Big Sticks and Small Carrots

Tim has received some answers from Tom Watson.

According to the Sunday Mercury, Tom Watson’s wife earns up to £20,000 a year and we now know she earns that working as his PA.

Is that more than average for such a job? Well, the last time I read about how much an MPs PA earns, it was in amongst this lot. The investigation into Derek Conway’s expenses included an interview with his wife. She told the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards that “her role as his PA had been to deal with correspondence and keep his diary. She also arranged meetings, and visits to Parliament by groups, etc. from the constituency, of which, because of the constituency’s proximity to London, there was a considerable number”.

Conway’s wife is apparently paid £3,271 a month to do this job; that works out at £39,252 per year. According to the Telegraph, this “almost £40,000 a year” is “significantly more than the Parliamentary average for such a role”.

So then, what do they mean by “significantly”? If it means twice as much as average, perhaps £20,000 would be a sensible sum. But twice as much is surely more than “significantly more”; they’d have said Conway’s wife gets “double” the average or something. Or would they?

To be fair, I don’t really know whether these two jobs are comparable. And I don’t know whether Mrs Conway delivers good value for the money she earns.

I do know that the £40,000 a year Conway’s wife gets was not part of the equation when “Guido” attempted to make his bizarre comparison. In fact, Staines is spinning like Alistair Campbell on a Waltzer. He knows better than most Conservative MPs how badly the Conway affair hurt the Tories and even attempted some damage limitation himself. Now, with nothing but innuendo and implication, he’s trying turn that hit around by suggesting that Labour MPs are worse.

This does at least have the advantage of exposing the claim that “Guido Fawkes” treats all politicians equally for what it is. I’d spell it out but I’m trying to give up blog swearing* at the moment.

* Not that I don’t recognise that there’s an art to it. Perhaps the outstanding practitioners have made me realise that it wasn’t ever going to be my field.

“Guido” has launched an attack on Tom Watson.

Tim has already had a good look at “Guido’s” post, incluing asking some questions regarding Tom Watson’s expenses, but let’s just expand slightly on the way Paul Staines has done his maths:

Last year Watson pocketed his £60,000 salary and his parliamentary expenses amounted to £150,000-plus – bringing his total package to £211,000 - making him the 73rd highest claiming MP out of 646 MPs. Quite an achievement for an MP not claiming for travel to and from Scotland. He of course employs his wife Siobhan at the public’s expense, his brother, Dan, is constituency director to Euro MP Michael Cashman, Dan Watson’s wife, Joanna, has no fewer than three jobs. Like her husband, she also works for Mr Cashman and for Wolverhampton Labour MP Pat McFadden, yet still finds time to be a Labour councillor in Sandwell. Amy Watson, cousin of Tom and Dan, works for Birmingham Northfield Labour MP Richard Burden. The West Midlands constituency Labour Party offices are packed with Watsons…

The total annual cost to the taxpayer of the Watson family’s five not-so-little piggies is in excess of £300,000. Far more than the disgraced Derek Conway fiddled…

The Conway scandal centred around £40,000 he’d paid to his son and it has to be said that £300,000 is definitely far more than £40,000. You can’t argue with numbers.

But what is “Guido” comparing? The £300,00 is in large part made up of Tom Watson’s salary as an MP (£60,000) and his expenses for 2006/07 (£150,000). The £40,000 is not in large part made up of Derek Conway’s salary as an MP (£60,000) and his expenses for 2006/07 (£140,000).

(By the way, Conway’s London constituency is about 100 miles closer to Westminster than Watson’s. “Guido” never mentioned that.)

Instead, the £40,000 refers to specific money paid by Conway to his son. Having investigated whether these payments were justifiable, the Standards and Privileges committee said they were “astonished that there appears to be no evidence, independent or otherwise, of any aspect of Freddie Conway’s work for his father”. They also concluded that Derek Conway had paid his “all but invisible” son bonus payments which were substantially larger than allowed by the rules.

