Webcameron Launches!

David Cameron has gone a step further in his embracing of emerging technologies with his new blog site, Webcameron. The first video is up with him introducing the theme and concept behind the site. I shall be registering shortly. Great idea and he should be commended for it really.

War looms in the Caucasus

Russia and Georgia it seems are on the brink of war this morning. Over the past few days tensions have been increasing between the two states over the arrest if Russian military officers on charges of spying by Georgia. Troops movements by Russia have started along the border and yesterday they pulled 84 Diplomats out of the country. The latter is never a good sign really.

The Conference Bounce

I am not, by any real measure, a psephologist. However, it seems clear that the phenomona of the "Conference Bounce" in the UK is, these days at least, a general universal for the three main political parties. You have a media managed conference, and you see your poll ratings go up. It's unlikely, in today's world of PR that you will see your vote go down, even if you do engage in a bit of mild blood letting, especially if the monopoly broadcaster in the country is largely on your side.

A quick look at the polling data over September shows the effect. The Lib Dems had their conference and perked up. Now Labour have had their conference and it's neck and neck between them and the Tories on 36%. This time next week there will be another poll and it will show the Tory lead regained as the "conference bounce" takes it turn on them.

There's been much said in the past week about the Tory poll lead. I recall someone from Labour saying on Radio 4 that a 8-10 point lead is nothing like the lead Labour had over the Tories in the early 1990s. The argument goes that the polls are meaningless and "the Tories aren't doing as good as we did anyway". Of course, the Labour has, on election day, consistently polled less than the polls say they will, whilst the Tories have done the reverse.

Like I said at the beginning, I am no psephologist, but todays poll is not a particular bad one for the Tories or a good one for Labour. After all, during weekes where you effectively have guaranteed media coverage across the board everyday all day, you'd have to do something utterly silly to not get a bounce in the opinion polls. Arguably carrying out a poll during Conference season is pointless as it does not show the true popularity of any of the parties, it's more a snapshot of respondents short-term memory.

Muggers to be given on-spot fines?

Having been away from the Internet in a real sense for a week I feel a little behind with the news. After all, the radio follows the papers, and the papers print what was online the day before usually, so for me it's still sort of Thursday really.

In one of my reading over people's shoulders mode earlier though I did spy something about the new summary justice powers that the Govrrnment wants to bring in which I mentioned here. I'll be honest I'm not sure I read it right though.

I'm sure someone can correct me but what I thought I saw it say was that muggers were going to be fined £100 instead of being arrested. It's difficult to forget such a pathetic and silly idea you see, but I'm sure it can;t have been true. All I could think of after that was a mugger paying his fine off with stolen money.

Someone tell me I read it wrong. Please?

Stop talking about Web 2.0!

I have an exam today an d then I'm off to the pub so it's fair to say you won't be seeing that much posting for me. However, I just wanted to post a little something on Web 2.0 because I keep seeing the phrase everywhere and it's starting to irk me, I shall however, try not to rant.

Putting it simply, Web 2.0 is not new. The phrase was born in 1999 by Internet geeks at a conference and was meant as a bit of a way of expressing the difference between static and dynamic driven web content. However, for some reason it has become synonomous with the notion of "user driven" websites like Blogger, MySpace etc.

Blogger and MySpace are not new though. Blogs are not new. They're personal websites just like AOLHomeTown and Geocities were in the 1990s. The interactivity is not new either. Leaving comments on a site is like leaving a guestbook message.

Web 2.0 refers to the underlying difference between static HTML and dyanmically generated html pages using scripting and xml. Please evryone, stop talking about Web 2.0 as if it is a represnetation of some sort opf new communication medium. Fundamentally, the web today is no difference to the way it was 10 years ago. Slashdot has been doing what the fashionistas call Web 2.0 since before the term was even invented.

Polly Billington does a Naughtie?

Following on from James Naughtie making slip-ups about his Labour Party affiliation on the Today programme, his colleague Polly Billington has joined the club too. This morning, in a feature with Labour conference delegates about the leadership question she said to one of the delegates, "where are we" on the leadership issue.

Update: It's been suggested in Comments that I may be misconstruing Polly, so, just in case other are right and I am wrong (which would only be the third time in my life), I decided to grab the audio and listen again. You can grab it here and you need to go about 1:40 to get to the bit.

