My g***** s*** is b***** than t*** and other legal rulings

If you've ever stood on the terraces of a football ground (although sitting is now the default position at many grounds) you will have heard a variety of chants.

• Some question the marital status of the official in the middle's parent on the occassion of his conception
• Some question the sexual preferences, or orientation of certain players, their WAGs or BAH*s
• Some question the ability of players to perform at a standard greater than an elderly female relative
• Some question the real estate value of stadium fans are visiting and believe larger accomadation could be found at the nearby garden centre
• Some also question the visual health or mental health of any of the officials

If you've ever been to a game you will quickly work out just which chants go with just which of the comments above.

All of these are of course a fiction, at least they are intended to be.

It is possible that some of the officials were born out of wedlock. Some of the players with their WAGs and certainly with their BAHs may engage in anal sex. Somebody's granny may well be an international standard player and better than some poor guy on display that day. Your garden shed may well be bigger than the stadium your Lordship. Maybe the ref should have checked out the 2 for 1 offer at a well known optometrist, or read the rule changes for this season in some greater detail.

However, never once have I heard of a footballer or an official suing a fan because of announcing these fictions to the world. Strange then that a player is suing Twitter and other persons unnamed for breaking the super injunction(s) that was(ere) set up to protect the names of player(s) that may have had an affair with Imogen Thomas (and or other misdemeanours).

Since when has having an affair been such a matter of national security that the press should be stopped reporting it. When has cheating on your wife or partner with someone else meant that you could hide behind a judges gown (propably another super injunction there). If even John Perfumo can't get away with it nor should anyone else, it is not a matter of national security merely a wealthy person being able to stop his wife/partner from finding out he is a cheating scum.

If the wife/partner takes scissors to the players wardrobe, or throw his clothes out unto the street for his infidelities a judge is likely to say, "You had it coming, didn't you?". So is the case for trying to hide his miscreants behind a super injunction. I'm hoping the judge ruling on this case will notice the impossibility of stopping anyone hiding something this quasi public from everyone with a computer. That super injuctions even prevent the other party on occassion from even talking about what they are up to with trusted friends.

* This relies on the sexual orientation being proven correct and there actually being a gay player on the pitch with a Boyfriend and Husband on the pitch. This may be subject to a super injunction for all I know. For all the non-outness of the top leagues it may well be.

It's Friday...it's Queen in Ireland

Of course all this talk of the Queen being in Ireland ignores the Queen visit of 25 years ago. On that occasion Queen appeared to many thousands of people.



You'd have thought from the news coverage that Royalty was a rarity to visit Ireland not to that little corner of Meath they aren't. In 2003 some Queens of the Stone Age were unearthed in Meath in May.



Then next weekend their majesties the Kings of Leon will be making their stately progress to Slane Castle, Co. Meath.



Parts two and three of this performance are available here.

My apologies if I have her Britannic Majesty and her heirs and forebears mixed up with a bunch of men with guitars, drums and large amounts of amplification equipment.

Dear Confused Chris Bryant

I read today that Chris Bryant is wading into the issue of Civil Partnerships in religious buildings. However, he seems to be wading in with ignorance and getting caught up in some quick sand.

Now as a Liberal Democrat I believe that no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity so let me release the Labour MP from his ignorance induced slavery.

The consultation that has gone out, allows the religious symbols that are embedded in a religious building to remain in place, it does not allow them to be used in the civil partnership ceremony. 3.23 of the consultation paper page 31.

Bryant thinks the use of the 'hymn' Jerusalem would be allowed in a civil partnership in a religious building, read on to section 3.24 (page 32).

• The ban on the use of religious service while a civil partnership is being
  registered will remain in place as removing it was not the intention of this
  provision in section 202 of the Act.
• A religious service, clearly distinct from the civil partnership registration,
  would be able to take place as agreed between the registrar, couple and
  minister of the religious premises.

So there has to be a clear distinction. The minister or religious celebrant cannot take part in the civil partnership registration, nor the registrar in the religious element. See what section 3.25 says:

It is currently possible for couples to have a religious service to celebrate or mark the formation of their civil partnership. What is new under these proposals is the scope to hold the registration itself on the same – religious – premises. We expect that the religious service will take place after the civil partnership registration to celebrate its formation. This will ensure that there is a clear break between the civil and religious elements and will allow the civil partnership registrar the time to establish in advance of the proceedings whether there is any reason why the registration cannot proceed. The exact details of the ceremony will be a matter for the couple to discuss and agree with the civil partnership registrar and minister leading the religious celebration. The service following the registration could be led by the minister of religion, include readings from religious texts, the singing of hymns or other religious chants; in short, all those religious elements that must not take place during the registration itself.

So therefore there will be a separate service in a place of worship after the registration. It can happen in the same building. Now of course there are a group of heterosexual couples who may have a civil marriage and then a religious blessing. These are normally people who are divorced marrying another partner. Their marriage in a place of worship is not banned by civil law, look at Princess Anne getting remarried in Grathie Church near Balmoral as an example, but by canon law as laid out in the Church of England as the prime example.

