Police hold preacher without food and water

Every now and again the police do something which leaves even me feeling amazed at their repulsiveness. Holding a Manchester preacher for nineteen hours, fifteen of those hours without food, water or medication, is one of those instances.

John Craven was preaching in Manchester in September 2011 when two homosexualists approached him and asked for his views on their particular lifestyle. He replied that God hates the sin, but He loves the sinners, whereupon the two began to kiss each other before simulating sex acts in front of the man. Their aim was obviously to provoke a reaction, but when that did not happen they went and found a copper who arrested Mr Craven for "public order offences."

He was then held for almost a whole day and denied food, water and medication until eventually a friend complained and he was given a microwaved meal. 

"The actions of the police have left me feeling nervous and anxious [and] I found the whole episode extremely distressing," he said.

It should be obvious to anyone that this is what the police wanted with their act of petty harassment - to so scare him that he would never return again to the streets of Manchester. 

Instead, Mr Craven took the matter to law and has just been awarded £13,000 in compensation. That finally came after the police dragged the matter out for almost three years, of course. That is pretty standard practice in the hope that people will get fed up and go away. They have also admitted holding him for far too long, but not that the original arrest was unjust in any way.

Excuse me, but I feel in need of a bath.

Who won the Clegg - Farage debate last night?

So who won last night's debate between Nick Clegg of the Liberal-Democrats and Nigel Farage from UKIP? 

Most people gave the result to Farage, if only because Clegg came over as a third-rate university lecturer with all the charisma of a lump of wood. To make matters worse, when challenged on his party's own policies he resorted to telling Farage to "read the small print." That may be fine for a seller of dodgy insurance policies, but not from the leader of a major political party. In effect what Clegg said to the people of Britain was that his party duped them with fancy footwork.

Even the fact that Farage is a shortarse, as you can see when you look at him standing next to 6' 1" me, did not tell against him. He came over as a cheeky chappy straight out of the Ken Livingston charm school. You might argue that a man his size cannot do the gravitas shtick, but that is not the point. Many a runt has compensated by becoming rather a pompous toad, but last night that dubious honour went to Clegg.

YouGov did a quick poll and 57% of its respondents gave the victory to Farage, as opposed to only 36% who backed Clegg. Most of the papers seem to be following that line, so are we to conclude that the cheeky chappy beat the lump of wood?

Well, we could argue that Clegg won a victory of sorts by positioning himself and his party as the voice of those who are one hundred percent committed to the European Union. That may be enough to prevent his party losing all its seats in the May European elections. Farage won the debate as far as the pollsters were concerned, and that should be enough to keep him cock-a-hoop.

So who do I think won? Well, Clegg spoke for the committed federasts and Farage for the Europhobes, and both energised their respective bases. However, most people are critical of the EU, and think it is very silly, not to say downright undemocratic, but it is not the major item on their political agendas. Cameron has offered a referendum after further negotiation, and that will probably be enough to strip away the soft underbelly of the UKIP vote. He must know that he cannot get the true believers in the federast camp to vote for him, but they never did, anyway, so let them stay with Clegg.

Looked at in that light, the victor last night was David Cameron.

Why the English object to Scotland's social welfare

I found out yesterday that Education Maintenance Allowance was never abolished in Scotland, and it also continues in Northern Ireland and Wales. Only England took the poorest people in the country who had children in further education and deprived those young people of the £30 a week that made their lives a bit easier. I can remember when Tory scum wrote that EMA was used to provide students with beer money, which may very well have been true but it also paid their bus fares and bought them a few books. More importantly than that, in England, it is the parents who have to find the money for beer, buses and books out of their capped benefits or low wages.

It is interesting how many people in England complain about these goodies that the people in the rest of the country enjoy. So, the English pay student university fees, prescription charges, and their children do not receive EMA. They have no chance of getting a council house because they are no longer being built and the few that remain can still be sold off at knock-down prices. In Scotland the sale of council houses has now been banned by the government, and Scots do not pay either university fees or prescription charges. 

The people of England could demand the same for themselves, but instead far too many Englishmen adopt an attitude of sullen resentment, and seem to say that if they cannot have these goodies then neither should anyone else. It is as if having bit down on the shit sarnie which capitalism has served up to them they then feel that everyone else should swallow it as well.

The fact that the Scots, Welsh and Ulster peoples have refused to chomp on that rancid offering only serves to remind the English of what utter cowards they are for refusing to demand the same level of social provision that the rest of us enjoy. That is why they complain at the level of services which exist outside England: they don't like being reminded of what mugs they were to give it all up.