PS: I'm still away from Slugger Central but still contactable at mick_fealty[at]hotmail[dot]com.

By Alex Kane

I met Boris Johnson very briefly at a Conservative Party Conference about five or six years ago. It was before he had been elected to Parliament and he was entertaining a very large audience at a fringe meeting on the subject of conservatism in the 21st century. The impression I formed of then, has remained with me: that of a hugely likeable guy who had decided that celebrity status was a much more effective base for influence than that of mere political or journalistic status. I realised, too, that behind the shambolic, bumbling, cuddly-bear front, lay a very sharp mind and an equally sharp pen.

I was genuinely surprised, therefore, that he decided to become an MP, for he struck me as a natural maverick and someone who would find himself permanently constrained by the party whip structures of the Conservative Party. It would surely only be a matter of time before he would find himself being forced to choose between loyalty to his conscience and manufactured duty to the party leader. (And, believe me, I know that dilemma only too well!)

That moment arrived last week, when he sanctioned an editorial in the Spectator magazine which was deemed to have insulted and offended the people of Liverpool in general, and the family of Kenneth Bigley in particular. Michael Howard claimed that the article was “…rubbish from beginning to end…” and an order was issued from Central Office that Johnson would be dispatched to Liverpool, where there would be a series of orchestrated media opportunities to apologise for the offence he had supposedly caused.

In my opinion, albeit from a much more lowly position as a fellow columnist, I believe that Johnson was wrong to board the grovel train. A political column which doesn’t regularly provoke and offend, is a column which isn’t worth reading! Yes, there are moments when a columnist can wander into the realms of libel, and, when that happens, there are well-trod legal routes to follow. But an apology which seems to have been kickstarted by a political party wary of alienating potential voters, is an apology not worth having.

Anyway, I happen to believe that the general points made in the editorial were accurate. We don’t know how to handle grief anymore and there has been a “…disproportionate convulsion of grief for Mr Bigley.” In the space of a few weeks he moved from, “an unknown British man,” to “Kenneth Bigley,” to “Ken” and finally, to “poor Ken.” Six months from now it will be, “that man Bigley” and within a year, “you know, that guy that was beheaded, Ben somebody.”

That is the reality of life today. For a few weeks the whole nation knew about Kenneth Bigley, for he represented a story for newspapers keen to prop up circulation, as well as becoming an icon for those opposed to the war in the first place. The stark and unpleasant fact of the matter was that the unfortunate Mr. Bigley happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I have genuine sympathy for his loved ones, but we must never allow sympathy to be cynically translated into cosmetic, politically motivated empathy.

And that is my primary objection to Johnson’s decision to go to Liverpool. He allowed himself to become a part of the culture of “ignorant sentimentality” that had been railed against in the editorial. In choosing duty to the party over loyalty to his conscience, he has only succeeded in corking and blunting his own pen.

First published in the Newsletter, on Saturday October 23rd, 2004

The Robinsons are perfectly entitled to the quarter of a million or so of taxpayers' money they receive (not including their Assembly and council expenses) from Westminster, and it is entirely legal to pay several children out of these expenses, but it doesn't seem to me to fit in with the image of 'Prudent Peter' that Mr Robinson has tried to cultivate.

Perhaps this is why he has threatened legal action against some who are reporting this story.

The Robinsons are not the only married MPS claiming twice for accommodation, although the Guardian appears to have overlooked them in this article.

Today, when we sign the European Constitution, Dermot Ahern and I will join our colleagues in the very same room in which the Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957. The historic symbolism is powerful.

The European Constitution will replace existing EU treaties. But it is building on the firm foundations they offer. While it makes some valuable changes, it is fundamentally a clarification and a consolidation of what has gone before.

Irish Times political correspondent Mark Hennessy picks up on the Taoiseach's warning "Ahern warns against rejecting EU constitution"

The rejection of the European constitution by Irish voters in a referendum would "be an enormous setback for the country", the Taoiseach has warned.