Polly addresses a Labour delegate by name after speaking with another Labour delegate and says: "Are you comfortable with where we are on the leadership? Do you think there is a smooth transition about to happen?"

I accept I may be reading more in it than there actually is, but I don't think I've unreasonably misconstrued meaning per se.

"Institutional disrespect" in prisons?

Apparently this morning there has been a report out into Pentonville prison. They have a rat problem, and no that was not some veiled innsult at the convicts. However, talkking about insults the report also says that prisoners are often insulted and treated as a ower order by prison guards as part of "institutionalised disrepspect".

I can't deny I had a little double-take when I heard that. I may be hopelessly wrong on this, but is not the fundamental nature of the prison officer and prisoner a heirarchical one? Isn't it right that prison guards are above prisoners else we have a situation where, for want a better phrase, the "lunatics are running the asylum"? As to the question of insults, I imagine it's a two way street somehow.

The differences between us and them

Just read this over at Last Boy Scout's blog. Not, in his own words, an exhaustive lists of the differences between Conservatives and Labour, but a pretty could start. I particularly like the comment regarding Labour's desire to raise the age of cirminal responsibilty thereby writing off a large number of crimes from the records.

"Smart yoghurt" is coming

I've just found the following interview with BT's futurologist, Ian Pearson. It's an interesting interview which talks about the rise of The Terminator, the future of social communications and introduction of "smart yoghurt". I must however engage in a moment of geek pedantry where Pearson says:

Star Trek got it completely wrong - when Captain Kirk says "Beam me up, Scotty", "Scotty, beam me up" would be much better because it can route it straight through to Scotty, rather than wait until the end of the sentence before it knows who to send the voice to.

Actually, Kirk never said "Beam me up, Scotty" in any episode of Star Trek. He did however say "Scotty, beam me up" in Star Trek IV. So actually, it's Pearson who is wrong, not Kirk. I do of course fully understand that with one single post I've just destroyed what little credibility I may have had.

A useful USB extension?

George Formby does Motorhead

Somewhat disconcerting I must admit.

'Nick a dealer, get a Lexus'?

Just spotted a report on Epolitix which comments on a Times report about Blair's final "in-tray" of work. Number one on his "to do" list in Outlook is apparently, "Incentives for police forces to seize criminal assets".

Can anyone smell a potential conflict of interest there? A 20% cut of seizures perhaps? He's also planning on handing more judge and jury powers to the Old Bill to drag yobs to cahspoints (sound familiar?).

The really good news is that in addition to the headline grabbing crime iniatives, Blair also intends to resolve the Middle East problem. He is Jesus after all, always with us. So it makes sense.

Hat Tip: Croydonian for the Lexus headline.

Mozart banned in case Muslims riot?

Peter Whittle, over at the New Culture Forum has written a piece about the news that Mozart's Idomeneo has been cancelled on the grounds that it might cause offence to people. Apparently, there is a scene in it where the "King of Crete holds aloft the decapitated heads of Poseidon, Jesus, Buddha and the Prophet Muhammad and cries ‘The gods are dead!’"

This is all now just getting rather silly I fear. What has exactly happened to the Age of Enlightenment? Banning art on the grounds that it might cause some group offence when set within the cultural context of the given days dominant political viewpoints? Why are we allowing our values to be degraded on the basis of a narrow viewpoint about personal affront to others?

Gordon Brown is just as responsible for high unsecured debt levels

The headline report this morning on the BBC appears to be the level of debt in the UK. Apparently, according to DataMonitor, the average level of personal unsecured debt in the UK is double the average level of debt in Europe. There have been lots of people on the radio explaining how this is because we in Britain are less debt-averse, we like the offers of credit given to us, we have a "buy now, pay later" culture. All those things are true, but what no one mentioned was Gordon Brown's impact on the stats.

Let us not forget, as we are so often told, that interest rates are at record low-levels. This is rolled out as if it is, by necessity, a good thing. The argument goes, interest rates low, mortgage rates low, people not in negative equity like under the Tories, therefore low interest rates are good. Here's the problem though, when interest rates are low it discourages saving, and encourages debt. Larger debt, in reverse to low interest rates, is not by necessity "bad", but, when looked at in the totality of government policy it does become something of a concern.

