22 Mar · Wed 2006
Snippet from today's budget speech
You could tell me that the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, reads my blog (specifically this post) but I wouldn't believe you.
Here's what I spotted in today's budget speech:
"This is the first budget since the attacks and tragedies of July 7th, a day when the nation stood as one against terrorism.
We will never forget those who lost their lives and those who were injured.
And today we are allocating funds towards a memorial that will reflect the wishes of the victim's families.
And we will support with an initial endowment of £1 million the creation of a new charitable fund to support British citizens injured in or affected by terrorist acts at home and abroad."
Gosh. A million pounds. It sounds like a lot. This still raises the question: why should this require the establishment of a charity endowment fund, separate from the existing compensation mechanisms operated by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) or the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority?
The CICA's website divulges that they "receive around 65,000 applications for compensation each year and spend nearly £200 million each year in compensation payments". Neither their website nor their Press officer will say how they are funded, which is a little strange, but presumably both they and the DWP's scheme are funded out of taxes, rather than depending on charitable donations.
I hope Mr Brown is able to get a decent return on his million pounds. If he invested it at a typical interest rate of 4.6%, he could earn around £46,000 a year with which to fund any compensation claims.
On reflection, I have this recommendation for Britons abroad; if you see an unattended bag or package, leave it well alone: £46,000 isn't going to go very far.
130-mile canoe race... a training update
As many of you will have seen from my blog side-bar and this recent entry, my daughter will soon be taking part in a 130-mile canoe race over 3 1/2 days.
I've already received a number of very generous offers of sponsorship, for which many many thanks to the individuals concerned. All funds raised by her school's competing crews will go to the charity "Facing Africa", which is working to prevent Noma, a disfiguring and frequently fatal disease. Noma can be successfully treated with normal antibiotics and dietary rehabilitation; that's not the hard part. The hard part is funding the work, so please do help if you can. (I'm currently taking email pledges to my email address: robin dot wilton at sun dot com , and we'll work out convenient payment mechanisms after the event).
A quick update on training progress: on Sunday, Anna and her training partner competed in their first real, public race, "Waterside C", which is one of the annual preparatory events for the Devizes to Westminster race itself. "Waterside C" is 23 miles of paddling, with 35 portages (carrying the canoe around locks on the canal).
Unlike the later states of the Devizes to Westminster race, this stretch (which makes up most of Day One) is entirely on the canal... so there's no current to help them along. It also includes a couple of hundred yards paddling in a completely dark tunnel. On Sunday the temperature at the start was below 2deg C (about 35deg Fahrenheit) and there was significant wind chill from the (seemingly permanent) north-easterly wind. 174 boats entered the race; 164 finished.
I am delighted to say that Anna and Lorna were not only among the finishers, but they scored the 5th-fastest time in their class, and were the second-fastest of the junior crews in that class. An amazing achievement, given they have never paddled this far before. I can't tell you how happy we were to see them finish.
They were out on the canal again yesterday (same cold temperature, same wretched easterly wind...) for another 12 miles-worth. What's next? This weekend they will be on the Thames, doing a 26-mile stretch from Marlow to Shepperton. If you're on the riverbank and you see some red two-person canoes going past, give them a cheer and a wave...! And please keep those sponsorship pledges coming in. Thank you.
Posted by racingsnake
@ 01:26 PM GMT+00:00
Imminent changes to UK 'Computer Misuse' laws
Much has been made of the way in which recent UK legislation threatens to 'change the relationship between the citizen and the state' --- for example, relating to compulsory registration in the National Identity Register, the obligation to be issued with a national ID Card, measures which tend to undermine the presumption of innocence, restriction of the right to trial by jury, and so on. I've also commented previously on the extent to which 'intent' is now being used in deciding whether or not something is illegal, without a criminal act actually having been committed. I think that is a similarly worying development.
The upcoming Police and Justice Bill appears to be another brick in that wall, link in the chain or [insert appropriate metaphor here].
