String the buggers up!

What would you make a hanging offense?

News this week that three MPs are trying to force a debate to reintroduce the death penalty.

This is supported by a change in the law which requires a debate in Parliamant should a petition be put forward containing 100,000 signatures. This is at least a step towards true democracy - and as bloggers I think we can give ourselves a richly deserved pat on the back for playing a big part in gettng the requisite number of signatures.

The proposal is to re-introduce the death penalty for the murder of a police officer or child, but I thought I'd take a look back at some of the 222 capital offenses that were around in early Victorian England...

* murder
* treason
* stealing from a shipwreck
* damaging Westminster Bridge
* stealing goods valued at five shillings (25p) or more
* highway robbery
* stealing letters
* poaching
* blacking yourself up at night
* impersonating a Chelsea Pensioner
* cutting down young trees
* begging without a licence if you are a soldier or sailor
* being in the company of gypsies for a month
* "strong evidence of malice" in children 7-14 years old
* stealing horses or sheep
* writing a threatening letter
* arson
* destroying turnpike roads
* unmarried mother concealing a stillborn child
* stealing from a rabbit warren
* robbery in dwelling house
* housebreaking
* high Treason Coining
* stealing in a shop
* returning from transportation
* sacrilege
* pickpocketing goods worth more than one shilling
* forgery

I can think of a few modern ones we could add such as :

* lying in Parliament
* claiming fraudulent expenses
* hacking phones
* writing and distributing computer viruses
* entering the country illegally
* profiteering
* claiming excessive bonuses
* driving a BMW or an Audi
* abetting dog fouling
* claiming someone else was driving when a motoring offense was committed

...and I'm sure you have a few ideas of your own you could add to the list!

And in the light of the last few days, perhaps we should add rioting, looting, arson and inciting civil disturbance to that list?

String the buggers up!

What would you make a hanging offense?

News this week that three MPs are trying to force a debate to reintroduce the death penalty.

This is supported by a change in the law which requires a debate in Parliamant should a petition be put forward containing 100,000 signatures. This is at least a step towards true democracy - and as bloggers I think we can give ourselves a richly deserved pat on the back for playing a big part in gettng the requisite number of signatures.

The proposal is to re-introduce the death penalty for the murder of a police officer or child, but I thought I'd take a look back at some of the 222 capital offenses that were around in early Victorian England...

* murder
* treason
* stealing from a shipwreck
* damaging Westminster Bridge
* stealing goods valued at five shillings (25p) or more
* highway robbery
* stealing letters
* poaching
* blacking yourself up at night
* impersonating a Chelsea Pensioner
* cutting down young trees
* begging without a licence if you are a soldier or sailor
* being in the company of gypsies for a month
* "strong evidence of malice" in children 7-14 years old
* stealing horses or sheep
* writing a threatening letter
* arson
* destroying turnpike roads
* unmarried mother concealing a stillborn child
* stealing from a rabbit warren
* robbery in dwelling house
* housebreaking
* high Treason Coining
* stealing in a shop
* returning from transportation
* sacrilege
* pickpocketing goods worth more than one shilling
* forgery

I can think of a few modern ones we could add such as :

* lying in Parliament
* claiming fraudulent expenses
* hacking phones
* writing and distributing computer viruses
* entering the country illegally
* profiteering
* claiming excessive bonuses
* driving a BMW or an Audi
* abetting dog fouling
* claiming someone else was driving when a motoring offense was committed

...and I'm sure you have a few ideas of your own you could add to the list!

And in the light of the last few days, perhaps we should add rioting, looting, arson and inciting civil disturbance to that list?

Sharon Shoesmith

Take a good look at the smirk on the face above. Does it make you feel as sick as me?

I've posted on this subject before (see here), but I am incandescent with rage about the decision that the Government and Haringey Council have been refused leave to appeal against the recent decision that Sharon Shoesmith was unfairly dismissed. Seldom have I ever come across a person more correctly given the boot!

