This lecture by Henry Porter is vital stuff. Read it before it slides behind The Independent’s infernal subscription wall in a few days.

(Thanks to Tim for the link.)

According to the BBC, it appears that at least two of the 16 people who are currently under these Control Orders are on the run.

One of them, appears to have been “missing” for “some months” !

Section 14 of the Act provides that, every 3 months, the Secretary of State must

(a) prepare a report about his exercise of the control order powers during that period; and

(b) lay a copy of that report before Parliament.

Such a report was made by Tony McNulty, the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety on the 11th September 2006 i.e. when the Home Office must have known that one of the, supposedly most dangerous people, in the UK was missing.

read the rest…

Richard Norton-Taylor on the al-Jazeera memo and how the two men charged with ‘disclosing’ the document are to be tried in secret:

At a time when David Blunkett makes money by revealing cabinet discussions, we are prevented from hearing evidence against defendants in a criminal trial simply, say some who have read the memo, to protect ministers from embarrassment. It is a genuine scandal. It is even more so given Blunkett’s suggestion on Channel 4’s Dispatches programme last night that the US bombing of al-Jazeera would have been justified at the time of the invasion in 2003.

What Norton-Taylor doesn’t say is that Blunkett is going around this week and causing more embarrassment, for himself and others, than the leaking of the memo ever could. As Dave W points out, Blunkett certainly seems to have decided to deal and take the money rather than see what might be in a ministerial box.

Anyway, if anybody out there has a copy of the memo lying around and wants to share, I, amongst others, will happily give it an airing.

This from the parliament-square.org.uk email list:

BRIAN HAW IN COURT ON SOCPA CHARGES THAT COULD DETERMINE THE FUTURE OF HIS PARLIAMENT SQUARE PEACE PROTEST

Tuesday 12 September, 10am, Marylebone Magistrates Court

Brian Haw, the peace protestor who has been keeping vigil opposite the Houses of Parliament for over 5 years, is due to appear in court tomorrow in what could be an important case in determining if he is able to continue his protest.

Mr Haw faces charges of failing to comply with conditions that the police placed upon his protest in May this year under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCPA). After the Court of Appeal judgement on 8 May [A] which ruled that Mr Haw was not exempt from the SOCPA regulations, the police granted him permission to continue his demonstration subject to a comprehensive list of conditions [B].

These conditions relate to all aspects of Mr Haw’s protest including the size of the display and the number of people present at it. Mr Haw has said that many of the conditions are totally unreasonable, if not impossible to comply with.

This case is believed to be the first prosecution relating to failure to comply with SOCPA conditions. Other prosecutions under SOCPA have been for organising or participating in unauthorised demonstrations and there have been a number of convictions as a result. [C]

Since Mr Haw received the summons, the police have acted to force him to comply with the conditions by removing the majority of his display in Parliament Square during the night of 23 May. He has been left with an area of 3 metres within which any placards and personal possessions and any possessions belonging to those of his supporters must remain. [D]

Last week Mr Haw appeared in court seeking a postponement of the trial on two grounds but were unsuccessful. Mr Haw’s legal team were seeking a judicial review of whether the conditions imposed by police were lawful within the terms of the act, and whether the police were within their power to remove and confiscate Mr Haw’s display before the judicial process was exhausted. There is also a procedural matter that amongst the items confiscated were legal documents, evidence for the defence, private letters, etc. The fact that these items are now in the hands of the prosecution casts doubt on the lawfulness of any trial and prevents Mr Haw from preparing a defence.

INFORMATION

There will be a gathering in support of Brian Haw from 9.30 on 12 SeptemBer ouside Marylebone Magistrates Court, 181 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5QJ - Marylebone Tube Station (also near Baker Street and Edgware Road).

