Iron Ladies

Visiting the Margaret Thatcher Foundation website I noticed this.

Iron Ladies: Women in Thatcher's Britain
The Women's Library, London Metropolitan University
22 October 2004 – 2 April 2005
Entrance free

What was it like to be Britain's first female prime minister? What
legacy did Margaret Thatcher create for women and the women's movement?
Was Thatcher's election a reflection of women's changing social roles,
or a political one-off? Iron Ladies: Women in Thatcher’s Britain is the
first exhibition to consider the impact of ‘Thatcherism’ on British
women in the 1980s, and to look at the ways in which Margaret Thatcher’s
presence as a role model affected women’s lives. Using a wide range of
original material, including previously unseen visual and archival
documents, photographs, posters, memorabilia and clothing of the period,
the exhibition addresses central issues from this defining period of
recent history.

They use this photo, I'm not sure that any of these women thought of Thatcher as a role model.

Blood Bowl Preview

Lothlorien Griffons travel today (5:00pm) to the Snot Bowl to play their relegation rivals Eeip Itzasnake in the penultimate game of the season. Eeip, the only Snotling team in the league already look set for the drop into the second division, having not won a game all season, while the Griffons must be full of confidence after beating championship favourites the Maelstrom Crew 3-2 last Sunday.

The Griffons will be without hat-trick hero Grassrider, having suffered a broken hand in the closing minutes of the match against the Crew. It is hoped that he will be fit enough for Sunday 27th's game against the Harlem Horrors.

On paper, the Griffons look to be far too strong for Eeip and should pick up at least three bonus points in addition to the six points for the win, but as their coach pointed out in a press conference yesterday, Blood Bowl games are not played on paper. The match against the Crew last week showed that shocks can happen.

Current League Tables


This Weekend's Fixtures
Saturday 19th February
Premiership
Anlec Citadels v De SkullRippaz
Iron Guards v Slavers Inc
Da Boozers v Eddie's Babies
First Division
Midnight Howlers v Pyrple Panzies
Eeip Itzasnake v Lothlorien Griffons

Sunday 20th February
Premiership
Loren Mapleleaves v Rottingham Deathspurs
First Division
Maelstrom Crew v Furburgers

Hunting and me

I don't view myself as being opposed to hunting, however today's posts would certainly give that impression, so this post is to try and explain my position:

Before moving to Somerset in 1996, I hadn't lived in a hunting area, I can't even remember thinking about hunting. Then in the next year, I was in an area where hunting was an issue. In the 1997 election, our Labour candidate was asked by very many people where he said on hunting, he said he was opposed to it, and not having a settled view on the issue, I kind of settled into a default Labour opposition.

At the Young Labour Conference 1997, there was a workshop, it was called something like "Rights and Freedoms" we were in an eight or so, each had to defend a right. I can't remember whether I choose it or got it randomly, but I remember the gasp from the rest of the group when I got the card, "Defend the right to hunt foxes".

I didn't know the animal welfare issues one way or the other So I decided to defend the right in very Labour terms. I acknowledged that there was a balance of rights, between the right of hunters to exercise their hobby and the right of countryside dwellers not to have their land trepassed. I didn't touch on animal welfare at all, think I mentioned football and you wouldn't ban football just because of the actions of hooligans. What a lot of people don't realise is that there is significant opposition in rural areas to hunting, but I've never heard a rural dweller oppose hunting due to the cruelty, it's always the thuggish nature of some hunt followers that make them upset. By the end of my piece, I think I'd gained the respect of the others in the group and managed to shift my own views somewhat.

So what happened, well, what happened was partly me and partly the way the Countryside Alliance framed the debate. The Alliance from the very start, framed the debate as country vs town, as hunters vs Labour. They poured so much viterol on townies and Labour Party members and as I was both I felt they meant me. Now, some may say that there was a lot of muck thrown the other way, but the CA should still have reached out to those of us on the Labour side who were more or less undecided, instead with every action they pushed us into opposition.

The Countryside Alliance did pursue a policy of meeting individual MPs but in so doing missed out an important fact about the Labour Party, CLPs have more power over a sitting MP than Conservative Associations do. Even if the MP was persuaded, it would have been a brave MP to stand against a hostile CLP, especially in the hunting issue where there would have been no advantage politically to break ranks. The CA didn't help by not giving any credit to Labour MPs who did support them. There is no supportive comment about Kate Hoey anywhere on the CA site, and Alun Michael, someone who bent over backwards to thrash out a compromise, is usually labelled as "devious" on the CA site.