Having presided over the debacle that was the torture and murder of Baby P (Peter Connell) and drawn a princely 6 figure salary whilst doing it, she has the barefaced gall to say that her dismissal was not justified.

Supreme Court judges booted out an appeal by Education Secretary Michael Gove and her former council employers against a ruling that she was unfairly sacked. They never even heard the case.

This decision is appalling - the timing being made worse by the news that it coincides with the impending release of Jason Owen, one of the bastards that tortured and murdered the poor child. If ever there was a justification for the return of the death penalty, I think we have it here in this horrific murder.

Nobody disputes she should have been sacked, but it wasn't done to the book. As a result Shoesmith could now pocket up to £1million in damages and £1.5million in pension rights because of the technicalities in the way she was fired.

Let's hope that the judge sees justice, not just the law, needs to be carried out. Award her a quid and let her pay her own costs...

Sharon Shoesmith

Take a good look at the smirk on the face above. Does it make you feel as sick as me?

I've posted on this subject before (see here), but I am incandescent with rage about the decision that the Government and Haringey Council have been refused leave to appeal against the recent decision that Sharon Shoesmith was unfairly dismissed. Seldom have I ever come across a person more correctly given the boot!

Having presided over the debacle that was the torture and murder of Baby P (Peter Connell) and drawn a princely 6 figure salary whilst doing it, she has the barefaced gall to say that her dismissal was not justified.

Supreme Court judges booted out an appeal by Education Secretary Michael Gove and her former council employers against a ruling that she was unfairly sacked. They never even heard the case.

This decision is appalling - the timing being made worse by the news that it coincides with the impending release of Jason Owen, one of the bastards that tortured and murdered the poor child. If ever there was a justification for the return of the death penalty, I think we have it here in this horrific murder.

Nobody disputes she should have been sacked, but it wasn't done to the book. As a result Shoesmith could now pocket up to £1million in damages and £1.5million in pension rights because of the technicalities in the way she was fired.

Let's hope that the judge sees justice, not just the law, needs to be carried out. Award her a quid and let her pay her own costs...

Rotten Boroughs : Royston, Hertfordshire

For once it's the police and not the council that is the subject of this blog's vented spleen...

In an action that can only be regarded as the thin end of an extremely dangerous wedge, the Hertfordshire Constabulary are installing a 'ring of steel' around the Hertfordshire town of Royston. Nine Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras are to be set up on all the access roads to the town to record the movements of every car that enters or leaves, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week.

Privacy International, No CCTV and Big Brother Watch are all concerned about the severe invasion of pubic privacy. Several civil liberties groups have already contacted the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), concerned about the legality of the operation.

Charles Farrier, of No CCTV, said: “The national ANPR network is the biggest surveillance network that the public has never heard of. The use of ANPR as a mass surveillance tool constitutes a major assault on our common law foundations and the Rule of Law. It is a system of automated checkpoints that ought to have no place in a democratic society. We believe the public have a right to go about their daily business without central government essentially logging every single journey they make. This kind of system isn’t about preventing crime, it’s about building up a database which can be used at a later stage.” I am inclined to agree.

On the other side of the fence, Hertfordshire Constabulary has dismissed the complaint and said the cameras, funded by North Herts District Council and local businesses, “are entirely lawful”.

ANPR manager inspector Andy Piper said: “As I’m sure the majority of Royston residents are already aware, the cameras are entirely lawful, have been funded by local businesses and the town council and are welcomed locally. " Apparently, there is a claim that 91% of residents in Royston support the scheme - which is surprising as they have set up a web site as a focus for protest and are calling for a local referendum on the issue.

Inspector Piper goes on "We use ANPR to target criminals and unsafe drivers, not law-abiding motorists, and have caught hundreds of burglars, robbers, uninsured drivers, drug dealers and other serious criminals. For law-abiding drivers, the numberplate details are kept, under strict guidelines, for two years before being deleted. We won’t access this information unless the registration is linked to crime, disorder or an unsafe vehicle.”

