Student Protests in London

At a time when other nations are funding Higher Education, the UK government proposes that students studying in England and Wales.  At a time when the rest of Europe is putting more money into HE, we in the UK are withdrawing funding , cutting university spending by 40%, and thereby turning education into a privilege, rather than a right.

 When tuition fees were announced and introduced in 1997, there was very little issue it seemed, and certainly nothing like the anger that we have seen today.   Just a disparate coordinated protest, small, but across several cities.  However, that, it seems, effectively had the argument in favour of fees won, such that now we're simply negotiating on the price, rather than arguing for or against the principle of fees at all.  This is a problem - we need to get the argument back on track if this battle can be won.

Of course, this is a fight not just for students, or over Universities, but part of the wider battle against the 'austerity measures' in general.  This need to be seen in the context of the wider cuts, falling disproportionately on the have-nots, and allowing the haves to keep their money, doge their taxes and use their surplus to pay for the best hospital treatment, schooling for their kids and, of course, university education for the their kids.  The rich kids get the best opportunities, and become the next generation of rich adults, whilst the poor get stuck in poor dead-end jobs, unable to get themselves out of poverty - the gap widens.

I was on the protests in both my local University city and in London when the top-up fees (then up to £3,000 per year) were first proposed in 2005.  I made the same argument then that the focus needs to change to argue against all fee-charging.  This was largely ignored, and the consequence of this is clear for all to see now - £9,000 a year, or at least £27,000 of debt for each and every graduate entering their first job at 21 years of age.  That is fo course if there are any job available for them.

So, it's easy to see why a large minority of students decided to convert their anger to violence on the streets on London today.  Civil disobedience has always been a treasured pillar of freedom of expression, and one which I myself have utilised, occupying a university department overnight and a council building for approximately two hours, as well as stopping traffic in the name of anti-fees and anti-war demonstrations.  IDirect action and civil disobedience in Paris in May 1968 (see books on the left) almost led to the toppling of Charles de Gaulle's government and could have completely changed the world - there is of course a reason why many on the Left still talk about and debate it.  I have to say therefore that I wholeheartedly support the actions of the students today.

There are though, two other main issues that have come out of today, both in the way that this has been reported in the media.  On the whole, the news that I have seen (primarily reports on BBC News 24, Sky News Channel and the Guardian Website, but all have used terms like relating to the "hijack", of the demonstration or the "violence" that has marred the occasion.  As this video will show, the invasion of Tory HQ at Millbank Tower was hardly violent - more a few people walking in chanting slogans.

As for hijacking, well I believe that as I have done, these are simply people who have made the links to the wider anti-LibCon agenda.

The other issue, to my mind, is of the police reaction.  BBC News reporters have been seen asking representative of the Met whether they were properly prepared.  "Surely", they are saying "You ought to have known that they march was passing Conservative HQ, and station additional officers here?"  Well, the fact is, this is in LONDON.  Practically every building is a major building and potential target!  Their route (reproduced here in Google maps) goes down Whitehall, passing the Cabinet Office, Downing Street, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Treasury, and ending at the Tate, in addition to a whole host of other important state and civic buildings.  Stationing officers at every building is surely not feasible, and I feel that given the circumstances, the police did really quite well.  better handle it the way they have done, then have another potential Ian Tomlinson on their hands.

Share

The Government and our sexual rights

OK, so no posts for a while, but as I currently seem to have no followers, I'm not so sure that this is an issue!
Anyway, I've started playing the very good game Nation States.  based on Max Berry's book Jennifer Government the idea is that you start a nation, and between 5 and 14 times a week (depending on user preferences) you get an issue, with two, three or more fanatical opinions. Which opinion you follow will cause a new law to that effect to be enacted in your country.

Some of the issues raised are really quite interesting, and have led to some good debates amongst myself and my friends, so I thought I'd share some of these here and see what people think.

This is an issue I got today, and is about sexual rights, and the rights - or otherwise - of governments to interfere in these issues rights.

