Is “Gorgeous” George’s by-election win in Bradford West really such a surprise? After all, he must surely be the most recognisable British politician outside the main parties (and to a large extent within them as well.)

Plus he was outspoken against the Iraq War, is widely thought to be pro-Muslim, and Bradford has a large Muslim population.

And it was a by-election, where nowadays you are more or less a free pass to kick against any incumbent political party.

It can be seen as a rejection of them all, the unpopularity of the Tories and Lib-Dems as the coalition makes one wrong decision after another, and (I’m guessing here) the taking for granted by Labour of their vote along with their ineffectiveness at opposition.

Whether it is a portent of anything more significant I doubt, as George’s Respect Party is pretty much a one-man show. He may retain the Bradford West seat at the next General Election but I can’t see many more Respect MPs joining him, if any.

I see Mr Irresponsible has been at it once more.

He has been telling motorists to top up their cars in case the tanker drivers dispute remains unresolved.

In his position should he not having been advising them to behave normally? Not to instantly rush to the pumps?

Has he never heard of panic buying?

I saw the result for myself this afternoon when I went in to a forecourt to check the air in my tyres. Well, I say went in. But I had to queue: due to the volume of cars waiting for petrol.

And to what level should motorists let their tanks drop before “topping up”? A quarter empty? A third? A half? Or maybe after just one litre has been used? Should they drop in to every petrol station they happen upon on the off-chance?

The man is either a numpty (see definition 3) or he was deliberately encouraging anti-social behaviour. (Which in these circumstances is what rushing to top up your car unnecessarily certainly is.)

The lead story on the lunchtime BBC news today (18/2/12) concerned Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. There followed some guy (from the Armed Services Institute?) talking about the ramifications of that on the likes of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc as regards proliferation.

The second story on the guardian‘s front page was headlined US believes strike on Iran is inevitable later this year.

Looks like Cowdenbeath are a banker for the Division 2 title this year, then. (With a side order of Armageddon.)

Seriously, though. What are these guys on? Remember Mr Irresponsible during the 2010 General Election campaign? It seems now like that was a prediction rather than an idle slip of the tongue.

How can I put this?

Iran poses no threat whatsoever to the UK. Still less does it pose a threat to the US. I’ll give you it may be a (possible) threat to Israel but its posture there may be rhetorical rather than real. However, there is no way it could invade either the UK or US; nor could it overthrow their governments.

And if it is in the process of acquiring nuclear weapons why might that be?

It has seen its neighbour, Iraq, attacked, on the flimsiest of pretexts, mainly by the US and the UK – and thereafter thoroughly destabilised. It does not want the same happening to it. It knows Israel has nuclear weapons almost certainly targeted on it; it also knows North Korea has such a “deterrent” and is treated more carefully as a result. In its mind developing nuclear weapons might be a rational response to its current circumstances. We (the UK, along with the US) have a history of interfering with the region that goes back a long way. If I were them I wouldn’t trust us either.

The ratcheting up of the Iranian situation reminds me of the run-up to the (second) Iraq war. Drip by drip of increasingly ludicrous assertions. (A much heightened version of this sort of thing was evident in the German press in the summer of 1939.)

I don’t much go for the idea that we could be the bad guys but, in the absence of any attack by Iran on us (or, at a push, Israel) that would be the case here; as it was in Iraq.

Moreover, and again as with Iraq, it would be thoroughly counterproductive.

The ramifications of an attack on Iran would only confirm the idea that the “West” sees Muslims as a whole as targets and though it would take time might make recent terrorist attacks seem like a garden party. Any occupation of Iran would make our involvement in Iraq seem like a picnic and Vietnam a cakewalk.

Do we really want that?

I have no idea whether Abu Qutada is guilty of inciting terrorist acts or not. I have heard assertions that he is and understand that he is wanted on criminal charges in various countries.

I do find it puzzling that if he is as dangerous as is claimed there does not seem to be enough evidence to prosecute him. Also puzzling in this light is that none of the countries where he is wanted are where the UK Government wants to send him. Have these countries not applied for his extradition?

Instead our Government wishes to deport him to Jordan (his “native” country since at the time of his birth the West Bank was part of Jordan.)

There has been much outrage expressed that the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that he cannot be deported there as any evidence against him may have been obtained by torture.

Now, I am certainly glad of the protection that means I cannot be deported/extradited from the UK to a country that may employ torture. Whatever your political views you should be glad of it too.

