It all started so well, didn't it? They day the coagulation took over we were told HIPS were gone, the ID cards were a thing of the past (incidentally, the cards ceased to be a legal document last month, and the associated database was destroyed this week) and then. . . well, it all went a little quiet, didn't it?

But boy, have they come back with a bang? CRB checks on people who work with, volunteer with, look at, know someone who has, or accidentally stumbles over TV programming aimed at children have been relaxed. I think the penny has dropped somewhere that it'll only show you to be a nonce, if you've been convicted of being a nonce.

However, in a week when we've seen the overthrow of a dictator in Egypt, and the mother of parliaments sitting down in a session where almost three hundred of our representatives discussed the primacy of a sovereign parliament over that of an unelected, non-legislative body and cried 'how did we come to be here?', (I'll give you a clue, you grinned like clueless morons whilst you handed it over without so much as a second thought), we have seen perhaps the most groundshaking development in liberties this country has seen for a long, long time.

Hold on to your hats, guys and girls:

Night time weddings will be able to take place in future under plans outlined by the government.

Brilliant! Because I had been worried about the intrusion of CCTV into all of our lives, the installation of ANPR cameras on the main roads in and out of most towns in the UK, the retention of DNA by a paranoid and controlling state, but all that has been swept away, because now, when I go and ask the State's permission, in the form of a licence, to place my relationship on a register, so they can keep a record of who I am sleeping with, just in case the union is blessed, so they don't miss out on the tax eighteen years later, I can now have that relationship registered, at a time that is convenient to me! Break out the bunting!

The changes allowing marriages to take place 24 hours a day in England and Wales are part of the Protection Of Freedoms Bill. They will also apply to civil partnerships.

Even the gayers are included! There's going to be a hell of a party down my way.

However, there will be no prospect of spur of the moment marriages at Las Vegas-style chapels where in the past some couples have wed after a night of heavy drinking - at least 15 days advance notice will still be required.

Yes, you still need to give the state a fortnight to get its shit together, because like all good nannies, it has to be allowed to tell you to go away and think about it for a good while. You could have been together for fifteen years, but you still can't just turn up and do it. That would be unthinkable. Plus you still can't get married outside. Well, you can, but you have to be undercover when the vows are made because . . . errrm, well, you see. . . look, you just have to, OK? It's your wedding, and thus nothing to do with you at all, you can only do it in a style which we find acceptable, OK?

The Church of England says a relaxation in the times of church weddings would require a change to Canon Law from the General Synod, which meets twice a year. And the Catholic Church has reportedly said it would not conduct late night ceremonies.

The private sky pixie clubs will still be telling you what you should be doing though.

This is freedom?

Good grief.

I am no theological historian, but even I know that when Augustine was sent over to Kent to start the conversion of the population to Christianity, he faced an up-hill battle.

The old Celtic and Saxon polytheistic beliefs were really deeply ingrained, and people were unsure about this new belief structure. I should imagine that many received the 'good news' with the sort of scepticism that most of us would reserve for the dogma of Scientology.

The Romans had had a couple of experiments with the calendar, more, I believe, in a drive for accuracy and efficiency than for any hard and fast religious reasons, but the devotees of the old Celtic and Saxon religions measured their days by the passage of the sun, moon and seasons.

The problem for the church being that whilst many may have converted, probably just for five minute's peace, (they were most likely fed up with the spineless insipid missionaries knocking on the door of the hovel, quoting selected lines of Latin at them to prove some point which didn't really make sense to them anyway, and leaving parchments explaining how believing in this Jesus chap would explain the horrible stuff that was going on in the village and give them some comfort, which they couldn't read.), when the big important stuff happened, they reverted to the old ways.

Rollo (not the kid's TV character boy-king, but the ancestor of William the Bastard Conqueror) was given the province of Normandy, he was given it on two conditions; firstly that he'd stop sending raiding parties into France, as it was getting on everyone's tits, and secondly that he converted to Christianity as it was what all the cool, progressive, cutting edge 10th Century European leaders were doing. Come his death, somewhere in the late 920's, he displayed a superb capacity for pragmatic cynicism by having a hundred Christian devotees beheaded in front of him in his death bed, to appease the old Norse gods he had followed. Then, just to make sure, he made sure that the Christian organisations were given a shit load of gold, to appease them for the fact that he'd just offed a hundred or so of their mates.

Of course, the general population didn't really have the contacts and resources to slaughter a load of people and then give out a ton of cash in recompense, but when the landmarks of the year rolled around they'd still adhere to the old ways.

