When You Criminalize Every Aspect of Society, You Make a Nation of....Criminals

Oh my, those rebels in the UK. The Daily Mail reports on the lawlessness of British subjects:

Many may not know they have done anything wrong, while others simply might not care.

But the average person breaks the law at least once a day, a survey has found.

Speeding, using a mobile phone while driving and dropping litter top the list of rules and regulations regularly flouted.[...]
While some of these crimes can have fatal consequences, 58 per cent say they are not very important.

Another 20 per cent say that because everyone is up to it, they don't even see the actions as being illegal.

Only 5 per cent of Britons say they never break any laws .

John Sewell, spokesman for www.onepoll.com, which carried out the survey, said: 'It's worrying to think that so many people are breaking the law on a daily basis.

'And it's an even bigger concern that many aren't at all bothered about it.

Yes, it is worrying to think that so many people are breaking the law on a daily basis; but only because it should be worrying that there are so many laws to break on a daily basis. Let's take a look at some of the most commonly broken laws.

• Cycling on pavement
  
• Eating or drinking while driving
  
• Parking partly on pavement
  
• Taking your child out of school for a holiday with out the head's position
  
• Smoking in a public place
  

Murder, rape, robbery, and theft were conspicuously missing from the list. I'm not an expert on the dynamics of British society, but I'd be willing to guess those crimes are missing because in fact, Britons as a whole are generally law abiding people. It's when you begin to criminalize all aspects of society that you create a general apathy towards the law, or downright disrespect of it.

Hazard Warning Signs Found To Be Hazardous

In England they're taking down the signs on one highway that tell motorists how many people have been killed on that road because the drivers are so distracted by the signs they're getting into accidents:

A spokesman for the [UK Highways] agency said: "The signs were put up as an experiment in the early 1990s.

"But research has shown that they have not had a noticeable effect on accident figures."

He said recent studies had shown drivers were increasingly suffering from "information overload" and that there was now concern the signs could be more of a distraction than an aid.

Which makes sense. I mean, when you're roaring down a highway with a couple of strippers in the car helping you finish off a bottle of tequila, sometimes you really have to concentrate on those road signs to read them.

This Highways Agency's decision didn't please everyone though:

A spokesman for the AA said casualty information signs were important because they justified the use of speed cameras.

He said: "We need to keep the public on side with road safety initiatives and telling them why we are bothering to enforce the law is very important."

So they want to replace highway fatalities with fatalities caused by road rage brought on by speed limits? Jolly good show mates!

Know Your Limits -- Then Push Them Until You're Willing to Sleep with Rob

Daily Mail:

Middle class drinkers are to be bombarded with TV, radio and newspaper adverts warning them of the dangers of alcohol.

Ministers are stepping up their campaign against unhealthy boozing with a multi-million pound blitz on people who have a glass of two of wine at home at the end of the day.

The drive, launched today, is designed to alert middle-aged drinkers to the number of units of alcohol in each glass and leave them in no doubt that regularly exceeding recommended levels causes health problems.[...]

"We are not saying don't drink," public health minister Dawn Primarolo insisted last night. "I enjoy a glass of wine myself.

"It is not saying don't, it's saying here's the information and think about it. It is presented in a nonjudgmental, directly identifiable environment."

Good grief...The terrorist have won. Isn't this what we Yanks and Brits are fighting for in Iraq? The right to drink as much booze as we want at home? Don't the Islamistfacisterroist hates us because of our decadent, whore mongering western culture that feeds on excess in drugs, alcohol and sex? That's the war I signed up for and I'm punching out if that isn't the plan anymore. Let me know when we are back on that "terrorist hate us for who we are" meme.

In the meantime, check out the UK's Know Your Limits website, bound to make you laugh and give you a chubby at the same time. There you can post your "I'm a whore who uses booze as an excuse to be a big whore" stories like Anna:

"A typical example of a night out was once when I was in a pub with a group of friends, and I slipped out unnoticed – my mates found me unconscious later on, in a shop doorway covered in my own sick.