As this article on The Register notes, aspects of the Bill which ought to arouse our concern include:
# Provision for specific technologies (optimistically labelled as 'hacker tools') to be outlawed... for instance, the law does not appear to distinguish between something which could be used to mount a DoS attack and something which could be used to stress-test a network interface. The rate at which legislation can be passed and the rate at which technology develops seem to me to be so dissimilar that I question how sensible it is to frame legislation in terms of technology rather than behaviour. Would it not be more sensible to legislate against the inappropriate use of technology rather than the technology itself? One might as well try and legislate against the possession of matches, or superglue.
# Provision for the police to require advance details of the name, date of birth and nationality of passengers on journeys internal to the UK. This strikes me as very strange. First, the law enforcers are a third party in this sense, being neither the passenger nor the transport company; second, what would justify the disclosure (in advance) of passengers who, by definition, haven't done anything wrong; third, this appears to legalise exactly the kind of "fishing" request which is explicitly forbidden by the Data Protection Act (1998).
I have to confess, I have not read the whole Bill yet, only some sections and reports about it (on the other hand, commentators like The Register and The Guardian usually get it right...). I sincerely hope that, should I find time to read the whole Bill, I will find that it is better conceived than those reports suggest.
Of course, the tricky part of legislating for 'behaviour' rather than 'technology' is that you have to be clear what behaviour you're legislating against. On inspection, the Bill actually says that 'intent' is enough... 'behaviour' is not required: if you read the extract below, from the section on Police Powers, you will see that 'a prohibited article' is defined as one which someone intends to use in the commission of a criminal act. So I was wrong: they are legislating against matches and superglue, and presumably it is up to the possessor to prove that they have them for innocent purposes.
Which is kind of where I came in.
(1)
Subject to subsection (2) below, a constable may search—
(a)
any person, vehicle or aircraft in an aerodrome, or
(b)
anything which is in or on such a vehicle or aircraft,
for stolen or prohibited articles.
(2)
This section does not give a constable power to search a person, vehicle
or aircraft, or anything in or on a vehicle or aircraft, unless he has
reasonable grounds for suspecting that he will find stolen or prohibited
articles.
(3)
For the purposes of exercising the power conferred by subsection (1)
above, a constable may—
(a)
enter any part of an aerodrome;
(b)
detain a person, vehicle or aircraft;
(c)
board an aircraft.
(4)
If in the course of a search under subsection (1) above a constable
discovers an article which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to
be a stolen or prohibited article, he may seize it.
(5)
An article is prohibited for the purposes of this section if it is an
article—
(a)
made or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with
criminal conduct, or
(b)
intended by the person having it with him for such use by him
or by some other person.
Posted by racingsnake
@ 09:53 AM GMT+00:00
- Blogroll
- Alan Mather
- Alec Muffett
- Bill Vass
- Bill Walker
- Burningbird
- CPO - Michelle Dennedy
- Conor Cahill... has an opinion or two
- Consult Hyperion
- Don't Panic - Trust blog
- Eric Mahe
- Eve Maler
- Geoff Arnold
- Gerry Beuchelt
- Greg Matters
- Hubert Le Van Gong
- Ideal Government
- John Sandell's Photography
- Kim Cameron
- Lauren Wood
- Ludovic Poitou
- Mark Dixon
- Masood Mortazavi
- Monkchips - James Governor
- New Drew...
- Oz Yigit's brainstorms
-
POSIWID
- Paul Walker's Getting His Coat...
- Peter Davis
- PlanetIdentity
- Stefan Brands
- Superpat
- Tatsuo-san
- Tim Bray
- Toby Stevens
- Tom Gordon
- Vikram Kumar (NZ)
- Wayne Horkan's eclectic
![[RSS Newsfeed]](/themes/sotto/images/valid-rss.png)
![[This is a Roller site]](/themes/sotto/images/roller-logo.gif){kind=logo}