Blogged elsewhere: Condemnation of desecration of Derry wreathes to city's and family dead

The war memorial in the diamond in Londonderry/Derry has personal significance to me as one of my Great-Great Uncle's names appears on the south eastern face. He was killed on the second day of the first 1918 Battle of the Somme. The Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers with whom he was serving reported heavy losses on the first day, his death is recorded as on the second say of action of that spring offensive.

The Irish regiments were a mix of men of protestant and catholic background. Indeed looking through the list of names of fellow Inniskilling Fusiliers who died in that 15 day offensive there is a balanced mix, even on the memorial in the Diamond. Indeed in that battle the 36th (Ulster) Division and 16th (Irish) Division into which the Inniskilling's battalions were split were the two heaviest losses in that campaign with 7310 and 7149 men falling respectively.

Read full article on Liberal Democrats in Northern Ireland

Poke me by the name I call myself Facebook

Have you seen Fahrid Abraham acting. Or have you heard of the exploits of John Hoover or read the books of Francis Fitzgerald. You may well have but until Ahmed Rushdie suddenly found his Facebook page blocked as it wasn't using his real name then there were issues. He raised the issue with them listing the three gents above as examples of why the policy didn't make sense*. No doubt Clive Lewis or Joanne Murray would have considering some witchcraft was afoot.

You see none of the above famous people use their first given name, just like our last Prime Minister James Brown. But the same applies to people who are not famous. My mother uses he second given name. Her uncle did with the family but not in the Forces so his funeral was an interesting combination of those who knew him as Cecil (family) and David almost everyone else. My brother is not alone in the Jonathan's I know who use Facebook as Johnny, indeed we very rarely refer to him as anything else, even on birthday and Christmas cards these days. My late father was Roy despite never having that name on his birth certificate as with many others who shorten or take a nick name.

Of course if Facebook insisted that our kings took their real names we would have ended up since Victoria with Albert I, George V, Edward VII, Albert II, Elizabeth II.

The policy that only real names should be used seems in the case of Rushdie to be as slap stick as an Arthur and Norvell scene. The award winning author, for it is he, first had his Facebook page blocked as they did not believe it was him. So he sent a photocopy of his passport picture and details to prove it was the real knight of the realm. Only for Facebook to reactivate the page as Ahmed Rushdie despite the world knowing him by his second given name, maybe they should have been in charge at the height of the fatwa against the writer.

All I can say it is a good job that Rushdie got this sorted out or else we'd have to send Jeremy Ashdown around to sort them out, he is a trained killer after all.

* For the record these gents are F. Murray Abraham, J. Edgar Hoover, F. Scott Fitzgerald and Salman Rushie. Plus C.S. Lewis and J.K. Rowling. The Prime Minister of course in J. Gordon Brown and Arthur and Norvell are better known as Stan and Ollie, Laurel and Hardy. Jeremy Ashdown of course is Paddy.

Prison reform should be free of partisan political control and Robinson threats

The First Minister Peter Robinson seems to think that throwing his toys out of the pram is the way to go to enable an inclusive prison service in  Northern Ireland. The issue arose in the debate on the Prison Review: Final Report at Stormont yesterday. The thing that seems to concern him most is the issue of the emblems used by the Northern Ireland Prison Service and most noticeably on the sign for the prisons themselves.

The Justice Minister, David Ford made remarks in his summation particularly in response to Jim Allister of Traditional Unionist Voice who had earlier said:

We also know that the reform of policing involved a name change. Are we going to have a name change of the prisons? Are they no longer going to be Her Majesty’s prisons? Perhaps the Minister, in replying, will confirm to us most robustly that that will not happen. I will listen with interest to see whether he does. Like the reform of policing, is the badge of the Prison Service to be changed? Is the crown to go? Let us hear from the Minister a robust denial that that will be any part of the agenda. When we read that the reform of the Prison Service must be like the reform of policing, alarm bells ring very loudly indeed. We wait with interest to see whether that is part of the machinations that are afoot.

