Possibly guilty till proven innocent

Allegations of abuse of children by adults whose job involves interactions with children are serious - few would question this. They give good reason to investigate, and if there is sufficient evidence, take disciplinary action in terms of employment at the very least, and if necessary lay a complaint with the Police.

However, the flipside of child abuse is the damage caused to those accused of child abuse. Accusations are often difficult to conclusively disprove and paint a dark aura around a person, "perhaps he did it", "wonder if there are others", people don't trust their children around the accused. The abuse of an adult of the physical, emotional and intellectual power over a child makes most people shiver.

So the basic maxim of the English Common Law criminal burden of proof is that you are innocent till proven guilty. It being better that 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent be condemned. Sadly this fundamental principle is now being somewhat eroded in the UK.

You see, Ian Huntley, the murderer of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells, had been a suspect in several sex offences. In one case he had been charged, but there had been insufficient evidence for a conviction. So he retained his job as a school caretaker. He had been, until his conviction of the killing of those two girls, innocent till proven guilty. Information about these allegations had not been retained.

So now according to the Daily Telegraph (no link), local authorities need to set up databases to contain ALL allegations of child abuse of those working with children, until either the person retires or the individual proves innocence. Suspicious till proven innocent.

The claims can be made anonymously, but there need not be a charge, let alone conviction.

Furthermore, the cases will all have to be investigated by local authority officers - yes that bastion of competence, and must find a claim is either "substantiated", "unsubstantiated", "unfounded" or "malicious". The latter two can only be found if there is evidence disproving the allegation. So the odds are that many cases will reside in the "unsubstantiated" category - neither guilty, nor innocent.

Of course this hardly helps the innocent. The innocent have a file suggesting there is an unsubstantiated claim, which naturally puts that innocent person at a disadvantage compared to one without a claim. Nice that. So you are definitely not presumed innocent.

So who wants to make a false allegation? Think of the incentives. That estranged wife or girlfriend, or the disgruntled student, can make an allegation knowing it will make the accused's life hell, and never be accountable for it - never having to appear in court to be cross examined.

Instead local government investigates allegations and unless you can prove your innocence, they remain on a file, able to be searched by employers, for the rest of your life. It appears that the UK public policy response to a horrendous crime is to erode the rights of the innocent - because after all, the safest country is the one under constant surveillance.

So it continues, until the next person not on any database murders some kids, and another way of monitoring the innocent will be found - and none of the political parties gives a damn.

Branson runs to the government again

Self styled entrepreneurial gadabout, Sir Richard Branson, is running to nanny state wanting to seek protection for part of his multi million pound business empire. This time it is Virgin Atlantic Airways he wants to protect.

You see, British Airways, American Airlines and Spanish carrier Iberia are seeking anti-trust immunity in order to co-ordinate and operate as one across the Atlantic and within Europe and the USA. This would enable them to co-ordinate, schedules, fares and routes. The absurdity that frequent flyers belonging to BA and American (both members of the OneWorld alliance) can't earn frequent flyer points on the other airlines services across the Atlantic would be removed.

The three carriers (along with Finnair and a couple of other small OneWorld alliance carriers in the northern) want to integrate so that BA can sell a ticket including a domestic connection using AA in the US, and AA can do the same with a BA connection.

The Atlantic is one of the most competitive air corridors in the world, with 42 airlines flying between the EU and the USA, and it being an open market on international routes for airlines from either market. AA/BA and Iberia have 21% of the market share at the moment, although between the UK and the US it is around 44%, and London-New York 52%.

Other airline alliances already have this anti-trust immunity. Star Alliance, which Trans Atlantic means United, Lufthansa, US Airways, BMI, SAS, TAP, Austrian and Swiss, has 35% of the traffic Trans Atlantic. Skyteam, comprising Air France/KLM and Delta/Northwest, has 28% of the market.

However, Branson cries foul. He claims it will create a "monopoly" which of course it wont. He's making it up, playing his favourite role of the hard done by little guy, who only wants what's best for himself consumers. You see Virgin Atlantic isn't in any of the alliances. It does do codesharing and co-ordinates closely with BMI and Continental Airlines. However, out of the nine airlines flying between Heathrow and the US, Virgin Atlantic has the second largest operation.

He complains that it would put 51% of landing slots at Heathrow in the hands of one conglomeration. Hardly a monopoly, especially since Skyteam holds 73% of the slots at Paris Charles de Gaulle and 85% at Amsterdam Schiphol, while Star Alliance carriers hold 80% of Frankfurt. All BA, AA and Iberia want is the same as its competitors - Branson is moaning because his airline is independent and he doesn't like competing. You see, unlike BA, Virgin has no flights within Europe - so no wonder BA is bigger, Virgin doesn't even operate in competition with it on many of its routes.

However, the best response to Branson is the one I saw from Willie Walsh -BA's CEO - in the Daily Telegraph on Friday.

"He knows a good deal about monopolies. With help from taxpayers, he has run a real one on fast trains between London and Manchester since 1997. And now he is talking about establishing another one by taking over Gatwick airport."

