A right to die?

Today the High court has ruled against another case of a critically ill person who wanted to have an assisted death.

This is a very divisive case and issue for many.

Life is a very fragile thing but ultimately it belongs to the individual and if the individual chooses to end it then so be it.

I know suicide is a selfish act and death itself leaves family members suffering from the loss and picking up the pieces especially if it is a sudden death. Families may lose out financially as well and the damage that can be left in the wake of a suicide can be quite immense. Sometimes though people can not see any other way and depression can cause people to see no other way out as can desperation.

In the case of Assisted dying though the person is usually in a state of extreme illness and suffering. Some are bed ridden with no Quality of life - in some cases they have requested it themselves rather than it being requested by the family. In the case of Mrs Purdy who has fought her way through many courts up to the European Court of Human rights to be allowed to die. Why are the state so hesitant to allow her and others like her to die.

It shouldn't be an opening of the flood gates that will see us dumping our elderly relatives at the doors of euthanasia centres or Futurama style suicide booths on the streets but for those who are really ill and are living in agony dosed up on pain killers and waiting for the inevitable should be allowed to request and receive clemency.

It is something that has happened in war time, soldiers would give comrades and enemies mercy deaths and indeed RAF fighter pilots often carried their pistols with them in case they became stuck in the cockpit of a burning fighter heading for the deck but it was never spoken of.

We do it for animals who are horrifically injured or dying.

I remember my Grandfather telling me of my Nan's throat cancer. He told me of sitting by her bed staring at the shell of the woman he loved as it ravaged her, of the pain that she was enduring and the helplessness of watching her go that way. Of not being able to help her or speed her on her way and end her suffering.

It is a sad fact that there are still horrific ailments and conditions that blight lives and the lives of our families. Some can be overcome with medicine and human endurance but sadly others cannot be and there is a certain inevitability of the end. If the only alternative is a long painful degenerative condition should the option of assisted suicide be available?

I honestly think so. I have trouble with the notion of the State dictating what an individual can and cannot do and restricting their personal freedom to act and if that includes ending their life then why not?

Nick Clegg's Press release: Press regulation, a liberal solution

Having been in face to face negotiations till nearly midnight last night - followed by calls, texts and emails for many hours afterwards - I am delighted to have stood up this afternoon in the House of Commons to welcome the cross-party agreement on implementing the Leveson Report. It wasn’t easy but after a lot of hard work - led on our side by the tireless Jim Wallace, we have got there.

The Leveson Inquiry was established after public revulsion at the phone hacking scandal. So, when Lord Justice Leveson published his recommendations to reform the regulation of the press, the Liberal Democrats took a stand for the victims of press abuse, and supported them.

In fact, I took the unprecedented step of making a separate statement in the House of Commons, on an issue where we disagreed with the Prime Minister. Having been honest with the public about our differences, it was then our duty to sit down with all parties and come to an agreement.

As I mentioned in my latest “Letter from the Leader”, we set out three tests for press regulation in the future:

Delivering Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations.

1. Commanding the widest possible cross-party support, as Lord Justice Leveson also wanted.
2. Striking the right balance between protecting and cherishing the great tradition of a free press in this country, and protecting innocent people from unwarranted intimidation and bullying by powerful interests in our media.

What has been agreed today meets those tests.

We will achieve Leveson through the Royal Charter published by the Liberal Democrats and Labour last week. Our Royal Charter ensures that editors cannot sign off their own code of conduct; cannot veto appointments to the watchdog; can accept complaints from third party groups, and must apologise properly when they make mistakes.

And, crucially, all parties have now agreed that there should be a minimal clause in law that will prevent future governments chopping and changing the new system on a whim. This was important to me as, without it, the door would be open to political meddling by future governments. We cannot take this risk.

With these protections we have got the best possible outcome today: a fair, independent press watchdog to serve the British people while protecting our free press – a thoroughly liberal solution.

My response to US Conservative Outpost on the Second Amendment

Gillingham,

Kent,

United Kingdom,

1st January 2013

Dear Sir,

         I am writing to you in response to your open letter to Senator Rubio that was posted on the Conservative Outpost website.

As an Englishman, I do not presume to be familiar with your politics or systems, however I'd like  to maker a few suggestions and observations in response to your letter.