CONTACTS

Emma Sangster, supporter of Brian Haw, at
www.parliament-square.org.uk

NOTES:

A. For more on the Court of Appeal decision see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story/0,,1770525,00.html

B. Whilst the SOCPA law states that organisers of protests who apply for permission must be granted it, it allows for a wholesale curbing of any demonstration by the application of police conditions covering the time and duration of a protest, where it may be carried out, the number of people attending and the noise that can be made and the number and size of placards and banners. It also allows for any senior police officer to change the conditions at any point with no notice. For more information on the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 see:
www.parliamentprotest.org.uk or
www.parliament-square.org.uk/defendanalysis.htm

C. For more on SOCPA prosecutions see:
www.parliamentprotest.org.uk or
www.parliament-square.org.uk/defendaction.htm

D. For more on the dismantling of Brian Haw’s display by the police see:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1781182,00.html

UPDATED: Another email arrives:

PLEASE NOTE CHANGE OF VENUE FOR BRIAN’S COURT DATE TOMORROW

12 September 2006, 10am, City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, 70 Horseferry Road: Brian will be appearing on charges of failing to comply with the conditions the police have placed on his protest.

There will be a gathering in support of Brian from 9.30 outside City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, 70 Horseferry Road, London SW1P

UPDATE UPDATE: Case adjourned.

Will it work? Will the law change? Is it all just about annoying the authorities? Come along and find out: the next mass lone demonstration is handing in forms on 15 September between 5.30pm and 7.30pm at Charing Cross Police Station. The protests themselves will take place on 22 September from 6pm-7.30pm.

Your forms need to be with the police at any time up to six days before the event. For further information, call Charing Cross Police Station on 020 7240 1212 and ask for Special Events.

read the rest…

One of them, who I was told was the head teacher, actually went through the crowd picking on particular people saying “YOU! Home now, or you’ll definitely be in trouble!” Several of them, knowing that many of the kids aren’t very assertive, were ripping posters and signs out of their hands, saying “thank you, I’ll have that, thank you, off you go, away you go…” Blatantly trying to shore the situation up for Blair.

read the rest…

(via Tim who has more.)

Update: This from the Telegraph:

To hear Mr Blair’s words, it was necessary to rush away and find a television, which in due course played a tape of his vital announcement about his own future.

This included the words: “I think it’s important for the Labour Party to understand, and I think the majority of people in the party do understand, that it’s the public that comes first and it’s the country that matters, and we can’t treat the public as irrelevant bystanders in a subject as important as who is their prime minister.”

It was odd to hear these words having just been treated by Mr Blair as an irrelevant bystander.

Let’s face it, if we got a nice, fair, humanitarian government tomorrow, huge swathes of people would have a lot less fun. Maybe not Muslims trying to go on holiday, Iraqi civilians or Britain’s underclass but it’s a good bet that many a blogger, newspaper columnist, protester and weekly email comment sheet would be bereft. Railing against the current incumbent scumbags is such a joy.

(more…)

A jolly good time was had by all. Click on the photos for a closer look.

D-Notice has more photos. Davide has some as well.

Here’s the BBC write up. If you click on the video link on the top left of the page you can watch Mark Thomas debating with some Tory pilgarlic. You might see a couple of familiar faces in the background (Nosemonkey has screengrabs).

I’m doing a write up of the protest for The Friday Thing, due out a bit later today.

Update: Rachel has more.

Update update: I made it into Pink News.

Update update update: Chris King has some rather smart photos up. My ‘ghastly facial features’ (copyright Larry Teabag) feature once again. D-Notice has a write up with loads of links.

This via Rachel.

A recent damn-fool law has made it illegal to protest anywhere near Parliament without official police permission, and comedian Mark Thomas is organising a stunt to highlight the danger and stupidity of having this law in a democracy.

Please note that taking part in this is 100% LEGAL, and the whole purpose of the stunt is to overload the system by dozens of people all asking for permission to protest all at the same time.

The law: Under section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 [PDF] it is an offence to organise or take part in a demonstration in a public place within the “designated area” (up to 1 km around parliament) if authorisation has not been given by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. Participants may be subject to a fine of up to £1000 and “organizers” face up to a year in Jail.

