Category Archives: Society

I don’t consider myself a great ideologue – I don’t know, you may well disagree – and I don’t really approve of ideologies, but I do of course have my own set of beliefs and a sense of morality that could be described as such. I am implacably opposed to the idea of private education for one thing; it seems a basic and fundamental inequity in society that the rich can buy better schooling for their offspring, and if it were in anyway practical I would like to ban the practice. But…if I could afford to, and I was faced with the option of sending my children to a private school or putting them through a state school that I felt was so poor that it would severely hamper their prospects, then I would choose the former over the latter. I wouldn’t deny the charge of hypocrisy, what I would say is that whatever my own personal beliefs, the future of my children is more important than any ideology I may subscribe to.

This thought – that there is a time and place for ideology – popped back into my mind when reading about the current debate surrounding organ donation. Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer, has called for a change in the law regarding organ donation so that we have a system of “presumed consent”; rather than “opting in”, so that you have to be on a register for your organs to be used after your death, you have to “opt out”, so it is presumed you are happy for your organs to be used unless you specifically state that they can’t. This has caused a stir; over at Stumbling & Mumbling, for example, a number of commenters have objected, arguing that the proposal violates our rights to do with our bodies as we wish, even after death, and that this is another example of the overarching state. One commenter even says that should this proposal come to pass he will opt out of it, whereas currently he opts in to the voluntary scheme.

But are those opposing the plan reacting ideologically rather than looking at the issue pragmatically? I take it that they all have an aversion to a domineering state and value our human rights, which is fair enough. But human rights are not just abstract concepts to be debated; they are there for a reason, for our benefit. In this case, since there is a clear opt out suggested, and as long there are safeguards in place that ensure any database is properly maintained, that relatives wishes are respected, and that where there are doubts about the prospective donors identity the organs are not used, then I can’t see anyone’s rights are being violated.

And in concentrating on the issue of human rights have the opponents of the move instinctively assumed their position out of ideological reflex, while losing sight of the reasons for this proposal itself; which is simply to reduce the shortfall in the number of organs currently available for donation, so to save the lives of some and to improve the quality of life of others? Even if you do feel that a policy of presumed consent violates our rights, is it such a violation that it trumps the rights of other people to live? Can it be said to be proportionate? I don’t suggest we just jettison a belief in human rights on any occasion that someone sees some benefit in doing so; each instance should be viewed on its merits and it is right to question any proposals. But in the case of organ donation, I wonder if the opponents of presumed consent are reacting on a theoretical level to what they see as an assault on our rights, rather than looking at the issue itself and at what our rights are there to achieve. I wonder if ideology has made them lose their perspective on this occasion.

There may be some good arguments against presumed consent; The Economist last year reported that although Spain already has this policy, it has only “pushed up supply a bit” – which itself suggests that there has been no mass body snatching by the state in that country – and that it has not solved the supply problem. The Economist’s solution with regards kidneys is to allow people the right to sell one of them; this has happened in Iran, so eliminating their waiting list for the organ (they don’t offer a solution to the shortage of organs for heart transplants, though.) My initial reaction, perhaps because of my own ideological position, is to reject the suggestion; but if, as is claimed, the surgery is safe, and if it is true that with proper regulation screened donors with one kidney actually live longer than the average person with two, then why not? Shouldn’t it at least be considered, whatever the understandable concerns?

But perhaps there is a another, simpler way to solve the donor shortage for those who so hate the state interfering in our lives. When the law requiring people to wear seat belts in cars was first introduced I remember Doctors at the time commenting that they were seeing a reduction in the number of suitable organs becoming available for transplant, as people who would have previously died in road accidents were surviving, so denying the world of their organs. Well, doesn’t the seat belt law, and indeed the requirement to wear a crash helmet on a motorbike, infringe our civil liberties? Don’t we have the right to wear what we like when driving as long as it doesn’t affect others? If so, and if these laws were indeed repealed, would the likely increase in fatal road accidents that resulted perhaps provide us with all the organs that we so clearly need?

