Everyone's favourite unelected legislator has had an idea.

I can't drive. I've just never bothered to learn. So lets say I get my licence next month and I drive to my girlfriend's parents in south Down. Alastair Ross will be very upset if I leave for Belfast much after 8pm. Who is he to have an opinion on what time I drive home at? What right does the state have to extend the fairly reasonable restrictions on driving to such an extent? He also wants to ban me from driving my girlfriends sister anywhere for the first year. Total ban on alcohol, perhaps, but the reason zero tolerance on this doesn't work, is that small amounts of blood alcohol are (as far as I remember) naturally occurring!

Lisburn man/Larne MLA Alastair Ross really has let it go to his head. If he wants a nanny state, he should go to Scandinavia. When I learn to drive, I can't exceed 45mph for one year. Personally, I think that a year is a bit long, but the principle is fair enough. To extend that any further is frankly absurd. I know why he has suggested this, but using a sledgehammer to crack a nut is no was to frame policy.

Maybe a better idea would be to introduce measures to curb the enthusiasm of unelected 20-something-year-old MLAs. The evidence that it's needed is certainly there.

Downing Street have issued a non-response to a petition calling on them to prevent GP surgeries from using expensive, revenue-generating 084 and 087 phone numbers.

The government has said that the patient shouldn't be expected to pay more than a local call but companies have traditionally lied/manipulated their way around this using the vague definition of what constitutes a local call charge (something I've discussed previously).

Read more »

Colm Bradley has outlined some ways he thinks the GAA can remove the barriers to Unionists joining. Just over a year ago I outlined that the GAA has a de facto ban in Unionists joining. Unfortunately Google hasn't cached it, so some of the substantive points are below the fold. The main contention I have though, is that the GAA is explicitly a political organisation, and should not be treated as a sporting organisation unless and until it sheds the vestiges of a political pressure group.

Read more »

Following recent, rather hypocritical, criticism of culture minister Edwin Poots after he stated in a written answer (AQW 4045/08) he hadn't attended any Irish language events during his first 9 months in the job, Edwin Poots will today attend an Irish Gaelic language event in Belfast. Isn't that a turn-up?

Read more »

Some time ago I gave a few examples of practical, everyday benefits of being a part of the United Kingdom as distinct from the Republic of Ireland. I've stumbled across further examples on a semi-regular basis since then, but I couldn't believe that the iPhone hadn't been released (officially) in "Ireland" [sic] yet.

Apparently there are a few complaints that the price of the iPhone in the rip-off Republic is going to be even higher than the price in the United Kingdom (of rip-off Britain and rip-off Northern Ireland) when it is finally launched down south (where it also looks like being an O2 exclusive), just 4 months after UK consumers got their mits on the device.

Read more »

Is it any wonder unionists feel like their culture and identity is constantly under attack? It's all very well for people in Northern Ireland who are familiar with the bullshit emanating from the likes of the Andytown News group and the various interest groups to just switch off when the latest MOPE appears in the media, and most will. Unfortunately those without such a familiarity of the situation here actually believe some of it and that can lead to situations where, for example, the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam ranks Orangeism up there with Nazism and advocates of apartheid in South Africa.

I've said before, and anyone who knows me would testify, as an atheist I'm no particular fan of the Orange Order and they often do themselves no favours. Sometimes it surprises me how much the bullshit slander (they eat babies and rape women, didn't you know?) against them annoys me, but the fact is that the Orange Order is just a 'legitimate target' for the sectarian bile and hatred the perpetrators clearly feel towards unionists and/or Protestants generally.

Why does all this matter? Because once these hateful liars have successfully demonised unionism and the majority population of Northern Ireland they can use these fictitious and/or exaggerated 'evil acts' to justify the extremely real and extremely vicious murders and bombings carried out by the IRA - by pretending they were fighting a dangerous, bigoted, violent group of oppressors rather than an innocent civilian population.

The Assembly has rejected any suggestion that the IRA's sectarian murder campaign was a war. A good thing, and fairly unsurprising.

I've always liked Danny Kennedy, but his performance since devolution has impressed me, and he is clearly im proving as time goes on. I enjoyed this contribution during the debate:

Mr McCartney: The Member made an intervention and stated that Ireland was only ever united under the British Crown. Is that an acceptance that uniting Ireland is a worthy cause?

Mr Kennedy: Yes — under the British Crown. If the Republic wants to rejoin the British Commonwealth and renegotiate the terms and conditions for the union, I would withhold any objection.