So when the shortest day came around, when the Sun reached its lowest point in the sky, they'd have a little celebration to mark the fact that the days would now start to get longer. But there was no room in the church calendar for this sort of stuff, it had to be changed. But how to do it? Well, of course, that was when Christ was born. (As an aside I saw a programme on one of the satelite channels a while back in which a historian was saying that the Roman census was carried out in the summer, so there would have been no race to Bethlehem in December.) So, you can have your little celebration, we'll just come in and change the reason for it.

Similarly when Spring rolls around, and everyone's thoughts turn to eggs, bunnies and little fluffy chicks, it has nothing to do with nature coming out of hibernation, it's all to do with the death and then, then, (this is the good bit), the re-birth of Christ. At the same time of year? What are the chances? You've got to hand it to the church, it's a great bit of marketing.

So when the Bishop of Arundel and Brighton gets involved in a story like this:

A bishop has urged parents not to let their children dress up in ghoulish gear in the run up to Halloween.

The Rt Rev Kieran Conry, the Bishop of Arundel and Brighton, wants to reclaim the festival as a Christian celebration.


He suggested children should dress up as saints rather than traditional Halloween garb.

In the Christian calendar, Halloween falls on the day before All Hallows' Day, a day to honour all the saints.

 The Rt Rev Conry said Halloween had "no meaning to it whatsoever" and was a waste of money for parents.

He's completely forgetting that people have been marking the point in the year when the trees lose their leaves and the plants die back, or at least stop growing, for thousands of years. This is why people dress up as ghosts and skeletons, it is a marker of death in the natural cycle. And what does it say about us that 1400 years after death of Augustine that when the big markers roll around, we still go back to the old ways to recognise the landmarks?

Perhaps that marketing campaign by the church, almost one and a half thousand years in the running, hasn't been as effective as they thought, because they are still fighting to stop people celebrating in ways that we've done since before the Roman conquest. Of course, the difference now is that the church can't have us shunned, fined, imprisoned or put to death for failing to conduct ourselves in a manner which they find acceptable.

No, it would appear that that particular little perk has now passed to the adherents of the green church and the anti-smoking/drinking/eating church. Nature abhors a vacuum, and it looks like Rome and Canterbury's loss is their gain.

Yes, I’m still banging on about this burqa thing.

I don’t want to start a flame war over at Trixie’s place, but as you’ll see from the comments I’ve attempted to explain why I think the UKIP policy is wrong.

Her response to my comment is succinct to say the least: ‘You know what? When one of your mates is blown to shit by a group of fanatical muslims you just hate them.’

I really don’t see the connection between suicide bombers and the burqa. It’s like trying to connect fanatical Christians killing abortion doctors and a nun’s habit. The logic is flawed, the London bombers claimed to be devout Muslims, some women who claim to be devout Muslims wear the burqa, therefore the burqa is representative of suicide bombers.

If what Trixy is really trying to say is that ‘the burqa should be banned because I hate fundamentalist Islam’ then that is what she should say. I don’t much care for fundamentalist Islam either. Granted none of my friends have been blown up by them, but that doesn’t alter my dislike. I’d say the same for fundamentalist Christians, Jews and anyone else who seeks to destroy and kill in the name of their beliefs. It seems obvious that Trixy lost someone she cares about in an attack, and for that she has my sympathy, but it doesn’t alter the fact that banning an item of clothing is just plain wrong and unproductive.

What would the ramifications be of banning the burqa? Would it send all the Muslims ‘home?’ No. Would it serve to send the nutters over the edge into real fruit loop territory and the pissed off into the nutter camp? Probably. What is certain is that you’d see fewer Muslim women on the streets. These women would not just sigh and discard their burqa in favour of a permitted item of clothing? No. They’d be even more isolated and alienated because they’d never leave the house. This isn’t going to help assimilation, it’s going to set it back. It would imprison some Muslim women, not liberate them.

An easy response is to say, ‘well, they chose to wear it, they can just as easily choose not to if they want to leave the house.’ But why the hell should they? What business is it of anyone’s what someone else chooses to wear?

As I said in the comments over at Trixy’s; I was considering voting for UKIP at the next election, but things like this which demonstrate a mania for control in line with Labour, Tories and the LimpDims gives me real cause for concern. If they want to regulate what people are allowed to wear then what else is going to be regulated before and after it?