How long before we have these cameras tracking every major road in the country? And who will be footing the bill?

The big issue for me is where will this stop. The Police are already calling for a change in the law to allow wider use of these data. You have to ask why?

Rotten Boroughs : Royston, Hertfordshire

For once it's the police and not the council that is the subject of this blog's vented spleen...

In an action that can only be regarded as the thin end of an extremely dangerous wedge, the Hertfordshire Constabulary are installing a 'ring of steel' around the Hertfordshire town of Royston. Nine Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras are to be set up on all the access roads to the town to record the movements of every car that enters or leaves, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week.

Privacy International, No CCTV and Big Brother Watch are all concerned about the severe invasion of pubic privacy. Several civil liberties groups have already contacted the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), concerned about the legality of the operation.

Charles Farrier, of No CCTV, said: “The national ANPR network is the biggest surveillance network that the public has never heard of. The use of ANPR as a mass surveillance tool constitutes a major assault on our common law foundations and the Rule of Law. It is a system of automated checkpoints that ought to have no place in a democratic society. We believe the public have a right to go about their daily business without central government essentially logging every single journey they make. This kind of system isn’t about preventing crime, it’s about building up a database which can be used at a later stage.” I am inclined to agree.

On the other side of the fence, Hertfordshire Constabulary has dismissed the complaint and said the cameras, funded by North Herts District Council and local businesses, “are entirely lawful”.

ANPR manager inspector Andy Piper said: “As I’m sure the majority of Royston residents are already aware, the cameras are entirely lawful, have been funded by local businesses and the town council and are welcomed locally. " Apparently, there is a claim that 91% of residents in Royston support the scheme - which is surprising as they have set up a web site as a focus for protest and are calling for a local referendum on the issue.

Inspector Piper goes on "We use ANPR to target criminals and unsafe drivers, not law-abiding motorists, and have caught hundreds of burglars, robbers, uninsured drivers, drug dealers and other serious criminals. For law-abiding drivers, the numberplate details are kept, under strict guidelines, for two years before being deleted. We won’t access this information unless the registration is linked to crime, disorder or an unsafe vehicle.”

How long before we have these cameras tracking every major road in the country? And who will be footing the bill?

The big issue for me is where will this stop. The Police are already calling for a change in the law to allow wider use of these data. You have to ask why?

Tow away zone...

New rules are now in force to attempt to force uninsured drivers off the road...

The DVLA have installed a new computer system to check the insurance database against the Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN) database. It is now illegal to keep a vehicle on your drive or in a field without a SORN.

The computer will automatically issue warning letters, £100 penalties and can even tell the local plod to immobilise the vehicle, tow it away or even crush it. So, if you are motorist who hasn't taxed or insured his vehicle and hasn't filled in a SORN, then be afraid. Be very afraid.

In fact, if you own a vehicle at all, then be afraid!

Why?

Well, because in my long experience of working on computer systems for the government, they are completely incapable of writing a specification or controlling a contractor to write the software properly. Expect fines to be issued to innocent people, expect vehicles to be towed away that are properly taxed and insured, and expect guilty people to be totally missed and get away scot free. Trail by computer is an inherently bad idea.

In any case, people who break the law will continue to break the law. I remember once meeting a minicab driver who was given a twelve month ban for drunk driving. He was still driving his minicab. When I asked him why, he simply said that he needed to earn a living and that the vehicle didn't drive any differently just because he didn't have a piece of paper.

The idea is a step in the right, but even in the unlikely event that they get the system to work properly, it ain't gonna work.

Remember, you heard it here frst...

Tow away zone...

New rules are now in force to attempt to force uninsured drivers off the road...

The DVLA have installed a new computer system to check the insurance database against the Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN) database. It is now illegal to keep a vehicle on your drive or in a field without a SORN.