The Issue

• The highly moral and religious pressure group 'Cuckolds And Cuckqueans Anonymous' has lobbied for the criminalisation of adultery.

The Debate

1. "Whatever happened to the sanctity of marriage?" asks Tobias Jones while wearing a T-shirt bearing the slogan 'Marriage is for life, not just for anniversaries'. "Whatever happened to lifelong companionship? Whatever happened to simple faithfulness because of love?! Adultery seems to be more of a hobby than anything these days! The government must impose the utmost punishments on those who commit this sin. A good old-fashioned stoning should sort it!"
2. "I don't agree with adultery either," says Randy Li, a passer-by. "But, uh... stoning? You don't think that's a little extreme? If we find someone guilty of fornication we can just lock them up in jail. That way no-one gets killed and the sinners get justice. It's more expensive to the tax payers than a stoning of course, but I reckon it's worth it."
3. "With the greatest of respect, this is none of your business!" yells Buffy Barry who is rumoured to have had more than a thousand lovers and even more children. "The government has no right to go about trying to dictate the laws of love and romance! Marriages break down, people move on - is it really the government's place to make people stay put? You must recognise the fact that the law has no place within the bedroom!"

OK, well these issue are supposed to be extreme, but is it just me who jumped at option 3?  Indeed, I felt that option 3 was not extreme enough!  I have always believed that once the bedroom doors close, the government can have no say on what happens.  Why is it  that until fairly recently, anal sex between a man and a woman was illegal?  Why is it that in the US state of Georgia, a man was imprisoned for five years for having oral sex with his wife, with her consent?  A 17-year-old boy was sentenced to 10 years in prison for receiving a blow-job at a party?

I have never believe in age-of consent laws.  Who can decide at what age a person can emotionally (and legally) consent to sex?  of those who waiting until the age of consent before having sex for the first time, for how many do you think the law was the main issue?  How many people, indeed, had sex under  the age of consent in their country?  The law do not act as a deterrent, nor are they enforced, so what is their point?

Share

Sheffield want our buses back

Sheffield wants our buses back


AROUND 70 marchers braved the cold to join last Saturday's demonstration in Sheffield called by We Want Our Buses Back (WWOBB) to protest against First's 8% hike in bus fares. Earlier in the week, we had presented a petition to Sheffield's Lib-Dem Council demanding action to regulate fares and services.

Four years ago the then Labour council said it would take four years to introduce Quality Contracts (a form of regulation like in London). Now the Lib-Dem transport cabinet member says it might take another four years!

We can't wait that long. First intend to axe around 20% of routes in April. In four more years there won't be any bus service left! Reinforced with new campaigners from the demo, WWOBB will step up its campaign for re-regulation and taking the bus industry back into public ownership and control.

originally published by Alistair Tice in "The Socialist"

Share

“Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will.”

The latest battle-line drawn between the National Front and the British National Party has been drawn, with the BNP pointing out that the NF has used a quote (above) from (shock horror) prominent black activist Frederick Douglass.

The story, reported on indymedia just today, follows hot on the heels of reports last week suggesting that the NF may stand cadidates in areas of West Yorkshire such as Leeds and Bradford, as well as Birmingham, Swindon and Norfolk. This could split the far-right vote, and with reports that the EDL may also field candidates, and UKIP's rise this could do more harm than good for radical right politics in the UK.

Related articles

• BNP to stand against Jim Murphy (snptacticalvoting.com)
• Sheffield DocFest: What's up, doc? | David Cox (guardian.co.uk)
• Countering the EDL in Stoke (averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com)
• UJS pledge to lead anti-BNP campaign (thejc.com)

Share

Second Drugs advisor quits

Well, i can't say I'm surprised. Barely a week after the UK's "drugs-tsar" said that canabis wasn't that bad, he's gone, along with two junior members...