Trixy herself says that women wearing the burqa ‘make themselves unapproachable and many people find them intimidating.’ Well, suppose they don’t want to be approached? I would maintain that being left alone if you want to be is fine and dandy. As for people finding them intimidating, so what? Why do they find them intimidating? Is it down a specific incident they have encountered personally, or is it down to the fear of ignorance? Would they feel intimidated by a bishop in full garb? A skinhead in braces, tight jeans and cherry reds? A cyclist wearing a face-mask? A man wearing a football shirt? A woman in full punk regalia? An officer in police uniform? Should all these be banned because many people could find them intimidating? Is the problem with the image you are projecting or with your perception of the person you are looking at?


Trixy continues; ‘I don't agree with the excessive amount of CCTV cameras. . .’, I am imagining because she feels it is wrong to watch and track people when they are going about their lawful business. ‘. . . but I also don't agree with fundamentalist muslims dressing up in Burkhas and veils knowing that they can't be recognised’ Does this mean that Old Holborn should be banned from wearing his V mask on Novermber 5th? Or is it OK as he’s not a suicide bomber or a Muslim? (I’ve met OH on a few occasions, I don’t know if he is Muslim or not, I’m guessing not, but I’ve never asked, it’s none of my business and I couldn’t care less anyway)

Again, if Trixy is saying ‘the burqa should be banned because I hate fundamentalist Islam’, then where do we draw the line? Do we also ban men wearing traditional Muslim garb? Will that make terrorism more difficult? Or did the 7/7 bombers dress in a Western fashion to avoid drawing attention to themselves? How about banning Mosques? Banning the practice of Islam in the home? The deportation of Muslims from the UK? How about the Jews, should we do that too? Are people intimidated by Hassidic Jews and their dress? What about Blacks? Many people get very nervy when they see a black person, just look at the gun crime stats, should we be afraid of them? Catholics as well, the Irish have been blowing things up for years.

Or is this just lashing out at something because it has harmed you? Is it acceptable then to punish one whole section of society for an injury caused by a very small part of that section? I would suggest that in any other discussion, Trixy would say that it is not acceptable.

I’m not accusing Trixy of being a racist, that’s a ridiculous argument, and it’s a lazy one as well, it’s just one step from Godwin’s Law. I’m just trying to illustrate a point that once this particular box is opened, you can justify the control and restraint of any group in society with great ease.

Banning things which cause no injury or harm to anyone or their property is a bad thing, it restricts liberty, it does not extend it. Banning things because they are a symbol of something you don’t like or that is different from you is very bad and will more often than not end in tears.

Sometimes, even by today's standards, an idea comes forward which is so monumentally stupid that it really does beggar belief.

This one is a doozie. It combines the three great hallmarks of New Labour; sanctimony, control and complete unaccountability.

Everyone should be given an annual carbon ration and face financial penalties if they exceed it, under a proposal by the Environment Agency.

Yep, it's that old chestnut again, the only way to save the polar bears is to have the state open your wallet for you.

Lord Smith of Finsbury, the agency’s chairman, will say today that rationing is the fairest and most effective way of meeting Britain’s legally binding targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Ah yes, Lord Smith of Finsbury, I remember his election campaign like it was yesterday. I recall how. . . oh, no hang on, he's not been elected to anything.

Snowolf, chairman of the Snowolf's Front Room committee, will say today that rationing the kicking of Lord Smith of Finsbury repeatedly in the face is the fairest and most effective way of keeping the mouths of unelected fuckwits firmly closed.

Legally binding? What? How so? I didn't agree to be legally bound by anything. Is this a criminal or a civil matter? Can we look forward to ministers being sent to the clink if we don't meet the targets? If so, I'm going to stick my heating on full, run every electrical appliance I have and open all the windows and doors.

People would be given a “carbon account” and a unique number that they would have to submit when making purchases of carbon-intensive items such as petrol, electricity or airline tickets. As with a bank account, people would receive statements showing the carbon weight of each purchase and how much of their ration remained.

Oh you are having a fucking laugh, aren't you? Really, come on, even by NuLab standards this is a different class. You'd just fucking love to get your hands on that little tool wouldn't you?

It won't just be that, the next step will be for everyone to go to the GPs, under threat of a fine, to have their lung capacity measured, so we can be taxed on breathing out. So another tax on petrol, on top of the duty and VAT. Nice. Of course, ministers and peers would be exempt because they are really important. Then food. We can cut obesity and save the planet. Soylent Green anyone? That was set in 2020.

If they used up their ration within a year, they would have to buy extra credits from those who had not used their full allowance.

