To a cynic like myself, the 42 day terror laws need to be opposed simply because they look like an obvious way for Gordon Brown to appear macho and appease the tabloid press, and there seems to be little legal merit in them. Does anyone really think that, in his heart of hearts, Mr Brown even believes his own rhetoric about “standing on principle” over this issue?

Until Wednesday evening, the Conservative party were appearing virtually united on this issue, with only one MP, Ann Widdecombe, voting with the government. If ever there was a battleaxe to defy all attempts to whip her into submission, then it was Ms Widdecombe! Reading through Friday’s papers, it looks like David Davis had already done a remarkable job in persuading both his shadow cabinet colleagues, and the rest of the party, that there was no case to support the government on its will to hold terror suspects for up to 42 days without charge.  Notwithstanding this unity in the Conservative party, the government had also had to go through the humiliation of relying on the support of the Democratic Unionist Party, and bribe or no bribe, Gordon Brown was still looking on very unstable ground by the time he came to his press conference on Thursday morning.

Clearly, the fact that this Bill has been passed, by whatever means, has sent David Davis to boiling point.  Right now, with the Liberal Democrats saying that they will support him, and Labour suggesting that they will not play along with what they see as a political stunt, it looks like he has scored a remarkable political own goal.  For someone who used to be a reservist in the SAS, this looks much more like a nose dive than a skydive, but he clearly feels passionate about this issue, and it is far too early to predict how this will play out.  Ultimately though, I have to applaud what he has done, perhaps because I can empathise so much with many of the character traits which he has displayed — recklessness, adrenalin seeking, being ego driven, getting heated up on a single point, but ultimately standing on principle.  I don’t mind how foolish may look right now, he has injected a great deal of sparkle into a debate which desperately needs it.

When I got to the first class section, I found that the opposite was true — out of 47 seats, just 13 had been taken, 14 including myself — less than one third of the available seats.  Meanwhile, as I move through the train, I noted that virtually all the vestibule areas were crammed by people sitting next to the doors, some with heavy luggage, but many would not think other than a small rucksack.  Dad often says that the nation will only get the politicians it deserves, and I would have to concur that the kind of apathy displayed on Friday evening, and that I regularly see on the trains, will also do little to improve the standard of service passengers will get.  What was the point of a senior conductor offering this extra space if passengers do not take advantage of it?  This might have only been a very small part of the overcrowding problem — and I have still never heard a good explanation about why InterCity trains have as many first-class coaches are they do, and I’ve yet to hear anyone observing the first class section being full without it being declassified.  However, I’ve also been on trains on numerous occasions when the overcrowding has been dire, but the senior conductor has not declassified any first class carriages.  Sometimes, they just need to be asked, but in my experience, few passengers could be bothered to do this.  It certainly helps to speak their lingo — ‘ this train is to overcrowded, can I sit in first class ‘ is never done get the same result as ‘ are you going to be de-classifying first-class this evening.’

Having a seat reservation is always a useful advantage on a crowded train, but most people would feel pretty squeamish at the prospect of asking an elderly passenger, or a mother with children to move from the seat they had booked (hint hint — in this scenario, the chances of getting one of the moved to first-class increases dramatically).  Failing that, I would personally rather get off and wait for the next train, as there can often be huge differences in occupancy levels between one service and the next.  This can be especially true if the train you on is the first train outside the peak restrictions, or if it’s travelling through somewhere that is likely to generate large amounts of traffic at a specific time (e.g. a football match).  I can’t speak the early morning commuters into London, but between the different measures mentioned above, I virtually always managed to get a seat, even on the very busiest of trains.

This new law will do little to improve the safety of the travelling public.  Transport systems have long been a target of ambitious terror groups, but the statistical chances of any passenger being caught in a terrorist atrocity remain extremely small, as they are for accidents on public transport.  We were told on the BBC’s Question Time last week by Foreign Secretary David Miliband that the extension of questioning to 42 days instead of the current 28 would act as an “insurance policy” for potential future trials, but a much better insurance plan must surely be to prevent the radicalisation of young Muslims from happening in the first place.  Once somebody is hellbent on committing such acts (and we really are only talking about a very small handful of extremists each year), it won’t make a scrap of difference to them whether they are likely to be held for 28 days or 42, but holding any innocent person for up to six weeks is a total affront to the fundamental principles of habeas corpus, for which so many other countries look so admirably on the British legal system.

Instead, all we will see a further erosion of our civil liberties in the name of public protection, when the real objective of this legislation is to try and secure some desperately needed tabloid support for our blundering loser of a Prime Minister.  This whole debacle reminds me of a quote which is popularly attributed to Benjamin Franklin, but which is actually believed to have originated from his fellow diplomat Richard Jackson:

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

The travelling public now have the double whammy of needlessly heightened security measures and having to pay through the nose for the oil price bubble, both which can be attributed to the disastrous 2003 invasion of Iraq.  Weren’t we told that this too would be an insurance policy against terrorism?

