Oh ... quotas!

Harriet Harman says half of Labour shadow cabinet should be women. She wants this because 81 of the 258 Labour MPs are women which, to the non-mathematicians, means that 177 are men.

She doesn't want this because these 81 lady MPs have already proven themselves to be good at their job and she doesn't want this because of their experience in the world of work. She wants this because

"It's time for Labour women to step out of the shadows,"

and because

"The Labour men are great - but they are not twice as good as the women"

Hah! Mrs R rather likes the put-down, but it's neither Churchillian nor Wildean. It's demeaning, and it's sexist.

In a fair job market each of those MPs should be considered and each should be considered on merit and experience, not because of their lack of 'Edwards'.

Do we, indeed does anybody, want somebody doing a job just because - only because - of their genetic make-up?

Some of these MPs have been elected as a result of all-female shortlists. They might think it was a nice way of getting an important job, and maybe they think it was their 'right', and perhaps don't realise they have only been chosen because they can wear skirts to work without any raising of eyebrows. They were only chosen to fulfil a quota - that's it, nothing more.

And Mrs Rigby thinks that sort of non-equal and divisive quota should be illegal, and it should be as illegal as the not-jobs masquerading as a training programme, where applications are only open to

... candidates from black or ethnic minority backgrounds because the "normal recruitment process was not rectifying" under-representation.

Bristol claims that their two year 'training programme' with a wage of £18,000 is not a job, and claims that

"Race Relations Act 1976 allows for authorities to offer training to specific groups of people if they are under-represented"

It's a convenient loophole that may well have been closed by later legislation. Even if it wasn't, Mrs R believes that both Bristol Council and Harriet Harman are wrong and are abusing 'the system' in order to satisfy arbitrary, made-up, quotas that eventually satisfy nobody.

Here's why.

First of all, those MPs. We know some of them were elected via all-women shortlists - which prohibits fair competition - and now they're to be given even more preferential treatment. If the 81 names were put in a hat then each woman would stand more chance of getting a well-paid job than if the men were put through the same selection process.

Mrs R can see it's wrong and will, ultimately, cause resentment and divisions amongst both Labour MPs and their male supporters who, even though they are the 'faithful', are pretty sick of being pushed to the bottom of the pile because they're male. The only people who can't see it's wrong are those who don't seem to care about the quality and suitability for the job - and have little understanding of the damage caused when people are promoted way beyond their capabilities solely to satisfy an arbitrary quota.

They can't understand how difficult it might be for somebody to turn up to work knowing full well that they've only got a job because of either their gender or their race - no other reason.

And they can't seem to work out why ordinary people don't like this sort of selection. It might be because we have children who are both male and female, and because we want them to have equal chances on their way through life - and not have doors slammed in their faces because of their gender.

As for Bristols?

Well, the article says that

The authority has a total of 9,000 members of staff of which 8,370 are white and 630, or seven per cent, are from ethnic minorities.

Because 12 per cent of Bristol residents come from minority backgrounds the council has begun searching for more employees to redress this imbalance.

Sorry, it shouldn't work like that. In making the same quota-hunting mistake as Harriet by excluding 88% of the local population from applying for jobs well-paid 'training opportunities' the authority is being discriminatory.

And it doesn't make a jot of difference if Kerry McCarthy gives the scheme a verbal pat on the head by saying

"I would support schemes like this. It gives people an opportunity."

It is denying opportunity - and at what price?

It clearly doesn't matter to the quota-ists that 88% of the population of Bristol are excluded, and it clearly doesn't matter to Harriet that about 66% of Labour MPs could be excluded from the selection for ministerial posts.

All that matters is 'the quota'.

....

"Exclusively gay?"

Gay hotels fear antigay law

Hoteliers chasing the pink tourist pound have joined criticism of a law outlawing driscrimination (sic) against homosexuals.

The hotels, which cater for the thriving “exclusively gay” tourism market, say that they should be exempt from the Sexual Orientation Regulations as they will be forced to accept heterosexual guests. Some say that a ban on “gay only” advertising could put them out of business.

