Bel is thinking

Despite well-founded fears and protests, the Government still intends to proceed with plans for a computerised NHS patients’ database. However, by a meaningless concession, there is an exemption for anyone who can show that inclusion on the database will cause ’substantial mental distress’. Bizarrely, the Government claims that the database will ‘protect patient confidentiality’.

You will not be surprised to hear that I oppose this database. I do so for much the same reasons that I opposed identity cards: an unwarranted intrusion into our lives by the state. Unlike the Government, I don’t think this will protect patient confidentiality. Rather the opposite. There are many other reasons that this scheme should be opposed. Morag the Mindbender wrote an excellent post a while ago, summarising the arguments against the database.

Even if anyone could be persuaded as to the supposed merits of this database, is there any amongst us who (still) has faith that the Government can execute and administer an IT project effectively?

Anyone?

Thought not.

I have just heard that Frank Johnson, one of the wittiest comment writers of our times, died this morning. I will greatly miss reading his Saturday columns in the Daily Telegraph. His unique style always had me chuckling over breakfast. Frank Johnson had a knack for turning out the most apt phrases. In fact, contemporary lore has it that it was he who coined the term ‘the chattering classes’. My condolences to his family and friends.

It seems the people over at the British Pregnancy Advisory Service are not happy unless they are causing outrage. Only a few days ago, they suggested that nurses be allowed to give abortion pills without the consent of doctors. Not satisfied with that, they have followed it up with this:

The leading sexual health care charity steps into a major row today by urging women to keep the “morning-after” pill alongside plasters and paracetamol in the bathroom, in case they have unprotected sex. (From the Daily Telegraph)

According to their spokesman, they would like a situation where the morning-after pill would be ‘as normal as Nurofen’. They prefer an abolition of the current restrictions on its supply.

These people are deluded. They have been led away blind by our hopelessly consumerised society. To them, pregnancy would appear to be no more than a commodity which a woman may or may not want, much like one would regard a pair of shoes in the shops; you go crazy in the sales and buy them, only to get home and change your mind. But no matter, so long as you kept the receipt, you can always take them back.

Pregnancy is not like that. A child is not a commodity. To my mind, the BPAS suggestion evinces a throwaway attitude to the life of an unborn child. A woman may do as she likes, and not worry about the consequences. Whatever happened to self-control, or God forbid, considering the consequences of one’s actions?

The BPAS is supposed to be a charity. Call me ignorant, but I thought that the general aim of a charity was to benefit society. Who exactly is the BPAS hoping will benefit from this suggestion? Certainly not the unborn child; in the BPAS mind, it is no more than a minor irritant unless the mother wants to keep it. Who then? The pregnant woman? Exactly how is promoting irresponsible, unprotected sex as a lifestyle choice supposed to benefit anybody? And let us not even consider the possible medical effects of excessive use of the morning after pill.

Whatever one might think about abortions, they are legal in this country, provided certain conditions are met. However, it is still a momentous decision for the woman in question. It is grossly irresponsible of the BPAS to trivialise the life of an unborn child in this way. They call themselves a charity, reaping the benefits of their tax-exempt status, yet by their pronouncements they show disregard for the basic values that make a society. Their wrong-headed approach to pregnancy and abortion will cause more damage in the long-term. They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Remember dear old Joyce and Sybil Burden, the octogenerian spinster sisters who sued the Government over their potential inheritance tax bill? They have just lost their case before the European Court of Justice.

To recap, they have lived in the family home all their lives, taking care of their father. On his death, the family home passed to them. They are worried that on the death of one of them, the surviving sister would have to pay inheritance tax on the share of the house passed to her. They fear that she may be forced to sell the house. (Actually, strictly speaking, there is provision in inheritance tax law for instalment payments in such a case as this, but how realistic is that, given the particular circumstances of this case?)

Anyway, the sisters went to court arguing that they were being discriminated against under UK law. The basis of their argument was that, if they were a lesbian couple in a civil partnership, the house would have been exempt from inheritance tax on the death of one or the other. The UK court dismissed their case, and they appealed to the European Court.