Yes, Virgin Trains has a monopoly on passenger rail services between London and Manchester, it has done this with millions of pounds of subsidies - that's real entrepreneurship isn't it? Branson says he wants to buy Gatwick airport, from which BA and AA both operate very few Trans Atlantic services.

So go on "beardie", compete. You did well earlier this year when BA's troubles at Terminal 5 coincided with the opening of a major upgrade to your part of Terminal 3 at Heathrow. You could tie up closer with BMI. In other words, you could compete your way to success, not moan to the government.

For all that, I'm giving your airline another shot in a couple of months time - Heathrow to New York. I hope it's better than last time!

Two elections

So 8 November is the day, 4 days after the US Presidential election. If it weren't for work I'd contemplate flying over and absorbing the debates for both elections. As it stands I'll be sticking it out in the UK, where I can access plenty of US coverage, but NZ will all be online.

As a result, I'll be blogging more heavily. This will be the first NZ election I'll be blogging and it will be remote, so pardon me for what I miss. To do this, I'll be listening to Mourning Report via the net in the evenings (the Revo Blik is the coolest radio, combining DAB and internet radio).

8 November will be a chance to look at the record of the current government, noting that it exists because of four parties, not just Labour, and decide what direction you want it to go. If you're pretty happy with the role of the government growing, happy with how the state spends your money (or happy with how much of other people's money you get), you'll probably vote Labour. If you are reasonably happy but have a particular thing for Transmission Gully or a bureaucracy for families, you might tick United Future. Those of you who are fans of Jim Anderton or Winston Peters, for unfathomable reasons, might tick their parties.

Have no bones about it - a vote for Labour, NZ First, United Future or the Jim Anderton/Progressive Party is a vote for no change.

If you think there should be more tax, more government, more regulation, more money taken from taxpayers and given to others, if you are suspicious of science, economics and those who advance reason, but think those on welfare will improve their lot if only they got more money for doing nothing (and you can't be arsed giving more of your own). If you think that trees, birds and fish are more important, inherently, than human lives, and if you believe that government can only be a force for good if it gets bigger, stronger and more intrusive, you'll vote Green. You'd be better voting Alliance though :)

If you think that Western civilisation and British colonialism has been bad for New Zealand, and the future lies in a Maori dominated government, that splits the country into two groups - Maori and everyone else, and dishes out rights and taxes on that basis, you'll vote for the Maori Party.

If you don't particularly like Helen Clark, Michael Cullen or the rest of the Labour Cabinet, and want to see some new faces, but pretty much the same policies - you'll vote National.

If you think the reforms of the 1980s and early 1990s were the best thing that happened to NZ since the UK promised to buy all NZ's exports, and that the country badly needs more, you'll vote ACT.

If you think that Christianity should drive government, and those who don't believe should just follow the rules and get out of the way, you'll vote for the Family Party or the Kiwi Party.

If you believe that there should unabashedly be less government, lower taxes and that adults should always interact on a voluntary basis, you'll vote Libertarianz.

Meanwhile, the US Presidential election will be profoundly important. Both men are not strikingly compelling, one is to the left of the Democratic Party (and hiding that oh so well), another is to the liberal end of the Republican Party (and indeed doing the same). Both have fired up their base in different ways. Obama is the dream of the Democrats, McCain had to bring Sarah Palin in to fire up his base.

Now both face the challenge of the fight for the remaining 20%. Those voters who are convinced by neither, who are suspicious of more government, but also are not religious conservatives. They are the swing voters - the ones that need to be convinced as to who they are more confident about being elected to the White House. I remain moderately convinced that McCain is best for the world, New Zealand and the USA, but it is more because he offers a chance for some positive change on the domestic front - and Obama's change is about more government.

Greens seek to nationalise children

Sue Bradford launched the Green Party policy on children - because you need a policy on everything (where is the dance policy?).

It represents the explicit desire to collectivise responsibility (if not rewards) for the raising, care, protection and development of children by everyone of everyone else's kids. This isn't the village to raise a child, it is the nation state.

This policy statement says so much that, on the face of it seems innocuous, but the use of the word "we" means "you should be forced to pay for this and feel guilty if you don't agree":

They are our future, so we must give them the best possible start to life.

Each child should have the opportunity to grow with joy, be fully supported by their family and be an integral part of our society. Each child deserves a secure base from which they can express their creativity and discover life as an adventure.

Who is this we? Why must you give other people's children the best possible start in life? Who is responsible? Not the parents no - this is Sue Bradford nationalising the responsibility of children to everyone, through the warm embrace of the state.

Why should every child be "an integral part of our society"? What the hell does that mean? When are you NOT? What is "our society"? I don't want any kids I have to have anything to do with this work shy, union worshipping, state welfare supporting socialist!

Now the policy has 130 points! Yes 130 - this is nanny state par excellence. So what do these measures really mean? Well...

