And For Once, It's Not Racism!

Ace needs a kidney transplant. He's been on the waiting list for two years. But that's not that unusual for a black man.

In fact according to the NHS, black and Asian people have to wait, on average, a year longer than white people for a kidney transplant in England.

Typical, the state's institutions are riddled with institutional racism and...

Oh. Wait!

"I always tell the story of when I was filling out my driver's licence," says 1Xtra's DJ Ace.

"I was 17. I was like, 'Mum, do I fill out this donor bit?' And she was like, 'no, we don't do that'.

"I just took that as gospel. My mum said we don't do it. So we don't do it. I never even questioned why. I don't think it's something that the black community do."

Wait, wait! *gets popcorn* Pray, continue...

In May, Ace's hopes were given a boost. A law change meant every adult in England automatically became a donor, unless they specifically said otherwise.

Do you feel a 'But...' coming on, Reader? I do.

But people are opting out and a lot of them are black and Asian.

Ooh, need more popcorn.

Kinzah is a 24-year-old Muslim and said she removed herself from the organ donation list because of the way she interprets her religion.

Note the phrasing here - the only time the BBC will ever dare to attempt to tell a Muslim they are wrong.

Harpreet Matharu is an organ donation specialist nurse from Birmingham. "I just feel like they've got maybe the wrong message.

"A lot of people are thinking the government are taking control of peoples' organs. That is absolutely not the case."

Oh, it absolutely is the case, Harpreet, no matter how much you stamp your little foot and try to deny reality.

But back to Ace. Has he learned something?

Although Ace admits he hasn't really spoken properly to many of his friends about how they could potentially help him, he is feeling more confident of getting a donor.

That'll be 'no' then.

Opportunism

Jonathan Nunn London-based food writer:

The pandemic offers us an opportunity to shine a light on the less visible reaches of the restaurant ecosystem.

Oh? And what would that be, then?

There are the landlords, whose rents are so extortionate that many restaurants in city centres struggle to break even. The developers who use restaurants like magnets to attract the “right sort” of people in gentrifying areas, transforming swathes of our cities into pseudo-public spaces of boutique restaurants, pushing working-class Londoners further away from their homes. PR companies who ensure that only those establishments that can afford their services get media coverage. Private equity funds that turn restaurants into short-term investments, relentlessly cut costs (and ultimately quality), and fuel the notion that the only way to turn a profit is to rapidly expand.

Ah. Sounds a lot like a litany of the usual suspects' lists of 'enemies' of the glorious socialist revolution, doesn't it?

We, as greedy consumers, have to accept some responsibility.

Yup, the principal enemy always being the people who just won't do as their betters want them to...

Not every fish needs to be ike jime and couriered from Cornwall, or every chicken corn-fed from Fosse Meadows, but we should accept that fish and meat need to be priced higher across the board if those behind the scenes stand a chance of being paid a decent wage.

Is there anything stopping 'those behind the scenes' finding better-paid work, then? What next, a call for unionisation?

As for restaurants themselves, chef Asma Khan tells me the biggest issue is unionisation. “After this,” she says, “our priority should be to create a powerful union that is the voice of the workers, not the owners and investors.”

*sighs*

We are in uncharted waters: the industry has never seen this before, and all signs point to the likelihood that restaurants as we know them aren’t coming back for a while. To move forward, we must start by examining what we would like to save about the industry, giving space to the things that nourish us and our communities, and discarding what we believe doesn’t deserve to survive. After all, the real danger the restaurant industry faces isn’t annihilation – the danger is that it comes back the same as it was before.

I hope it does. Just to annoy grubby little scocialist opportunists like you...

Remember When 'Data Protection' Was All The Rage?

Social media firms such as Facebook and Instagram should be forced to hand over data about who their users are and why they use the sites to reduce suicide among children and young people, psychiatrists have said.

I guess if it's 'For the chiiiiillllldreeeennnnn!' we shouldn't worry that our data is being harvested then?

And who is going to use it?

The college, which represents the UK’s 18,000 psychiatrists, wants the government to make social media platforms hand over the data to academics so that they can study what sort of content users are viewing.