But there is the more important point that what marks our legal system, among others into which human rights legislation has been incorporated – and some in which it hasn’t – is that due process must be followed. If we ignore the law as it stands, if we disregard court rulings – especially the ones we dislike – in what sense can we be better than those (who may include Abu Qutada) who deride such considerations and would do away with legal protections? If we do not behave in a better way than those who are against what we stand for then we would be worse than them. Would that not make us hypocrites?

Abu Qutada and any others who might think that our tolerance makes us weak are surely wrong. Tolerance (within the law) and legal processes that are above board and transparent are actually our greatest strength.

It is the transparency aspect of this case that I find problematic. Any evidence against Abu Qutada has not been tested in a British court in a criminal trial. All he appears to have done is make statements. If these were inflammatory beyond what the law allows then prosecute him. If they were not, what is the fuss about?

And if such evidence is not to be tested, if all that needs to be done to bang someone up is for a Government Minister to say so, what would there be to stop the Government saying the same about me (or you!) as they do about Abu Qutada?

Abu Qutada is apparently now being kept under more or less strict house arrest with stringent bail conditions. According to Wikipedia (first link above) neither he nor his lawyer have been allowed to see the evidence against him and his only representative, a special advocate, is not allowed to talk to him nor to his lawyer. Those circumstances would appear to strike against all the things we are supposed to be defending.

Imagine for a moment if it were you in that situation (whether or not you were guilty of anything.)

I see the BBC has reported a British oil refinery has gone bust.

In today’s world, oil products – whether they be the petrol, diesel or fuel oil most directly obtained from refining crude or the plastics, chemicals, medicines etc derived by further processing – are the most sought after substances; excepting (possibly) illegal drugs.

So with markets like that, how the hell can an oil refinery go bankrupt?

To be fair, the headline on the news was a little misleading. It is the parent company which owns the refinery which has gone bust.

But the point still applies.

There has been a lot of scaremongering about the possible effects as the refinery supplies 20% of south-east England’s fuel needs; scaremongering no doubt put about to raise fuel prices. I would expect that some other company will take it over sooner rather than later.

Menawhile Britain’s debt has reached 1 trillion pounds* for the first time.

The Coalition cuts are working well to reduce the debt then, aren’t they?

I also see UK growth was -0.2% for the last three months. Not much scope for joy there.

Why are these idiots repeating the mistakes of the 1930s?

*That amount being illustrated on the BBC news last night as £1,000,000,000,000 is, to my old fashioned eyes, actually a million million or what we used to call a billion. Well, it was before we took up US descriptions of such things.

I see and hear a film has been made about a certain former Prime Minister of the UK.

I must say at the outset that I shall not be going to see it – not least because the good lady (my good lady) is still too scarred by that woman’s actions that she cannot bear or contemplate anything to do with her.

I gather the film portrays its heroine as frail and dotty. (I suspect this may be a dramatic necessity for the purposes of making the film.) I have heard a speaker on Radio Scotland – a Tory MP – English of course – complain that it went beyond good taste as the person concerned was still alive and it therefore compromised her dignity. Well, that was rich.

Firstly and brutally, if she is frail and dotty she won’t know, will she?

Secondly, did she in her prime give a shit about the human dignity of all those she condemned to hardship and penury, everything she destroyed, as a result of her policies? You could call it karma.

In any case there were signs in her late Premiership that she was unhinged, if not deranged, so it’s not surprising she’s not all there in her dotage.

Yet none of this is to do with the thrust of this post.

Coincidentally I read an article from Tuesday’s Guardian that, as part of the setting up of Sky, Thatcher made the BBC pay £10 million a year to have their channels broadcast on Sky’s platform. Yet one more example of the baleful influence the woman had on British public life. And these payments persist: they are happening now.

Is this circumstance more widely known? Because I was outraged.

Does any other broadcaster – anywhere – have to pay another to have its own programmes shown on that other’s channels? Surely not.

Doesn’t the BBC sell programmes/formats around the world rather than pay others to broadcast them? Don’t the BBC, ITV and Channels 4 and 5 pay to the originator for US (or Australian or whatever) generated programmes? And doesn’t Virgin have to pay Sky to have Sky channels on its (Virgin’s) service? Doesn’t Sky itself pay HBO hefty amounts for their programmes?

We all know the reason why there would not have been much protest from the BBC at such an arrangement. The perceived power of the Murdoch Press. The pusillanimity of politicians of all parties with respect to that power.

That power may now be a busted flush and despite the Tories’ antipathy to anything that smacks of public endeavour surely the BBC ought to be demanding an end to this public subsidy of a private company. For that is what the arrangement amounts to.

