Usefully Useless

After yet more barely coherent babble by Argentina, maybe it’s time to look at the history of the Falkland Islands and just see if Argentina has any claim at all to them.

The islands were first administered by France in 1764. 1765, Captain John Byron explored and claimed another island in the archipelago for Britain, 1766 saw more islands being claimed for Britain.

From 1770 to 1771, Britain withdrew from the islands, allowing Spain to move in, though the British did not relinquish their claim of sovereignty. Spain ruled until 1811 before withdrawing to support its struggle against Bonaparte back home.

The United Provinces of the River Plate (United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata) claimed the islands in 1820, which wasn’t taken seriously by anyone – since both British and Spanish claims were still outstanding, leading Luis Vernet to ask permission of the British to set up a settlement, since the Spanish were in no state (nor had the will) to be colonising the few islands.

From 1826 to 1828, The United Provinces of the River Plate (later to become the nation of Argentina) obtained permission from Britain to operate a settlement on the islands with the understanding that the settlement would provide reports and materials to the British in return for British protection, should Britain decide to return to a permanent occupancy on the islands. The Argentine effort was led by Vernet who was made governor of the islands.

When the Americans invaded Falklands waters to hunt seals, Vernet had the crews arrested and tried for violating restrictions on seal hunting. In 1831, the USS Lexington destroyed the entire Puerto Luis settlement to show that might makes right. That incident provoked the British Foreign Office to re-assert its claim of sovereignty over the islands. Fresh from their beating by the British in the War of 1812 and knowing the Revolutionary War insurrection was a lucky break, the Americans did not wish to engage the Royal Navy over a few barren pieces of rock. HMS Clio and HMS Tyne were not long in arriving to enforce the will of the British, each of which far more than a match for anything the US Navy could muster. By 1833, Britain was in direct administration of the islands once again.

It is recognised that Argentina never actually had a legitimate claim to the islands as, overlapping their own claim, both the Spanish and the British had claims pre-dating it. Indeed, Vernet’s operations were done with British permission (if not under her flag) and without any prejudice as to the British claim of sovereignty.

Argentina’s claim was mostly smoke and mirrors until 1982, when an invasion force was launched by the Argentinian military junta. Believing the British would not enforce their rightful sovereignty, the deeply unpopular military dictatorship thought it would win the hearts of the people by controlling the islands. Alas, Britain did wish to enforce the will of her people and gave the military junta the biggest kicking of its short life, resulting in its eventual collapse.

This had the unfortunate effect of steeling British will and, via the principle of self-determination, ensuring that Britain would defend her territory in perpetuity. With a military might hugely in excess of anything Argentina can possibly muster and with the proven ability to project that might, any complaint would have to be reserved to diplomatic channels.

Which brings us to today. Argentina’s already weak claim, based on barely five years of occupancy under British licence, is arguing against 177 years of continued British presence and administration. While the usual crowd of Venezuela and Peru have banded behind the Argentines, most nations are dismissive of Argentina’s claims. If a territorial claim from almost two hundred years ago could be resurrected, it would result in global chaos.

With the discovery of commercially exploitable oil reserves, Argentina is once again asserting its sovereignty of surrounding waters, extending its territorial waters claim way out from its own coast in a suspiciously convenient finger arcing through the Falkland Islands, forcing British vessels to undergo all manner of unreasonable searches and detaining those carrying oil industry equipment. Argentina has already ruled out any military action (probably on the grounds of attacking a first-world nuclear nation with an extremely powerful navy being not entirely wise) and instead wants to sway international opinion against the British.

Hugo Chaves, the humourously deluded amateur TV personality and president of Venezuela made this amusing statement: “Queen of England, I’m talking to you. The time for empires is over, haven’t you noticed? Return the Malvinas to the Argentine people.” In it, he’s quite strangely neglecting that Argentina has never owned the islands, so such a “return to the Argentine people” makes not a shred of sense.

Indeed, in 1995 the British agreed with Argentina to share proceeds of any oil development around the islands in international waters. Argentina then wanted to expand the agreement to Falklands territorial waters, which Britain was most unhappy with and refused, resulting in Argentina unilaterally tearing up the deal.

The Argentines know that any military action against the British islanders, with Venezuelan support or not, will be met with overwhelming response from the Royal Navy and so does Chavez, the dictator well known for grandoise claims and little known for grandoise action.