On other occasions, my drinking sessions made me really promiscuous, and I slept with a series of strangers on one-night stands, and then contracted a number of sexually transmitted diseases. One particular occasion, I went to the pub I worked in on my own, and left 10 minutes later with a completely random bloke nobody knew. I took him home where we drank, did drugs and had sex. A couple of hours later I walked him back to the pub and said goodbye.[...]

After an all-too regular pattern of near-misses and scrapes, and once the drinking became compulsive and secretive, she knew she had a problem – so she has cut back severely on her drinking.

Well, goodbye Anna, I wish I had had the chance to know you. However, my limited travels around this world tell me that there will always be another sloppy drunk British girl to take Anna's place. Ladette to Lady anyone?

And if posting the story about that one time you were really drunk and let your roommate's dog lick your asshole isn't your idea of fun, you can always play the "Night Out" game. I choose the girl character, had one drink with the cute guy who was eyeing me at the bar and then ended up sexually assaulted. I'm not sure what happened, but it was probably my fault. Good times.

Just Say No

UK’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs looks to be voting no on a reclassification of cannabis to a class B drug.

The Government's official advisory body on drugs policy believes cannabis should remain a Class C drug and not be reclassified as Class B, it has been reported.

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) will make its recommendation this month, following a review of the decision to downgrade the drug.

The move could put the board on a collision course with Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who this week spoke of his determination to send a signal to young people that the use of cannabis was "unacceptable".

Good news. Let's see if the politicians restrain themselves from scoring easy political points with a reclassification.

Someone Actually Has A Worse Understanding Of Justice Than The US Drug Czar

Relative to the worldwide condemnation of Geert Wilders' film, "Fitna," these remarks by a British Imam and "lawyer" will probably go mostly unnoticed and unpublicized. But this analysis of innocence and guilt is not something I'd want to see applied by any government or justice system:

"You are innocent if you are a Muslim," Choudary tells the BBC. "Then you are innocent in the eyes of God. If you are not a Muslim, then you are guilty of not believing in God."

Choudary said he would not condemn a Muslim for any action.

"As a Muslim, I must support my Muslim brothers and sisters," Choudary said. "I must have hatred to everything that is not Muslim."

And the Archbishop of Canterbury commented just two months ago that some aspects of Sharia law seem "unavoidable" in Britain.

If only I could remember why I decided to stay away from that whole religion thing...

Anti-Social Behavior 'Will Not be Tolerated'

Government Announces New Drugs Strategy

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has unveiled the Government's new 10-year drugs strategy.

The new £1 billion strategy includes plans to extend police powers to seize drug dealers' cash and assets on arrest, rather than conviction; make drug users who receive benefits be assessed by a specialist treatment provider to help them get into treatment and back into work; and provide family-friendly services to protect more young people and families affected by drug use.[...]

"We will continue to send a clear message that drug use is unacceptable; that we are on the side of communities; that we demand respect for the law and will not tolerate illegal or anti-social behaviour; but we will provide help for those who are trying to turn their lives around, to get off drugs and into work, to ensure drug problems are not handed on to the next generation; and that we expect drug users themselves to take responsibility, and will help them to do so."

Story here.

Traffic Cameras and the Slippery Slope

Speed and red light cameras were installed a few years ago in DC with little public outcry. One of the intersections that red light running cameras were installed at, Nebraska and Connecticut, had seen four deaths in as many years due to red light runners slamming into cars. Libertarian me did not even protest that camera as I had a very scary experience when a huge dumptruck going about 50 at that same intersection ran a red light and would have killed me had I not noticed it coming and wildly acclerated to avoid it.

But those cameras do start a slippery slope of government. Marc Fisher in the Wa Post reports today:

In Britain, the global leader in official surveillance of public spaces, the latest generation of digital speed cameras produces photos that reveal when drivers are eating, smoking or using hand-held cellphones -- all no-nos in Mother England.

Are we still so happy with speed cameras?

The UK is ahead of the US both in terms of surveillance technology and the evolution of the Nanny State. Does anyone doubt that the government will, like the UK, start using those cameras for more invasive monitoring of drivers?

Master of His Domain

This guy rocks.

LONDON (Reuters) - A farmer built an entire mock castle behind a screen of hay bales and lived there concealed for four years to evade planning regulations, officials said on Friday -- but it may be torn down anyway.