Firstly and foremost, the Second amendment says a little more than The right to bare arms.

For the benefit of other readers please allow me to quote the text;

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The historical context is buried in an older document, the English constitution which was written in reaction to a period of state oppression by James II. It was felt that the protestant populace should be ready to fight for their freedom and be ready to mobilise against an invasion from the Catholic continent.

The Redcoats are certainly not coming

Similarly in the fledgling United States, and at the insistence of George Washington, who was against the foundation of a National army (which could be used as the British Colonial Army was) to suppress rights. A militia was seen as a more local and representative force.

Your fore-fathers also had many other problems to deal with. Law enforcement was limited and everyone had to defend themselves and community. There was also a threat on the frontiers from Native Raiding parties and the possibility of a British incursion from Canada. Communities would need to be mobilised quickly.

Times have indeed changed.

After the massacre of Wounded Knee in 1890 there has been no threat from the native population. There is a police system, federal, state and city based, in place to deal with crime, Britain no longer has an Empire nor designs on marching south and the United States military exists for your defence and the National guard representing the militia somewhat loosely.

Also weapons have evolved. The weapon the Founding fathers had in mind were flint lock muskets like the English "Brown Bess" which in the hands of an expert (A British Grenadier guard, the World's best in the 1770s) could be discharged three times in a minute. In the hands of a novice it could manage one shot maybe two.

Today's semi-automatic weapons can fire many times that. Even in the hands of a novice who no longer has to contend with complicated reloading procedure. Careful aim at a target can be replaced with spray fire which, in an enclosed space like a cinema or school room can cause many casualties by sheer amount of fire.

I suppose our middle ground would be that Semi-automatic weapons should only be issued to people who know how to use them and kept secured where any Tom, Dick or Harry could not reach them. However as a former service man I'm sure you will have seen perfectly sane, well trained men crack under pressure. Who is to say that someone who is well adjusted and knows how to use such weapons may not snap and go on a killing rampage with a semi-automatic one day. After all Timothy McVeigh was considered safe and had served his country in the military. Private William Jones RA who had served at Rorke's and received this country's highest honour also became unstable with Post traumatic stress syndrome but it was kept hushed with in the family until his suicide.

There are countless people with Mental illness that spans from paranoid Schizophrenia to depression, most are not reported. If such a move was to become mandatory you would be impinging upon their civil liberties. Who's liberty is more important? Would they have to carry identification papers, make themselves known to communities all because they have an illness?

With the US military and the Law enforcement agencies carrying the most up to date weaponry would it not be prudent to leave those weapons in the hands of an expert and have civilian grade weapons for home use? Then you would have your Arms and defend yourselves but it would also make communities safer as someone armed with a 9mm pistol can be disarmed quicker by an unarmed person than someone with an M-16 or Uzi. I would also consider a hand gun, rifle or shotgun more than adequate to defend yourself against a;

a deranged lunatic created by their secular progressive humanist agenda to take my only defense against their miscreant bastard offspring

After all, it only takes one bullet to kill or seriously wound.

As I say, I'm an Englishman with a centrist political standpoint but you must be aware that the whole world is watching and judging. The USA sets itself up as a paragon of freedom and democracy but is being seen as a place where children can be murdered at anytime in their schools, where cinema goers can be mowed down in their very seats, where street corners are just not safe. This is what your liberty to bear arms has bought sir, for the freedoms and liberties of the many you should cede the right to bear Semi-automatic weapons.

Yours Faithfully

Chris Sams

Ps. You may be interested to read my other work on the subject here.

Right to bear arms? Time for change

Before I begin I should state that I am not making a judgement about American national politics, nor am I lining myself up as a Foreign national claiming to be an expert or telling them what they should do. Just making observations.

The Second Ammendment of the US constitution states that citizens have the right to bear arms. Fairly black and white. However it was written in 1791 and had it's origins in the English constitution from the century before that. For the English it was a necessity that the population could be quickly mobilised into an anti Catholic rebellion should James II or any of the Stuart pretenders retake the crown and enforce armed dictatorship.