Expect this kind of rubbish from time to time. It’s the Argentina’s way of reminding everyone that it still claim those little islands which it has no historical claim to, so Argentina simply makes a lot of noise and hopes no historians are listening.

Answer? They’re all repressive power-mad regimes and they all want to censor Google. Wait, Australia?

Oh yes. Australia continues to hurtle along the line of a government approved Internet only. Clueless Communications Minister Stephen Conroy wants mandatory ISP censorship of any content ‘refused classification’ by the government and recently set his sights on dissenters on YouTube.

Wanting Google to filter YouTube of any comments critical to the rulers, Conroy stated in the state-filtered media “Google at the moment filters an enormous amount of material on behalf of the Chinese government,” moments after trying to justify it with “in Australia, these are our laws and we’d like you to apply our laws” where it’s clear that Conroy admires the Great Firewall of China and wants to build his own Great Internet Barrier Reef.

Google, naturally, told the repressive regime to go screw itself. Conroy’s comments come just days after Google’s spat with the Chinese authorities and Google’s decision to stop self-censorship in China.

The idea is that the Australian govermnent wants to block anything it doesn’t like the smell of using the Australian movie, video games and entertainment ratings board. If the government gives out a “Refused Classification” notice, said content disappears from the Internet.

Australia, you are a tiny economy and a negligible player on the world stage – Any prestige you may have was inherited from us. If you want a policy of isolation, don’t be surprised when people treat you as the totalitarian hell hole without respect for basic human rights that you are. You’re already facing huge skills shortages and let’s face it, a land which is variously deadly venomous or on fire isn’t an attractive target for skilled workers. Adding a power-obsessed regime into the mix makes it not just unattractive, but a place to avoid.

Jim McCormick, director of the company ATSC, was yesterday (Friday 23rd) arrested on suspicion of fraud by misrepresentation.

For around £30,000, he would sell you an “explosives detector” (Iraq spent about £52 million on them) which worked using the “body’s own static electricity” for power. The device had a wand on a loose hinge and “detector cards” would slot into the base to make it detect different things, in ATSC’s claims anything from TNT to semtex to elephants with the ADE-651 (the device in question). I didn’t make that last one up.

Except that BBC’s Newsnight got hold of one of the cards, one for TNT, and had it analysed. It turned out to be nothing more than a simple retail anti-theft tag. In essence, the device is a dowsing rod, which have never been shown to work any better than dumb chance in any trial. Iraq has ordered an investigation, the UK has banned their export and Mr McCormick is looking at time behind bars.

I’d like to know what the hell Iraq was thinking of? The FBI had had warnings out since 1995 not to use “bogus explosives detectors”, the ADE-651 had never passed a single effectiveness test and James Randi offered McCormick his $1 million USD prize for proof of paranormal power should the ADE-651 pass a controlled effectiveness trial.

All the warning signs were there, yet Iraq still blew £52 million on a piece of plastic, a few clothes tags and a bent coathanger which was even claimed by its own vendors to operate in a “non-scientific” way.

Hard-line extremism seems to be everywhere. Stop them talking about who’s god is bigger than who else’s, and you’ll find the BNP and Iran have a lot to agree on. Far-right extremist parties are popping up all over the place, typically playing on the hyped-up “Islamisation” card to convince people that doing as the Muslims do is a good thing, sacrificing your own freedom for some “greater good”. It doesn’t make much sense when put like that, does it?

The latest band of gullible idiots comes to you from Switzerland. Newcomers to the extremist brigade, the Swiss have recently decided that they’re going to ban minarets. Yes, you read me right, minarets. So much for the Swiss’ muchly bragged about “direct democracy” protecting the rights of the people, how can it protect the minorities from the tyranny of the majority?

The Swiss apparently agree with Iran that banning the construction of religious buildings they don’t like is the way forward. As Iran doesn’t permit the construction of Christian churches, the Swiss believe the Muslims are worth copying, so have pretty much banned the construction of Mosques.

Here’s a hint, you idiots, if you want to fight something you don’t generally accept and copy their beliefs!

So while Europe seems to be busy converting to extremism, is there really any need for external threats like the Taleban anymore? We’re quite capable of destroying ourselves, thankyou very much.

