Gary Monro’s blog

Spam problems here are giving me a bit of a headache so I’m trying out a new location.

Read more of my usual rubbish here:

http://englishconservative.blogspot.com/

Lynette Burrows, a family campaigner, has had a visit from our (are they really ours anymore?) boys in blue regarding a comment she made on a live radio show.

From the Daily Telegraph:

During the programme, she said she did not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. She added that placing boys with two homosexuals for adoption was as obvious a risk as placing a girl with two heterosexual men who offered themselves as parents. “It is a risk,” she said. “You would not give a small girl to two men.”

A member of the public complained and a homophobic incident was recorded against her. A social worker police officer was sent round to lean on Ms Burrows. The officer apparently explained that

…it was not a crime but that she had to record these incidents.

Our increasingly spineless police authorities explained this piece of totalitarian intimidation thus:

A spokesman said it was policy for community safety units to investigate homophobic, racist and domestic incidents because these were “priority crimes”.

It is standard practice for all parties to be spoken to, even if the incident is not strictly seen as a crime. “It is all about reassuring the community,” said the spokesman. “We can confirm that a member of the public brought to our attention an incident which he believed to be homophobic.

“All parties have been spoken to by the police. No allegation of crime has been made. A report has been taken but is now closed.”

So: no crime, no laws broken, no charges. But you still get a police visit for expressing an opinion. Evidently this ‘assuring the community’ garbage is - as one might expect these days - only about assuring some sections of the community. The others can go to hell.

And some of you want these people to be able to lock us up for 90 days without charge?

Push for more Tory women MPs will be based on merit

Where, if that Telegraph headline is going to make logical sense, then being ‘female’ is going to have to be considered a ‘merit’.

I’ve hardly started campaigning for the local elections yet and now I find my future ambition kicked in the crutch already. See what happens when you’re exposed as a Davis supporter?

Thanks Dave.

Well, those of us who supported David Davis and who hoped ardently for his victory will be feeling a bit hung-over after the Conservative Party’s leadership contest result.

We believe our man had the gravitas, the punch, the experience and the maturity of his years to be New Labour’s Grim Reaper whilst also believing that Mr Cameron lacked all these qualities - and that he may continue to lack them for the foreseeable future.

Criticism of Mr Cameron wasn’t necessarily personal. If the Conservative Party was looking for an image make-over - that ‘change’ we have been endlessly told we need - then David Cameron was a good choice. He’s young, he’s got a nice family, he won’t frighten the horses and has banged on so much about how we’ve got to change and be compassionate that, maybe, he’s convinced the electorate that that’s what we’ve actually done. Further, Mr Cameron isn’t a dope, isn’t an incompetent and he isn’t a fool.

Trouble is, in some areas we’re not sure what he actually is. More dangerously, for those of us who believe, for example, that a firm line must be taken on drug use and an uncompromising line be taken with our Lords and masters in the EU, Mr Cameron seems, so far, decidedly unsatisfactory.

So how should conservatives view Mr Cameron’s ascension to the Party’s leadership?

First of all - and most of all - we’ve got to accept the result of the leadership election and support the Party’s leader. Regardless of preference before the election, we’re now after the election and Mr Cameron isn’t the enemy, he’s an ally against the enemy. Labour is the enemy and it is that Party on whom we should train our guns. We must direct our fire ferociously against a government that represents nothing that is decent or good in England but which is, in fact, conducting a huge social trick on us, one designed to keep them in power and us in their power. We should consider anybody who opposes Labour to be a friend.

Second, there is room for optimism. I’m not talking about his maiden performance in the Commons the other day which, I understand (I haven’t actually seen it), was well-delivered and scored points on the government. The optimism I’m especially referring to is with regards to the cabinet appointments - Hague, David Davis and Liam Fox, particularly. The latter two will help keep the Party - and, hopefully, a future Conservative government - in line in case Mr Cameron has a Blair flush now and again. And they’ll give the Party necessary experience and gravity without appearing old and grouchy.

Another reason for optimism is that Mr Cameron takes over when the government’s tax-and-spend habits and all the rest of its lunatic mentality are coming home to roost. Further, Blair’s in trouble because Mr Cameron may well support parts of his education Bill while parts of his own party will vote against it. A Labour leader pushing through legislation only because the Opposition supports it is asking for trouble from his own party - and he’ll get it.

But, of course, just because things aren’t looking good for the government doesn’t mean they will look much better for the Conservative Party if the Conservative Party doesn’t (a) properly capitalise on the government’s numerous failings and (b) offer a concrete, precise and compelling vision for this country’s future.

Mr Cameron must now prove to those of us who currently feel he is too whimsical and vague in his pronouncements that he has solid ideas and a clear-cut philosophy on all areas of government. It is, after all, from these ideas that we would expect meaningful and effective policies to spring. The difficulty for members of the Conservative Party for too long has been that we just don’t know where we stand on anything that matters. At the moment we still don’t and, even if it’s too early for detailed policies, we must at least have a clear policy direction. The canvas is pretty blank and we must start filling it.

The friendly, internal fight is over. The real fight now begins. Our enemy is leftist Labour and our principles are the tried and tested, rooted-in-reality traditions and values of England and the English. Whatever else we might feel there seems to be a mood - and mood matters - of optimism, renewal and possibility in both the Party and in much of the press. If that’s what it takes to have our ideas listened to with anything approaching an open mind then it’s all for the good. Let’s use the opportunity to remove this government and install something a little more sane. Before it’s too late.

Seems I suddenly have a primative spam buster on this blog. When you write a comment you have to type in a number before your comment is posted.

Whoopee. I receive several hundred spam comments per day which, although they go into my moderation queue, are still a pain because, before zapping them into the abyss, I have to look out for genuine comments that should actually be posted.

So, two questions: first, why do spam comments still appear on my blog? They’re coming in fewer numbers but somebody has obviously found a way in regardless.

Second: if I’m going to use a paid-for service does anyone have a recommendations? I don’t want to host it - I have enough trouble finding time to write something on the blog without having to learn about what’s going on inside it as well. I want to be able to easily add pictures and customisations - without having to be a web-master - host my own ads (I’m thinking of getting rich quick) and give the site a touch of my own personality (yes, I do actually have one) - but all at the flick of a switch.

Of course, I am interested in a service that deals effectively with people trying to sell me Viagra (or vi.agg.ra as it seems to be often called), porn, pharmaceuticals from Canada, Texas Hold’em secrets (already know ‘em) and so on.