DESIGNATED AREA. Dozens of people have been arrested for not complying with the law even when they are taking part in “Lone Demonstrations” - i.e. if they are one person with a placard.

Many people see this legislation as an assault on our civil liberties and human rights. It’s not always practical to plan a week in advance what government activities you may or may not disagree with. Sometimes a spontaneous response is called for. And surely the most appropriate place to demonstrate against the government’s actions is within the newly “Designated Area”, at the very core of this country’s democratic foundation.

And why is New Labour so concerned about peaceful protestors anyway?If you apply for permission 6 days in advance for a lone protest (ie 1 person) they cannot refuse permission, so in order to highlight the ridiculousness of having to ask for police permission to hold a peaceful demonstration, Mark Thomas is organising a mass lone demonstration evening.

Anyone who wants to demonstrate about any issue can come along, or even if you just want to demonstrate your disgust at having to ask for permission to protest in a supposedly free country. Remember. This will NOT be breaking the law in any way!

In fact the purpose of this is to get as many people as possible complying with a ridiculous law. All at the very same time! Huzzah!

Stage 1 - Decide on your protest! This can be something you feel strongly about or something very silly – it’s up to you. Then you need to fill in the official form (which is very simple) and there is a copy of the form here.

Stage 2 - Meet on Thursday 24th August outside Charing Cross police station any time between: 5.30pm-6pm to hand in your SOCPA forms. The address is Agar Street, London, WC2N 4JP and a map is attached. You have to fill in form and hand it in to the police 1 week before you protest, so everyone has to turn up at the same time to give their forms to>the Police. This will mean if 100 people turn up and apply for permission, then the unfortunate police have to license and approve 100 lone demonstrations. If you can’t make it to hand the forms in but want to demonstrate on the 31st, post them to: Ben Stern S2S Suite Z009 Old Truman Brewery 1 Brick Lane London E1 6QL.

Stage 3 - The mass lone demonstrations will be 1 week later on Thursday 31st August and will again be at 6:00pm for 1 hour, so this event is open to those with day jobs. Come along! Join in! Exercise your democratic rights! The more people who come the bigger an impression this will make!

EASY-PEASY STEP BY STEP

STEP 1 Forward this on to any friends who have a burning issue that they might need to protest about and persuade them to come as well. This is also for anyone who finds it terrible that we have to ask for permission from the Police to peacefully protest outside Parliament.

STEP 2 Print out form

STEP 3 Fill in form with the issue that you wish to protest about.

STEP 4 5.30 - 6pm Thursday 24th August, show up at the same time as other lone protesters at Charing Cross Police Station.

STEP 5 6pm Thursday 31st August, show up and protest about your personal issue in Parliament Square.

STEP 6 Consider continuing your protest again at a later date.

Again a group session for shy lone protesters will almost certainly be scheduled. Once again this is COMPLETELY LEGAL – in fact we are encouraging as many people as we can to apply to the letter of law simultaneously. Dozens of people have already agreed to do this so don’t worry that you’ll be doing this on your own. This is also likely to be covered by the press. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns about this event.

Big shout out from me to Ben and Chris Atkins S2S Post The Old Truman Brewery 91 Brick LaneLondon E1 6QLT: +44 20 7053 2190
F: +44 20 7053 2188

Links: www.parliament-square.org.uk
www.spy.org.uk/parliamentprotest

I’m going to try and be there - my form went in the post this afternoon.

Update: Forgot to say. My protest will be against the need to protest. A meta-protest if you like. Protesting takes up the time and resources of all those involved: protesters, spectators, news crews, policemen etc. So, if we ban the causes and catalysts of protest - wars, incipient totalitarianism, the assorted elected jerks who start the trouble in the first place and whatnot - everybody will have more time and money, and generally be much cheerier.

Time to put one’s money where one’s mouth is.