Oh, what a great idea. I'll bet you rubbed yourself red-raw when you masturbated furiously in celebration of that idea, didn't you?

And it has a secondary control tool as well. 'Are you going up on the march to demonstrate against the suspension of parliamentary democracy?'

'No, I've not got the carbon credits, I don't even have enough to take a hot shower.'

The return to feudalism. We won't be able to leave the Manor without the Lord's permission.

I'm going to dress up like Pte. Walker from Dad's Army, because the black market in unused carbon credits will go through the fucking roof. People will pay hundreds to get their hands on a little ticket that literally represents thin fucking air.

That's right, the government will now sell us fresh air, and will then tax us on the use of it.

What else will this enable? ID fraud will go through the roof as well. Perhaps if we had some sort of national ID card scheme, we could combat these eeeeeeevil people who get more than their fair share?

An ID card will prevent terrorism and save the planet.

Terrorism:

–noun

1.	the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

2.	the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

The machinery of our government is engaging in terrorism against its own population.

Nice.

To his MP (Julian Brazier, CON). Probably a waste of time, but I feel very strongly about this. This is a watershed moment, a point of no return. As soon as the state owns little bits of innocent people, the rest of our mortal bodies will follow as sure as day follows night.

Commit a crime, you've got it coming.

Don't commit a crime, you should be free, free, free.

This is not freedom.

I will post the reply, if one is forthcoming.

Dear Venal Corrupt Trougher, (I didn't really put that, but was sorely tempted)

I am writing to voice my objection, in the strongest possible fashion, to the retention of the DNA sequences of the innocent on what I can only find referred to as 'the database'. (BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8353824.stm) and other major media outlets, today).

It is my belief that a person's DNA is their most private and personal data, and for the state to appropriate this material at their leisure fundamentally changes the relationship between citizen and state in a most disturbing and Orwellian way. I, and every other person resident in the UK, do not belong to the state. I am a private citizen, and my own personal bio-data belongs to me.

I am thankful that, as far as I am aware, my DNA sequence does not appear on 'the database', I have not been arrested and had my DNA taken from me. However I completely agree with the civil liberties campaigners who are so unhappy with the practice of retention.

I have always been of the impression that the police were an agency tasked with enforcing the law, however I become more and more wary as they embark on what amounts to lobbying and media spin. For them to say that 'retaining samples has helped solve crimes' seems a reasonable assertation on the face of it, but when one investigates the figures it becomes clear that a collection of almost 6,000,000 profiles has helped to solve 0.7% of crimes. Even when accounting for the hundreds of acts this government has declared criminal since taking power, one can only conclude that we are living in a society where crime is the norm, or that DNA retention is not as useful a tool as we are led to believe.

The argument is illogical. Where do we draw the line? It is all very well to talk in terms of rapists and murderers, but the Home Office and police seem to lose sight of the fact that these people have been arrested under suspicion of a crime, not convicted of its perpetration. The inference from the HO is that whilst it could not be proven that an individual committed an offence, they were arrested, so must have some degree of guilt - this goes against the practice of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If we take the argument that retention helps solve crimes, an argument built on weasel words if ever I heard one, then it would be logical to ensure everyone's DNA is taken from them at birth (this is not an argument I subscribe to). A step further? Those arrested and not charged or acquitted in court, being made to report to a police station on a weekly basis? Or being tagged?

Given this account from Cambridgeshire (Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226688/Grandfather-arrested-dawn-held-police-cell-SIX-hours-using-single-swear-word-council-official.html) 11th November) is this man to have his DNA sequence retained, lest he be a rapist or murderer?

This practice reduces the private citizen to the status of a chattel. It is the 21st century equivalent to a Stasi file, an indication of the attitude that everyone is guilty of something and it is only a matter of time before it reveals itself. It is also only as good as the people who administer it, and whilst I would hesistate to accuse the police of tampering with evidence, poor lab practice or searching only for a DNA sample at a crime scene can and will lead to miscarriages of justice.

I find this practice to be repugnant and deeply, deeply sinister, and would hope in the likely event of a Conservative victory at the next general election, that a new Tory administration would ensure that the data of the innocent is destroyed as soon as that innocence cannot be dis-proved.

Best wishes,

Wolfers.

I blogged a little while ago about an entertaining conspiracy theory surrounding the Government's intentions for t'internet.

Well, bless my barnacles. . .

A controversial broadband tax should be law before the next election, according to Minister for Digital Britain Stephen Timms.

Now there's a surprise. Didn't see that one coming.

The 50 pence a month tax applies to everyone with a fixed line telephone.