It’s just before dawn and you’re getting out of bed, ready to shower, make breakfast and go to work.

Just then, government forces with submachine guns break down your door and forcibly bundle you into a vehicle with blacked out windows. You’re taken to jail on suspicion of a crime – They think you’re a subversive, you might believe things the government says you’re not allowed to, but you’re not allowed to know what.

You’re denied bail and you still don’t know what it is you’re supposed to have done. The government considers the evidence to be secret, such that you can’t see it. Your access to a lawyer is only a few minutes a week, even if he was able to prepare a defence for you, which he’s not allowed to do.

Which country are you in? Iran? Zimbabwe? Maybe Orwell’s fictional 1984 dystopia?

No, you’re in Britain. Manchester, to be specific.

It took senior judges to point out the clear injustice and absurdity of what happened when, to two men from Manchester, this ostensibly western government turned on them.

Let’s hope this abortion never, ever becomes law. This is the Government’s beleagured response to entertainment industry lobbying. I’ll go through it point by point.

Without any evidence, without any trial, without any proof, you can be disconnected from the Internet if anyone from the entertainment industry complains.
All it takes is an accusation and it only applies to music or movies. Not photographs, not paintings, not poetry, not opera, dance, novels, etc. If you manage to accumulate three of these special accusations, you’re cut off from the Internet pretty much forever – Without any form of trial or proof. Oh, did I say “you”? I meant “anyone in your household”.

Your Internet Service Provider is legally mandated to spy on you.
Any “evidence” the movie or music industries can use to sue you, or anyone in your household, your ISP is legally obliged to collect it. This basically means they have to monitor everything and anything you do online, or they’ll be fined £250,000 per instance. Then you’ll be fined £50,000, as well as being cut off for life.

The Business Secretary gets arbitrary power to do whatever the hell he likes
This includes making up new offences, setting new penalties including jail time…and better yet, the Business Secretary (one Peter Mandelson) has stated that he’ll use private enforcers provided by the entertainment industry who will have the legal right to hack into your computer(s).

Video games will get a strict new censorship regime
This means that many titles will not be able to be sold in the UK. Rather than use the popular (it’s used across Europe) and successful PEGI system or even renovating the existing BBFC standard, they’re inventing a completely new system which appears to be among the harshest in the world.

Digital Economy?
There’s no mention of anything remotely to do with the “digital economy” other than a mandate for Ofcom to review infrastructure every two years and a 50p/month stealth tax on telephone line rental. That’s really it. No addressing of our decidedly mediocre broadband performance. No dealing with astronomically high mobile data charges.

So will it pass? Very, very unlikely. The Tories have already opposed it and the Liberal Democrats are very likely to reject it.

We’re seeing quite a lot of this in the news, but we haven’t had one recently. So what exactly is it?

To start off we need some General Election results, so I’ll use an Ipsos Mori poll, which gives 37% to the Tories, 31% to Labour and 17% to the Lib Dems. Assuming next year’s election has the same result, this would result in a hung parliament.

When parliament is “hung”, it means there is no government. A government is whichever party has control over the House of Commons and at 37%, the Tories would not have control: They could be defeated by the combined 48% of Labour and the Lib Dems.

After an election, the Queen asks the leader of the controlling party to form a government, yet no party would be in control and hence the electoral process is “hung”, it cannot proceed. By “in control”, it’s meant that a single party could unilaterally introduce and pass legislation.

The last time this happened was in 1974, where a re-election happened again in the same year. There are usually three options:

1. A coalition government can be formed. On the continent, this tends to be the norm. Two (or more) parties will agree to work together to form a majority government, subject to certain concessions. If our 2010 election is hung, the balance of power lies in the Liberal Democrats – Whoever they form a coalition with will be the government.

2. A re-election can be issued. There are no guarantees that such an election would result in a clear majority, but they often do.

3. A minority government can be formed. This is the weakest option, as the government would not have control of the House and so could be defeated at any time and an election forced. A minority government is usually the party which has more representation than any other single party, but if the opposition parties were to band together, they could defeat the incumbent, something not possible in a majority government. A minority government can have severe problems passing crucual legislation, such as The Budget and will often have to make serious concessions in order to pass such legislation.

