Economic Gloom and a Government on the Defensive

How many phone calls did George Osbourne's office make today? Or perhaps it was Osbourne's attack on the BBC for only reporting the bad news and attacking the government all the time that did it.

The leading story on the BBC proclaims "IMF Supports UK Economic Policy". With so many attacks on the economic policy from a variety of esteemed sources, including OECD and the Bank of England, the government must be pleased to get big boy on their side.

There is a great deal of hyperbole over presumed economic gloom, it sells papers and consumes search engines. Redundancies, as Osbourne rightly observed (never thought i'd say that), are much more newsworthy than job creations. Therefore from the media alone it is very difficult to get a balanced view.

But for the BBC to respond so immediately to Osbourne's claims this afternoon implies that the gloom and persistent news about the gloom is worrying the government a bit too much to be ignored now.

Also, we have still to see any comment from Cameron on the forecasts, he appears to be happy to let Osbourne and Danny Alexander field the blows the press are launching from all sides.

Discussing New "Class" Fluctuations aka 'Chavs'

Suzanne Moore, Guardian Columnist, writes an interesting piece on 'Chavs' in this week's Saturday Guardian on Chavs, that, while eloquent, entirely misses the point of the debate.

Moore's take is aggressive and snide, and fails to come to any conclusions other than Chavs exist and the other classes don't like them.

The Underclass

Using the ubiquitous Lauren from Catherine Tate as a point of reference, she turns the discussion about what constitutes a 'chav' into a discussion on class and aspiration. To me, this is like a GCSE dissertation that would be laughed out of University seminars.

The word 'chav', parethesis required, depicts what Marx referred to many decades ago as the underclass. It is a depiction, in the worst way, of the dregs, scum or plankton of society that fails to aspire, to contribute to society or to function within the wider scale of social class evolution and transition. Therefore the definition 'chav' is simply a new terminology for such a position in society.

This terminology simply refers to a section of society that, Moore rightly states, tend speak a patois of "black", an epitome of confused origins, confused futures and a lack of direction in any area of immensely complicated lives. Social policy is the tip of the iceberg in challenging structural ideologies when dealing with an underclass that creates it's own circular economy separate from any system the government can impose or remove.

While Moore neatly portions 'chavs' into a 'poor' bracket, she fails to observe this is not a new phenomenom. Marx says himself;

This scum of the depraved elements of all classes ... decayed roués, vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged jailbirds, escaped galley slaves, swindlers, mountebanks, lazzaroni, pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, brothel keepers, tinkers, beggars, the dangerous class, the social scum, that passively rotting mass

This is much as Moore depicts the poor, those who gain no benefits from society, therefore embracing a passive inertia is the most logical conclusion. Why should a convicted criminal seek to be more than he is, when he is discriminated against at every turn; unable to get a bank account, rent other than a council house, locate a job or an education?

Battling Generalisations

Social policy is the real debate. If people are worked against, discriminated against and expected to fall at every turn, they will not develop aspirations that would embody other class structures, from hard-working classes (the new middle class) or the upper middle classes.

The concept of the 'chav' is subject to striking generalisation in an age of austerity (and that's another rhetoric I'm beginning to loathe) with a predominately centre right government who embrace middle class ideology in spite of all the whimperings of the Lib Dems about social mobility.

If social policy made more ways for people to join the social-evolutionary-cycle (I'm sure there's a better expression for that) then the issue of a side-show for "the rich slagging off the poor for being poor". The constant battle those who are raised by single parents, addicted persons, ex-offenders and other so-called scum, then the situation would not seem quite so disparate. But all the time there are such bitter distinctions, such as access to work, the situation will pertain, whether they wear tracksuits or not.

The future of classes

I wonder if Moore reads her own paper. Guy Standing's article on Wednesday discussed The Preclariat, the 'new' class of people whose lives are without stability, who thrive on emotional charge, drift between jobs, aspirations, and have little hope of securing property or security in their lives. This is currently what the underclass have to aspire to.

And on a gender note

Moore's article made me laugh initially, although I couldnt quite reconcile it with The Guardian and it's centre left ideology. However, in retrospect, I observed that every single comparison to the attack on 'Chavs' was based on female examples.