I can find no similar report from the Standards and Privileges Committee regarding Tom Watson and £300,000.

So is it a like for like comparison? Obviously not. I feel silly even asking the question. And yet, “Guido” has attempted to suggest that it is.

I can’t say for sure why Paul has attempted to make this ridiculous comparison but I suspect it has something to do with his willingness to treat all politicians with equal distain…

So, what conclusions can be reached about attempts to have an honest debate with Donal Blaney?

My own efforts have been hampered by the fact that the two comments I’ve submitted have not been published. Would I be paranoid to believe that Blaney is aware of this but has no intention of doing anything about it? Well, about an hour after I submitted the second comment, Blaney wrote:

I’m trying to get a venue for quarterly debates between leftists and rightists. The debates would be held according to traditional British debating rules. I’d really welcome the chance for Unity, Garry et al to come and take part. I’m sure a true forum for debate - which we could maybe film too - would do more for advancing ideas on all sides of the argument than anonymous blogging.

There is no other Garry in the thread. As such, there seem to be two realistic explanations. The first is that Blaney has read my comments but not allowed them through moderation. The second is that he has read my post linked above. Either way, the evidence strongly suggests that Blaney has consciously decided not to engage with me on t’interwebs.

It could be argued that Blaney’s decision is due to his distaste for “anonymous blogging”. Well, it could be if I blogged anonymously. But I don’t.

It could be that he thinks I “cower behind the written word”. My first comment started with an attempt to question the thinking behind this baffling concept and we know that that wasn’t hugely productive. Personally, I believe the written word can be a very pure form of debate and countless philosophers and scientists throughout history seem to have held similar views. Blaney, however, appears to have an aversion to debating in written words. Strange considering that Iain Dale dropped by to assure me that Blaney is a much better writer than I am. Willy waving isn’t really my thing so I can’t say that bothers me one way or the other.

I do feel confident that I have a basic level of ability to explain and debate in written words. In the absence of any sort of explanation from Donal, I can only presume that he is not confident in his own ability to do the same.

And that brings us on to the kind of debate he does want to have. I have no qualms about admitting that I’d be hopeless in a filmed public debate. I’ve not had the training for it and am not naturally good at it either. It’s part of the reason why I blog.

As chief executive the Young Britons’ Foundation, an organisation which “provides unique one-day training workshops around Britain that focus on developing activists’ public speaking, debating…”, Blaney is undoubtedly aware of the importance of training in these skills. The sort of debate he wants would put me at a huge disadvantage against someone with his background and experience. Maybe its my paranoia but I have a feeling he understands this all to well.

Interestingly, the YBF also do training in “internet activism”. At first glance, this makes Blaney’s reluctance to participate in honest debate in written words even more puzzling. On reflection however, “internet activism” doesn’t necessarily involve engaging with those who want to challenge your views in an honest and transparent manner. For some, indeed, training in “internet activism” might well include the teaching of methods to avoid this sometimes awkward predicament. It would, however, be speculative to suggest that such techniques are taught by the YBF.

In any event, it’s fair to say that my attempt to conduct an honest debate with Donal Blaney has been spectacularly unsuccessful. While acknowledging that an attempt was made, he has refused to participate and has provided no explanation for this refusal.

Quinn, of The Obscurer (who, for the benefit of conspiracy theorists I have never met or communicated with in any way), did have a tiny bit more success. His first comment was not published but his second attempt was. He said of his first effort that “I left a comment on this post yesterday that appears to have got lost, so I will try again”. That is the sum total of Quinn’s expressed opinion as to the missing comment

Blaney’s reply:

Quinn: your paranoia as to the fact that your supposed original comment wasn’t posted is rather disturbing. As are the threats that I have received from some people in the past 48 hours (which I have been left with no alternative but to report to the police). I’m happy to debate people on here in a civil manner but when it comes to threatening me and my family, that sums up quite how unpleasant blogging can get.

Regular readers here or of Bloggerheads will recognise this type of response immediately.

