Sim-O

I was thinking about this earlier. Prisoners getting the vote.

Prisoners are to get the right to vote as the government is poised to throw in the towel in a long-running legal tussle with the European court of human rights, it emerged today.

It is understood that the coalition is to confirm that it is ready to change the law to remove the voting ban on more than 70,000 inmates of British jails.

You know what I say?

Fuck ’em.

If someone doesn’t play by the rules why should they get to say what the rules are?

If it’s all about human rights, how about bringing to an end overcrowding? That’ll do more for the prisoners than the chuffing vote.

Democracy Club…

In elections these days, all major candidates have a huge team of volunteers behind them, helping them produce and distribute leaflets, get publicity in the local news media, raising their profile and painting a generally rosy picture of them.

But the public gets no such help. They are given election leaflets, party election broadcasts, newspaper interviews with candidates, but they are not given solid, factual information, or simple unbiased analysis of the truth value of these publicity campaigns, especially not at a local level.

We feel that the public needs its own team of volunteers to help them. We want you to be one of those volunteers: gather information on candidates, their leaflets, and local news coverage of them; or publicise vote analyses in local papers around the country; or do other tasks we haven’t even thought of yet.

With your help, we can give the public the same support that the candidates already get.

The Guardian has a piece about Blair and the EU presidency.

Our Tone might face some obstacles…

These are: a petition, which has so far attracted 41,326 signatures saying that it would be wrong to appoint a man who allegedly violated international law in the Iraq war; the implacable opposition of the Tories, who have warned EU leaders that appointing Blair would be seen as a hostile act in Britain; strong opposition from smaller EU member states, who fear that such a high profile figure would eclipse them; and a concern across the EU that it would be wrong to appoint someone from the most reluctant member of the EU.

But is still considered, by many, the favourite. Although he isn’t making life easy for himself by refuse to campaign. This refusal, the article says, is because he is worried about getting a humiliating slap down and also…

“It will be decided in horse trading over the coming weeks,” one Blair ally said. “This will all take place behind closed doors.”

Blair believes this is why it would be wrong to campaign. “This is a very odd election,” one ally said. “It will be decided by 27 people. This is not something that can be won by running a campaign.”

Not really an election, is it? More of an appointment, wouldn’t you say?

Is it really too much to ask for a little bit of democracy and, if we must have a president, let the people decide who it should be?

But it’s not about democracy, is it? I’m buggered if I know what it is about, but democracy it isn’t.

The Guardian has had a legal sock stuff in their mouth by those champions of justice Carter-Fuck on behalf of Trafigura…

The Guardian has been prevented from reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds which appear to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights.

Today’s published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.

The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.

The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck, who specialise in suing the media for clients, who include individuals or global corporations

I am absolutely staggered that a court would give such an order.

Alex Massie in the Spectator reckons he knows what the question is and the gagging order is to try and suppress this report.

This gagging order may not go right to the heart of Parliamentary privilige, which alllows an MP to speak in the house without fear of being prosecution or legal action, but it punctures a lung of an open parliament.

It may be the case that groups and individuals may be barred from being named, granted anonymity, in the reporting of parliament for reasons of national security, but to have that applied purely for commercial reasons is disgusting.

An open, freely reported parliament is essential for a smoothly run and corruption-free (as far as possible) democracy.

Something has gone very, very wrong.

I also found this at Sweeney* Maddison, the judge that approved/passed/whatever-it’s-called the order needs his arse kicking about this, too.