Originally he was charged under Criminal Law Act 1977 for a bomb hoax, however the CPS decided there wasn’t sufficient evidence for this, and instead opted for the rarely used s127.

But just what did Paul Chambers do? He tweeted a joke. A crap joke, but a joke all the same.

“Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week… otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!”

For this, he now has a criminal record, and faces a £1000 fine.

Just to be clear, here, a British citizen is now a criminal for making a completely non-serious comment on twitter. This is yet another example of the ridiculous restrictions we have on freedom of speech in the UK, joining the growing list of heavy-handed offences such as Incitement, and the infamous Libel law; as well as yet another example of the erosion of our liberties under the authoritarian New Labour party.

Keep checking #twitterjoketrial for updates, and possible link to a whip-round to pay for his fee.

In response to the first enquiry, from Left Foot Forward, I outlined the event as I recalled it bearing in mind I did not take notes, as I was not expecting anything to come of the encounter. Whilst the statement contains paraphrasing due to lack of notes, it was written only shortly after the event, and is as accurate as can be expected, and almost any omitted details weren’t relevant to the points discussed, or relevant enough for me to remember them. As such, I disagree with Julian Lewis’ claim that what I have said was “both incomplete and inaccurate”. Although there was one thing I neglected to mention – that he said his vote against civil adoption was about the child’s rights not those of the civil partners’ (as if somehow a homosexual family is detrimental to a child’s welfare?).

In my statement, I mention that he compares the risks of homosexual sex to fighting in the armed services. A point he clarifies and confirms (so much for inaccurate?) in a response to pinknews – “When it comes to legalising practices that involve serious risk, I believe the higher limit should apply. This is the reason we no longer allow 16 and 17-year-old into front-line situations in the Armed Forces, for example.”

To this I repeat the question asked of him at the hustings, and I invite Julian Lewis to point to scientific evidence proving that homosexual sex involves a level of risk so much greater than that of heterosexual sex, that a higher age limit should apply.

Below is a copy of the statement as sent to the Lymington Times

Brockenhurst College, on Monday, where this week all the New Forest East candidates are coming in for a Q&A session separately.

firstly, in his “presentation” on defence, he was talking about how it’s ridiculous to vote lib dem because they want to fully scrap trident and all deterrents, to which i corrected him as it’s non like-for-like replacement. he kept insisting that if we don’t have nuclear weapons, we are at greater risk, and that the liberal idea of disarmament is ridiculous. He said exclusively using cruise missiles would lead to world war 3 due to other countries believing them to be nuclear warheads when they were not.

Then, in the Q&A session, he would constantly drift off topic into areas he’d pre-prepared, such as how voting lib dem results in another 5 years of brown. how there’s only two real choices – LAB and CON. He said that coalition governments never work, pointing to 1960s Germany, and that the party in 3rd place percentage wise shouldn’t have such a large say (despite our current system still allowing those in 3rd to have more seats, as seen when the recent poll with the LD on 33% is calculated)

Questioned on his gay rights votes, he continued his claims that homosexuality/anal sex alone poses risk of HIV/AIDS, and that is why he still opposes gay sex at 16. Someone put it to him that it is no more dangerous than any sexual activity, to which he insisted on proof, but when asked to do the same – over 10 years after he already made up his mind, he said he didn’t have figures and it would have to be a project to find them. He then made a comparison that gay sex is as big a health risk as being a soldier, and that they don’t let people fight in the army until the age of majority, so why should gay sex be allowed at 16 if fighting in a war isn’t. He also said “I know it’s cliché, but… some of my best friends are gay”

When it came to expenses, and his votes against transparency and reform, he quickly spun it to suggest his private members bill that prevents the publication of MPs Addresses from FOI Requests was a good thing, and that “in this state of heightened terror” it was unacceptable to have 646 insecure addresses available to the public. He then said that the publication of his expenses (including £119 for a trouser press that he explained at the time of the scandal as needed “otherwise [he'd] be up all night ironing”, and an attempt to claim £6000 for a floor), was purely because the reporter from the telegraph had a personal vendetta against him, as the journalist had been opposing the MPs Addresses legislation Julian Lewis pushed through.

He also expressed support for the Whips Office as it presently works.