Oh.

Well, giving the sort of people that tell you it's perfectly fine for a man to 'identify' as a woman more data can't be a mistake, can it?

The government plans to set up a new online safety regulator and the college says it should be given the power to compel firms to hand over data. It is also calling for the forthcoming 2% “turnover tax” on social media companies’ income to be extended so that it includes their turnover internationally, not from just the UK.

What's that got to do with mental health? It's just a money grab!

Naturally, other State agencies want their piece of flesh too:

NHS England challenged firms to hand over the sort of information that the college is suggesting. Claire Murdoch, its national director for mental health, said that action was needed “to rein in potentially misleading or harmful online content and behaviours”.

They are talking about data, Claire, not what use they'd put it to. You've just blown their cover.

She said: “If these tech giants really want to be a force for good, put a premium on users’ wellbeing and take their responsibilities seriously, then they should do all they can to help researchers better understand how they operate and the risks posed. Until then, they cannot confidently say whether the good outweighs the bad.”

Crucially, nor can you. And I don't think the jury's in yet on whether the good that the NHS does outweighs the bad, hmmm?

The demands have also been backed by Ian Russell, who has become a campaigner against social media harm since his 14-year-old daughter Molly killed herself in November 2017.

Hard cases used to make bad law. Oh. Wait. They still do.

Just Potty...

Potty training is a parent’s job, according to Amanda Spielman, the head of Ofsted, interviewed earlier this week. It’s such an uncontroversial statement – who could think otherwise?

Ooh, don't tell me, let me guess! Is it a sanctimonious 'Guardian' hack?

Like children who arrive with very little English, potty training arouses great concern among commentators, a signifier of some deeper malaise, but is not a steady or fixed state: children learn quite fast.

These children apparently haven't. Should that not ring alarm bells then?

What does worry a Guardian hack?

Far more intractable are the problems associated with poverty; hunger, insecure housing, punishingly long school days, when both parents are working all the hours they can.

Ah. Of course. Children aren't being toilet trained because there's a lack of 'social justice', Sure. That's plausible.

Most of these potty pronouncers have no direct experience of the state sector, and educated their own children elsewhere.

 Yes, the sort of schools you don't get into if you are born to inadequate parents.

Let’s say for the sake of argument, though, that potty training was uppermost in schools’ minds. A creative approach would start with finding a way to support parents who were struggling, which would be sympathetic, non-judgmental and inclusive.

Because the sympathetic, non-judgmental and inclusive approach has worked so well in the criminal justice system, eh?

...blaming the parents is a political act, about as political as it gets.

I have to concur with Longrider.

Aren't You Forgetting Something?

There's been predictable outrage at the suggestion that new social housing should be made non-smoking:

Simon Clark, of Forest, the smokers' campaign group, said: “Reaching into smokers’ homes takes tobacco control in a new and rather sinister direction.”

Dave Jennings, 71, said he had no plans to stop smoking in his council house.

“It is just nonsense,” he told the Mirror near his home in Poplar, east London. “It is not anyone’s business what I do in my house,” he said.

Non-smoker Gary Brown, 66, said people smoking in their homes was no one’s business but their own.

It's not 'their house'. It belongs to someone else. It belongs to the state. And if you are a social housing tenant you are, literally, living in someone else's house.

What they say goes. It's that simple.

H/T: LegIron via Twitter

Stalingrad? You Should Be So Lucky!

The Mayor has ‘called in’ Greenwich Council’s decision to refuse Rockwell permission to bulldoze buildings near Hope and Anchor Lane.

A call-in means Mr Khan will now act as the planning authority, taking control away from the council.

Funny, I thought he was against allowing developers to build luxury homes in the capital?

Residents were in uproar when Rockwell proposed bulldozing buildings to build 11 blocks of flats, up to 10 storeys tall.

Residents’ groups and campaigners objected to the height, density, and affordability of the scheme, fearing it would set a precedent for future developments. Squeeze singer Glenn Tilbrook was one of many residents who appealed to councillors to throw out the plans last month, claiming it would hinder access to his studio.