Seriously now, if you were going to pick two drugs to be legal, would you have chosen alcohol and tobacco? I don;t think that anyone every hurt ayone else whislst on marijuana - compair the rates of drink-driving deaths in the UK with those related to cannabis. Even taking into account alcohol's legallity and availability, it's a stark reminer of just how dangerous it really can be.

Legalise hashish now!

Related articles by Zemanta

• The new addiction is taxing addictions. (slate.com)
• Drugs: the figures (telegraph.co.uk)
• How Important Are Family Dinners? (blogs.wsj.com)
• Report: Tobacco Use Kills 6M People a Year (cbsnews.com)

Share

sit down man, you're a bloody tragedy: Steel City Addenda

sit down man, you're a bloody tragedy: Steel City Addenda

Beautiful run-down of one of my favourite cities.

Share

Political Reform Necessary

Image by .craig via Flickr

Gordon Brown has pledged to reform the electoral system. Is this a desperate attempt of a failing government to hold onto some power, or a genuine recognition that the system at present is flawed and unfair? Whatever the reasons, one cannot doubt that the latter is true - the system at present is totally unfair and unrepresentative.

At present, the UK parliament has two houses, the House of Commons (or lower house) and the house of Lords (Upper House). In contrast to many Western democracies, only one of these - the House of Commons - is elected by the people. The house of Lords is made of hereditary peers (who may pass their title onto eldest sons), Life peers (those made by parliament, for example all past Prime Ministers) and spiritual peers (the 26 Bishops of the Church of England). However, since the House of Lords Act 1999, all hereditary peers must enter an election for one of 92 seats. This means that many members of our Upper Chamber have no political experience, or have been appointed by a government voted out several terms ago. This surely flies in the face of the principle of a democratic government?

There are already a few very good books out there on the subject, and if you're interested, I'd highly recommend 'UK Elections and Electoral reform' and 'Principles of Electoral reform'.

I would like to see both Houses of Parliament fully-elected, with the Lower House elected by SVT (single transferable vote) in a single-member constituency, and the Upper house elected by PR (proportional representation). This would means that we still have a directly-elected MP in the Lower House, as well as a fairly system of representation in the upper house, whilst our MP would be able to command majority support, where at the moment a seat with 5 candidates could easily send a member to Westminster with 20.1% of the vote. hardly the will of the people is it?

References:
Smith, Neil (2006) UK Elections and Electoral reform, Phillip Allen
Dummett, Michael(1997) Principles of Electoral reform Oxford: Oxford University Press

Related articles

• Brown To Outline Westminster Reforms (news.sky.com)
• The House of Lords: No longer to be trusted on their own? (telegraph.co.uk)
• The Most Undemocratic Government For Over A Century (craigmurray.org.uk)
• Jonathan Freedland: It is surely time for Lords reform (guardian.co.uk)

Share

Stop integrin to reverse cancer?

Just a quick discussion here - I've got other things I want to talk about!

it seems that scientists have discovered how tumours move around in the brain. It was always thought that they latch onto the neurones, glial cells and oligodendocyctes, but it would now appear that they used the blood vessels instead.

In order to do this, they need to make use of the protein integrin. This means that the next stage of treatment would be to find an integrin inhibitor drug.

With one fifth of all cancers eventually progressing to the brain, and almost all of these eventually resulting in death, a treatment of this kind could boost cancer survival rates significantly.

A drug to act against integrin is still a long way off yet, and sadly, probably too far away for those who already have advanced disease, but nonetheless, it is an exciting avenue for future cancer therapies.

Related articles

• Preying On a Tumor's Weakness With Nanotechnology to Fight Cancer (sciam.com)
• How chemotherapy drugs block blood vessel growth, slow cancer spread (scienceblog.com)
• Dual role of glial cells may be harnessed to treat neurological diseases (eye.taragana.net)
• Mapping neurons without glial cells ~ SNP genotyping w/o whole sequencing? (pimm.wordpress.com)
• Myelin Quiz: Are You the Myelin Man!! (brassandivory.blogspot.com)

Share

What is Britishness anyway?