Inigo Wilson is a rancid, braying little tick. But I defend his right to be so. If only he was as funny as he and his swollen crew of bandwagon jumpers thought he was.

That said, if we’re going to rail against the Government’s attempts to police what we think and say then we also have to decry others attempting to do so. For the MPAC to play the man (by trying to get him sacked) rather than the worthless dross he’s peddling is like trying to catch the fish in the barrel with your teeth rather than taking a shotgun to them.

It’s intellectual cowardice - they don’t have the cojones or the brains to take Wilson down the smart way so they took the weasel’s shortcut instead. They could have showed themselves to be witty, intelligent debaters (maybe) but decided to go for his livelihood. It’s not as if Wilson revealed himself to be Bill Hicks reborn is it? I don’t think Armando Ianucci’s shaking in his shoes tonight, fearing the emergence of another crack satirist.

(This is little different from what an anonymous and cowardly little eunuch did to John Band - who, it must be said, is an inifinitely more sophisticated and insightful writer than Wilson - a while back. There were a lot of us who went berserk over that, and rightly so.)

In addition, by publicising this, everybody can see that for all David Cameron’s protestations to the contrary, the Tory leopard is having a bit of bother with its spot exchange. It’s cockle-warming to see that the foremost Tory website in the land gave Wilson houseroom. Let’s strike a blow for free speech while exposing what odious specimens lurk not far from the surface of the Tory respray. Double the fun. Cake not just had but eaten into the bargain.

So, save Inigo Wilson. Let him screech his message from the tallest spire!

Update: Whereas this is a disgrace:

I was proud to publish his sharply and well-written piece that used humour to expose the workings of the left.

Sharply and well-written? False advertising at the very least. Sack Tim Montgomerie.

Update update: Amendment to avoid the possible interpretation that the parties involved in this were mixed up in the John band business as well.

Update update update: More from Nosemonkey and Dave (twice). Tim W is rather good as well.

What about all this talk of ‘instant justice‘ then? It’s a lovingly crafted phrase loaded with meaning. Swift but fair. Efficient and balanced.

It’s judgement without a judge, a verdict without a jury. What they actually mean is ’summary punishment’. Which would probably play better to the hang ‘em/flog ‘em brigade but less so to fretful liberals.

Like all these measures brought in so that the police/governement/security services can be seen to be Doing Something, though, it’s to be wondered if this one might also have a dual use. Remember the terrorism laws being used to supress protest? This ‘instant justice’ could be used in a similar way. It’s a quick and easy way of having exclusion zones wherever the police want them.

Is a policeman, for instance, going to refuse the request of an MP who thinks protesters persistently gathering outside his constituency office present ‘a nuisance’? I’m thinking of the likes of ex-Hove MP and defence minister Ivor Caplin whose surgeries were regularly picketed by anti-war protesters. Ivor had quite a low opinion of protesters.

The police could ban protesters from gathering in the same place for up to three months under the plans. There’s your right of assembly under threat right there. What about at an arms fair? Anti-war demo? Or pro-hunting demo or anti-wind farm demo, if you prefer. It’s another of them there slippery slopes we’re always careering down.

Whether you - drunk, protester or bystander - are going to get ‘justice’, instant or not, will depend very much on the individual copper charged with dishing it out. Would you be comfortable with a policeman like Keith Empsall or Gary Waddoups (who had their own brands of ‘instant justice‘) using such powers?

You could do away with the ludicrous and controversial arrests under the terrorism legislation and label all unwanted protest as anti-social behaviour. No more embarrassing questions about the misuse of legislation - you can smear protesters as yobs and thugs causing a nuisance to ‘ordinary and decent’ citizens.

Even an entity as bovine as the great British public has refused to buy protesters as terrorists. Rhetorically stick a burberry cap on the same protesters and metaphorically hand them a Bacardi Breezer, however, and it’s a far easier pitch altogether.