Under Gordon Brown's chancellorship we have had laws which make personal bankruptcy easier for example. No longer does declaring oneself bankrupt ruin you financially for years. We now have a situation where one can run up huge debts, declare themselves bankrupt, wait a year and then start all over again. Easier and cheap credit, as a result of low interest rates, encourages people to get in over there heads, and the Government has provided them with a way of getting out of that debt quickly and easier.

What's more the tax credit system, by encompassing ever larger groups of people inside the Treasury hand-out scheme, discourages saving by design. If you are a low paid family who receives tax credits you dare not save money else your credit is reduced. The system encourages spending over saving at a time when it's clear the future of pensions for those very people is in question.

Yes, we have higher levels of insecure debt because of our cultural differences with Europe. But let's not forget that this Government has done nothing to encourage prudent fiscal management by the individual and has, in fact, irresponsibly encouraged a "think in the short term because in the long term you're dead" culture.

Enough with the Sinatra quotes!

It seems all the papers this morning have chosen to allude to the Sinatra analogies for Blair's messianic swansong yesterday. Our dearest Polly is not thereforeunique in use of metaphor when you place alongside her mainstream media colleagues.

Actually, she's not unique when you place herself against her colleague from a few weeks earlier. This morning Polly said, "Regrets, he had a few, but then again, too few to mention." On September 13th, Simon Hogarth said about Blair's TUC speech, "Regrets, he had a few. But then again, too few to mention." Plagiarism of plagiarism! How quaint.

Scottish Parliament gets free porn!..... well almost

Apparently the 320 TV monitors in the Scottish Parlaiment at Holyrood started advertising porn channels, and included the channels in their channel list. The channels included were Red Hot Wives, Playboy TV and Spice Extreme.

According to officials at the Parliament the channels were not actually accessible and have now been removed. A spokeswoman was quoted as saying: "There is no way anybody could watch porn in parliament."

I'm sure they could on a PSP or the Internet if they really wanted too. What I wonder is how accidental this actually was? According to the spokeswoman the channels were "added by mistake to the TV feed", but I doubt that sort of thing happens by mistake.

Sounds like someone having a laugh to me. It's the sort of thing that I would do if I thought I could get away with it!

What's on your bookshelf?

Earlier on today, Iain commented on a picture of the Spectator editor, Matthew D'Anacona and the bookshelf behind him. I fear my rather meagre bookshelf may indeed be equally unsound, although I should stress the one called Palmistry belongs to my wife. There is one edited by Iain underneath Celsius 7/7 so hopefully he'll let me off for the sheer volume of left wing stuff. In my defence I did study Politics at University, so most of it was required reading.

Click image for large version

Why is Baroness Amos not an extremist?

I'm not going to write about Blair's speech because I've not heard it or read, and to be frank, I doubt I could summarise it better than Guido has. However, what I will comment on is Baroness Amos' speech which, like Ruth Kelly and John Reid before her, has questioned the value of multiculturalism. In her speech she said:

"Has our tolerance of difference led communities to live separate lives? Isolated from their neighbours and from the wider society. Lacking common bonds and mutual connections which could break down suspicion and misunderstanding. How far should we go in allowing special treatment for the ethnic, cultural and religious traditions of our communities? What are the limits to our tolerance and how might those limits be exercised? How do we deal with those who turn our tolerance against us? We need to have an open discussion as a party and as a wider society about who we are and what we believe in as Britons."

I can't say I disagree with her at all, but what I find most interesting is the lack of people standing up and screaming "racist". If a Tory had used the exact words above last year they would have found themselves subject to charges of racism and extremism. In fact, it happened to a Sunday Times journalist during the local elections.

Whilst Baroness Amos is absolutely correct to ask these questions, we should also be asking ourselves why it is not acceptable to ask such questions until the Left decides it wants to ask them. As more and more senior people on the ruling Left begin to ask these questions the Right has been asking for some time, perhaps we should, at the same time, seek to remove the political intolerance that exists when those on the Right question the Left's "received wisdom" before they do?