As unsung heroes go, I can’t think of a better example than “that bloke” who one day came up with the idea of placing reading matter in front of the urinals in pubs. How did we ever spend our time before? Stare into space, or at porcelain, or at our bits? Some (though not me) would of course engage in a wee game of “compare and contrast”. But now, while we slash, we can read half of the lead story in yesterday’s Telegraph; then, our ablutions completed, we can loiter awkwardly, trying to skim read the rest of the article; that is until someone else enters the bogs, so we slowly wash our hands, dry them on the hot air dryer (which keeps cutting out on us as our hands move away from the enigmatically placed sensor) waiting for the other person to leave so we can continue our read; and then a second person arrives and so we finally give up and exit the toilets (the hot air dryer that kept cutting before out is now stuck on permanently once our hands are not only out of the way, but in a different room) and we resolve to read the rest of the article on our next trip to the toilet (not far away; we’ve already drunk six pints); but the next time we go to the toilet that specific urinal is in use, so we decide to finish off the article by reading it on the internet when we get home; but by then we are far too drunk and we forget all about it.

That is why, much as I like newspapers in toilets, the theory is flawed and so adverts can be a better choice. At the John Millington a few weeks ago, for example, I read a sign advertising the forthcoming (yes, forthcoming; I hate the word upcoming) events at the pub. One was for their Fathers’ Day extravaganza, and as someone who will play the fool for any excuse to go out for a meal, I was obviously interested. Problem; the John Millington does not allow children under the age of six years into their pub. Fair enough; their house, their rules. Though I must say I was tempted to phone them and explain just how taken I was with their offer, that I would love to join them for their Fathers’ Day festivities. But I can’t. Because I am a father.

Below the Fathers’ Day adverts was a second item explaining the changes the pub was in the process of making to their beer garden to enlarge, cover and heat the outside drinking area; it wasn’t explicit but I assume it was to make ready for the smoking ban that starts in England tomorrow. You may recall that I have written on the subject before, when I stated that I considered the action somewhat draconian, and that a compromise could surely be found to prevent an outright ban on smoking.

But I’m afraid it’s happened again; I start off as a qualified critic of a proposal but then when I hear the obnoxious views of it’s more vocal opponents I quite unfairly swing round and decide that the new idea deserves far more merit. Because I understand smokers being peeved by the new laws; they want to smoke in the pub and are being prevented from doing so, and if that were all then I can and will sympathise. I can see why they are vexed. It is the further inappropriate invoking of the issue of civil liberties that annoys me and which has shifted my viewpoint. The argument goes that it is our individual freedom to do as we wish and for some people to smoke if they like. Fine; but civil liberties only allow you to do as you wish so long as your actions don’t affect others. Smoking does affect others, be it passive smoking, stinging eyes or stinking clothes. So that is that…next!

Just because it has traditionally been non-smokers who have been inconvenienced by smokers doesn’t make it right. Perhaps it is time to redress that historical imbalance. It is a poor reason to change ones mind, but once again I feel my liberal position has been challenged by those people - in this case thoughtless smokers - who talk about freedom but who evidently don’t give a damn about the freedoms of others. As it is, every few Fridays I go out with Mike to the Kenilworth. Neither of us being smokers, we sit in the No Smoking area. It makes no difference, by midnight the whole place is awash with smoke and our clothes, hair and skin stink of the stuff; and I don’t know about you, but for me bath night isn’t until Sunday. So, while I previously questioned the smoking ban, as it appears in the headlights I can honestly say that I can’t wait.

I’m a hero, apparently. I’ve always wanted to be a hero, and now I discover I am; and it’s not just me who’s saying it. No lesser person than the Archbishop of Canterbury, when speaking at the launch of National Marriage Week, has stated I am a hero; and all because a few years ago I spent more money than I had on a fuck-off big party.

This again. The biannual news story that marriage should be promoted because married couples are more likely to stay together than unmarried couples, and that children tend to do better when being born into married families. It is getting tiresome.

First of all, what’s it got to do with the church? I can see why Rowan Williams would want to bask in the reflected glory of the seemingly favourable statistics associated with marriage, but would that be fair? I was married in a civil ceremony, and one of the rules of such a wedding is that there can be no mention of religion at any stage of the service. As a result it was touch and go at one stage whether the music we picked – Ennio Morricone’s score for the film The Mission – would be allowed. Therefore, surely religion should similarly be explicitly excluded as a potential cause of my successful marriage, and those of my many friends who were also married in civil ceremonies?

Secondly, I wasn’t born married. My wife and I went out together, lived together and even got up to cheeky nonsense together for over four years before we were wed. Would Dr Williams have been critical of our arrangements had he met us at the start of June 2002? Did that much change by the time we were sipping champagne a few days later? We were still the same people, with the same devotion to each other.

