All to keep the men in Brussels happy - by Richard... Saturday, June 05, 2010

All to keep the men in Brussels happy - by Richard... Saturday, June 05, 2010

Tim Worstall has picked up the report inThe Daily Telegraph on Sir Peter North's review.

This is the review of drink-drive laws ostensibly commissioned by the last government but in fact, as we all know – except, it seems, The Telegraph - a smokescreen to conceal the EU involvement which goes all the way back to 2004.

Before coming into office, the Tory component of the Cleggeron administration had said it was "not minded" to reduce the drink drive limit – one of the target requirements of the EU included in the North recommendations. But the current secretary of state has now been told who his bosses are, and is thus understood to be studying Sir Peter's recommendations (i.e., EU requirements) closely.

Why we have to go through these dismal charades, God only knows, except that the transparent deceit is plainly sufficient to gull the Telegraph's motoring correspondent, who seems determined to remain blind to the EU involvement.

Instead, we get him having Sir Peter saying that there is a "persuasive" case for cutting the limit, with an estimated that this could save up to 168 lives in England and Wales every year. That is a highly contentious guesstimate which takes no account of the distortions arising in policing priorities, as more man hours are devoted to drink-drive enforcement.

More could perhaps be achieved for less if efforts were made to reduce the annual carnage on the road caused by police drivers, with another two pedestrians killed yesterday by a speeding police car.

However, that would not afford the police the same opportunity to misuse their powers, nor display their usual level of obnoxiousness to the travelling public. It might also require police constables to take some responsibility for their own actions – to say nothing of their largely over-paid senior officers. And that will never do.

So, the "in Europe but not ruled by Europe" Tories look set to deliver another pile of grief in the name of public safety, all to keep the men in Brussels happy. And why are we not surprised?

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Yea, right! - by Richard...

The Daily Telegraph would have had me spluttering in my cornflakes this morning, if I actually had breakfast ... or the luxury of a newspaper delivered in time to read it over breakfast.

First, we have Charles Moore in the op-ed under the heading: "Why has Israel disarmed itself in the battle for world opinion?" with the strap line: "Islamist fanatics were allowed to use the 'humanitarian' flotilla as a weapon, says Charles Moore."

And so the great Moore thus opines that, "One would be perfectly justified in writing an entire column attacking the way Israel has been misrepresented over its fatal raid on the flotilla bound for Gaza on Monday."

Then we have the lead editorial which actually has the bare-face cheek to state: "Israelis must escalate the propaganda war." This is the newspaper which is quite happily repeating the jihadist propaganda lines that the IDF mounted an "attack" on these poor little innocent "aid" workers.

But, of course, the paper is right. Israel needs to up its game and my erstwhile co-editor, with more patience than I, makes that point on her blog. But that was the point which I was makingagain and again in August 2006 when, as I recall, one of the high-profile cheerleaders for the Hezbollah "victims" was the gobshite Daily Telegraph, printing the propaganda photographs on its front page.

There should be much joy in heaven when a sinner repenteth, but there is also much sourness back on earth when a slimy Johnny-come-lately jumps on a bandwagon.

And as for us ... we did say it in 2006, and went on saying it behind the scenes, to anyone who would listen. But they didn't listen – they never effing do ... too much up their own arses, too full of their own importance, too clever by half.

And so, we are back again where we started. We write another blog post, pointing out the obvious, and another and another, ad infinitum. Does anyone wonder why we have a certain understanding of what drove Derrick Bird?