Musharref questions Afghanistan's intelligence quality

It appears that the Afghan President Karzai and Pakistan's President Musharraf are at loggerheads. Apparently, Karzai has blamed Musharref for the resurgent Taliban on the basis that he has not done enough to deal with madrasahs used as training grounds. In response, Musharref basically said that Afghanistan intelligence was rubbish. Specifically he told a New York audience that:

"Intelligence -- to be effective -- should be immediate. Nobody, no target, sit there waiting for you for three months [saying], 'Come and catch me.' If you give telephone numbers which are three to six months old, this becomes ridiculous. And this is exactly what happened. [Karzai] gave these numbers to me when he came [to Pakistan] with his intelligence boss also sitting on a presidential visit. And he handed over this file to me. Right in front of him I actually was extremely rude to his intelligence boss. I said: 'Is this your sense of intelligence that your were waiting for a presidential visit to hand over this file of numbers to me?'"

Handbags at dawn clearly. In other news, Dick Armitage has said that he never threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the Stone Age".

Quote sourced from Radio Free Afghanistan

Cherie Blair does it again

It appears that Cherie has been caught out saying a lot more than just "well that's a lie". Croydonian has posted about the Evening Standard reporting that whilst Brown's speech was being delivered yesterday she went past the Communication Workers' Union stall, waved her arms around and said "This is all rubbish..... Anyway, you lot should be supporting Alan Johnson". Why am I not surprised that someone in Downing Street wants Alan Johnson?

John Hutton on Today

In an interview this morning with James Naughtie (who didn't slip up like yesterday), John Hutton was asked directly if would stand for the leadership. His answer was interesting, he said "I'm not answering that question yet".

Translation: "We're still in the early plotting stage and I'm not sure if I've got the signatures. Give me time"

Well, I like pie

The story about Cherie's comment is apparently all over the fornt pages instead of Gordon. I imagine she will be happy. The most amusing thing from it all is the apparent line that Downing Street put out to the lobby yesterday. They said that rather than saying "well that's a lie" what Cherie actually said was "well, can I get by". Then they said she didn't in fact say anything at all.

All rather hilarious to say the least. Interestingly, from what I've just been able to read in a few papers, the line doesn't appear to actually deny Cherie was in the location that the Bloomberg journalist was when she said she overheard her.

Odd that, given Cherie is a lawyer, there have been no libel claims thrown out yet. If it's so clearly untrue you'd have thought Cherie and Tony would go for it given the size of the mortgage.

NHS Strikes today... for what?

Another day in Guildford begins with yet another two hour session of the Today programe. Apparently there are to be strikes in the NHS today by delivery drivers. I'm not going to pretend to know all the details to be honest, save to say that from what I do know this is about outsoricing the delivery of "things" within the NHS.

I'm going to presume that those "things" are medical supplies, drugs, and other stuff that people like DHL specialise in. In fact, the name DHL was mentioned on the radio so I;m guessing they are the provider. It sounded very much like the issue for the strikers was that their jobs were being transferred to a private company.

Unsuprisingly, what with me being a Tory, I'm not quite sure why this deserves strike action. I understand the whole "NHS is not for profit" argument very well, but we're not talking about private medical care, we're talking about the people delivering cardboard puke trays to hospitals. It makes perfect sense to have someone working to a Service Level Agreement which, if not met, will lose them the contract.

I note that there will probably not be a follow-up striuke once this stuff has actually been fully out-sourced according tothe radio. If it's so much of an issue for the Unions you'd think they'd plan more wouldn't you?

Fantasy Cabinet

A hat tip to Croydonian for this one, but it seems the BBC has a Fantasy Cabinet game akin to Fantasy Football. Pick your side and send it to Andrew Neill at the Daily Politics.

No need for a caption competition

What can I say, The Times has excelled itself with the image choice for its "Cherie calls Gordon a liar" article. Who needs caption competition when they make them themselves?

James Naughtie shows his colours once again?

Not for the first time James Naughtie has made a slip of the tongue showing his party political affiliation whilst presenting the Today programme. In the past he's said "when we win" whilst interviewing a Labour politician about the General Election, and this morning, whilst interviewing Gordon Brown he raised the question of the Iraq war and said "there are people in this party" who are against it.

