Randomly Selected Article or Link

Some people appear to be criticising the way Simon has handled the sexuality issue on the basis that what he said a couple of weeks ago was misleading, or perhaps some kind of legalese "technical" answer along the lines of - "Are you gay?" "No, I've had sexual relations with women". Or that he's been avoiding the "B" word ("bisexual"). Many such people are people who should know better, having often struggled themselves with their own sexual identity. Some have not, but would just prefer some kind of "certainty" that they can then celebrate because they understand the label.

I believe that as liberals we should all accept and celebrate that there are a whole range of sexualities and that people self-define. This nineteenth century word invented to describe a pseudo-medical "condition" (and by implication some kind of either illness or moral deficiency) has no place in the twenty-first century liberal's dictionary. Until we reject such categories we will continue to see people hounded till someone pins them down to some neat classification (including those categories we decide label someone a criminal or of criminal intent).

I always remember a constituency dinner where Conrad (Lord Russell to non-Lib Dem readers) explained that a fundamental difference between us and Labour was that we treated every person as an individual where Labour tries to categorise everyone into "manageable" groups. To me, that individuality has *got* to include something as basic to our make-ups as our sexual self-definition.

Now, whether Simon shares that view and whether he was trying to convey some personal self-definition is another matter and I/we obviously don't know. But I just want to say how much I loathe these attempts to categorise people according to some arbitrarily defined labels. My only criticism of Simon if this is the case is his belief that this could be conveyed through our conventionally hide-bound national newspapers!

Jeez - I must read some Foucault...:)

For interest:

The Right's 100 Most Influential: 50-26 - Telegraph:

44.NICK CLEGG MP

Home Affairs Spokesman, Liberal Democrats

What’s a Lib Dem doing on a list like this? Clegg is the leading right of centre disciple of ‘Orange Book’ politics. He’s the antithesis of the stereotype ‘beard & sandals’ Lib Dems, who mutter about him being a ‘closet’ Tory.

He’s the sort of liberal who actually understands the historic meaning of the word and is likely to become even more influential when he takes on Chris Huhne for the Lib Dem leadership.

Incidentally, this puts him 10 places ahead even of Norman Tebit and fourteen ahead of the other Lib Dem to make the list, David Laws.

A recently discovered, by me at least, Lib Dem blogger, Jamie Saddler, comments on the apparent decision by government not to press for a lower blood alcohol limit:

Epolitix are reporting that the government have decided against lowering the drink-drive limit from 80mg to 50 mg... This is all well and good, but they are the ones who would do this regardless of the limit, and need to be the exception. It needs to be spelt out to people that if you are driving, even one drink is unacceptable. [From Jamie Saddler: Government Gets It Wrong on Drink Drive Limit]

I wonder. I do have an interest here - I was done for driving under the influence and banned for a year, sixteen years ago now. In my case, it was a timely reminder, even though it led to years of bad times for me - losing my job and so on. Had I been caught a few years earlier while I was working in Glasgow I think I would probably have done time and I am probably truly lucky not to have had an accident in that time.

Nonetheless, when I was stopped, I will always remember the first words the officer said to me: "Good evening, sir, you haven't done anything wrong, but we were following you for a while and we felt you took that last roundabout a little carelessly so we wanted to stop you and have a word; first, I'd like you to provide a sample of breath to testing for alcohol content."

They had been following me for some time, on otherwise empty roads mid-evening in Birmingham and approaching an empty roundabout I had taken a straighter line - inside-outside-inside - that someone a little more perfect would have done perhaps. I had done nothing wrong. They said.

Nothwithstanding all this though, I still wonder if drink limits are the right, or at least the most liberal, way of dealing with this nasty social problem of people who drink, drive and then injure or kill others or property. And I certainly question the common message that Jamie repeats that "even one drink is unacceptable". I rarely drink at all nowadays. I have a good relationship with alcohol. I regard it as one of the worst drugs available, even though legal, and take it generally with caution (okay, I had a few large whiskies on Saturday night but was taking a taxi, but was perfectly lucid).

But recently I was out in the car meeting someone and had two pints and drove home. They were nice pints and next time I visit I will take the bus because I would have enjoyed more. But over three and a half hours I drank two pints of ale, and "the alcohol in one pint of ordinary strength lager will take two hours to pass out of your body" [Bupa guidance]. So I'm probably right in saying that there may have been the equivalent of less than half a pint in my system when I drove away.

The problem with having a law that specifies a uniform amount for everyone and above that is a crime regardless of whether you are behaving dangerously or not, or even using a mobile phone, or driving whilst exhausted, or smoking, or eating, at the wheel, or on drugs, and so on is that you just have to keep adding extra clauses, extra laws to deal with new situations.

The problem with having a more general law of "dangerous driving" is that it appears to introduce some subjectiveness into the legal process. You are no longer asking whether a person was simply, objectively, over a certain limit, but whether the "man on the Clapham omnibus" would consider that you were acting dangerously.

The former also, almost by definition, involves trawling for offenders and in the process interfering with the perfectly legal comings and goings of law abiding citizens. And it really doesn't respect a notion of causing danger. Just breaching a numerical limit. Whilst the latter is how we expect for British law to be dealt with more generally - involving intention, capacity, culpability, danger and the subjective decisions of a jury or bench.

Now, that's not to say that I want to see more people drink driving, or a rise in death and injury as a result. As a libertarian minded person though I do want people to have to take responsibility for their own actions. And therefore consider for themselves whether what they are thinking of doing may be dangerous to themselves or others. The arbitrary, numerical limit takes away that responsibility in a way.

In the case Jamie mentioned:

I do not understand why this is dealt with under "causing death through dangerous driving" and not manslaughter. Manslaughter of course allows for a life sentence. A few life sentences and people would start thinking a bit more about whether it's worth testing their alcohol fuelled infallibility. If people are prevented from drink driving simply for fear of breaking a limit that will result in the loss of their license if they are unlucky enough to get caught by police, how much more so by the possibility that their journey might end in a prison cell for life if they take a gamble and lose?

I have no problem with using any of the impairment inducing activities - taking drugs, eating, phoning someone, smoking, driving too tired and so on - as aggravating the culpability and pushing more towards higher sentences. But is this not a case where "tough liberalism" punishing the consequences and not creating arbitrary laws that simply apply to everyone, dangerous or not, could once again reduce the burden of legislation and the arbitrariness of laws to deal with different substances and activities, whilst focussing peoples' minds on the real consequences of their actions?

Around 7.5% only of "KSIs" (killed and seriously injured) in road traffic accidents are causally linked to alcohol, and I believe this figure includes when the drunk is the pedestrian that staggers out in front of a perfectly legal driver and is killed or injured.  Which suggests to me that the greater rewards will now be found dealing with other forms of anti-social driving.  I nominate middle-lane-itis and misuse of the acceleration lane for starters.

...imagining a Wireless Oxford.

I'm surprised at how good a service they offer on the Oxford Tube, wireless wise. I'm off to a day conference on "Wireless Cities" where I'll hear from other areas miles ahead of Oxford about how they plan to unwire their cities/districts, courtesy of the people that brought us the Oxfordshire Community Network, Synetrix.

EDIT:...but I'm absolutely appalled at the thought that most of my journey companions do this every day. I truly hope they are handsomely rewarded for this monumental waste of their lives...:)