She berates "Lauren", she belittles Katie Price, Kerry Katona and Jade Goody, and she even cites a fear of women as a legitimate example of the middle classes loathing of the underclass representation.

Where are the thuggish footballers that would epitomise the same concepts? What about the satirical take on black patois by Ali G that is such an apt interpretation of the cumulative negative effects of the power of the media?

In spite of being a female author, she choses to belittle the female representation of the underclass in sleb life to demonstrate the worst of the underclass. Apparently it is far worse to be a single mum than a male homeless addict. The females are the ones who take the brunt of the assault of her opinion, her loathing linked directly to the structural ideologies that pertain no matter what generation or class you may belong to.

Were Iceland represented by Honor Blackman, she may have taken a different tact. But Moore choses to put the boot into female aspiration far heavier than she does to the concept of 'chavs' as an ideology. To be a chav is a dire existence, but to be a female one is tantamount to being a devil incarnate.

To further suggest that this is part of a right-wing mentality, thereby potentially seeking to appease her own guilt for processing a right-wing argument in a left wing paper, she is perpetuating the ideology that women should be the subhumans in all class genres.

Miliband's Mission to Nowhere

Ed Miliband makes another speech on the Saturday which means the top of the newsreels, saying something of little consequence and seemingly with no meaning whatsoever

Even the BBC could not make head nor tail of his comments, entitling their article;

"Miliband urges Labour to inspire with national mission"

And where exactly is this mission going?

Miliband witters on about social divide, potentially a vote winner with disenfranchised to use, if they voted. However, he seemingly fails to address the enormous role that Labour played in the last 13 years in maintaining and further expanding that social divide.

He coins it the "new inequality". the soundbite I suspect will become as distasteful as "broken Britain" and "alarm clock Britain". Will Miliband next start calling about "Britain's new inequality"?

I would hasten to point out that there is nothing new about inequality. if inequality and social divide due to the rich and the poor was a phenomenon, I'm sure we would have noticed. Alternatively, the Chartist revolution might never have happened. Given that Ed Miliband listed one of his favourite books as the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, I would suggest he needs to go back and read it again.

It should also be observed that he is one of the super rich that he is so quick to criticise, I would suggest he needs to be upfront and honest about this when he is is preaching on social divide that was exacerbated in by his own government when they increased capital gains tax to 28%.

Arguably, Miliband does acknowledge that the Labour government significantly contributed towards the social divide, yet he completely failed to set out anyways challenge this or at any way in which his party would be different than it was just over a year ago.

Speeches go, it had to be the epitome of mediocre, full of platitudinous rhetoric and, as Tim Farran MP stated, ultimately vacuous.

As a result, the great Labour mission is clearly on route to nowhere.

Quietly Introducing Armed Police on Tubes

Justification of arming British Police forces grows stronger every day.

This week, it is arming British Transport Police on the Tube.

The justification, it seems, is the threat of a Mumbai-style terrorism attack.

We could of course, nod sagely and accept the carrying of guns by our police on such spurious arguments, because, they know best. And I do think the police resolve some terrorism threats without the issue ever coming to the public knowledge.

But I also feel terrorism is used as a whip with which to supress public objection to procedure, the banning of protesting on parliament square, for example.

The last time armed officers were on the tube, they killed an innocent man because of significant and terribe miscommunications. Charles de Menezes and the protection of civillians is an on going.

On the basis that guns protect people, we should all be locked up, have ID cards and be monitored every second by a government to "protect us".

Britain has managed to get so far without armed police, and I am loathe to see such a freedom erroded by spurious claims of terrorist threats.

And let's look at those threats, shall we?

Mumbai Terrorist Attacks in 2008 were cordinated threats across the city, targeting hotels, taxis and a port. At no point did they attack the city's transport infrastructure.

By this reasoning, should we not be arming police on the docks, and at every hotel?

The threat and the justification is weak and unrealistic, and, I fear, an excuse to gradually introduce more and more weapons in to national security.