Surely, if he were being "impartial" he should have said "there are people in the Labour Party"? By saying "this" he effectively included himself in it. Obviously this isn't to be surprised, everybody knows Naughtie is a Labour Party stooge, but you'd think after being caught out before he'd at least try a little harder not to do it again.

Unlock Democracy?

I couldn't help but laugh when I heard James Naughtie talking about party political financing and then interview someone from the "Unlock Democracy" group who apparently support state funding of political parties. Unlock democracy by making the taxpayer pay to stop politicians being corrupt? Genius!

Where will the Bulgarians go?

Joy of joy, I'm on a training course in Guildford this week. This means instead of the nightmare of the tube I have the nightmare of the M25. It also means that I don't have a paper to read, I have the Today programme to listen to.

The first thing in this morning's show that caught my ear was a paper roundup at 6:30. Reference was made to a Guardian article that showed "research" that when Bulgaria and Romania become part of the EU the inevitable migration exodus will hit Italy, Greece and Israel, rather than Britain.

I may of course be being utterly cynical, but I can't help thinking this sounds a bit like the argument given when the other eastern europeans countries entered the EU. Back then, rather than being told of research showing migrants would go elsewhere we were simply told the numbers would be insignificant. Anyone who questioned it at the time was labelled some sort of rabid racist.

Don't get me wrong here, I have nothing against immigrants at all. In fact, I'm glad that people want to come here and work. What bothers me is the fact that these jobs have to be taken up by economic migrants when the number of unemployed steadily rises. Unlike the old cliche of "bloody foreigners stealing our jobs" we should be saying "bloody lazy Brits refusing to take jobs"

Conference: Unions vs Government Round I

Looks like the Unions have hit the ground running in trying to flex their muscles at the Labour Conference. Apparently Unions bosses have been trying to get a policy commitment to reintroduce a mandatory 14 year prison sentence to the Corporate Manslaughter Bill which was first presented to Parliament in July. The Government is threatening to pull the bill completely unless the Unions back down.

What's the point of the Stop the War Coalition?

Anyone who watched the news last night will no doubt be aware that the Stop the War Coalition held a protest march at the Labour Conference in Manchester. The thing is, besides Stop the War being a front organisation for Trotskyites and Islamists, I just don't get why they exist and how they actually think they represent even a sane position.

For a start they want the immediate withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan. Apparently the country is lawless and it's all our fault, if only we would leave you see it would become a law-abiding utopia. Who wants to bet that if we did leave Stop the War would start blaming us for not seeing through our responsibilities and leaving the country lawless?

Then there's Iraq, they want us to withdraw all our troops from there too. The reason? Well we're there illegally you see. Apparently, because the UN did not give us permission to go there to remove a brutal dictator we've broken something they call "international law". The fact that our presence there now is mandated by the UN is not good enough because we didn't get permission initially. Presumably then we can leave and then go back and that will be ok?

So what if there were a hundred thousand at the protest? So what if Tony Blair's sister-in-law was there mouthing off about crusades. The protest represented little more than the militant politically powerless extreme left who have betrayed their own roots by throwing their lot in with homophobic misogynist theocratic fascists. You couldn't make it up really.

London boroughs to come out fighting against Livingstone?

Apparently the results of a survey by the Association of London Government into the new powers that have been bestowed on Livingstone will be released tomorrow. Word is they're not exactly positive towards the idea of dictator Livingstone.

There are already cross-party supported mutterings against Livingstone's powers in Camden, and these survey results will show a similar backlash across the London boroughs to the concentration of power in the Mayor office.

Sunday Times says Johnson "registered" domains

According to an article in this morning's Sunday Times, Alan Johnson "will not officially confirm" his leadership bid but "he has already registered the website names Johnson4leader.com, Johnson4leader.org and Johnson4leader.co.uk". Now, whilst that is not entirely accurate as it is not Johnson's name that appears as the registrant, the implication is blindingly obvious.

Unless the Sunday Times has made a serious editorial mistake, then David Taylor was asked to register the domains by Alan Johnson's office. Making the claim that he was "not working for Alan Johnson or working for anybody else working for Alan Johnson", an outright lie. It will also mean that he didn't make his "own decision to buy these domains", and that there was indeed a "Machiavellian plot".

