Clearly, it's not really worth my while saying or yours reading anything much more on the heckling and subsequent explusion at the Labour Party Conference, especially since it was already two days ago. So, I'm going to ask a couple of relatively quick questions - would we have heard about this as much or even at all, if it hadn't been a pensioner who is effectively morally unimpeachable by virtue of having fled from the Nazis and long-standing membership of the Party, and if we wouldn't have, what does that say about the meeja in this country, and does it mean that this has happened before, or even happens regularly? - point you in the general direction of Actually Existing for discussion of and comment on both the legislation apparently used to detain Mr. Wolfgang and his expulsion, and invite praise to be showered on KC Gordon of Llanllechid, Gwynedd, who managed on the Grauniad's letters page to find a way of connecting one famous heckling incident with another.
In related linking, Chicken Yoghurt's analysis of the Dear Leader's exercise in seeing how many sentences without verbs or an ounce of moral integrity in them can be strung together before some kind of combined syntactic and normative singularity opens up and swallows him whole a) is excellent and b) references - I think - an excellent Billy Bragg song.
In unrelated linking, Chris Brooke discovers that someone else noticed, in 1754, that Locke can't, on pain of inconsistency, have had a self-ownership theory of property rights, because if he did, all property would be theft from that which is held in common, since mixing my labour with something that someone else has rights too wouldn't give me a right to it, and all land is originally held in common. As long as we have a right to some minimum level of subsistence, then it seems likely that any self-ownership based claim for property will fail or be superfluous for these kinds of reasons, until that minimum level of subsistence is provided for all. This is because either the property being justified will be over the level of subsistence, and therefore could be redirected to provide the level of subsistence for those who lack it, meaning that the self-ownership claim is invalid because the person never had a right to it in the first place, or it will be exactly at or below the level of subsistence, in which case it is justified by the right to subsistence. I think it's plausible that we have a right to subsistence, therefore any self-ownership justification for property fails or is superfluous.