The referendum will be held before the end of October 2006, Mr Ahern said yesterday, at the publication of information booklets on the constitution.

"If you are asking me will I sign this in the belief that I can put my hand on my heart and say this is perfect for the Irish people, then the answer to that is yes.

He said he believed the public had much more information about the EU constitution than they had about past treaties, including the one agreed in Nice, "which was a dog's dinner".

The Irish Independent also picks up on the issue of the referendum

Mr Ahern refused to say when the Government intended holding the referendum except that it would be "somewhere between now and October 31, 2006".

And he added the decision would not be influenced by when Britain holds its referendum.

But since the UK foreign secretary Jack Straw has already said that "a referendum on the EU constitution will take place 'early in 2006' if Labour wins a third term", there may be more than a hint of coordinated campaigns.

In any event, the Irish Independent states that Bertie Ahern is claiming, "The forthcoming referendum on the European Constitution will be the last time Irish people are asked to vote on such an EU treaty for a generation" - even if they vote 'No'?

He said: “It is nonsense that Mr Ahern keeps prattling on about Irish neutrality. How can he possibly say that when it is a staging post for 1,000 soldiers a day?”

Honest and disturbing -

The Glasgow Kelvin MP acknowledged that his protests would not influence Mr Blair but said he was hoping to gain support from other MPs at a time when latest polls reveal overwhelming public opposition to the latest move.

“MPs are the ones who will lose seats due to the huge unpopularity of this war,”

Mr Galloway speaks volumes about Politics when his vast experience tells him that the way to appeal to fellow MPs is NOT about the rights and wrongs of this war but in terms of protecting their own interests.

His, reasonable, prediction is that

"Over the next few years, blogs will grow both more and less significant. They'll grow more significant because more people will be reading them, and -- at least as important -- more people will be writing them. That will expand their impact considerably. On the other hand, they'll grow less significant, in a way, because they'll grow more ordinary. Like other communications media, from newspapers to email, they'll just become part of the background, and their particular thread of impact will be less noticeable"

But in the process he warns, again, that "'[I]f Big Media let their position go without a fight to keep it by fair means or foul, they'll be the first example of a privileged group that did so. So beware.' I think we're already beginning to see signs of that backlash, in the wake of the humiliation visited on Big Media by RatherGate -- and the press establishment's general lack of enthusiasm for free speech for others (as evidenced by its support for campaign finance "reform") suggests that it'll be happy to see alternative media muzzled. You want to keep this media revolution going? Be ready to fight for it."

In addition to his general argument I'd draw attention to two other stories that caught my eye. One, reported by the BBC, on a US airline attendant fighting for her job after she was suspended, seemingly for the content of her personal blog - Blogger grounded by her airline. The other, in the NY Times is an article on "advertising agencies and communications professionals.. using blogs to create discussion about ideas within their industries".

The BBC article highlights how some companies are starting to become increasingly wary, and vigilant, of the content of employees blogs. The article quotes Jeffrey Matsuura, director of the law and technology programme at the University of Dayton -

personal websites can be hazardous for both employers and their employees.

"One of the areas where it does become a problem is that they encourage this when it suits them, but they may not be particularly clear when they [employees] do cross the line."

The NY Times article, while charting the expansion of 'blogland', focuses on the same business-risk related theme -

[Advertising] Agencies with blogs, though, are in a minority. For many, particularly the large networks, the potential risks still outweigh the benefits.

The biggest fear is an uncontrolled message slipping out, said Steve Rubel, vice president for client services at CooperKatz & Company in New York, a public relations agency with clients including the Association of National Advertisers, J. P. Morgan Chase and Wendy's. "Do they allow comments or do they not? Is there an implication if it is a publicly traded firm? Who is the one who should blog for us? How might that choice be received in the company?"

Glenn Reynolds may be right to focus on the "press establishment's general lack of enthusiasm for free speech for others", after all, that is the arena where the public battle will be won or lost - but they won't be the only players with an interest in the outcome.

