ChristopherWhite.info

“South American, African and other non-European footballers who cannot speak English will be barred from joining Premier League clubs from the autumn under the new points-based immigration system detailed by ministers yesterday.

“The introduction of an English language test, covering everyday phrases and simple conversation, forms part of a package of tougher rules for skilled migrants from outside Europe applying to work in Britain and for temporary workers and students.

“The immigration minister, Liam Byrne, said that there would have been 20,000 fewer migrants coming to Britain last year had the new rules been in force.

Aside from the obvious irony — that native players can hardly speak English — this is pretty silly on at least two counts:

1. It implies that, for example, a bunch of South Americans running round a pitch speaking Spanish is somehow “worse” than a bunch of Spaniards running round a pitch speaking Spanish. (Only there’s obviously nothing Liam Byrne could do about the latter even if he wanted to.)
2. If these guys’ employers don’t believe it’s necessary for them to speak English — and not just within football — then it’s got precisely cock-all to do with anyone else.

No Comments »

The online version of a piece by Martin Rees for the Guardian’s science course series:

“We are each made up of between 1028 and 1029 atoms. […] More than 1078 atoms lie within range of our telescope.”

So there’s only about 1.05 people in the visible universe, and bugger all else.

(In a recent post, which I’ve since misplaced, I criticised Madeleine Bunting for writing C02 rather than CO2, and took some flak myself for not being entirely accurate either, and not writing CO₂. In that case the lack of a subscript doesn’t obscure understading — not much anyway; it’s reasonably obvious we’re talking about a molecule made of one carbon atom and two oxygen. But in Rees’s article, having lost the superscript on 10²⁸ and so on makes it a complete nonsense.)

No Comments »

A while back, I submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Identity and Passport Service, asking how many ways there are that they know of in which it is possible to compromise the security or integrity of the proposed ID card scheme.

I mentioned their reply here, when they claimed that disclosing their strategies and tactics for dealing with fraud would not be in the public interest. Naturally, I requested an internal review of their decision, on the quite reasonable grounds that I didn’t ask for their strategies to deal with fraud: I asked simply for a number.

Following this internal review, the IPS now claim to have misread my original request, and that they “do not hold information on the number of ways it may be possible to compromise the integrity of the proposed identity card scheme”.

Spot the subtle difference.

They deny holding information on the number of ways in which compromising the ID card may be possible; I asked for the number of ways in which they know it to be possible.

It’s not actually possible for them not to hold the information that I did request. At risk of starting to sound like Donald Rumsfeld:

Either they know of ways to compromise ID-card security, or they do not. If they do, then they must therefore know of x ways to do this. If they do not, then they know of zero ways, which means they still know of the number ways – zero. Else they are claiming not to know whether they know of possible security issues.

Question: are they genuinely this stupid, or are they doing it on purpose?

1 Comment »

Via Dan:

A non-league club faces suspension by the Football Association from all competitions for refusing to pay an ex-player jailed on a robbery charge.

Grays Athletic FC terminated Ashley Sestanovich’s contract before his conviction for conspiracy to rob.

Grays have been given 14 days by the FA to pay Sestanovich £14,000 for the five months up to his conviction.

He was jailed for eight years. Two other men were jailed for life for shooting a man dead during the raid.

Sestanovich is arguing that he should have been paid up until the time of his conviction, as the club shouldn’t — legally couldn’t — have terminated his contract until then. If he’d been found not guilty then maybe he’d have a point.

But given that he was on remand for five months, had the club simply suspended him without pay on the entirely reasonable grounds that he was unavailable to play, and then fired him after the verdict, the situation would be exactly the same as what it in fact is.

No Comments »

Pakistan’s impenetrable Tora Bora is unreachable because of its alienation, in legal and civic terms, from the rest of the country

So alienated, in fact, that’s it’s in Afghanistan.

1 Comment »

Just before Christmas I asked the Home Office — out of curiosity more than anything else — how many ways there are that they’re aware of in which it is possible to compromise the proposed National Identity Card, as the scheme stands¹.