In the US it was a knee jerk to their own successful rebellion against the British which ended in 1783 but left Canada firmly under the British crown and the perfect springboard for an invasion. There was also the need to let people have arms incase the Republic turned to a dictatorship as it did in France. It provided the people with a fail safe that should Washington become a Robespierre they could overthrow him - unlike the British, who under General Gage marched on an arms cache at Lexington and sparked the rebellion.
There was also the native question. During the revolutionary war the native populations fought for Britain, some for Washington others made assaults on settlements for their own ends. Citizens wanted, needed, the right to defend their homes otherwise all might be dead before the army arrived. This was true through the 19th century in the central and western states. However after the massacre of Wounded Knee (1890) the question of a full native rebellion was cruelly answered.

Let's be honest, the type of nations that would invade the US are the type who's military would destroy a village for the death of one soldier at a civilian's hands. Why do you think British citizens weren't routinely armed incase of Nazi invasion? It isn't up to Mrs Homersham of 69 Vale drive to grab a Sten gun and have at the Paratroopers - leave it to the regular or irregular forces.

The only possible threat for the average citizen in the states is from a home invasion or possibly from a wild animal out in extremely rural areas.

As President Obama stated, the sort of incidents like the Newtown school accident that broke the hearts of people the world over, have become all to common in recent times. According to this report the NRA believe that getting rid of schools is the solution - but I sincerely hope this is a hoax!

The US needs to look to Canada where there is a greater gun ownership but a lot fewer incidents like this.

Another suggestion is - well I'm confused as to why anyone needs an automatic, a Kalashnikov or Uzi as "home defence" or for hunting purposes. These sort of weapons should be Military or Police grade equipment. It isn't sporting to hunt a deer with a gun that can fire a full autoburst of 100 rounds a minute - what's wrong with a bolt action rifle?

A bullet fired from a 9mm pistol or rifle will wound or kill an attacker just as surely as an automatic weapon so why do you need more firepower?

I know many factions, usually sited on the right of the American spectra will call this an attack on their constitutional right or liberty but they need to think about the bigger issues here. Twenty six people were killed, mostly children aged between 6 and 8, the most innocent of innocents. How can the liberty to carry a gun be valued more highly than the lives of children or innocent people in a cinema, a university campus, walking down the street in Washington?

As I said, I am not casting judgement upon the US or it's politics. All I will say is that every innocent life taken is one life too many and something must be done.

Measure B passed by LA county

Aurora Snow

Precisely a month and a day late I am writing about the success of Measure B voted for in Los Angeles County.

Not heard of it?

No, nor had I until two months ago and that was through an obscure channel and I'd forgotten about it until this morning - hence the delay.

A while back I read this article by adult performer Aurora Snow and found it quite interesting.

Basically the bill is a battle of freedoms and liberties.

The Pro B wing argued that performers in the adult industry had the right over their own body and freedom from disease.

The anti B wing argued the state that the LA county was attacking the industry's freedom of speech and expression. The industry also argued that it was self regulating and that performers had to be tested regularly. Interestingly though, as Miss Snow pointed out, only for HIV, Gonorrhoea and Chlamydia with a zero need for Syphilis or Herpes or any others.

I'm personally fairly indifferent to Pornography as an industry as I believe that if someone willingly enters into the that line of work, like Miss Snow did, and they enjoy the work, moreover willing adults buy the magazines and movies then that is up to them as long as it is not invading my personal liberties or it is where minors can get at it then it is all fine. One of the fundamentals of law is that you are free to act as you will as long as you do not cause negative effects on another person's liberties and what you do behind closed doors in your own time (again, not effecting someone elses Liberties) is your private business.

However, no matter what your feelings are towards the adult business you have to respect the right of the performers to be disease free and not give in to industry pressures or bullying. It is akin to workmen being forced to remove Asbestos without breath masks and hazard suits. STDs can be deadly and those that aren't can have a really negative effect on your life and everyone has the right to work in a safe environment.

Further to that is the cultural stigma against safe sex. Anything that can add to the idea that safe sex is good for you is a bonus. Those who want to engage in casual sex with multiple partners in their personal life should really par take in safe sex to cut back on the risk to themselves and others. Miss Snow puts it perfectly when she states that when there was a slip up on set she had to contact previous industry partners and her boyfriend at the time. If the adult industry starts showing performers engaging in safe sex then surely that will transmit to those watching the movies too.

I am happy to report that the measure was passed with 55% of the vote despite some big company support for the Industry's "No" campaign shown in Gail Dine's Guardian article and is now law.