And today; am I dedicated to my wife because I am married to her? I don’t think so; that statement is surely putting the cart before the horse. I am dedicated to my wife because I am still in love with her, always will be. It is because I am dedicated to her that I am married to her, not the other way round. I don’t think marriage as an institution can take any of the credit.

But can marriage help keep couples together? Perhaps. I can imagine some people being in the situation where they feel the need to fight to save their marriage, when if they were in a different type of relationship (at least one without kids) they may not feel there was anything to fight for. It is a moot point whether that is a good or bad thing – should you fight to stay with someone just because you are married to them; if you are having to fight, should you really be with them? – but no doubt there are people who have stayed together simply because of the marriage, and the relationship has subsequently flourished once the tricky spell is over. But surely that only works if you value marriage in itself in the first place; simply promoting marriage to people who aren’t inclined to get wed can only be good news for the divorce lawyers. The statistics that show married relationships as being more stable surely just prove that stable couples are more likely to get married; if more people were to get wed simply because they have been cajoled or incentivised by the church or state I can well imagine those statistics converging over time.

Why get married then? Well how about for the same reason I did; simply because I wanted to. The benefits of marriage are intangible, and so they should be. My wedding was the best day of my life, without doubt, and we treasure our memories of that day. I’ve never worn jewellery but I love wearing my wedding ring, not because it is an attractive and valuable chunk of gold, but because it is a link to and constant reminder of my wife. I didn’t have to get married, no one should have to, but I wanted to and I’m glad I did. But I don’t think it has any bearing of the success of our relationship.

So is marriage the “glue that holds society together” as the Telegraph’s editorial predictably puts it? I don’t think so. It may do some good work at the margins, persuading some couples to give their relationship one last go, but that is about it. I don’t think you should dismiss entirely the effect marriage can have, but it is important not to build its part either.

Last week the TaxPayers’ Alliance announced its “Public Sector Rich List”, a roll call of the highest earning workers employed in the state sector. In announcing the list they stated that

Taxpayers will be shocked at the scale of these massive pay awards. Large numbers of people in the public sector are effectively being paid City salaries. It is not surprising that taxes keep going up when the salaries for the public sector’s top executives keep rocketing.

For me the two standout statistics from the report are that the average salary of these government fat-cats, including bonuses, is £259,701 per annum, and that on average they have enjoyed a pay rise of 8.4% over the previous year, compared with a 4.2% rise in the economy as a whole. The full list can be viewed here (pdf).

Look a bit deeper, however (and not very deep at that) and I begin to doubt the point of this list, other than to play to the gallery. In the first place the TaxPayers’ Alliance has chosen to feature only those earning over £150,000 a year. Now, my maths is pretty shaky, but even I know that this means that the average pay of the people on the list is therefore going to be over £150,000 per annum. If you cherry pick the stats in such a way it isn’t that surprising that the overall average wage is going to be as high as it is.

So how many people make up this sample; how many out of the millions employed in the public sector are earning such extravagant figures? Well according to the report the grand total is a whopping 170 people. Are you shocked at that figure? I am; shocked that it is so small. I may be going out on a limb here, but can I suggest that the only reason the TaxPayers’ Alliance are so shocked – and feel that this figure can be considered high – is because they have a mordant hatred of the public sector for its own sake?

As a fair comparison you could ask how many people in the private sector earn a comparative figure? The answer, I think, would be “a lot”, certainly more than 170; only the other week it was announced that 4000 city workers have this year earned £1m in bonuses alone. Now, if I were to criticise such city bonuses there is every chance that I would be accused of the politics of envy; that I don’t is because quite frankly I have only the vaguest idea of the pressures and problems associated with such professions. Is it really any different to criticise high earners in other sectors of the economy?

For the TaxPayers’ Alliance it seems people in the public sector simply shouldn’t be awarded such sums. But why not? How much should they earn? Presumably just less. One argument often voiced is that the public sector doesn’t face the same scrutiny from shareholders that private companies do; but this assumes private companies are listed on the stock market in the first place, which in these boom times for private equity is less likely than ever. Private companies, of course, can go bankrupt, a pressure theoretically absent from the public sector; but does that mean that an equivalent job in the public sector gets an entirely free ride?