I wonder how many of those residents and campaigners and luvvies enthusiastically voted for Khan in the Mayoral election? Joke's on them now!

Chairing the meeting, in which the application was unanimously refused, Cllr Sarah Merrill said: “I think this application in absolutely no way resembles the spirit of the masterplan, in terms of height, massing and design. Some of the design is resemblant of Stalingrad.”

 With the Mayor involved, it's more likely to resemble Islamabad!

The Mayor has also called in a rejected plan for Eynsham Drive in Abbey Wood, which would have a 17-storey tower built at the site of a car wash and pet hospital.

London's high rises will soon be almost as high as its knife crime stats!

Let's Leave It To The State....

...because they are highly trained and skilled, dedicated professionals.

At the time of the child’s death it was difficult to draw a timeline of the child’s medical history partly because a number of different IT systems were involved and Elsie was known by four different combinations of the birth and adopted name.

“No one agency or worker held all the relevant information on this child,” the review said.

/facepalm

In December 2015 Elsie sustained a bruise to her forehead. Scully-Hicks claimed she had fallen as she pulled herself up on a toy kitchen. An adoption review took place at the time and Elsie was seen by her social worker, an adoption social worker and an independent reviewing officer. But the presence of the bruise was not recorded.

Five days later a health professional also saw the bruise but did not share this.

The report said: “The observations and recording of the large bruise to the child’s forehead both by children’s services and health was absent. This resulted in the large bruise becoming ‘invisible’ to professionals and did not form part of building an overall picture of what was happening to the child.”

Can't chalk that one up to 'It was the computers, boss!', can you?

Lance Carver, director of social services at the Vale of Glamorgan council, accepted the findings of the report and apologised for errors in Elsie’s case.

And the people who made those errors?

Carver said no disciplinary actions had been taken against any members of staff as the report did not “indicate that it would be appropriate”.

Do you really need a report to tell you that, then? Are you not capable of judgement, like your woeful staff?

Well, If Ever There Was A Case For 'Gentrification'...

Basildon Council has revealed plans to refurbish Grade II listed Brooke House, opposite the Eastgate Centre, as part of its town centre regeneration strategy.

The authority said it is still drawing up proposals for the building - which will add to work to revamp neighbouring Freedom House and East Walk.

...Basildon would be it!

Andrew Gordon, Labour councillor for Lee Chapel North, grew up in the tower block. He admitted the building needs refurbishing - but said he hopes it will not come at the expense of current tenants.

Mr Gordon said: “We need to sit down with them as a council and find out what it is that they want from the refurbishment.

“It seems as though we are trying to gentrify Basildon, and when I speak to people living and working in the town centre about the regeneration plans for Basildon they seem to be worried about being priced out through rents.

“We can all agree that change needs to happen at Brooke House, but it has to be the right sort of changes.

“It is really important we don’t exclude anyone and consult with the residents.”

If you change the housing, but not the residents, you know what you'll get?

Yup. That's right. You'll get Basildon.

Not The Story It First Appears To Be...

A house builder has claimed it cannot include affordable flats in an otherwise luxury complex despite promising to do so in return for planning approval.

Developer Crest Nicholson South has made an offer of £1.2 million for Brighton and Hove City Council to build cheaper housing elsewhere after claiming it cannot create them as part of a new development in Hove.

But councillors have condemned the move which they say will divide communities and create ghettoisation with less affluent residents all housed away from the richer people.

Booo! Eeeeeevil, greedy developers!

Wait....

...the housebuilder contacted the council in August to say its chosen registered social landlord (RSL) Affinity Sutton had pulled out of the agreement and it could not reach an agreement with under bidder Hyde Housing.

Five other providers also turned down the chance with the Government’s decision to reduce social rents by one per cent for the next four years cited as a reason.

Heh! Seems business isn't going to stump up the cash for the government's barmy ideas.

Planning officers said they could not answer Labour councillor Lloyd Russell-Moyle’s question over why the city council could not step in and take on the management itself and that clarification was needed from housing officers.