Gordon Brown is planning a massive expansion of the ID cards project that would widen surveillance of everyday life by allowing high-street businesses to share confidential information with police databases.

read the rest…

(see also here and here.)

According to a recent survey only around five per cent of businesses are using biometrics. But as projects such as the ID cards scheme start to be implemented, the use of biometric security systems is likely to become more pervasive.

read the rest…

Although the fat lady (or possibly more appropriately, the portly former Home Secretary) has yet to sing on the subject, yesterday’s statements from the Home Office to make it a racing certainty that ID cards are dead in this parliamentary administration. The portly former Home Secretary meanwhile has been busy singing denunciations of John Reid’s misdeeds in other areas, but will no doubt warble on the sad end of ID cards just as soon as he gets a minute in his busy schedule.

read the rest…

Further to this and this, comes this:

I will form part of a human chain around the Westminster no protest zone but only if 6,000 other people will join in.

Go and sign up. Just don’t be first at the bar when we all get to the pub afterwards - that’s a big round.

TONY BLAIR’S flagship identity cards scheme is set to fail and may not be introduced for a generation, according to leaked Whitehall e-mails from the senior officials responsible for the multi-billion-pound project.

The problems are so serious that ministers have been forced to draw up plans for a scaled-down “face-saving” version to meet their pledge of phasing in the cards from 2008.

However, civil servants say there is no evidence that even this compromise is “remotely feasible” and accuse ministers of “ignoring reality” by pressing ahead.

read the rest…

Update: More at The Register.

…nobody. Although I was fortunate enough to have my question put to the Prime Minister in his recent webcast, it just became part of the expected unedifying spectacle. I imagine everybody involved had far more important things to do and I’ll generously include the Prime Minister in that. You can read the transcript, watch the video or download the MP3 here.

The piece of cake that is having your question addressed to the Prime Minister himself looks fabulous. A huge slab of light, golden sponge, stuffed with fresh cream and jam, and a thick layer of succulent marzipan on the top. Needless to say, in his refusal to answer my question to any satisfactory degree, the Prime Minister denied me the pleasure of eating said delight. Ah, the giddy whirl of speaking truth to power. To finally get a sniff of how soul-destroyingly frustrating and pointless life as a lobby journalist must actually be, is a real privilege.

(more…)

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill (provisionally) receives its Second Reading in the House of Lords on June 13. England play Trinidad and Tobago on the 15th but it’s probably not too late to move the debate back a couple of days to give it some covering fire.

Bit late with this, but still.

Government amendments (PDF, not for the faint-hearted) to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill were smuggled out on May 4 under cover of the local elections and cabinet reshuffle madness. While the amendments were taken at face value by some and greeted as a climbdown by the Government and a victory for the protesters, others do not see any significant changes or safeguards in place.

This from Save Parliament’s latest email bulletin:

Our initial reaction to the amendments was literally, “We’ve Won!” but after careful and detailed scrutiny by ourselves and a number of law professors we have uncovered that the bill still threatens democracy in much the same way.

…

The most worrying of the amendments is the use of the Law Commission. A minister may implement Law Commission recommendations ‘with or without’ changes’. This means the minister can used the bill to amend legislation based on the minister’s inital idea, regardless of the recommendation from the Law Commission. The bill also threatens the independence of the Law Commission, which presents a huge threat to civil liberties.

The bill still does not mention business, which means a burden can be anything a minister considers to be such, unless it affects only a minister or Government department. If a minister considers that trial by jury is a burden on the police, it could be abolished, for example.

Most of the bloggers (this one included) and the (very few) journalists who were chasing this before the local elections seem to have put their feet up when they should in fact be loading for bear. Coverage has all but dried up except in a few oases.

There’s also the business regulation aspect to consider which hasn’t had the scrutiny that the constitutional ramifications have (justifiably) enjoyed. As a comment on this post on the Save Parliament blog points out:

I always said this was a big business bill, not a civil liberties issue, from what I had read about it from Gordon Brown.