The two sisters have a valid point, but I always felt the ‘discrimination’ argument was not going to hold much water. Far better to have kicked up a fuss about the unfairness of inheritance tax. The solution they seek is more likely to be delivered by political means, rather than through the courts. Inheritance tax is an immoral tax. Apart from anything else, I fail to see the logic why a married couple or a civilly partnered couple can claim the exemption, but not, for example, two sisters. If the exemption is based on wanting to prevent much disruption in family life, surely the same could apply to two siblings living together. I’ll be the last person to quarrel about a tax break for married couples, but I fail to understand the limits of this particular exemption.

What about people who never marry? Are their survivors and dependants to feel the full force of the taxman’s ‘great clunking fist’? What is the rationale for that? Does the Government really believe that the unfairness and resentment that this creates is worth it for the extra £4bn a year that inheritance tax generates? This is an unnecessary and arbitrary tax, penalising hard work, savings and enterprise. If the Government will not abolish it, it should at least target the reliefs to prevent such manifest unfairness.

Interesting conversation at Ellee’s place about school nativity plays, with reminiscences aplenty. Worth reading for the feelgood sentiments.

Interesting comments to my earlier post, ‘How can we be racist? We’re Labour’. I thought that what Tom Paine had to say about the ideology of the Left deserved a wider audience. Here are snippets:

A person’s politics reflect how he thinks the world works - or should work. Whether a person is good or bad depends not on what he says or thinks, but on how he treats other people in practice.

Those on the Left see things differently. They see their political views as moral in themselves. A Leftist has fulfilled all his moral duties to others merely by adopting a “caring” political stance. He no longer has to do anything. He can just call for “the State” or “Society” to do it.

Leftists also see themselves as being in some sort of “communion” with each other, which they call “solidarity.” Whereas a Tory or Liberal does not have to like or even approve of every other Tory or Liberal, Leftists are supposed to stick together against “the enemy”, “the other”, “the heretic”, “the bourgeoisie”, “the Bosses’ Class” or whatever. …

This has dangerous consequences. If you see your politics as a moral stance, you are more likely to hate, less likely to be open minded, more prone to orthodoxy, more inclined to see contrary views as “thought crime” etc. Hence “climate change denial”, “hate speech” and political correctness. …

And he is right. See here for the full write-up.

On a lighter note, well done to that vicar for banning Santa Claus from his church service. In his words:

“In practical terms, this means that I do not believe that Father Christmas should be a part of church services any more than Santa’s grotto should have a manger and a baby Jesus present.

Keeping the two distinct is important for both.”

Just to point out that the person in the Santa costume was not actually thrown out of the church. That is, after all, not the Christian way. He was merely requested to divest himself of Santa attire.

Perhaps time that the Christmas message was reinforced with none of the frippery and fancy paganism that accompanies it. There is still a place for Santa, though. Only not in church.

I just thought I’d flag up the Blogpower initiative. It’s a good thing to get behind. It certainly has my wholehearted support.

A comment or two on the ongoing row about two Labour bloggers putting up a spoof picture of David Cameron, blacked up as a minstrel. (One of them has removed the post from his blog and apologised to everyone who was offended ‘except Tories’. What about black Tories, I wonder)

What I have found really interesting has been the reaction of both Bob Piper and Ministry of Truth (for it is they) to the people who criticised them. Critics were subjected to all manner of abuse, along the lines of ‘you are Tories, so who are you to talk about racism’. In addition to that, there were personal attacks, not to mention a few attempts by Bob Piper to reveal the identity of a Tory blogger who blogs under a pseudonym.

The fact that they were hitting out so vehemently and viciously at anyone who criticised them made me think. Especially when one considers that if a Tory councillor had done the same, these two bloggers would be leading the way with the ‘nasty party’ digs.

I have come to the conclusion that blindness of a sort has befallen these people. They genuinely cannot see how the spoof post they created could have caused offence. As Dizzy puts it, ‘[t]here is something worrying with this intellectual position that many on the Left have which asserts they are not capable of racism because of their ideological purity.’

I agree. Regarding the indignation of the two bloggers, the sub-text seems to be ‘how can anyone accuse us of being racist and offensive? We’re on the Left!!!’

And to my mind, their bafflement is genuine.

Poor souls.

General Pinochet has appeared before the great Human Rights Tribunal in the sky.

Wonder what he had to say in his defence.

His obituary is already on the Sunday Telegraph website. (Well, he was 91; they had ample time to prepare it.)