Thursday, January 27, 2005

How Liberalism Works (Or Rather Doesn't)

Peter B points to a perfect example of modern government. Indeed, it is a perfect microcosm of how the Left works. They conjure up abstract rights out of thin air - without regard for such trivia as common sense, practicality and the like - then assert that everyone else has to find a way to accommodate their posturing.

In some cases, this sort of thing is just stupid, but when it comes to healthcare it can be deadly. Take one of the cases quoted:

In 2001, a 36-year-old man with learning disabilities died of organ failure two weeks after being discharged into the care of his wife from Darlington Memorial Hospital in Co Durham. John Atkins had a heart condition but neither he nor his wife, Helen, who also had learning disabilities, had understood how serious it was.

Well, yeah. I mean, how can one put this ? Not to get too technical, but they were 'tards. Literally. Of course, they couldn't deal. That's their disability right there. But no - we're in a whole new world now, and the village idiot has a right to use the threshing machine. And if it all goes horribly wrong ? Why, blame some other guy for not rescuing the situation you yourself created by insisting that people should be given rights even when they can't possibly handle the associated responsibilities.

But even that's not it. If Liberals had proposed policies such as deinstitutionalisation on the grounds of cost savings or the like, then it would at least be possible to argue that it was a trade--off. After all, the 1980s Conservatives bought into the whole concept for precisley this reason. What makes all this the perfect metaphor for Liberalism is their moral posturing. True, their policies may have lead to misery for both the afflicted and the community that has to live with them, combined with scapegoating of the professionals every time they fail to square the circle, but that won't stop the L3 paying tribute to their own heroism in pushing through bold new policies that stand at 180' to all previous tradition, good practice and common sense.

In Liberaland, being radical always beats being effective.

Talking Of Fatuous Lawsuits....

Interesting report from Right Wing News about legal reforms in Ireland. Much though it pains me to praise anything in that cesspit of terrorist-coddling trash, they do have some great ideas. In particular, I've always wondered why plaintiffs can score huge payouts AND then another huge payout for costs. As long as the people who hire the scumbag lawyers aren't the ones who have to pay for them, of course legal fees are going to keep heading through the stratosphere. That's common sense.

Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Battle Of The Sleazebags

In the political equivalent of the Iran-Iraq war, Labour MP Candy Atherton is embroiled in a dispute with her former aide - or, as the BBC would have it, Cornwall MP Candy Atherton is embroiled in a dispute with her former aide.

Showing a commitment to high-minded ideals worthy of the Dear Leader himself, the Honourable Member is alleged to have asked an aide to find mud to throw at a Tory opponent. Mr Phillips, the now former aide, claims to be shocked - shocked! - that he was asked to dig the dirt on an opponent. What else would a research assistant be doing ?

All this would be funny enough if it only offered an insight into how sleazy Nu Lab really is, but there's more. It turns out that it's not just a sudden attack of high-mindedness that's struck down this individual. What's really teed him off is that he was asked, it's too shocking, it's.... he was asked to investigate a fellow gay man.

Terrible, I know.

Guido says all that need be said about this outbreak of self-dramatising queeny rhectoric. To steal an old line, appropriately enough from Oscar Wilde, you need a heart of stone to read it without laughing.

As far as wider issues go - it's still absurd. Mr Phillips claims that it's unfair to ask a gay man to investigate a gay man (who'd he prefer, Ann Widdicombe ?). OK, then - let's give him that, conditional on reciprocation. No hetrosexuals should have to investiate each other. Ok, mmmmm ?

Somehow, I think not. So - again - all this talk of equality turns out means anything but. Phillips had no qualms about working for a party which could smear a 92 year old woman, regard Sep 11 as a good day to bury bad news, put out an APB on rail safety campaigners it had embraced when they'd served its needs, try to use the Queen Mum's funeral as photo op..... Hell, half of Labour's campaign in 1997 seemed to be based on the Cabinet's sex lives. But, now - now he's developed a moral streak and made the bold step of abandoning his lucrative £10 000 pa job. And the press wants to cast him as Joan of Arc. Puuuuuleaze.

