Something's coming ...

Something's coming ...

... and this little boy is getting very excited!

Gig frenzy

I am very pleased to have been able to go to a load of brilliant gigs recently.

I saw Fish in Cirencester a couple of weeks ago on his 'Return to Childhood' tour, it being 20 years (where did they go) since Marillion's Misplaced Childhood album was released. The first half of the show was a variety of his solo material and the second was a full run through of the album. This is one of my all time favourite albums and it was a delight to hear it played in full.

I then went to see Opeth in Oxford. Opeth are a sort of progressive death metal outfit and certainly the loudest band I have seen for a while. They are from Stockholm in Sweden and the frontman was very amusing, playing on his limited english vocabulary to great effect. Incredible musicians.

Next it was Marillion at the Kentish Town Forum on the finla date of their Not Quite Christmas Tour. I was in the balcony due to the downstairs tickets having sold out. This was one of the best gigs I have ever been to. Two and a half hours including thre encores, finishing with a hilarious Pogues style parody of their most rcent album title track. This album 'Marbles' was a real return to form for the band and they looked and sounded like a band at the top of their game.

On Thursday I went to see Magnum at the Astoria. They are also celebrating a 20th anniversary - of their most successful album On A Storytellers Night. Again the first half of the set was a mix of material from their ecellent back catalogue with the second half being the album in full. Magnum were one of the first bands i ever saw and they are still a terrific live act.

And on Friday I am off to see KINO - a prog rock 'supergroup' which includes Pete Trewavas from Marillion and John Mitchell from Arena. I am hoping to meet up for a pre-gig drink or two with other Marillion fans before heading for what will be a good and christmassy final gig of the year.

Rock on!

Christmas is coming

I had fun playing a certain rotund white-bearded gentleman yesterday evening at Jimmy's school kids' club christmas party.

It probably sounds a bit trite but it really is amazing to see the children's reaction. It is also interesting how the older ones know that they are in on the secret and don't let slip to the little ones.

Get F**ked at Woolworths

Woolworths have withdrawn the Jerry Springer - The Opera DVD because some of their customers might be offended. This is despite the fact that there is nothing on the packaging that could offend anyone.

Yet at their website you can buy several far more offensive products (hint - enter the f-word in the search bar).

At least they could be honest about the fact that they are a bunch of spinelss, hypocritical halfwits who gave in to an extremist pressure group.

More comment here and here.

Restricting free speech is not a restriction on free speech

Lord Falconer says it is "ridiculously overdone" to claim free speech is being undermined after the arrest of a woman for listing the UK's Iraq war dead.

So it's not a restriction of free specch to arrest someone for, er, speaking, then?

A true people's politician

A very touching article in the Observer by Mo Mowlam's stepdaughter http://politics.guardian.co.uk/politicspast/comment/0,9236,1657073,00.html

Mo Mowlam was my MP at home and I met her onec in redcar and once a few years later when I was running what used to be called 'Youth & Student Day' for the Lib Dem Youth & Students.

Apart from the fact that she impressed me by knowing who I was have met my parents a few times at local functions in Redcar, I was struck by he down to earth approach and what was clearly a very genuine humanity.

That she managed to achieve so much in politics, particularly in the peace process, whilst remaining a warm human being, perhaps shows how politics could be so much better if we would let it.

Defending western values

I listeneed to an alarming interview on radio 4 this morning with british defence lawyer Clive Stafford-Smith who is involved in helping to defend some of the Guantanamo Bay detainees.

Aparantly another batch of detainees have been charged, including a british refugee who has been charged with 'conspiracy to commit war crimes'.

The US Government:

Kidnapped a british resident, incarcerated them without charge, plans to put them on trail before a military tribunal of judges handpicked by the US government, is allowing evidence gained after torture, will not allow the accused or his lawyers even see all the evidence aginst him, and will then only allow appeal to another appointed tribunal.

If any country other than the US was doing this wouldn't our Government be going up the wall?

And this is apparantly all in the name of 'defending western freedoms and values'.

It is an utter disgrace. Blair, Straw and the lot of them should be hanging their heads in shame.

90 days detention - but why?

I have been thinking about why my reaction against the Government's plans for 90 day detention without charge is so instinctive.

Apart from all the arguments about how devastatingly life-wrecking such detention would be to the individual concerned (usually an 'innocent victim' that Blair and co are supposed to be concerned about), I think it comes down to the fact that they are simply not putting forward a case.