Where the difference lies is that where a religious group want to allow a religious same-sex marriage with the interlinking of the legal necessities and the religious elements as with all religious marriages that is not possible. That is where the House of Commons can provide enabling legislation to allow that to occur. That is where religious groups that wish to do so can be freed to provide the service that some same sex couples of faith would desire.

We'd rather be led by aristocats

Everyone on has them the Uncle or Aunt you really want to lock away at parties, preferable not in the same room as your storing the booze. The Duchess of Cambridge had hers on best behaviour at her wedding, the Duke managed to keep his Aunt well out of the way, although her daughters' headware almost stole the show, thankfully saved by his new sister-in-law's derrière.

Well today it is the turn of Sir William Dugdale 2nd Baronet the maternal uncle of another attendee at that wedding the Prime Minister.Today he is telling the Telegraph that the people prefer to be led by an aristocrat. After all as a friend pointed out cats are developing opposable thumbs.

"The thing is, and the Labour Party underestimate it, but, if you ask the working classes who they want to lead them, they prefer to be led by a duke.

"I know it’s an unpopular thing to say these days, however I have learnt this from my own experience."

He was launching his own memoirs, Settling the Bill, and probably was chairman during Jasper Carrott's nadir years as a Birmingham City supporter of cross city rivals Villa. Of course Ron Saunders who had led Villa most of the way there resigned in February 1982 mere months before Villa lifted the European Cup for the only time due to a disagreement with the Club about his salary. Clearly he didn't like being led by a particular aristocat.

Sir William further says that his nephew shouldn't be ashamed of his association with the white ties and tails of the Bullington Club, of which Sir William himself, despite also being an Old Etonian wasn't invited. What he did do instead was join protests with Bullington members....against the Trade Unions.

Yeah you heard it there right. The man advocating that the working classed should be led by a Duke was making war against the labour movement that had fought to give them some rights that had been lacking for centuries if not millennia.

Probably the 2nd Baronet is biting out against the Lord's Reform Bill.

By the way the last time the UK was lead by a Duke was 34 days in 1834 when the Duke of Wellington was the provisional leader of his second brief stint.

Céimeanna ar ais i iontas (Trans. Steps Back in Amazement)

The Queen opened her Speech in Dublin Castle on Wednesday night with the words "A Úachtaráin agus a cairde (President and friends)"

Well it appears that one politician in attendance has followed her example and somewhat shockingly it the DUP First Minister Peter Robinson. He said "Sin é*", meaning "That's it" at a press conference after the first meeting of the new Northern Ireland Executive.

Maybe there are hidden depths to our First Minister that none of us new about before.

Slán Peter. Maith thú.

* A correction from the Belfast Telegraph making it one word and no fada on the e, and thanks to Michael for correcting my SPG in the comments

Garret Fitzgerald 1925 - 2011

Garret Fitzgerald 1925-2011

When I was growing up there were two men who dominated the political scene in the Republic of Ireland Fianna Fáil's Charles Haughey and Fine Gael's Garret Fitzgerald.

Garret was the Taoiseach that set up the New Ireland Forum in 1983 which although rejected outright by Margaret Thatcher led on the path to what would that eventually led to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Fitzgerald had previously played a part in the 1970s Sunningdale Agreement as well.

For the formative political awakenings of a Northern Irish born politician like myself these were the events that would separate the course of someone's political future for years to come. One would either as the Unionist MPs did in 1985 resign en masse at the move to a reconciliation across the island of Ireland started it seemed by the Republic, or been seen as a step towards putting the last 60 years of division and tension into a working framework.

Fitzgerald was a second generation senior Irish politician his father Desmond being the first Minister for External Affairs in the newly independent state. Although his father was London-born and raised and his mother Mary Washington McConnell was actually of Ulster Protestant descent, despite being an ardent nationalist and republican herself.

The son would eventually succeed as Minister of Foreign Affairs in the 70s before twice serving as Taoiseach in the 80s. He served as an elected Teachta Dála (TD) from 1969-1992, having previously served in the Seannad Éireann from 1965. However, he proved his liberal qualities not just by his response to the Northern Ireland question but also in taking on divorce (he failed to introduce through a referendum defeat) and contraception (where he was successful). However, a Pro-Life Amendment stating to recognise the 'Right to Life of the Unborn, with due regard to the Equal Right to Life of the Mother' was added to the Irish Constitution via another referendum against his advice.

After his retirement from 'politics' he was involved in both the Treaties of Nice and Lisbon. Wrote a weekly Saturday column for the Irish Times and was on the board on directors of Election.com which held the world's first public online election in 2000 for the Arizona Democratic Primary won by Al Gore with voter turnout up 500% on 1996.