I was a CLP secretary for a while, on the Executive Committee for the rest of the time and never did the CA write to the CLP offering to talk with us? When there's a debate, but one side doesn't want to talk to you, then there's only one way the debate's going to go.

Even now, the hunt supporters are making enemies when they should be making friends. One of the CA slogans is Support Freedom, Support Tolerance. What tolerance have they ever shown to us?

New Links

Two new links added today, both of a more right-wing bent.

Adam Smith Institute - Bunch of nutters who believe the merely changing the ownership of an enterprise from private to public automatically makes it more efficient.

David Stewart - Politics student from my old stomping ground, Stirling University, and he agreed with me on the Jack McConnell issue.

The Countryside Alliance condemns...

...Dan Norris for being in Badminton.

Their press release
The Countryside Alliance has condemned Labour MP for Wansdyke, Dan Norris, following his visit to the foxhunting village of Badminton to gloat on the eve of the hunt ban coming into force. Badminton residents are appalled by the misleading spin and accusations made by Mr Norris.

Villagers at Badminton, in the heart of Gloucestershire foxhunting country, were furious that the MP had left his constituency in order to provoke a reaction in a community that will be deeply damaged by the Hunting Act. Many people's homes and jobs in rural areas depend on hunting, especially in villages like Badminton.

Countryside Alliance Regional Director Delly Everard commented: "Dan Norris is an experienced MP who understands the passions that hunting evokes, especially in rural areas. I can only speculate on his motivation, which seemed to many Badminton residents to be nothing more than a sick publicity stunt."

Okay, lets look at this. BBC Points West decided to do an interview/debate between Dan Norris, an MP who has been vocal in his support for the hunt ban, and a member of the Beaufort Hunt. Dan Norris accepts and the BBC decide to hold the debate in the Beaufort's home village of Badminton. Before the BBC could actually do the interview, Norris was pelted with eggs and cream and, Norris says, his assistant was punched. The CA deny that she was punched but in the general confusion of the event, I've seen clips on TV, I can't see how anyone can say that no punches were thrown. So he didn't come to Badminton to gloat, he visited to take part in a civilised debate, the venue of which he did not choose.

Even if he had gone there to gloat, are the CA really saying that there should be parts of Britain off-limits to people who hold certain political views? Some lovers of freedom they are.

Civil Disobedience

Because the updates on the Hunt Defenders post are getting confusing, I'm bringing it back up to the top.

John says that "I do not support it and have not said anywhere that I do" is a vague condemnation. I'm happy to accept that in the spirit that it's offered.

He further says "I certainly consider physical violence as a possible form of civil disobedience, but I do not give it my support." I think that's a little further than I would go, but it's a logical position, the whole issue is an interesting debate I would like to have when cooler heads prevail.

One more comment "Indeed, I remember as a younger man feeling simply dreadful the day that taxi driver was killed by a protesting miner when he threw that concrete slab off that bridge and it is not something I have forgotten." I remember that day, it was probably worse for me, I was 12, the miners were my heroes, I felt much the same about Thatcher as it seems John thinks about Blair now. Up until then, at least to me, the miners held the high moral ground, I knew a policeman (my best friend's elder brother) who flew up to Nottinghamshire every week and came home to boast about beating up (his words) picketing miners, that one comment has remained with me forever. In my mind, Scargill could do no wrong (well, I was only 12). But then that poor taxi driver died, and it was my heroes who had killed him. I remember I went through the denial, the justifications, but it very soon dawned on me that the miners had been wrong. It doesn't matter how right you are, it's not worth that. It seemed to me that the steam went out of the strike at that moment, as people came to the same realisation as me.

John has said that the protesters have overstepped the mark and I applaud him for that. I'd better get off and do some work, no more posts until this evening.

Fighting

The Countryside Alliance's new slogan looks a little bit inappropriate considering last night's events.

More mindless violence

Sadly, it seems that the Beaufort Hunt isn't the only hunters who, stopped from killing foxes have turned to hitting women instead.

Fifteen members of the Chiddingfold, Leconfield and Cowdray Hunt attacked eight hunt protesters. (Source The Sun). A woman suffered head injuries, a 27-year old had severe head injuries and an elderly man was kicked and punched, his glasses smashed and camera stolen.