Ken Clarkes Comments Do Indict Victims of Rape But Not As You Thought

Ken Clarke's blusterings on rape this week have been a fixation of the liberal (sometimes) intelligentsia in the new media.

Ken Clarke's comments came under scrutiny because he allegedly stated that some offences of rape was less serious than others. In fact, my learned friend @neilmonnery put up a rather good blog article on the reactionary responses to headline news. In short, the reaction was an overreaction which failed to take into account the legal, legislative and sentencing details of the offence of rape and varying degrees in which it can occur.

I would like to point out that here I'm not in any way justifying rapists or mitigating situation that lead to such offences.

Wider Context

However, while we can examine the current legislative state for rape, the statistics appear to only tell a small amount of the story. As Baroness Stern's review of rape in February 2010 identified;

It is estimated that only 10% of rapes are actually reported.

Of these, a defendant enters a guilty plea at an early enough stage will result in a plea to bargain which reduces the offence to sexual assault.

Therefore, there is a significantly distressing wider context in which Ken Clarke's comments can be applied.

If indeed Clarke's comments seek to persuade people to plead guilty, then the offender has a significant chance of any charge of rape being reduced by the Crown Prosecution Service to a charge of sexual assault, a lesser offence which carries a subsequent lesser sentence and therefore would, in theory allow the offender to go out and commit the same offence again. This is of course whether he is raping a man or a woman.

This is a far more distressing issue for victims and potential victims of rape and one that should be taken into serious consideration when examining Ken Clarke's statements.

While, and as Neil Monnery states, a judge has the discretion to decide the length of sentence based on the merits of the case, therefore if the man pleads guilty committed aggravated rape with a weapon, he is still likely to receive a substantial punitive sentence; An offender that does not get before a judge prior to the offence being committed is unlikely to receive a similarly punitive sentence.

At what point did we warrant Crown Prosecution Service lawyers the right to decide whether or not someone should be tried for rape on the basis of meeting their targets systems?

Especially, when one takes into account that only 10% of rapes are ever reported. We are therefore in theory potentially allowing this public service body to reduce the amount of prosecutions and therefore reduce the amount of "reported" rapes to less than 7%.

Sociocultural Issues

As a final thought, there needs to be a significant shift in cultural and social approaches to rape. It was a bone of contention when studying feminism and law, and many people examine jury's responses, normally along the lines of a Melanie Phillips response to women that "asking for it", and the subsequent vindication of a victim by finding a defendant not guilty.

This is largely what the "Slut Walk" is attempting to combat, albeit in unconventional and inappropriate manner. One can only hope that as generations mature there will be a significant cultural shift in acceptability of female and male behaviour that does not concede victimisation.

Superinjunctions Chapter Two

The superinjunction takes another turn. Apparently superinjunctions are fine if blackmail is a component of the privacy issue.

There are several issues with this. Firstly, blackmail is a criminal offence. Such an offence should be dealt with by the police and the CPS, not a rich man's playground. Again, we see a civil issue being hushed up, where as Joe Bloggs would have to go to the police who can guarantee no privacy.

Secondly there are issues that cause the blackmail. Were the press not so prepared to pay extortionate amounts of cash for tittletattle, the blackmail would never have been an issue.

Both are issues which further murk the water in any attempt to resolve the issue.


Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Are We Still in Coalition?!

The much anticipated speech by Cameron today highlighted he has very little intention of reforming the NHS bill. In addition to this we have significant failures to upkeep the Green Deal with nuclear energy funding and targets under scrutiny and a significant reduction in Lib Dem attention to House of Lords reform. If it weren't for the paternity leave proposals, I would be questioning the Lib Dem role in the coalition at all.

The NHS has never been so good

In spite of Cameron's speech demanding that the NHS is in dire need of reform, patient and public experience has never been higher.

He labours on about the cost, stating the NHS will need £130billion in 2015 to continue this way. What he is, in fact, saying is that Conservatives do not want to pick up the bill for the universal right to the public health service. He is unwilling to fund the NHS which has the best satisfaction records seen in decades.

Of course, Cameron and Lansley argue that current recovery, survival and treatment rates are lower than average in Europe. But Cameron has also stated that Britain funds less than the average EU country.If you pay less, you expect less. Cutting GP Consortia budgets will not exactly assist this.