That's yet another thing wrong with all this equality BS - we keep having to listen to losers come out with this kind of self-glorifying drivel.


This post at Highway 99 is starting to get a lot of attention - deservedly so, since it's a perfect example of both BBC bias and the way bloggers are finally bringing some much needed accountability to the MSM.

Tuesday, January 25, 2005

Wisdom From Honest Abe

Lincoln once claimed that the thing which kills a skunk is the publicity which it attracts. He was talking about slavery, but it also applies to a certain peace-loving religion. JohnJo passes on the latest from the RoP, read and enjoy as Khalid Mahmood MP offers a insight into Islam that you won't get from Auntie.

Monday, January 24, 2005

Another Return Of The Golden Age Again Part II

Laban Tall points out that the L3 are still claiming Conservatives are obsessed with a non-existant Golden Age. This from the people who blame Thatcher for everything, and then some. Listen to the average Liberal and you could be convinced that the only social problem we had in the Seventies was finding enough patients to fill all those hospital beds. Conservatives may do stupid things, but at least we've never had anything as flat-out weird as Liberals taking out onions over the kids cruelly deprived of the chance to follow their fathers down pit. Really - however awful the economic effects of pit closures were, you notice Metropolitan Liberal scum aren't taking up coal mining as a weekend hobby ?

There are at least as many L3 who think the years 1963-79 were an Earthly Utopia as Conservatives who think the Fifties were grand, but you'll notice Conservatives don't hail each other as iconoclastic heroes for pointing out that most of the population in the Seventies had cripplingly low aspirations. Yet this is pretty much where Liberalism is at these days. Thirty years of near-monopoly control has destroyed their ability to construct actual arguments, so instead they spend their time debunking stuff that no one believes anyway.

That's why it matters. For all the L3 jeering at supposed Conservative obsessions with a Golden Age, look who's really lying down in front of the bulldozers these days. NHS reform ? Remaking education ? If it's throwing money at the problem or pushing nihilistic garbage of the 'who needs chemistry anyway ?' type, Liberals are all for it, but actual, meaningful reforms ? Forget it! All the innovation is coming from one side of the spectrum, while the other is full of people patting themselves on the back for being daring enough to point out that there was a lot of poverty in the Fifties.

Saturday, January 22, 2005

It Depends Where You Stick It

Ah yes, the modern Conservative Party. It's hip'n'happening, with no more hang-ups about the ol' lifestyle issues. In Conservativeville, you can be as blue as you want, in every sense. Anything goes, dude. Hey - if you want to hook up with some hunky guys, disappear into the woodland with them so you can enjoy the feel of something hard and heavy against your cheek while you squeeze off a couple, then in this Party you know you can....shove it, actually.

Yes, indeed. Apparently, mere contact with certain objects is, in and of itself, grounds for the old heave ho' in the modern Party. JohnJo passes on one theory. Me, personally, I'm thinking about the bigger picture. My suspicion is that Howard has placed an enormous spread bet at the bookies, with less seats meaning more winnings. It's the only explanation. There's no other reason why a Conservative Party would want to do things like introduce ID cards. Once you accept that Howard is actually trying to destroy the base, then things make a lot more sense. He's actually doing a great job, by the time the election comes round they'll be able to hunt down voters on an individual basis. Expect the broadcasts to feature lines line "Andrew Parker of Blackburn, you smell!".

Where's Lord Hoffman When You Need Him ?

Given that even the most L3 of media have decided that Robert Jackson MP isn't such a catch after all, I was going to let it go, but there are still some folks prepared to defend him. Of course, you shouldn't expect too much of a site amusingly named after a mass-murdering dictator, but still, that line of argument betrays what Mary Archer would call 'a talent for precis'.

