The balance between national security and freedom of speech is a difficult one for any government to strike.  But for Labour the balance to be struck is not so much between national security and freedom of speech, but rather between freedom of speech and political reputation as evidenced by Des Browne’s call for criticism of the MOD by coroners to be outlawed. 

After all, it’s terribly inconvenient for Labour when coroners draw attention to equipment shortages and operational failures. 

It’s good to know where Labour’s interests lie. 

Gordon Brown delights in telling us that the government has created 3 million jobs since 1997, completely ignoring that it’s the private sector that creates jobs (and the government that impedes job creation).  But now that the People’s Bank, Northern Rock, will be doing away with 2000 jobs by 2011 I wonder whether Brown will adjust his figures? 

There’s nothing quite like sacking people in your heartland when it comes to shoring up support for a general election.  Maybe next Brown will do away with the Barnett Formula. 

Back when I was in law school one of the topics covered was treasure trove, or rather the common law related to treasure trove; which essentially said that any hidden treasure which was found automatically belonged to the Crown.  Needless to say I found the very idea of such a law rather troubling; if it’s your land why on earth should the treasure belong to the Crown (even if technically all land belongs to the Crown).

In 1996 however the Treasure Act came into force and extended Crown ownership insofar as it applied to objects not actually hidden.  The long and short of it though is this: if you find treasure on your land that’s worth a fair amount of money it belongs to the State.

So in the spirit of good japes and following a chat about the Act a barrister friend of mine, and legend in more ways than one, Matt Richardson submitted an FoI request with the following questions:

• How many finds have there been to which the act applies?
• What is the largest value of these finds and what was the find?
• How many criminal prosecutions have their been under the act?

Amazingly 4277 cases have been reported as Treasure; so it’s quite a nice little earner for the State… but how nice?  Well, the two most valuable hoards (Winchester area hoard of Iron Age gold jewellery [2000] and the gold Iron Age torc from Newark [2005]) were worth around £350,000 each!  And there’s a new hoard that’s currently being valued which “is likely to be of a higher value” according to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

On the upside though nobody’s been prosecuted under the Act, so either we’re all very honest, or we’ve got a nation of great treasure thieves!

Still though, what possible justification can there be for the State using statute to steal items of value from citizens when those items are found on land legally purchased by said citizens.  If it’s your land it should be your stuff, simple.

I’m not a fan of censorship, largely because acts of censorship are an overt statement that individuals can’t be trusted to make decisions for themselves; that the state needs to mother us. What’s interesting though is the double standards that exist in censorship. Nine months ago a computer game called ‘Manhunt 2′ was banned by the BBFC because of the “sustained, casual sadism” contained in the game.  ‘So what‘ it might be said, there’s no question that the BBFC’s description of Manhunt 2 is a fair characterisation of the game.  But what shouldn’t be ignored is that the same description could be applied to the Saw and Hostel films (and many others). They however had no trouble passing the censors.

Video games are an easy target largely because of those who play them; the young.  Games are an easy scapegoat for the violence that’s prevalent in society.  But the reality is that games are not the cause of violent crime.  From Doom (1993) to the Metal Gear series of games I’ve played a lot of games that could be classed as violent in content, just as I’ve watched a lot of films that would fall into that category, and oddly enough they haven’t provoked me to violence.

Games are not the cause of violence amongst British youth and the longer we hold them to be the cause the longer it will take for us as a society to really get to grips with the problem.

Fortunately in this instance the video appeals committee have seen sense and upheld an earlier appeal allowing the sale of Manhunt 2, but the fact the game was banned in the first place makes it very clear that the BBFC need to get with the times.

I’ve never hidden my views on expenses for MPs, it’s very simple; when you’re spending taxpayers’ money you should spend as little as possible.

Accordingly when purchasing a TV (why is that even a legitimate expense) you shouldn’t spend £750, or indeed £500 or even £400. In fact you should take yourself down to Asda, or log onto Ebay, and pick up one for around £100. Simple.
Just imagine, with that simple adjustment in spending alone another £650 could be returned to the taxpayer…

Much is being made of Labour’s attack on drivers, and rightly so given that 88% of car models will be affected by the massive tax hikes. As today’s Telegraph points out [no link as I'm updating via blackberry today] the tax on a Vauxhall Astra will jump from £210 to £430, and on a Ford Focus it will jump from £170 to £270!

Such absurd hikes (absurd because they won’t do anything to reduce carbon emissions; the same number of people will be driving) have needless to say not gone down well with motorists. Importantly though for the Conservatives car use is around 17% higher in the top 100 marginal seats scattered across the country.

Motorists across the country might be angry, but what’s important is that motorists in the places the Conservatives stand the best chance of winning are particularly angry. And there’s no more powerful a force in politics than moral outrage.

Note: The tech people are looking into why this post originally displayed as jibberish and how to fix it.

Nick Clegg would like to reduce the number of MPs by 150. According to Clegg such a reduction would help restore confidence in the political process whilst also saving millions of pounds for the taxpayer. Right.

What Clegg fails to point out though is that such a reduction would mean 150 fewer MPs doing casework. Now that might not seem like a big deal, especially to those who like to think MPs simply sit around all day doing very little at the taxpayers’ expense, but a great deal of the vast majority of MPs’ time is taken up by casework. By reducing the number of MPs Clegg would reduce people’s access to what is often the remedy of last resort. It’s also worth bearing in mind that such a reduction would also mean fewer surgeries being carried out due to A) there being 150 fewer MPs available to carry out surgeries, and B) the remaining MPs having greater demands on their time.

Let’s put it another way. Imagine the commons is a large office with a set amount of work that has to get done. Clegg essentially wants to fire a massive chunk of the workforce whilst hoping those that remain will get the same amount done.

Just heard via a friend that Bob Spink has resigned the Tory whip. Apparently it’s something to do with the behaviour of his local association. Nicely timed with the budget though. Great piece of news management.

UPDATE: it would appear Bob Spink had the whip removed by the party rather.  The plot thickens.

Alistair Darling said a lot, but one thing he didn’t say was ‘Northern Rock’.  Strange that, you’d almost think he was trying to avoid the subject.  I wonder why.

I’m listening to the budget and beginning to think that in future there should be some sort of musical intermission half-way through, or perhaps the budget should be read by the same guy that narrates the trailors for action films.  Hmm…