Let’s take television as an example. You could argue that the chairman of ITV faces far greater pressures than does the director general of the BBC thanks to the existence of his shareholders; but for one thing to make up for this the chairman of ITV already does earn more money than the loaded BBC chief (source), and for another you could plausibly argue that at the BBC that lack of shareholder power is more than made up for in the form of the far greater political pressure and scrutiny the corporation faces. Other broadcasters of course have different problems again; if you are the head of BSkyB your pay still dwarfs that of your BBC equivalent but your main concern is to keep your old dad happy. For me, though, the inclusion of Channel Four executives on the rich list seems particularly odd; while being nominally government-owned the channel is not publicly funded and has to compete for advertising revenue like most other broadcasters.

Certainly some of the pay awards listed seem pretty large – I will leave it to London’s public transport users to decide whether the £1m+ paid for Bob Kiley’s services amounts to value for money – but as with the city workers I mentioned earlier, I find it difficult to say they aren’t justified without knowing fully what such jobs entail; certainly let’s say that I think running London transport could be quite taxing, and that it is a big job with or without shareholder pressure. The argument for paying such high wages is surely the same one a private sector company would make – that you have to pay these wages to attract the top talent – and public sector organisations often have to compete with private sector firms for the same managers, with the salary (in theory) set in the the same marketplace. You can disagree with this principle, you can argue against high executive pay, but why just in the public sector? You can point out where the public sector fails in comparison with the private sector, but can you really criticise it when all it is doing is aping the private sector? And if you think some of these positions are overpaid best not seek to privatise them, as history suggests that their compensation payments will shoot up even higher as a consequence.

Now, if you are still with me, then I know what you are thinking; here he goes again, he works in the public sector himself so he is bound to defend it. But why should I? I pay my taxes too and I have no interest in my money being frittered away. I am pretty confident that if the public sector were reduced to its bare bones then my job would still exist, so I have no vested interest in any proliferation of non-jobs in and around where I work; if anything I should be more pissed off about them than anyone. While my colleagues and I are facing an enforced 2.2% pay rise I’m hardly eager to defend executive pay rises nearly 4 times that level.

But I’m not defending these levels of pay, I am just questioning their use as a criticism of the public sector itself. What irritates me here is the blinkered and biased nature of the debate. What especially grieves me is that I do think the TaxPayers’ Alliance has a valuable role to play. I agree that the public sector it spending our money, that these executives are our employees and they should be answerable to us. When the TA argue that the public sector should face greater scrutiny and accountability I wholeheartedly concur; when they attack some of my own bete-noires such as the cosy, meaningless quangos and the huge sums wasted on management consultants I couldn’t agree more. However, in apparently objecting to anyone in the public sector earning over £150,000, and to get worked up about even 170 public sector staff receiving such a salary, this report seems motivated purely by spite and disdain, as part of a one sided argument the sees the public sector as only ever bad. It detracts from the very justified points the TA may make, in the same way that the occasional valid criticism one reads on Biased BBC loses its weight because that blog is such a bolthole for Islamophobic fuckwits.

Along these lines I was less than impressed with the TaxPayers’ Alliance’s spokesman Blair Gibbs when he appeared on Victoria Derbyshire’s show on Radio 5 last week. Quite apart from stating that people in the public sector should earn less than their private sector counterparts, and then admitting that many executives had moved into the public sector for “public service” reasons when they could have earned more had they stayed put in the private sector (to which I thought “so what’s your problem, do you just want them to earn even less again”) he then went on to criticise people on the rich list who “we had never heard of in organisations we had never heard of”. As an example of one of these mysterious quangos they had “uncovered” he cited British Waterways, and sneered that all they do is to manage Britain’s canals of which “there are hardly any anymore”; a statement that on a number of levels betrays a quite astonishing level of ignorance.

But I haven’t given up on the Taxpayers Alliance just yet; I will give them one last go. The other day I picked up their Bumper Book of Government Waste. I brief flick through its pages does show up some bizarre examples of the sort of profligacy and empire building you feel would be difficult to get away with in the private sector; on the other hand there appears much that seems endemic to any bureaucracy or large organisation, or which wouldn’t be seen as waste in the private sector, but would for example be seen rather as a mark of a caring and generous employer that enjoyed good staff relations. It is interesting to note that according to the authors’ biographies they themselves have no experience of working in the private sector (that is if you don’t count think tanks, which of course I don’t); as such, unlike me, they have nothing against which to compare their public sector experiences. But we’ll see where the book takes me, and I may report back in time. I can’t help finding it ironic, though, that I picked up a book complaining about waste in a bookshop’s remaindered bin.

