Banned US homophobe defiant

"Unless they intend to begin checking the bare backsides of every person coming into that country to find that tattoo that says 'Property of WBC' - they will have no way of identifying who is from WBC."

Fred Phelps is a man with bare backsides on the mind. The BBC reports that he and his daughter, from the famous Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas, have been banned from entering the UK to protest against a play called the Laramie Project in Basingstoke.

If the BBC is right, it seems Mr Phelps will go to extraordinary lengths to put his anti-gay views to the people of Hampshire. But should we be keeping him out of the country on that basis?There are two main lines of objection to protest tourism.

The first is that nobody - British or otherwise - should be allowed to campaign against a play on the ground that it offends their religion. This would make the decision to bar him easy, but I hope it is untrue. It was untrue when Sikh protesters succeeded in getting Bezhti off the Birmingham stage in 2004. A variation on this is the Border Agency's claim that Mr Phelps, through his long record of campaigning and websites, has incited hatred.

The second is that foreign nationals should not be allowed to come into the country to lobby British people. I'm not convinced by this argument either. While the British government has a greater responsibility to British citizens, other voices have a place too. We allow foreign newspaper proprietors and permit foreign news outlets to advertise and broadcast.

I don't share Mr Phelps' views. But why should he not be allowed to come here and express them?

Are YOU the anti-protest libertarian?

Conor Gearty is eminent. This is, therefore, troublingly juvenile.

"There are two strands to the concept of liberty which are in opposition here. One is the libertarianism we have just been discussing, the "Englishman's home is his castle" school of thought. The other is the position of the civil libertarian who sees the freedom of protest as essential to the proper running of our democratic state because he or she ultimately believes in the power of the state to do good. The first wants to hide from society, the second wants to make it better. There is all the difference in the world between the individualism of the libertarian and the idealism of the political activist. The left naturally belongs with the second of these not the first."

This is a silly caricature of libertarians, who I suppose might choose to hide from society, but might equally want to participate in the thriving civil society they predict (usually at tedious length) will emerge from rolling back the state. Libertarians do believe in the power of the state to do good (as we can glean from useful hints like...um...their support of the existence of the state) but not that its doing good and doing more are endlessly identical. They mention this a lot.

But let's grant Gearty his straw man. It's a free country. We must still note, open-mouthed, that the two strands of liberty he has discovered are "in opposition".

This entails the conclusion that right-wing libertarians are against the right to protest - that in some way political activism is opposed to liberty. But who? Who are these people, locked up in their farms with only a copy of the Telegraph and a signed photo of Tony Martin for company, railing silently against the right to protest? What thinkers and opinion-formers have been putting this side of the libertarian argument?

The desire to remain a liberal while supporting an increasingly powerful state has caused intellectual contortions in many a great thinker of the last hundred years. But surely Guardian readers deserve a more credible enemy than this.

All parents are potential child-abusers

The government loves micro-managing classrooms in the state sector. And why not, you might ask? It's their money, and if they want to decide what consitutes great literature, a major historical event or the right way to introduce literacy, then who are we taxpayers to quibble?

But the government often tires of its own toys and experiences an irrepressible desire to reach out and play with the education of children who don't use state schools. This would seem not to be their business, until you remember this is the 21st century and they hold both the rights'n'responsibilities card and the child protection card.

The latest finger-dipping is yet another review into home education, the Elective Home Education Review, which will be the fourth review into home education since 2005. Education, education, education, education: if only reviews were outcomes...

Headed by Graham Badman, the EHER will consider
1) Whether local authorities and other public agencies are able to effectively discharge their duties and responsibilities for safeguarding and ensuring a suitable education for all children.
2) Whether home educating parents are receiving the support and advice they want to ensure they provide a good, balanced education for their children.
3) What evidence there is to support claims that home education could be used as a ‘cover’ for child abuse such as neglect, forced marriage, sexual exploitation or domestic servitude.

Allow me to translate.