Undeterred and calm in the face of this provocative reply, Quinn responded:

No paranoia required; my previous comments didn’t appear, that is a statement of fact. I’m truly sorry that you have received threats, that is disgraceful, but from the off I have conducted myself in a polite manner and asked reasonable, straightforward questions directly pertaining to things you have personally said; in response you said that I “clearly fall into the group of people who wish to attribute different motives to me”, a group you previously wondered about as being onanists, intellectually weak, deeply unhappy, insecure, lonely, bitter and “better off ending it all”. I didn’t much appreciate being lumped in with such a bunch, and now you accuse me personally of paranoia; and this from someone who charges others with using terms that close down debate?

So, I am glad you are happy to debate with people in a civil manner, as that is all I have done. Now, is there any chance of you responding to my previous questions?

That was posted the evening before last but Blaney has not responded. The answer to Quinn’s question would appear to be “no”.

Conclusions? Given that the post that both Quinn and I attempted to engage with was an attack on those who Blaney said refused to participate in honest debate, it’s not looking good for him.

If he’s not confident of his ability to defend his views in written words he may want to consider publicly admitting to the fact. As is, it appears that Blaney is the one who refuses to participate in honest debate on a level playing field. Unless it involves a method of debate which is likely to give him a substantial advantage over his opponents, he doesn’t want to play.

What this says about the “robust” nature of his views, I leave to the reader to decide.

PS. Having switched off comments for a couple of days, comments are back on in his most recent posts. I wouldn’t be “paranoid” enough to suggest that he was playing silly buggers in the hope of provoking a certain type of response. Instead, given the absence of an explanation, all we can do is guess as to the reason.

Dan Hardie: Fine Words, Shabby Deeds

Do you like reading fine words? Here is the Prime Minister on the subject of Iraqi ex-employees of the British Government, speaking in the House of Commons on October 9th, 2007: ‘I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of our civilian and locally employed staff in Iraq, many of whom have worked in extremely difficult circumstances, exposing themselves and their families to danger. I am pleased therefore to announce today a new policy which more fully recognises the contribution made by our local Iraqi staff, who work for our armed forces and civilian missions in what we know are uniquely difficult circumstances.’

Fine words. What about deeds?

A small number of Iraqis - fewer than a dozen, according to people close to the operation who are in contact with me- were removed from Iraq in the early autumn of 2007. Since the Prime Minister’s admirable declaration of October, how many Iraqi ex-employees have been evacuated from Iraq? According to all the Iraqis that I am in contact with: none.

Read the rest.

All the evidence suggests that the government will not do the right thing if left to their own devices. Public pressure may well make a difference. Please consider acting on Dan’s recommendations. For some Iraqis, it could literally be the difference between life and death.

On Saturday, Donal Blaney, “Guido’s” legal muscle, wrote an extraordinary post in response to Unity writing at Liberal Conspiracy. Iain Dale thought Blaney’s post was worth including in his “Daley Dozen” and I agree that it should be read as widely as possible. Probably not for the same reasons as Iain though.

Here’s a, er, highlight:

It says a lot about these people that they are desperate to import negative motives into the actions of those with whom they disagree. Not only does it show intellectual weakness on their part but it suggests they are deeply unhappy, insecure and lonely people. Their bitterness at life radiates from every sentence they write. You wonder whether they’d be better off ending it all so as to avoid the further trials and tribulations of life.

Remarkable, isn’t it? And in a post bemoaning the “venom and vitriol” of his critics.

Blaney central, er, argument is that his critics “will not engage in honest debate”.

I submitted a comment to his post yesterday afternoon. Blogger told me that my comment would be visible after approval by the blog owner. Blaney has published three posts since then, one last night and two this morning. No sign of my comment yet though.

I was going to write this post after my attempt to conduct an honest debate with Blaney but it isn’t going very well so far. Perhaps he thinks I’m “cowering behind the written word”.

(Possibly more later this afternoon when I’ve got more time . A veritable smorgasbord of possibilities are contained within Blaney’s post.)