These are worrying times. Only the other day my son, barely 3 years old, told me he was going to carry a little plastic knife around with him when we went out in case he got into trouble with some bigger boys. I was truly shocked that things have come to this in 21st Century Britain. I mean, unless a giant plasticine man mugs him, that plastic thing is less than useless. So now I send him to nursery packing a good old-fashioned 5-inch flick knife. Just what are they teaching our kids these days? Plastic knife indeed!

But fear is much on people’s minds. Last week the news led on a couple of stories; our ever more dysfunctional teenagers, and the creep towards a surveillance state. ASBO’s are seen as a badge of honour, while CCTV cameras monitor our every move. Any more acronyms? Anyone? No? Just the two then.

Newsnight covered the story and treated us to a discussion featuring some experts on youth crime, and someone else called Nick Ferrari. Ferrari was described as a “broadcaster” so I have no idea what personal knowledge he brought to the party. Perhaps it is now the programme makers’ policy to invite random members of unrelated professions to debate in the interests of contrast; this weeks discussion of the US mid-terms will feature a French baker, while an article on climate change will canvas the learned opinions of an occupational therapist.

I’ve seen this Ferrari bloke before, and as ever he talked a right load of prancing pony (do you see what I did there?). It takes a real talent I feel to disengage your brain so fully and so keep a straight face while talking about “prisons being holiday camps with colour tvs” and police who will “jump on you in seconds if you eat a chocolate bar while driving” but will let the burglars be. Can someone tell me the point of Nick Ferrari? What is it for? Wikipedia inform me that he is a talk radio presenter in London, but I don’t see why that means he has to be foisted upon the majority of the population fortunate enough to lie outside the range of LBC’s transmitters.

Anyway, I digress. That Newsnight programme discussed the ever-faster descent of the nation’s youth into alcopop-fuelled, hoodie hell; and this grim opinion went unchallenged. Meanwhile the CCTV issue was raised, that we are being watched every second of our waking lives, with again no dissenting opinion on view. Needless to say we were once more shown that same CCTV footage of those same lads smashing the window of that van (as I posted on here; my Wife and I cheered when it inevitably appeared); they are the sort of ASBO flaunting youths who would no doubt be causing all our problems, were it not for the fact that the featured film is so old that both gents are currently on a SAGA mini-break. Much was made on Newsnight of the irony that that our lives are ever more monitored while our fear of crime is higher than ever.

But is it an irony, really, that problems with ASBO’s and CCTV cameras, apparently contradictory fears, are in the news at the same time? Are they not really just different examples of the same thing, of people’s irrational fears, lovingly stoked by the media and government for their own ends?

Perhaps there was a halcyon age when people left their doors unlocked and youths were little angels; that is when they weren’t scrumping (ie. stealing) apples. I don’t know. What I do reckon though is that the “yoofs” are largely no worse than in my day, which was a wee while ago. For as long as I can remember people have complained about the “youth of today”, with civilisation so far having failed to collapse as a result. Yes gangs of hooded youths on street corners can seem intimidating, but when I walk past them into the off-licence they tend to ignore me; and why shouldn’t they? I’m really not that interesting. Perhaps I would feel different if I lived in a different area, but as most of the loudest critics of today’s kids are classic middle Englanders, rather than people from “the projects”, I’m not sure how relevant that is to this discussion.

This fear of youths, of course, is one of the reasons, or excuses, for the build up of CCTV cameras, so to some extent the two issues are entwined. To return the favour, you would think that the fact that there are, apparently, hordes of youths causing mayhem every night in defiance of the surveillance society would point out that we are not yet in the age of Big Brother; but no. I think a genuine concern about creeping totalitarianism is certainly valid, but exaggerating it is just daft. It is true that technology enables databases all over the place containing all sorts of personal information about us; but I am more concerned that there could possibly be anyone out there so dull that they would actually want to pore over the details of how I have earned my Nectar points. Yes, unscrupulous people accessing your private details is a concern, but was ever thus; that problem is one of unscrupulous people. Of course there are CCTV cameras everywhere, but usually, whenever I am potentially being watched by CCTV operators I am also potentially being watched by loads of other people, be it shoppers on the High Street or curtain twitching neighbours. Again, I really don’t think I am so interesting for people to bother; my confidence is less about “having nothing to hide”, more that I can’t believe anyone can be arsed to monitor my activity that closely. I suppose it is possible in theory that all the disparate databases could be pulled together so that everything I do is being scrutinised by the state, but quite frankly that suggests a level of competency and resources that our security services haven’t shown to date.