Because then, I guess, they'd have to mix with those social tenants, rather than avoid them, let someone else have all the hassle, and boast about how well they've done in glossy council brochures...

Maybe It’s Time The Police Charged You With Wasting Their Time?

A growing number of racist and sexist social media posts by pupils are being reported to police by East Lancashire schools, it has been revealed.

Who’s stupid enough to be wasting police time in this fash… Oh. Of course.

It comes as Norden High School in Rishton said it had called the police four times over separate incidents in recent weeks.

Stand well back! Virtue Signaller coming through!

Norden headteacher Tim Mitchell has branded the behaviour by his students as ‘naïve’ in a letter to parents.

He said: “Clearly within school we block social media sites on school computers as a matter of course, however, current technology dictates that most students have a mobile phone that provides internet access.

“I would like to make it clear that any student found to be responsible for sending or forwarding any inappropriate messages or images will be sanctioned in line with the school’s behaviour policy.

“Similarly mobile phones will be confiscated, material erased and phones will only be released to a parent or carer.

“Where a criminal offence may have occurred details will be passed directly to the police.”

OK, several things spring to mind here.

Firstly, what if they post things at break time? Or on the way to school?

Secondly, what the hell gives you or your staff the right to erase data on a pupil’s property?

And last, so you’ve discovered four criminal offences in the last few weeks? Really?

Police said they had investigated the posts reported to them by Norden High School and that they did not ‘warrant any formal action’.

Ah. Like I figured.

Nor do these odious type believe that they should be given godlike powers over mere children:

Parents of children at a Pendle primary school were also warned this month not to use social media to criticise the school.

In a newsletter to parents Barnoldswick CE Primary School said that legal options will be considered in some cases if comments against the school, headteacher or teaching staff are posted online.

A spokesman said: “Social media websites are being used increasingly to fuel campaigns and complaints against schools, headteachers, school staff and in some cases other parents/pupils.

“Barnoldswick CE Primary School considers the use of social media websites being used in this way as unacceptable.

“In the event that any pupil or parent/carer of the children being educated in Barnoldswick CE Primary School is found to be posting libellous or defamatory comments about school on Facebook or other social network sites, they will be reported to the appropriate ‘report abuse’ section of the network site.”

Want to bet these reports will similarly go nowhere, as they will be judged as not breaching those standards?

What this boils down to is that – despite whinges to the contrary – teachers have far too much time on their hands, and they don’t like criticism that they can’t control.

Well, suck it up! The future’s here. And it’s staying.

Remember, These People Are Professionals…

Not even the letter by Jane Extance warning of harm that could come to members of her family if action wasn’t taken, could spur the department into action.

Calls to social workers went unreturned, visits and meetings were left to “drift” by days and weeks.

Peter Meek was again arrested in September 2011 and was released on bail. A statement from Sarah at the time said that he had threatened to kill her and that he enjoyed beating her up – on this occasion over a computer game.

Within two months Blake was dead, at the time in the care of Peter Meek who should not have been in contact with the family at all because of his existing bail conditions.

That case was also thrown out by Southampton Magistrates Court, days after Blake’s death as Sarah once again refused to support the prosecution. A prosecution breach of Peter’s bail conditions was also discontinued by magistrates.

And it’s quite clear that this is yet another failing by…well, by all concerned.

The Serious Case Review (SCR), which was eventually commissioned to examine the role the authorities played in the circumstances surrounding his death, sets out a list of damning failures that led to the youngster remaining in an environment where he eventually died.

In the first instance a victim of the worst parenting imaginable, but secondly the victim of a systematic failure of care. The report concludes that Blake could have been protected long before his death and that there were too many missed opportunities.

So, what will be the excuse? Lack of resources? It won’t fly.

It goes on: “This was not a case which required particular investigation expertise or determination. Evidence of the abuse and neglect was repeated and explicit.” The violence to which he was exposed was so obvious, even workmen in the Southampton street where Blake lived were so appalled they reported it.

The boy’s grandmother wrote to social workers pleading with them to intervene before it was “too late. But those who had the statutory duty to protect the child from harm failed to see it, and failed and failed and failed.