Only a few days ago the Belfast Telegraph carried a report welcoming the new club. It was pleasing to see someone say

"Too often the young people of our communities are seen as a drain, a problem and not an asset," he added.

"We do not share this view. Youth has always been our strength and the future of this community, and all of communities, lie within their hands."

However the Club has chosen a crest carrying Icons associated with the IRA Hunger Striker Bobby Sands and the Hunger Strikes.

The Ulster Council of the GAA is reported as declining to comment.

Partricia Lewsley, SDLP described the symbols as 'inappropriate' and added 'it's a pity they could not find another symbol that is inclusive'.

SF Councillor Paul Butler defended the choice on the grounds that Mr Sands came from Twinbrook - although Mr Sands was born in Rathcoole.

I doubt if this controversial choice will help bridge the gap between the communities.

It may have been because the Irish Times report was headlined as, Blair 'optimistic' on agreement (I'm paraphrasing) but there are direct quotes from Denis Bradley that are pertinent to the policing issue.

Speaking to The Irish Times last night, Mr Bradley said: "To continue under direct rule with no consequences is a dangerous analysis. The people for whom it is most dangerous and burdensome and the people who have taken the most strain in recent years are mainly Catholics and nationalists from the Border areas and for Catholics who have joined the police."

"There is no Plan B, and never was," he claimed, and the two governments should come up with one.

Do SF still believe that, as the article puts it, "Sinn Féin said Mr Bradley's argument underscored its decision not to endorse policing."?

The article carries a comment from SF's Mitchel McLaughlin, and a response from Denis Bradley -

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin, the party chairman, said: "This is an admission by the vice chair of the Policing Board that Patten has not been implemented and that the current arrangements do not meet the demand of the Good Friday agreement for an accountable policing service. Sinn Féin have been saying this for the past three years when Mr Bradley, along with the SDLP, jumped to endorse flawed policing arrangements." Mr Bradley dismissed this as "inane".(my emphasis)

If David hadn't pointed it out, one of his many fans would doubtless have stressed that it would have been terribly inappropriate for A.T.W. to have been singled out for the praise it deserves alongside of Slugger as David and Andrew run a very British Blog. I'm sure if A.T.W. had been labelled an “Irish Blog” the rumpus over Seamus Heaney being included in that Anthology, 'Contemporary British Verse' would have paled in comparison!

I wonder if one of those A.T.W. favourites, Brian Feeney or Jude Collins, could be persuaded to oblige in order that we might have the pleasure of witnessing the eruption of Mount Andrew, the Yorkshire Krakatoa ?

Controversial, over-ambitious and to its fans "a fantastic research source - albeit one that you should use with caution", the English language version of Wikipedia has over 360,000 entries and is growing every day, yet has cost only £300,000.

Currently the most controversial entry appears to be, unsurprisingly, that of a certain Mr George W Bush - 500 edits between August and October this year and now locked to prevent any further editing.

But perhaps Wikipedia's greatest contribution so far can be summed up as -

"The truth is that Wikipedia reveals what is normally hidden in an encyclopedia: the countless decisions that lie behind each entry. The only difference is that in Wikipedia, the decision-making never stops..."

And remember, as the General Disclaimer on the Wikipedia site says - "Wikipedia cannot guarantee, in any way whatsoever, the validity of the information found here" - although Wales may have a plan that will justify an edit to that statement too.

A few paragraphs worth highlighting -

"Adams kept his audience happy by talking in the common language of “another world is possible”, of the “”importance of practical as well as symbolic acts of international solidarity.” Third World debt should be cancelled, the environment should be protected, private corporations should be kept out from the public sector, diversity should be respected and equality defended, the US/UK troops should be pulled out of Iraq now, and the resistance should be backed without question or sentiment. George Galloway made the last point as simply as possible: “It’s not our job to analyse the resistance – it’s our job to defeat imperialism. Don’t be seduced into some third camp – that camp is part of the first camp, the imperialism of Bush and Blair.” The foes of the movement, the imperialists, are losing the war at home as well as the streets of Fallujah, he assured his cheering followers, being crushed between “the hammer of the Iraqi resistance and the anvil of the international solidarity movement.”

