Power Idle
1:18 pm on the 7th of January, 2004It’s been in the news on and off for about a year, I think I have a fair bit to say but I need some time to clarify my scattered opinions about it. I’ll come back here with some more coherant speech soon but for now here’s some links to get you thinking.
oh and Happy New Year.
Martin backers’ law bid ‘to fail’
Today Programme Listeners Choose Their Favourite Law
TV show to put US democracy to the test
January 7th, 2004 at 3:42 pm on the 7th of January, 2004
As much as my cynical soul cannot help but see ‘American candidate’ as another incarnation of the mass money-making, media-controlled phenomenon that is making people enthusiastically pay to choose something that they choose anyway (like in Pop Idol), I can’t help but think that something like this is in fact closer to democracy than multi-million dollar election pots, spin doctors and the rest of it.
January 8th, 2004 at 1:10 am on the 8th of January, 2004
I think there is an important distinction to be made here between daft populist laws and (possibly daft) populist members of parliament. The reason we vote for representatives is to weed out the sort of legislation which is demonstrated in this Radio 4 thing you mention. Of course the daftness of the Tony Martin bill hardly needs any discussion. This is a country which doesn’t support the death penalty, but we’re prepared to afford tooled-up home owners the right to dispatch ultimate justice upon any intruders? And what happens if I just rent the place? Can I still kill him?
Of course I’m not sure how this political idol thing is going to work in Britain, but in principle I can’t see any problem with the show auditioning for a candidate and then funding his or her campaign as an independent in some constituency or other. Chances are the candidate isn’t going to win the seat, and even if he does the likelihood of him passing any zany bills is zero. It’s not as if Simon Callow can just fix it for the winner to become prime minister for four years.
America might be a different story. Certainly it would require a whole big bag load of money but it seems plausible, at least to me, that a publicly chosen candidate could run as an independent and win the presendential election. If you doubt me you just need to remind yourself that Arnie holds the executive office in the state of California.
January 8th, 2004 at 10:01 am on the 8th of January, 2004
The proposed law is daft, but the existing law is a bit misunderstood. Just to prove this, here’s my understanding.
If you have something in your house specifically for self-defence, and you use it on a burgular to kill him (or her), you are guilty of a pre-meditated crime, regardless of whether the self-defence was reasonable or not. But if you use something that just comes to hand, then it comes down to whether you can prove self-defence or not.
Tony Martin, as I understand it, heard burgulars, grabbed his shotgun, snuck downstairs and shot at them. Had he shouted a warning, and they rushed him, he’d have still been guilty of a crime, because who has a gun in their bedroom?
So if you wake up in the middle of the night to discover a burgular with a knife threatening to kill you and your wife/girlfriend if you don’t co-operate, don’t grab the baseball bat under the bed, but use an ornanment or a bedside glass instead.
I’m not saying I support the law per se. Just that as I do know that there is a line an intruder can cross where I happen to think I’m allowed to defend myself. Most people do. The law does. It would appear that the listeners of the today programme believe the law’s line lies behind theirs.
An example of what I think is acceptable. I hear footsteps in our living room. I pick up one of my squash rackets, or my ice axe, (i keep sports and walking gear in the bedroom), before going to investigate. This is to intimidate and protect myself. If i hit and injured any intruder, could i could be charged because i chose to arm myself?
January 11th, 2004 at 8:45 pm on the 11th of January, 2004
Finally I’ve got round to writing something here and now I’m too tired to do it properly, the main things I keep thinking about (in very concise form and with out much explanation to show my view because I’m almost asleep for some reason) are these:
1. If there was a show to choose a candidate and it flopped in the ratings that would probably really damage people faith in the political system,m wouldn’t it?
2. If there was a show to choose a candidate would people just vote for persona and style or would the political outlook come into it, if it didn’t then anyone who voted couldn’t really complain if they were elected and were awful (as they no doubt would be).
3. What would the show be based on, public speaking, debating, answering awkward questions unprepared, talking at great length on a topic they know nothing about?
I think in general I’m against the idea of the show but anything that would actually improve the reputation of the political system can’t really be all too bad a thing can it?
Trackbacks/Pings
Leave a Reply