• Affiliates 4 U Forum Thread (For A4U members)

I saw two concerts at the newly opened 02 Arena (former millennium Dome) last year, but there was always going is something special about seeing Roger Waters playing “Time” in a venue that is effectively at the centre of time, being so close to the Greenwich Meridian.  If you’ve ever flown over The Dome (the view from London City airport is particularly good), you will know that it is supported by 12 pylons, effectively turning it into a giant clock face with a little bit of imagination. 

Does all this matter, considering that the O2 arena is buried firmly inside The Dome?  Maybe it wouldn’t for Take That, but Pink Floyd’s work has always been full of grandiose symbolism, so seeing Dark Side of the Moon played inside such a big white tent was always going to be an epic performance.  As with many previous Pink Floyd shows, Waters’ stage was designed by Mark Fisher, who has also created stage sets for The Rolling Stones and the U2 amongst many others.

The set list, and set pieces (my personal favourites were “Perfect Sense”, “Time”, “Money” and “Comfortably Numb”) might have changed little in the last two years, but inside the O2, everything just sounded that much crisper, and felt that much more impressive.  Dan [Fell, Flightmapping colleague] managed to catch Comfortably Numb on his camera, and he has put this on You Tube - the sound is amazing, considering that his camera is no bigger than a cigarette packet.

Dan reckoned he had just witnessed the best show he had ever been to, whereas the Scouser standing behind me promise that he would take this memory to his grave.  I’ll just settle with saying that I was completely blown away by this performance — maybe not the great Gig in the Sky, but certainly the combination of Waters and the riverside dome made Perfect Sense, even if this post doesn’t.

Set One 
 
In the Flesh
Mother
Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun
Shine On You Crazy Diamond (Parts II - V) (abridged)
Have a Cigar
Wish You Were Here
Southampton Dock
The Fletcher Memorial Home
Perfect Sense (Parts I - II)
Leaving Beirut
Sheep

Set Two (The Dark Side of the Moon)

Speak to Me / Breathe
On the Run
Time / Breathe (Reprise)
The Great Gig in the Sky
Money
Us and Them
Any Colour You Like
Brain Damage
Eclipse

Encore

The Happiest Days of Our Lives
Another Brick in the Wall (Part II)
Vera
Bring the Boys Back Home
Comfortably Numb

Many people might quite reasonably argue that fuel duty is extortion, but our government needs to get its money somehow, and just as we haven’t really heard how a Conservative government would reinstate the 10p tax bracket, I’m not really convinced that anyone has any serious proposals to reduce the tax rate on fuel, without commensurate increase in other taxes, such as income tax.  So to anyone who is protesting about the cost of fuel, I have one simple question — which would you rather have, higher income tax, or higher tax on fuel? Personally, I’ll take the tax on fuel any day, for one simple reason — it is much easier for most people to avoid fuel tax than it is to avoid income tax.

Having listened to the the news today, it seems that Gordon Brown will do everything he can to tap on other international leaders’ shoulders, and deflect attention away from his own government’s contribution to the high cost of fuel, so whether we like it or not, high fuel prices are going to be with us for a long time coming.  People can protest all they want, but even if there are reductions in fuel duty, these are only likely to knock a few pence off the cost of fuel at the pumps. Across The Pond, It also looks like Hillary Clinton’s promise  of a fuel tax holiday will shortly die a death, along with her presidential campaign, and I’ll have to say that I wish a good riddance to them both.

I know it is easy for me to say that people who really want to reduce their fuel bill should buy a smaller car, or convert to LPG, but I think it is far more sensible to try and leave the car at home and try walking or cycling.  Try doing this for just one week, and you might well find that there is a lot more on your doorstep than you might think.  Apart from the money saved, there are huge health benefits to be gained from cycling even just a few short miles each day, not to mention the environmental benefits that any self-powered transport brings.  For longer journeys, I’ve always felt that going by train is a much better use of time, especially when travelling to and from London where congestion alone makes driving there unthinkable, long before any additional charges come into account.

The equipment I have set up on his desk, which includes a Sennheiser MD 431 II microphone and ultraquiet CPU architecture, ensures that Dragon 9.5 is as accurate as it can be, but it is still prone to the odd howler.  I was supposed to be writing a list of office stationery requirements, but somehow it substituted “Blu-tac” with “Prozac”.

Well, one is supposed to pick you up, and the other is there to keep things hanging on the walls, so I suppose this kind of lateral thinking is quite impressive for a 12 month old computer.  Or maybe not.  Maybe I’m just trying to make Monday morning interesting.  I’ll let you make up your own mind - at least this blogger is back up now, and as usual, he has plenty to say.