Apparently, Wacko Jacko is being persecuted just 'cause he "supports the EU and defended the Palestinians in an Economist debate." Even from first principles, that explanation doesn't hold water. Jackson served under the not notably Europhile Lady T, while Conservative policy on the Palestinians is exactly the same as Labours. Then again, we do know a little more about Robert Jackson than that.

Take, for example, his statement that a Jew could not be considered a loyal British citizens unless he denounced Ariel Sharon. That's it right there: if your mother's maiden name was Goldblatt, then you're not necessarily a true Briton. No, rotten Robbie doesn't have any actual evidence of treason being committed by hook-nosed persons. Simply, the fact of having the wrong bloodline is grounds for suspicion.

As it happens, not too long ago the Left was partying like it was 1999. The High Court had ruled against detention of foreign terrorists in Belmarsh because they ruled it was illegal to discriminate against non-citizens. Well, here's comes Robert Jackson MP, he wants to discriminate against full British citizens even if they can trace their line back to the Protectorate, and for no better reason than their ancestory. What shall we call it, if not bigotry ?

This Is Brilliant

Michelle Malkin passes on a link to this wonderful ad.

Monday, January 17, 2005

As Opposed To What Exactly ?

Contary to expectations, it appears there are limits to PC outrage, after all. The BBC must have fired off all its ammo at Prince Harry, so now they're being forced to give floor-crossing weasel Robert Jackson a pass. That is the reason, right ?

After all, it's not as if you need to be Fox Mulder for this case to start twitching the ol' antenna. Melanie P points out a few highlights from Jumping Jack's CV. Given all that, we are surely justified in raising a few eyebrows over Jackson's comment that he's pleased to have a Christian PM. Why ? So that we have at least one day a week when he isn't screwing up the country ? Or is it his tasteful Christmas cards that do it for Jacko ?

In the light of the Prince Harry debacle it's almost as if the L3 are taunting us: look what you can get away with if you're one of us! Still, on this single issue, I agree with the republicans. As they said about Prince Harry, let them carry on behaving that way - it just makes the case for abolition ever stronger.

Sunday, January 16, 2005

Jihadis Second, Coalition Second From Last

This essay has rightly been linked too all over the place. Just in case you haven't seen it, here's LTC Ryan on media bias and Iraq:

I play the guitar, but Bruce Springsteen doesn't listen to me play. Why should I be subjected to his views on the validity of the war? By profession, he's a guitar player. Someone remind me what it is that makes Sean Penn an expert on anything. It seems that anyone who has a dissenting view is first to get in front of the camera. I'm all for freedom of speech, but let's talk about things we know. Otherwise, television news soon could have about as much credibility as "The Batchelor" has for showing us truly loving couples.

Damage Control

Here's hoping all the criticism doesn't drive Harry to try and appeal to Liberals with his next choice of costume. Think what could happen:
  • Dressing as popular 'agrarian reformer' Osama Bin Laden leads to Harry being mistaken for Aaron Barschak.

  • Harry attempts to disguise himself as a High Court Judge, but can't manage the right degree of haughty arrogance and contempt for the public.

  • Harry tries to reach out to the Jewish community by dressing as a famous Hebrew figure. Surprised to find that Pope is actually Catholic.

  • In an ironic hat tip to the race-hustling community, Harry tries to dress as Trevor Phillips, but doesn't have a large enough clothing budget.

  • The Gerry Adams look works fine except that a communication breakdown leads to Harry being made NI's First Minister.

  • Harry makes a surprisingly good Ozzy Osbourne, but can't manage the verbal fluency of the original.

  • The choice of a 'Count Dracula' costume draws further fire from Michael Howard.

  • Harry attempts the 'NUT member' look, but gets so into character that he stays home and calls in sick.

  • Harry gives up whole idea of fancy dress and instead concentrates on getting blasted, thereby ensuring he spends the night being mistaken for Charles Kennedy.

Question D'Jour

So, on the one hand we have a 'tard wearing a swastika armband, on the other we have a gang of knuckle-dragging Prussian thugs trying to bend all Europe to their will. Which is most reminsicent of the Nazi era ?