Speaking at a debate in London, Mr Timms said the tax will be presented to parliament as part of the Finance Bill.

So, £6 per year, doesn't sound that bad does it?

I'm betting any office will have to pay for each and every phone on their premises, even if it is on a switchboard. More cost which business won't have to bear, because it will be passed on to those who use their services or buy their products.

And what will the money be used for? Making sure everyone has broadband. The next stop will be a modem licence.

Why?

So they can get us all on to Cloud. That means that ALL your files, contacts, emails and browsing history will be centrally stored, and you'll only be able to access websites which the controllers feel is appropriate for you to access.

It's coming people, and it won't just be us, this will be global.

I forget who it was that said Puritanism was the feeling that someone, somewhere might be having fun.

Fun is bad for our health. That is why smoking has been all but banned everywhere. That is why, with the job pretty much done, that focus has now been shifted to drinking. That's bad for our health too.

These things are being banned under the suggestion they are bad for us, but really it is because they are fun. To crush our spirit in a grey and grinding distopia, there must be no fun.

What else do Purtians hate? What else is fun? What else can be banned under the guise of being for the good of our health?

Couples should consider sleeping apart for the good of their health and
relationship, say experts.

Ahh yes, that'll do it.

The next round of heated shot is sat in the fire waiting for the muzzle.

It's becoming something of an obsession, and recently I had a person from one of the opinion poll companies round bearing statements such as 'Internet access is a right' and 'The government should do more to ensure everyone has broadband'. I had to say whether I agreed strongly, disagreed strongly, well, you get the idea.

Why is the state so desperate to get us linked up to the 'net?

But why? Bloggers are a continual pain in the arse for governments and their opposition. The internet has also empowered the consumer in terms of news, you don't sit down when you are told to see the news and you don't have to only hear what the editors want to tell you, that's an enormous groundshift from the consumer's relationship with papers, radio and TV.

"They've asked me to see what really clever applications of technology could help people get more employment, get more choices, take control of where they live of their own situation in a slightly more cohesive way," the co-founder of lastminute.com said.

By reading that, it would seem that the government want to fly in the face of everything they've done over the last 12 years and actually empower people. I don't buy it.

Ms Lane Fox has indicated that she wants to concentrate on the six million poorest "nonliners" first.

She will be relying on people already online to convince others to join them.

"The only way I think we can do that is if all of us as individuals sit down and think okay, how can I bring someone on this journey with me?

"Get kids training grannies, get all of us kind of plugging into our local communities to try and pull the whole country along.

We do it to help the poor.

Well, I'm sorry, but the internet, whilst being a very useful tool, is not absolutely required for everyday life. And what is this journey? Why should we all have the internet? What's in it for them? I have visions of some sort of Matrix Lite society.

I have a friend who enjoys conspiracies, and this one is a goodie, and not too far fetched. It is his belief, and with everything we've seen thus far, it is hard to argue against it, that the government is keen to introduce a national service provider akin to the Cloud system.

In a nutshell, you plug your monitor into your keyboard and your keyboard into the phone socket, absolutely everything you do on and with your computer is stored centrally. Documents you write, emails you send and recieve, websites you visit, online banking details, contacts, the lot.

Now it all makes sense. Of course with a centrally controlled system a website that the authorities don't want to be available simply isn't there. If a news site publishes a story they don't like, it simply disappears. If a blogger writes an article they find objectionable, it is taken down. The blogger would probably suffer the same fate.

The internet is a free as anything could probably ever be. The political class hate it. It must be like a maddening itch they can never reach. So great is their desire for control over every single facet of our lives that they will do anything to get control of it. So you persaude people they cannot live without the internet, you raise more taxes to put the system together (modem licence, anyone?) and then get everyone onto a system which is little more than a heavily regulated, constantly moderated intranet.

Jesus, I hate these bastards. Scary, scary shit.

It isn't just in this country where control freakery runs wild.

Turkey has today brought in a smoking ban in its bars, restaurants etc, etc. I'm glad to see that the problems of human rights abuses, censorship of the press etc, have been sorted out to make this such an important issue in the country.

In Italy, the northern city of Milan (a particular favourite of mine) has had a smoking ban for a few years now along with the rest of the country. The fines for breaking this ban are quite steep and it is adhered to. However, as we've seen in the UK, once one evil is removed, another great evil is selected for campaigning against. We must be saved, it is for our own good.