Any one working in a workforce is entitled to protection from reasonable danger by their employer and they should provide the means to make sure they are kept safe through contraception and paying for health checks.

The downside is that having been quite vocal against the Industry's preferred stance, Aurora Snow now fears that her career will be harmed. Only time will tell but in my opinion it should not be held against her and that she can continue - I unfortunately fear that her career will suffer harm but hope that an individual standing up for what they believe in will not face any repercussions on this.

The continued Page 3 debate

Page 3 defender Peta Todd, Charity worker, former model

I'm probably about to draw a lot of flak from this but....

I agree with Nick on the subject of Page 3 and the sun. Liberals can, and cannot tell newspapers what to print as long as they are not infringing on other people's liberty by phone hacking or over intrusive journalism and unfortunately Page 3 is not one of those things.

I will, however quickly remind you all that I do think that some sort of age limit is needed on topless material as it is in movies. That would be the only way to remove this feature.

Page 3 is one brick in an entire ediface of similiar things.

The blunt fact of the matter is Sex sells. Women in various states of undress can be seen selling all sorts of things from Cars, deoderant, movies, Soap operas and even security hardware and it is that which captures the male mind. Afterall human beings are still just animals with the same base desires and wants and one of those is sex and clever marketing and advertising execs are happy to draw on that when they hit the market.

Do you think that teenage boys would buy lynx deoderant if the adverts were:

Lynx Africa - Smells great and you will too?

No! They see the army of scantily clad women throwing themselves at some average looking guy and their mind links the product to the ability to get women. I can tell you - it doesn't work!

Television programmes also use attractive and or scantily clad women to get people interested. Take Big Brother for example, not only did the casting teams deliberately try to cause conflict by selecting people who would grate on each other but also a bevy of young attractive people as well. There is no way it was a coincidence that Orlaith McAllister a former runner up in Miss Northern Island, Imogen Thomas a former Miss Wales and her runner up Rachel Rice were all selected at random.
Even Hollyoaks was accused of having far too many goodlooking buxom blonde actresses in it to attract some more male viewers - a problem rectified by a plot device using a Serial killer who only attacked attractive blonde girls!

Using women as sex objects in movies has gone on for decades! I hate to admit it but even Star Wars Episode IV Carrie Fisher was told not to wear a bra under her white Senatorial robes so there was more *cough* movement as she ran around. Sharon Stone said she felt pressured to do the revealing chair scene in Basic instinct and Kirsten Dunst once made reference to the famous Spiderman kiss in the rain scene where her shirt went translucent as Something for the geeks. It has taken decades for Bond girls to be more than just eye candy, in fact Golden eye was the first one with a strong female lead (arguably A view to a kill with Grace Jones) and even in some of the follow ups like Tomorrow Never dies Terri Hatcher's character is a throw back to the old days of Oh James!

I'm not saying it is something that we should accept, far from it. In the last century we have come along way in Women's rights and equal treatment, (not far enough) and with portrayals as more than a sex object. To be honest a good proportion of men (well the right kind) already know that about women because we were brought up that way by our parents.

Modern attitudes to Women can only really be changed by education from parents and indeed schools. It is a root problem that is only contributed not perpetuated by Page 3.

As to the argument that "Torso of the week" is just harmless fun - I'm sorry but it is fairly similar (and there are those who'd say the same about Page 3). The current Moonpig advert or the intermations in the Malteser advert - yes, even the classic Diet Coke advert...
I'm not saying it's right it wrong but meet me half way and admit there is a strong similarity and motivation. Why else would there be "Hunky Fireman" calendars next to the Girlie calendars?

At the end of the day the girls are willing to pose topless, they are not forced like a seedy Axis Comfort woman. Those who wish to look at semi-naked women over breakfast are free to do so as are we who don't are free not to read it.

The crux of it for me, as a liberal is the "not causing offence to others" part which obviously means not reading such material in public and exposing minors to sexually explicit images. Many would argue that "Fifty shades" is bad but it is printed text rather than imagery. I, personally think that a similar age rating on magazines should exist in the same way as movies. Who am I to tell someone what they can and cannot read in public?