Update

Still no sign of Blaney actually wanting to participate in honest debate. Rather the opposite, in fact. Checking his blog to see whether anything else was happening (it wasn’t), I’ve just noticed that the three posts referred to above all have something in common.

I’ll save you the bother: the comment feature has been disabled. Without wishing to leap to conclusions, this does rather suggest that Donal has taken another* leaf out of the Nadine Dorries’ book of blogging (foreword by Iain “I taught her all she knows”Dale).

* He’s already done the whole “I’m under personal attack from evil bastards” bit.

Perhaps an explanation for the apparent removal of the comment facility will be forthcoming in due course but in the meantime, it is not possible to express an opinion on Blaney’s new posts. Admittedly, I wasn’t able to express my opinion on his old post either so this might not be a hugely significant turn of events…

Update 2 (9.30pm)

My second attempt to leave a comment (around 7pm this evening) has not been published either but there has been movement in the thread.  A comment by Quinn was also not published but a second attempt was. Quinn merely mentioning this has resulted in Blaney accusing him of paranoia.  Absolutely textbook. Quinn appears to be well able to defend himself though. And then there’s the threats…

Blaney does at least acknowledge that I’m trying to communicate with him in his latest addition to the thread (at 8.18pm).

I’d really welcome the chance for Unity, Garry et al to come and take part. I’m sure a true forum for debate - which we could maybe film too - would do more for advancing ideas on all sides of the argument than anonymous blogging.

Progress, ladies and gentlemen, progress.

No explanation has been given as to how someone “cowers behind words”. Perhaps, Blaney doesn’t want to have an honest debate in just words.

So, on to the sort of invitation. Blaney is a trained solicitor, one time 18 Doughty Street co-presenter and chief executive of an organisation which runs media and public speaking training. I’m a blogger who has never appeared on TV or radi and have had no media or public speaking training whatsoever. I feel slightly uncomfortable when a family member breaks out the camcorder.

I just don’t understand why Blaney prefers the one method of debate over the other…

Or willful ignorance?

Who remembers when concerns about UK involvement in “rendition” were ridiculed as conspiracy theories? Let’s have a quick trip down memory name courtesy of Obsolete to remind ourselves of the way these denials were formulated.

Here’s an extract from a leaked briefing document written by a Foreign Office official at Downing Street’s request.

The Home Office, who lead, are urgently examining our files, as are we. But we now cannot say that we have received no such requests for the use of UK territory or air space for “Extraordinary Rendition”. It does remain true that “we are not aware of the use of UK territory or air space for the purpose of “Extraordinary Rendition”". But we think we should now try to move the debate on from the specifics of rendition, extraordinary or otherwise, and focus people instead on the Rice’s clear assurance that all US activities are consistent with their domestic and international obligations and never include the use of torture.

Phrases like “we are not aware of…” were commonly included in the government’s semi-denials. The memo also recommends that “we should try to avoid getting drawn on detail… and to try to move the debate on, in as front foot a way we can, underlining all the time the strong anti-terrorist rationale for close cooperation with the US, within our legal obligations.” Again, this diversionary tactic was repeatedly deployed by the government.

Further trips down memory lane available from Blairwatch and The Guardian.

Good faith? Its not even funny.

I don’t often write about my own life here but the most extraordinary thing happened to me yesterday afternoon and I want to share it with you. It was a lovely crisp sunny day, the sort of day which reminds you that spring is on the way, so I went for a stroll around town. With the light twinkling off the granite buildings, Aberdeen city centre looks good in the sunlight.

Passing by HMV, I decided to pop in and pick up some Blackadder DVDs. I’d been meaning to get the full set for a while now so I was pleased to see that they were all available. They also had the Planet Earth DVD box set so I got that too. All things considered, it was turning out to be a thoroughly enjoyable afternoon. (It’s the small things in life…)

Unfortunately, my good mood wasn’t to last long. As I attempted to leave HMV, I appeared to trigger their security alarms. As the  beeping and flashing continued, two rather burly security guards hurried over and blocked my path. With forced politeness, one asked whether I’d paid for the DVDs I was carrying. “Yes, of course” I replied, “now if you don’t mind…”

That didn’t satisfy the security guards though; they demanded that I produce a receipt for the DVDs. A receipt? Why on earth would I have a receipt? Are the BBC going to charge us twice for watching their programmes now? First the license fee and then again for the DVD?