Robert Fidler hopes to take advantage of a provision of planning law that allows buildings without planning permission to be declared legal if no objections have been made after four years.

But Reigate and Banstead Borough Council in Surrey is not impressed.

"It does not count because the property was hidden behind hay bales," said a spokeswoman. "No one knew it was there."

The council wants the building near Redhill some 30 km south of London to be demolished, along with an associated conservatory, marquee structure, wooden bridge, patio, decking and tarmac racecourse.

I hope he pours hot oil on the regulators trying to destroy his castle. Actually, I hope he pours hot oil on Playboy Bunnies and lets me wrestle around with them in his castle, but that's a different fantasy.

All Laws are Stupid, But Some Laws are Stupider Than Others

The votes are in. The Top 10 most stupid British laws:

1. It is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament (27 percent)

5. In Scotland, if someone knocks on your door and requires the use of your toilet, you must let them enter (four percent)

My personal favorites:

3. In Liverpool, it is illegal for a woman to be topless except as a clerk in a tropical fish store (six percent)

6. A pregnant woman can legally relieve herself anywhere she wants,
including in a policeman's helmet (four percent)

I'm totally seeking a pregnant clerk in a tropical fish store in Liverpool to date. Are you out there?

Must See

A piece on the Saudis, as King Abdullah visits the UK. The whole thing is 7 minutes and worth a watch, but the important part is the first 30-45 seconds, as the military band at Buckingham Palace greets Abdullah with Darth Vaders theme music.

Be Careful Who You Send E-Mails to in Great Britain

This is unbelievable:

Former guardsman Jake Reid was stunned to be interviewed by police officers after the provost took exception to being called an "embarrassment" in an e-mail.

The Scots Guards veteran who served on five tours of duty in Northern Ireland was visited by police and warned not to send any more e-mails to Dundee's lord provost, John Letford.

[...]

Mr Reid had sent two e-mails to Lord Provost Letford after being outraged by Mr Letford's failure to properly address the Queen during a royal visit to the city. He headlined his e-mail "Dundee and Dignity", and wrote: "Sir, You are an embarrassment to Dundee, when will you resign?"

Days later, a riot squad arrived at his door and ordered him to stop sending e-mails to the provost.

Jesus.

I don't know if this counts as "better late than never", but the veteran did get an apology.

Superintendent Mackay wrote to Mr Reid: "I am happy to confirm that in the circumstances there was no basis for any police involvement or action against yourself.

"I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to you for any embarrassment caused to you as a result of police involvement in this matter."

Not nearly enough for a case this absurd. And while the apology is a nice thought, I think the embarrassment is pointed in the pigs direction, not the veteran's. Full article here. Via Nation of Shopkeepers.

One Joint of Skunk Killed My Daughter

As the Fark tag says -- unlikely.

I think is shows an amazing lack of journalistic honesty and integrity that these type of stories continue to be published in British papers.

I touched on the push back against cannabis in the UK, making my own wildly speculative guesses as to what is prompting the anti-pot media craze, here and here.

When I Return to London, They Can Take My DNA Sample as a Jizz Shot to the Face

You might want to just keep flying directly over the island nation and straight to the continent on your next European trip. This shit is getting to be too much:

The entire UK population and every visitor to Britain should be put on the national DNA database, a top judge said today.

[...]

He said that expanding the existing database to cover the whole population had "serious but manageable implications".

Well, as long as they are manageable problems, I suppose it's OK.

Full article here.

UK Drug Policy--Part 1

A spot-on breakdown of the increased British press and "studies" surrounding the correlation between mental illness and marijuana use, by Paul Armentano (NORML) and Mitch Earleywine over at the Huffington Post.

According to the Associated Press and other news sources, a new study in the British medical journal The Lancet reports that smoking cannabis ­- even occasionally ­- can increase one's risk of becoming psychotic. It sounds alarming at first, but a closer look at the evidence reveals that there's less here than the headlines imply.

First, there is no new study. The paper published in The Lancet is a meta-analysis --a summary of seven studies that previously appeared in other journals, including some that were published decades ago. Second, the touted association between cannabis and mental illness is small--about the same size as the link between head injury and psychosis. Finally, despite what some new sources suggest, this association is hardly proof of a cause-and-effect relationship between cannabis and psychosis. So why the sudden fuss?