The Minister's response to that particular issue and the interruption is recorded in Hansard as follows:

Mr Ford: Jim Allister referred to some extent to symbols and titles as they apply to the Prison Service. Those are operational issues for the Prison Service, but I believe that if NIPS is serious about fundamental and end-to-end structural and cultural reform, it cannot fail to consider the symbols and emblems that are visible signs of the organisation’s culture and focus. That is one of a range of operational issues that I will be expecting NIPS to consider as part of the change process over the coming months. NIPS has to deliver a transformation of its culture and it cannot move forward unless it addresses those sorts of issues along with others relating to staffing and estates, and so on.
Mr Allister: So that we are absolutely clear, is the Minister saying that he anticipates an end to our prisons being called “Her Majesty’s prisons” and that he anticipates an end to the crown being part of the symbol of the Prison Service? Will he be clear on that? If he is saying those things, I want to tell him that there are many in the unionist community who will be appalled at the direction in which he is taking us.
Mr Ford: I think that it is a pity that we are getting hung up on symbols. It is the only issue that anybody has wanted to intervene on during my speech this afternoon. I said that we are looking at a process of fundamental and end-to-end reform that will affect every part of the working of the Prison Service and its culture. In those circumstances, although these issues are operational matters for the Prison Service, it has to consider them as it looks for the appropriate way to run in the years ahead.

It was indeed rather telling that people who talk the talk of being inclusive (Mr Allister excepted) decided that symbols were so important, with the First Minister deciding today that he is even prepared to resign over the issue and force an election.

This ignores the fact that as can been seen at the top the Northern Ireland Prison Service already have adopted a post-devolution emblem that doesn't include the crown or the Queen's moniker. This isn't a new issue as the emblems have been moving forward anyway. Of course when the RUC (GC) was rebranded as the PSNI this all took place before policing and justice was devolved. But I turn once again to The Belfast Agreement which contains the following statement on policing and justice (emphasis mine):

The participants believe it essential that policing structures and arrangements are such that the police service is professional, effective and efficient, fair and impartial, free from partisan political control; accountable, both under the law for its actions and to the community it serves; representative of the society it polices, and operates within a coherent and co-operative criminal justice system, which conforms with human rights norms. The participants also believe that those structures and arrangements must be capable of maintaining law and order including responding effectively to crime and to any terrorist threat and to public order problems. A police service which cannot do so will fail to win public confidence and acceptance. They believe that any such structures and arrangements should be capable of delivering a policing service, in constructive and inclusive partnerships with the community at all levels, and with the maximum delegation of authority and responsibility, consistent with the foregoing principles. These arrangements should be based on principles of protection of human rights and professional integrity and should be unambiguously accepted and actively supported by the entire community.

We as a country need to acknowledge that some of the clinging to past emblems and structures is partisan politics, is not going to he acceptable to the entire community. It does not mean that we totally forget the past, but that we move on to a future that is truly shared.

Maybe it is time for Mr Robinson to get this into perspective and look at the main thrust of the final report and the crux of the issues that prison reforms need in Northern Ireland rather than focus on the cosmetics.

Response from the office of Mark Garnier regarding wreath laying

Further to my response to the Conservative Home post by Tim Montgomerie, "Please tell us that Conservatives don't do this", in which I took the first picture that appeared in a Google Images search.

I have since received a phone call and this follow up email from Mark Garnier's office. as promised I am printing the response in full.

Dear Stephen, Further to our conversation earlier I would like to confirm that the photo currently on your Liberal Journal was taken in November 2009 when Mark Garnier was a Parliamentary Candidate for Wyre Forest Conservatives. He laid his wreath as a representative of the local the Conservative Association, hence why it bears the Conservative logo. The image can still be found on Mark’s website here and here. This year Mark visited St Anne’s Church in Bewdley where he laid a wreath paying tribute to those in Wyre Forest who have died, and been wounded, whilst serving in the armed forces. The wreath held the portcullis symbol to represent Mark’s role as the Member of Parliament. He sympathises with the view that MPs should not be party political about Remembrance Sunday.” It would be great if you wanted to replace your previous blog with this. Thank you for your understanding, Best wishes, Teresa Teresa FitzherbertParliamentary Researcher Office of Mark Garnier MPMember of Parliament for Wyre ForestHouse of Commons

I wish to apologise to Mark Garnier for mistakenly implying that the picture was taken this year. Having found it through the first of the above links where there is no date stamp on the page I made an honest mistake. Although I have not replaced the previous blog post I have updated it to point to this blog post, as it acts as a reminder to both Tim Montgomerie of the Conservatives and Jessica Asato of Labour to check how clean their own houses are before saber rattling over such a sensitive issue on such a sensitive day. 