John Bellamy, who runs Hamilton Hall, said: “We are a unique venue and we only admit gay and bisexual men. Under this law, we would go out of business. This so-called antidiscrimination law is actually discriminatory as it discriminates against gays.”

Another hotelier, Mark Hurst, co-owner of the exclusively gay Guyz hotel in Blackpool, said that his gay clientele would feel uncomfortable mixing with straight customers.

From the Times. Feb 1st 2007. The Times did not permit comments for that article, but there are a few here.

Three years later, on Easter Saturday 2010, The Guardian and other newspapers tried to whip up a storm around Chris Grayling's remarks concerning what happened quite some time ago at a B&B somewhere in England. (Yes, somehow, it had to be in England - 'this sort of thing' would never happen in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.)

Mrs Rigby notes that the two linked articles generated, at the time of her first blog draft, 1423 and 377 comments respectively, but more about that in a moment.

Lots of bloggers have posted about this too, and Mrs R knows she's a bit late joining the party fray. If you haven't read what other people think it's probably a good idea - because they wrote when this was a 'hot' issue. Look at Iain Dale's blog first and then some others. Here is just a selection. Don't forget to also read the comments - it'll take quite a time but is worth it.
Boateng and Demetriou
LFaT
Constantly Furious
Old Holborn
The Devil
Leg-Iron

We Rigbys talked about this quite a bit over the long weekend - the subject came up again and again, it didn't matter who we were with, and it's because of what one of the Juniors said we ended up sort of deciding that it's quite an appropriate weekend for it to happen really. It's also a 'hot' and emotive topic that some political activists won't let disappear, not in the run up to the election when somebody or other thinks they can gain the upper hand.

Is it all a storm in a teacup? No, on balance it probably isn't, and it may well end up being a defining moment when set alongside other things that hit both the mainstream media and the blogosphere at the same time - including the Greenpeace activist who wrote, about 'dissenters':

We know who you are.
We know where you live.
We know where you work.
And we be many, but you be few.

Seems a bit like a threat, and hints at what might happen if you don't go along with their way of thinking. And that, you see, is how a lot of people have felt about quite a few of the more recent 'minority' things that have got onto the statute books and led to successful criminal prosecutions – if you don't go along with 'this' way of thinking, and also prove you go along with 'this' way of thinking, then nasty things will happen to you and yours.

Nobody could ever argue that it's acceptable to look at somebody and say you won't employ them because of what they're wearing or the colour of their skin. We're all equal, the law says so.

Nobody could ever argue that it is either acceptable or reasonable, all other things being equal, to turn down a job applicant solely because they have a 'private' life that is different from all the other applicants. We're all equal, the law says so.

Nobody could ever reasonably argue that an individual's genetic make-up, over which they have no control, should ever be used to give one person more rights than another. We're all equal, the law says so.

But all these things actually happen – and making these distinctions is enshrined in British law - because of 'positive discrimination', which allows, encourages, and actively forces discrimination – and the law says we are not all equal.

These laws say that employers must give more rights, and more chances of promotion to a non-white British-born man than a white British-born man. The law says that a man who prefers to wear a dress, for whatever reason, shall have greater employment rights than a man who likes to wear trousers. The law says that girls and/or women must be able to join clubs that were originally, and exclusively, for boys and/or men - but they can keep their own clubs, to protect them in case the boys or men who'd like to join are perverts. The law says that those of African or Asian ancestry can have their own clubs, but white Europeans are not allowed to. The law says that if an individual says that they are not heterosexual, then they have more rights than those who keep quiet about their 'private life', whatever their sexual preference. There are many more instances, too many to mention here, but it must also be noted that the law also says that employers must keep careful records to prove compliance, or risk serious punishment.

You see, a lot of things that have happened have presumed that being part of a minority group is detrimental to employment – in terms of getting a job and various 'rights' afterwards. This was sometimes the case, but that sort of discrimination is, thankfully, very rare now.

All these 'rights' have spilled over into everyday issues, where an individual can actually be arrested for having the wrong sort of private conversation within earshot of an eavesdropper who takes offence on behalf of an individual, or group of individuals, who are nowhere to be seen. That 'sort of thing' reminded one of the Rigbys of Venetian letterboxes, and fear of denunciation followed by arrest and imprisonment.