Of course the Sunday Times may well have made a mistake. But I find it unlikely they would be so matter of fact without being certain. What I don't get is why the apparent lies surrounding the domains and the wider plot have been conveniently ignored. After all, if Johnson wants to be PM, then the deception surrounding this whole thing surely bring his integrity into question?

It seems that Alan Johnson will just be the continuance of New Labour spin by other means.

Richard Hammond is an individual

There appears to be an awful lot of "discussion" about whether the Top Gear show is irreesposible, whether it's failed to adhere to Health and Safety etc etc. Richard Hammond, and I'm pretty sure he will agree with this sentiment were he to ever read it, is an individual. He chose to get into that rocket powered dragster, no one forced him into it. The BBC is not irresponsible for allowing him to do it, and the idea that there are health and safety worries is classic nanny-statism.

Anyone who watches Top gear knows that the presenters are all petrol heads of the highest order who love power and speed. Richard Hammond would've got into the dragster even if the BBC had said they were not going to film it. That's the type of bloke he is. If we start saying that the show is irresponsible, then we might as well stop showing F1 on the TV too, after all those guys are driving at 200mph and can crash just as easily.

All this discussion around the circumstances of Hammond's accident seem to ignore the vital factor that he took the decision to do it. If in the past we'd been as obssessively risk-averse as we are today, we'd never have broken the sound barrier, gone into space, got to the moon. Taking risks is a natural human instinct. We should stop obssessively restricting the freedom of human action otherwise the nannying will hold us back.

Dizzy fisks Izzy

Apparently there has been some backlash to the Today programme's bizarre decision to give Abu Izzadeen - the fruitcake that heckled John Reid - the oxygen of publicity. I grabbed the transcript from The Times website and just couldn't help myself! My comments are the ones in red (as if you won't know!)

John Humphrys: You said to Mr Reid how dare you come to this area. I suppose I should suggest to you how dare you suggest he shouldn’t. No John, you should suggest to him that he's a loony.

Abu Izzadeen: My address to Mr Reid was primarily to deal with his behaviour in the past year and his previous position as Defence minister [sic].

He has been killing Muslims abroad, in Iraq and Afghanistan, I didn't realise he had it in him! and as Home Secretary he has been presiding over the arrest of many Muslims so Muslim's should be expempt from arrest? and in that light how dare he come to address the Muslims.

His view is nothing more than to ask the Muslim community to turn in on itself and spy and do the police’s job unless of course their job requires them to nick a muslim.

It was outrageous to see someone like John Reid it was a doppleganger? who has been presiding over so many attacks on the Muslim community come and address us as if he is our friend. Agreed, it's outrageous that someone should impersonate a secretary of state and get away with it! He is the enemy towards Islam and Muslims. So let me get this straight, rather than "an" enemy he's "the" enemy towards Islam? Has anyone told Osama this?

JH: How come Mr Reid was given a pretty sympathetic reception at this event? Because with the excpetion of loony tunes everyone else was chosen by his aides?

AI: The British Government always have a policy of divide and rule do they? say's who? you? a random nobody who converted to Islam and got himself on the telly? …But for the general masses, those that have been arrested, those that have been targeted by the police, it’s not going to wash. Frederick Engels eat your heart out!

JH: How can you presume to speak for the general masses of Muslims – you’re not elected to any post. Neither are you John, but let's be honest you make the presumption at least once a week.

AI: We are not talking about elections. He was . I’m a Muslim and your point is?; I work with the community so do hookers , I live in the community so do drug dealers, John Reid doesn’t doesn't what? Live with hookers and drug dealers? And I’m telling you we have had enough. my desire for life is ebbing away too.

We’ve had enough of the police raids as have all the drug dealers no doubt! (although I bet if they read this they'd agree with me) , enough of the shooting in Forest Gates you're just being melodramatic now , enough of the arrests inside Walthamstow, inside restaurants what even if they're guilty?, under the guise of your war against terror which everybody knows, Muslims and non-Muslims, is a war against Islam yeah man, we just want to arrest Muslims, that's like why so many are still freely walking the streets. If only the government would spend more money on the police then we could arrest all of you! Internment is the future!