Diversity Found To Be Overrated

Laban Tall points out the criminal justice system's Soylent Green-like recruitment policies.

Friday, January 14, 2005

L3 Take Bold New Stance: Opposed To Hitler

If modern life proves one thing, it's that the Sixties didn't kill morality, it just caused it to mutate into ever weirder and more sanctimonious forms. Which brings me neatly on to the news that the country's favourite 'tard turned up at a fancy dress party in Nazi uniform. Needless to say, the media have gone ape. The Beeb was particularly upset, opening bulletins all day with this case. If there's one thing the Beeb can't stand, it's people exploiting the Nazis for humour. The press weren't much better, going ballistic in between filing puff pieces for 'The Producers'. Things could have been worse though - there was a rumour that Prince William also turned up wearing the uniform of a totalitarian dictatorship, but fortunately it turned out he was only dressed as a KGB officer, so that's OK then. Still, it's nice to see that the L3 able to take get at least one thing right: they're against Nazism. It's reassuring that sixty years after we win this war, the Left will come out and denounce Al-Quaida.

What today has thrown into sharp relief above all else is the absurdity of multiculturalism. Take, for example, the Harry haters featured at Don't Have Your Say. The main complaint is that it's offensive and…. well, actually, that's it. 'Offensive' - the modern day, catch-all, damning verdict. Let no man say that thirty years of near-monopoly control of our institutions has left the Left unable to argue. Of course, you can't have Liberals prattling about offensive behaviour without them also demanding that the offender carry an insane act of self-abasement. In this case the favoured form of retribution appears to be a trip to Auschwitz - it being axiomatic amongst the Left that failure to join them in their ostentatious moralising can only be the result of ignorance. Actually, Harry can commemorate genocide without leaving London. He can mark what was per-capita the greatest genocide on record by visiting Grosvenor Square, to show his gratitude to all those Liberals who protested there in 1968 in support of the US forces fighting to save Cambodia from the Khymer Rouge. That was what they were doing, right ?

So, you'll understand if I cast a somewhat jaundiced eye over the L3 moralising about mass murder. But, saith the L3, you can't possibly know. You're not Jewish, you can't understand what it all means. But what of blacks ? Surely you can make the same case over slavery ? After all, Britain really was involved in the slave trade. In fact, I hear a familiar whining sound in the distance. Yep - somebody's squawking about the 'pain of homophobia'. That's the thing. Everybody's got there something. Multiculturalism - in the broadest sense - not only divides people into mutually squabbling groups, but it encourages an arms race of victimhood, with each group competing to mau-mau the most privileges out of everyone else.

This sort of thing is absurd at the best of times, but hearing - as we have today - that Britain is actually a seething hot bed of anti-Semitism really takes the cake. What if we weren't so anti-Jew ? Would Michael Grade have got a really important job in the media ? Peter Mandelson might have survived two resignations and still got a top EU job. Tesco would be a big company, and so would M & S. Ben Elton might get the odd show on stage and Michael Howard would be a credible party leader.

Well, OK. That last one is maybe going too far. But today has proved the sheer shamelessness of the multiculti crowd. These people spend 364 days a year claiming that under-representation of Kenyans in the plumbing profession proves that Dynorod is just like the KKK, yet when presented with a victim group that's actually doing alright….. we're still all guilty. A vote of thanks too for the many members of the Jewish community who took the opportunity to wave the bloody shirt again. Of course, it is possible they were motivated by something other than ethnic self-interest, in which case it would be interesting to know how they react to the sort of attitudes revealed in this comments thread over at the animal house.I mean, I'm not setting the bar too high here. There's a thread of opinion in the Jewish community that supports the nuking of Europe, how do you feel about that ? This shouldn't be a tough moral dilemma. After all, an airburst over Headingley would really affect property values in Alwoodley, but no - the folks who need sedating when Prince Harry dresses like a prat don't have any actual opinions on whether their fellow countrymen should be turned into charcoal briquettes.