The National Identity and Passport Service replied that they’re not obliged to provide the information as it fails the public interest test, stating:

[I]t is not in the public interest to disclose IPS’s strategies or tactics for dealing with fraud as this information may provide valuable intelligence to the perpretators of crime.

If the Home Office thinks that a simple number consists of “strategies or tactics”, then we’re in more trouble than I thought.

Or, bearing in mind that they took three more than the maximum 20 working days allowed by the Freedom of Information act to tell me that they can’t tell me, could they have refused simply because it’d be embarrasing for them?
_ _ _

1 This supposes that they know how they’re going to implement it, which I’ll admit is a totally unwarranted assumption.

No Comments »

So, if I signed a contract of employment that stipulated a dress code, and then chose to ignore it, I’d probably be disciplined.

But if I signed a contract of employment that stipulated a dress code, and then chose to ignore it because of my personal beliefs, I’d get paid £8,500.

Right…

Really this is about direct and indirect discrimination:

Direct discrimination

You have the right not to be treated less favourably than someone else (eg not being promoted) because of your religion or belief, your perceived religion or belief, or the religion or belief of people you associate with.

However, direct discrimination is allowed where religious belief is a necessary requirement for the job. For example, a Roman Catholic school may be able to restrict applications for a scripture teacher to baptized Catholics.

Indirect discrimination

You have the right not to be disadvantaged by a policy at work because of your religion or belief. If you’re a devout Muslim or Sikh for example, a head-covering policy for all employees could discriminate against you.

This kind of indirect discrimination may be unlawful, whether or not its done on purpose. Its only allowed if its necessary for the way the business works.

Direct discrimination — ok, it’s not cricket. But “indirect discrimination” is not discrimination.In the example given from DirectGov, the head-covering policy applies to all empoyees. If people feel that they cannot comply with it then that is their choice.

As another example, my uncle drives a lorry, and delivers to supermarkets. At one of these supermarkets he often has to unload the booze orders himself, because one of the employees that is supposed to unload the delivery is Muslim and refuses even to touch alcohol.

Personal beliefs, or that nebulous concept “religion”, are not a good enough excuse to simply refuse to do one’s job.

Terry Sanderson ends that CIF piece with:

It should now be OK to say: “Leave your religion at the door, please. And if you won’t and your religion doesn’t permit you to work in the way that this jobs demands you do, then please find another job that will.”

Yes, yes it should. Otherwise, “religion”, “personal beliefs”, or however one chooses to phrase it, simply translates as: “The rules do not apply to me.”

No Comments »

Hang on.

On Downing Street’s website a couple of days ago, on the assassination of Benazir Bhutto:

The Prime Minister has said that “cowards afraid of democracy” assassinated Benazir Bhutto earlier today.

This from the man who wouldn’t allow a referendum on the EU reform treaty because he was afraid of losing, wouldn’t call a general election because he was afraid of losing, was crowned by his party rather than properly elected, and wants to make political parties state funded because he’s scared people will give money to the ‘wrong’ parties. For Gordon Brown to call anybody else “afraid of democracy” is truly staggering.

No Comments »

I’ve just found myself really wanting to take up smoking just to annoy people like this:

Ultimately, the ban enacted on July 1 should not be the end of the legislative process but the beginning. The months and years to come should witness a wealth of legislation enacted by the government leading towards one ultimate goal: the abolition of smoking, whether public or private, throughout the land, forever.

Er, why..?

No Comments »

Via Tim, Antonia Bance on Griffin and Irving’s appearance at the Oxford Union:

“And even if they were to, is it not breathtakingly arrogant that Oxford undergraduates believe that in a five minute debating speech they could somehow defeat either, when it took a Cambridge Professor of Modern History weeks on the stand to rebut Irving’s assertions?”

It took a Cambridge Professor of Modern History weeks on the stand to rebut Irving’s assertions to the standard required in a court of law. Hardly the same, is it?

Personally I’d love to see the cream of the UK’s students rubbishing BNP plans to spend a fortune to encourage every last non-white person to leave the country.

UPDATE:

Crikey.

3 Comments »