When I told the security guards that I didn’t have a receipt but could go home and then return with my TV licence if it was absolutely necessary, they laughed in my face. When I argued that Iain Dale said I shouldn’t have to pay again for something I’d already paid for, they said they didn’t know who Iain Dale was and didn’t care either. They accused me of shoplifting and called the police. I was arrested. Arrested! All because I didn’t want to pay for the same thing twice. I can think of nothing more outrageous!

If there was ever any doubt that the BBC is run by Stalinists, Leninists and Trots, this travesty of justice surely proves the point! These leftists are destroying our way of life and must be resisted at every turn. Next thing you know, there’ll be a tax on totally spurious blog posts. I remember when this country used to be great, you know…

PS, Iain really was caught stealing from the BBC. Maybe if he understood that bandwidth costs money, he’d be on his way to answering the question in his update*. He might even spare himself further embarrassment instead of causing even more.

* A I understand it, there are other reasons why iPlayer programmes are only available for seven days. As well as bandwith costs, there are storage costs to consider. Without the limit, what would soon become an essentially infinite archive would have to be stored in a format which would allow for streaming; the costs would soon mount up.

There is also the issue of licensing and repeat fees (or rather the avoidance of repeat fees). Similar fees are certainly an issue when the BBC sells permanent copies of programmes. When content is made available to download from the interwebs, the introduction of a small charge might help to cover these costs…

Last week, as you might remember, the Sun published a story about the RAF’s ability to  intercept radio traffic in Afghanistan. The consequences of publishing such a story were unwittingly revealed in a caption accompanying the article:

Unaware… terror mobs don’t know their words can be heard by RAF

It’s a stunner, alright.

If the story is true, the Sun have revealed an important military secret and consequently put the lives of British troops in Afghanistan at greater risk for the sake of a Muslim bashing headline and Rupert Murdoch’s bank balance. If it isn’t true, that opens up a whole other set of questions.

My attempt to raise these issues by submitting a comment under the story on the Sun website was not successful. Many other comments were published but mine was not. As yet, my attempts to find out why my comment wasn’t published have been equally unsuccessful. My email was apparently passed to the relevant department a week ago but that’s as much as I know at the moment. I’ve sent them another email. Just in case they forgot about the first one. I’m sure I’ll be receiving a satisfactory reply any day now…

To have your views airbrushed out of existence by the supposedly free speech loving media is unpleasant but not unexpected. It’s a common tactic in the “battle of ideas”.  You could say they’re fixing the playing field. You could say that they’re choosing to engage with only only those opponents they think they can beat. (The Sun did allow a couple of not very well considered critical comments through; these easy targets were then attacked by other “right thinking Sun readers”.) You could say this is cowardly, dishonest and unscrupulous.

Others will argue that it’s the Sun’s website so they have the right to maintain it as they see fit. True on the face of it, but having the right to act like a bastard doesn’t automatically mean that you should act like a bastard. It also doesn’t provide a free moral pass.

Anyway, I was wondering what could be done to get the media to more fairly my views and decided that some sort of organisation to promote them is the answer. In this media savvy world where people are constantly bombarded with information, the name is going to be all important. After spending £500,000 on consultants and PR firms, we’ve finally come up with a winner. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you:

An Influential Think Tank 

Guaranteed media coverage, no matter what dross we come up with.  ”An Influential Think Tank said today that multicoloured swapshop has eroded our cultural moustache in the jellied eels”.

Brilliant! But there’s still a problem. If An Influential Think Tank’s first press release was about the damage done to society by irresponsible reporting in the media, it’d create a standing wave paradox which would threaten the very existence of the universe.