And I’m telling you something - if they don’t stop this there’s going to be a very strong reaction from the community so we have to do what you say or else?, maybe not from me on an individual level you not got the bottle then?, but people have had enough.

JH: What do you mean by that, a very strong reaction? John, trying to play the faux naive Louis Theroux doesn't work for you. Just say what everyone else is thinking. "Are you threatening us?"

AI: Well I think the British Government, they should really open their eyes and smell the coffee aren't stimulants banned under Islam? Oh yes and you've mixed your metaphors but that's just me being pedantic. You can only push people to a certain level until they explode surely it's they who push the button when they explode? We are not talking about a self-suicide as opposed to auto-suicide? operation, but there is a tension within the community because they are being targeted…

If you’re going to talk terrorism you have to look at Tony Blair because at the moment, the biggest terrorist is George Bush and his side-kick. How does looking at Tony Blair help us see George Bush?

JH: Well let’s talk about 9/11 and the terrorist attacks that have happened since then including the one in this country which killed a large number of British people, including some Muslims. Nice John, you've just let him lead you onto the territory he wants to rant about. Who's actually doing this interview?

AI: How many people died in 9/11 – 3000…let’s give a nice round figure of 5000 people…Since 9/11 the British Crusader wasn't that a bike by Raleigh? forces and the American Crusader that sounds like a Christian rock band forces…they have killed in the bombing campaign alone some said 70,000 inside Iraq, some said 100,000... nice, "some said", who's "some" then? Your mum?

You can see the Muslim community worldwide are suffering from many 9/11s and many 7/7s throughout the Muslim world. They are? I've not seen passenger airlines flown in to skyscrapers on an ordinary Tuesday morning.

That’s why the real terrorist is Tony Blair. He is a murderer with blood on his hands of Muslims in Afghanistan, Muslims in Iraq… cuckoo cuckoo cuckoo

JH: …Are you telling me that 9/11 and the subsequent attacks, including the attack on this country, are justified? Of course he is John, your listeners are not stupid.

AI: I’m talking about the reality of Muslims being attacked after 9/11 "reality" is such a losse term, but that's not what you were asked. The numbers of casualties are much greater on the Muslim side. Back to your mum again I see.

JH: I’m asking you whether they were justified?

AI: Why don’t you ask the terrorists they're dead. Those who took out the operations but they're dead, we should ask them why did you do so look, I don't mean to be rude but unless you're about to tell us you're Doris Stokes (and you are wearing a dress so you might be for all I know) we can't really ask them because... well.. like I said twice already.... they're dead …there was video released by Mohammed Siddique Khan children read this site I couldn't possibly go there [leader of the July 7 bombers] after 7/7 oh that video where he explains clearly why he did those. It’s not for me to justify or to condemn… I hope all the murderers out there are listening. All you have to do is make a video explaining why they "needed killing" and it will be fine.

…Mr Reid is a tyrant actually he's Home Secretary, you're bestowing on him power he simply does not have…when Tony Blair says this evil ideology he is talking about Islam actually he's talking about Islamism which is different, the former is followed by people of faith, the latter is followed by loonies like you. There are tyrants, enemies to Islam, enemies to Muslims. There can be no debate and discussion we've noticed that, hope you don't mind if we play by the same rules, oh but wait you do apparently, as they say, "shit happens", when they kill Muslims, when they murder Muslims. They needs to stop that immediately then we can open debates." Right, so we do what you tell us and you won't try and hurt us?

JH: Are you honestly telling me that your view on this is the only view in Islam because I have talked to a large number of very serious Islamic figures...who tell me that is not that case….?" To be fair John most of the ones you speak to are Islamist sympathisers. Admittedly they don't advocate blowing us up, but they do tacitly support the notion of an Islamic state.

AI: You may bring someone to you who says the British Government is the best in the world…I couldn’t care less you've probably noticed, but the feeling about you is mutual. The reality is Tony Blair is an enemy to Muslims, an enemy to Allah, and those who believe otherwise…they should really wake up and smell the coffee again with the stimulant references, just say what you mean, you want to kill us, be honest with yourself man …the reality is so clear, even the blind man can see when they kill Muslims they go under the guise of the crusade. Long Live King Richard! Wait, no, what year is this again?

When the British forces go into Afghanistan, Iraq, they go as Crusader forces... has anyone ever told you that you're a bit chicken oriental?