But if it is the media and government that are stoking the fear, to some extent that is because they are feart themselves. Fear has got us here, because fear sells. The likes of the Mail and the Express are petrified of being outflanked by each other in lamenting the way Britain is going to the dogs, and so each runs more exaggerated and outlandish stories pointing out where they think it is all going wrong. And government, when not merely attacking civil liberties for their own sake, often responds out of fear of being seen to be doing nothing. Many will decry actions that smack of the intrusive state and breaches of confidentiality; but come the next rise in recorded street crime, or the next terrorist outrage, or the next tragic death of a child who has slipped through the social services net, how many of those same people will complain of the lack of legal sanctions, or the poor quality of the intelligence services, or how the various authorities haven’t adequately shared their masses of separate information?

Can I suggest we calm down a little and get things in perspective? Or am I being complacent and naïve? Probably I am. I may change my mind about the nation’s youth if in the next minute a brick smashes through the window and whistles past my ear. I know that some youths do cause serious problems for people and make their lives hell; but I also feel that much is exaggerated and that the fear of youths is far greater than the reality. With regards the surveillance state, I don’t think we should just trust government to get it right, I still oppose ID cards and I don’t think the police should be given carte blanche to flick through our medical records like they are a copy of Hello! magazine, we should demand safeguards that any information that is stored is only ever used for specific and justifiable reasons. We should concentrate on the real dangers, to prevent information itself being misused, not on hyperbolic nonsense about our lives being on hard drives and of cameras constantly tracking us.

So let’s not be too scared of those hooded youths outside Spar; they’re probably more interested in copping off than with mugging you. Who cares if you are on CCTV all the time? The chances are that no one’s bothering to watch.

Let’s all chill out a bit.

I think “light-blogging” is the appropriate phrase to describe the past month on this website, for all sorts of reasons, both obvious and less so; but I have been briefly spurred into action by listening to Melanie Phillips on Radio 4’s PM programme yesterday.

The reason for her appearance (yeah, like you didn’t know) was to weigh into the argument on Jack Straw’s behalf concerning his aversion to Muslim women wearing the veil, in particular when speaking at his constituency surgery. Our Mel was quite clear on the fact that while she respects peoples’ religious freedoms and the right to wear the appropriate garb, wearing the veil is quite different. What is especially different about wearing a veil as opposed to say a turban, or a yarmulke? Is it because it is a significant barrier to communication and a sign of separateness, or is it simply because it is a symbol of the Muslim faith?

Melanie claimed it was the former of course, but I have my doubts. To me, as I listened to her performance, she clearly and effectively communicated her Islamophobia; I could imagine her pinched, twisted, and contorted features as she was repeatedly forced to spit out the word “Muslim” during the interview, as if she had just taken salt and lemon and was about to down a tequila. Funnily enough, the fact that this all occurred on radio – where I couldn’t bear witness to Melanie’s actual facial expressions – didn’t hamper the blatant message she was transmitting to me; thus undermining the whole bogus basis of her argument.

God I’m getting sick of this. The other day it was PC Basha being relieved of his duties outside the Israeli embassy, and now it is this Jack Straw business. Remove the Islamic element from the stories and all you have on the one hand is that “a member of staff asks to be excused duty on compassionate grounds, and his line manager, while not being obliged to accede, kindly does”, and on the other “an MP states a silly but perfectly legitimate personal preference with regards speaking to his constituents”. Sadly though, for both these stories, the Islamic element is present, which allows stupid people on both sides to dive into the trenches and strafe no man’s land. Can we not just leave them to it?

So I’m escaping. Thanks to my parents we are off on holiday to Spain to get away from it all. Yes, a fortnight of no-British-news-please will do very nicely thank you very much. Do they have to put up with this crap down in Andalusia do you think? Or should that be Al-Andalus?

Oh, you just take your pick, according to your bigotry. I shall return in just two of your Earth “weeks”.