1) In 2006, The Education and Inspections Act placed a duty on all local authorities to make arrangements to identify children not receiving "a suitable education". Without knowing what happens in your living room, they can't make that judgement. So inspectors need to be sent into people's homes to gather that information. But we don't know how many children are home educated - between 20,000 (DCSF) and 50,000 (Education Otherwise) - so expect a policy requiring parents to register their home-educated children with the local education authority.

2) Home educating parents often do not want or seek advice from the LEA: it is, after all, the organisation whose schools they are avoiding. Nor are they under any obligation to receive such advice. But as Mr Badman reminded the BBC "Legislation affords every parent the right to choose to educate their child at home but with those rights go responsibilities, not least being to secure a suitable education." Expect the word "suitable" to be defined by Mr Badman and the inspectors to have a strong mandate.

3) The child protection card. If the government can find a single example of neglect or abuse, it gives it the green light to investigateand regulate the lives of all home educators. You can only find a bad apple by checking all your apples. The government hasn't yet given an example of alleged abuse - Education Otherwise asked for the evidence and none was provided - but making the claim means that a claim has been made and must, therefore, be investigated.

Parents have a right to educate their children privately or using the state system. This private education can be in a school or at home. Parents who choose home education are often helping their children to escape the abuse of bullying, or get out from the anti-learning culture of their LEA schools. The government is heaping review after review on these people and branding them as potential abusers.

The government wants to control and regulate the education of every child. How else can it guarantee every child an equal start in life? Parents may play the freedom card, but rights'n'responsibilities and child protection will surely beat it.

CCTV cameras

An expensive failure admitted, at long last.

Most people like CCTV cameras. They show Something - as in Something Must Be Done - is being done. And most people don't care about enjoying the freedom to walk down the street without being spied on by a camera. Because they don't care, they don't think I should get to enjoy that freedom either.

The government's proposed solution - obviously - is to say that we need next generation digital cameras, more expensive, more extensive. When something isn't working, the government tells people how much it costs as if the expenditure of money were its own reward. And if police, understandably, can't be bothered to sift through hours of footage to spot something, moving to high resolution playback with surround sound isn't going to up the numbers very far. Popcorn sellers - get back in your seats.

I would be delighted if a major political party pledged no new cameras and instead spent our precious money on those things which prevent and punish crime. Perhaps Boris? Could the man who last year proposed giving Iran nukes be the voice of sanity?

No chance. Mayor Johnson wants to put CCTV on buses at a cost he claims will be £3000 per bus. Images will be beamed to a control room where, we assume, people will sit and watch what is happening on buses. Exciting and cheap, no?

Why not just put everyone in a taxi and watch Trisha?

How to talk about politics

For family, close friends and people writing their dissertation who have run out of menial chores:

This is me teaching an international group of students about the mysteries of debating politics.

It may be to useful to anyone who takes part in competitive debating. I know there are lots of you out there.

It all took place at IDAS in Slovenia, November 2007.

Work Experience

Debate Chamber is five years old. It runs courses in schools, universities and town halls all over the country. Like many small knowledge-based businesses, its administration is done on desks and sofas, any spare space, in a flat rather than out of an expensive office building.

We thought it would be nice to offer an aspiring bright young thing work experience, doing some office work and coming out to help run events in schools.

The school then sent us a letter and a Health and Safety questionnaire, of which this is an excerpt.

It is, in fact, Health-And-Safety-Gone-Mad in its full tabloid glory.

Just filling out this form has to be done by someone, who will reasonably ask for money in return for the tedium. That person - let's call him James - has to read it, find out the answers, write them in the boxes and send it off. Informing our insurers, doing a risk assessment and offering full safety training about the risks of stuffing envelopes while talking to people all require time and therefore incur additional costs.

Nowhere does the school ask if we are all checked with the Criminal Records Bureau. Of course, we are. But let's face it, the trauma of paedophilia is nothing compared to the grievous risks associated with tripping over a cable, suffering a paper cut or forgetting that a hot cup of tea is, in fact, hot.

I don't blame the school for a moment. They are forced to live with this nonsense all the time. The sad thing is that all this bureaucracy makes companies less likely to offer these opportunities in the future.

Here it is...