My final thoughts are that this petition is only targeting the Sun not The Star or Sunday Sport.
Also, most kids have access to the Internet on their mobiles and even with the Vodafone filter you can still summon up pornographic imagery.

It is a minefield topic but I don't see any point in regulating printed material as to what can and can't be printed- tis very Mary Whithouse. The cultural attitude to women will not be changed by the removal of Page 3 and it is down to education.

Tory Right are back; lowering abortion limit

So abortion is back in the limelight again with Maria Miller's comments in the Telegraph on lowering the limit from 24weeks to 20. Cue outrage!

Then in wades that paragon of ministerial etiquette Jeremy Hunt who commented he'd drop it to 12 weeks!!!!

Maria Miller MP, minister for women's health

Now, abortion is a sticky subject and everyone has an opinion. I believe it is the Woman's choice and she should not be pressured into either direction. I do however feel that they should be used as a last ditch form of contraception. My wife on the other hand agrees for the most part with me but would never have one herself.

Traditionally the Conservative right is against it or for lowering the limit. We had all of this last year with Nadine Dorries who, surprise surprise supports this. With a hasty retraction from Mr Hunt's comments it was stated that the Coalition has no plans to look at the limit and that Mr Hunt was voicing a personal opinion. Could it be that Jeremy should get back in his box? Or could this be show boating to their traditional voters to show they're still on the right and different from those filthy mud blood Liberal Democrats?

All supposition.

Let's look at the facts though. Most abortions occur around the 14 week mark and only 2% occur after 20 weeks. I agree with this article from the Guardian which points out the personal torment behind the latter's decision to abort the foetus.

On the flip side is the argument that states "define when life starts." It is a very grey area that on the one hand life is terminated and another baby born prematurely at the same point can be saved. Maybe it is a debate worth having but as long as the rights of the woman are kept solidly in mind. Though would it be fair that a group comprised of mostly middle aged + men are telling women everywhere what they can and can't do with their bodies?

Jeremy Hunt's 12 week limit seems ludicrous. It forces women to make a hastier decision with out the full facts available as tests for Down's syndrome may not have been completed by that point. Although he stated it was not down to any religious conviction there are many who believe that that is a factor. Personally I think that religious belief can be a good thing and as someone who does not have any I'm some what envious at times of their faith but I also do not want someone else's beliefs enforced upon me. What I do with my body is my business and I'm afraid that should be the bottom line with abortion.

There cannot be any impingement on Women's personal rights.

Snoop laws invading privacy

Chequered internet history?

With the Home office proposals to keep tabs on the emails we send and receive as well as our Internet providers keeping a record of what websites we visit one is forced to ask;

Why?

Also more pointedly; To what end?

I know that the Police etc could keep an eye out for would be terrorists, paedophiles and hackers but lets be honest how many actually indulge in this? I know the tired old argument that if I'm not up to mischief then what am I afraid of but...

What I do in my free time is up to me. It is my Private life.

If I want to sit at home on my laptop reading articles about Medway's past or what Mr Clegg is up to now, or stare longingly at Games-Workshop's latest model is up to me and my personal business and the state have no right to take an interest in it until it can effect the state. It would be the same if I was using the Internet to watch an absolute boatload of pornography or conduct an extra marital affair, why should the state know before my wife? Also my emails correspondence are my own just the same as the post. I don't expect MI5 to monitor my post or MI7 to police what has been said.

Not that I am having an affair nor watching porn - if I was that would be up to me.

What I do look at on the Internet, and could raise suspicion, is my well known interest in the Luftwaffe and the campaigns of the German military throughout World War II. Now all the sites I visit are Military based and have nothing to do with the bloated tumour that is Nazism however to the casual observer who just glances at the pictures on the site and not really read the content, I may appear to be a goose-stepping Nazi.

Which- again, I'm really not but there lies the danger.

I know this will all sound rich coming from me after the long protracted debate with Andrew Emmerson about Civil Liberties and CCTV but this is how I've separated it in my mind and feel free to disagree...

CCTV watches public areas and according to the strict guidelines laid down in the SIA licence individuals cannot be targeted without due suspicion. For example you're walking down the Rochester High street and you spot a CCTV camera, you are but one face in the crowd and no interest will be paid to you.
You draw a handgun and start aiming it at people - the operators may spot you, zoom in and call the police because you are breaking the law and it will no doubt be the first time you've been seen.
Alternately you hang around a post office paying particular attention to OAPs coming out with their pension money, the chances are an operator may zoom in on you to see if you are up to no good and if they're satisfied you're just loitering they must zoom back out.
You also have the right to contact any Public authority and demand a copy of ALL footage they may have of you.