Anticipating contact from Julian Lewis’ office himself regarding the matter, I would like to say that every part of my original tweet holds true. At the hustings he was scaremongering by suggesting the only choice was Vote Tory, otherwise it’s 5 more years of Brown, as well as the claims that nuclear disarmament would potentially lead to war. He is corrupt by any standard definition, as evident through his expenses claims and opposition to increased expenses scrutiny, as well as voting against reforming Parliament to be more democratic. He is paranoid, as he claims anti-FOI legislation is a good thing due to ridiculous claims of risk of terrorism, something I’d more often expect to hear from New Labour, and strongly fought against the publication of his ‘home’ (whether it be his first home, second, or his Southampton flat) address, and he is evidently homophobic, voting against gay rights on numerous occasions, justified by shocking unsubstantiated claims. Indeed, I wonder if he’ll put forward a bill in the next parliament to increase the age of consent for sexual intercourse among the black population, given claims that they are also more likely to pass on HIV? Or would racism be one step too far for this out-of-touch politician?

The controversial bill would see the death of public wi-fi, houses being disconnected on allegation of copyright infringement – with them having to prove innocence by paying for an appeal after the fact, photographers and works creators having work taken and exploited by industry without consent, or as one MP put it (in an endorsement of the bill!) – “putting creativity before freedom” – despite the fact the bill mentions not once the content creator or artist, and instead refers only to the rights holders – most often record labels or publishers, not the artists who created the works.

Understandably there has been outrage over the bill itself, and the government’s insistence on passing it without true scrutiny and debate: Over 20,000 letters and e-mails to MPs, over 35,000 signatures on the Number 10 petition against the bill, 100,000s of tweets, campaigns against the bill from consumer groups, business groups, ISPs, the  public, and the Pirate Party; concerns from the JCHR and the Law Society of Scotland that the bill breaches human rights, one of the  most discussed topics on social media worldwide, even on the day of the declaration of the election.

Guess how many of our great ‘Representatives’ turned up to the debate today?

Democracy In-action

To begin with, approximately 40 – about 5% of MPs; and as the speeches became more impassioned from both sides of the debate, the numbers dwindled and dwindled; down to just 9 at one point. So that’s hundreds of thousands of complaints about this bill, and the people who claim to represent us instead follow their vested interests and only turn up, on this last chance at democracy, if their private sector allegiances benefit from the bill. Democracy is dead.

The Digital Economy Bill has been a perfect showcasing of the corruption and undemocratic nature of 20th Century politics. It starts with a promising White Paper, proposing investment in telecoms infrastructure and reviews of law; then the unelected Minister in charge has a nice little trip on a media oligarch’s yacht; meanwhile other unelected officials have words with the out-dated distribution industries they work for and represent, having them draft law on their behalf; then the government tries to downplay the rights issues in the bill, even when challenged by their own commissions on human rights; then the opposition parties attempt point scoring by saying they oppose the bill, all the while supporting it and actively engaging in the corrupt activities surrounding it; and then, despite all public outcry and dispute from business and academics, the bill is passed without any real scrutiny or debate.

Everything about Parliament and the way it works revolves around these corrupt, undemocratic models, and voting for the 3 main parties at the upcoming election on May 6th isn’t going to change that. We need massive political upheaval and reform, and we need it now. So when you go to your polling station, I urge you to ignore LIB-LAB-CON, and instead put a cross besides any of the other candidates, be they Green, UKIP, Pirate, Jury Team, TUSC, BNP, Socialist, or Independent. If we can achieve a more representative Hung Parliament, then we have a basis to bring politics kicking and screaming into the 21st Century.

Firstly, VAT has just risen to 17.5% again, so expect price rises immediately, or phased in over time depending on the retailer. I would have thought it wise to have extended the VAT break to a later date, as a price rise whilst we’re only just approaching the end of the recession could run the risk of reducing sales, and leading to a double dip; many retailers, in deciding to freeze the increase for a while, seem to be thinking along similar lines.

Related to this, the UK, on May 6th most likely, will have a General Election. Unless a major upset happens, we’re currently looking at a Conservative Government with a small majority, or even forming a minority or coalition government from a hung parliament. But will a shift to a blue government really bring about much change, after all New Labour was an attempt to shift Labour towards the Conservatives, and Cameron’s Conservatives pull themselves towards New Labour? Yes, and no. Both sides promise dangerously low investment, and even cuts, in industry that desperately needs investment, such as eco-technology and energy, sciences, and education. Labour want to balance investment by cutting it in areas they don’t like, the Tories want to destroy the public sector, all the while supporting the renewal of hugely expensive, weapons of mass destruction. The Tories want to slash taxes for the rich, whilst doing little for the middle and lower classes, and Labour aren’t progressive enough to properly support those who need it. Labour risk destroying an entire sector of the economy, and people’s rights, with the ghastly Digital Economy Bill (which the Pirate Party, and non-party organisations such as ORG are fiercely opposing), whilst the Tories are so out of touch as to seem not to even care about the sector at all, with their pledge to scrap the much needed, albeit inadequate, “broadband tax”. So ultimately, we’re screwed either way.

