Clots, or how the system can work.

I'm waiting for the wailing, but it hasn't started yet. It will do once the Righteous finish their organic, free range, home knitted yoghurt, unhusked bran and pond water smoothies this morning.

Two events this week are proof if proof be need be that there is a new menace on our streets. Surely something must be done?

I give you Exhibit A:

A third teenager has appeared in court in connection with an airgun attack near a school in which 11 youngsters were injured.

The 15-year-old boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was charged at Ayr Sheriff Court with assault.

He made no plea or declaration and was released on bail.

Two youths have already been charged over the incident in Auchinleck, East Ayrshire, on Wednesday lunchtime.

Five girls and six boys aged between 12 and 16 were struck by pellets in the Church Street area of the town. 

No-one was seriously injured.

And Exhibit B:

SOCCER ace Ashley Cole left a fan "bleeding profusely" after shooting him at Chelsea's training ground, it has been reported. 

The controversial England defender allegedly took a .22 air rifle - the most powerful gun available without a licence in the UK - with him to training last Sunday.


The News of the World reports that Cole was messing around with the weapon in the dressing room when he inadvertently shot Tom Cowan, a sports science student on work placement with Chelsea.

It is high time that these weapons were banned before some other poor innocent bystander is injured in a slightly inconvenient manner which doesn't threaten their lives in the slightest.

I'm being slightly flippant. I'd be really pissed off if some lack-wit arseclown shot me with an air gun, and yes, to wheel out the favourite line of safety types, someone could have lost an eye.

But let's face facts here, the system appears to be working. The clots in Scotland are up before the beak, and because they've not done something really heinous, like dropping some fag ash on the floor, or something trivial like stubbing said cigarette out on a baby, they'll probably get a sentence that fits the crime.

Meanwhile Mr. Cole, a man who is a better clot than he is a left back, and he's a world class left back, probably thought he got away with it, but may find that now that the news of the screws has got hold of it he may face some action after all. The damage this article has done to his reputation is nil, due to the fact that his reputation is already lower than a snake's belly anyway.

What is it about some professional footballers (certainly not all, it is always the same half a dozen names that crop up) that makes them act like a complete arse?

There are differences between these cases, the lads in Scotland acted with malice and should be treated accordingly by the courts. Cashley was just an idiot, I don't think there was any intent, but it is symptomatic of his class. He's famous and rich, so whilst what happened to the young student in question is regrettable it will be just a bit of a joke to him, as the other guy isn't rich and famous and doesn't really count. We've seen time and time again how Cole has little regard for others, especially 'little people', if he's put up before the beak what can we expect? A fine and a victim surcharge which will never get anywhere near the victim and will not even make a dent in his wage packet of £100k per week plus. If I were given free reign, I'd give an order to spend the next 4 months training with his local TA regiment, where he would learn weapons discipline, get some humility and order, and if the evenings when the regiment train happen to clash with evenings when Chelsea play, then tough luck, perhaps the lost income will make you consider your actions in the future. It may also give him an appreciation of proper teamwork and the lot of those who do properly important jobs. His crime is not malice, it is a selfish lack of thought.

Of course that won't happen, but I can dream, can't I?

Nevertheless, the calls for the banning of air guns will probably grow in volume, because it is so much easier to call for the restriction of items than to hold those who misuse them to account for their actions. Once again, the majority will be made to suffer for the idiotic actions of the minority.

*Prize of a juicy bone to the person who points out the gratuitous Chris Morris reference.

The One That Is Rounding Up. . .

A few little things which have flashed across my radar screen over the last couple of days.

Firstly, I was very sad to hear of the death of the Georgian luger yesterday. Apparently the sliding track at Whistler has the reputation of being the fastest in the world, and one of the more dangerous. There have been a few grumbles that the teams haven't have had as much practice time on the track as they would have liked. That practice time wouldn't have made any difference, despite the best efforts of the organisers to make the track as safe as possible, this accident happened on a corner which no-one expected to be dangerous.

Of course danger is a relative term when you look at sporting events like the luge, skeleton and bob. They are three, frankly, ridiculous sports and not ones that I personally can get excited about, but every competitor knows that when they step onto the ice, there is a very real risk of serious injury or death and damn do I respect their guts.

Secondly, a suggestion was made by a friend of mine that if the three disgraced proto-criminal MPs do use the parliamentary privilege defence when they pitch up in court, they should also be charged with incitement to riot and revolution. That sounds like a fine suggestion to me.

Thirdly, I was going to make a point about the futility of these body scanners (which I hate) at the airports if the PC brigade bring their illogical pressure to bear over the religious sensibilities of Islam, but Leg-Iron has beaten me to it, and does it better than I ever could.