Yeah, why the sudden fuss? I'll give it my best shot.

Continued below.....

Part 2

Well, I'm not sure. But I have a keyboard and button on the bottom of my screen right now that says, Publish Post. If those two things don't make me qualified to take absolute guesses then I don't know what does. Here are my theories:

• Think about public opinion the same way you would about long-term drug use statistics in a society. Drug trends (like all trends) are cyclical in nature. They go up in popularity and then down. Certain drugs increase in popularity over a period of time and others fall. Different generations can have different attitudes, and attitudes within a generation can change over time. Sometimes it is easy to figure out why, sometimes it isn't. Public opinion on how we deal with drugs (I think) operates on the same plane.
  
• Most drug policy experts associate the recent anti-pot media campaign to be driven by the press itself. I'm not so sure. I think both the press and the political class are picking up on a public push back stemming from the reclassification of the drug 3 years ago. Drug policy reform doesn't operate in some magical world where the wins stay wins, and you never give back ground to the opposition. I mean there is an opposition side to lax drug laws in the UK right? And they all aren't media professionals or politicians...We can all agree on that right? If there are people on the other side, they don't stop fighting just because they are losing. *If that was the case we wouldn't have a single reformer in the US. They all would have killed themselves by now...
  
• Can someone explain to me, in a nation where the government foots the bill for citizens' health care, how they don't have a right to police what you put in your body? Seems to me that's the biggest down side of government provided health care. If they are picking up the tab, how can you draw the line and say -- Hey, I get to decide what harmful substances I put in my body. Once you give up the responsibility of providing your own care, you have given an incredible amount of ground in the personal freedom arena. Why even stop at health care? The UK has turned into one of the great nanny states of the 21st century...That could be the real catalysis for the increased pressure...
  

The Star touched on this subject a week ago. It's worth a read.

*Obviously reformers have had successes in the US. Without them we would be in much worse shape, which is a horrible thought to have. My only point is that most people would agree we aren't much better off than we were 25 or 30 years ago.

Tony Blair as Stupid as Rudy Giuliani

I guess like Giuliani, Blair doesn't read intelligence reports, history books or newspapers either.

[Blair's] muscular internationalism might best be described as half globalization theory and half Gladstone -- the Victorian-era, Liberal prime minister who symbolizes high-minded, humanitarian intervention. Blair speaks a neon language of right and wrong and sees Britain as a global force for good. And he has little patience for a trendy moral equivalence:

"The reason why the stance of a lot of public opinion is quite defeatist in my view is because we are still saying, 'Well, they've got a point, we understand their grievance, maybe it is our fault.' . . We get rid of two of the most brutal and terrible dictatorships, who've killed hundreds of thousands of their people, we then say you can have a United Nations-backed process of democracy -- and you say that provoked them to terrorism. I mean, explain that one for me."

Yeah, the idea that carpet-bombing Muslim countries, overthrowing their leaders, and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people through economic sanctions and war is going to lead to retaliation of some sort really needs explaining. I can't imagine why a father who loses his wife and children in a bombing raid isn't satisfied knowing that it was a cost of bringing him democracy. Nope, can't imagine why at all.

More on Blair's killing-people-is-humanitarianism-at-its-best philosophy in today's Washington Post.

Must-See TV: 'Fat Teens Can’t Hunt'

More important than the fact the sun comes up every day, I'm grateful The Sun comes out each day. Else we'd miss stuff like this:

THE BBC is set to cause outrage with a reality show that makes porky kids a laughing stock — by forcing them to hunt for food.

Ten youngsters will be sent to live with Aboriginal tribesmen in Australia for a month in Fat Teens Can’t Hunt.

They have to follow the strict rules of the Aborigines — so if they want to eat, they must feast on plants, grasses and fruits as well as trap, kill and cook any animals or insects they find.

If they do not tuck into the traditional tucker, they go without.

Cameras will follow the group’s attempts to locate food in the baking sun of the Australian bush.

[Ellipsis]

“This experiment gives our teenagers a unique opportunity to address their dysfunctional relationship with food once and for all before they reach adulthood.”