He had taken ill earlier this month and was rushed to hospital in Dublin and placed on a ventilator. The fact that the man who set in motion the reconciliation between North and South should die while a UK Sovereign is present on Irish soil, the day after she made her historic speech in Dublin Castle may well have been because his life's work is completed. He always lived in the hope of progressive change, and did what he could to bring it about where he could.

Garret Fitzgerald 9 February 1926 – 19 May 2011

A closer look at the draft House of Lords Reform Bill

Since I blogged earlier about the draft House of Lord Reform Bill I've decided to look further into it.

First of all is what was said in the programme for government:

"We will establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation. The committee will come forward with a draft motion by December 2010. It is likely that this will advocate single long terms of office. It is also likely there will be a grandfathering system for current Peers."

The committee met 7 times from June to December, reached agreement on a large number of issues, but differences in opinion remain on the size of the elected element and the type of electoral system.

So it is those two differences which may seem minor but are quite major as far as laying out primary legislation goes. The draft Bill is laying out that 80% of the second chamber be elected (this is in line with Conservative thinking) but leaves open the scrutiny of an 100% elected chamber in line with the coalition agreement (and indeed the Liberal Democrat manifesto). The system used for elected that system is laid out as Single Transferable Vote (in line with Lib Dem manifesto) but allows for scrutiny of other electoral systems such as a open list system (which the Conservatives and indeed Labour may well prefer).

The electoral system dilemma

 Looking at the electoral system first. STV electing multiple members in a constituency allows the people to choose on their preferences by their own preferences. Bearing in mind that some of the people who prefer the open list system said that they thought AV was a complex system, clearly don't understand how much more complex the open list is.

AV has one quota, 50% of the valid votes in whichever round you are in. There are two quotas in the open list. The first is the quota for acquiring a seat in that constituency. This will determine how many quotas and therefore seats are gained by each party.

The second is the quota within the list, this is first ranked by the party, but then there is a quota for the number of first preferences within that list. Any candidate who personally gains that number of preferences will be elected. If the number of seats are not filled then the empty seats will be filled by order on the list.

Let's say that this party secures 5,000 votes, the quota is 1,000 vote so therefore they secure 5 seats. Say the requirement for being elected off the list is 25% of a quota or else 25 votes.

• Candidate #1 3,500
• Candidate #2 65
• Candidate #3 75
• Candidate #4 450
• Candidate #5 175
• Candidate #6 200
• Candidate #7 350
• Candidate #8 35

Candidates 1,4 and 7 are elected from the list. Candidates 6 and 5 have the next highest first preferences but because they FAILED to  reach the quota it is back to the ordering of the list. Therefore candidates 2 and 3 fill up the remaining seats.

Therefore if the open list system is adopted at the behest of the people who told you AV would let losers into Westminster via a too complex system you will see just what hypocrites they are. STV is the system that like AV leaves the real, indeed only power, in the hands of the voters. Even bigger losers could get elected under an open list system, someone might actually hypothetically get no votes on the open list yet because of their placing by the party still get elected.

The size of the elected element

The number is set at 300 members (plus instead of 26 just 12 ex officio Lords Spiritual). However, whether that 300 is fully elected of just 240 of them are is an important issue. If the latter there are 20 seats that are up for appointment by the Prime Minister at the time of each election (bear in mind both the election to the 'Lords' and the Commons will be occuring at the same time). It may not sound like much until you think if one party wins each of the three elections that make up the terms. They would have, persumably a majority of the elected 2nd chamber and then have the appointments as well. It could well give the push over the 50% majority of seats in the second chamber, those extra 60 seats, that would be harder to achieve under a purely proportional system without any remaining appointments.

It is clear therefore that both the systems preferred by the Conservatives are actually the parties trying once again to grasp and retain as much power as they think they can get away with. Appearing to be progressive at one hand but giving themselves just enough retention of control to get who they want into the 2nd chamber.

Complementing the House of Commons

There is a section in the draft bill that talk about the second chamber complimenting the House of Commons, still deemed to be the primary chamber that the second chamber.

It says:

• A long term for members of three normal Parliaments;
• A single non-renewable term;
• An appointed element (in an 80% elected House of Lords)
• A different voting system for elections to the reformed House of Lords from that used for elections to the House of Commons.

Whoa!! I've just spotted something. That final phrase in a bill that comes to life after the AV referendum for the House of Commons. Remember the No 2 AV team tried to persuade some people, like the Unionist Parties here or some PR supporters that if they vote no to AV they are saying yes to PR. This Bill would seem to rule out the same sort of PR at any point in the future for the two houses.

This means that if we get STV for the second chamber you can wave that goodbye for the Commons. That is not what the Lib Dems, Alliance, SDLP, Sinn Féin or certain Unionist parties stood for in the Westminster elections. Nor is it why those parties supported the AV referendum. Failed though it may have been they have all said they will carry on the fight for reform.

More thoughts to come perhaps

There are 174 pages of the proposed Bill, but just are just some of my initial thoughts....for now.