So reminiscent of so many cases…

Teachers, health workers, police and social workers all failed to either act swiftly enough, or act at all despite a catalogue of warning signs, the report concludes.

What a pity he didn’t have the ‘wrong’ beliefs, though, eh, instead of being too handy with his fists?

A social worker said the nature of the values and beliefs of the English Defence League were "immoral". And she had said the nature of the "offences" the man had committed against the 13-year-old girl when 17 were "immoral".

I guess murder isn’t immoral enough for our ludicrously well-paid public sector leeches to do their job…

Another Survey Result That Will Surprise No-one…

England’s poorest areas are proof of a link between deprivation, litter and crime, according to a survey published on Thursday by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

It claims that poor levels of cleanliness are also associated with increases in low-level crime and social disorder.

Well…yes. If you have an area full of low-level criminals, you'll have an area full of low-level crime.

These people never learned not to shit where they eat, or they'd be a better class of criminal, wouldn't they?

Keep Britain Tidy’s chief executive, Phil Barton, said: “Our earlier research pointed to what we have always instinctively known – that more deprived areas suffer from poorer environmental quality. This report confirms it clearly and irrefutably.

“It is clear that social inequality extends to the quality of people’s surroundings and we know that if places are dirty and look ‘unloved’ this can adversely impact on health and wellbeing.”

Is there nothing this mythical 'social inequality' isn't responsible for, in the minds of progressives?

A New Source Of Angst For The Progressives: ‘Intergenerational Unfairness’

Anne Perkins explain that this means those selfish old people, not content with simply failing to give up their seats to a far more entitled breeder, are living too long and blocking the younger generation from work & housing:

The state pensionable age is climbing, slowly but relentlessly. By 2018, women will, like men, not be eligible for a state pension until they are 65. After that the goalposts move for both men and women together, so that by 2044 they will have to work until they are 68. The effect of the changes, which have been creeping in since 2010, is to hold the ratio of pensioners to working-age population at around 30% until the 2040s, at which point something else may have turned up – preferably not the elixir of eternal youth. This is what is causing the real crisis in the welfare state. But, as older voters can be relied on to vote, tackling the politics of pensions has to be done more by stealth.

In other words, ‘Damn, they’ll actually act in their own interests! Curses! Our plans would work, if not for those dratted kids pensioners..’

Even if the objective of getting everyone of working age enrolled in a responsive, dynamic system that guarantees an income to all at a decent and sustainable level comes off – in terms of probability, this is up there with the elixir of eternal youth – it is still almost certain to be pensioners who will be absorbing at least two-thirds of everything that the government spends on benefits. Nor do the demands of the elderly on the state stop at pensions. It is the cost to the health service as well.

Well, only so long as the NHS is restrained (somewhat) from killing them off by starvation or dehydration…

Redefining what is old may seem the obvious place to start. It is easy to see why the fit and the well-paid should stay at work. It is rather harder to make the case for those who have toiled for a lifetime in low-paid jobs. It is fair to ask workers to pay for pensioners, but it is unfair to ask workers to pay for pensioners whose assets far outstrip theirs. And it is equally unfair if good jobs are occupied by people who could afford to retire.

The perennial socialist cry: “Hey, you! You shouldn’t be using that! You should give it up to someone more deserving! ” They, of course, will be the ones who decide who is deserving.

This looks to me suspiciously as if the having-it-all generation, just as it ought to be preparing to bow out, is greedily lining up to have a bit more. These are the people born between 1946 and 1964. That really was like winning the first prize in life. Free university, the housing boom, the Pill, the explosion in white-collar jobs and pensions – for a majority, that has been a golden ticket to a life of unparalleled good fortune.

And now they should just have the good grace to die, so we can plan our Brave New World. God, I loathe socialists.

Who Is Kidding Whom Here..?

Parents who starve their children of love and affection face prosecution under a “Cinderella Law”, The Telegraph can disclose.

...

Parents found guilty under the law change could face up to 10 years in prison, the maximum term in child neglect cases.