The computer will automatically issue warning letters, £100 penalties and can even tell the local plod to immobilise the vehicle, tow it away or even crush it. So, if you are motorist who hasn't taxed or insured his vehicle and hasn't filled in a SORN, then be afraid. Be very afraid.

In fact, if you own a vehicle at all, then be afraid!

Why?

Well, because in my long experience of working on computer systems for the government, they are completely incapable of writing a specification or controlling a contractor to write the software properly. Expect fines to be issued to innocent people, expect vehicles to be towed away that are properly taxed and insured, and expect guilty people to be totally missed and get away scot free. Trail by computer is an inherently bad idea.

In any case, people who break the law will continue to break the law. I remember once meeting a minicab driver who was given a twelve month ban for drunk driving. He was still driving his minicab. When I asked him why, he simply said that he needed to earn a living and that the vehicle didn't drive any differently just because he didn't have a piece of paper.

The idea is a step in the right, but even in the unlikely event that they get the system to work properly, it ain't gonna work.

Remember, you heard it here frst...

Monday music : The Superinjunction Song

There seems to be a bit of a fad at the moment that if you are a celeb, then a superinjunction is the latest designer accessory.

My musically creative friend Chas came up with this little number to which I have added my own modest attempt at a video...



Of course, if you tell anyone about it, I will sue!

+ + + UPDATE + + +
If that's not enough music for you and you're a Peter Green fan, take a listen to Chas's attempt at Peter Green's 'Man of the World' over on his site...

Monday music : The Superinjunction Song

There seems to be a bit of a fad at the moment that if you are a celeb, then a superinjunction is the latest designer accessory.

My musically creative friend Chas came up with this little number to which I have added my own modest attempt at a video...



Of course, if you tell anyone about it, I will sue!

+ + + UPDATE + + +
If that's not enough music for you and you're a Peter Green fan, take a listen to Chas's attempt at Peter Green's 'Man of the World' over on his site...

Courts to decide Catholic abuse liability

Is the Roman Catholic church liable if it's priests commit acts of sexual abuse?

That's the question which is being tested in the High Court which has been asked to decide if the relationship between a bishop and his priests is the same as that between employer and employee.

The case arose after a woman brought a case against the diocese of Portsmouth, alleging that one of its priests had abused her while she was a resident at a Catholic children's home. The hearing will focus on the issue of corporate liability.

Her cousel argue that "In effect, priests are carrying out their working assigned to them by their bishop and furthering the cause of the diocese. He was dependent on the bishop to assign him a post and to control when he moved from one post to another and even to control when he was permitted to retire. The degree of control was, if anything, in excess of that in the typical employer/employee relationship."

If the answer is "yes, there is a relationship", then was the priest carrying out the actions complained of in circumstances that were "closely connected" with his role and/or work as a priest?

If the answer was "no" there would be "no circumstances where the Roman Catholic church is liable for the actions of one of its priests whether deliberate or careless and however closely connected those actions were to the role of priest".

The diocese denies liability and is defending itself against the claim. A ruling in its favour would mean the church could avoid paying compensation to victims of clerical sexual abuse.

( You can read more about this story in the Guardian by clicking here )

Courts to decide Catholic abuse liability

Is the Roman Catholic church liable if it's priests commit acts of sexual abuse?

That's the question which is being tested in the High Court which has been asked to decide if the relationship between a bishop and his priests is the same as that between employer and employee.

The case arose after a woman brought a case against the diocese of Portsmouth, alleging that one of its priests had abused her while she was a resident at a Catholic children's home. The hearing will focus on the issue of corporate liability.

Her cousel argue that "In effect, priests are carrying out their working assigned to them by their bishop and furthering the cause of the diocese. He was dependent on the bishop to assign him a post and to control when he moved from one post to another and even to control when he was permitted to retire. The degree of control was, if anything, in excess of that in the typical employer/employee relationship."