Richard Boyd Barrett asserted his unequivical support. “People have the right to take up arms and resist”, he told the same audience. Accusing those who question the suicide bombing of Iraqi children queueing for sweets as fostering “anti-Islamic racism”, Boyd Barrett asserted that “people have the right to resist in what ever manner they choose”, bringing in the language of multiculturalism to real life and death. Despite being specific about the forces behind the new imperialism – the Washington neoconservatives and the Project for a New American Centiry – all speakers were coy about the specifics of the ‘resistance’. There was no specific mention of the Shi’ite cleric Al-Sadr and his Madhi Army, nor Zaquari and his fellow kidnappers and decapitators, not even Al-Queda, with their own take on the rights of women and the existence of gays.

Similarly, the great bugbear ‘neo-liberalism’ was oft decried but never defined. Sessions were held on all the right humanitarian causes (Palestine, Chechnya, Nepal, Colombia, Northern Ireland), but Sudan and the ongoing atrocities in Darfur did not merit a single mention. Perhaps the idea of an Islamist government raping and murdering an Islamic ethnic minority did not fit the picture."

But he is also fair in his assessment of the motivations behind the 20,000 other participants attending the Forum -

"The other side of the coin is the genuine sense of altruism that emanated from the 20,000 participants, the desire to contribute to politics in an age when no party can get people like these to join them or even vote, the willingness to fight for a freer and fairer world, the complete absence of ethnic or racial superiority, the sense of real internationalism, the hunger for knowledge about how the world works and how it can be changed."

The editorial put the comments into perspective by reminding us of the scenario Denis Bradley envisaged, and, in doing so, condemns the criticism by the DUP -

"Denis Bradley, vice-chairman of the Policing Board, wrote in a newspaper column about the crisis that will arise if the Irish and British governments and the Northern parties fail to agree in the current series of talks. He has been criticised vehemently by various DUP figures who want him removed from the board.

Mr Bradley is a person who should command respect on all sides. He is a sharp and courageous critic of terrorism. He and his house and family have come under physical attack."

and "If the parties fail to agree, if the British government cannot reinstate the Northern institutions, a limping form of direct rule will not keep the North stable."

The Irish Independent points out that Denis Bradley's reference to "republican areas.. not being policed" is equally applicable to loyalist areas -

"It would be disastrous if the PSNI lost wider nationalist favour, or failed to get control of loyalist ghettoes. Mr Bradley says republican areas are not being policed. That is true of loyalist areas too."

The editorial ends with a call for an end to the self-indulgent stances of the DUP and SF -

"In any case, the time arrived long ago - when they [the DUP and SF] became the two dominant [parties] - for a deal. Little stands in the way of it but self-indulgence. Let them show a little good will and good faith."

According to ARN, the event is not a protest so much as a celebration:

"We want to try and capture the flavour of a carnival, and make everyone feel welcome. We want people to bring drums as well as banners. Costumes, whistles, instruments – anything that adds to the
carnival feel!"

The event has been endorsed by community groups, trade unions, minority ethnic organisations, political parties and many others.

Speaking today, ARN spokesperson Davy Carlin said:

“It is encouraging that so many people have come forward and backed the event. Racist attacks have appalled people right across Northern Ireland, and their support for the rally will clearly demonstrate that racism is something we don’t want here.

“The theme for the rally is ‘No excuses’, because people are fed up hearing lame justifications for racist behaviour. Myths about ‘immigrants taking our jobs’ or being ‘a threat to local culture’ are exactly that – stories with no basis in reality.

“Sadly, it is not uncommon for some people to unfairly blame ethnic
minorities for deprivation in their area. It is wrong to scapegoat ethnic minorities for the failures in our society that existed long before their arrival.