When I heard that Tony Blair had attacked the “justice gap”, I gave a foolish half cheer. I assumed he was attacking the phrase “justice gap”, a pointless PR mouthing that means precisely nothing, and so has inevitably been leapt upon by various institutions who proudly (and in all likelihood erroneously) boast that they are “narrowing the justice gap”. And it is always being narrowed, never cut (that is red tape) or reduced (you must be thinking of bureaucracy, or cholesterol). Just a feeling, but I bet the people who actually are helping to fight crime wouldn’t use a phrase like “justice gap” in a million years.

Of course I was wrong to get my hopes up. A phrase like “justice gap” is right up New Labour’s back alley; it was probably dreamt up by their head office and “cascaded” out to the various police force headquarters for them to use in their publicity campaigns and job adverts (but probably not used by the officer detaining a knife wielding offender on a Friday night). No, for Blair the phrase is something he truly believes in it, and my god will he use it! When he attacks the justice gap he attacks the perceived failure of the criminal justice system to match the tabloid rantings concerns of the “law abiding majority”; er, despite him having been in office for 9 years. Whether attacking the phrase or what he sees as the reality, Blair appears to be attacking himself.

But is there a justice gap anyway? We are continually told that crime levels are falling and have been for some time. Despite tabloid headlines screaming about soft judges there is some evidence that when told the full circumstances of a crime the general public would often be more lenient than many judges in fact are.

When discussing the justice gap let us consider yesterday’s BBC Ten O’clock News which covered the story. It has long been noticed that the producers of such programmes can’t just tell us the facts; when talking about crime they must show us some filmed footage of crime so the feeble minded among us know what they are talking about. So yes, we saw those library pictures, again, of those two young lads, again, smashing that window on that panel van and running off with that crate, again.

For me this is very encouraging. It must be 15 years ago when I first saw that same footage; the lads featured could even be grandparents by now. If the BBC has so little evidence of crime on film that they have to rely on a blurred and grainy image from yesteryear, then perhaps the justice gap isn’t as wide as some people fear.

While watching the news I also noticed this story concerning the foster couple who have been found guilty of sexual offences. The website has handled the story better, but the Ten O’clock News story and headline stressed that it was a gay foster couple who had been imprisoned. Now, looking through the story, I cannot see how the sexuality of the offenders is relevant, other than to perhaps confirm some people’s prejudices. Indeed the judge stressed that “this is not about homosexuality, it is about abuse of trust”, so what does the fact that the offenders are gay have to do with anything?

But I will be off now, as I am beginning to sound too much like Biased BBC (albeit Biased BBC tend not to bother about homophobic bias, too busy are they looking for a pro-Islamist or anti-Semitic slant to things; so perhaps I sound more like Biased BBC’s evil(?) twin).

Sod the budget; before Radio 4 began their coverage this afternoon they featured a short half-hour programme entitled The Secret Migration, about English people who have moved to Scotland, and I caught the tail end of it. It was quite interesting, as many of Radio 4’s idiosyncratic documentaries often are.

They interviewed Scots, about what they thought of the new arrivals, and the English, about how they had been received as immigrants and about their feelings towards their new homeland. The English people I heard were uniformly positive; the Scots sounded not so sure.

One Scot, though, (I could find out who he was if I “listened again”, but I’m not going to) said that the real test was who the newcomers supported when it came to sport. Sure, you could move to Scotland, fall in love with Scotland, fall in with all the local customs, but unless you supported Scotland against England in a football match then you weren’t welcome in Caledonia. I don’t think he was being entirely serious, but it’s an interesting point, one that recalls Norman Tebbit’s (in)famous “cricket test”.

If that argument is part of a well-oiled machine in some people’s minds then perhaps I can consider myself a spanner in the works; for where do I fit into this? It should be easy. I was born in England, I have lived all my life in England, I support England in football against any opposition, and I consider myself to be thoroughly English.

But my mother hails from Perthshire, I was delighted when Scotland beat England in the rugby the other day, and I feel attuned to and at times aggrieved by what I perceive as the pro-English bias in much of the media. I may support England in football, but the only national team’s football strip I’ve ever bought is Scotland’s (that gorgeous tartan one from a good few years back).