Lancaster Unity: The BNP may have been elected to Europe but on football they founder

How do we determine one's nationality? Specifically, how do we determine "Englishness" or "Britishness"? Drinking tea, bad teeth, and always the valiant loser?

Image via Wikipedia

Probably the best book on the subject is Watching the English by Kate Fox. She is a social anthropologist and director of the Social Issues Research Centre. In it, she spends a lot of time, well, watching the English in an attempt to discover the social rules that govern our society. She explains why we talk about the weather so much, the rules of drinking in a bar, the importance of not being earnest and our need to always support the underdog. Even so, she is looking at the traits of the English, not what it is specifically that makes us English or British.

Heading back to the Lancaster UAF post, around half of the England football squad selected to play against Andorra would not be permitted entry into Britain's party of the people. The first black professional footballer in England was Arthur Wharton, playing way back in 1886 - over 120 years ago, and only 29 years after the formation of the world's first football club (and 19 years after the formation the the first football association). This BNPs notions of nationality are over a hundred years old!

Britain has long been a multicultural society, and that isn't going to change. the vast majority of immigrants in this country are from former colonies. Many of them moved here when we still had close links with our Commonwealth, and some probably when they were a part of the British Empire! These days, many immigrants are from countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq and the Former Yugoslavia, because our war against their (often legally elected) government forced them to leave in the first place! How long must these people live here before we may call them Brits? Could the BNPs successor gain power in three or four generations time and throw out the descendants of today's legal asylum seekers?

So, what makes someone British? For me, it's simple. Can you vote in Britain? Can you get a British passport, Driver's Licence or other legal document? Can you work in Britain? Do you feel British? If you answered yes to any one of these questions, and want to be British, I see no reason why you shouldn't be, and no one - not even a politician - has a right to tell you you're not.

Related articles

• England, that great colonising land, has itself become a colony (guardian.co.uk)
• BNP Leader Nick Griffin Pelted With Eggs (news.sky.com)
• Devolved identity politics (guardian.co.uk)

Share

The British National Party and Freedom of Speech

So, following the egg attacks yesterday, Nick Griffin it seems did get his rally, albeit in a small pub in Manchester. He managed to avoid too much attention, but a small contingent of anti-fascists were in position.

Assuming that you want to fight the BNP (and why would you not? Nick Griffin is a racist and White Supremacist), how can this be done?

Many groups, notably the ANL used to proclaim "no platform for the Fascists". This is all well and good, but we cannot proclaim freedom of speech for all and yet similarly try to ban a legitimate political party.

However, I would argue that having the BNP in power would be a bad thing. Therefore, just as with other events or groups I have disagreed with in the past (such as the war in Iraq and Students top-up fees), I am willing to take action, be that protesting or direct action, and even if this means civil disobedience.

The anti-fascist movement has two opposite routes down which to travel; Allow the BNP to speak, and then argue against them, or bully harass and make lots of noise whenever they are around, stopping them from being heard. The former will not attract any opposition, nor will it attract attention to the BNP, but it will allow them to better spread their message, whilst the latter may stop the message from being heard, but will also give the BNP the media attention they crave, afford them the chance to play the victims and may turn sympathisers away, seeing the ant-fascist movement as violent. Already this week, a protest called by UAF in London has resulted in at least two people being hospitalised, although it is unclear how the injuries happened.

So, how can we stop the BNP? Bizarrely, Mr Griffin himself had some pearls of wisdom for us here:

"They are entitled to demonstrate, but not to use violence or stop me from talking to constituents." he said, before going on to say "If we are so evil and bad, expose us, don't shut us up using violence."

Jon Cruddas, Labour MP for Dagenham agreed, telling Sky News "They want to pit themselves as victims, the only ones to challenge the Westminster bubble. As soon as they come here, they have eggs or whatever thrown at them. This reinforces the image they have tried to set up to set up. We should be challenging them in terms of policy, ideas and their views about black people, rather than reinforcing the sense that they are victims and outsiders."