Any suggestions will be much appreciated.

Apparently if you possess up to 500 cannabis joints you won’t be counted as a dealer, according to the Home Office. It seems a normal user might be expected to possess up to that many spliffs at one time. If so, then that’s a rather large stash of weed, isn’t it? What might they be doing with that many joints - getting ready for hibernation? Do nicotine smokers have that many fags (American readers - both of you - note that a ‘fag’ is a cigarette in English English) at any one time?

Anyway.

Has the government heard of ‘demand and supply’? Demand is what people do when they want something. Supply is how the more enterprising get rich - they sell to the demanders whatever it is that they are demanding.

If you want to stop drug abuse then slapping the dealers all over town and going soft on the users is a mistake. The arrangement with users should be simple: possession gets you a big fine the first time and a prison sentence thereafter. You get extra time inside if you refuse to identify your dealer. All David Cameron’s tosh about education is laughable. Kids who take drugs often won’t be at school to hear the lesson and, besides, people taking drugs already know the stuff’s not exactly a health supplement. They consume them for reasons - street credibility, excitement, cool, peer pressure, depression, gross stupidity etc - that are entirely beyond the reach of educators or common sense.

The lure of drugs - and the grip such a lifestyle can have on individuals - is that strong that it can only be combated by an equally strong - but opposing - force. Asking people to apply intellect for uncertain, intangible benefits that are largely abstract or, at best, long-term when instant gratification - along with its accompanying elevation of status amongst peers - beckons enticingly is a mostly wasted effort.

Ask anybody who smokes, eats too much, drinks too much, doesn’t exercise, spends more than they earn, doesn’t save for a pension, puts off important jobs or engages in any one of a large number of minor sins if they recognise that they would be better off if they didn’t. Almost all do recognise it - and some try hard to change but, in the end, we mostly continue to enjoy the moment and ignore the damage. We get some benefit now from the habit and that’s what counts. The same applies to drug use.

The motivation to resist the pressure to try drugs - or to resist continuing using them once one has got over the initial taboo - must be applied from outside. The application must come from the forces of law and order and what must be applied is pain. Only financial pain or custodial pain will remove from drug-taking the sense of bohemian living, harmless rebellion, ‘everybody’s doing it’ attitude, that many otherwise ordinary people associate with the habit. It’s not enough to say that the occasional spliff or tab is no big deal. On its own it may not be. And maybe the user is a well employed professional, with a family and his habit is infrequent so where’s the harm?

But the accumulative effect of all this use is an expanded drugs economy which means that dealing in drugs remains a viable profession for many otherwise useless people and who in turn encourage the importation of all sorts of narcotics into this country. Users supply profits to dealers. That’s why we have dealers and dealers will always find ways of getting their product into the country. It is users who should be targeted. When they are no longer users the stuff is no longer required.

From the Daily Telegraph:

Sales assistants are ruder, more ignorant and less helpful than they were 10 years ago, according to one of the biggest surveys of its kind.

Overall, customer service has fallen by 3.3 percentage points while customer satisfaction is down by 1.6 points. The biggest decline was in knowledge - which fell by seven points.

Only one in four customers were served within a minute of queuing for a cash till, a fifth of sales staff did not smile while serving customers, 22 per cent had little knowledge of their products, and 24 per cent failed to say goodbye at the end of a transaction.

The survey was carried out by a consultancy called Grass Roots and was based on 1775 visits by mystery shoppers. The consultancy’s spokesman said,

…pressure on costs meant there was less money to spend on staff and training. “Staff are equally ready and willing, but less able to provide good service.”

It seems odd to me that the only way a member of staff can say thank you or greet you in a mannered way is if their company can afford the right kind of training. Manners which, apart from product knowledge, are what constitutes most people’s experience of customer service, are difficult to teach. If a person has them then training is of marginal use; if they don’t have them then training is of no use since all the training will give them is a set of techniques - which will be eventually forgotten.

At my local supermarket cashiers are told to greet each customer and offer to help pack their shopping for them. It’s a nice touch - made much more noticeable when you go elsewhere and the cashier barely acknowledges you at any point in the transaction. However, even within my local supermarket’s courtesy regime there is plenty of scope for the individual to adapt the company’s rules of engagement - from the cheerful, smiling greeting and enthusiastic assistance of one employee to, well, a total ignorance of the rules by another.

What it comes down to is the norms of society, the standards of behaviour that we insist on in our dealings with each other. And these have been degraded over time such that, now, it is a fairly accurate rule of thumb that if it’s polite service you require the older the assistant the better. These people have, in most cases, carried their culture’s habit of courtesy with them and have not succumbed to the brute insolence of today’s ‘rights but no responsibilities’ brigade.

They also have some command of the English language which means they can convey requests or information in whole, meaningful sentences - unlike my recent experience in my bank where the person allocating appointments asked/instructed (I’m not sure which) me to ‘Sit over there, yeah?’

In the end though I wonder if the decline in customer service - which may well mirror a general decline in incivility - is necessarily an increase in rudeness. For somebody to be actually rude implies they are aware of society’s norms and conventions with regards to manners but chooses to ignore them. Something I detect in the blank visage of the average youth when spoken to is actually the absence of confidence, rather than the wilful ignorance of accepted courtesies. Too often the person seems to lack the conversational skills necessary to navigate the white waters of mainstream communication - and he or she appears to be acutely aware of it.

This is faintly tragic. As the wonders of cultural instant gratification erase the human ability to focus and pay attention and the evils of state-provided education keep the lower classes well and truly in their place the victims of these attacks on human potential seem aware at some primitive level that they’re being marginalised, left out and deprived in a truly fundamental way.

If there is any such thing as social exclusion it is the removal of the basic ability to communicate with one’s fellow citizen that is its ultimate manifestation. Unable to perform adequately in a job interview, to debate with local or national representatives, to engage in the daily affairs of their community or country or to speak up effectively for themselves or their families when the need arises it seems that some people are condemned to live next to society but not necessarily in it.

It is an affront to democracy - and a betrayal of the working classes who are least able to spend their way out of difficulty - that a significant portion of our children cannot speak, write or converse effectively and it is a crime against all our people that the means of their subjugation - vacuous and corrupting entertainment, readily available narcotics, free and easy response to criminality, the state-sanctioned demeaning of the family, removal of most structures of authority, the subordination of educational striving to the more pressing needs of meeting governmental targets, and the exalting of the satisfaction of individual impulses over the need for humans to attend to duties before rights - are becoming more rather than less prevalent. All attempts to improve people against such an onslaught is an uphill struggle and one destined to fail.