Finally, Leona Lewis who won Britian Has The X-Factor and Talent in Amounts That Would Have Made a 1970's One Hit Wonder Vomit Through Laughter, has proved herself to be a true diva by stamping her little foot over the choice of the food at the forthcoming Brit awards. Well, Fiona, or what ever your name is, you could always have chosen not to have eaten it, y'know.

How sad that the younger generation in this country see the option of bans as a proportionate and primary response to things that they have objections to. I have no strong feelings on the subject of foie-gras, there are just so many more important things to worry about. But when you go around trying to institute bans on things, don't come weeping to me when something you want to do, eat, say, practice or belive is banned, you've brought it upon yourself.

The One That Wonders How They Can Be So Wrong, So Often . . .

It is a source of constant amazement to me how this government just gets things wrong, time and time and time again. It defies belief that beyond handing control of interest rates to the Bank of England (a subject I know very little about, I am no economist), almost every single thing this government has done has been wrong.

Blair was always banging on about how his biggest acheivements were the minimum wage and the Human Rights Act, an item of legislation that is impossible to view without seeing it sat as a part of the European Convention on Human Rights. Yet the remarkable thing is, the entire history of this government is punctuated by them fighting, appealing and losing against challenges brought under this act.

As has been reported widly in the media and blogosphere today, the EuroCourt has ruled that powers of stop and search are illegal under human rights legislation. Apparently, the powers were 'not sufficiently circumscribed' and 'adequate legal safeguards against abuse' were not in place.

This speaks volumes to me. My initial reaction is that to stop someone who is walking down the street just because you want to know what they are up to is just wrong. To do it under the pretence of preventing terrorism is even more wrong. It is objectionable, it is using the flimsiest of excuses, preying on public fears in a most cynical fashion and is against all the traditions of British liberties.

The ruling from Europe seems to be not on those grounds, but on the grounds that the legislation these powers are exercised under is not sufficiently robust. It's almost an invitation to find a better excuse to do it.

Not that it is going to make a big difference anyway. Just as the government were told they couldn't record people's most personal data on a whim, they've decided they'll keep on doing it, they're hardly likely to stop this nice little tool to keep people in their place are they? Just as they blow the paedophile and rapist dog whistle with DNA, they'll continue to blow the terrorism whistle about stop and search. As Old Holborn has pointed out today, the Met stopped 200,000 people under these anti-terror powers in 2008, and yet not one of these people have been charged.

Terrorism is a useful stick to beat people with, it's difficult to object or argue with powers used against people declared as being or supporting terrorists. I certainly find people like that objectionable.

The other day I blogged about Islam4UK and what was going to happen about the proposed march in Wootton-Bassett. The answer now is not a lot, beyond me briefly attracting a semi-literate troll. Having had their five minutes in the limelight, Islam4UK announced that they were scrapping the plans.

It troubled me how many people were screaming for this march to be banned. I did not and would never support the message these people were trying to put across, but we nominally live in a country where we have the right to expres our opinion. And that's the thing about free speech, it means you occasionally have to hear things you don't much care for, it also means that people have the right to demonstrate against free speech. Well, be careful what you wish for, you may just get it.

Al Jolson, or whatever the Home Sec is called has announced that Islam4UK will become a proscribed organisation. I'm not aware of any terrorist attacks carried out by them, I'm not aware of any plots by Islam4UK being uncovered, nor any court cases relating to any activities in preparation of terror attacks. I am aware of them being insulting, objectionable and general fuckwits. But is that grounds to ban them and to chuck any members inside for 10 years?

Many people will greet news of this order with a single word; 'good'. But I'm not so sure. The Home Office say that they are a branch of al-Ghurabaa, who I understand were Omar Bakri Mohammed's lot. I can't say that they are or they aren't, it is just that I cannot accept any information from government at face value. They've lied to us so much, cried wolf so many times, that anything they say is received by me with immense scepticism.

What is for sure is that Omar Bakri Mohammed and Anjem Choudary are two people that I would be happy to see suffer massive and fatal heart attacks tomorrow, but there's this nagging feeling that every time this power is used, every time it is nodded through in the House, makes the next group's demonisation easier. Quite rightly, few people will shed a tear at the removal of Islam4UK from the scene (at least until they re-brand), but it brings us one step closer to a perfectly legitimate group you or I may belong to being banned under the accusation of terror, just because it is politically expedient to do so. These people have a list, and they will get as far down it as they can, will remove as many people that aren't them as possible before someone with real clout says, 'hang on a minute'. By that point it may be too late.

Two final points. Firstly, I wonder if the English Defence League are on that list? I'm betting they are. They don't play nicely and won't do as they are told, just like Islam4UK. Secondly, this is the real sign of this government's dog days, when they begin to turn on their pets.