Bel is thinking

Yeah, that’ll show him.

Good to hear that David Cameron has no plans of implementing the proposal from one of his policy groups to levy charges on shoppers in out-of-town shopping centres.

Yes, it was only a proposal, and it hadn’t even been adopted by the party, but the media were all out with the line that ‘Cameron considers taxing shoppers for parking their cars.’ He was therefore wise to come out and disown the policy before it caused any more trouble.

The media obviously do not get the distinction between a proposal that has been put to the party for consideration, and one that has been adopted by the party. This out-of-town shoppers’ tax was clearly the former, but you wouldn’t know that from reading the headlines.

Still, in a way, I blame Cameron. What really is the point of making public all these mad ideas coming out from these policy groups? Why not consider the proposals in private until they have been adopted as party policy? Yes, I know, he is trying to counter the charge that he has no policies, but frankly, it is better to have no policies than to have daft ones.

Is there perhaps some way that any looney ideas from these policy groups can be put to David Cameron in private? On second thought, better not. David Cameron has shown himself to lack judgement on some very serious issues (remember grammar schools?). Who therefore knows what proposals the man may adopt in private, without the eye of the media (and the public) on him? The public reaction has told him to disown this ’shoppers’ tax’ policy fast, and that is a very good thing. I for one do not trust David Cameron’s judgement, so perhaps it is better for all the policy proposals to be given as wide publicity as possible. That way, if he is tempted to abandon common sense and adopt some crazy proposal, then maybe, just maybe, the media reaction will talk him out of it.

Glad to hear that Kathleen Jennings, the teenager who was prosecuted for putting her feet on the seat of a train, has been given an absolute discharge by Chester Magistrates’ Court. I don’t know about anyone else, but I do not want to live in a society where putting one’s feet on a train seat is enough to warrant a criminal record.

Yes, anti-social behaviour should not be tolerated, but in a civilised society, the punishment must be proportionate to the act. An on-the-spot penalty should have sufficed in this case, especially given that the defendant promptly took her feet off the seat and apologised when challenged.

We are right to be worried about the breakdown of law and order in Britain. Anti-social behaviour, left unchallenged, corrodes the substance of society. It is therefore right that it be challenged, but not, not at all, at great cost to our sense of fairness.

When I hover my cursor over a link, I should get some information at the bottom of the screen about where that link is going to, such as the name of the target website etc. As of today, it has stopped happening in Firefox. I hover the cursor over a link, and nothing! No information at the bottom of the screen. I don’t like this, because I like to know what a link is pointing to before I go there. Does anyone have any ideas as to how I can fix this?

It’s working fine in Internet Explorer, but that is no way near enough incentive for me to switch to IE.

UPDATE. Kindly disregard, I seem to have fixed it somehow.

Patrick Mercer, the Conservative Party spokesman for Homeland Security, has just stepped down from his post.

The MP, who served in the Armed Forces for many years before entering Parliament, had this to say about allegations of racism in the Army:

But that’s the way it is in the Army. If someone is slow on the assault course, you’d get people shouting: ‘Come on you fat bastard, come on you ginger bastard, come on you black bastard’.

He also claimed that in his time in the Armed Forces, he knew many soldiers who were “idle”, and who used claims of racism to excuse their poor performance.

Predictably, the knives came out. Labour MP, Dawn Butler, of whom I had never heard before this afternoon, has been uttering some sanctimonious words about how ‘the Tories have not changed’.

Shahid Malik, of whom I have heard, albeit nothing impressive, has declared Mercer’s comments to be ’shocking’. He then seized the opportunity to describe the Conservative Party as sexist, racist and homophobic.

My view? I don’t see what all the fuss is about. Patrick Mercer recounted what used to happen in the Army when he was a soldier. Is he now to be punished for attesting to what he observed in his many years as a soldier? Has it not occurred to all the people claiming outrage out there, that as an old soldier, Mr Mercer may actually know what he is talking about? The fact that he speaks of a reality different to what PC Britain would wish its Army to be, does not mean he should be punished for it.

Actually, what Patrick Mercer is saying, far from being offensive, makes the very good point that where there is camaraderie and close relationship, comments which one may otherwise see as racist are not actually so. I know that the jokes I endure from my friends of other races, while they may seem offensive to the causal bystander, are clearly not so when considered in the context of our relationship. Why? Because the balm of friendship takes away any sting of racism. Being called a ‘black bastard’ by an angry drunk in the pub is a totally different matter from being called that amid the casual joshing of Army training. The relationship matters, and the context matters.

None of that matters, however, in our PC-indoctrinated society. Rather, Patrick Mercer is condemned for describing Army life as he saw it. As for his claim about knowing ‘idle’ soldiers who used racism as an excuse, if that was what he witnessed, why shouldn’t he say so? Are his critics claiming that no single ethnic minority worker is guilty of this behaviour? Are all ethnic minority workers symbols of hard work and dedication to duty? Is it really implausible that there may have been a few such ‘idle’ soldiers in Patrick Mercer’s regiment?

The PC version of reality, where no one, not even the closest of friends, indulges in any racial teasing, and where all black workers are paragons of hard work, is sadly not reflective of society. However, there is great peril in pointing this out, as Patrick Mercer found out today.

How well do you know the Bible? Here are my results:

To tell you the truth, I am not that surprised. My ma taught me well.

Hat tip: Tom Paine.

Sorry for the lack of posts over the past few days. I felt I needed a break from writing about our increasingly totalitarian state, and the bunch of incompetent men and women who currently govern us.

One must maintain one’s equanimity, even if that means refraining for a time from blogging.

I’m back now.

I am excited by the news that someone has discovered 120 poems written by Sara Coleridge, the daughter of Samuel Coleridge.

Who would have thought it? Probably not Coleridge himself. He wrote his poem ‘Metrical Feet - Lesson for a boy’, to teach his sons all about the different metrical feet used in English poetry. In the first draft of the poem, it was addressed to his first son, Hartley. He later revised it to refer instead to his other son, Derwent.

The poem has a touching second stanza devoted to Derwent, expressing Coleridge’s hopes that he grow up to be a good man, and a fine poet. I quote a part:

If Derwent be innocent, steady, and wise,
And delight in the things of earth, water, and skies;
Tender warmth at his heart, with these meters to show it,
With sound sense in his brains, may make Derwent a poet –

So Hartley first, and then, Derwent. Not a word about Sara. Perhaps Coleridge didn’t think she would make a good poet. Small wonder no-one thought to check before now whether she had actually written any poetry.

I look forward to reading her poems.

Work commitments. Be back shortly; as soon as I have caught up with all the day’s news.

Time, it seems, for that most unsettling of British spectator sports: public lynching of young women.

After revealing a particularly nasty side to her character while in the Big Brother house, Jade Goody finally emerged on Friday to a torrent of abuse, accusations and self-righteous condemnation. One may say she brought it all upon herself. However, in falling over each other to call for the public abasement of Ms Goody, are not the tabloid media engaging in the sort of behaviour for which they rightly condemned Jade Goody?

Jenny McCartney in the Sunday Telegraph sums it up thus:

Viewers have been rightly disgusted by the bullying of Shilpa Shetty inside the house, but another nasty little gladiatorial drama is set to unfold outside: the dismantling of Jade Goody, a damaged, foolish girl first randomly raised up and then permitted to destroy herself for a nation’s sport.

And she is right. There seems to be an almost unnatural glee in witnessing the downfall and public humiliation of Jade Goody. It is true that by her behaviour, she brought shame upon herself, and caused real suffering to another. However, a public crucifixion is hardly the way to deal with the errant Goody. She must be given the space to redeem herself in any way she can.