Freedom Calls... "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy." At the time of writing a massive 1,683,277 people have signed the petition, over one and a half million members of the electorate petitioning the Prime Minister to stop the road pricing policy, and yet despite heralding the need for debate, Mr Blair is unrelenting in his plan to get this through. His editorial in Sunday's observer demonstrated that he sees debate as him talking and us listening, not so much a debate, it would seem, but a lecture. The state of democracy in this country is entirely shocking that such a large number of the electorate can be resolutely against something and yet the government refuses to even consider that their view may be correct. The Sparrow has a major problem with the road pricing policy, not for financial reasons, but for the fundamental belief that citizens of this country are entitled to basic freedoms, freedoms that are eroded by legislation that effectively allows the government to know not only where everyone is all of the time, but where everyone has been. Combine this policy with the proposed legislation on mandatory biometric ID cards, the national super database, the act that allows ministers to create law bypassing parliament, and you have a situation that would send the worlds despots and neo-cons into spasms of ecstasy. A common argument used to justify the erosion of our freedoms and civil liberties is that if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. This argument is an entirely erroneous one, because it is only the case if you can have absolute trust in those over you, trust that this government has never earned. The persistent message from this government has been that dissent is not tolerated, protests near parliament are massively restricted, Dr David Kelly was hounded to his death, Gilligan and Dyke forced out of their jobs. The Blair government has taken a country where people had freedom and rights that had been fought for over centuries, since the 1215 Magna Carta, and systematically stripped people of these rights. It is entirely vital that anyone in this country who values freedom, who values the liberty that millions of our young men and women died for in the last century, refuses and rejects this policy. The Sparrow encourages signing the petition, writing to your MP and making him aware that he will not be reelected to his seat if this legislation is passed, and should the legislation be passed then the only action for any member of society who values liberty is mass civil disobedience, The Sparrow is willing to be prosecuted for said disobedience if it comes to the crunch, are you? As blogger Guido Fawkes says on his site, in a democracy the people should not be afraid of the government, the government should be afraid of the people.   Sign The Petition Find your MP to write too.

20.2.07 12:16 Permalink / 9 Comments / comment

You don't even get a hug The Peacock struggles for a snack. Cup a soup (or generic equivalent – please don’t sue me, Batchelor’s). What is it about this particular foodstuff (I use the word advisedly) that makes it quite so glue-like and yet watery in consistence? There’s a definite art to mixing all of the powder into the boiling water, and it’s one which I have not yet mastered. As I write, I have a steaming mug of Big-Supermarket-Thick-and-Creamy-Tomato-Packet-Soup sitting next to me. I followed the instructions to the letter, pouring the quite alarmingly orange powder, interspersed with various unidentifiable and equally brightly-coloured bits, into the mug, then poured boiling water over the top of it. I stirred and took a sip. The taste was nondescript and a large, gluey lump made its way up from the bottom of the mug and into my mouth. I stirred again, harder, faster and longer this time, scooping at the bottom of the mug to make sure that all the powder had dissolved. Surely that had done it. I took another sip. The soup was slightly thicker this time, but still tasted of very little. Another stir-sip combination. Ooh. I think I may have got a bit of minutely-diced carrot that time. I’m being transported back to the days when I first started eating baby-food, and I’m not impressed. I stir again, sip once more. Repeat until I reach the bottom of the mug. Not only does it taste of nothing, by now it’s stone-cold as well. And hey, whaddya know – there’s a layer of gunk on the bottom of the mug that has somehow resisted the insistent mixing and formed itself into a strange orange glue, reminiscent of poster paint. Still, at least my stirring hand has had a good workout.