- dozens are about essentially removing barriers to get compulsorily funded state welfare, as the Greens embrace welfare benefits as a way of helping kids.
- Some are about making people work less, a 35 hour week and more leave, essentially saying that the magic Green money tree will find a way to produce more by doing less. It doesn't occur to this control freaks that cutting the size of the state would enable more people to CHOOSE to spend more time with their children. No. Nanny State must tell you to work less.
- there is talk about promoting a non-violent culture, whilst at the same time embracing the violent nanny state that takes money from its citizens, prosecutes fines and imprisons those who break its laws. The Greens positively love violence, as long as it is velvet fist of the Nanny state they embrace.
- It wants kids to watch more TV! The Greens want to make you pay to produce TV programmes for children to watch, locally made of course (can't have those culturally inappropriate foreign shows can we now? Not with "our" children). Why have any subsidies for kids TV? Encourage them to go outside!!
- It wants to make you pay for "culturally appropriate care and treatment" for Maori, Pacific Island and other ethnic children, which isn't as important as making sure they are healthy. Looking forward to witch doctors being funded then, though one may wonder if it could ever be culturally appropriate for children of parents who want world class cutting edge science applied to healthcare.
- The obsession with GE continues, banning NZ production of GE food, on the implicit assumption it is unsafe for children - which is hysterical nonsense.
- Regulations on labelling of takeaway food, because its voters are too damned stupid to know that deep fried chicken is high in fat!
- Support diversity and choices in education, EXCEPT when it means funding following students. No mention of religious schools of course, just Steiner, correspondence, home schooling and Kura - the ones the Greens like.
- "Incorporate environmental education into the core curriculum at all levels from pre-school to secondary school" code for brainwashing Green ideology. I'd argue education in economics, education in freedom and individual rights, but if that happened kids wouldn't grow up appreciating the multi-leader Green party Nanny State.
- "increasing access for all children, including children in rural areas, to art, music and drama" Yes the state subsidised and nationalised childrens' plays, bands and art exhibitions. Yes lovely, Nanny helps you play.

It goes on and on. It is a disturbing vision of state subsidies, bureaucracies and rules, but most disconcertingly a philosophy that parents are not primarily responsible for their children, and that parents don't get punished for failing to be responsible. Nobody is to blame! Negligent, lazy, alcoholic, criminal parents all need "help and assistance" - forcibly funded by you, whilst you try to pay to responsibly raise your kids.

There are odd statements like "Recognise that in the context of Pacific families, definitions of children and youth are made by parents and families as opposed to an age specific status" oh so does that mean that when a girl is 13 she's an adult and can have children then by some distant relative twice her age?

Naturally the Greens use the phrase "adequately resource" often, which means give the bureaucracy a blank cheque to make it happy - they love the Office of the Childrens' Commissioner, which has done virtually nothing to improve the lives of any children- except those of the people working there.

Children do not belong to the state, nation, society or everyone. Children are nobody's property, but they are the responsibility of their parents and guardians first and foremost. The role of the state regarding children should be as a last resort to intervene in cases of abuse and profound neglect - not to mollycoddle and provide for everything that might be nice for kids to have, funded by force through taxes.

The Green vision of a childrens' policy is the Greens wanting to expand the state to do virtually everything other than physically feed, clothe and bathe the kids (even then they want to control food). It is statist, childish and downright terrifying. It offers no vision to save those kids from the subculture of violent, abusive, negligent lowlife who brutalise them - it wants to pay them more.

It's absurd, immoral and bankrupt.

Why 9/11 matters

It wasn't a natural disaster, it wasn't an accident.

It was an act of war by Islamists from Saudi Arabia, backed by the tyrannical regime in Afghanistan against the USA, Western civilisation and secular free liberal society.

The battle is far from over, but the success has been to prevent a repeat attack in the US - although it has happened in the UK and Spain, more by inspiration than by direct control.

Islamists are stone age thugs using 21st century tools, they are one of many direct threats to the advancement of humanity, and the lives of those who wish to live peacefully and not initiate force against others. They must be fought both philosophically through the battle of ideas, and directly where and when they threaten freedom and lives.

That is why keeping Afghanistan and Iraq out of Islamist control is so important - the best examples to the Muslim world are secular states that allow pluralism and are at least partly free. Sadly, Turkey and Bosnia are the best there is, whilst most others are either oppressive or unable/unwilling to deal with their own murderous Islamists.

9/11 was not just an attack on the USA, it was an attack on the idea of the USA - a secular liberal free society where people can live their lives as they choose, without being forced to bow to any religion or political beliefs. To appreciate that you need to accept that secular liberal society is superior to theocratic autocracies of all kinds - to do that tolerance of individuals practicing Islam peacefully has to be separated from those using Islam as the foundation to wage, threaten and plan for civil war.

I do not care if individuals are Muslims and treat religion as a basis for how they live - until that extends to taking away my individual freedoms and attacking me. I don't like Islam, but there is a clear line between:
- Hating Islam as a philosophical and belief system;
- Fighting Islamist inspired attacks and threats; and
- Defending the right of someone to worship the Muslim faith whilst not posing a threat to anyone else.

Few disagree with the second point, few argue the first and not enough who argue the first also defend the third.