I think it comes down to this; my head insists I am English, but it hasn’t cleared it yet with my heart. So in football, a sport I follow week in week out, it is easy to support England because I think I know what I’m talking about and most of the Scotland team are alien to me. In rugby, however, a sport I happen upon each winter for the 6 Nations and every four years for the World Cup, and whose rules seem impenetrable and arcane, I come with no preconceptions, no knowledge, and I can’t help but feel my heart tug towards the boys in navy blue. The same happens in most other sports. Perhaps it is partly that gut feeling for the underdog, which Scotland often are, that sways my allegiance their way, and I was particularly anti-English in 1990 when their rugby team was captained by Will Carling, smugness personified. The Scottish grand slam in the 5 Nations that year was particularly sweet as it followed weeks of English propaganda about the “inevitable” clean sweep for Carling’s lads.

So where does that leaves me? I am English. Part of me must feel as if I’m Scottish, but I’m not. To all intents and purposes I’m English; yet what sort of Englishman will often cheer England’s defeats in sporting contests, and can be irritated when he sees what can too often seem to be an English trait of arrogance fused with an innate sense of superiority? But I’m not Scottish, and I certainly have no wish to be a plastic Jock; you won’t find me in McShea’s Scottish Bar, downing pints of heavy whilst donning a McEwan’s hat on St Andrews Day.

Thankfully, official forms make it quite clear what my nationality is. I hold a British passport, so that must mean that I am British, plain and simple. Sure, it’s a cop out, but that will do for me. And anyway, I’m not really bothered one way or the other; this is just yet another contrived excuse for a blog post.

PostScript: If Sam Allardyce becomes the next England “head coach”, don’t be surprised if I start supporting Scotland in football as well.

Everyone knew that the proposed law banning smoking in public places was absurd; for smoking to be outlawed only in pubs that served food meant it was likely that some pubs would ditch food and become purely drinking and smoking dens. That hardly seemed a recipe for a healthy environment and so something had to be done; but surely not the complete banning of smoking in every public place in the country?

I don’t smoke, and so I am sure that I will regard pubs as being even nicer places for me to visit once smoking is banned, but this law seems all wrong. If you were to compare the way we live now to the way things were twenty years ago – with regards the general smokiness of pubs, the number of no-smoking areas and smoke-free workplaces, and in the number of smokers in general – then you can’t fail to notice that we have already made great strides in the direction the health campaigners would like us to go, all without any legislation. So why the need to ban smoking now?

I can understand the argument for banning smoking at work; I once worked in an office where most people smoked and it was pretty unpleasant. The proposal that I could just leave and get another job if I didn’t like it didn’t seem that fair to me (especially as this was in the middle of a recession and it had been tough enough just getting that job in the first place), and so I can sympathise with pub workers who don’t want to indulge in passive smoking but feel that they have little choice. Surely, though, there are all sorts of alternatives to an outright ban. You could ban smoking in the bar area itself, for example, or offer the carrot of tax relief or even the stick of health and safety regulations to encourage premises to improve their ventilation and air conditioning systems, or to create separate areas so that smokers and non-smokers are provided with a choice of where to sit. Of course, bar workers would still face smoke when they move out of the bar area, to collect glasses and so on, but then many workers face similar problems when they venture out of their offices or places of work. Plumbers, for example, may have their own smoke-free office, shop or showroom but could still have to work in a house owned by smokers, and they have to accept others’ freedoms in their work environment; or does this new law mean a private house becomes a workplace when workmen are there? Are people now going to be prevented from smoking in their own homes when they have an electrician in doing a re-wire?

It is easy, and all too tempting, to blame this law on a Labour government that is continually assailing our civil liberties in the face of public anger, but it is more depressing than that. The 200-vote majority in the commons on a free vote shows that this is not just a New Labour thing; politicians of all parties supported this bill. Also, as with ID cards and terrorism legislation the government can genuinely claim that they are in agreement with the general public on this one, as opinion polls regularly attest to. If anything, though, the figures on smoking are more disturbing.

Because I can see why people could support ID cards, 90 days detention, laws against glorifying terrorism, even capital punishment if they believe that such things will make them safer and aid national security; I don’t agree with them, but I can see there is an argument there. How though can you explain the Newsnight survey that suggested that if anything this government isn’t authoritarian enough; 64% of those polled agreed with the smoking ban, but many wanted the law to go further. 68% said that pregnant women should be banned from smoking at any time, 69% said that those with children should be banned from smoking in their own homes, and 48% wanted a total ban on smoking, full stop. I doubt many people think it is a good idea to smoke if you are pregnant, or to smoke around children, but for a majority to think that it is alright for the state to legislate in such areas seems quite worrying. For those who want a freer and more liberal society, it is starting to look like we may have no alternative but to impose it!