Blair's argument simply seems to come down to 'there are nasty terrorists about and the security services assure me that they need these measures to fight them'.

But there is no real explanation of how these powers would actually help prevent terrorism, no examples have been given from recent times to illustrate the difference they would make, and no clear explanation of why the alternatives being proposed by politicians couldn't do the job as effectively.

Which means that basically they are back to the same justification that was used for invading Iraq: trust us and trust the security services.

The problem is that on Iraq they got it wrong. And on previous attempts to change the law they got it wrong too (eg. the Walter Wolfgang incident)

So I don't trust them, and I don't trust the advice of the security services, and I feel dreadfully sorry for those who end up being the innocent victims of this unecessary and draconian proposal.

My advice to Charles Clarke

Charles Clarke apparantly wants to know our views on how we can fight terrorism http://www.labour.org.uk/yourviewsonfightingterrorism

In his rush to find out our views the answers to the questions he has come up with could be misinterpreted. I doubt it is likely, for example, that many people will say that the Police shouldn't have the time and opportunity to fully investigate suspected terrorists!

Unfortunatelt the survey form didn't provide an opportunity to add explanatory comments.

I have therefore, being the helpful chap that I am, sent an additional email adding some detail to the YES or NO options available:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Labour Party,

I have just filled in a rather simplistic survey about my views on
fighting terrorism.

The questions were extremely simplistic and the answers will be completely
open to interpretation.

Most online surveys of this type have a general comments box. I would
recommend this in the future.

As I am sure Charles Clarke is interested in arriving at properly thought
through solutions to the threat of terrorism, I therefore thought it would
be helpful if I sent more detailed comments:

Do you think that our laws should be updated to cope with the current
security threat?

I answered NO because there are already more than enough legal measures in
place for the security services to take on terrorism and because I believe
that if we keep changing our laws every time there is a heightened threat
from terrorism then we have already let them win. There are perhaps a few
things the Government could do such as changing the rules on evidence to
allow phone tap evidence etc.

Do you think police should have the time and opportunity to complete their
investigations into suspected terrorists?

I answered YES (and frankly who is going to say NO to such a question?)
and as far as I know no-one is stopping them do this. The security
services do not have a very good track record on this. During the past
four years they have arrested nearly 1,000 people under the Prevention of
Terrorism Act 2000 yet only 23 have been convicted. There are clearly
major problems with the standards of evidence gathering which they need to
improve. Perhaps if they spent more time gathering real evidence and less
time arresting and holding innocent people the results would be better?

Do you think the government should make sure there are new safeguards to
protect innocent people?

I answered YES.

There are three things in particular I would like the Government to do to
protect innocent people:

1 Drop the plans to increase the length of time suspects can be held
without being charged. This is an affront to justice and will do untold
harm to innocent people whose lives will be wrecked.

2 Urgently review the code of practice for police use of firearms.

3 Admit that the basis for invading Iraq was completely wrong and
commit to not making the same mistake again so that thousands of innocent
people don't die again.

I hope Mr Clarke finds these comments helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Fawcett.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not sure I should share the results of the latest test at: http://similarminds.com/othertests.html

What Classic Movie Are You?
personality tests by similarminds.com

ID Cards website

My good friend and colleague Mark tells me that those pesky Lib Dems have launched a new campaign against Labour's Identity Cards plans - take a look at www.libdems.org.uk/noidcards

If I was very clever I would probably also be able to add a link button to my site. Sadly I am not.

Trumpton on the web

I'm sure anyone of a similae age to mine will be as astounded as I was to discover that you can get Trumpton ringtones!

http://www.t-web.co.uk/trumpepg.htm

I can still vividly remember excitedly waiting to find out what was in Lord Belborough's mystery crate.

Guess which DVDs my little one will be getting for Christmas!

The West Wing

Despite having missed the last series I thoroughly enjoyed the first two episodes of series 6 on More 4 on Friday.

Then I found this:



Ahh, the ever-cynical and sarcastic speechwriter. Gutsy and not afraid to speak up or clash with authority, his dry wit is amusing. But under it all he's just a big teddy bear... and the world's biggest Yankees fan.


:: Which West Wing character are you? ::

Interference

So Tony Blair has warned Iran not to interfere in neighbouring Iraq then.

You couldn't make it up.