Next time your local supermarket oik responds to you with a belligerent frown and a meaningless grunt it might be well to recognise that, rather than being wilfully ignorant, he may simply be a product of a depraved society and a corrupt governing class. In a country awash with so-called victims, he might be a genuine article.

A couple of days ago some furore was caused by the fact that, according to a survey of one thousand people, a substantial minority of ordinary people believe that a woman’s dress, behaviour and state of drunkedness could be partly responsible for them being sexually assaulted or raped.

The survey also found that 26 per cent of adults believed that a women was partially or totally responsible for being raped if she was wearing sexy or revealing clothing. Some 22 per cent held the same view if a woman had had many sexual partners. Similarly, 30 per cent said that a woman was partially or totally responsible for being raped if she was drunk.

Women’s rights groups were unimpressed:

Vera Baird, MP, who heads the Fawcett Society’s Commission on Women and the Criminal Justice System, said: “We tend to blame the low conviction rate on failures in the police and judicial systems. But if juries are thinking like this, then improving the procedures is not going to make much difference. The attitudes in this survey are glib and outdated. They implicitly mean that the guy can’t help himself.”

Did the survey actually reveal that people believed men who raped should be exonerated for their crimes if their victim was drunk or wearing scanty clothes? I’m not sure that it did.

For the record, I believe if a girl dresses revealingly - that is, sexually - and drinks herself silly then she inevitably becomes much more vulberable to those men who would prey on women in her state. One of the reasons I would want my own daughter not to behave that way is simply for her own safety.

Does this mean she deserves to be assaulted? No, not one little bit. Does this mean I think the man who rapes a girl in these circumstances is less of a rapist? Not at all. He is 100% a rapist and 100% guilty of rape - and should be imprisoned accordingly. But only a fool believes that if a woman dresses alluringly and behaves provocatively that no man will be allured and provoked. And a couple will act on that provocation regardless of the damge done to the girl. This is life and life isn’t politically correct. To deny that a woman can increase the chances of making herself a target of men who prey on women is mindless - and it’s a betrayal of responsibility.

Then today the various media report on a court case involving a very drunk college student and a possible rape. The 20 year old student was so drunk friends asked the university security guard, Ryairi Dougal, 20, to walk her back to the halls of residence. The pair had sex in the hallway leading to her room. The girl - who remembers nothing of the incident - didn’t even know she’d had sex until two days after the event when Mr Dougal himself said that it had happened.

She further admits she was too drunk to remember whether or not she had agreed to sex.

Now if Mr Dougal raped her he’s a pretty lousy human being and only the severest punishment is sufficient for this crime. But how does anybody know whether the girl was willing or not when even the girl can’t remember? And how, then, can Mr Dougal be found guilty of a crime that the victim doesn’t recall as even happening?

According to The Independent, the girl’s reasoning that she must have been raped is this:

During the trial the student told the court: “If I had wanted to sleep with him I would have taken the few steps to my bedroom.”

Then again, if he’d been genuinely raping her then, in her apparent semi-conscious state getting her to her room and then doing the deed in private would have been an easy matter - and a far safer bet.

It was actually the prosecutor, Huw Rees, who abandoned the case. Mr Rees was quoted by the BBC thus:

“The prosecution has taken stock, in light of the evidence revealed in cross examination,” said Huw Rees.

“The question of consent is an essential part of the case. Drunken consent is still consent.

“She said she could not remember giving consent and that is fatal for the prosecution’s case.”

With that, the judge ordered the jury to return a not guilty verdict.

Labour’s Vera Baird, MP had something to say on this case too. According to The Independent she said about the judge:

“He is wrong, there is no doubt about that, it is a dreadful error,” she said.

“The judge is utterly and totally wrong, he needs to be spoken to and sent on some re-training.

“This is a dreadful outcome because women will now think they cannot have a single glass of wine - I think this is going to put women off coming forward again and again.”

Now quite what re-training the judge needs I’m not sure. If the prosecution decides there’s not enough evidence to go ahead - silly stuff like, the girl doesn’t know what happened and there’s no evidence a crime had been committed - then there’s no case, surely?

Does Ms Baird want the defendent to be imprisoned anyway? Should the jury find him guilty just for the hell of it?

The girl cannot recall refusing consent so we must assume Mr Dougal’s innocence. Probably it is only Mr Dougal knows the truth of the case. But until Mr Blair and his various neo-con friends get their way in the UK you will be innocent until proven guilty.

Even the lamentings of Ms Baird cannot alter the fact that Mr Dougal is innocent until shown to be otherwise and imprisoning him because it would be politically correct to do so would be as serious a crime as the rape that we don’t even know took place.

From the BBC:

Parents and teachers are to get clearer guidance on helping pupils with their coursework, in a bid to curb cheating.

…some parents draft work, some teachers help so much it results in “cloning”, and downloading essays from the internet “cannot be controlled”.

With the way the government and exam boards behave with respect to education and exam marking I think it’s a bit rich for anybody to finger-point at teachers and parents who help the pupils produce better quality work. We more or less know the system is being tweaked in order to meet government targets so why would teachers, parents and so on resist the urge to help out a bit with coursework?

The problem with this, of course, is that in cases where a pupil’s coursework really the result of parental assistance, teacher guidance and downloaded essays from the internet the result can, potentially, be a large and unrealistic swing in their exam result:

Coursework is marked internally within schools, while exam boards call in samples of the work for external checks, known as “moderation”.

At GCSE level, it varies from 20% of the overall qualification in double science, maths and religious studies, to 60% in art and design and design and technology.

At A-level it can be from nothing to 30%, or 60% in the case of art and design.

In some cases so much was given in the form of writing frames, templates and checklists the report said it amounted to “coursework cloning” with little original work.

Coursework actually started with the Conservatives in 1988 when GCSEs were first introduced but its value is not universally accepted, it seems:

Teachers varied in the value they put on coursework.

Almost all the history teachers surveyed felt it was an important, integral part of the course.

In contrast, 66% of maths teachers indicated it was sometimes problematic.

Science teachers regarded coursework as “jumping through hoops” to maximise marks and “a poor educational tool”.