But that's the magic of multiculturalism. Ask not what you can do for your country, just bitch and whine about what your country has done to you.

Wednesday, January 12, 2005

MSM Pin-Up Boy

Further to the subject of the MSM coddling scum, Peter the C points out an epic case of scum worship by journalism's bright young thing Johann Hari. Hari not only comes out with every IRA talking point imaginable, but he specifically states that 'There were no Catholic representatives elected because of gerrymandering'

Say what ?

You can believe what you want about Ulster, but even a moment's thought shows this is absurd. No matter how you draw up the lines in, say, South Armagh, you aren't going to get a Loyalist majority. The point is, quite literally, nonsensical. To be sure, when tackled about this, Hari rows back later on (apparently, the AWARD WINNING JOURNALIST got his words mixed up - hey, it's not like he's a professional communicator or something, is it ?). Still, it throws an interesting light on the MSM's famous journalistic standards.

In so far as press freedom goes, using your position to pass on pro-terrorist propaganda is mightily close to the proverbial shouting fire in a crowded theatre. Even if we accept Hari's moronic explanation, we are still faced with a supposed star journalist who freely admits to not being able reality from terrorist talking points - and has no apparent inclination to try.

The irony is, of course, that Hari is above all else a whiny pusher of PC. In particular, Hari can't go more than 48 hours without waving the bloody (or possibly just pink) shirt of homophobia. We're supposed to believe that someone calling George Michael a fat queen is an outrage, yet Hari acting as a PR man for a gang of terrorist thugs, why, that's award-winning journalism.

Sun Rises In East

So, after an extensive investigation by Lord Goldsmith, it has been determined that the law on self-defence is just ducky.

I know, I was as surprised ay anyone to find that a report by a Kool Aid drinking senior lawyer into whether the law has sheared off into Never-Never land produced a negative result. Apparently, the whole 'independent inquiries' thing has been blown out of proportion. We really need judges to tell us whether Major Anderson should have requested more fire support while raiding a house in Basra. Ditto, without m'learned friends how would we ever know whether Dr Jones should have dealt with the chest wound before the head injury ? But, when it comes to the law, if they're happy so should we be.

Apparently, we're all just deluded. They're going to educate us again. Of course, some of the more fascistic elements will point out that the problem is not only what the law says, but how it's interpreted - given that one of the country's top law officers has just told the public they're hallucinating, I don't expect progress on this front anytime soon. But even that's not it. The problem with the law is that it treats crime as a part of society, rather than aa a renunciation of it. Here's the truth: when a householder awakens at 4 AM to find his family home is under attack by a gang of savages, that's not 'one of them things', that's a complete breakdown of the social contract. Big Government has failed him, and should therefore kindly STFU until he has saved his family from their incompetence.

Thugs R Us

While the Beeb is justifiably famous for it's sterling work helping to promote global terrorism, we shouldn't forget its everday, bread and butter work of helping to promote domestic thuggery. Take this report, for example.

A group of fanatical ecothugs decide to disguise themselves as public servants. in order to, at the least, harass people who are a) disproportionatly likely to be female b) certain to have young kids in their veichle, and the Beeb wets itself. Never mid the disgraceful whitewashing of these scumbags as 'activists', what other conclusion is there to draw from phraseology such as 'Drivers at a junction in Belsize Park, north London, were stopped in their tracks by members of the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s.'. Yes, indeed. Can anyone - anyone - imagine the Beeb reporting gleefully that 'asylum seekers were stopped in their tracks by members of the BNP' ? Not in this lifetime, and rightly so, yet when the thugs have the right politics, then our friends in the BeebBubble decide what we really want our telly tax spent on is PR for a group of degenerate thugs.

But don't call it bias.

World's Worst Weviewer

So now we know: last night BBC viewers will have seen Jonathan Ross, the reification of the concept of being famous for being famous, reviewing Team America and concluding that it was a satire on Neoconservatism. Also, it mocks the paranoia of the American right.