Really? Gosh! Tim Worstall nicely outlines the pitfalls with this insanity, while Anna Raccoon poses a question of definition.  Meanwhile..

A nine-month-old baby was left 'severely emaciated' by his parents who failed to feed him properly.

Little Joshua Henry was so small when he was eventually taken into care that he weighed less than two thirds of what he should have, a court heard.

His mother Megan Tomlinson, 21, and father Benjamin Henry, 23, from Blackburn, admitted wilfully neglecting the child and were handed a suspended prison sentence by a judge yesterday.

/facepalm

Long On Rhetoric, Short On Detail…

David Madden (assistant professor in the Department of Sociology and the Cities Programme at the London School of Economics) rages against ‘gentrification’:

When gentrification is criticized these days, it tends to be done in terms that muddle the issues. The least useful way to criticize gentrification is to obsess about an area's character, coolness, or even worse, "grit". Lamenting the proliferation of cupcakes and cappuccino is a staple of reporting on places like Williamsburg or Dalston. But this kind of story reduces something that's all about inequality to middle-class agonizing over authenticity.

It also makes it rather amusing to read, but never mind. I'm sure you've got a serious point to make, haven't you?

The leading myth is that the only possibilities for neighborhoods are gentrification or urban decay. Well-meaning liberals sometimes think cities face a choice between the bad days of the past and a gentrified future. Urban theorists invoke this same theme with the idea of the city as a ceaselessly changing organism that can either gentrify or stagnate. But these are all deeply misleading arguments, because they offer a false choice. No serious critic of gentrification wants to maintain the status quo. Instead of either gentrification or decay, cities could push for more equal distribution of resources and more democratic decision-making.

Ah. I suspect this is the new dictionary definition of 'more democratic', which actually means that the people who pay for this and drive the changes should get less of a say. And I'm not wrong, as it turn out...

Another myth is that gentrification actually trickles down to help everyone. Evangelists for elite-dominated urbanism sometimes argue, as New York's mayor Michael Bloomberg did recently, that attracting the super-rich is the best way to help those city-dwellers he quaintly calls "those who are less fortunate". But the trickle-down argument for gentrification ignores the fact that the "very fortunate" invariably seek to bend municipal priorities and local land uses towards their own needs, usually to the detriment of their less powerful neighbors.

Yup, thought so. This is a man intent on spending other people's money on other people.

Probably the most damaging myth about gentrification is that nothing can be done about it beyond wrangling a few tokenistic concessions from big developers. But gentrification is not an unstoppable force. It's true that it has its roots in political-economic processes – the commodification of housing, the neoliberal transformation of the state and the growth of economic inequality – that require action at large scales. But there are many policies which, even in the short term, would produce a more democratic and egalitarian city: more and better public housing, rent control and regulation, community control of neighborhood space, expanding social welfare, strengthening progressive labor unions, and empowering social movements that embody the political ambitions of the urban working classes and poor.

Did he leave anything out of the Big Socialist Wishlist there?

Even today, it's not too late to unforeclose urban politics and build an alternative to the city of gentrification and inequality. The opposite of gentrification isn't urban decay; it's the democratization of urban space.

Chalk another one up for that new dictionary.

Man's* Inhumanity To Man...

Remember the brave and principled fight for Steven Neary, so wonderfully chronicled by Anna Raccoon?

Well, his father is still up against it:

One of the unit's ideas was that he should have a person-centred plan. He had to create a wish list, and came up with six things:

• Live at home with Dad

• Go on holiday to Somerset

• Have Christmas presents at home

• See Toy Story 3 at the cinema

• Have breakfast in the bacon shop

• Go swimming at Hampton open-air pool

All six wishes were refused because they were not considered to be in his best interests. To me, that's not a person-centred plan, that's a system-centred plan.

There are no words...

*Social worker's

Well, I Suppose It All Comes Down To What They Plan To Do About Them...

Social workers will routinely go into new parents’ homes to check for dangers such as staircases and sharp table edges, under ‘intrusive’ plans drawn up by safety campaigners.

Will it be the hastily-drafted letter, or...something else?