As it stands it is – and always has been – a total waste of licence fee payers’ money to throw it away on Sky for no content in return.

The boot should be firmly on the other foot. Sky ought to be paying the BBC – and handsomely – for any access at all to BBC programming. Not to mention providing adequate compensation for all the years in which money has been shamefully drained away from the BBC in this way.

Edited to add:- my good lady says the speaker on the radio was none other than Jeremy (H)unt – her parentheses.

Let me get this straight.

The police shoot a man (who may or may not have been an immediate threat to life but certainly did not have a gun on him when shot.)

As a result there’s an outbreak of rioting – the worst for nearly thirty years.

The remedy for this is …

for the police to be allowed to shoot people!

Have I suddenly woken up in a fascist state?

The multi-car pile up on Friday night on the M5 near Taunton in Somerset was a horrific occurence and must have been a nightmarish situation for all those involved, the witnesses, the rescue workers and those who cleaned up afterwards. Not to mention a continuing nightmare for the families of the deceased.

But the emphasis of the news coverage seems askew to me. The focus of attention is on whether smoke from a fireworks display (or perhaps fog) was a contributing factor.

In essence it doesn’t matter, either – or both – may have reduced visibility.

And I believe neither was the cause the accident.

It is more likely that drivers did not adjust their driving to the prevailing conditions. Fog, or reduced visibility, means that they should have slowed down; even if the fog was patchy or intermittent. In all probability some (most?) did not.

The accident – like the majority of road “accidents” – was probably the result of poor, perhaps even dangerous, driving. It is that, as a counter to the dangerous notion that drivers are somehow put upon by laws intended to restrict their speed, that should be hammered home time and again, whenever deaths occur on the roads.

Contrary to what some people seem to believe a car is not an expression of individual freedom, it is merely a means to get from A to B in the most efficient way – and it is also a lethal weapon, needing to be handled with care.

I hope that this incident gives pause to those who wish to raise the motorway speed limit. They say people ignore the limit. Is that a good reason to change the law? After all some people rob banks, so should laws against theft then be changed? In any case, the people who break the speed limit now will most likely break the new one too; they don’t care unless they’re caught. Motorways will be many times more dangerous than they are now.

If it doesn’t give them pause and the limit does end up being raised we can expect more Tauntons, or worse, in the future.

For a wonder I actually saw poppies on sale this year (in my local Homebase) before there was any sign of one on a TV presenter or politician.

While I bought mine a week ago I haven’t put it on yet. Armistice Day isn’t till this Friday (I’ll have a special post for that) and Remembrance Sunday is seven days away yet. I think wearing one for more than a week is excessive. And I have a category dedicated to War Memorials.

So I wasn’t going to mention it this year. But they’re at it again. Hardly a TV programme I’ve seen during the past couple of weeks has had anyone without a poppy. Even Benjamin Zephaniah had one on Question Time; though his was white. I also find the ostentatious inclusion of a poppy on the shirts of English Premiership football teams in the past two rounds of fixtures somewhat bizarre.

On Saturday, Football Focus (for whom a previous instance has to be considered) interviewed David Beckham – presumably in the US (as he’s just helped LA Galaxy into a final or something) – and there he was sporting a poppy. Now where did he get that? While I fully expect Beckham would be extremely keen to wear one I can’t believe they’re on general sale in the US.

And I noticed on flicking through the channels on the TV that Johnny Depp was wearing one on the Graham Norton Show two nights ago.

However, a real nadir was reached tonight (perhaps last night as I never watch the programme concerned.) After Countryfile – whose presenters both this week and last naturally wore poppies (Naturally? How long ago were the items actually filmed?) – on came the results show for Strictly Come Dancing and we were given the spectacle of a troop of barely clad young women writhing about – all with poppies attached to what little costume they did have.

Might I submit that this display was rather inappropriate, not quite sober enough, as a mark of respect for the sacrifice of the fallen?

Oh for someone to appear on TV in late October or early November with, in place of a poppy, a sign saying, “They died for my right not to wear a poppy.”

I saw on the BBC News today David Cameron (otherwise known as Mr Irresponsible) denying that he would have made a good KGB agent. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev later apparently joked that he would have.

Is this a spectacular case of double bluff?

Failure to take on the bankers in any serious way at all, no curbs on bonuses, proposals to remove the 50% income tax band – all could have been designed to foment revolution.

Given the actions of our esteemed leader since he got hold of the reigns of power in Downing Street we could have been forgiven for believing that a KGB agent is exactly what he is.