In reality the skills taught by doing coursework - projects and the suchlike - are not essential skills and, where needed in later life, can be more readily picked up if a person already has a decent grasp of the underlying information required. For as long as ministers, exam boards, teachers, pupils and parents are looking for ways to buck the system we can be reasonably sure the system cannot be trusted. Labour’s command from the centre and obsession with setting - and then meeting - targets has moved us away from learning and towards fulfilling political aims. Once again, the poorer children bear the brunt of this manipulation.

The face-off between David Cameron and David Davis this afternoon on Jonathan Dimbleby’s show leaves me feeling very nervous about the Conservative Party’s fortunes. If David Cameron does win the leadership contest - as is being widely predicted - then we have an uncertain future. On today’s performance Mr Cameron seems to have a fair bit to do before he can be considered a self-assured performer of Davis’ calibre.

After the usual setting out of stalls in which David Cameron talked again about how ‘we have to face up to the big challenges that the country faces’ and the need ‘to change the party’ - phrases so Blairesque in their total absence of meaning that I am aghast his advisors let him say them any more - he warmed up with a sensible sounding piece about how we should support the government when it gets things right because to do otherwise constitutes ‘opportunistic opposition’.

This was in reference particularly to the government’s education white paper - described by Shirley Williams and a Times journalist on ‘Question Time’ this week as so full of contradictions that it rendered itself meaningless - and which David Cameron himself had said illustrated that the government was too timid in its education changes.

David Davis pointed out to Mr Cameron that you need to be careful how you support this bill because if you’ve already called it ‘timid’ - which Mr Cameron has - and the government is already backtracking on the paper anyway - which it is - you could easily find you’ve actually supported a bill that provides a worse outcome than you expected. You end up being an accomplice to a bad bill.

David Cameron ignored this piece of advice and simply restated that it was principled to support the government when it did right.

In fact, Mr Cameron made quite a bit about how conservatives should ’stick to their principles’ and be ‘consistent’. That’s music to my ears actually and something I believe we have failed miserably to do for years. Indeed, when asked by an audience member whether he could convince people he wouldn’t be taken apart by Blair and Brown Mr Cameron replied, “They will take apart someone who doesn’t stick to their principles. We do get taken apart when we’re opportunistic.”

Mr Davis, who had listened to Mr Cameron’s various pronouncements on consistency and principle pounced: “You talk about consistency, David, but before the election you supported our policy on immigration, on tuition fees, on healthcare… you’ve changed your mind on the back of a single election loss. That’s not consistent. That can easily be represented - maybe misrepresented - as opportunistic on the back of one election result.”

Cameron: “If we don’t make changes we will lose again.”

So badly caught out was Mr Cameron I genuinely felt bad for him. There was worse for him to come.

Jonathan Dimbleby on Cameron’s opposition to patients’ passports: “… a classic example of what would open you up to the charge of opportunism. You fought passionately in favour of patient passports before the election and now you’re junking them.”

Mr Cameron’s answer revealed much. The policy was wrong, he said, “because it gave people the impression it was helping people escape the NHS.”

So the policy was wrong not because it was actually wrong in itself but because of the image it portrayed? So might Mr Cameron actually believe it was a good policy that simply looked bad? This little episode emphasised one of the more crucial differences between the two contenders: if it’s right Davis will argue it out - even if it’s controversial. Cameron may well junk it.

Mr Dimbleby to David Cameron: “Were you aware [before the election] this policy [patients’ passports] favoured the middle classes or didn’t you recognise it?”

Despite Mr Cameron’s attempts to sidestep the question Mr Dimbleby was dogged in trying to get an answer leading Mr Cameron to resort to a tactic similar to the one he used in the first Question Time head to head - attack the questioner. “You’re interrupting me more than Paxman,” he accused.

The audience laughed but for those of us who wonder if we’re looking at our Party’s future leader this was not funny.

The drugs issue is Mr Cameron’s achilles heel - and not just because of his own possible use in the past. It doesn’t help that his inconsistency when calling for consistency is so see-through:

“I want a drugs policy that works and not just one that sounds good.” Yet he dropped patients’ passports when they didn’t sound good.

Leaving aside David Cameron’s ham-fisted approach to the drugs issue - he seemed to believe that the sending of the correct ‘message’ to youngsters about drugs depended on whether you categorised drugs sensibly - the real problem is that, in a relatively friendly, relatively calm debating arena he loses out on fundamental points and ends up looking amateur. If Dimbleby - the presenter - and Davis can rattle him in what is only a hint at what will come if he’s elected leader then what will Labour’s big guns do to him?

Once again I find myself looking at the older man as being the one best placed to land the blows on Labour and best placed to make sensible, level-headed decisions with regards to his own Party. He seems the one least likely to be caught out saying one thing while doing (or having done) another. Davis is a safe pair of hands with the necessary experience and maturity to guide the Conservative Party through opposition and into power. Cameron is a great Conservative MP. I don’t think he’s yet a leader.

Just opened a piece of month-old junk mail. It’s from a casino I’m a member of and it’s inviting me to a Diwali/Eid celebration at their premises. Yes - Eid.

Now I do know some Muslims do gamble in casinos because I’ve seen them - they arrive shortly after the pubs shut. But the majority do not. Further, as it falls over itself in its attempts to be on-message with regards to Britain’s increasingly fragmented society, I wonder if my friendly local casino realises that to suggest a Muslim might celebrate the conclusion of his most holy month with a quick punt on the ol’ roulette wheel could actually result in a hefty deficit in his politically correct account - rather than the credit they were hoping for…..

The super soaraway Sun’s headline a few days ago - ‘Tell Tony he’s right’ - was accompanied by an horrific picture of bloodied London bomb victim, John Tulloch. Quite clearly, The Sun and Mr Tulloch knew what they wanted and they wanted ‘terror suspects’ to be subject to up to 90 days’ detention if the police could convince a judge the suspect was up to no good. And they wanted Mr Blair to know they wanted this too.

Except, it isn’t quite like that. It transpires that Mr Tulloch isn’t quite the victim that the government - and The Sun - might have hoped for. In fact, he’s nothing like what they might have hoped for.

From The Guardian:

The bloodied victim, John Tulloch, feels deep anger with Tony Blair and politicians for the role they played in stirring up the violence that came to London on July 7.