9.2.07 15:46 Permalink / 5 Comments / comment

Be My Anti-Valentine    Picture taken from Be My Anti-Valentine at meish.org/vd/   The Peacock muses on alternative ways of spending Valentine's Day. So, the burning question for this time of year is what are you doing for Valentine's Day? Yep, that well-known Hallmark Holiday is just about to roll around again. It only seems a minute since I was last sitting awkwardly in an overpriced restaurant, elbow to elbow with hundreds of other couples, eating substandard food and wishing that we'd had the courage to stay at home and ignore the whole debacle. This year it's going to be different chez Peacock. For a start, I'm single on Valentine's Day. I don't think this has been the case since I was a student and, looking back with the benefit of misty-eyed reminiscence, VD (ha - that acronym never fails to bring a wry smile to my beak) was so much more eventful in those days. The most notable occasion was when my housemates and I went to G.A.Y. the night before VD and discovered that one of our number (male, and at the time in a serious relationship with a girl) was, in fact, gay. Unfortunately, the girlfriend discovered this by coming round a corner in the club and finding him snogging a guy. VD morning was therefore spent eating a LOT of ice-cream and chocolate while watching Hollyoaks and crying. Okay, not all that different to the average student Sunday morning, but it was imbued with extra pathos that day. Another year, another housemate. She'd been seeing a rather dishy young man for a few weeks, who decided to dump her the day before VD. The same day, our house cat was run over and killed. Once again, VD was spent in a sea of tissues and ice-cream, before going out in the evening and drinking quite obscene amounts of cheap beer in her student union, falling over drunk and (in my case) throwing a pint over a particularly persistent guy who I'd had a brief dalliance with a few weeks before. Ah, heady days. A few years later and I’ve disappeared to Switzerland for a skiing holiday with friends, leaving my boyfriend of the time at home while I drink far too much gluhwein, eat far too much fondue, get a tan and nearly break my neck while attempting to do a particularly showy jump on one of the blackest of the black bump runs. Needless to say, I hadn’t had such a good time in ages. Now, I realise that none of these examples are classically perfect ways to spend the (allegedly) most romantic day of the year, but at least they were memorable. I'm a Peacock, not a Lovebird - it's all about the drama. This year, therefore, you will find me out with friends, handing out red roses and kisses to passers-by, dancing like I've never danced before and laughing like there's no tomorrow. This year it's all about loving the life I'm living and creating a day to remember - go on, give it a go, I dare you.

2.2.07 10:09 Permalink / 3 Comments / comment

The Constitution is dead, long live the constitution? The Sparrow puts the case against the resurrection of the EU constitution.  European leaders will meet in Madrid this weekend in an effort to save the EU constitution after it's sizable defeats in referendums in both the Netherlands and France.  It's an interesting idea, reviving the constitution, being as the rules of engagement at the start of the whole constitution plan were that it must be okay'd by every member state.  Surely even the blindest, most self absorbed bureaucrats could have seen that at least one country would reject it, although one must assume that were it one of the smaller countries they would have been bullied into saying yes, but no one expected the French to give it the brush off.   The problem with the EU constitution is that it's merde, mierte, Scheiße, shit.  It's a stupid idea.  I'm actually in favour of the EU, I think it's far better than the old way of behaving in Europe where we spent most of our time invading each other, it has many trade benefits and synergies.  However, what I am against is becoming a federal system, which the constitution is a big step towards.  The politicians who thought up this scheme can't begin to know how out of touch with what the people want, while people want to be able to travel aroung the continent, they want the benefits to trade and the economy, they don't want to see their sovereignty eroded in a major way.   When the individual states in America formed a union they had existed for a few decades, the problem facing Europe is that many of the countries involved have over two thousand years of history behind them, in the case of Greece and Italy, even more.  This creates an entirely different climate, and people need to see that the line is being drawn between a union of countries co-operating, and those countries becoming one.  While the constitution does not create a single country, it is a further and crucial step towards that. Without the constitution, it can't happen.   The meeting this weekend in Madrid is an insult to democracy, when two nations have formally rejected the constitution to continue pushing it is unfair and pure egotism on behalf of the politicians.  Even Germany, whose Parliament favour the constitution, consider this weekend to be a bad idea and sending a bad message to the electorate in France and the Netherlands.  There is no fair way to resurrect the constitution without sending the message to those who have already voted against it that their opinions do not count.  To return and ask the question again until the people give the "right" answer is precisely the kind of egotistical behaviour that makes people wary of politicians in the first place. The constitution is dead, it's been declared so by two of Europe's electorates, surely it's time the leaders of our countries stopped wasting money on trying to resurrect it.

