The Pricking of my Thumbs

“By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes” William Shakespeare – Macbeth Act IV scene 1

You would have thought that the Kelly affair taught the government a lesson. Well, you would if we were talking about reasonable people. People, that is, who care about their fellow man and take high office for altruistic reasons, rather than snivelling self-servitude. We are, however, talking about the mean-spirited, illiberal parasites usually found festering on the government front benches.

Simon Davies is an academic. In his role as an academic, he along with colleagues from the London School of Economics, produced a paper on the costs of the proposed ID Cards Bill, which was somewhat different to the home office costs. The government, not surprisingly was unhappy with the outcome; not least because it showed them up for the incompetent, numerically dyslexic liars that they are. So the gloves came off and it all got very personal – they lined up their sights on Simon Davies because he is also a director of Privacy International.

“Davies was one of a group of academics at the LSE whose investigation found the costs of the national identity card scheme would be as much as £19 billion — three times the government’s initial estimate.When the report was published, Clarke immediately launched a virulent attack on the report, its authors and on Davies personally. “

What arseholes these ministers are. Arrogant, self-obsessed, venal, vile, repulsive arseholes; the lot of them. They don’t like the report so they target one of the authors in an unforgivable personal attack that leads to personal loss:

“As a result, his income has halved and he has had to move from a rented house to a bedsit in London. The lack of space has meant he has even had to give away Buster, his german shepherd dog.”

They claim that he is partisan because of his role with Privacy International. Although as Sir Howard Davies, Director of the LSE points out:

“It is quite wrong to suggest he (Davies) is the sole author of the report,” he said. “I would also question the assumption that an interest in civil liberty necessarily means that one is biased when producing an estimate of costs.”

I agree with this point entirely, but even if it wasn’t the case, and Davies was being partisan, does that justify a personal attack deliberately designed to destroy him? What kind of worthless shit honourable gentleman does that?

Of course, you also have to question the feeble-mindedness of those people who will not employ Mr Davies as a consultant on the basis of the briefings being put out by ministers. Frankly, anyone who incurs their ire is someone whom I would seek to employ forthwith – clearly this is a person with scruples and judgement. Not a description that I would consider applying to government ministers. These people are morally bankrupt, without any means of salvation, the lowest of the low – and then downstairs a few more flights. Frankly, you would be better off doing business with your local drug baron than government ministers. Drug barons at least have some semblance of honour and provide a service for their clientele. Not qualities you will find on the government front benches. You’d also feel less inclined to scrub your hands with wire wool after shaking that of the local drug baron.

So, to McNulty, Burnham, Clarke, Brown and most of all, the nauseous, feculent, pustulant pox of a prime minister; Blair, I wish you only death and disease; may the latter be long and excruciating. You have demonstrated that you no longer have any remnants of humanity within your desiccated souls. Go, please, and wither away and die; it’s the one final human thing you can do.

I rarely use the words “evil” or “wicked” because they tend to over state reality. In this case, though such use is deserved; something wicked this way comes, indeed. And, to remain with the Shakespearean theme; There really is something rotten in the state of Denmark.

2 Comments

  1. There is a serious difficulty, in modern political case making, concerning the extent to which any particular case can be believed, and to which any “partyâ€? making such a case can be respected as decently credible. Honest statements of supposed “facts” on which a political case is built, followed by logical and reasonable argument from those “facts” does not seem to form a major part of many political cases, including that concerning the proposed National Identity Scheme. Separation of “factsâ€? from the case built on them is rarely done. Where “factsâ€? are later thrown into doubt (as happens to the best of us working with the best of intentions), this is almost never acknowledged and it is usually unclear of the extent to which argued cases still have validity.

    Concerning the LSE view, one particular cause for concern relates to various inaccurate technical statements appearing in their “interim report”. Despite obvious doubts, including provision of substantiated corrections on these issue (particularly those concerning iris recognition), the same or similar inaccuracies appeared in their “final report”. Failure of correction of such issues of technical “factâ€? is a serious concern.

    Such failing are not one-sided. It is also clear, at least to me, that the Government’s case is riddled with inaccuracies on technical aspects that, with all due respect for real-world difficulties, should not have occurred and should not have continued uncorrected.

    However, it strikes me as appropriate that claims by one side, itself full of inaccuracies, should remain subject to critical scrutiny, despite claims by the other side having equal or even greater inaccuracies.

    Accordingly, my sympathy for LSE’s case (including that for Simon Davies) is severely limited. Given that iris recognition is one of the issues here, motes/planks in the eye strikes me as particularly relevant.

    As to your point that Simon Davies is “just� another LSE academic, pull the other one. He is lobbying from a political viewpoint on a political issue. Great, and strength to his elbow, says me. Attack him for that any you are, in my opinion at least, wrong. Attack him for inaccuracy in his facts and arguments and, again in my opinion, you have a valid attack.

    Best regards

    ”’Longrider replies: Nigel, with all due respect, I was not commenting on Simon Davies’ work or the output of the LSE report, other than that I would place more faith in their estimate of costs than that of the government. Yes, he ”is” just another academic in this instance. The LSE report was a joint effort looking at costs, not civil liberties issues, which is Davies’ area of political concern. I have no reason to suppose that he behaved in anything but a professional manner in his work on the report (even if some of it is flawed). Singling him out for personal attack was beyond the pale and I stand by my utter condemnation of ministers’ behaviour.”’

  2. I find the behaviour of the Gov’t once more to be despicable. There really is a vile bullying mentality about them. the likes of Blair, Brown and Clarke are ideal candidates for ASBOs. the average A Wing inhabitant at HMPs have more integrity than that bunch.

Comments are closed.