So, why did one of the more thoughtful Junior Rigbys think Easter was an appropriate time for this matter to be aired? It was not because Easter celebrates the defining moment of Christianity, it was because Easter remembers how a man was put to death for being the leader of a group of people who were going against the establishment of the time.

Today some people look at 'that sort of thing' in bemusement, can't imagine it happening 'these days'. It's 'cool' to be anti-establishment, it's called freedom of expression, freedom of association, and so on and so on. Putting people in prison for doing something as normal-in-Britain as kissing their boy/girl friend out of doors would be mean. Executing people for not doing what the government, or the church, says would be old-fashioned, barbaric, and so on, and so on.

In 2010 A.D. – that's Anno Domini, 2010 years after Christ – Britain, parts of Europe, the Americas and Antipodes are busy dismantling the old religious social rules and values. These rules and values are being replaced with complex rules chosen by the state, and some believe these rules are more onerous, more difficult to abide by, than any code of conduct as basic as the Ten Commandments - and are subject to harsh punishments, often following trial by media.

It seems strange to talk about religion, because we're frequently told it's old hat, it's passée, but until very recently (in historic terms) religion provided the framework for the moral and social code of almost all countries and societies. Most adults in the west can recognise these Commandments, which are remarkably similar in Judaism, Christianity and Islam – because all these faiths acknowledge the words of Moses.

At their most basic level this moral, ethical and social, code is taken from the following - To have only one God, not worship idols or take the name of God in vain (blaspheme) and actively remember the holy days, honour/obey parents/seniors, not kill (except in battle or for punishment), not be adulterous, not steal, not tell lies to or about others, not covet another's spouse or property.

Of course, over the centuries, extra fripperies that suited the rulers of the time were added to those basic rules, which made things quite tough for some people and kept them firmly in their place.

In 2010 there are some countries that have not changed their moral codes and laws to bring them 'up to date' - not a bit, and some of them even retain the same ancient punishments. In these faith-based countries you fall foul of the law at your peril. Wrinkled Weasel has a picture in his blog sidebar that might act as a reminder of what some 'establishments' will do to those that break their strict moral code.

In the meantime, in Britain, there have been employment tribunals ruling that a person whose lifestyle revolves around environmental issues shall have his 'belief' given the same standing as an established religion. There has been a ruling that a young man, who claimed to be a Jedi, should be allowed to wear a hooded top that covered his face – in a place where headgear was prohibited for security reasons. He was even offered an official apology. There have been challenges regarding the carrying of weapons – for religious reasons - and so on, and so on.

All this means that Britain, and the west as a whole, seems to be getting a bit confused about what should be right and what should be wrong. Some adults even think it's reasonable, and fair, to expect an eleven year old to be able to help choose new teaching staff, and for sixteen year olds to be able to vote - but not be allowed to either leave full time education or do adult things such as joining the Army without parental consent, nor be sold alcohol until they reach the ripe old age of 25.

Over the Easter weekend various Rigbys decided that the situation has, almost, reached a tipping point because we are beginning to see the signs of unrest, especially when one vociferous group – with rights enshrined in law – comes up against another quieter group – also with rights enshrined in law - and where some apparent supporters of the former refuse to even attempt to try to negotiate a centre ground, whilst calling the other group rude names and threatening prosecution and persecution. They want to be seen as winning, and right, and others want to jump on the bandwagon and use it for political gain, to prove the others are the bad guys.

At some point the the myriad of laws need to be clarified, and perhaps some groups, and some individuals, might end up being effectively ruled 'not special enough' to continue to be more equal and benefit from positive discrimination - but it will take a test case, or test cases, before this can happen, because our laws no longer encourage, or allow, things to settle to a natural equilibrium.

Whether this will happen to a formal religion, to a 'minority' group, or an individual remains to be seen, but some of the wider Rigby 'clan' think this will happen soon - and they decided this because of the outpouring of public feeling, via the internet, over the issue raised by the politicised sting on Chris Grayling. A remarkable number of people supported the right to say, “No, not here, not in my home,” Some felt that this view was reinforced by others who had, over three years ago, acknowledged that they would be embarrassed to be around heterosexuals at bedtime.