Nanny Beeb is reporting that:

Milan has banned the consumption and sale of alcohol to young teenagers in an effort to curb binge-drinking. Parents of children under the age of 16 caught drinking wine or spirits will be liable to heavy fines of up to 500 Euros ($700;£450).

And that is where the theory falls down. Under 16 and drinking wine or spirits? That's a fine for your parents. End of story. Now if that were the case in this country, the police would be out in force on Sundays, undercover in churches, waiting for the communion.

When I was a teenager, around 15-16, the pub visiting started in earnest. A group of us started. In one particular pub. Not because the licencee had a rather laissez-faire attitude towards the laws regarding the sale of alcohol, although he did. Not because we knew we could get served alcohol in there with the minimum of hassle, although we could. But because we knew the rules surrounding drinking in this establishment. 1: He wouldn't serve you spirits. Right out. Beer and cider only, it was his pub and if you didn't like it, you could piss off outside into the cold and rain. 2: Bloody behave yourself. If you didn't, you were out, never to return. 3: When he said you'd had sufficient, you'd had sufficient and you would say good evening and go home.

This landlord took the opinion that we'd be drinking anyway, and it was better to do it in an environment where there were boundaries and people looking out for each other, rather than a load of teenagers with no experience getting well and truly Flintoffed on the street. I was certainly looked well over 18 by the time I was 16, not an eyelid would have been batted had I walked into the off licence and picked up vodka and special brew, and then my friends and I could have sat on the recreation ground and got absolutely shitfaced. We didn't, we went to this pub (now sadly no longer) instead. I even recall serving police officers amongst the Friday night crowd (and it was only Friday nights when this happened) the local old bill knew the score.

Of course these days the old sod would have lost his licence, a good deal of money and probably his liberty. Us kids would probably have found ourselves sat in front of social workers and attending alcohol counselling classes. The irony is of course, that we learned a good deal more about how to handle and respect alcohol when in that pub than we would ever have by being forced to attend some 2 day course with a hard-hitting video and *gulp* role-play.

The police knew that we were in there, they knew that we were drinking, they also knew they never got called out to a fight, to a case of vandalism, they never saw an ambulance outside, and never had to scoop some barely alive wreck off the pavement at closing time. They also knew that to close this place down, where there were no problems, would mean that next Friday night, there would be kids getting pissed up on the Rec.

If you're going to prohibit the sale of alcohol to some groups, it makes much more sense to do it on the basis of attitude rather than age. But we can't do that. So it is age. And still people don't like it, they don't like the sale of alcohol at all, getting rid of tobacco was so easy, surely we could do the same again, with drink? But how?

First we must think of the Children, have they done this in Milan? Check.

However the Children cannot be held responsible. Someone else will carry the can. Is this in place in Milan? Check.

Excellent. Now we need some astonishing, unqualified statistic to make everyone throw their hands in the air. Do we have one of those?

A third of 11-year-olds in the city have alcohol related problems.

What? A third? Right, a little guessing maths. Milan is a metropolitan area with a population of 7.4 million. According to the CIA Factbook, 0-14 year olds make up 13.5% of the national population of Italy. So we'll assume that is a happy average for each commune, that means 999,000 kids below 14 in 'Greater' Milan. So to get a rough guess, let's assume that the birth rate has been constant for the last 14 years, that means around 71,300 11 year olds.

So you're telling us that 23,000 11 year olds have alcohol related problems? That is either bullshit, or the biggest collection of juvenile alcoholics in the world, ever. I doubt that a third of 11 year olds are piss heads in Milan. Or anywhere.

But the authorities are deeply concerned about the increase in consumption of alcohol by children as young as 11 in the country's industrial and financial capital.

Ahhhh, so the mere consumption counts as a 'problem', does it? What even in their own home? With their parents? Are the Carabineri to kick down doors and cart parents off for introducing alcohol to their kids in a responsible and measured fashion?

A national law banning the sale of alcohol to under-16s is only loosely enforced, as Italian families are used to sometimes giving young children a teaspoon of wine as a family party treat.

A teaspoon? Oh, how wonderfully twee.

In past centuries, Italian children would sometimes even be given wine to drink in preference to water which was often polluted.

No shit. Not just in Italy, shit for brains. We did it with beer and cider. On account of the fact that the climate has not often been warm enough to grow decent enough grapes for wine.

And here's the social engineering kicker. The one that tells you that all has, is and will be changing.

There has been a storm of protest by bar owners who refuse to act as alcohol police for young people.

But changing social customs mean that old easy-going attitudes towards consumption of alcohol in Italy will have to change. (Trans: But increasing political willy waving means we have to do something to justify our huge salaries, so we're changing this, and you'd better play ball, or else.)