What is needed is not simply to harass, but to provide an alternative. UAF has made significant headway in one area traditionally very difficult - Left Unity, but is currently a negative, rather than a positive campaign. The time is right for the the parties, factions and sub-factions on the left to unite in one grand coalition. Bring Together the Socialist Labour Party, Socialist Workers Party, AWL, CPGB, International Socialist Group, Revolutionary Democratic Group, Socialist Party, Workers Power, Broad Left, Left List, Communist Party of Britain, Respect Renewal and all the others under the old Socialist Alliance label, and let's explain to the public why they should not vote BNP, but who they can vote for instead.

Related articles

• The hope we've gained from the BNP (guardian.co.uk)
• Two People In Hospital After BNP Protest (news.sky.com)
• Protesters halt news conference by far-right party (ctv.ca)
• The myth of the BNP 'protest' vote (guardian.co.uk)
• Protestors Block BNP Leader's Path (news.sky.com)
• BNP could get £2m EU funds, Hain warns (guardian.co.uk)

Share

The time to switch to evidence-based medicine is now

The NHS is facing a massive shortfall. So what else is new? It can simply join the pile, along with education, local government, transport, the UK economy in general...

The answer was merely touched upon in the report, but it was there nonetheless. Privatisation - even part-privatisation - is not the answer (just look at the mess they made of the railways (privatisation without competition is corporate monopoly). The answer (or at least a good part of it) is cutting funding for non-essential services.

The article touched on two prime examples, homeopathy and IVF. There are two separate, but very good reason why these ought to be first on the lists of cuts.

There is no evidence-based for homeopathy working. The two basic principles, in case you are unaware, are that firstly you give a compound designed for the symptoms, rather than the pathogen, and you give the smallest possible amount of that compound. This means that, for example, a cold can be treated in many different ways depending on whether the sufferer has 'just a sniffle', a blocked nose and sore throat, a chesty cough or a nasty head-cold - even if they are all caused by the same strain of the rhinovirus, and you will only give them a very dilute compound (measured in parts per million, ppm, rather than a percentage).

Now, this may sound like it's never going to work to you and me, but that's not good enough - it may work. So, it needs to be tested. This means a double-blind randomised controlled trial, ie one group of patients getting active homeopathy drugs, and one getting placebo instead. If it is proved to work, then it need to be tested against the current standard therapy to see if it is more effective, or more effective per unit cost. This trial should, like all other drugs trials, be funded by the company making these pills, not the NHS. If it is proven to work, great! Bring it in, I'll eat my words, and we can stop using the current expensive treatments. Until that day, homeopathy has no place in our hospitals.

The second area for cutbacks - IVF. To me, this is a lifestyle choice, not a health condition. We'd not advocate performing breast augmentation, collagen lip enhancement or hair replacement on the NHS, so why IVF? Fair enough, some people cannot conceive naturally, and all they want in the world is to have a child. This is very upsetting for them, but why should the rest of us forgo our herceptin, insulin and salbutamol for them to bring another child into an already overpopulated country? The horrible fact is that some people are probably infertile for a reason. Now, I'm not one to utilise Darwinian theory to advocate eugenics and Fascism, but it is a fact that IVF produces a higher incidence of genetic disorders and malformations than natural conceptions, disorders which then need to be treated by the NHS, costing us again. Whilst I believe that the mark of a society is the ability of the whole to look after it's weaker members, rather than allowing them to die off, we should not be actively encouraging nature where it simply does not wish to co-operate.

The problem is that by not funding IVF, we give up the right to control it, and when it goes into private practice, who know is the prospective parents will stop at simply growing eggs? Will they select for blue eyes, brown hair or height? Will they ever be able to select for a musical ear, a sporting body or a scientist's brain? And what about if they can select against Down's Syndrome, Muscular Dystrophy and Haemophilia, or even protect against diabetes mellitus, breast cancer or heart disease? Will stopping public money for IVF create a private-sector elite?