26.1.07 14:49 Permalink / 4 Comments / comment

Columnist Watch #1: You're The One For Me Fatty Mic Wright begins this irregular series that takes columnists to task: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1992062,00.html Zoe Williams sometimes acts like a drunken stand up, who, finding that her audience no longer laughs at her jokes, resorts to self-aggrandisement and petty abuse. In this rant, for which she is no doubt handsomely rewarded, she lays into all those women who feel the need to diet. “Why“, she wonders “would otherwise intelligent women, educated to a high standard, interested in global politics, etc, etc, worry about something so meaningless as their weight?” It appears that Zoe, dressed in a fetching chiffon scarf in her byline picture and often seen desperately clasping a glass of wine in the pages of G2, has reached a state of Zen where her physical appearance no longer concerns her. Or perhaps it is because she, unlike the “vain and stupid” women who fixate on their weight, simply has the world’s fastest metabolism or a partner who couldn’t care less what she looks like because of her enormous and incredible intellect. Either of these assertions may be true. However, her attack on those women who do feel the need to worry about their weight is illogical and insensitive, based on shock tactics and flimsy assertions. She opens her subsidised rant with a sarcastic attack on Times columnist India Knight and film producer Neris Thomas, who recently published a new diet book: “It must be an intelligent book, since they are both manifestly intelligent, as attested by their high professional status (Knight is a writer and Thomas a film producer). And yet it is also, undeniably about dieting. Riddle-me-ree.” Williams’ contention is that “women, who fixate on their weight, unless we’re dealing with eating disorders, are not intelligent”. In her heavy handed assessment, worrying about your weight immediately precludes you being an intelligent person. This is a bizarre statement which fails to define what she considers “fixated”. Weight is not a meaningless issue. In a society that is increasingly overweight it is a health issue and Williams’ example of India Knight is particularly strange. Knight’s book details a diet in which she shrank from a size 22 to a size 14 – this is hardly the realm of size zero models and anorexia. Neither is it a question of ridiculous fussing from a woman who is a bit worried about her love handles, it was an issue of self esteem and well being. Size 22 is unhealthily large and Knight slimmed down for her health and to take control of her self-image. It was not a question of the “industrial narcissism” which Williams purports to attack. By deploying the sacred f-word, “feminism”, Williams attempt to bolster her argument as an attack on women’s complicity with society’s objectification of them but her targeting systems have gone askew. Rather than looking at the excessive focus on shape and weight that litters the tabloid press and the celebrity magazines, she puts Knight and ordinary women in her sights, declaring that an understandable desire to be fit, healthy and not overweight is a sign of stupidity. Her approach is ill thought out and scattershot and when she ponders “maybe this sounds needlessly aggressive” the only possible answer is: yes, it really does.