However, I will leave one comment that I hope clarifies the issue from a Tory commentator on the original post.

I was fairly disturbed by this story, so imagine my horror when I walked passed our local War Memorial this morning en route to my office to see our own wreath emblazoned with the Conservative logo.

I immediately phoned my local Chairman who had organised and laid the wreath to ask why we had done this. Apparently, when he called the Royal British Legion in Maidstone who manufacture and dispatch the wreaths, he was asked, "do you want the usual wreath ordered by political parties?" to which he replied "yes". When the wreath arrived, the logo had been pre printed by the RBL.

I have subsequently circulated a note to the three Associations I advise as agent suggesting that in future plain wreaths should be ordered to avoid any accusation of us politicising Remembrance Day. However, this issue might not be as clear cut as it first appears.

Looking at the Royal British legion website a wreath with just such a personalised logo is actually one of either the top two donations via wreath purchase to the cause. So maybe we should also accept that like regiments, Scout or Boy Brigade groups or whatever organisation that Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat local organisations also lost members in one or other or both of the World Wars. 

L, the U and Everything: A-Z of the Music I have I is for...

When it comes to the letter I there can really only be one band that takes the honour in my record collection. Back in the early 80s an Australian penfriend told me to look out for this band. So I regularly checked the local independent record store Musique to see if they had any of their releases. When they appeared LP, 7" or 12" single I bought them. I have quite a large vinyl collection from this band, even before a fateful day on 13 July 1985. That was the day that with the world watching they represented Australia on Live Aid. Here is one of those early pre overnight success records.

Let Tories without sin cast the first wreath

Please also read this update with a response from Mark Garnier on this issue.

There had been a lot of outrage from Tories about what a wreath of remembrance apparently laid by a Lib Dem with the logo of the party in the middle. Earlier when this outrage started I did a quick google search and screen grab.

As you can see it was from the website of Mark Garnier Conservative MP for Wyre Valley. If you look in the middle of his wreath you can make out a logo. Here is the close up.

The picture also included John Holden the Conservative Mayor of Kidderminster Council and his fellow Mitton Ward Conservative Councillor Michael Salter.

Once I raised this picture with some high profile Tories it has since been removed from the Tory MP's website.

I don't approve of any party using the wreath they lay as a party political statement. I understand that they are they to lay wreathes on behalf of all the constituents that have died in war and are there as civic leaders in our communities. But the politicising of the laying of wreathes this year has added a sour taste to what today should be; a day of remembrance. But it appears that no party is totally blameless, so led us learn the lesson for the next act of remembrance.

Update Monday 16:20 I have just been contacted by Mark Garnier's office who have informed me that this was a picture from 2009 when he was merely the Parliamentary Spokesperson and not the MP. I have offered him a right of reply which I will publish here as soon as I have received it.

Update 19:00 I have received the email and decided to write it into a separate blog post.

Apparently it is controversial to be "evidence based" #DailyFail

It is with great delight that I link to the is Daily Mail story.

The reason is in the opening line where the Daily Fail say:

"Senior Liberal Democrat MPs have escalated their controversial campaign to force the Government into decriminalising drugs."

The controversy of course is that Tom Brake has laid down parliamentary Early Day Motion 2404 which states:

"That this House notes the serious harm caused by drugs; recognises the need for evidence-based policy making with a clear focus on prevention and harm-reduction; and calls on the Government to establish an independent panel tasked with carrying out an impact assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, reviewing the approach adopted by other countries, and making recommendations for reform."

It calls for an independent review on drug policy, it calls for recommendations to be based on evidence. Yes this may prove controversial as it may very be that evidence suggests that the safest way for drug addicts to get their drugs is through monitored medical sources rather than through street suppliers who mix all sorts of contaminants into their supply in order to get greater value for money. Many of these are more deadly than the  drug use itself, that if proved by evidence may lead to a licensing of certain classes of drugs so that supply and quality can be guaranteed and so that life and support to wean off drugs can be monitored.

It may well lead to a revenue stream for government through licensing of such supply.

But the key element of the so-called controversial proposal is that it is evidence based. With such a knee-jerk response from the Daily Fail the one thing they don't want it the evidence to be looked into carefully as it may shake their world view.