“Instead we are asking people to come out on the 30th and celebrate the fact that Belfast is changing – for the better. We now have a more diverse society than ever before, and hopefully the Hallowe’en carnival will show how people from different backgrounds can come together as a united community against racism.”

The ARN’s event is supported (so far!) by the Chinese Welfare Association, The Belfast Jewish community, The Indian Community Centre, the Belfast Islamic Centre, the Multi Cultural Resource Centre, The Latin American Support Group, Travellers Movement of NI, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, Unison, T&GWU, NIPSA and the Belfast Trades Union Council.

Support and endorsement has also come from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the NI Law Centre, The NI Children’s Commissioner, the Lord Mayor of Belfast, political parties, local community activists, writers, solidarity and women’s groups and organisations.

Other supporters include: Slugger, The Irish Football Association’s community relations office, The Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign, The Blanket online magazine, Sai Pak Chinese community group, Amnesty International, STEP, International Voluntary Service NI, the Inland Revenue (Northern Ireland) Branch of the Public and Commercial Services Union, Tools for Solidarity, NUS/USI, the Duncrun Cultural Initiative, the Fountain Men’s Group, L/Derry, the Fountain Youth Club, L/Derry, and the Rasharkin Women’s Group, North Antrim, wish to support the rally against racism on the 30th October.

He asked 71 staff members what they thought of the 'operation' and found that only 13 "thought it a legitimate and worthwhile exercise" while 44 were firmly against it. Comments given by staff included the astute observation that "intervention in the democratic processes of another country was not 'legitimate newspaper behaviour'" - as well as being "arrogant and self-aggrandising".

He also noted the number of critical emails - 5000 of which only 1 in 10 voiced support - but claims that "It was clear that a 'spamming' campaign was involved." (The blogosphere's response to the 'operation' was previously posted here.)

His own view appears to be that the "use of the voters' list" was "intrusive" and that The Guardian had "sought to intervene in the US election, with unpredictable consequences."

However, despite his statement of intent as Readers' Editor, he stops short of making any recommendations and, instead, ends with a defence of the 'operation', as given by the editor of the Guardian, citing a "sense of impotence" which "many felt" in the face of "a crucialy important election". Well, that's all right then.

According to the report, "Any prize money would ruin the concept. You would get amateur actors in pretending to be culchies, and that, according to the locals, would be very wrong."

There may be a serious point hidden behind the image of "bedraggled men between 21 and 61 [being] herded with sticks on to a cattle trailer. The men - in bad wigs, badly fitting jackets and the occasional cowboy hat - stamped their wellington boots until the trailer swayed in the wind".

As the report says -

"The term, which came from the remote townland Coillte Mach in County Mayo, has come to mean a rural Irish person, anyone from outside Dublin. But it has morphed, say the culchies, into an insult, shorthand for thick "muck savage", or "bogman" - the opposite to the sly city boys of Dublin they call "Jackeens". There is some bad feeling at the festival that the word culchie has found its way into the Oxford English dictionary defined as "country bumpkin."

The city-country divide in Ireland is growing and the landscape is changing. Across the fields and hills, old stone cottages are crumbling into mossy graves while canary-yellow and pastel-pink Southfork-style houses spring up, with vast front lawns and inventive stone cladding.

Ireland is one of the most centralised countries in Europe, with more than one third of its 4 million population living in Dublin. A small farmer in the west of Ireland might not have noticed the Celtic Tiger boom as they take on part-time jobs to keep afloat."

However the final word should go to John B Keane, the Kerry writer whose play inspired the film The Field.

He defined a culchie as anyone who could walk confidently across a freshly pastured field and not put his foot in a cowpat.

If the proposed EU constitution is adopted, it will not matter what Mr Buttiglione, or anyone else, thinks. Most areas of morality and fundamental policy would no longer be amenable to democratic decision making; they are dictated in the text of the constitution. US states will be freer than EU member states to legislate as their populations see fit. US states can decide, for example, whether to have the death penalty. The new EU constitution says: "No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed."

Via Conservative Commentary.