Ultimately, surely, this means that if a B&B or hotel can be exclusively gay or lesbian, if a café or restaurant can be exclusively vegan, if an hotel can refuse to admit guests along with their dogs or children, if a butcher can be exclusively halal or kosher, then the opposite must also be possible, and should be equally legally permissible. If all of the former establishments can advertise their services without censure, then the opposite must also be allowed.

Sexuality, whether hetero or homo, is rarely a lifestyle choice, rarely going against the mainstream and rarely just to be anti-establishment. Something so intensely personal and private should never be used as either a political tool or a weapon.

Give and take, compromise and tolerance, are all two way streets - especially in matters intensely personal and relating to sexuality. People are comfortable with some things, not with others; can talk openly about some things, not others, and that's the way it's always been.

Before you blast Mrs Rigby and her wider family as being unreasonable, some of our dearest friends have only very recently plucked up the courage (their words) to fasten their relationship (their words) with a civil ceremony. This couple has never stayed overnight at Rigby Towers, not because they have never been invited but because they have declined, for the same reason given by the owners of Guyz Hotel - it is because they feel uncomfortable being around heterosexuals at bedtime, and that is also why we Rigbys have never stayed at our friends place either, it simply wouldn't be fair.

Give and take, compromise and tolerance.

Anything else is dictatorial and undemocratic, actively removes rights from one sector of the community and causes disharmony.

....

MP rap (song)

First spotted at Dick Puddlecote's place this video can also be seen at Subrosa and Old Holborn.

Take your pick, but do watch it somewhere, and see what some British primary school children are being taught at school. Then take the time to read the comments that have been left on the site you've chosen to visit.

Then think about it.

The song was probably a well-meaning attempt to celebrate the 'history' or 'achievement' of people of only one colour, and in doing so focused on only one local individual who also happens to be a popular MP.

It would be interesting to know how this would work if a school were to try to, say, "celebrate" any other feature that is an inherited characteristic, and over which the individual has no personal control - for example blond hair, blue eyes, pink skin.

Would there be an outcry?

Of course there would, and history tells us that doing that sort of thing can be dangerous.

So, knowing the lessons of history, it's strange to learn that schools and, indeed, any organisation, are allowed encouraged to champion or celebrate the inherited characteristics of one group of people, and do so for a whole calendar month each year, whilst ignoring the fact that in today's Britain we are meant to be all equal - irrespective of race, colour or creed.

....

St Patrick's Day

Here's hoping everybody who wants to celebrate St Patrick's Day has enjoyed their Bank Holiday.

No sour grapes, not really, but it would be nice if all Patron Saints were treated equally.

St Patrick and St Andrew get their days recognised, but not St George or St David.

Perhaps the person, or people, who make these decisions could explain why.

....

Constitutional convention and inequalities.

Man in a Shed asks

I just wonder if this Parliament can bind the next with a referendum to take place after the current parliament ends ?

If I remember correctly there is a constitutional convention that no Parliament may bind another.

Or do I have this wrong ?

Interesting question, but having little more than an, "It can't be right," opinion of many of the things that have happened in the 13 years of this government it wouldn't be surprising if they do it anyway and pass the 'unintended consequences' onto somebody else to deal with later.

They will probably do it because they can, because those currently sitting in Westminster have a large enough majority to push through whatever legislation they wish. So many MPs are resigning at the end of this Parliament that it doesn't matter, on an individual basis, whether bad decisions are made - because it won't cost the individual either their vote or their means of earning a living.

The same question could be asked about devolution - which happened. There was, and still is, nothing anybody is prepared to do about resolving the problems it caused even though it would appear to fly in the face of equality and human rights legislation and, of course, the West Lothian Question remains unanswered and unresolved.

It may be that some EU bureaucrats decided there should be a number of 'Regional Assemblies', it may be that these bureaucrats decided both their geographical and demographical make-up many years ago (i.e. where they should be, and how many individuals they should appear to represent) - but to the ordinary Brit it seemed, at the time, that the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish were being given individual voices whilst denying that right to the English, and it, to some, appeared to be deliberately done, out of historical spite.

History is a strange thing, it means different things to different people.