If the answer is "yes, there is a relationship", then was the priest carrying out the actions complained of in circumstances that were "closely connected" with his role and/or work as a priest?

If the answer was "no" there would be "no circumstances where the Roman Catholic church is liable for the actions of one of its priests whether deliberate or careless and however closely connected those actions were to the role of priest".

The diocese denies liability and is defending itself against the claim. A ruling in its favour would mean the church could avoid paying compensation to victims of clerical sexual abuse.

( You can read more about this story in the Guardian by clicking here )

Baby P is turning in his grave

If you can hear a rustling sound, then it is most likely to be Peter Connelly turning in his grave.

This is Sharon Shoesmith. You will remember that she was the head of Social Services at Haringey Council who was sacked at the time that Baby P died. A report commissioned by Ofsted produced a damning report into her department highlighting shambolic operations and missed opportunities to saving the child's life. She was sacked from her £110,000 a year job in December 2008.

Well, just to prove that the law really is an ass, you will be pleased to hear that the appeal court has ruled that she was made a scapegoat for the affair by the then Childrens Secretary, Ed Balls. The judge also ruled that Haringey Council failed to follow guidelines for dismissing an employee and that she was denied a fair hearing.

A gloating Shoesmith declared herself 'over the moon' outside the court after the hearing. She is now in line to pocket up to £1,000,000 in damages and £1,500,000 in pension rights.

I can do no better than to quote Mary O'Connor, Peter's grandmother, who summed it all up like this :

"It's another kick in the teeth. In any other walk of life the person at the top is the person with overall responsibility. Shoesmith should have lost her job. She is not the victim here, but she is the one who will profit. I hope she chokes on every penny. Terrible mistakes were made by the department she was paid very well to run. It is wrong and makes me feel sick to my stomach."

On a happier note, David Cameron has announced that the Government and Council will be taking the decision to the Supreme Court to get it overturned.

Let's hope that this will mean some justice, and not just law...

Baby P is turning in his grave

If you can hear a rustling sound, then it is most likely to be Peter Connelly turning in his grave.

This is Sharon Shoesmith. You will remember that she was the head of Social Services at Haringey Council who was sacked at the time that Baby P died. A report commissioned by Ofsted produced a damning report into her department highlighting shambolic operations and missed opportunities to saving the child's life. She was sacked from her £110,000 a year job in December 2008.

Well, just to prove that the law really is an ass, you will be pleased to hear that the appeal court has ruled that she was made a scapegoat for the affair by the then Childrens Secretary, Ed Balls. The judge also ruled that Haringey Council failed to follow guidelines for dismissing an employee and that she was denied a fair hearing.

A gloating Shoesmith declared herself 'over the moon' outside the court after the hearing. She is now in line to pocket up to £1,000,000 in damages and £1,500,000 in pension rights.

I can do no better than to quote Mary O'Connor, Peter's grandmother, who summed it all up like this :

"It's another kick in the teeth. In any other walk of life the person at the top is the person with overall responsibility. Shoesmith should have lost her job. She is not the victim here, but she is the one who will profit. I hope she chokes on every penny. Terrible mistakes were made by the department she was paid very well to run. It is wrong and makes me feel sick to my stomach."

On a happier note, David Cameron has announced that the Government and Council will be taking the decision to the Supreme Court to get it overturned.

Let's hope that this will mean some justice, and not just law...

Choosing to die

The picture above shows Peter Smedley as he took the lethal drug that ended his life in the Dignitas facility in Zurich. God bless you, Peter.

I have just watched a recording of Terry Pratchett's BBC documentary 'Choosing to die'. By any standards this was a remarkable piece of television and if you have not watched it then I urge you to do so. It is not an easy watch. The subject matter is difficult and I defy you not to be emotionally effected by it.

71 year old Peter was terminally ill with a deteriorating disease and no hope of recovery. He took the decision to end his life at a time of his choosing whilst he was still able to cope to a degree and before he became a burden on his family. His wife supported his decision, even though she wished to care for him as long as possible. She sat beside him and stroked his hand as he drifted off to sleep, never to wake up.