Four Candles

Ronnie Barker has died, sadly.

A real comedy genius.

First they came for the hecklers ...

Lots of people have already commented on the heavy handed approach to Walter Wolfgang at the Labour Conference.

The two aspects of the incident that I find most worrying are:

1 That only one other delegate had the strength of character to intervene;

2 The use of the Terrorism Act to detain Mr Wolfgang when he tried to return to the hall.

I seem to remember lots of promises that these new police powers would only be used when absolutely necessary and that we liberals had no reason to get all hot and bothered about them.

Sadly, Labour trying to screen out dissent no longr surprises me at all.

Blackpool beckons

Off to sunny Blackpool for Lib Dem Conference tomorrow. I like Blackpool. It brings back memories of a) childhood holidays and b) the 15 NUS conferences I attended in my student days.

In fact there will be several of our new MPs making speeches this week who I first saw making speeches at NUS conferences in the Winter Gardens.

Conference for me is not about debates in the main hall and fringe meetings, but training sessions and meetings with constuency teams. And of course the chance to catch up with the many friends I have made over the years in different parts of the country.

As usual the conference the media is reporting bears little resemblance to the one Lib Dems are heading off to.

Media comment seems to revolve around the leadership of the party and whether we will be moving to the right or the left.

To Lib Dem activists the leadership is not in question. I guess the journalists are just so busy reporting on the various other parties' leadership wrangles (I see that even the tiny Plaid Cymru are joining in) that they expect us to have them to.

And Lib Dem simply do not see our party in terms of being on the left or right - we just get on an apply our liberal principles to the problems acing the country and try and come up with solution that will work.

This seems very simple to us and it is difficult to understand why the journos don't get it.

I am looking forward to getting to my hotel as it has been built underneath the Pepsi Max rollercoaster at the Pleasure Beach. I know what I'll be doing when conference gets boring!

Defending our basic freedoms

The main justification for the so-called 'war on terror' is that our Government is acting to defend our traditions, culture and values. Blair and Bush talk of 'defending democracy'.

On of the traditional freedoms that we have enjoyed for a few centuries in this country is freedom of expression. Freedom of expression - the right to put forward your views on an issue regardless - is one of the fundamental liberties that has set the UK, the US and most western democracies apart from communist, dictatorial and other tyrannical regimes.

Yet now, in the name of fighting terrorism, the Home Secretary is proposing that people should not be allowed to 'glorify' terrorism. This is a significantly broader restriction than not being allowed to 'incite' terrorism, which means actually encouraging people to go and commit terrorist acts. It would effectively prevent anyone from putting forward any argument that might be considered to justify terrorism.

On the face of it this might not seem to bad, surely, you might argue, it is wrong for anyone to argue in support of terrorism?

But there are two key reason why this approach is wrong.

Firstly, it is simply wrong for the state to restrict people's freedom to put forward an argument. However wrong you or I might think an argument to be, someone has the right to put it forward. To remove that right is to remove one of the very traditions that make democracy worth defending.

Secondly it is wrong on practical grounds. How do you define 'terrorism' and 'glorify' in a watertight way that only restricts the really nasty advocates of outright terror, rather than catching all sorts of completely harmless theorising? Who does the defining? How can we ensure that they are in some way objective rather than subjective?

To give one example: during the second world war was it wrong for people to publically support terrorist cells active in France? (Otherwise known as the French Resistance)

Under the legal definition of 'terrorism' such public comment would surely be against this proposed law.

Every time there is a major act of terrorism Blair and co. tell us that the terrorists will not be allowed to change our way of life. Yet by the look of these proposals they are allowing probably the most control crazy Government we have ever had to restrict our liberty more than has ever been the case in peacetime.

Marillion - nice chaps

I enjoyed seeing a slimmed down Marillion at the Oxford Zodiac last night - just Steve Hogarth, Pete Trewavas and Steve Rothery. It was a warm up gig for a short tour they are about to do in the States. Mostly hardcore fans and there were plenty of mistakes, humour etc.

And after being a fan of the band for 22 years I actually got to meet them after the gig.

I never quite know what to say when I meet people I am a big fan of, but muttered something along the lines of 'thank you for the music'. Very friendly they were too.

Who would have guessed?

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article309681.ece

Apparantly Blair has a tendency to rush out ill-thought through policy statements in order to win media coverage.

Who would have guessed?