But the winds of change do blow in politics this year. Approximately one-third of the House of Commons will consist of MPs new to the house following the election, with a likely small increase in independents, especially with Jury Team out there supporting them. Many of these new MPs will be replacing those corrupt, out-of-touch bastards who saw fit to abuse a ridiculously poorly regulated allowances system, squandering public money to pay for their first class seats, their mansions, their moats and trouser presses, and all the other crap they apparently can’t afford on their “chumps change” of a salary of £64,766 – some £40,000 more than the ‘average’ wage earner in the UK. Maybe, just maybe, these replacements will be less self-obsessed, more in touch with modern Britain, and able to represent their constituents properly. Maybe, but maybe not… I’m not getting my hopes up for this lot.  Assuming Mr Cameron has a brain, he’ll call an election in 2014 to coincide with the EU Elections, and that year, I feel, will be a big turning point in both British, and European politics. Indeed, 2014 is where I’m focussing my own efforts, not withstanding the results of the 2013 local elections, and where I plan to make my entry into politics under the banner of the Pirate Party of the United Kingdom if I do not do so in 2013.

Another change which will hopefully happen this year is the introduction of, or the preparations to introduce some form of electoral reform; however this will only happen if the Conservatives continue to fail to set themselves apart as anything other than “not-Labour”, and we end up with a Liberal coalition. Such a result is quite frankly the best outcome we could hope for. British politics needs radical change and sweeping reforms, and this would be the place to start, in this year. So let’s hope it happens.

Moving away from politics, 2010 will be bringing about many changes to my personal life. I’ve got exams in a few weeks, exams that will ultimately decide whether I get into Aberystwyth; my university of choice, have to utilise the terrible clearing system in a (post-)recession climate, or just end up not getting into university at all. This of course means I’m also finishing college this summer, and quite frankly I’ll be glad to be leaving, because that college was a pretty exhausting place to be, crushing and suppressing the hobbies, hopes and interests that I had when I first attended there. And running alongside all this, those few friends I do have will all also be heading off to university and whatnot themselves, so this year is really our last year together, and I want to spend as much of it as I can with them. In reality I realise I probably won’t see them much more than I did this past year, and that is upsetting to me; but even so, spending some time with them is better than none at all, right?

So there you go – 2010 will bring change right from the start, but it’s not necessarily good change, and that’s incredibly frustrating, especially for a powerless control freak like me, who just wants to be able to change things, make them better, improve on what we have.

Addendum: Whilst writing this post my  site went down, luckily I learnt long ago to always copy what I’ve written to the clipboard just in case something like this happens. Downside is I lost links and stuff I’d put in. Let this be a lesson to you all, copy to clipboard, and save drafts often. I also realised I never got around to talking about 2010 in technology like I planned, but I can’t be bothered to write more for this.

“The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.  Beheadings, electrocutions, hangings, lethal injections, shootings and stonings have no place in the 21st century” – Irene Khan, Secretary General of Amnesty International.

Akmal Shaikh, the first EU national killed in China in over half a century

You’re probably not aware of it, but this morning, whilst you slept, some time around 02:30UTC; China executed a mentally ill man, Akmal Shaikh, a 53 year old British citizen; the first EU national to be executed in China since 1951. Akmal, who dreamed of being a pop star, and had written a song he hoped would bring about world peace, was killed after being exploited into trafficking 4kg of drugs into the country; carrying just 50g is enough for China to execute a person.

But Akmal is not alone in his extreme treatment by the Chinese legal system – in 2008, China executed at least 1,718 people, accounting for some 72% of recorded executions worldwide. In the country, you can face the death penalty for some 68 offences, ranging from murder, to drug trafficking, to financial offences. Until recently, execution was carried out solely by firing squad, although China has now started to utilise lethal injection. Appeals against the death penalty are almost always unsuccessful, and cries for mercy ignored.

In my mind there is never justification for man to kill fellow man (excluding DR/provocation/justified self-defence), and most certainly not for governments to kill citizens, their own or otherwise. China asks us to respect that Akmal was guilty under their law, and was executed under their law; to that I say that I can not, and will not accept, nor respect, any law or country that will allow the state to get away with what amounts to murder. China, as an emerging superpower, and with one of the largest populations in the world, needs to be leading the way on human rights, not executing fellow man; and the world; government and public, should be condemning them for their actions.

We can only hope that as we move forward into a new decade, the world takes a step towards abolishing such inhumane acts.