Within every country there are staunch nationalists who would happily lock down their country and repel all boarders. Within the British Isles there are, and always have been, those who view the Treaties and Acts of Union rather personally, seeing them as little more than asset stripping, whilst failing to acknowledge that, very simplistically, it was a Scottish King who moved his throne to London rather than an English monarch who took over the Scottish throne. It would seem he did it because he was asked to do so, and may have done it for political expediency, and it might be that the later, aforementioned treaties, were financially useful.

Due to decisions made by employers we Rigbys have lived in England, Wales and Scotland, and have done so quite happily. Our children arrived with either the dragon or the saltire invisibly emblazoned on their foreheads - it means nothing to them, frankly they couldn't care less, and as young adults they can't see what all the fuss is about when it comes to 'regions' and 'national identity' within the British Isles because they've been told they're citizens of Europe.

The junior Rigbys have reached maturity during the term of this government you see, and know nothing else. They have had 'equality' and 'human rights' and 'equal opportunities' drilled into their heads at school and have always thought the whole lot was all fine, fair and reasonable. But, as they get older, they're finding it isn't quite like that. They are rapidly discovering that there are inequalities and unfairnesses that apply to them, personally, and also those they know and love.

The worst inequalities and unfairnesses the junior Rigbys see relate specifically to money, and to higher education and elderly care, and they have become quite vociferous in their complaints - but are finding there is absolutely nothing they can do about it, because there is no pressure group willing or able to speak out for them.

This is something of a political dilemma, because the junior Rigbys will be voting at the forthcoming General Election and they, honestly and truly, see nobody in any political group who is actively seeking their vote.

These are the sort of things they see :-

Britain is ruled, and governed, by a group of individuals drawn from the whole of the British Isles. Some of these individuals have chosen never to take their seats in Parliament, whilst still drawing their salary and expenses.

Some of these individuals appear to have helped push through legislation relating only to England, knowing that it will never affect their own constituents whilst the issue has been used as a political football in Parliament instead of worrying how it will affect individual people.

Interestingly, University Tuition Fees in Scotland are free ... if ...

... you are classed as being ordinarily resident in Scotland or another European Union (EU) country outside the UK, and are going to be studying full-time in Scotland, you will not be required to pay tuition fees. All tuition fees will be paid on your behalf by the Scottish Government through the Student Awards Agency for Scotland (SAAS). Students must apply for this funding every year.

It would appear that only the Non-Scottish Brits have to pay to attend university in Scotland. It would be hard to see how this selective pricing would be permitted anywhere else within the EU - but here in Britain this academic apartheid goes unchallenged and unscrutinised by the equality watchers.

The Junior Rigbys are aware of a peculiar system whereby older relatives, living only tens of yards to the English side of the Welsh border and registered with a GP whose practice is in Wales, have to pay prescription charges - even when these prescriptions are dispensed to the west of the border line - unlike those patients who live the other side of the line drawn on a map.

If the Junior Rigbys and their friends are truly representative of their generation it would seem that many young English voters feel pushed to one side and disenfranchised.

These are not the lager-louts of their generation, these are decent young people who are future breadwinners and taxpayers.

These young people want to see Parliament and Government representing them and their interests - because they are selfish, as are most teenagers. It doesn't matter how often they are preached at by the political elite about making sure 'minorities' are catered for, they see the here and now, and what they see is an unequal country where some sections of the population are being ignored.

Many of these young people have taken part time, temporary, minimum wage, holiday jobs to help them get through incredibly tough times financially - it isn't possible to be 'unemployed' during university holidays - and have seen a proportion of their wage taken by the taxman - money that should have been refunded at the end of the tax year, but due to 'administrative delays' it's still sitting in the treasury coffers - ten months later. But they don't know anybody whose benefits have been reduced due to the same sort of 'administrative delays'.

These young people look at their "equals" at university and see some whose fees and accommodation costs are paid by the state, because they come from 'poor' families, and they think that some of these 'poor' students are only at "Uni" to party and have a good time whilst some others are so semi-literate that they need helpers. They're told that this is 'equal opportunity' and is the right thing to happen.