Its purpose is now explicitly to unilaterally strike out health&safety and environmental legislation that gets in the way of Profits. There is no counter-balance whatsoever to this primary purpose.

I believe that they originally hid this legislative intent inside the wider and more loosely defined powers in the hope that no one will notice. Now they will have to answer unavoidable questions, like what pollution regulation do you want to get rid of? Anti-pollution regulation is very popular, which is why we have it, and why they think the only way to get rid of this obstruction to profits is by executive privilege — ie the whim of some busy minister who believes that the Buncefield oil fire was just an accident and doesn’t see why the oil companies should pay.

Tony Blair likes to boast that the UK has “one of the most flexible labour markets of any major economy”. And under the L.a.R.R.B. it’s about to get positively flaccid. “Flexible”, to my mind, is another one of those leprous euphemisms so beloved of the low-wage conservatives that comprise the current class of professional political and business leaders (embodied in the stout frame of professional misanthropist, Digby Jones). Coming from Labour mouths, it’s redolent of “the working class can kiss my arse…”. Who profits? The widows of men who died after breathing asbestos for a living? They should promise to donate a percentage of any compensation they win to New Labour’s overdraft rather than squandering their time and health in the courts. It’s clear that, in the current climate, a decent lobbyist gets you far further than a decent lawyer.

It’s also worth noting that Blairite myrmidon and Parliamentary Under-Secretary Jim Murphy, previously in charge of ramming the bill home, was promoted in the recent reshuffle and is now a minister in the Department of Work and Pensions. The bill is now being steered by the new Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the erstwhile cack-handed chief whip, Hilary Armstrong.

According to the Save Parliament blog, the Bill is to pushed through its final stages on May 15 and 16. In other words, like guff through a goose.

For those interested in such things, Andy Burnham, the government minister previously responsible for cataloguing the population, was promoted in the recent reshuffle to become one of Patricia Hewitt’s understrappers at the Department of Health.

His successor (if you can call her that) is Joan Ryan. Time to get to know her. Anybody following this craptacular in the making can find her most recent utterances on the subject at They Work For You. TWFY also has a natty email notification feature to let you know when she (or anyone else for that matter) speaks. For those who understand such dark technologies, there’s also an RSS feed of her pronouncements.

Already, she does “not anticipate that the number of people choosing to renew early in order to delay enrolment on the National Identity Register will be significant in the context of the overall number of applications”. Prove her wrong.

In other news, Frank Abagnale has said he thinks ID cards will be cracked and forged within six months.

“silicon.com has been tracking the development of the ID card project since the beginning - and over the following pages we’ll take you through the A to Z of identity cards. We’ll tell you everything you wanted to know about the scheme… but were afraid to ask…”

read the rest…

Maybe you couldn’t really give a monkey’s about civil liberties, freedom of speech and all that hairy liberal guff that doesn’t get a look in on that Noel Edmonds vehicle you’re obssessed with.

But all this curtailment of liberty don’t come cheap. How much has making a martyr of Brian Haw cost the taxpayer for instance? What price persecuting, not to mention giving him more publicity than he could ever have dreamed of, a man who annoys only chinless researchers, bag carriers, and those with guilty consciences?

Troops in Iraq might have had to buy their own gear - and some have to go without - but you can bet what’s left of your pension that not a single policeman stationed around Parliament Square had to buy his own shiny combat boots.

Worth every penny, no doubt.

(Link via Tim)

This from the current Private Eye (sadly not online - come on Hislop) - click on the image for a larger view.

The gravy here is this:

“…the £3.9bn figure quoted in 2003 was an internal estimate untested in competition, and was calculated using a different price base to the £8bn.”

They might as well have just picked a figure from thin air. It’s like doing the weekly shop with only twenty quid in your pocket but being heedless of the price of the things you’re buying. A case of Stella Artois. Some fillet of beef from the butcher’s counter. A Simpsons DVD box set. You get to the till and of course you don’t have enough money. With a queue of people peering over your shoulder, one by one your little extravagances are knocked off your bill.