With my emails and web usage it is my Private life not what I get up to in Public.

The basis of law, according to the statute books, is that you are free to do what ever you want so long as your actions do not interfere with anyone else's freedoms or do anything that someone else would consider objectionable. This was one of the legal loop holes that was used to argue for the decriminalisation of Homosexuality - what goes on between consenting people behind closed doors is their own affair.

CCTV is not allowed to look into Private residences or places and neither should the Government.

The hope that I hold, and many Libdems should feel the same, is that the Coalition has assigned Dr Julian Huppert, MP for Cambridge, to the review process. I have a lot of respect for Dr Huppert and he has a proven track record of standing up for Libdem values and beliefs, including voting against the rise in Tuition fees.

So let us hope that Dr Huppert will act as a voice of reason in this affair and the Government will not adopt these invasive measures.

Conservatives against Gay marriage?

John Stuart Mill, whose philosophy "On Liberty" which forms the basis of Liberal Democrat philosophy, wrote that a majority that can get itself as "accepted” can force their will and standards onto those that aren't "accepted". This is called the "Tyranny of the Majority." and is to be treated in the same way as tyranny from above.

People are free to act as long as it doesn't affect another person's or group's Liberty and all people are treated equally.

There is due to be another Conservative rebellion over Coalition plans to lift the ban on Civil marriages for Lesbian and Gay Marriages. Opponents fear up to 100 traditionalist Conservative MPs will vote against the ban in a free vote as it will water down the traditional values of marriage.
Backbenchers have protested to the front bench ministers in private 1922 committee meetings that this is an attack on the institution of marriage.

Before I continue, I should point out that this doesn't seem to be the same homophobic legislation or beliefs of the Right that is prevalent in Republican parts of America - and although, if linked with the anti-abortion stance of Nadine Dories et-al it could be seen by some commentators that this is the Right mobilizing for the same here. Personally I don't believe that is the case here.  The Conservative party has changed a lot over the last few decades and modernized - ok they're not all like us (Lib Dems) and Conservatism is a broad church that covers a large spectra of views BUT they aren't the bible thumping puritans that make up a very vocal part of American politics - or so it seems to the casual observer from across the pond.  C

David Burrowes MP, aide to Cabinet Office Minister Oliver Letwin has stated;

Many colleagues are worried that it would fundamentally affect how marriage between a man and a woman has historically been viewed in this country.

There are strong doubts that we need to go down this path. It would open up a can of worms and a legal minefield about freedom, religion and equalities legislation.

In my humble opinion I think that modern Society has ruined the institution of marriage. A few generations ago marriage was for life - I'm not saying that people should stay in a loveless, violent or otherwise detrimental marriage, on the contrary people should be free to escape marriages by divorce but quick marriages and divorces are far to common these days. It seems that marriages aren't to be worked at these days and that if its not working out you can just split. Also the number of marriages - how many celebrities are on their second or third marriages, it cheapens the whole process. Extramarital affairs are also more common and with Mobile phones, social networking sites and email make it so easy to cheat and "Role models" are seen to be having affairs and it can glorify these actions; Ryan Giggs Vernon Kay, Jason Manford etc... I'm not criticizing the freedom of the individual to act; we all have weaknesses and soft spots for people with the potential to stray, just observing the social stances.
After Germany broke the Munich agreement, Hitler said "So I signed a piece of paper, it means nothing." and marriage is the same thing. I married because my wife wanted to marry, it has in honesty made her feel more secure and comfortable but for me nothing has changed between the two of us. The same is true for others I know they're just as happy and committed as they were before. I also know heterosexual couples who have married and split within a year and homosexual couples who have been committed to each other for years in the same way as a married couple.

Why can their union not be treated in the same way as marriage? Is it not the marrying together of two people who love each other and want to commit to each other in front of their families and friends to say "I want to be with this person."