His death and Pratchett's own situation coping with Alzheimers has brought home to me that there is a very distinct difference between euthanasia and assisted death, and that this is an important distinction.

Peter was in full possession of his mental faculties and took the decision to end his life in the manner and at the time of his choosing. The European Convention of Human Rights, for all its many faults, conveys the right of self determination. In Belgium, assisted death is legal. But not in the UK.

It is a matter of shame, in my opinion, that people like Peter are forced to travel to Switzerland in order to end their days peacefully in a building on an industrial estate.

Pratchett's situation is different. He seems to want to end his days with the same dignity afforded to Peter Smedley, but he recognizes that this can only be done whilst he is in possession of his abilities to take that decision. He must confirm that that he knows what he is doing, is mentally competant to take that decision and able to administer the fatal dose to himself. As an Alzheimers suffer, he knows that the disease will rob him of the ability to make that choice if he leaves it too long. And therein lies the quandry...

Assisted death is a self determination. Euthanasia is someone taking that decision for you.

The former is something that should clearly be considered for legalisation in this country, whereas the latter is something that requires considerably more thought. I don't know the answer, but I know that the debate needs to happen.

I salute your courage, Peter, and if his program raises public awareness of the issue then your death will not have been in vain.

Choosing to die

The picture above shows Peter Smedley as he took the lethal drug that ended his life in the Dignitas facility in Zurich. God bless you, Peter.

I have just watched a recording of Terry Pratchett's BBC documentary 'Choosing to die'. By any standards this was a remarkable piece of television and if you have not watched it then I urge you to do so. It is not an easy watch. The subject matter is difficult and I defy you not to be emotionally effected by it.

71 year old Peter was terminally ill with a deteriorating disease and no hope of recovery. He took the decision to end his life at a time of his choosing whilst he was still able to cope to a degree and before he became a burden on his family. His wife supported his decision, even though she wished to care for him as long as possible. She sat beside him and stroked his hand as he drifted off to sleep, never to wake up.

His death and Pratchett's own situation coping with Alzheimers has brought home to me that there is a very distinct difference between euthanasia and assisted death, and that this is an important distinction.

Peter was in full possession of his mental faculties and took the decision to end his life in the manner and at the time of his choosing. The European Convention of Human Rights, for all its many faults, conveys the right of self determination. In Belgium, assisted death is legal. But not in the UK.

It is a matter of shame, in my opinion, that people like Peter are forced to travel to Switzerland in order to end their days peacefully in a building on an industrial estate.

Pratchett's situation is different. He seems to want to end his days with the same dignity afforded to Peter Smedley, but he recognizes that this can only be done whilst he is in possession of his abilities to take that decision. He must confirm that that he knows what he is doing, is mentally competant to take that decision and able to administer the fatal dose to himself. As an Alzheimers suffer, he knows that the disease will rob him of the ability to make that choice if he leaves it too long. And therein lies the quandry...

Assisted death is a self determination. Euthanasia is someone taking that decision for you.

The former is something that should clearly be considered for legalisation in this country, whereas the latter is something that requires considerably more thought. I don't know the answer, but I know that the debate needs to happen.

I salute your courage, Peter, and if his program raises public awareness of the issue then your death will not have been in vain.

Endangered cyclists

I was interested to hear recently that the EU is considering legislation to force HGV owners to have new technology fitted to all their vehicles to warn them when cyclists are in the blind spots on the near side of their vehicles.

Now, I'm not against this per say, and I'm not suggesting that cyclists should all go to the lengths this guy has gone to to ensure they get noticed, but I was concerned at the quote that these devices cost 'a very affordable amount per vehicle." £750 is, in my opinion, not a 'very affordable amount.'

Also, I do think that there is some onus on the cyclist to pay his or her part in basic road safety.