1. Please describe briefly the kind of work our pupil will be doing/observing
...........................……….............................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................
2. If you employ staff, please confirm that you have Employers Liability Insurance and that your Insurers have been notified of the placement (Work Experience Employment Liability)
YES
NO
If No, please indicate reason)
3. As to loss or damage of property, do you have cover for loss or damage to employer’s property (material damage) and other property including students (public liability)
4.
Do you have Public Liability cover?
YES
NO
5. If so, please state amount of cover £ ........................................
6. How many employees are employed at the site where our pupil will be based? .....................
7.
Do you have a written Health and Safety Policy?
YES
NO
8.
Does the site at which our pupil will be based have a Fire Certificate?
YES
NO
9.
Do you have provision for first aid?
YES
NO
10. Are there any areas of your site to which our pupil will not be permitted access for safety reasons?
YES
NO
11. Will our pupil be exposed to hazardous substances or activities during the placement?
YES
NO
12. Are there any significant risks to the health and safety of the pupil?
YES
NO
13. If your answer to Q10 or Q11 or Q12 is YES, please confirm that a risk assessment (and if relevant a COSHH assessment) in accordance with Health and Safety (Young Persons) Regulations 1997 has been carried out in relation to the placement (if YES, please attach copy).
Risk assessment?
YES
NO
}
(If yes, please attach a copy)
COSHH assessment?
YES
NO
}
14. Please state briefly what safety training will be given and what preventative and protective measures will be in place.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
15. Please state who will brief our pupil on arrangements for her safety (e.g. prohibited areas, fire
evacuation, first aid, presence of contractors, specific safety rules) ................................................…….
...................................................................................................................................................................
16.
Will our pupil have access to a staff canteen?
YES
NO
17.
Will her travelling expenses to her place of work be reimbursed?
YES
NO
18. Please give some indication of standard of dress (e.g. smart/casual/no jeans).............................…….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
19. Please indicate who will be responsible for our pupil whilst she is with you and for whom she
should ask on arrival.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
20.
Would you like our pupil to contact you to arrange a pre-placement visit?
YES
NO
Please indicate your normal hours of work and those expected of our pupil:
Normal Hours …………………………….. to ……………………………
Pupil Hours ……………………………….. to ……………………………

I hate people who say "told you so"

But I'm a hypocrite. That's two character flaws in one. But I've got nothing on Labour MPs, making the extraordinary claim that they've only just noticed the abolition of the 10% rate of income tax. Gordon Brown announced it, out loud, in his final budget on 21st March 2007, near the end, just seconds before his dramatic income tax cut announcement which was lauded by all the newspapers as a masterstroke.

And I blogged it that afternoon because I was in a bad mood.

Wednesday, 21 March 2007.

Tax rises for the poor and small businesses

Why are socialist MPs cheering Gordon Brown? He cut the basic rate of
income tax from 22% to 20% and raised the top income tax threshold dramatically
from £34k to £43k, so people on high incomes will benefit. But he abolished the
10% tax rate, so people earning £9000 a year will see their income tax bill more
than double. The net tax cut is only £1bn and it hits the poorest in favour of
the rich.

He cut the headline rate of Corporation Tax from 30% to 28% so big
employers will see a cut in their tax bill. But he raised the small business
rate from 20% to 22%. This means that small companies, who don't have capital
assets, supposedly at the cutting edge of the knowledge economy, (I should
declare an interest - like mine), will see their tax bill go up. It makes us
less likely to employ people, just at the time we are trying to expand.

David Cameron was supposed to be embarrassed by the surprise income tax
announcement. But he wasn't. Gordon Brown clearly doesn't understand the
difference between tactics and strategy. The battle of ideas was conceded in
that smug moment. If the government can cut taxes and increase spending, then
Labour's biggest stick for beating the Conservatives is broken. If Labour MPs
cheer tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the poor, what is the point of the
Labour party?

I'm still asking. At the time, the Budget was widely seen as securing Gordon Brown's place as the unassailable candidate to replace Tony Blair. I suspect Labour MPs are also regretting that part of the deal. They really do deserve everything they get.