It's not just us.

I couldn't help but notice the subject of ID cards raised its head on the Daily Politics on BBC this lunchtime. It included a marvellous peice of double think from Phil 'Custard Pie' Woolas when Brillo made the point that the biometrics could be stored on passports rather than ID cards. 'Not everyone wants a passport' said Woolas.

Where as you can't get through the doors at Marsham Street for people trying to force their way in to get an ID card, can you?

Here's the suprising bit; I have no problems with an ID card.

That is an ID card that I may choose to apply for, or not. An ID card that does not contain a copy of my fingerprints, DNA, inside leg measurement, favourite brand of breakfast cereal or number of shoes I own.

I have no problem with an ID card that contains my photo, my face is on display every time I set foot out of my door, if I didn't want it seen, I'd cover it. Nor do I have a problem with my address and date of birth being displayed on it, it is already on my driving licence. I don't even have a problem with an RF chip in the card carrying an encoded electronic version of my photograph, that would make it very difficult for someone to appropriate the card and substitute the photograph.

What I do have a problem with is the idea that I would have to have an ID card, and one would assume that being obliged to have one, I'd be obliged to carry it with me at all times. One can only assume that being obliged to carry it, a nice policeman would have powers to ask to see it if he fancied having a look.

The phrase 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' cuts no ice with me. Firstly, when I walk down the road to the shops, I'm doing just that. I am a private citizen, and where and when I choose to go for a walk is nobody's business but mine, I am doing nothing wrong.

I'm a reasonable person, and not given to unctious displays of resistance. If a policeman comes up to me and politely asks me where I'm going, I'd probably be minded to say 'I'm just walking to the shops, Constable.' I'm not about to make a big fuss about it, despite the occasional digs at the Old Bill on here, I actually quite like the police. I've always personally found them to be professional, sensible and reasonable. In the main, they are decent people who are doing a job which, through ridiculous over legislation, changes every day. They have little hope of keeping on top of the changes and have a management which implements initiative after initiative. In my opinion, most coppers just want to go out and catch bad guys. It is sad that they find themselves as pawns in a political battle.

The problems come where a simple question posed by a police officer who may have just seen something to get their spidey-senses tingling turns into the routine tap on the shoulder and the request 'papers, please.'

How many times have we seen the scene in the Cold War era thrillers, where the noble Communist regime citizen is stopped by a plain clothes agent with that same request?

I commented a while ago that it was the little things from Communist Eastern Europe that chilled me, the big monolithic systems of controlling government provide a dull ache, but the idea of being stopped on the street and being questioned, for no apparent good reason, checkpoints on the roads, having to provide details of where you are going and for how long when you leave the country, having to do the same when you travel internally, having your vehicle tracked, and your movements monitored when on foot, these all provide sharp pricks of pain.

Some we will hopefully never see in the UK, some will certainly happen, and soon, others are here already. The introduction of an ID card such as is proposed is a big step down that road and it makes me very uneasy indeed, not just for what this government would do with it, but for what the next one, and the one in ten years will do with it. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it will be almost impossible to put it back in.

The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust has released a document about the 'database state'. The report opens with a preamble detailing the loss of data by HMRC and goes on to make the claim that many of these Government databases are illegal.

You'll get no argument from me on that point.

What is disappointing is the way that these charities always have to have an angle. I don't know much about the Joseph Rowntree Trust as a whole, other than the fact that they have many strings to their bow, I know nothing of their funding nor their political affiliations or leanings.

It is heartening to see that they have decided to speak out against this mania for measuring, recording and controlling every facet of our lives, but they haven't half gone about it in a half-arsed way.

They've spoken about how these databases present a danger to young black men, single parents and children. Well, yes. That's correct, but why pick on the dog-whistle groups? These databases and the appalling security record of the public sector in the field of data security pose a danger to every single one of us.

Come on, use your brain, this paternalistic and patronising attitude has to stop if there is to be any credibility about your report. Don't fall into the Righteous trap, speak out for all of us, not just those who you feel are incapable of speaking out for themselves. I am neither black, a child, nor a parent, single or otherwise. Were it not for my civil liberties interest, I would have looked at these headlines and decided 'Doesn't apply to me, not interested, next.'

If the headlines said that this poses a threat to you, no matter who you are, you'd find interest was much higher.

Perhaps if we spent more time focusing on what binds us together rather than that which seperates us, we'd have a much more cohesive voice. It is in the interests of the status quo for our differences to be pointed out and amplified at every turn.