17.1.07 16:47 Permalink / 2 Comments / comment

There is power in the union? The Sparrow considers the state of the union... Three hundred years ago today the Scottish Parliament ratified the treaty that hastened its own end; January 16th 1707. The act declared: "The two kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN: And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall think fit, and used in all Flags, Banners, Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land." It was a momentous achievement (although far from popular north of the border), paving the way for peace at home and the building of the Empire. Three Hundred years on, however, the union is at its weakest ebb since the defeat of the last Jacobite uprising in 1746. Discontent in Scotland is common but this time it is matched by growing dissatisfaction in England. For the Scots, losing the independence they had fought for over the centuries was an insult. Make a trip to Scotland and you will find the long shadow of it's pre-union past falling over you, with Bannockburn and Robert the Bruce held in the kind of reverence that England fans hold 1966. It is an independent country in attitude and always has been, even if the laws were made in London. In 1999 in an attempt to make the Union fairer and pacify the protests for a Scottish Parliament, the Labour Government devolved some power to a new Scottish Assembly. Far from making the system fairer, however, this parliament has led to a system with even more imbalances. The West Loathian question is one of the key issues. It is the name given to the problem that Scottish MPs can vote on matters that do not affect Scotland. The Prime minister has been known to rely on their votes to pass bills for England that a majority of English MPs have rejected. One of the cornerstones of Westminster democracy is the fact that all MPs can vote in all votes (with the exception of the Speaker and Tellers). To change the rules would mean making different classes of MP. The problem seems to be coming to a head since Gordon Brown is a Scottish MP who as Prime Minister would have power to create laws and bills that rule over England, yet would not effect his own constituency. Add to this the fact that Scottish constituencies now have two MPs, one for Westminster and one for Hollyrood, and you have a sufficiently confusing and unfair system to cause an even greater desire for change, as opposed to pacifying it. The Scottish Nationalist Party has been gaining popularity before the forthcoming Scottish Parliamentary elections this May, and their raison d'etre is the abolition of the act of union and the establishment of Scotland as an independent country again. While in the past conditions have not been right for them to gain both popular support at home and a desire for change on both sides of the border, it seems that this may be the year that they finally break through. If they do they will seek a referendum in Scotland on independence and, should that win approval of the people must then appeal to Parliament at Westminster to dissolve the Union. This makes matters complicated, because the Scots MPs at Westminster would be surely inclined to vote to keep their jobs, rather than for independence, however surely true democracy dictates that in the situation of an elected Scottish Parliament holding a referendum and demanding independence, the only just thing to do is give it to them. It seems that for Mr Blair, the question of what could be his lasting legacy may have been taken out of his hands completely, and he may forever be remembered for presiding over the break up of the Union. A fitting way to end a shambolic decade at the top.

16.1.07 13:47 Permalink / comment

ITV Play...us for fools King Crow gets in a flap over ITV Play's deceitfulness... The overnight television quiz is the preserve of isomniacs, maniacs and the truly desperate but they should at least have a fair chance of winning as they cradle the receiver and paw at the redial button. Not if ITV Play has anything to do with it. The ITV channel created purely to further prove the axiom that a fool and his money are easily parted, has been found in breach of the broadcasting code by Ofcom following a quiz about items commonly found in a woman's handbag. On September 21st 2005, the dead eyed host invited viewers to "identify things you find in a woman's handbag." When, after the usual hyperactive shouting and seemingly pointless countdowns, the game ended, only seven of the 13 prizes for revealing correct answers had been won. The remaining answers included "balaclava" and "rawl/rawl plugs" - a trade name for wall plugs. One can only assume that the producers had interviewed former members of the provisional IRA and DIY fanatics. Ofcom found ITV Play in breach of rule 2.11 of the broadcasting code, which states "competitions should be conducted fairly" and concluded that: "The inclusion of these answers was unreasonable and the competition was not conducted farirly." It is its first ruling against the channel but it is not likely to be the last. Other answers on that night included "rubber band", "directions", "false teeth", "contact lenses", "driving licence" and "plane tickets". Viewers were lured into using their underevolved fingers by the sample answer "mobile phone". ITV claimed that the full list of answers was reviewed by a senior producer and the channel's business manager prior to broadcast. These people are either a) idiots or b) married to very unconventional women. It did concede however that the answers in question "whilst not impossible, were unlikely to readily identified and were therefore inappropriate" - translation: "We had no idea that anyone with the intelligence to complain would be awake at that hour." Presented by frightening automatons barking idiotic phrases in sparsely decorated studios, these shows are the programmed equivalent of ambulance chaser ads and are just as cynical. More people should follow the example of the woman who called into the station and responded to the host's bleating for an answer with a deadpan statement: "I can't believe you get paid for this."

16.1.07 09:58 Permalink / 4 Comments / comment

 [next page]