Many times I have watched cyclists go through red traffic lights or go over to the wrong side of the road before making a right turn. This is dangerous practice and, let's be honest, it's illegal.

The problem is that there is no way to penalise a cyclist for bad riding in the same way there is to penalise a driver for bad driving. Cyclists are uninsured and unlicensed - so maybe it is time this was changed.

Road safety for cyclists and motorists is, of course, important but let's share the responsibility equally and not just dump it all on the motorist...

Endangered cyclists

I was interested to hear recently that the EU is considering legislation to force HGV owners to have new technology fitted to all their vehicles to warn them when cyclists are in the blind spots on the near side of their vehicles.

Now, I'm not against this per say, and I'm not suggesting that cyclists should all go to the lengths this guy has gone to to ensure they get noticed, but I was concerned at the quote that these devices cost 'a very affordable amount per vehicle." £750 is, in my opinion, not a 'very affordable amount.'

Also, I do think that there is some onus on the cyclist to pay his or her part in basic road safety.

Many times I have watched cyclists go through red traffic lights or go over to the wrong side of the road before making a right turn. This is dangerous practice and, let's be honest, it's illegal.

The problem is that there is no way to penalise a cyclist for bad riding in the same way there is to penalise a driver for bad driving. Cyclists are uninsured and unlicensed - so maybe it is time this was changed.

Road safety for cyclists and motorists is, of course, important but let's share the responsibility equally and not just dump it all on the motorist...

Foxy hits the spot

You will have gathered from the picture on the left that I was somewhat unimpressed with Liam Fox when I told him what to do with his nuclear deterent...

Well, I have changed my view somewhat after he came out publically against Cameron's balmy plan to enshrine the overseas aid budget in law!

My regular reader will know that I am no lover of ringfencing the aid budget at a time when this country is in the economic crapper, but to suggest that 0.7% of this country's income should be set aside by law is, frankly, completely fucking nuts!

What the hell are you thinking about, Cameron? Is there fuck all else more important for you to be concentrating on at the moment apart from this piece of patent absolute nonsense!?

So all credit to Liam Fox for saying that "I have considered the issue carefully, and discussed it with Andrew (Mitchell) and William Hague, but I cannot support the proposal in its current form."

A source close to Fox insisted that he was not opposed to the government's plan to increase spending on aid, saying: "The defence secretary fully supports the principle of a 0.7% target on international aid. The issue is simply how best to reflect this in law."

Quite right, Liam. If the government decides to give our hard earned money away to a load of bone idle Johnny foreigners then that's one thing. But the government is the government. It does not need to legislate for itself to do anything - it just does it!

It seems a shame to me that we don't have this guy running the country...

Foxy hits the spot

You will have gathered from the picture on the left that I was somewhat unimpressed with Liam Fox when I told him what to do with his nuclear deterent...

Well, I have changed my view somewhat after he came out publically against Cameron's balmy plan to enshrine the overseas aid budget in law!

My regular reader will know that I am no lover of ringfencing the aid budget at a time when this country is in the economic crapper, but to suggest that 0.7% of this country's income should be set aside by law is, frankly, completely fucking nuts!

What the hell are you thinking about, Cameron? Is there fuck all else more important for you to be concentrating on at the moment apart from this piece of patent absolute nonsense!?

So all credit to Liam Fox for saying that "I have considered the issue carefully, and discussed it with Andrew (Mitchell) and William Hague, but I cannot support the proposal in its current form."

A source close to Fox insisted that he was not opposed to the government's plan to increase spending on aid, saying: "The defence secretary fully supports the principle of a 0.7% target on international aid. The issue is simply how best to reflect this in law."

Quite right, Liam. If the government decides to give our hard earned money away to a load of bone idle Johnny foreigners then that's one thing. But the government is the government. It does not need to legislate for itself to do anything - it just does it!

It seems a shame to me that we don't have this guy running the country...