In all likelihood, the Conservatives will win the election outright and Brown will be probably resign as Labour leader but if they don’t, then whoever Nick Clegg decides to work with will be the key question being asked.

After a lunatic who should never have been given a licence in the first place shot up a school (Hamilton, Dunblane), the knee-jerk political reaction was to ban handguns and further tighten firearm laws.

It’s resulted in this. A former soldier is now faced with 5 years in jail for handing a shotgun, which he found laying around outside, handing it in to the police.

The police immediately arrested him for possessing an unlicenced firearm and the judge has no option: The law is very clear that ANYONE, regardless of intent, holding a firearm is guilty with a minimum sentence of five years.

This man served his country as a soldier, then tried to serve his country again as a good citizen. Then they locked him up for no good reason. The Government wants to get firearms off the streets, so why is it that if you hand one in to the police, you’re guilty of a crime carrying a minimum term of five years?

We need a Government able to make laws which do not carry harsh, knee-jerk sentences in emotionally charged times. We do not have one. It’s time for democracy to work for the people rather than against them.

Two more members of the ACMD have resigned over political interference in the scientific process. Alan Johnson, Home Secretary, is increasingly in an ever more beleagured position after his blundering reaction to Prof. Nutt has disturbed a hornet’s nest.

But that’s not why this post is here. This post is for the most hilarious, backwards, reality-denying piece of “journalism” I’ve ever read. Yes, it’s the Daily Mail.

Go on, read it.

It essentially boils down to “The problem with science is that it’s based on facts”.

At no point does the Daily Mail tell us why we shouldn’t trust facts, indeed about half way down it Godwins itself by pointing out that the Nazis used facts too.

So then, Daily Mail, if we are not to use facts, then what are we to use? Hunches? Wild guesses? Chicken entrails?

Do people really fall for this blatant propoganda?

With all the news about Murdoch’s “The Sun” daily tabloid shifting its support to the Conservatives, it’s about time for a look at who’s suppirting who. After all a good lot of people vote how they’re told to vote by the newspapers rather than do any reading into party manifesto statements.

The Sun (Aug 2009: 3.1 million daily)
Part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, The Sun has a long history of seeing which way the wind is blowing and following suit. Tory fanboys all the way through the 1980s (and hugely critical of the miners in 1985) and famously ran a huge smear campaign against Neil Kinnock personally for the 1992 election. Almost apologetically after the horrors of John Major’s 1992-1997 power, The Sun switched to Labour in 1997 when it became clear that the Tories had extremely little support. They supported Labour in 2001 and 2005, though the latter was with some reservations.

The Sun hasn’t been without its share of idiocy. It was well ridiculed for running a headline decrying the paedophilia of a teacher who sexed up a 17 year old student, then two pages later it printed a topless shot of a 16 year old on its famous “Page 3″.

The Sun, as with most tabloids, does not publish under its own name on Sunday. Instead the sleaze-basket “News of the World” takes over, which is almost entirely concerned with scandals – And has been embroiled in them itself, quite often on the business end of a libel case or two. It was most noted lately for illegally hacking phones and placing illegal phone-taps and bugs, which drew the resignation of its editor and charges.

Support: Conservative Party

Daily Mail (Aug 2009: 2.1 million daily)
The Daily Mail has long been a supporter of “middle Britain”, though what the Mail defines as “middle Britain” is “right-wing nationalists”. The Daily Mail tends not to unambiguously support one party, but instead prefers authoritarian strong-arm politics no matter who’s championing them. For the Mails many failings, they’re at least consistent in this (It is much like the Financial Times and Independent). The tabloid is likely to support David Cameron’s Tory party in the next election, though it does back many of Brown’s policies, such as his hard stance on gambling and alcohol, for example. The Daily Mail supported “New Labour” as it correctly identified their policies as conservative (lower-case “c”) in nature, most notably at the 2001 election. This earned the tabloid the support of many disillusioned Daily Mirror readers and it took the second place spot from under The Sun.

In recent years, the Mail’s penchant for far-right extremism has drawn attention to it and earned it the nickname “Daily Fail” for some of its more absurd stories, one of the most amusing was using an extremely badly doctored picture of its own on the opposite sheet to a “scandalous” exposé of photo doctoring! The Daily Mail is the only popular newspaper to have come out in support of the British National Party.