His views on The Sun aren’t flattering:

“This is using my image to push through draconian and utterly unnecessary terrorism legislation. Its incredibly ironic that the Sun’s rhetoric is as the voice of the people yet they don’t actually ask the people involved, the victims, what they think. If you want to use my image, the words coming out of my mouth would be, ‘Not in my name, Tony’. I haven’t read anything or seen anything in the past few months to convince me these laws are necessary.

I am totally offended by what the Sun has done. Rather than just depriving me of a voice, they have given me somebody else’s voice. Blair’s voice.”

Of course, The Sun has gone a step further and described anyone who doesn’t agree with 90-day internment as being a ‘traitor’. The Sun evidently does not even know what the word ‘traitor’ means. Yet isn’t voting for legislation that is arbitrary, would have done nothing to prevent the 7th July bombings, is unsupported by any concrete evidence that it’s even needed and, importantly, flies in the face of the traditional British liberty to be free from imprisonment unless actually convicted of something bordering on the treasonous? If the authorities arrest somebody and, 14 days later, still haven’t got enough of a case to even charge him (charge, remember - not convict), shouldn’t they perhaps have done a little more ground work before nicking him?

As the police chiefs run around doing Blair’s bidding (prior, as it happens, to a reorganisation of police forces that will see the unchosen ones lose their jobs - where ‘unchosen’ might just mean those who haven’t toed the party line) yet another London bombing victim refuses to play the game. Rachel North (a pseudonym) was on an underground carriage on 7th July when it blew up:

I am not surprised that terrorists seek to do what they can to attack my democratic society, to threaten my liberties, to spread fear, to seek to divide us.

I do not expect my democratically-elected government to do the same. I cannot, and do not speak for all the victims, and nor can, and nor should Tony Blair and Charles Clarke.

I do not see why this ill-thought out macho posturing, which can only destabilise and divide us, by robbing men and women of the ancient and fundemental right of habeas corpus, and making sections of the community afraid, is going to defeat terror.

And I will not meekly accept claims that this is to be done in my name. This is panicking, this is fearful, this is not helpful. I expect better than this, and I deserve better than this. We all do.

I remain disgusted that you should use ordinary people - because that is all we are - bombed people - bloodied people - in this way. Who gave you the right to speak for me, Mr Blair, Mr Clarke? When did I give my blessing to fear-mongering?

I’m not of the opinion that because these people were direct victims of the bombings that their views are somehow more pertinent than anybody else’s - yours, mine or the government’s. They aren’t. But their support for draconian detention laws was taken for granted and it’s good to see them speak out. I look forward to a long Sun article describing accurately and fairly the views of those who do not support the 90 day rule.

Charles Kennedy was asked on The Politics Show whether he would consider co-operating with the Conservatives if they were led by David Cameron:

David is a blank canvas. I don’t know what he represents or what he wants to do with his party…. I don’t know what David Cameron’s agenda is.

An observation that will resonate with some members of the Conservative Party….

Not that this prevented the show’s presenter, Jon Sopel, from blurting out the BBC’s completely ubiased line on the Conservative Party’s leadership election. In an interview with David Cameron he said:

… because when you’re leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition you might have all sorts of other opportunities to go into alliances…

Is Jon Sopel simply biased or simply bad at his job? Either way, why do I have to pay this man’s wages?

I’ve asked the BBC that very question and will post their response when I receive it.

The Sunday Times:

THE security service MI5 is seeking to recruit 800 extra spies to combat the heightened threat of Islamic terrorism since the London bombings of July 7.

Ministers are expected to approve the expansion plan, which will contribute to a doubling in the size of the spy agency by 2009. Staff numbers are expected to increase from 2,000 last year to nearly 4,000.

Since intelligence is the leading weapon against terrorism - with immigration controls and proper sentencing for the terrorists’ support staff - rather than banging people up for 3 months while you try to work out if they’ve actually done anything I’m glad The Times reports that ministers are going to approve the funds necessary for the expansion.

And if intelligence is indeed the leading weapon against terrorism then Muslims themselves are the leading intelligence gatherers against the evil in their midst:

Hundreds of spies, surveillance and desk officers will be recruited. They will include many candidates from ethnic minorities. The agency wants to hire “streetwise” young Muslim men who are capable of infiltrating groups of Islamic hardliners.

And they can get cracking against the buggers who have decided Her Majesty is one of their ’severest enemies’. In the full version of the video featuring Mohammad Sidique Khan, ringleader of the London bombings,

…al-Zawahiri not only labels the Queen as one of Islam’s “severest enemies” but also sends a warning shot to British Islamic leaders who “work for the pleasure of Elizabeth, the head of the Church of England”.

He said those who followed her were saying: “We are British citizens, subject to Britain’s crusader laws, and we are proud of our submission . . . to Elizabeth, head of the Church of England.”

Prospective Conservative Party leader, David Davis, yet again demonstrates forward-thinking policy initiatives - and the mettle to make commitments on which we Party members can base our voting intentions.

Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs will be barred from voting on English laws if Conservative leadership hopeful David Davis becomes prime minister.

“Only English MPs could vote, let’s say, on English education policies or English health policies,” he said.

The government has been criticised for relying on votes of Scottish MPs to get controversial English laws through.

It almost doesn’t matter whether we think this is a good idea (although I’m pretty warm to excluding from voting people who will not have to live with the consequences of their votes). What’s exciting is that the Conservative Party is finally churning out ideas that we can debate.

Any more of this and there’s a danger that we’ll find ourselves with a proper political party on our hands again.

After watching Davis versus Cameron on Question Time last week I concluded Davis is definitely the man to take on Blair/Brown in debate.

David Cameron isn’t helping me to think otherwise.

David Cameron was accused last night of avoiding further television duels with David Davis and a grilling with Jeremy Paxman.

In an interview to be broadcast tonight, Mr Davis will face the famously confrontational Paxman on BBC2’s Newsnight.

If David Cameron is seen to be running shy of television presenters then what hope do we have that he can tackle the real thing in Parliament?

The fact that he has finally agreed to a Sky interview - but not until November 24th - and has, in principle, agreed to a Paxman interview - but with no date agreed - points towards Mr Cameron waiting until party members have already voted for him before exposing himself to the slings and arrows of outrageous interviewers.

Party members like myself need to see him as fearless and confident because, if he wins, we’re going to be working hard for a party which he leads. For the ambitious - like myself - his performance can directly affect my success. I don’t know whether he’s deliberately avoiding tough situations but the suspicion should not even arise. If it’s true that he is then that’s a disaster. If it’s not then his team are handling his campaign badly by allowing such suggestions to arise. Mr Cameron should prove everybody wrong now and get on television at every opportunity and fight it out.

