m almost afraid of commenting on something good a journalist writes in case they turn out to be a raving loon.

These days, the word ‘decent‘ carries a nasty connotation for non-Eustonites in the know. Lines were drawn in the sand, but it isn’t just them and us - plenty of other lefties get my back up. I’m glad the Euston Manifesto is dead or dying - though there are big divides in the right wing of politics, they always seem (at least to me) to pull together when it comes to elections. The EM was a very visible sign of the rift on the left.

Disappearing for the weekend - Celebrating my *cough*th birthday, and my little nephews 1st! Big excuse to buy lots of toys. Have a great weekend all, catch you on the flipside.

Update: Yay, back. Got a great digital camera for my birthday, so I may publish random pics at some stage. Then again, I may not.

Site may be up and down somewhat for the next day or two - I’m getting my blog migrated to a newer server (more space, more bandwidth, etc etc - not that I need it, but hey! Upgrade!).

Many thanks to Tim for his plug of the site.

An incredibly moving post by Rachel North on the 7/7 bombings. First, as PDF notes in the comments there, it is important for everyone to put down harmful conspiracy theories. I am possibly the least known blogger on the planet, but if I can get one friend, work colleague, relative or random browser to read this, then great.

There is a lot we don’t know about the events on 7/7 (and indeed 9/11) - but we are also starting to hear the good, documented evidence. Conspiracy theorists often dismiss outright any evidence which contradicts their viewpoint, and in doing so debase the search for truth - something which hurts the very real survivors and bereaved relatives of those lost in these terrible events.

There are very good activists who question establishment narratives, and push for deeper investigation into events. The difference between these people and the conspiraloons is that they base their opinion on an objective view of evidence, rather than looking for evidence to support a proconceived opinion. We’ve all heard stories on how evidence was gathered, shaped and accepted or discarded in order to make a case for for the war in Iraq - conspiracy theory is constructed in the same way. Fitting that some of the most anti-establishment nuts adopt some of the worst examples of establishment behaviour.

Rachel’s piece is moving as it tells the story of one of the bombers, Mohammed Siddique Khan, saying goodbye to his two year old child before leaving. We must remember that we are facing human beings with human motives, hopes, fears and ambitions. When we devolve those we fear into some biblical ‘evil’ force, we cannot hope to understand. We do not have to agree with, appreciate, or in any way condone their motives - but without understanding, we cannot hope to succeed.

Good news then it seems, although it does appear that both the ICO and the home office have refused to clamp down (so far) on Phorm using current interception laws. The ’service’ has yet to start trials, and more may be decided once these are ongoing.

Phorm is obviously keen to press ahead. In a statement to The Register:

We’re very confident, as has been the case with the DPA and RIPA, that closer scrutiny will demonstrate that the way in which we obtain consent will substantially exceed any legal requirement.

Hah.