Drat.

At the bottom of this exclusive Sun report on there’s a caption which says:

Unaware … terror mobs don’t know their words can be heard by RAF

It may not be entirely accurate.

In a situation like this, it’s hard to be sure what’s going or where the story came from.

It might be possible to make some educated guesses by observing the government’s reaction. If they launch an enquiry and attempt to prosecute the leakers for compromising an important method of intelligence gathering, that would suggest that there was a leak and that it hadn’t been orchestrated by the government. This is certainly a possibility.

If that’s the last we hear of it however, the story is likely to be a Sun invention or a government approved leak. These are also perfectly possible.

Questions, questions.

Update

Somehow, I have a feeling you’ll be able to guess what happened when I tried to take advantage of the Sun’s “Have Your Say” feature under the article. I thought I’d try some Sun language for this one:

“Unaware … terror mobs don’t know their words can be heard by RAF”

You’ve just told them!

If this story is true, the Sun has now compromised an important method of gathering intelligence on the Taliban. This can only make it even more dangerous for our troops in Afghanistan.

Shows how much the Sun really cares about our lads. Shameful.

Hours later, and with plenty of other comments published in the meantime, there’s no sign of it. I told you it wouldn’t be a surprise. It’s not like they were going to be able to defend their decision to publish this story in a fair debate, is it?

Interestingly,  given the rubbish way the Sun’s comment system works, I suspect very few people would have bothered to have read my comment even if they had published it. This heavy handed approach to criticism does suggest that they’re worried about the fragility of the echo chamber they’ve constructed to hide behind. Let’s hope they’re right about that, at least.

Now, do you think I’ll get a reply to the polite email I’ve sent asking why the moderators have a problem with my comment?

Yes, it’s another post about the Archbishop. This is instead of the update I had intended to make to my previous post.

I should say that I don’t have particularly strong opinions as to what Williams said; that’s not what motivates this atheist to post about this. Williams’ view, a carefully considered examination of the relationship between law in a secular society and religious conviction, is complex, interesting and worthy of debate. If you like that sort of thing. I can’t say I know the answers to the questions he raised.

I do, however, have strong opinions on the reaction the Acrchbishop’s comments have provoked. As Jim Bliss comments on an excellent post by Justin, it “smacks of anti-intellectualism”. You could argue, as some have, that Williams is a fool for not anticipating the reaction and misrepresentations his comments would provoke. It is true that he isn’t what you’d call a great communicator. Greater clarity might have helped avoid some of the worst hysterical misrepresentations of what was said but British society at large is not well equipped to deal with nuance, especially when in comes to issues like this. Politicians and the media have to take a large share of the the blame for this state of affairs.

So, given that reality, should the Archbishop have kept quiet? No. The logic behind that suggestion, the idea that those in the public eye can’t make a nuanced argument because that argument is likely to be misrepresented, leads down a dark and stupid path. Reactionary hysteria, ignorant conviction and unthinking condemnation should not be accepted and accomodated in our society but challenged whenever possible. That is what Williams has tried to do and I’ll not be joining those laying into him for it. He would benefit from communicating with greater clarity, yes, but he absolutely should not be condemned for speaking about the issues he did.

For those reasons, I have made some attempts to defend Williams from knee jerk criticisms levelled at him. Specifically, I have done so on a couple of posts over at Iain Dale’s. I won’t do a “long and boring” analysis of the conversation because there is no need. (Also, despite knowing it to be futile, I found myself drawn into a conversation with “verity”. Not recommended.)

I wanted to establish a couple of things. Importantly I wanted to know whether Iain had actually taken the time to try to understand what the Archbishop actually said before launching into his condemnation of the man. Here’s the answer.

I asked Iain if he’d read Williams’ speech. He replied:

I didnt know he had made a speech until today [the day after the speech was delivered]. I heard his interview on the BBC and quoted from it in my original post.