Say what ?

Apart from anything else, if that were true then the final speech at the UN makes no sense. But, of course, it isn't true. Parker and Stone are hip, funny and cool - ergo, they can't possibly be on the same side as the BushChimpler, and anyone says they are...why, the L3 will stick their fingers in their ears and sing loudly.

Having being proved wrong on virtually every issue of importance in the last thirty years, the L3 are forced to rely more and more on a single line of argument: the Right is old, ugly and boring. Yet there's a problem with this line of attack: no one wears bowler hats anymore, the last few aristocrats survive mainly as the butt of humour on reality TV shows and the latest Who's Who includes an entry for Nicole Kidman. These days, the true subversives are the ones who mock Michael Moore and his ilk, while there are few better examples of a smug, bloated, complacent bastion of the establshment than the BBC, of which Mr Ross is such a perfect poster boy.

Sunday, January 09, 2005

Why We're Losing The War

Here's the headline from the Times covering the Ulster bank job: 'Ulster peace under threat as IRA is blamed for £22m raid'. So that's it then. It wasn't the actual raid itself that caused the problems (and never mind asking whether a place where this sort of thing goes on can be considered peaceful anyway). Nope - it was the Police's fault for telling the truth. Ah huh.

The thing is that this kind of absurd chop logic holds such a death grip over much of the media that it's a genuine relief to find someone who prepared to acknowledge that the terrorists are, in fact, independent actors, after all. Terrorism 101 says that the terrorist aims to influence the political environment by the use of violence. That's a truism, of course, but it also means that the relationship works both ways. Terrorists use violence to shape the political environment, but the political environment shapes the violence used. Both elements feedback into each other. Which means the media can forget all this posturing about 'objectivity'.

It is less fashionable now for media panjandrums to refer to themselves as 'opinion formers', nevertheless, the media does still play a role in shaping the debate. More to the point, the astute terrorist must take into the role of the media in helping him achieve his objectives. Isn't it about time journalists returned the favour ?

Yes, I'm aware that journalists like to blather on about press freedom and the like. But consider the case of the BNP. Here, journalists preen themselves over their refusal to 'offer a platform' (or whatever) to these loons, while indulging in ostentatious agonising over whether their coverage strengthens those naughty ol' right wing extremists. Yet the media have no qualms about acting as virtual PR agents for other, more PC, terrorists.

Consider Iraq. Surely, simply by the law of averages, a small proportion of Coalition fire must hit baddies ? But try and find evidence for that in the media. Yes - plenty of Coalition casualties. Ditto - plenty of kitten hospitals hit by Coalition bombs, but dead Jihadis ? Nada. Could the terrorists have wished for anything more than a media that insists on presenting our troops as blundering incompetents, seemingly defenceless against these ninja -like Jihadis while constantly blowing away orphanages ? Talk all you want about objectivity, but when the media cover Coalition casualties and civilian casualties caused by the coalition, while barely mentioning dead terrorists or the civilians they have murdered, then there's an agenda at work.

Of course, some folks have gone all the way to the dark side. Which brings me onto the BBC. Natalie Solent is exactly right: the BBC can't shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre then claim status as a dispassionate observer of the subsequent stampede. Still - with the significant difference of the licence fee - the Beeb is just the worst, rather than the only offender.

What afflicts the media is just a more extreme case of what's affected much of modern society. They've brought into the whole PoMo garbage, whereby up may be down, black white and cannibalism is just an alternative form of diet. These people live in the richest, freest and most comfortable civilisation in history and can't decide if there's any difference between the people who defend it and those who want to destroy it. Just as long as we're prepared to believe that an inability to distinguish between someone trying to blow up a school bus, and someone trying to kill terrorists is a mark of sophistication, we're going to keep losing the war, and deservedly so.

