Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth can only be shown
in schools if accompanied by a government health warning, a High
Court Judge has ruled.
Mr Justice Burton was passing judgement in a case brought by Stewart
Dimmock; a school governor in Kent, who claimed that the film
gave an unbalanced view of climate change and if governors allowed
it to be shown, they would be in breach of their statutory obligation
to protect children from one-sided political propaganda.
While refusing Mr Dimmock's application to have the film banned,
the judge concluded that no fewer than nine of the film's "truths",
including the claim that Hurricane Katrina was the result of global
warming, were not supported by the scientific evidence.
Interestingly, Old Grumpy raised this very issue at a governors'
meeting earlier this year after one of my fellow members offered
to lend his copy of the film to the school.
As I recall, I was denounced as a global warming detractor - not
quite so bad as "denier" (c.f. holocaust) - but not
intended as a compliment, all the same.
I have written extensively on this subject (Global
warming) (Overheated)
(Overcooked) and it is heartening
to find the High Court agreeing with much of what I have had to
say.
Following last week's piece on Pem Developments (Inside
track), I have received two e-mails from readers in the Pembroke
Dock area.
The first confirms what I already understood to be the case: that
Pem has now completed the purchase of the Commodore/Port hotel.
But the second is much more interesting.
My correspondent tells me that a substantial steel security fence
has now been constructed around the site.
Nothing remarkable about that you might think.
Not until you consider that the man supervising its erection was
none other than our old friend Cllr Brian Hall, Dr Michael Ryan's
co-conspirator in the plot to to fill their boots in Pembroke
Dock contrary to Dr Ryan's written undertaking that any new company
with which he was involved wouldn't trade in Pembrokeshire (Hall-Ryan).
What is amazing is that, five years on, despite this piece of
treachery, Dr Ryan is still picking up £450-a-day as the
county council's economic development consultant.
The words "buried" and "bodies" spring to
mind.
Another e-mailer tells me that former county council chairman
Steve Watkins has been on a visit to the Czech Republic on behalf
of the National Park.
Cllr Watkins, who once described himself as "a lifelong socialist"
in a letter to the Western Telegraph, seems to have had a change
of heart because he says that, under the former communist (socialist?)
regime: "The very basics of life particularly professional
and academic life depended on being a Party member, and third-rate
Party hacks controlled everything, under the baleful gaze of the
secret police".
Give or take the odd secret policeman, that seems like the
perfect description - especially the bit about third-rate party
hacks - of the county council under the Independent Political
(sic) Group of which he is a leading member.
As far as I'm aware, Cllr Watkins has never raised any objections
to the fact that the third-raters' third-rater Cllr Alwyn "Monster
Muncher" Luke (see Master forger)
is chairman of the scrutiny committee charged with overseeing
the education system; SACRE (Standing Advisory Committee on Religious
Education); and corporate governance committee, as well as being
the council's representative on the Committee for Nuclear Free
Local Authorities.
Interestingly, Cllr Watkins name cropped up during the Adjudication
Panel for Wales hearing into my complaint against Cllr John Allen-Mirehouse.
Apparently, Cllr Watkins had provided the defence with a letter
in which he expressed the opinion that Cllr Allen-Mirehouse had
no interest to declare.
Why Cllr Watkins opinion on the subject should be given any weight
is not altogether clear.
However, when National Park officer Ifor Jones was called to give
evidence, Cllr Allen-Mirehouse's QC was keen to get him to confirm
Cllr Watkin's credibility.
Naturally, the officer was reluctant to pass comment on the councillor's
competence, though, after some prompting, he volunteered that
Cllr Watkins was an experienced councillor.
When asked about Cllr Watkins' political affiliations, Mr Jones
confirmed that he was an independent member.
So, as far as the tribunal was concerned, the letter was written
by a member with no political connection to Cllr Allen-Mirehouse,
whatsoever.
Which only goes to show that evidence that cannot be cross-examined
isn't worth the paper it's written on.
Had the Ombudsman's barrister been able to participate (Two
sides to every story) the tribunal might have learned that
Cllrs Allen-Mirehouse and Watkins are both members of the Independent
Political Group, of which Cllr Allen-Mirehouse is the deputy leader
(Party animals).
Furthermore, last year the IPG appointed Cllr Watkins chairman
of the county council and his very membership of the National
Park committee, itself, is in the gift of the IPG's leader Cllr
John Davies.
So, poor old Ming has been forced to fall on his sword.
I must admit to liking Ming, not the least because he has actually
achieved something - international athlete and leading member
of the Scottish bar - outside politics.
Unfortunately, the electorate appears to prefer smoothies like
Blair and Cameron to people of substance.
However, his resignation opens the way for an interesting battle
for the Lib Dems soul.
Will it become a traditional liberal party, as some of the Young
Turks seem to favour, or will it continue its flirtation with
the social democratic policies which were brought to the party
by the "Gang of Four".
The source of the party's dilemma is to be found in the influential
essay "Two concepts of liberty" by the philosopher Issiah
Berlin.
Berlin identified two entirely different meanings for liberty
which he called negative and positive freedom.
Negative freedom is the stuff of traditional liberalism and involves
"freedom from" interference by others.
Positive freedom is couched in he socialist language of rights
and involves the "freedom to" do certain things.
To give a trivial example: everyone is free to hop on a train
and go to Edinburgh in the sense that there is no law against
it.
But a socialist might argue that such a freedom is worthless to
someone who can't afford the fare.
The argument becomes rather less trivial if you are unable to
exercise your freedom to consult a doctor because you can't pay
his fee.
The socialist argument against what is, in effect, rationing by
price, is attractive until you consider that resources are finite
and if you don't ration by price you have to find some other way
to curb the potentially infinite demand for free goods and services.
Waiting lists, or denying patients certain expensive drugs, perhaps.
While I am attracted to the traditional liberal view of freedom,
I have to concede that the socialist version has its merits.
That said, when someone describes themselves as a liberal, it
is as well to enquire exactly what they mean.