The Hunt Defenders

John at the England Project has just posted on the topic of the Hunt Ban and has an attempt at explaining the hunt supporters' feelings.
Some of these hundreds of thousand of people will be angrier than others and some of those will not be able to help themselves in expressing that anger. Any large group will have some people among them who are less able to control their rage. I hope and pray that any incidents will be few and far between and minor.

Minor? Punching a woman because she happens to work for a Member of Parliament who you have a disagreement with? How would John feel if someone punched his wife because someone was upset with her boss?

But of course, John explains that's all the government's fault and he has a go at stoking up the temperature even more.
For some it is no longer about who is wrong and who is right; that process has pretty much run its course and those in the wrong were fortunate enough to have the ear of some of the most wickedly illiberal men and women to have ever held influence in this country.

John, you really ought to look at what you've written. Do you really believe that huntsmen and women are above the law? Do you really think that punching a woman is okay if you're angry?

UPDATE 18th Feb - John's replied to my comments above as an update of his post here.

He says that he hadn't heard about the Badminton incident before writing his post and I apologise to him for assuming that he had.

He says that "I believe that the law is wrong on this issue and I would support a policy of civil disobedience on the issue." Civil Disobidence is a bedrock of our democracy, indeed as I said above egg-throwing is to my mind perfectly acceptable, the problem I have with John's post is that he seems to consider physical violence as civil disobidence. John is going to respond to that by pointing out that he's never said he supports it, however he has managed to write about it now without even vaguely condemning it. All I want to hear from him is that the Beaufort and the Chiddingfold, Leconfield and Cowdray Hunts have overstepped the bounds of what's acceptable.

UPDATE 18th Feb - Catching a report on BBC West about the Badminton incident, it seems that Dan Norris was actually prevented from taking part in the debate by the egg-throwing. Intimidating people into remaining silent, in my view, also steps over the bounds of decent democratic behaviour.

How low will they go?

Dan Norris (Lab, Wansdyke) was in Badminton, Gloucestershire last night. Some hunt supporters pelted him and his staff with eggs and someone punched his female assistant (Source BBC Gloucestershire)

Dan Norris himself was remarkably even handed, "It is unfortunate because I don't think these hot heads are typical of the behaviour I have seen from the pro-hunt lobby. It's a great shame because I don't think they do their cause any good, and they let their side down."

Sadly, the Beaufort Hunt's joint master Captain Ian Farquhar was less concilliatory (especially considering it was his people that had acted disgracefully). "He's come out of his constituency and he's the one that's pushed though this bill which will put people out of work. He's here to gloat he's right ... and I think that stinks."

But Dan Norris wasn't there to gloat, he was invited by BBC Points West to take part in a live interview/debate with hunt supporters.

Pelting politicians with eggs is just part of our political culture and I wouldn't want to condemn that. But when your "protest" involves punching a woman, that's completely unacceptable and I call on the Countryside Alliance to unequivocally make clear that such actions have absolutely no merits whatsoever and to point out that the Beaufort Hunt have demeaned the image of hunt supporters everywhere.

UPDATE 18th Feb - Of course Captain Farquhar doesn't have his facts right either, Dan Norris isn't the one that's pushed through this bill. His bill was the Private Member's Bill that was talked out in 1998.

UPDATE 18th Feb - A spokeswoman for the Beaufort Hunt said "I think he [Dan Norris] was asking for it. [The action]was definitely not from a drunken minority". So, John, these are the people you have allied yourself with.

RIP Hunting

A brand new day and one where the people who thought they were above the law will wake up and realise that they have to obey the law like the rest of us.

UPDATE 18th Feb - Seems that I had been giving the hunt supporters too much credit. Sorry.

The Lib Dems *are* in favour of ASBOs - Official

From Western Gazette 17th Feb 2005

Drunken yobs could find themselves facing football-style red and yellow cards in the latest crackdown on anti-social behaviour in Yeovil. The scheme is being piloted in Taunton and Cllr Tony Fife, who is the portfolio holder for community safety for South Somerset District Council, said if is successful it could be introduced in Yeovil by autumn.

Based on the "three strikes and you are out" rule, once a person is convicted of an anti-social offence involving alcohol they will be issued the yellow card, featuring information on the damage alcohol does to the body.