Here here. Unionism should never be afraid to espouse Irish unity, it should probably be Unionism's objective - under the Crown within the devolutionary settlement for the Union. In today's world, Unionists have none of the reasons to fear Irish Home Rule that existed 100 years ago, and we should declare our willingness to enter an all Ireland legislature in Dublin, so long as all of Ireland sends its representatives to the national Parliament in London.

I've stated before on this blog that I don't like the legacy of James Craig. I think that he partly caused the insular, anti-Irish Unionism that is everything Carson stood against. Unionism should roll back the fear of it's Irish identity, and not allow the IRA's attempts to rob us of our British identity, to rob us of our Irish identity.

Well said Danny Kennedy.

There's plenty wrong with copyright laws in this country. Instead of fixing those things though, the government want ISPs to do their dirty work, monitor everything you download and ban users from the internet if they download copyrighted material. There are so many things wrong with this I don't know where to start!

1. It's an invasion of privacy. This is the most immediately obvious problem. That's fair enough if you're one of those downloading illegal content, but it's essentially treating everyone as guilty (by stripping them of their right to privacy) until proven innocent. There isn't even a "reasonable grounds for suspicion" protection.

2. It's not technologically feasible. Discussing this very issue, one ISP that monitors the types of traffic on their network quite closely reports that 40% of BitTorrent (a popular filesharing application) is now encrypted. What this means is that the technology already exists, and is quite widely used, to prevent interception and examination of data. It's not the first time the politicians have gone riding in half-cocked without understanding what they're talking about when it comes to the series of tubes known in technical circles as "the internet" though. Did they really think 22 MPs signing an Early Day Motion "demanding" faster broadband speeds in the countryside would alter the laws of physics?

3. It would be expensive. The government keeps talking about its priority to improve broadband access (there's even a minister responsible for it!). How is that objective going to be affected when ISPs have to jack up their prices to pay for the development and/or purchase of this monitoring software which will probably prove ineffective in the longrun anyway?

There's a few issues to start with anyway (and I've not even touched on the many ways in which piracy actually benefits consumers by forcing big companies to reform their monopoly-abusing habits, that's for another day). As I've said before, there are bigger issues with UK copyright law as it stands than spotty teenagers downloading music or films in their darkened bedrooms and the government are coming at this, as government is inclined to do, from completely the wrong side of the argument.

Limavady Borough Council: redefining "offensive"

Nationalist councillors (who hold a majority) on Limavady Borough Council have ordered the removal of several items from council premises in order to create a "neutral working environment".

Unfortunately they weren't totally sure what should be removed and had to search the internet to decide whether or not they were offended by a statue of Limavady man William (Ferguson) Massey, who had been Prime Minister of New Zealand from 1912 to 1925 and founded New Zealand's Reform Party (now the conservative National Party, the largest opposition party in New Zealand at this time). As it turns out they are offended by the statue. Why? You may well ask. Apparently some hotshot detective work by nationalist councillors turned up that Massey had been a Protestant member of the Orange Order in New Zealand. Thank God for Wikipedia, eh?

Other items which had to be removed include a coffee mug celebrating Prince Charles and Princess Diana's wedding and a toy dragon.

The Equality Commission said it advised the council, which was seeking to adopt a "policy on neutral public space". The Commission said they prefer the objective of a "good and harmonious" environment to a neutral one.

"The Commission advised that the Fair Employment Code of Practice refers to promoting a 'good and harmonious environment' and drew attention to fact that this concept is preferred to that of a 'neutral' environment... The Commission has not provided advice regarding the removal of any specific items or emblems."
Equality Commission spokesman

But nationalist councillors would not be deterred by that, or by the anger it caused amongst their unionist colleagues. They spent a year and brought in an independent consultant to hunt out anything they might be able to take offence at. While they were doing this, one wonders where it fell on their list of priorities in relation to the loss of 900 jobs in Limavady or allegations of bullying of council staff. But what do they matter when you can protect the citizenry from the horrors of a Charles and Diana mug sitting in a council's display case that most of them will likely never see?

Apparently discussions are ongoing about the possibility of an Orange Lodge taking part in the Saint Patrick's Day parade in Downpatrick this year. The Orange Order seem to be treading with caution, but hopefully the Order and the organisers can make this work.

Can't see it happening in the Belfast parade any time soon though.

Update: According to Slugger, it's not happening. Apparently there were fears for the safety of members taking part as well as issues over what regalia the organisers would allow.