That, after all, will be an integral part of the job for which he is seeking election.

Nothing particularly intelligent here - just another of my infamous ramblings …

Firstly, why does almost everybody who isn’t a politician support the 90-day limit on holding suspects without charge? I mean, few people want to see nice people held in prison for 3 months (yes, 3 months - funny how it sounds so much more than 90 days, isn’t it?). None of us want to see the innocent stuck behind bars for weeks on end - 3 months of weeks on end - only to be finally released to go back to jobs that might have disappeared, relationships that may have fractured, children that have become distraught and friends and neighbours who will not have been able to avoid noticing their absence.

So why are so many people supporting such incarceration? Simple. Because whenever somebody mentions holding somebody for 90 days while they are investigated for terrorist crimes Joe Average immediately thinks of a Muslim terrorist - dark skin, soulless eyes, headscarf and a sneer - who is either aiding and abetting a bomber - or actually is a bomber - and who, as sure as eggs is eggs, is as guilty as the day is long. All the police need is enough time to gather the evidence to prove the case. Once they do we’re all saved from being ripped to shreds by the evil designs of these godless devils.

Now Joe Average is not making his assumptions due to any racist urges nor does he particularly have it in for Muslims. But he’s got a bee in his bonnet about people trying to blow him up and he automatically assumes that this legislation will only affect people who are, basically, in the business of doing just that. He does not for a moment imagine that anybody who doesn’t deserve it could possibly get caught up in what, for that individual, could be a defining moment of their lives.

And this is where, I think, those of us who opposed the 90-day measure have failed to do a decent enough job of promoting our view. Freedom, to Joe Average, is a given - rather like the right to vote. Nobody is excited about voting; barely half of us even bothered last time. You’ve got to actually lose the right to vote before Mr Average wakes up long enough to get a bit upset. Freedom, though, is a different creature and is much more difficult to measure and to realise that you even have it. Freedom’s not something you do, is it? So it’s difficult to imagine not being able to do it - unlike voting.

So what are some of the objections to 90-day detention without charge? Here’s a couple I prepared earlier:

1. It is wrong to be imprisoned without trial. And, while it is a subjective call, 14 days (the current limit) is reasonable while 90 days is imprisonment. There are prison sentences handed out for violent crime that result in the guilty suffering less than 90 days - 3 months - in prison.

2. The police are not 100% trustworthy. Shocking, from a conservative, but true nevertheless. Some are plain dishonest. The police are, after all, representative of the public at large and let’s face it, we’re not all pure as driven snow so why should the police be? Some officers, dedicated to the cause, will hold a man that they ‘know’ is guilty and present their evidence imaginatively to the judge so as to secure maximum time to hold their suspect. I do not think judges will often let a man free whom the police can portray as a menace to society.

And police fishing for suspects may well pull in a likely lad simply in the knowledge that, if they haven’t really got much on him, they can still hold him for a while until they do. It gives police an opportunity to avoid the necessary up-front work on gathering evidence and put it off until a later time. In the meantime, the suspect is effectively doing time.

3. It may well not be necessary. Tony Blair ignored the question in Parliament the other day but it’s a pertinent one, namely: has there ever been a case where the police have let a suspect go because they couldn’t hold him longer than 14 days (although they wanted to) and he went on to do something unpleasant? Somebody correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think there has been. It seems that if you haven’t got the evidence to nail him after 14 days you probably aren’t going to have it after 90. Better, then, to watch your suspect carefully, see who he mixes with, gather intelligence and then nab him when - if - you really do have something to pin on him.

The fact remains that the police, understandably, want all the tools they can possibly obtain in order to do their job. Whether they’re useful to them - or good for us - is of no concern. Just as I, in my job, will try to obtain as many resources to help me as I can, so too will the police. And if the police always get what they want then we find ourselves edging towards a police state because their wants will not sit easily with our liberties.

4. I don’t believe the Labour government itself particularly wants this legislation. What this is, I believe, is a golden opportunity for Labour to look tough to the public - always important in the government’s eyes - and obtain a Brucie bonus by making those Conservatives interested in protecting an Englishman’s freedom look like a bunch of softies.

When Blair sits there pompously going on about how he’d ‘rather lose doing the right thing than win doing the wrong thing’ (oh, come on!) and how this shouldn’t be a party political matter he’s actually committing the crime he’s accusing the Conservatives of. Because this is precisely a party political matter, deliberately contrived to create a conflict out of which only Labour can look good and all who oppose look like friends of terrorists. Even though the law has failed Blair can still take the moral high ground. It might be a small compensation but still he wins even when he loses.

5. I do not agree with pandering to the sensibilities of minorities wherever such pandering conflicts with the way of life or preferences of the majority. But nor do I agree with causing upset or trouble where it’s not necessary - mainly because it’s inhumane to do so but also because it’s impractical. Since this legislation may well fall disproportionately on British Muslims - and that’s perfectly understandable, as far as that goes - it will be they who bear the brunt of the pain of false imprisonments.

But they’re also in the forefront of our intelligence gathering activities to catch the murderers in our midst. How exactly are we going to secure the support of the decent majority of Muslims who will assist the security forces in their attempts to catch Muslim fanatics when they find the innocent amongst them being imprisoned without trial? The feeling that they - and they alone - are on the receiving end of undemocratic legislation will be hard to refute. They will complain that they are being imprisoned without trial - and such a measure will bring the disaffected ever closer to the embrace of fanatics.

6. Finally, I do not want to live in a country where the powers of MPs - who are supposed to represent us - and the police - who are supposed to serve us - are so overwhelming that we become subject to their wishes and preferences. They are our servants, not we theirs. The more we allow them to do to us the more they will do and the more we fall inot their control. This alters the character of our country in ways we might live to regret as we come more and more to resemble states we would never wish to emulate.

The 28-day compromise is a better deal but one has to be aware that, once 28 days becomes the norm, 35 days could be the next step. If we’re serious about catching bad people then, rather than giving the police more and more power over our liberties - powers which may, actually, provide limited benefit - we should consider giving them more and more freedom from paperwork and political correctness, allow them to recruit more officers to carry out the intelligence work necessary to thwart terrorists and start using the laws we already have to imprison - for years - the various thieves, planners, forgers, con-artists and assorted support staff who, in the end, make the fanatics’ final atrocities possible. Restrictions on liberty, if ever needed, should occur only when all else has been exhausted. I don’t think all else has been exhausted and this legislation is Labour’s way of scoring a few points with the electorate.