A second conviction is accompanied by a red card which automatically bans the offender from all licensed premises for 28 days and a third conviction would mean an automatic anti-social behaviour order.

Cllr Fife said: "There is evidence that this is proving successful in Taunton and, if it continues, we would look at bringing it into Yeovil.

Mr Fife is a Lib Dem. Does Mark Oaten know?

Ouch

Great picture of Charlie Kennedy. (Hat tip Lib Dem Watch)

Defending a Lib Dem

Regular readers will know that I don't support the Lib Dems, but when the need arises I am fair enough to do so.

Somerset County Councillor Tim Carroll (Lib Dem, Wincanton & Bruton) is also chairman of the Environment and Transport Policy Committee and has been a stauch campaigner for the strict imposition of speed limits throughout the county.

On 4th September he was caught driving at 40mph in a 30mph zone through Bayford and last week was fined £60 and got 3 points on his licence.

Clive Allen, the Tory PPC covering Tim Carroll's patch called on him to resign his position, he said, "What a hypocrite, He no longer has any credibility in campaigning for speed measures"

What a lot of nonsense. Certainly for a speed limits campaigner to be caught speeding is embarrassing, but has no bearing on his work as a councillor or as a campaigner. There is absolutely no need for this man to resign.

Boggling

A real comment on the Veritas forum:

"Those who so love the foreigners should all go and live with them! I have wished they would very fervently for nearly a year, now! If I pray hard enough, maybe God will hear me. Let's all pray really hard that God will send them all to the Third World, and not let them come back! I bet those countries would take them, because they could make use of their talents/whatever. Or eat them for dinner! Or something. Robert Mugabe would love them, I bet!"

Political cold-calling

This report says that both Labour and the Tories are continuing to phone people who are registered on the Telephone Preference Scheme.

Now I used to argue strongly that we (the Labour Party) shouldn't call TPS homes as we didn't want to annoy them. But since I've registered onto TPS, I've changed my mind.

I didn't register with TPS because I didn't want to be cold-called. I joined because of just 2 companies (I'll name and shame here, Anglian Windows and Tele2) who used to phone me most evenings and simply not take no for an answer. I don't mind if the Tories or the Labour Party phone me. I would be very interested if the Lib Dems do despite their holier-than-thou attitude.

The Daily Mail can't report the truth

I'm backing Ken Livingstone on his crusade against Der Stürmer oops, I meant the Daily Mail and it's sister the Evening Standard.

Interestingly the Daily Mail manage to report the growing row without mentioning the meat of Livingstone's comment. I'll repeat it here for the benefit of any Mail readers.

"Although we uniquely have some brilliant newspapers and first-rate journalists, their standing is dragged down by what must be some of the most reprehensibly managed, edited and owned newspapers in the world."

"They have a disgraceful record, none more so than the Daily Mail,"

"When it was first set up [in 1896] its first campaign was against Jewish refugees coming to London from the pogroms. It continued its anti-Semitism in the 1930s, fighting any proposals that Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler should be admitted to this country."

"Had Britain lost the war and had the Nazis controlled Britain, Lord Rothermere and his cohorts would have been at the front of the queue of collaborators."

Quite right Ken.

UPDATE 16th Feb - Guido Fawkes has pointed out that Ken's distate at Associated Newspapers hasn't stopping him writing for the Standard in the past. Doesn't make him wrong, just a hypocrite.

The Young Saints prosper

Southampton U-18s beat their Arsenal counterparts 1-0 in front of 3,000 fans at St.Mary's tonight to book their place in the quarter finals of the FA Youth Cup. Well done the lads.

UPDATE 15th Feb - Saints now face a trip to East London for the quarter finals. They will play the winner of the Leyton Orient v West Ham match that's played tomorrow.

UPDATE 17th Feb - West Ham beat Leyton Orient 3-2 last night so it's West Ham v Southampton in the quarter final.

St Johns at sunset

No reason for the pic, just like it.

Smoking

A pub in Kent is to reintroduce smoking six months after banning it.

John over at England Project says that it's "just one of the many reasons why decisions on when and where customers are allowed to smoke should be left to private businesses"

I beg to differ.

It's just the reason why government has to take a steer. The Junction Inn banned smoking, so smokers (and their) friends moved to other pubs in the area. All the pubs have to work in concert to do anything like that. I personally would prefer self-regulation, but without that, then government has to step in.