According to ONS, and by carefully moving the slider and jotting down the figures, there are  4,198,600 voters (age 18-22 in 2010) who have reached their majority since the 2005 general election.

If all these people turn out to vote they could, truly, make a difference to the outcome of the coming election - but what is government doing to attract them, and encourage them to vote Labour?

Here are just a few of the less-than-attractive things that have been discussed at Rigby Towers and other nearby homes recently :-

• New rules that force siblings of these voters stay in full time education until they are 18 - when the good guys amongst this group would be happier to get away from the disruptive elements with whom they have had to share their classrooms.

• Encouraged rules that, although you may drink alcohol at 18, you are not allowed to buy it until you're 21 - and nor can parents if there is a young person with them at the supermarket checkout ... but it's still possible to get married at 16, and have children, and be given accommodation and financial support paid for from the public purse.

• Cigarette smokers have been turned into social pariahs, forcing them outside whatever the weather, yet leniency and sympathy is extended to those who use unscented illegal drugs in public toilets.

• Brought in rules that appear to give non-Brits greater rights to jobs than the indigenous population.

• The lack of free NHS dental care - for all, not just adults.

• Taking money away from Army Cadets and UOTC, but not the juniors branches of the Air Force or Navy.

• Plans to cut Higher Education funding and reduce the number of students, whilst quotas ensure places for the less hard-working rather than high achievers.

• By relaxing the rules regarding learning foreign languages and reducing the rigour of terminal language assessment (which was fine at the time because it made life easier) many of this age group are finding the job market is closed to them - because other Europeans are better qualified.

• Done nothing to discourage ad hominem attacks whereby an individual can be lambasted for holding an opinion rather than their opinion being the subject of debate.

Unsurprisingly there have been few, if any, discussions relating to the nice things that have happened, there doesn't seem to have been anything that has made life either better or easier.

It isn't only those currently in government who need to understand the situation relating to those who are new to voting, it is also those who are seeking to beat Labour at a coming election.

If these young people see government trying to push through legislation that changes the electoral system in such a way that it appears to ensure they (Labour) either remain in, or return to, power it will be seen by some young people as yet more bully-boy tactics - unfair and unreasonable, although perhaps 'constitutionally' acceptable.

If they see opposition parties sitting on their hands and letting this legislation through then these young people will seek alternative parties that appear to represent them - it won't matter to them if "the establishment" doesn't like these minor groups, it won't matter if "the establishment" calls these groups bad names - that sort of thing is attractive, after all, young people  - even really nice young people - are traditionally anti-establishment and will often go out of their way to make the grown-ups unhappy.

.

Pope Benedict XVI speaks out against Harman's "equality" law.

This doesn't really need much of a comment :-

Pope Benedict XVI claimed that legislation introduced by Labour to end discrimination “actually violates natural law” because it stopped worshippers remaining true to their beliefs.

Rather than making society more equal, the Government’s new rules limited religious freedom, he said.

His strongly worded intervention in British politics comes after leaders of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England clashed with Labour over its Equality Bill, which they fear will make them admit homosexuals to the priesthood or face prosecution for discriminating against them.

In an address delivered yesterday [1st February] to 35 Catholic bishops from England and Wales, the Pope attacked Labour’s equality proposals. He said: “Your country is well known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society. Yet ... the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.

 The article continues :-

It is also believed the law, intended to outlaw discrimination against any group in the “provision of services” from health care to shopping, would restrict the right of a church school to employ a head teacher who shared their faith, and would open the job up to members of any religion or atheists.

From this little paragraph it would appear that this is yet more woolly-worded legislation. It would appear that Harriet wants Christians to be able to be head teachers in Islamic schools, Jewish schools and so on - and vice versa.

That'll go down well.

It will be interesting to see reports of the very first test case.

Mr Tatchell, who seems to have been fairly quiet lately, has become something of a seer and speaks on behalf of the British population :-

Benedict is likely to make highly partisan political criticisms during his visit. Most British people will not welcome a meddlesome pontiff who opposes our equality laws.”

Sorry Mr Tatchell, many people would think your comments rather presumptive - the "British people" can speak for themselves. You're likely to be quite surprised by the popularity of the Pope's proposed visit.