Traditionalists say it isn't the same as the marriage between a man and a woman but why? Two women or two men can love each other in the same way; perform as a couple in the same way why can't they marry legally in the same way? Why should their lifestyle be oppressed by what is considered to be "accepted" - after all we're in the 21st Century now and society's norms aren't what they were fifty years ago. I fear that David Cameron agrees with me - well probably vice Versa;

Yes it is about equality, but it is also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative.

Lynne Feathersone, Lib Dem equalities minister is carrying out consultation on marriage law throughout March with the aim to legislate.

100 Tory MPs to rebel against PM's plan to legalize Gay marriage, Andrew Grice, I, 17th-1-2012

The Press and Freedom of speech

On Wednesday, as I hopped channels and trying to absorb the unfolding situation I came across Kay Burley on Sky news asking, what I thought was a fairly stupid question.

"Does this all mean an end to investigative journalism?"

Then I saw comments on the Twittersphere and blogs about government attacks on free speech and press or of the government waging war on the press.

When one reads of government interference and control of the press images of Goebbels or a Soviet commissar reviewing and censoring every report.
I cannot believe that any government that we are a part of, or indeed in the UK would ever, outside of a state of war/emergency, control the press.

Gordon Brown stated on Wednesday in his speech to the house;

"With the exceptions on peace and war, there is no matter of greater importance than the basic liberties of our citizens."

It is the liberties of the individuals - You, I, Ryan Giggs, Nick Clegg, Milly Dowler etc...etc

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right and a key belief of our party but then so are others freedoms. The basis of law is that the individual is allowed to carry out any action unless it causes offence to sensibilities or restricts the freedom of another individual(s) causes damage to the state.
This is why you are free to say what you like UNLESS it is prejudice or incites hatred or violence.
I, the individual am also free to act as I please in my own home and personal life as I see fit, again as long as I do not interfere with another individuals rights or freedoms.

The business at News corp has indeed crossed the lines, driven to get the next best story or gossip some journalists have soared where even the police fear to tread and engaging, as Mr Brown said, engaged  in "Law breaking often on an industrial scale."
This is indeed true. They have been invading Your liberty, or the Liberty and freedom of individuals to sell news papers and to dig dirt. Even worse they targeted a thirteen year old murder victim and then even deleted some of the messages which not only means the family think Milly Dowler was alive but also perverts the course of justice.
Other possible victims include families of servicemen lost in Afghanistan, September 11th, or even the 07/07 victims. For what reason though? To spice up a story further?

I'm not saying that investigative journalism should be stopped but there should be limits to what is done, such as attacking an individuals freedoms. Indeed investigative journalism has done amazing things and turned up very important stories that have had major ramifications in the world of politics and even in life in general. In recent times nothing more poignant has been turned up than the Westminster "expenses scandal."
It must continue and the press must be free to write and print what they want as long as it doesn't affect the individuals rights and liberties.

The next issue is the bribing of Police officers for information. I understand that sometimes the Police and Press do discuss matters for mutual benefit however the paying for information is straight up corruption and BOTH parties are guilty. A full investigation must be carried out to discover the depths of corruption with in the Police force, they are not above the law only the enforcers.

David Cameron was right to say that the press needs to be regulated by an independent body, like Offcom does for television. The media has to be reminded that they cannot break the law and are not above it.
These allegations against News international do show that criminal law has been broken and that the Police, whilst having a long look at themselves, need to investigate thoroughly.


Why Rebekah Brooks had to go.

It may be argued that she has become a scapegoat along with Andy Coulson and that as Editor in chief she had nothing to do with or knowledge of any wrong doing.

This is irrelevant. The Head of department is always responsible for the actions of their employees be it good or bad. German Field marshals were executed for the misconduct of some of their men whether they knew about it or not because they were their commanders and thus responsible.

Her willingness to lead the investigation could have been a genuine drive to save the company she loved and root out any wrong doing. However, as she was implicated in the crimes it would be massively hypocritical or even that she was destroying any evidence of any wrong doing by herself. It would be like asking Bruce Ismay to look into the Titanic disaster.

Her willingness to "Stay on the bridge" would only be noted as self serving. Ex News of the world employees were already touting the idea that they had been sacrificed to save her, it looked like Rupert Murdoch was willing to sever a limb of the company to save her and bury the evidence.
She had to accept full responsibility and resign and to rid any further investigation of a taint of unfairness.