The Chancellor, George Osborne (‘boy George’), of the ‘No Frills’ Conservative Party said his budget would ‘pay for the past and prepare for the future’.

The same was said in the year 2000 by the leaders of Chesapeake City Council in Virginia, USA.

There, their no frills approach has meant that there are regular sewer breaks costing the public up to $30,000 in damages each time.

Chesapeake was also reported in 2008 to be one of the worst cities to help disabled people, and Boy George seems to be following this regressive path by trying to reduce the number of people with disabilities claiming allowances that help them overcome their difficulties.

It was the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher and John Major who first introduced much of the support disabled people have benefited from in the last 30 years.

Yet now, in one foul swoop boy George looks likely to relegate disability rights to the confines of academic literature.

How can William Hague, the man who introduced the Disability Discrimination Act, serve in a government which will withdraw support from the very people he gave the right to define themselves as disabled?

How can David Cameron, the man who’s late son, like me, had epilepsy and was helped a great deal by the State, come to support these measures, which mean that the people least able to support themselves will be paying the price for the greedy bankers who were the cause of deficit?

My friend Mark Beech had a book delivered our house with ‘Dr Mark Beech’ on. I thought nothing of it until he showed me a card from his mobile phone provider with ‘Dr Mark Beech’ on. He got it through answering one question from Templar University, which say they ‘respect everyone’s intelligence’ and will award degrees to anyone to prove how worthless academic degrees are.

Well, whatever Templar say, I don’t respect Mark’s intelligence. Today I asked him whether he noticed something about the order of the top three drivers at the European Grand Prix.

Looking at this table it is clear to me as someone studying at doctoral level that the car number of the next driver can be predicted by adding 1 to the current one and dividing it by 3. Also the grid position of the next driver can be predicted by multiplying the current one by 2 and adding 1.

He didn’t understand this coincidence no matter how much I tried to explain it to him. If I had said this to someone else with a real PhD, or even someone in Mensa with no qualifications, they would have easily understood it.

Mark Beech’s political name in the Official Monster Raving Loony Party is The Good Knight Sir Nosda, but he is certainly no Issac Newton!

I received a postcard from what the writer called a “university town” in Germany recently.

And from the images on the card, the people there know the importance of art and architecture.

So why at home should the Old Bridge be the only redeeming structure of Pontypridd and the park the only relaxing space?

RCT’s match funding of the metal sculpture opposite Brown Lennox means that now, along with the Old Bridge and Ynysangharad Park, there is a third thing that can go on a Pontypridd postcard.

But what about the fourth?

Does Pontypridd have what it takes to come up with the next big idea?

The infantile letters of the Lib Dems each week in the Observer serves only to remind of the state of local politics in the area.

The penny-pinching nature of the finance committee on the Town Coincil makes me ashamed to be a town councillor, and I have not sought re-appointment to it.

The answer therefore lies not with the politicians but with the people.

We are not all as small-minded as the Lib Dems, who publically bemoan the town and borough council giving the Emotivate Project £2,000, which was match funding by money from outside the area worth over £8,000.

This project was not “art for art’s sake”, as Councillor John Bell said, but a value-for-money summer youth scheme.

Unlike his notices of motion which have produced only hot air, it will have a lasting impact on the appearance of the area.

We’ve all heard of the Big Apple – a concrete jungle where dreas are made up according to Alicia Keys.

But what about the Big Ponty?

Why should we settle for second best?

Why can’t we have the big ideas, the big dreams and the big ambitions?

In a speech I made for the Association of Speakers Clubs Online Speech Competition I made the case for introducing electronic signatures for verifying people’s identity when they post to online communities such as bulletin boards.

Some may say that if it is a human right to use the Internet and assemble online through bulletin boards for instance, it must be against human rights laws for the government to introduce restrictions on posting to them.

With regard to freedom of expression the European Convention on Human Rights says the exercise of such a freedom, ‘carries with it duties and responsibilities’ and ‘may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary’.

So it may be the case that if a government introduced a requirement for all users of online communities to verify their identity and sign their posts electronically in the name of preventing crime such as identity theft, and civil wrongs, such as defamation, then it may be permissible under European Human Rights Law for them to do it.

There has been a lot of discussion recently about whether it should be a human right to be able to access the Internet. To implement this may require new treaties.

Taking this one step further, does existing law mean it is a human right to use online communities?

Whereas Article 10 of the ECHR says ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers’.

Whereas Article 11 of the ECHR says ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.’

If you consider the Internet as a medium that crosses frontiers, and a bulletin board as a means of people assembling peacefully, then I would regard it to be a human right to be able to express yourself freely with others in an assembled form in online communities, such as bulletin boards.

Article 11 of the convention, while not being interpreted as imposing an obligation on associations or organisations to admit everyone wishing to join, says people do have a right to apply to join them in order to further the expression of their views and practices as set out in Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers & Firemen v United Kingdom (ECHR, App no 11002/05). An organisation is an undertaking within the meaning of the EU Treaty, and the term undertaking has a broad meaning in EU Law, which can include someone who hosts a bulletin board. This means that someone should have a human right to be able to apply to join an online community, but they have no right to be a member if the administrators choose not to accept them.

Rights are never absolute. The right of one person (e.g. to form an association), may conflict with someone else’s right (e.g. not to form an association), as the ASLEF case shows. In this case it was held that the organisation’s right not to associate was greater than the individual’s right to associate. However, the recent case in the UK over the membership rules of the political party referred to in the ASLEF case should mean that in exercising their rights to refuse membership under Article 11 undertakings must only do so in line with what is acceptable in a democratic society, which includes not discriminating on grounds such as race.

So while Article 11 makes it clear that people have a right to associate with others, such as on a bulletin board, those others also have a right not to associate with them. It doesn’t stop posting on a bulletin board from being a right, just because the Admins can withdraw someones membership on grounds which are non-discriminatory.