The Best Analogy Ever For US Foreign Policy

Wednesday, January 05, 2005

All Your Kids Belong To Us

Apparently, it's not all lessons on fisting and necrophillia in the modern state school. There's a school down south where they stick things in the pupil's mouths then wave them about. Disappointly for the 'progressives', it turns out they're just taking mouth swabs for drug tests. Yep - drug tests in schools. SATs, key stage testing and OFSTED inspections are a pointless imposition on the school environment, but checking for Bolivian marching powder, now that's what teaching all about. So how does the head justify this buffonery ?

The head teacher, Peter Walker, said children were looking for an excuse to say no to drugs, against peer pressure, and the scheme would give them that excuse.

"One of the difficulties we have got in our society is that the government has tried so hard and so much to try to improve levels of prevention, yet we are not meeting with enough success," Mr Walker said.
Yes, indeed. Without Big Edukayshun sticking things in your gob, there'd be no incentive not to get hooked on crack. Personally, I can't think of anything more likely to drive kids to drugs than this kind of obnoxious, obtrusive nannying, as perfectly exemplified in this next quote:

Paul Carter, Kent council cabinet member for education, said random drug testing was fraught with legal problems so the council had issued guidance.

"I believe the tests will be a strong deterrent to youngsters dabbling in drugs at parties on the weekend," he said.
Yes, the weekend. Also known as the time when there is no school. Yes - if a kid turns in high as a kite then the school does indeed act in loco parentis, but suggesting that schools have a role in regulating what their customers do at the weekend is an outrageous example of mission creep. Still, at least some of the kids have escaped the effects of the psychic beacon:

There were differences of opinion among students arriving on Wednesday.

One 16-year-old said his parents had refused permission for him to take part.

"I don't agree with it. It's an invasion of privacy. It should be up to your mum and dad to sort this kind of thing out," he said
Personal responsibility ? In Blairland ? Surely not!

A 14-year-old girl said she supported the measure because it could reduce drug-taking.

"I don't have a problem with taking a test. It depends if you've got anything to hide," she added.
How many secret kids has Blunkett got ?

That would be charities in the sense of 'activist groups who score huge sums off the government to push their own L3 wordlview'. Anyway, where was I ?

Charities are sceptical. Drugscope chief executive Martin Barnes said there was no proof random drugs tests had a deterrent effect.

"Testing risks driving drug use further underground and could result in an increase in truancies and exclusions," he said.

Steve Rolles of the Transform Drug Policy Foundation said "intrusive" random tests were not needed to give children an excuse to say "no". They needed accurate information.

But also such tests were only for illegal drugs - whereas alcohol, tobacco and solvents were far more harmful, he said.
Do you get the feeling that getting the kids to say 'no' isn't exactly Stevies first priority. Leaving aside the not insignificant point that fags, booze and glue are all illegal for kids anyway, how exactly is driving an illegal activity underground a bad idea anyway ? Isn't that the point ?

That's the bottom line here. While HMG claims the war on drugs is so seriously we've got to put our rights through the shredder, the self-same body is funding nutball activist loons who claim a glass of the house red is worse than crack. 'Mixed message' doesn't quite cover it. No wonder drug czar's usually end up getting tied in knots. Take Keith Halliwell, there's a man who was too honest to try and even pretend the Government's drug policy made sense. Even now, he can't help but tell the truth about where all this leads:

Former government drugs adviser Keith Hellawell said that if those tested had consented in advance, and again at the time of the test, then clearly they knew there would not be drugs in their systems.

There had to be some penalty for failing to take a test, he argued.
Actually, I believe the current phrase d'jour is 'the voluntary option has failed'. Is there anything else wrong with this policy ?

Concerns have also been raised in part because the scheme is being sponsored by a tabloid newspaper and the drug test health firm.
Well, yeah.

Truly, in years to come, when people study the collapse of Britain, this will make a perfect case study. Can anyone - outside the Kool Aid drinking asylum of Big Edukayshun - really think this is a good idea ?

The Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, said Conservatives would "support, encourage and accelerate" random drug tests.
Which says it all both for drug tests and the Conservative Party.