I have been lazy of late and spent more time looking at other people’s blogs than nursing my own.
Having decided on a subject for a shiny new Spring posting I discover that, not for the first time, somebody else has got there first. So let me point anyone who may wander past to two posts by Bishop Hill and in particular the erudite comments that his site always attracts.
The first of these links to a Guardian article by Henry Miller entitled How we engineered the food crisis but it’s the comments that follow that have, as it were, stolen my thunder with some trenchant, informed, and — for those interested in the various questions arising from the green approach to modern agri-business — well worth noting comments from the usual wide range of contributors.
The second posting takes us away from the site’s recurrent battle with eco-alarmists into the area of civil liberties, a subject which — Andrew Montford reminds us — used to be one of his major focuses.
The question of super-injunctions (or hyper-injunctions) was raised at a debate in Westminster Hall the week before last. To the majority such things would appear to be just a tad on the esoteric side; certainly I cannot envisage a situation in which I am likely ever to apply to the High Court for such an injunction or to find myself on the receiving end of one.
To dismiss them as something that need not concern we ordinary beings, however, would be a mistake.
The full transcript of the Westminster Hall debate is here. Like many parliamentary debates it is tedious in parts. Stick with it. You’ll be amazed.