The Mail’s Sunday publication “The Mail on Sunday” is much of the same, but more op-ed columns (usually decrying the fall of “family values”, much to the chagrin of women’s rights groups) and a rather unhealthy fascination with cancer.

Support: Conservative Party, British National Party, UK Independence Party

Daily Mirror(Aug 2009: 1.3 million daily)
Like a sycophantic office clerk, the Daily Mirror (before it’s rebranding to “The Mirror” then back again) has always supported Labour and likely always will. This does not mean the paper hasn’t attacked Labour when necessary: The paper famously came out against the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, for example.

The Daily Mirror felt betrayed by Blair’s conservative policies as “New Labour” and were a little lukewarm in their support while Blair’s popularity was at a peak, losing readers to the Daily Mail in this instance. It’ll likely be the only national newspaper supporting Labour in the 2010 election and mocking the Tories, though The Guardian will join in the Tory mocking, it is unlikely to be a strong supporter of Labour.

Support: Labour

Daily Star(Aug 2009: 887 thousand daily)
About as sleazy a tabloid as possible with little to offer other than sensationalist nonsense. During the 2005 election, they gave out a window sticker proclaiming one’s house as “A CANDIDATE-FREE ZONE” to promote apathy, yet another day they told voters to go vote regardless of their choice.

The Daily Star is the low-market sister publication of the Daily Telegraph, so will probably sway to the Tories before the 2010 election.

Daily Telegraph(Aug 2009: 810 thousand daily)
The charter opposite of the Daily Mirror: Known as the “Daily Torygraph”, they’re Conservative to the bone. The Telegraph stayed loyal during the mid and late 1990s when others abandoned Major’s sinking ship and Hague’s patchwork pony. Many moons ago, it was a fierce Liberal supporter. The Telegraph’s response to Labour’s huge victory in the 1997 elections earned them some well-deserved ridicule.

The Telegraph prints little that isn’t scathing of Labour, even somehow managing to blame Labour for the failings of Conservative-controlled councils in many instances!

Support: Conservative (but sympathetic to the UK Independence Party)

Daily Express (Aug 2009: 730 thousand daily)
A yo-yo of a political supporter, as it bounced from one owner to another so did its support. Recently has been extremely critical of Labour and particularly Gordon Brown. It was largely on the fence in 2005 with half-hearted support for the Conservatives, but is gearing up for a much stronger Tory support in 2010.

Support: Conservative

The Times(Aug 2009: 576 thousand)
One of the older papers and of higher quality than the above tabloids, it typically caters for a more educated and wealthy audience, so has to stand more middle of the line, the educated typically leaning left, the wealthy leaning right. Like The Sun, The Times is a product of Rupert Murdoch’s media machine and so it is forced to give support along Murdoch’s whim: Labour in 2001, 2005, but recently critical of them and supported the Tories in the recent European elections. Just like The Sun.

Support: Conservative

The Financial Times (Aug 2009: 396 thousand)
Typically supportive of liberal economic policies, which in the UK are distinctly part of conservativism (as opposed to the US, where the Republicans are the conservatives and generally oppose market freedom, via such measures as tariffs, corporate welfare and government bail-outs). Following this line, the Financial Times backed Thatcher’s extensive privatisation reforms in the 1980s and the conservative (lower case “c”) policies of Blair’s “New Labour” in the 1997-2005 timeframe.

The FT has not yet come out in favour of either of the two major parties, largely because both have near identical economic policies while it is never going to support the Liberal Democrats due to their leftish economic position.

Support: Neutral

The Guardian(Aug 2009: 311 thousand)
Strongly leftist, The Guardian is one of the few national papers of notable circulation to support the Liberal Democrats, though it reserves some areas of support for Labour. Traditionally it has supported Labour, but recently wanted Brown to step down. The Guardian’s 2005 support was Labour, but not at all very convincing and much space was given to the Lib Dems.

Support: Liberal Democrat, Labour

The Independent(Aug 2009: 188 thousand)
The paper itself takes a position slightly left of centre, but (like the Daily Mail and Financial Times) supports whatever party happens to agree with its centre-left position. With both Labour and the Conservatives very much right of centre, if the Independent supports anyone, it’ll be the Liberal Democrats.

Support: None, Liberal Democrats