It had to happen of course. In the wake of an outrage, Mr Angry puts pen to paper (or finger to keyboard) and floods the press with the benefit of his unedited thoughts on the matter. That they are inherently stupid is also entirely predictable. Three letters in the Times today serve to illustrate the point rather well. The first, from Mr Daljit Sehbai, goes on to say:
“I love civil liberties as much as do those who oppose the introduction of identity cards (letters, July 8, etc) or tough measures against terrorists. But the right to life is of paramount importance.
Let the leaders of all political parties and our eminent judges worry more about protecting the lives of our citizens and their right to live, travel and work in safety.”
Really? So the only life worth living is one where our basic liberties are curtailed, where we are under constant surveillance by an overweening nanny state? And, it would seem, the politicians and judiciary are suitable people to be trusted with our safety and wellbeing. My, oh my, well I was missing a trick there.
The second correspondent, Dr Charles Tannock, MEP for London Region, does at least make a cohesive point with this:
“Peter Riddell (Political Briefing, July 8) repeats the assertion that ID cards did not prevent the Madrid bombings and by implication suggests the London bombings will not help the Government’s case.
That may be, but what has not been reported is that the Spanish police were able to round up the terrorist suspects because an unexploded bomb was found with the detonating mobile phone.”
Except that, nothing in the ID cards bill requires the presentation of a card to buy a mobile phone. If that happens, then it will be function creep. This is something that worries us as campaigners against the scheme. Do I really want to live in a society where buying a pay-as-you-go phone requires the presentation of an ID card? I don’t think so. The chance that someone will take advantage of our liberties is something that we risk when we live in a liberal common law democracy. When Dr Tannock goes on to point out that this will therefore stop other attacks, he sinks into knee-jerk reactionary nonsense. The terrorism argument for ID cards was the first to be thoroughly debunked and even the Home Secretary accepted that ID cards would not have prevented last Thursday’s atrocity. Dr Tannock also seems to be unaware of his own party’s policy on the matter and indeed the reason for it (apart from opportunism)…
The third letter from a Mr Michael Joyce is a joy to read if you appreciate the sheer lunacy of the colonel Blimp school of idiocy
“A national database for all British citizens of their DNA sequence would cost less and be far more effective in combating crime generally and assisting in the pursuit and conviction of terrorists.”
Priceless. Something these three correspondents appear to have forgotten is that it is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt…
Rational people have long realised that Identity Cards do not stop terrorists. We knew this last Wednesday. Nothing changed that on Thursday and it is still true in the aftermath as the dust settles and the police search for the perpetrators. Like the three correspondents to the Times, I am outraged by what happened. Unlike them, I remain implacably opposed to any curtailment of our civil liberties because that would be handing terrorists an undeserved victory.
I am inclined to agree with John Simpson’s approach
“Bernard Levin, advised his readers to respond to the bombs as a refined hostess might respond to a dinner-guest who belched loudly at the table: just ignore it, he said.
At the time it seemed to me effete and mannered. Now I see it was exactly the right advice.”
Perhaps, messers Sehbai, Tannock and Joyce would like to take note.
Another priceless quote…
This morning the anti terrorist squad (or whatever it is they are calling themselves these days) are carrying out a series of raids. This is breaking news and was reported on BBC Breakfast. During the five minutes or so when we learned nothing much other than the raids were “somewhere in west Yorkshire” the field reporter was asked if he had more detail. He replied that the press had not been given more detail because the police did not want the media crawling all over them while they conducted the raids. Really? Now there’s a surprise…
—–