So what to do? We need to keep pouring money into the (if not bottomless certainly very deep) pit that is the National Health Service, whilst simultaneously looking for ways to plug the leaks throughout the system. One of the better ways would be a fully evidence-based approach to drugs in the NHS, to block the sink that is homeopathy, acupuncture and all the other new-age unproven methods. Banning 'personal choice' treatments may be more controversial, but do remember the old saying; "As long as you've got your health, that's all that matters".

Related articles

• Study finds genetic discrimination by insurance firms (thestar.com)
• NHS 'faces huge budget shortfall' (news.bbc.co.uk)
• 'Cashback' scheme provides bowel cancer drug on the NHS (telegraph.co.uk)
• Debate Grows In Britain Over Benefits Of Mammograms (medicalnewstoday.com)

Share

Pirates in the EU!

The Pirate Party has picked up a seat in the European Parliament in Sweden. No, they aren't the swashbuckling, cutlass-carrying, West-Country-accented kind sporting wooden legs and parrots, rather anti-copyright activists.

You may be aware of the long-term disputes over bittorrent (file-sharing) website thepiratebay.org, which is hosted on Swedish servers. Earlier this year four men, Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm and Carl Lundström were found guilty of assistance to copyright infringement. An appeal is being mounted now, but the Pirate party gaining ground set me thinking.

What is the future for peer-to-peer (P2P), BitTorrent, file-sharing and downloading music and films? Will outlawing it simply drive it underground, or make it even more popular? (they say the best way to get a teenager to do what you want is to tell him not to!) Well, many services already use P2P technology - the BBC's iPlayer a notable example. Similarly, not all Bittorrent trackers or torrents are illegal. Shareware software and software or content released under the GNU General Public License may be distributed by Bittorrent. This may include any Free OSs, such as those in the Linux/Unix family, virus scanners such as AVG and Avast! and media players such as Musiic and Winamp. In general, anything that is free to download may be downloaded any way you wish - including bittorrent - but be careful to read the licences to see whether you may redistribute it yourself (GNU can be altered and distributed as much and by whatever method you wish).

So, what actually is the illegal aspect here? It's purely the content. Albums are copyright, films are copyright, TV series are copyright. These are illegal to distribute via bittorrent. But what is the difference between getting album by P2P and borrowing a CD from your friend and recording it on cassette tape? Or how about downloading South Park from thepiratebay.org onto your computer and recording the series onto VHS and keeping it longer than the legally permitted six months? People have always circumvented the need to pay for the content, all that's happened is the technology involved. On the other hand, is it any different from walking into HMV, dropping the CD into your rucksack and walking out again?

Gluing the hairs back together for a moment, we come to the conclusion that downloading is theft. But ought it be? Sticking firmly to the issue of music now, I do not mind admitting to having downloaded a few albums illegally in my lifetime. However, I do not think that this has hurt anyone. When I get an album, one of two things happens. Either I like the band, or I don't. If I like them, I'll buy albums and T-shirts and go to gigs. For example, from downloading one album by the band Modest Mouse, I've since paid for eight of their CD's (including the one I downloaded in the first place) and been to three gigs. If I dislike the band, I'll not buy any CD's, and the band is not deprived of any revenue as I'd not have bought a CD anyway.

What can be done? The options are endless, but more independent record labels and cheaper legal downloads would make a good start. The price of legal downloads via iTunes/Tesco/Amazon etc, is a real bugbear of mine. I object to paying 79p/track to download a 10-track album when the physical CD would only cost me £9.99. This £2.08 difference seems to magically include the CD's artwork, the CD and case itself and the distribution costs, plus a larger profit for HMV to cover these overheads (and what if the CD has 14 tracks?). Add to this the DRM issue, that you may only be allowed to put the mp3 you have paid for onto five or six devices (doesn't leave much room to manouvre if you have your desktop PC, a laptop, an mp3 player, phone, and mp3 player in you car) and the far poorer quality (the mp3's you download are usually around 192kbps for most mp3s, and even the best are only around 320kbps, compares to a 'CD quality' of 1.4Mbps, or 1440kbps, at least 4.5 times higher than an mp3 - see what the audiophiles think), and downloaded mp3's begin to look like a ripoff. Whilst we're paying almost as much for an inferior product, with terms and conditions attached and without it's artwork, I'm afraid illegal downloading will continue.