A social worker has been suspended for 12 months after she turned up at a couple's house shouting 'baby murderers' and threatening to kill them.

Joanna Burgess admitted being part of a mob outside the house in July last year, where she was heard to shout out threats to kill before a brick was thrown at the property.

Well, I suppose at least she seems to care, unlike the rest of her ilk...

They’ll Still Only Catch The Stupid Ones…

Political activists must watch what they say on the likes of Facebook and Twitter, sites which will become the “next big thing in law enforcement” , a leading human rights lawyer has warned.

Well, it’s taken them long enough!

John Cooper QC said that police are monitoring key activists online and that officers and the courts are becoming increasingly savvy when it comes to social media.

I do love the sinister-sounding ‘monitoring online’, a phrase which conjures up shadowy operatives sitting at computer terminals in darkened rooms, conducting illicit operations.

Not the reality, which is probably one or two bored cops sitting at Coke can and crisp packet littered desks in modern open plan offices, resignedly clicking ‘Follow’ on Twitter or issuing ‘Friend’ requests on FaceBook…

Mr Cooper QC's warning comes after a New York court ordered Twitter to hand over messages posted on the site by a demonstrator belonging to the Occupy Wall Street movement in America. Malcolm Harris, 23, is accused of disorderly conduct after he was arrested on Brooklyn Bridge during a protest last October.

After a lengthy legal fight, Twitter eventually complied with an order to hand over the tweets on 14 September. Prosecutors hope to use them to disprove the demonstrator's defence that police escorted the protesters on to the bridge before arresting them for allegedly blocking it.

You’d have to be dumber than a pot plant to think that Tweeting your every movement and action would not be held against you if you commit a criminal act, wouldn't you? And yet, some people clearly do…

While some argue that genuinely peaceful protesters can have little fear of arrest regardless of what they say online, Mr Cooper QC said: "It would be wrong to establish a general rule that private communications should be handed over to the police. The principle that the law enforcement agencies should establish relevance first should not be diluted."

Here’s a hint – it’s not a ‘private communication’ if you publish it to a social media network. Just as a person who stands in Hyde Park with a megaphone isn’t having a ‘private conversation’.

And they don’t need to establish relevance if all they need to do to get access to your conversations is to click ‘Follow’.

In May, peaceful protester John Catt lost his legal fight to force police to delete information they hold on him on the National Extremism Database. Pictures of and references to him are held because of his links to protest groups.

But long-term activist Mr Catt argued that, since he has never been convicted of any crime, officers were not justified in recording the details. Lawyers for Mr Catt claimed that he is "logged and recorded wherever he goes" and that the surveillance at more than 55 protests had a "chilling effect" on people exercising the right to protest.

Why? Does photographing police actions on riots and posting them to YouTube have a ‘chilling effect’ on the police doing their job? Of course not!

It does tend to have a ‘chilling effect’ on bad apples like PC Harwood though, and you know what? That’s all to the good!

But Lord Justice Gross and Mr Justice Irwin sitting in the High Court refused to order police to remove references to him from the database, saying that recording his actions was a "predictable consequence" of regularly attending demonstrations.

Well, indeed! But this monitoring of social media is still only going to catch the dim ones. And admittedly while that’s a huge grouping, it isn't all of them.

So one hopes the police aren't pinning all their hopes on it, just because it’s the easiest option...

You Don’t Have To Be A Control Freak To Work Here…

…but it clearly helps! Dan Sabbagh, the ‘Guardian’s’ head of media and technology really doesn’t seem to understand what it is he’s writing about:

Social media brings out the worst in some of us.

Well, OK. Just like any kind of freedom, right? It'll always be abused by someone, somewhere...

Why else would you set up a Facebook group to pay a twisted tribute to "legend" Dale Cregan? (Cregan was arrested on suspicion of murder, for his alleged involvement in the killings of two police officers in Manchester.) Or write that "Every police officer's death is a course [sic] for celebration"? There should be no consolation in poor grammar either: such trolling seems to be a persistent phenomenon with so-called "tribute sites" appearing for the killer Raoul Moat – as well as the racist abuse aimed at Stan Collymore or Fabrice Muamba, or the sexist insults directed at Louise Mensch.