Thankfully it failed.

It says something for the state of our ‘civilisation’ when a mother has to go to court in order to secure the ‘right’ to know whether her child has been the victim of a crime - underage sex - and is also planning on terminating the baby in her womb.

Just reading through the Daily Mail’s report of mother of four Sue Axon’s bid to secure that right makes for disturbing reading:

Her QC Philip Havers told Mr Justice Silber, sitting in London: “This case raises the important question whether the parent of a young person aged under 16 who goes to her doctor or other health professional for advice and treatment in respect of contraception, or in respect of sexually transmitted infections, or in respect of an abortion, are entitled at least to be told about the proposed advice and treatment before it is provided.”

Labour have nationalised the family and now we parents have to apply to the State for our ‘right’ to look after our children in the best way we know. This is what happens in a rights based culture. Everything is allowed when and only when the government deigns to allow it.

“It is incongruous to me that I am required to have to consent to my daughter having her belly button pierced while she can have an abortion without me even knowing.”

Mrs Axon said she believed parents should be involved because “difficult discussions strengthen family life”.

The consequences of the decisions made with regard to abortion also “stay with you for the rest of your life”, she added.

This is a government that will happily ban privately owned drinking establishments from allowing the legal habit of smoking cigarettes to take place on their premises - a decision which removes the right of adults to make their own decisions - but will enable 13 year old girls to have illegal sex and then terminate the results as if they were old and wise and quite able to deal with such a procedure.

If parental responsibility is to mean anything at all then they must have a say in such life-affecting decisions of their off-spring. To take critical decisions on contraception and abortion away from the family and give them to the State is an abomination.

Whatever a child chooses to do, in the end, their family has to cope with any harmful fallout. If an underage child pursues a sexual relationship she is breaking the law and exposing herself to emotional trials she may not be able to deal with at such a young age. A decision over an abortion that doesn’t involve those who care for her most means that whichever way she goes the family may have to handle an outcome without having any involvement in the original decision. This being so, to allow the State to dictate terms is patently wrong.

Parental responsibility is being relegated to simply sending them off to school in the morning.

Today’s Telegraph reports that the government is seeking to tax homeowners who have a nice view from their houses.

Taxpayers are set to be charged hundreds of pounds extra a year if they are in a conservation area, next to an open space, have a swimming pool or tennis court or enjoy full or partial views of the sea, hills, mountains, lakes or rivers.

Extra charges are also expected to be levied on homes with more bedrooms than average, conservatories, large patios or gardens, roof terraces or balconies. Homes in “gated communities” will also face higher bills.

Official documents show that ministers are going to extraordinary lengths to build a detailed database of properties across England, with the intention of placing them in a higher council tax band.

A question occurs: when that nice Mr Prescott comes along and concretes over your nice view, will your council tax reduce accordingly?

One of the commenters to this log is in the process of denying the Nazi holocaust in the comments section of this post.
Because I don’t want another lengthy digression from the topic in hand (Iraq’s call for the wiping off the map of Israel) I’m posting his last comment here and then inviting interested parties to add their comments.

I hasten to add that, although I’m no scholar of Nazi history - and am well aware of the value of propoganda and the historical skewing that can take place to promote it - I do not accept that Nazi Germany had any other plans with the Jews than their extermination.

And, for the record: if Iran were to seriously threaten Israel in accordance with its recent words I for one would support any necessary means to neutralise that threat.

This posting isn’t to give a platform for a holocaust revisionist but to avoid jamming up the comments section with off-topic argument.

Click here for the comments (more…)

Following last night’s head to head between the two Conservative Party leadership contenders one can easily see that both men have their strong points, their unique attractions, their entitlements to even be in this race. The challenge for us observers is to map talents to circumstances in order to work out which of those talents will bring best results when brought to bear against this government over the next 3 or 4 years.

When all is said and done and we’ve debated each candidate’s policy hints, grand ideas, presentational similarities with Blair, previous recreational habits and so on the concern that most prominently features in my thinking is this:

At the next election New Labour’s main liability - Tony Blair - will be gone. Regardless of the state of the economy by then, Gordon Brown, who has a reputation of being a master of detail and a consummate politician will be fighting for his political inheritance in what will almost certainly be an uncertain world for Labour. Brown will be formidable and he may very well be erring on the desperate. Encounters between him and whoever leads the Conservative Party will, then, be bruising - if not brutal - ones. The stakes will be sky-high.

Whoever faces him will need to be foot-sure and able to not only attack the government for its deceits, its inefficiencies, the damage it is inflicting on our people and the lunacy of its ideological assumptions but will also have to be able to present a clearly and obviously different way forward to the British public. Whoever this person is he is going to be savagely attacked in the most uncompromising terms, will be subject to both personal vilification by the government and its agents in the media and will have his every policy idea derided at every opportunity.

Our Party’s leader will need to bring years of experience to bear in order to carry our message forward and will need the maturity borne of experience to survive all that will be thrown at him. He will need grit, determination but also a coolness under fire if he is to handle the slings and arrows, return a few and still be in command of his Party and, importantly, himself.

It is no criticism of David Cameron, nor is it to his shame, to conclude that he is not that man. The intangible extra, that additional ’something’ that enables a politician to shrug off the attacks and respond with something better, more apposite than that which he has just shrugged off and still have a smile on his face is something David Davis clearly has and David Cameron clearly doesn’t have yet.

Last night, David Davis explained, David Cameron pleaded. David Davis discussed, David Cameron implored. David Davis looked like he had it, David Cameron looked like he was still searching. And although both were evidently nervous at times, David Davis looked mostly relaxed and in control of himself. David Cameron at times started to edge towards over-emotion.

David Cameron is an excellent politician and has said a few things that I want to hear a conservative say. But more than anything else if I close my eyes and imagine the Conservative Party leader, in the House of Commons, standing amidst a cheering, baying, fractious and belligerent gathering of our representatives, giving it out, shrugging it off and scoring major points against some of the most experienced, skilled and ruthless politicians in this country then the leader I imagine is not going to be David Cameron. That leader will be David Davis who has the necessary pugnaciousness, cool, intelligence, policy and presence to deliver KO after KO against this government.