Good luck to Sweden's Pirate party!

Related articles

• Pirate Party Wins EU Parliament Seat (wired.com)
• Stockholm Court: Pirate Bay Judge Unbiased (wired.com)
• File sharing crackdown: Pirate Bay founders get jail terms (financialpost.com)
• Pirate Bay Operators Sentenced To One Year In Copyright Case (mtv.com)
• Pirate Bay trial descends into farce (vnunet.com)

Share

Over-logging our logging on?

So, just as the votes were being counted in the European elections, just hours before we were to learn that we were about to elect a Fascist to an MEP position here in Yorkshire, Sir David Pepper comes out with this little gem, worthy of Messrs Hitler and Göring themselves! Of course, this is perhaps only to be expected for the (only recently departed) ex head of GCHQ, but nonetheless, it is quite shocking to read such a statement.

Sir Pepper parallels logging our personal and private phone calls, text messages and emails to an arms race. Call me stupid, but I fail to see the similarities. An arms race is an imperialist show of strength against another nation or nations. This is an unacceptable invasion of our personal freedoms.

That is, of course, unless you take the rather more sinister interpretation - that Sir Pepper means for the government to use these data as weapons against it's own people - in a complete destruction of our civil liberties. That, I think, is a rather scary prospect indeed.

Related articles

• Open Source Sensing Initiative (mt-soft.com.ar)
• Agency denies internet spy plans (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Questions of Social Justice: Civil Liberties (democracyforvancouver.org)
• How Google foresaw BNP election wins (malcolmcoles.co.uk)

Share

Gay rights?

So, I just read this post on a blog this afternoon., and I have to say, I was as shocked as the publisher. However, it is not as though homosexuals have the same right as heterosexuals in the rest of the UK either.

The decriminalisation of homosexuality in the Republic of Ireland (hereafter simply "Ireland") was greatly down to the campaign by Irish David Norris, the Campaign for Homosexual Law Reform (wiki link).

However, even in the relatively liberal United Kingdom, homosexual prejudice still exists. Homosexual men are grossly under-represented in schools and children's services (oddly enough, lesbians show less of a disparity). These are men who fancy other men we're talking about here - not paedophiles!

Men who have ever had oral or anal sex with another man, even with a condom or other protection, are banned for life from giving blood. So too, are women who have have vaginal, oral or anal sex in the past year with any man who has ever had sex with another man. This, to me, is simple discrimination.

Related articles

• I'm not Gay, really I'm not! says Nancy (seantheblogonaut.com)

Share

Sustainable development

The Green family realised that their success was exacting a high price. Their country farmhouse was their home as well as their business premises. But while their enterprise was creating a healthy profit, the vibrations caused by the heavy machinery used on site was slowly destroying the fabric of the building. If they carried on as they were, in five years the damage would make the building unsafe and they would be forced out. Nor were their profits sufficient to fund new premises or undertake the necessary repairs and structural improvements required.
Mr and Mrs Green were determined to preserve their home for their children. And so they decided to slow production and thus the spread of the damage.
Ten years later, the Greens passed away and the children inherited the family estate. The farmhouse, however, was falling to pieces. Builders came in, shook their heads and said it would cost £1 million to put right. The youngest of the Greens, who had been the accountant for the business for many years, grimaced and buried his head in his hands.
'If we had carried on at full production and not worried about the building, we would have had enough money to put this right five years ago. Now, after ten years of under-performance, we're broke
His parents had tried to protect his inheritance. In fact, they had destroyed it.