Not with this Government though. They hit the supermarket and go mental. Truffle oil. A whole tuna. A case of bourbon. Champagne. Cakes, loads of cakes. One of those stupid Terence Conran toasters. All seven Simpsons DVD box sets. They get to the till and on finding they don’t have enough money, instead of putting back what they can’t afford, they phone their mate. He’s put upon this mate, he works all hours and he’s knackered. But he never fails to turn up and empty his wallet. And he never complains. He’s never once said “no”. You know who this doormat is? This self-loathing shade who’ll do anything he’s told? The little guy of the gang whose always pushed around? It’s you, you dickhead.

During the ID card debate, Charles Clarke said this:

Our estimate of the average annual operating costs of issuing passports and ID cards to British citizens was published last year and at present is unchanged at £584 million.

Is that an “internal estimate”? Yes. Is it “untested in competition”? Yes again. Have you got your wallet handy? I think I hear the phone ringing. Run along.

What about the current wrestling over civil liberties then? Sexy or what? First Tony Blair and Henry Porter getting all Women In Love in the Observer yesterday and then Charles Clarke going threes-up with Simon Carr and Jenni Russell today.

I say “wrestling”. I’m being terribly cynical here but I’d bet my left plum that phalanxes of researchers and nuancers were conscripted to carefully craft Blair’s and Clarke’s responses. Charles Clarke’s fondness for what are known in the trade as “screamers“(!!!), however, does suggest an almost endearingly childlike regard to written communication on behalf of someone in the Home Office. I do hope it’s Charles. Picture him slipping notes to Gordon Brown in Cabinet meetings: “Do you like me!!? Yes [ ] No [ ]“. Or sending a memo to his Private Secretary, “I want these men drinking urine in an Algerian gulag before the month’s out!!!”

While gratifying to see two of the country’s most powerful taking the time to correct a perceived misinterpretation of their motives by such a small group (count them: Carr, Porter and Russell) of liberal journalists, it does make you wonder how and why they couldn’t find five minutes disabuse the media of another bigger, and ultimately disastrous, misconception and tell them, “hang on, lads, this 45 Minutes from Doom thing is complete bollocks”. Think of the lives that could have been saved with an exchange of emails with the editors of the Sun and the Evening Standard or a sneering lecture delivered after a large lunch.

Or have Tony and Charles only now decided to take on the media and the timing of their first go at it just happened to coincide with the civil liberties debate? They could do a spot of moonlighting for Medialens whose strapline reads, “correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media”.

We should await, with keen anticipation, their rebuttal of any black propaganda against Iran that might surface in our newspapers in the coming months. “Frankly it’s difficult to know where to start, given the mishmash of misunderstanding, gross exaggeration and things that are just plain wrong,” the Prime Minister will spit as he demolishes stories of Iran building nuclear weapons. “But I believe that a pernicious and even dangerous poison is now slipping into at least some parts of this media view of the world,” the Home Secretary will belch as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s proclamations are lampooned in the press as the rantings of a swarthy Hitler with little man syndrome.

Or would those stories be nothing-to-offer Zimbabwe compared to the civil liberty debate’s resource rich Iraq and therefore not worth trespassing on? Still, just because you can’t debunk all the myths doesn’t mean you shouldn’t debunk some of the myths.

See also: Tim, Longrider, Murky, qwghlm.

(And Blairwatch, Chris Lightfoot, Charlie, the Curious Hamster and Bookdrunk.)

A written parliamentary question from Norman Baker to ID Card myrmidon, Andy Burnham:

Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has ruled out use of DNA material as part of his proposed identity card scheme.

Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office): There are no powers in the Identity Cards Act 2006 to require an applicant for an ID card to provide a DNA sample.

Update: I meant “that’s not a yes”, obviously.