For the time being I believe David Cameron will be out of his depth. He is a class politician in the making; Davis is a class politician already made. If the Conservative Party intends to win the next election it cannot afford to wait and see if Cameron grows into the job. The risk that he actually might not - while small - is still too great. It needs to go with the man who has already grown and is already fit for the purpose. It needs to go with a man who can take the war to the government and a clear alternative to the electorate. That man is David Davis. If Conservatives want to return to power then David Davis is the man to vote for.

Simon Heffer in today’s Daily Telegraph asks pertinent (or impertinent if you’re a David Cameron supporter) questions about Mr C’s various espousals in the Party’s current leadership campaign.

He lists some of Mr Cameron’s soundbites:

He [David Cameron] wrote that the party needed “fundamental change” if it were not to be seen to be “out of step with the modern world” and to “lack the association with aspiration and opportunity that is essential for political success”.

Mr Heffer also refers to Mr Cameron’s rant (it was in The Spectator a few weeks back) aimed at people just like Mr Heffer:

Apparently rather cross with me, he said the attitude I personify was “that the Conservative Party just needs to shout louder [sic] and hate the modern world even more” and that it “is not just part of the problem. It is the problem”.

Mr Heffer searched his previous columns for evidence that he fitted this description and found none. Actually, I could find plenty of what it is that Mr Cameron is actually referring to - although none of it would support Mr Cameron’s verdict on Mr Heffer’s motivations.

On the rare occasions on which I had actually written about the Tory party - and it has been a subject I have long avoided in order not to drive away readers - it was to argue that it should espouse a smaller state, lower taxes, more individual responsibility, national sovereignty, the rule of law and a humane but strong national identity.

Mr Heffer offers his own suggestion for what drove Mr Cameron to reach the conclusion he reached:

Because Mr Cameron has no principles of his own, he has to attack his imagined opponents for what he hopes are theirs. This is best done by caricature, parody and, not to put too fine a point on it, a display of downright howling ignorance.

Mr Heffer goes on to question what it is the Conservative Party means when it says it has ‘to move on’. Move on to what? Move on from what?

For all the talk about the Conservative Party needing a Clause 4 moment - that is, a moment such as Labour had when it ditched its ridiculous membership clause advocating the public ownership of the means of production - and so signalling to the rest of the country that it was indeed ‘New’ Labour - there is a problem of knowing which part of conservative belief has been discredited to the point that ditching it would be ‘a good thing’.

So Mr Cameron’s apparent decision to ape Tony Blair is strategically flawed because the theory behind it - such that it is - is missing one of the most essential ingredients of the Blairite ascendancy - namely, the dropping of something meaningful and substantial from the party ideology that would sufficiently demonstrate that we’ve ‘moved on’.

The point is: Tony Blair - and the Labour Party - really did move on. Dropping Clause 4 was very big news and all the country were in no doubt of it. The Party looked genuinely to have changed. It seems all we’d be doing if Mr Cameron wins the leadership election is copying the Blairite style of government that followed this. But that style has now been comprehensively discredited as, years on, the public now recognises that the big smile, blokey delivery and passionate speeches are ‘for the moment’ vacuities and that, when the glitter finally settles, NHS performance does not in any way reflect the awesome sums being spent on it, education is becoming a national embarrassment, family life is in freefall, our pension funds have been mugged and our streets are roamed by the obnoxious and sometimes dangerous offspring of parents living in Labour’s socially libertarian utopia.

I’ve said this before but it bears repeating: we only need 45% of the electorate to recognise that we offer something meaningfully different to the current regime for us to sweep the board at a general election. But we have painted ourselves into such a corner that we are now in a position where we have to actively convince people who have not voted for the Conservative Party for many years - if ever - that we’re even a possible alternative.

Presenting clearly explained conservative policies will not please 100% of the electorate but it doesn’t have to. The gamble isn’t in being true to conservative ideas; the gamble - as has been demonstrated over the last three - count them! - elections is in continuing to eschew them. The electorate will not vote for a Conservative Party that is little more than a new New Labour. They will vote either for the original one or for something quite different. Only David Davis seems capable of providing us with something quite different. He, then, is the key to the Conservative Party’s success.

From the BBC:

David Davis has outlined his plans for referendums on returning powers he says have been lost to the European Union.

He suggested a referendum to demand full-scale return of power from Europe to Britain.

This would be followed by a second referendum after talks with the European Union, so voters could judge if he had delivered the goods.

He added that the “people of Europe all have different expectations of Europe and we can’t have a one-size-fits-all model anymore”.

Other proposals put forward by Mr Davis include a new British Bill of Rights with priority over European human rights laws.

The BBC report is careful not to allow Davis too much leeway and is peppered with warnings from Ken Clarke who was booted out of the contest in the very first round.

David Cameron, in the meantime, will ‘reduce’ the amount of legislation coming from Europe. Whoopee. I for one just cannot wait…

The Times prints some examples of questions the Home Office will be asking new entrants to Britain. The entire test takes 45 minutes and the applicant must score more than 75% in order to pass.

The applicant will be pleased to know that the GCSE his kids will take are a lot less rigorous.

The test exposes the hypocrisy of a government which seems not to place any importance on the British native understanding his own history whilst making itself look tough to the electorate by forcing Mr and Mrs Gupta to become near-experts.

It is laughable that new arrivals could well know more about this country than we do. Equally, it is laughable that knowing the answers to a list of questions determines your level of Britishness.

But, then, these measures are about making immigrants jump through hoops for the amusement of small-minded racists - but, for their sins, possible Labour voters - rather than promoting something truly and meaningfully British. This rotten government will never learn that patriotic yearnings will never be assuaged by picking on brown-skinned immigrants. We’re not improved by making their entry into this country difficult or belittling them in any other ways we might dream of. We’re improved by taking only the few immigrants we actually need and then addressing the appalling lack of national cohesion caused by multiculturalism, rampant multiethnicity, moral relativism and the degradation of national confidence and pride that is part of the Left’s on-going project to abolish this country.

Anyway, here are some of the questions which, answered correctly, somehow make a Chinese rice farmer British:

1) Where are Geordie, Cockney, and Scouse spoken?

2) What are MPs?

3) What is the Church of England and who is its head?

4) What is the Queen’s official role and what ceremonial duties does she have?

5) Do many children live in single parent families or step-families?

6) Which TWO telephone numbers can be used to dial the emergency services? 112, 123, 555, 999.

Answers are here (more…)