Source: Baggini, Julian. (2005) The Pig that Wants to be Eaten and ninety-nine other thought experiments, London: Granta Books
Original Source Lomborg, Bjørn. (2001)The Skeptical Environmentalist, Cambridge University Press

I love this little story. It is a greal analagy for climate change and global warming. Is acting to reduce emissions today going to affect our abilities to deal with the situation we create tomorrow, by way of causing economic deflation? Of course, When bankers and hedge fund managers are out there causing economic deflation for us, this parable has less weight, but that is not the issue here. Should we rely economic growth to provide us with the tools to fight global warming at the risk of increasing global warming, or should we try to prevent gloal warming, risking slowed or negative growth and the lack of the economic tools necessary to fix the earth? Can we ever win? Are we doomed either way? Is there a right way, or will both option work for us? Can we slow growth by a little bit and cause a lttie bit less pollution? Here is Baggini's follow-up to this story:

This parable could be taken simply as a lesson about forward planning in business. But it is more interesting than that, for the tale can be seen as mirroring a serious dilemma of much wider concern: how do we respond to the environmental threats facing us today?
Take climate change. Experts agree that it is happening and that it is probably man-made. But there are no measures we can realistically take now that will stop it altogether. The Kyoto agreement, for example, would only delay it by about six years. However, the cost to the United States alone of implementing the agreement would be the equivalent of the money required to extend provision of clean drinking water to all the world's population. You have therefore to ask whether the cost of Kyoto is worth paying.
The point is not that, without Kyoto, the US would in fact provide clean water for all. The point is rather in the parallel to the Greens. Could we end up with a situation where we merely delay the inevitable at the cost of economic growth, thus depriving future generations of the funds they would need to sort out the problems they will inherit? It can't be better to postpone the problem of global warming if doing so merely leaves us less well equipped to confront it when it starts to hurt.
That is not to say that we should do nothing about global warming. It is merely to point out that we should make sure what we do is effective and doesn't inadvertently make things worse. That requires us to take into account more than just the spread of environmental damage, but future generations' ability to deal with it. A lot of green campaigners seek to avoid damage to the environment at all costs, but that is as shortsighted as the Greens' strategy of minimising damage to their farmhouse at all costs.
This would seem to be just common sense, but it is intuitively unappealing to those who care about the environment, for three reasons. First, it suggests it is sometimes better to let the Earth get more polluted in the short term. Second, it emphasises the role of economic growth in providing the source of solutions to problems. That emphasis on finance and economics is anathema to many greens. Third, it is often linked to the idea that future technologies will help bring solutions. And technology is seen by many environmentalists as a source of our problems, not their solution. Those three reasons might explain why Greens resist the argument, but not why they should.

The Pig that Wants to be Eaten can be bought at Amazon.co.uk and other good bookstores from £3.80 used.

Share

So, what am I doing here?

Well, I have a few opinions. Nah, a lot of opinions! I'm starting this blog because, basically, I'm pissed-off with this country and the world at the moment. Bankers have taken away our jobs, the police and a so-called labour government are taking away our freedoms, and MP's across all parties are fiddling their expenses in a way that'd make Fred Goodwin blush. Well, not quite.

This is to be a varied collection. I shall mostly post links to news stories and make my own comments, and on occasion I shall write a story myself.

I am mostly interested in politics, health and education, so the majority of my posts will be in these areas, and will be national (UK) and well as international. I live in Yorkshire in Northern England, so a few local news stories may also creep in (I was particularly disgusted by the Children's Services failings in Doncaster) as well as the odd sports story (I'm a football fan) and some philosophical musings (I see myself as a bit of an amateur philosopher!) I've basically been doing this kind of thing on Facebook (friends-only) anyway, so the jump to making a public blog ought to be easy!

I hope you enjoy reading it, and I hope to generate some heathy debate in my small corner of the internet

- J

Share