A question of airport security

It was vaguely reassuring to read that Yates of the YardMet thinks that passenger profiling might be a good idea, his thoughts are reported thus (30th January 2010) :-

He agreed that an “elderly white woman dressed in middle-class garb” was unlikely to be a terrorist .....

Mr Yates called for searches [to spot suspicious individuals at airports and in other areas sensitive to attack] to be carried out using intelligence databases, and “sharp thinking” on the ground.

He said that suspicions should be aroused by an individual’s personal history and pattern of travel, how they bought their ticket, and their luggage.

The anti-terrorism chief continued: “At the same time, we must encourage police and security staff to use their experience, their street-craft - their ‘nous’. This means considering a range of factors - dress, body language, behaviour or simply something that’s ‘not quite right’.

“This puts the onus on our staff to be intelligent and to act with common sense."

This all seems eminently sensible.

It's reassuring to think that, should the quite elderly Mrs Rigby Senior decide to travel by air, she would probably not be subjected to the indignity of either a body search or a body scan - even if the bits of metal in her hip frighten the scanners.

Mrs R Sr is a nervous passenger, she always has been, and she's read about these scanning machines and the whole concept, frankly, terrifies her - she can't understand why anybody would imagine she might be a criminal, let alone a bomb-carrying terrorist.

Lord Adonis, however, doesn't seem to be quite as reassuring as Yates of the Yard, as outlined in his answer to a written question (dated 1st February 2010) :-

The requirement to deploy AIT machines at Heathrow and Manchester airports comes into effect today ... This will be followed by a nationwide roll-out of scanners in the coming months. These scanners are designed to give airport security staff a much better chance of detecting explosives or other potentially harmful items hidden on a passenger’s body.

..... The Code will require airports to undertake scanning sensitively, having regard to the rights of passengers.

..... In the immediate future, only a small proportion of airline passengers will be selected for scanning. If a passenger is selected for scanning, and declines, they will not be permitted to fly.

However, the Interim Code of Practice stipulates: “Passengers must not be selected on the basis of personal characteristics (i.e. on a basis that may constitute discrimination such as gender, age, race or ethnic origin)”.

His Lordship certainly does send out a mixed message, appearing to give equal weight to the "rights" of passengers and "discrimination" - presumably because anything else would be provocative to rightists of various sorts, but his concealed punchline says it all  -  if a passenger is selected for scanning, and declines, they will not be permitted to fly.

It would be good if Lord Adonis and the powers-that-be could explain this rule to an elderly British lady who lived through WW2 and who carried on going to work whilst all around her was destroyed, due to the Blitz.

This particular elderly person lost family members both in battle and as a result of indiscriminate bombing. She has managed to survive the IRA mainland bombing campaigns, having been told to 'carry on'. She has never knowingly, and certainly never deliberately, broken a law in her life.

It would be good if those with authority could properly explain to an elderly, and essentially very private, lady who has never let the more intimate parts of her body be seen by any person other than her husband or a member of the medical profession, and who has only ever been scanned or x-rayed due to medical need, that if she wants to be allowed to travel in an aeroplane she might be chosen, called out of a line of passengers, to stand in front of a machine that is capable of using technology to undress her, and - as she describes the process - so that somebody she can't herself see will be able to look at her 'naked body'.

Believe me Lord Adonis, I've tried to explain it, but for the life of me I can't - no matter how hard I try. It's even harder having read what they do at Israel's airports.

Israeli airport security, much of it invisible to the untrained eye, begins before passengers even enter the terminal. Officials constantly monitor behavior, alert to clues that may hint at danger: bulky clothing, say, or a nervous manner. Profilers -- that's what they're called -- make a point of interviewing travelers, sometimes at length. They probe, as one profiling supervisor told CBS, for ``anything out of the ordinary, anything that does not fit." Their questions can seem odd or intrusive, especially if your only previous experience with an airport interrogation was being asked whether you packed your bags yourself.

Why, oh why, does this country continue to imitate the worst, most draconian, practices that make individual people feel uncomfortable, disconcerted and worried.

It's almost as if 'they' want us to be afraid - but 'they' can't possible want that, because it would mean that the bad guys have won their battle.