None of which is actually 'trolling' as the original meaning of the term would have it. You'd think - if you really had selected the right man to be 'head of media and technology' - the difference would be understood.

But no.

At least the police are taking action.

And the fact you regard that as a good thing simply points up the uselessness of the 'Guardian' in defending free speech.

It is illegal to send "grossly offensive" messages, according to the Communications Act 2003 (although few people probably knew that). Today a 22-year-old man was arrested in Netherley, Liverpool in the light of that act.

Did he 'send' them? Does me posting a comment to Twitter constitute 'sending'?

The law - because it's useless and outdated and was almost certainly drawn up by technological Luddites - says yes. Sensible people would argue no.

However, we are asking for a lot if we expect, or believe, that the police can get involved every time somebody makes grossly offensive remarks online.

Well, quite! So how about we give them a break and act like adults, instead?

It will always be hard for the police to tackle the decline in civility that seems to come the moment you hand people a computer, the internet and a darkened bedroom. Many would like to argue that such abuse is a necessary excrescence of the digital world, matched perhaps by the freedom that social media give to express and organise, as the #coverforgmp campaign demonstrates.

It's not hard to see that Yet it is hard to be sure that Facebook and Twitter could not do more.

Really? What could they do?

Facebook likes to talk about how content on the network is monitored by 900m users, any of whom can report abuse to a team of uncertain number and resource based in Dublin. Facebook doesn't say how many pages it has taken down, how many complaints it gets, or how fast it works, but on the Cregan case will say it mainly took pages down because they were set up by people with false identities – for Facebook, the original sin.

No, merely a breach of their stated terms and conditions. In other words, something for which they can act, and will act.

Transparency, of course, would only give the public a chance to work out if Facebook does a good job in regulating its own network. Facebook, however, declines to be specific, as it presumably knows best…

It's entitled to 'know best'; it is, after all, providing a service free of charge. And the only problem for people like you is that it's willing to tolerate things you clearly aren't. I see that the rampant Statism that affects the rest of the 'Guardian' staffers has reached here too...

Pre-moderation is impossible for a social network, but everybody has access to a search function, including the owners of the network themselves. There will be Facebook tribute pages to the next person arrested on suspicion of murder too; one would hope that they could be deleted almost the moment they appear – and that it is not just left to the public to complain and the police to deal with the consequences

So in order to gain your approval, social media needs to take on a huuuuuuuuge staff to vet every single post and Tweet made?

Admit it, Dan, this is simply you lining up jobs for all the CiF moderators when this rag finally exhausts the resources of 'AutoTrader' and folds, isn't it?

I'm Going To Be Churlish Again....

...but while this is very worthy, and all that, is it really what we send children to primary school for?

Dropped kerbs have been installed in Hill Hay Road, thanks to a recommendation by Matson junior wardens, the 'Cool Kidz Crew'.

The what..?!?

The group, from Robinswood Primary School, identified a lack of dropped kerbs for disabled access in the area during a recent estate inspection around Matson.

Terry Elcock, resident involvement officer for Gloucester City Homes, said: "I am delighted with the junior warden scheme and it is clear that working with young people will help to build stronger communities for the future."

Interestingly enough, Ofsted notes that the school is closed. Though given the glowing report from last year, I wonder if this is because it's going for academy status?

The junior warden scheme was set up by Gloucester City Homes, Gloucestershire Police Authority and Robinswood Primary School three years ago.

So far, the wardens have helped improve the area by getting new benches installed, assisting with the selection of new play equipment and making hanging baskets to help brighten up the Matson shopping parade.

Matson PCSO Chris Jenkinson has worked closely with the street wardens for the past three years.

He said: "The Cool Kidz Crew continues to work very hard to suggest improvements to their local community.

"The wardens are beginning to see their good work making a difference with this scheme and graffiti being removed throughout the community.

"It is great to see young people identifying these improvements."

*shrug* Who am I to criticise? If the parents are happy....

And yet I still can't help but feel a little bit uneasy.