Must do better.

Stella Rimington, the former head of MI5 is someone I'm swiftly getting a liking for. She spoke out about the 42 days detention when all the fur was flying about that, and now she's spoken out about ministers using the threat of terror to clamp down on civil liberties.

There is a school of thought that all this is a Labour plan to have control over every facet of our lives, the idea that real power comes not from the ballot box (and let's face it, political power doesn't reside in Westminster any more, it lives in Brussels) but from control over the individual. That means we must all be measured, recorded, tracked and visible to the powers that be at all times.

The other school of thought is that we are half way to hell on the road signposted 'Good Intentions'. I agree that a significant number of people are of the opinon that what is being done is because those in power really, honestly believe that it is for the best.

I think the truth lies somewhere in between. A small number of sociopathic control freaks, using the dogwhistle of terror to jolly along all those who want to do the right thing, those who say 'OK, perhaps we can let this one go then.' But before they realise it, the zealots are knocking on the door making the case for the next liberty to be taken away. Those reasonable people then consider the point, not for a moment thinking back to how they would have felt a year earlier if this had been suggested.

And so the next one is gone.

Old Holborn was out yesterday, at New Scotland Yard, taking photographs. It is now possible to be arrested for taking photos of a police officer, or a public building, or any public scene that is judged to be likely to support terrorism or acts in preperation thereof. Well, who makes these judgements?

We've seen footage in the past of officer and PCSOs who do not like being photographed and filmed, now those officers can decide that they don't like it and can arrest you for it. Of course it would never end up in court, but you could find yourself locked up for no other real reason than a policeman has taken a dislike to you, or you've proved an inconvenience, or pehaps taken footage which shows an officer doing something wrong, something illegal, and that officer wants it out of the way.

Apparently the feeling is that police officers need protecting from terrorists. I can remember no instance of a police officer being directly targeted by terrorists since Yvonne Fletcher was killed by a shot outside the Libyan Embassy in London in (appropriately enough) 1984.

Well what's the next step in protecting these officers? Removal of their collar numbers so they cannot be identified? Anonymous 'secret' police stations, with cells that don't really exist, for crimes where a solicitor may not be present at interview? Why not just dress our police officers like this?

I don't blame the rank and file officers, but our police force has changed, it seems to me that their primary function is no longer the prevention and detection of crime or disorder, but is now to be deployed in a manner that the political class finds advantageous to them. I have little dealing with the police on this level, but I know this.

I know that if my house is broken into, if my car is stolen, if my property is damaged I will not see a police officer. A PCSO may pop round to take details for recording purposes and then, someone with an eye on targets, will attempt to 'no crime' it, even if it is recorded as a crime no action to investigate will be made. I mean, I've got insurance, that's what it's for. However, I also know that if I walk down the street dressed in an unusual style, take a photograph of a public building, or sit, reading a book, on a bench in a public park that just happens to be near a playground, I will be pounced upon, questioned, searched and perhaps even detained.

This is not the police service I pay for, and it is not a style of policing that is suitable for any country which says it is a free democracy. We're not there yet, but the actions of ministers, ACPO and over excited front line staff take us ever closer to the Stasi and Securitate, and it is almost within touching distance.

Well done to the European Court of Human Rights for deciding that it is a breach of human rights to store the DNA and fingerprints of the innocent on a database.

What a sad day when the government of a country that used to be a bastion of liberty the whole world looked to is taken to court over this horrible and disturbing policy. It is even sadder that Jacqui Smith seems determined to ignore the ruling. But then this is what happens when you speak against our glorious leaders, you get ignored. At best.

Leg-Iron has a good posting on this subject.

I'll leave you with these points:

DNA and fingerprints of the innocent being kept against their human rights.
Opposition MPs having their offices searched without proper procedure being followed.
Opposition MPs being arrested.
People being stopped and searched on the street for no reason other than the plastic plod felt like it.
The threat of being carted off to the cells for being unable to provide ID for no reason other than the proper plod feel like it.

They may have been writing about the USA, but the line from Rage Against The Machine's 'Know Your Enemy' seems quite apt; 'the land of the free? Whoever told you that is your enemy.'

UPDATE

I've removed a comment from some spammer telling me how I can earn £5000 buy doing something. I didn't really pay attention.

I don't like deleting comments and have never done so before. I don't mind if you disagree with me, but please don't try and sell me stuff. If I want it, I'll already have it or will go out and get it off my own back.