That’ll be the interview about the speech then?  The interview in which he said “I noted in the lecture…”. (Transcript from the Wardman Wire.) Iain listened to an interview about a speech but didn’t actually notice that the interview was about a speech.  I think that’s useful guide as to the level of understanding Iain achieved before he started laying into Williams. This, ladies and gentlemen, is one of the UK’s top political bloggers.

The other thing I wanted to establish was whether Iain applied his principles consistently. Williams made it clear in his speech and interview that he was talking about already established principles. It was in this context that he used the word “unavoidable”. From the interview:

Interviewer: To begin with you’ve given this vision of if as a nation Britain wants to achieve social cohesion, that challenge is how to accommodate those of religious faith in relation to the law; and you’re words are that the application of Sharia in certain circumstances if we want to achieve this cohesion and take seriously peoples’ religion seems unavoidable?

Archbishop: It seem unavoidable and indeed as a matter of fact certain provision of Sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law; so it’s not as if we’re bringing in an alien and rival system; we already have in this country a number of situations in which the internal law of religious communities is recognised by the law of the land as justified conscientious objections in certain circumstances in providing certain kinds of social relations, so I think we need to look at this with a clearer eye and not imagine either we know exactly what we mean by Sharia and not just associate it with what we read about Saudi Arabia or wherever.

I tried asking Iain about the fact that “we already have in this country a number of situations in which the internal law of religious communities is recognised by the law of the land”. I asked specifically with regard to Jewish customs as Williams himself made several references to the Jewish situation in his speech and made it clear that he was talking about similar proposals for Muslim communities.

His response:

Garry, I disagree with so much of what you said. I have seen Dr William’s comments as reported on the World at One and they do not match your interpretation.

I also do not accept your analogy with what you reckon is a Jewish equivalent. While not being an expert in this, my jewish friends tell me there is no similarity at all.

What you say about Sharia Law having supremacy over English law is, I think, exactly what Williams was aluding to - maybe not immediately but it would be a slippery slope.

I am sure there are parts of Sharia Law which are fine, but there are also parts which are not, and fundemantally at odds with British values.

So there you are then. The Archbishop’s careful thoughts and comparisons are not accepted by Iain because his Jewish friend told him so. I tried asking for clarification but that’s all I got. This, ladies and gentlemen, is one of the UK’s top political bloggers.

Does he even know that the Archbishop specifically pointed out that there are some parts of Sharia law as interpreted in some countries which are fundamentally at odds with British values and explicitly said that these could never be adopted in this country? I doubt it.

In a sense, it’s not fair to single out Iain because he is just one of many who’ve condemned Williams without bothering to try to understand what he said. This is, however, a good illustration of the way in which Iain is able to isolate his opinions from proper debate and scrutiny on his blog while presenting the fiction that it is possible. Oh, and did I mention that I got a fair amount of idiocy thrown my way from some of Iain’s regulars and from anonymous commenters? It wasn’t unexpected but does make any attempt to question Iain’s opinions just that little bit more difficult. This sort of thing is, of course, common in parts of the US blogosphere and Iain and friends seem determined to build similar unchallengeable edifices in this country too. It only damages our ability to have reasoned and rational debate on issues which affect us all.

I don’t intend to press Iain further as we should all be aware by now that my attempting to do so will only lead to him calling me obsessive, a stalker, or a figment of Tim Ireland’s imagination.

To conclude, I just want to say something about the wider implications of the reaction we have seen over the last few days. Democracy, although far from perfect, is clearly the best system of government ever devised by human beings. In order for it to work effectively, citizens need to be able to make informed judgements on the issues of the day. In the modern world there are, sadly, an increasing number of barriers to this process.

The reaction to the Archbishop’s remarks have been a perfect case in point. We’ve had politicians and their supporters making misleading statements for their own ends and media outlets using misrepresentation to generate outrage as a means to boost sales, all, ironically enough, in supposed defence of “British values”. They do not seem to be aware of, or perhaps do not care about, the extent to which they are actually damaging the best of our values.