JH: If this country is so offensive to you…you don’t have to stay here you can go somewhere where there is Islamic law…" John, it would excite your listeners more if you were to say "why don't you just fuck off". It would probably get a round of applause too.

AI: You have misunderstood the reality. As a Muslim I believe Allah…created whole universe; he created the UK no he didn't the Act of Union 1800 did. It doesn’t belong to you yes it does, it doesn’t belong to the Queen it depends on how we define "own" really, it doesn’t belong to the Anglo-Saxons… Allah has put us on the planet earth to live wherever we want and implement the Sharia rules no he didn't.

JH: You want Sharia law in this country? ….If you want to change the way this country functions, why can you not do it in a democratic way…?

AI: Democracy means sovereignty for man; and as a Muslim, we believe sovereignty for the Sharia Sharia is not though Allah, you just crucified (sorry) your own argument, who wrote Sharia? Man. You're talking bollocks, therefore I would never take part in democratic principles why because you'd rather take part in a different man made sovereignty? Rather I will work to change society in accordance with Islamic methodology.

JH: You will not observe the democratic process?

AI: We observe Islamic rules wherever we are.

JH: The Islamic process but not the democratic process?

AI: That’s right, yes. Translation: I'm a death worshipping fascist

18 DoughtyStreet Talk TV

I've just spied that Iain has posted says that the 10th October will see the launch of the first Internet TV channel in the UK, 18 DoughtyStreet Talk TV.

18DoughtyStreet Talk TV will broadcast for four hours a night, Mondays to Thursdays, from studios in London’s Bloomsbury with a mix of live and pre-recorded programmes. It aims to break the mould of current affairs television with a mix of opinionated and controversial programming.

In a groundbreaking initiative the station is building a network of 100 nationwide and worldwide citizen journalist reporters, each equipped with their own camcorder, which they can use to film reports for 18DoughtyStreet to broadcast.

At the heart of the station will be a website of blogs and daily votes. Comments left on the blogs will shape the content of the programmes. The daily votes will help determine which news stories headline every programme. Programme presenters will have access to the blogs during live programming, with the viewer seeing the blog next to the live streaming screen on their computers. All programmes will be available for download after livestreaming.

The channel’s founders believe that conventional political TV has let down its audience by dumbing down political debate to the lowest common denominator. It believes that no political party truly understands the electorate’s disappointment with the current state of politics. It aims to be an anti-establishment channel – championing rebel opinions in all of the mainstream parties and constantly questioning authority.

Labour Party offers free blogs to all?

It would appears that the Labour Party is offering everyone free webspace. All you have to do is hit, for example, this and you'll be presented with a page that looks like that below:


Isn't that nice of them? It appears you can pretty much do "anything.anything". Have fun kids. Remember though that it might just be an email address harvesting tool!

Update 20:18 : I was considering writing a technical reason why it redirects to labouronline.com but it would be horribly boring so I'm not going to. I've just had a word with someone I know and they've told me that the "www.labour.org.uk/firstname.secondname" is on their conference pass.

How we build RAF aircrafts

I've just read this little press release from the Ministry of Defence and my mind is boggling a little at why there is such fanfare at such an absurd way of doing things.

Basically, we're spending £2Bn on transport aircraft for the RAF (wonder if they will have explosion suppressents in the engine) which will be, according to the statement, delivered "early next decade". I'm not sure if that means 2011 or 2017 mind you. My guess is that if they're not ready by 2011 it will have meant 2017.

However, what I found more confusing is that apparently the components for the planes wings "are arriving in Bristol from a network of suppliers spanning seven European countries, Malaysia, South Africa and the United States".

We will then put them together into wings and then they'll be sent to Seville, in Spain so they can be attached to the rest of the plane - which will presumably be flown back to the UK?

Is it any wonder it's costing so much bloody money? The question is, why would anyone build something like this in such an inefficient way? I wonder if Lord Drayson has shares in a shipping business?

Beating the corporate Internet filters

I've just been directed to the following site with an application called Torpark. It's a web browser designed to run off a usb stick which will set-up a tunnel route out of a corporate network and make your browsing completely anonymous, and what's more it's released under the GPL.