Things that made me go "Grrr!"

For those who have been watching for this, the government's response to the sham consultaiton it carried out late last year on drugs policy, in the form of its new Drugs Strategy, is out tomorrow.

I can't do any better than to point you to Transform's pre-publication press release which just about covers all the things I am angry about this process, only in more measured language than I could muster!  No doubt there will be more tomorrow. 

Apparently wavey Davey Cameron was flouncing about with a "foot long form" that takes police "seven minutes" to complete in PMQs today, demanding that Mr Bean adopt their campaign to stop this bureaucratic nonsesne.

I rather hope that I am as unlikely as Davey or Gordon to be stopped and searched for whatever reason, but if I were, I would want a full justification for it, and there and then, in writing, and not on a tape that I would have to seek access to through some kind of data laws.

I am quite sure there is plenty of "bureaucratic nonsense" that the police have to carry out - like arresting people for possession of drugs say - that could be cleared away to better effect rather than a ticket that tells you, when you are wrongfully stopped and searched, why they suspected you, what for and what redress you can or cannot seek for the inconvenience.

Not quite content with their complicity in throwing smokers out into the cold, it appears some of our number in the Euro-parl are preparing to freeze us off those as well with the idea of a ban on patio heaters.  Yes, they may be gas guzzlers, but there are market ways of dealing with that through the taxation of externalities and fuel and so on to make people use them sparingly.

Why shoulddn't it be my choice, say, to save 100% of my vehicle emissions by not driving any longer but have the occasional night on the patio and be able to stay there for an extra hour maybe when there begins to be a nip in the air by cranking up the heater for a while.

Honestly.  What is it with some of our people and banning things.  It makes me want to declare that I am not in the same party as these people. 

A country where parliament has a role in sentencing a journalist to death for blasphemy is hardly likely to be open to the ministrations of one of the greatest liberals in the past few decades.  Coupled with the thought of having to shore up the ailing powerbase of former oil man and Bush placeperson Karzai, I reckon Paddy's had a lucky escape this time, despite his obvious enthusiasm and qualifications for the role he was set up for.

I reckon we may as well pull our troops out of Afghanistan.  If the Afghan government doesn't think they areworking for them the last ting we want is years, perhaps decades, of bogged down forces losing British boys and girls for a country that doesn't want us there.

If "secret rescue" isn't the very definition of "moral hazard" that everyone was talking about a few months ago, I don't know what is.  Not to mention protectionism and special privilege.

Rumour has it that T Blair is looking for yet another lucrative job, this time with Zurich Insurance .

Didn't they create the Proceeds of Crime Act to stop this sort of thing, and when is someone please going to invoke it against the grubby little sh*t?

Meanwhile, another rumour has it that John Prescott has had to settle for getting Pauline to call the numbers at the Hull East constituency Labour party bingo evenings to keep him in doughnuts.

We none of us like being kept awake at night - I know, my students regularly make my site sound like Wembley Stadium emptying at 3am but I wonder where these people objecting to their village pub getting a late license have been living all their lives.  Certainly not in any village I know, where long before the new licensing laws such pubs would probably have had "lock-ins" at least as late as the 1am this guy is now asking for:

Residents said they were worried extended opening hours would lead to parking congestion and noise problems.

A pub which opened into the early hours was out of keeping with the character of a small village, they added.

While Peter Black today highlights a story in the Western Mail by Jenny Willott I noticed closer to home an egregious abuse, potentially, of the DNA database system:

Police handcuffed a student and took his fingerprints and DNA after he tried to throw a bottle of water to tree protesters.

Jonathan Leighton, a student at St Anne's College, was arrested at 2am on Sunday in Bonn Square, Oxford, after he tried to give the water to tree protester Gabriel Chamberlain.

Now, I am against the "tree protestors" and their supporters, and I do hate littering enough to want it to be a criminal offence, albeit a minor one, but this seems heavy handed at best if the story is as it seems.  And potentially to have your DNA (a part of you) on a database for the rest of your life for trying to pass a bottle of water to someone as a gesture of kindness is outrageous. 

I would like DNA to be subject to Habeas Corpus, so long as that principle still obtains in English Law - which of course is already doubtful! 

There's been a bit of silly talk aout some kind rebrnading either of the party or of LDYS as, respectively, the "Liberal Party" (of which, as Jonny says, there already is one) or LDYS and "Liberal Youth".  All the links to the specuative frippery are on Jonny's Hug-a-Hoodie blog.

I have to say that, quite apart from any other objections to such an idea, I would be sorely tempted to call in trading standards officers for product misrepresentation.  If we did want to become the "Liberal Party" or some similar name ("Liberal Alliance UK" anyone ?) we actually have to become a liberal party.

Lynne Featherstone has been making a big noise over the past few days about the lack of equality for women in the succession to the British monarchy.

First off, while I voted as a "don't care" whether we have a monarchy or not at this stage in the recent Lib Dem Voice poll - cleaning up and reducing the reach of politicians is a bigger aim for me - I can't help thinking "who cares" whether an institution that stands in absolute contrast to the notion of equality of opportunity (I'm never going to be king even if I wanted to, and more importanly nor is Tony Blair, or Lynne Fetaherstone for that matter) doesn't have gender equality in its succession policy.

But then I thought - what about "equality of outcome" as a measure. That way, and I know it's completely unscientific, but if we look at, say, the past two centuries - a period during which equality for other women in the realm has steadily been increased - we find that a woman has been on the throne for 60% of the past 200 years.

Seems like a pretty good record to me!