The BBC3 series will be filmed this summer and producers are looking for ten overweight teens prepared to be filmed around the clock.

It follows Channel 4 plans for a similar show, which will force participants to source food from a rubbish dump.

More here. If you're a morbidly obese wannabe celeb Brit, you must click here.

Tony Blair is Gay

Not homosexual gay or happy gay; but awful gay. Like wearing slacks without a belt gay, or George Bush gay. Like "that's so gay" gay. And yes I know criticizing people for not dressing right makes me sound gay. Homosexual gay. And making fun of the word gay could get me arrested in England. Or put under strict curfew. Which is why Tony Blair is so gay. But not as gay as Vladimir Putin (he he, Putin, what a fun name to say) who is no longer inching but galloping towards Stalin gay. Interestingly, a google search for "Stalin" and "gay" finds this 2002 BBC News story about the Russia government prosecuting a novelist for writing about a fictional homosexual relationship between Stalin and Khrushchev. A search for "gay" and "tony blair" turns up this excellent music video from a few years ago making fun of him and George Bush. There's an interesting wikipedia page on the history and evolution of the words gay and ghey here. The latter is what I'm supposed to use when saying things like Ann Coulter's offensive comments are so ghey; but would you know what I mean? No. That's because ghey is gay. Like Lou Dobbs gay. God that man is a douche bag. I'm proud to say that my post entitled "Ron Paul on Douche Bag Lou Dobbs' Show, Minue the Douche Bag" is the first and second thing to pop up on a google search for "Lou Dobbs" and "douche bag".

Earth Friendly Big Brother

Charles More writing in the Spectator's Notes:

A friend of mine who lives in a north London street where there have recently been several burglaries was alarmed by a noise outside his house at two in the morning. Looking out, he saw men in black woolly hats creeping round near his dustbins, shining torches. He was about to ring the police when one of the men turned round, and revealed a sign on his back announcing that he was from the council’s refuse collection department. The men were checking for infractions of the new rules about sorting your rubbish into different, environmentally friendly bins. Truly, the price of greenery is eternal vigilance.

Geesh. Full diary entry here. Via Jay Nordlinger's NRO column here.

Tony Blair to World: England to Become Perfect Totalitarian Society

Just when I thought I couldn't be surprised at how quickly the UK is marching down the road to serfdom, Tony Blair comes up with this shit:

Babies could be vaccinated with brain-altering chemicals to stop them getting hooked on drugs and cigarettes in later life.

Newborns would have jabs which could prevent addiction to cocaine, heroin or tobacco, under secret Downing Street plans.
[...]
Ministers could also crack down on drug dens by having the post scanned for supplies using modern technology, while police helicopters would use revolutionary laser radar systems to test the air for chemicals used to make drugs.

The document, reportedly being considered by Tony Blair's working group on crime, talks of "immunotherapies" developed in secret to protect a generation.

It says: "A young person could be immunised and the drugs would never reach or affect the brain. Drug-related crimes could be reduced if vaccines can be successfully developed to reduce the craving."

Vaccinating babies so they can't get high as adults is the drug war equivalent of female circumcision. I can't imagine anything more despicable than robbing a person of the ability to feel pleasure.

Brits Continue to Create Compelling Reality

Antonella Barba's A+ rack might be enough to make a TV show controversial on this side of the pond, but to really shock in England you've got to do something like this.

CHANNEL 4 is stepping into a religious minefield again by signing up a strict Muslim woman for its life- switch series Wife Swap.
And the mum — who wears a traditional hijab — will swap with a woman whose 16-year-old daughter is a LESBIAN. [Emphasis and caps not mine.]

The Muslim woman, her husband and three children live by strict Islamic law. They all pray five times a day and shun alcohol. She and an “arty” liberal mother will swap homes for two weeks, spending the first week living by the others’ rules.

In the second week they will introduce their own rules.

A show source said: “Yes, it sounds like a gimmick, but there is a serious point to this.["]

Right. Just like there'd be a serious point to a reality show in which Ann Coulter joined the Dixie Chicks.

But who cares? Shows like this one, or this one, make for gripping TV. Controversy for the sake of controversy? I'm on board.