More truthspeak ~ this time it's DNA

So, the national DNA database is to be 'scaled back', and innocent people will have their profiles removes.

Which, after being put through the truthspeak translator means, you will be judged to be under suspicion for up to 12 years.

12 years. So, if you get arrested for looking at a policeman a bit funny during a demonstration in early middle age, you could be regarded as under suspicion until near retirement.

The solution is simple. It isn't the 'Scottish model', where samples are destroyed after 3 years, it is the presumption of innocence. Charged and released or found not guilty? Destroyed. Go to trial, and found not guilty? Destroyed.

Simple, but to liberty minded for the current shower that make up our political class.

Blogrollin'

A new(ish) blog needs a blog roll, so what could be more convenient that Brian Micklethwait compiling a list of Libertarian blogs? Served up on a plate, as it were. There are quite a few here that aren't on my 'daily read' RSS feed, so I will the reading through them and adding all of the ones that interest me / reflect my outlook to my own blog roll shortly. I will then be doing something with my template which is, frankly, a bit pants.

What is the point of PMQ's?

Conservative and Lib Dem MP's line up to ask the Prime Minister when he will call an election, or his response to the Number 10 Petition calling for his resignation. His response? A refusal to answer, because he regards them as 'not serious' questions. These are interspersed with no mark back bencher's asking planted questions, pointing out how lovely and super everything is.

Can someone tell me, what is the point? I thought the idea was to ask a question that he was obligated to answer?

Truthspeak overload

It couldn't get any more ironic / terrifying, depending on your optimism for the future. The Devil points us to plans for a 'Department of Peace', truth speak of the highest order. What is really scary is that I'm just so used to this nonsense now. Just about any government leaning media outlet, which is most of the these days, appear to almost celebrate these types of announcements or proposals, or at the very least, let them pass with an uncritical eye.

Take my local rag, for instance. Last night, as I drank my after work pint, I was informed that the Police were cock a hoop with the latest fingerprint scanning devices that could be deployed at will to 'establish someones identity'. But, don't worry, they are aware of any civil liberties issues (emphasis mine);

The tests are voluntary so if a person refuses to have it taken, they are arrested and taken into custody while further enquiries are made to establish their identity.

...where they will then be fingerprinted and DNA swabbed, I assume. Superb, eh? Voluntary is the new compulsory.

PMSL

Here;

A Downing Street spokesman later added: "We've put the country £1.4 trillion in debt, government ministers are chin-deep in sleaze and the cops are beating merry hell out of everyone. We just felt that the obvious next step was to tell thousands of heroic soldiers to go fuck themselves."

Ban! Regulate! Control!

But sod personal responsibility, eh?

Julie Barratt, director of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, said it was clear allowing the industry to self-regulate was not working.

"Unmanned sun-tanning salons are a particular problem as they are subject to no controls at all.

"The only way we can protect young people from this sort of self-inflicted damage is to control the use of sun tanning faculties by legislation."

No, Julie. The way we protect young people from 'self inflicted' damage, is to supervise them, if they are too immature to be trusted to look after themselves, not by removing a facility for everyone.

A walk along beachy head

Prof Julian Le Grand, no stranger to making outrageous socially authoritarian suggestions, is back with a few more;

Without having to undergo a public ceremony or take any vows, they should simply be regarded as married in law as soon as the child's birth is registered, Prof Le Grand, Tony Blair's former Downing Street health adviser, said.

and;

Other proposals include requiring companies to organise an "exercise hour" for staff to reduce obesity.

Tim Worstall correctly points out that such 'libertarian paternalism' is, in fact, social fascism, but I am pretty convinced that Prof Le Grand thinks he is actually being jolly fair and reasonable. He believes that the state should have the right to 'nudge' people into the 'correct' course of action. Nudge, you see, not force. All very reasonable......

So, in the highly unlikely event that Le Grand gets to read this blog post, allow me to demonstrate why I find his approach completely authoritarian, and thus morally repugnant, and why the term 'libertarian paternalism' is a particularly stupid oxymoron. I suggest we do this by going for a walk along Beachy Head, with the good Prof walking right alone the edge, outlining his 'libertarian paternalistic' principles. When he mentions one that I don't think will is good, I will simply 'nudge' him in the direction of the sea.