Terror Error?

A Home Office minister says he believes plans to extend detention of terror suspects will get through Parliament - saying he thinks MPs "will buy it". Under the new proposals, the home secretary would be able to immediately extend the detention limit of a suspect from 28 to 42 days, as long as it was supported by a joint report by a chief constable and the director of public prosecutions.

The extension would then have to be approved by the Commons and the Lords within 30 days. But if either House voted against it, the power would end at midnight on the day of the debate.

My arithmetic is not legend, but it seems to me that if a suspect is held for 28 days and a proposed extension of 14 days has to be approved within 30 days of the application, the suspect would be free before the extension could be either approved or rejected.

In any case, I don't see what all the fuss is about. If the authorities can't beat the information out of them in 28 days is another 2 weeks really going to make any difference?

And with all the invasion of privacy rights and electronic hardware at their disposal, how come they haven't built a watertight case before arresting the suspect in the first place?

Paying The Piper

Internet service providers could face a new tax to help pay for unprofitable programmes shown on ITV and Channel 4, which may in turn lead to higher broadband charges for consumers.

The levy could be imposed by the Government on the service providers and websites within the next few years, under proposals published yesterday about the future funding of "public service" programmes which make little or no money for commercial broadcasters.

What is public sector broadcasting?

In essence, it facilitates a stranger to exercise power and influence over our lives by making a programme that they decide we should watch or listen to rather than something else that we might choose to watch or listen to.

Of course I am upset that I am forced to contribute to paying this person but it is their arrogance in believing that they know what is good for me that I find truly insidious.

Presumably the rationale for using a levy on the internet to pay for television news is that the latter is much easier to manipulate than the former.

Alcohol Aware

This is my first ever posting on a blog but I have decided that my anger at the increasing hordes of people, organisations and authorities trying to interfere in my life needs to be expressed.

I am an individual. I am happy to accept factual information on earthly matters but I am not prepared to accept advice from others on how I should live my life. I am not prepared to accept interference or prohibition from authority except where my actions or proposed actions interfere with the rights of another individual.

All current trends are for the Government to try to become more involved in my life by prohibition, taxation and by invading my privacy. When their excuse for attempting to influence my life is that they do so for my own good,I begin to feel real rage. A line must be drawn here not only because I am affected by their interference but because they are trying to constrain your life too.

So, to kick off.

Who in the BBC decided that they should lead their morning news today with a story that a medical pressure group had called for wine in pubs to be sold in smaller glasses? The thesis was that this was at the root of the 'problem' of binge drinking.

They wheeled out a bearded busybody from Alcohol Aware who said that he would not only like to ban 250ml wine glasses but lower the alcoholic content of all drinks.

Was I alone in the world in being unable to conjure up any mental image other than that of his face disintegrating in slow motion under the impact of the fat end of a baseball bat?