In addition to creating an opaque layer of bureaucracy in GP Consortia that 94% of NHS Managers believe is irrelevant, Cameron wishes to cut all funding for defecits. "Need your broken leg fixed? Oh we can't this year as we'd be over budget".

And this is without addressing the significant conflicts of interest and private firms monopolising public services.

So, I am seeing very little in put from Lib Dems in spite of Clegg's dramatic attempt gesture in an attempt to retain a sense of leadership, it seems highly unlikely any of the 'pause' will have had the slightest effect. And while peers may fillibuster, their effort may indeed be wasted.

Nuclear Agenda

One of the biggest successes the Lib Dems had in the coalition agreement was to stop government funding of nuclear power, instead paving the way for serious sustainable green energy. Or so we thought.

It now seems that the Tories can circumvent this too, in order to keep their business buddies sweet, and provide loans to part subsidise.

With Green Agenda spokesman Chris Huhne caught up in a rift of marital and speeding proportions, this seems to be allowed to be happening with no Lib Dem objections at all.

Too focused on constitutional reform?

The Evening Standard reports, somewhat delightedly, that Clegg is taking a step back from House of Lords reform, and instead senior Tories, no doubt being mollified by their lack of ministerial responsibility, will take charge.

As just noted, the Tories are very cunning in the nuance of language, and were they to assault proposed reforms in the same way as they have the Green Agenda, we will be lucky to see the 80/20 proposal from Clegg enacted in this parliament.

While I appreciate Clegg could be seen to 'toxify' the debate, I am suspicious enough about Conservative motivation, especially as they have said they are anti the concept of elected Lords.

We cannot call our country a (liberal) democracy all the time we have 'cushtie' peerages for MPs and who ever is popular on TV (Sir Alan). This body represents a third of the country's executive and the 'old boys club' simply has to stop. Now.

On a Positive Note

Proposals on paternity leave being extended to 8 months will be a major step forward in gender equality and in tackling hegemonic matrimony head on. But with the tidal wave of loopholes the Tories are finding, it does feel like a patronising pat on the head from our coalition partners.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

To Die or Not to Die, that is the question.

Death is topic of the day it seems, with a variety of information published on the subject.

When Will I Die?

First we have proposed sale of a blood test that could tell you how long you'll live. A snip at £435, we could all gain an apparent insight into our mortality. This will identify how fast the body is aging.

I think I'd rather not know. The 'guess my age' game could be outruled by medical development.

Questions that need to be answered include whether it will lead to a rise in plastic surgery. The growing phenomenom in fixing expressions and providing the body with falsely smooth contours is no longer a perrogative of the rich, and I would be extremely suspicious of a test by a cosmetic company that may be engeared to higher sales.

Or will it lead to fluctuations of pension savings. People observe they only have five years of retirement so they may as well spend the cash now?

And those who have a good idea of their mortality, will they then embrace existentialism in an entirely different way, taking social evolution down a different route?

The obvious danger is what becomes of your DNA when the company has tested you. Who retains ownership of that vital information? And what fraud opportunities are available in this area?

How long should I live?

Dying Matters have conducted qualitative research on how long people feel they will or want to live.

There is a significant trend towards the young wanting immortality and regarding infalliblity very highly. While Older people are more realistic and relative. Funny that.

Luckily with the proposed test, they'll be able to know their likely mortality.

Should I control my death?

And the inevitable assisted suicide debate. As Switzerland say Yes to retaining charnel clinics, the discussion is entered again.

The most significant issue with this is measuring objectivity, as I have discussed previously.

When someone has a medical condition which significantly impairs their life, or a terminal one, should they be allowed to seek suicide?

Current measures for psychiatric conditions, whether neurotic or psychotic, are based on conversation. There is little ability to test physically. As a result, no objectivity can be gained on whether a person has a significant mental health issue that is affecting their choice.

Rather like a jury, until such objectivity can be acheived, I would be extremely uncomfortable with proceding with a similar law in the UK.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Tories Strategically Winning the Next Election

In a move that appeared from nowhere, Cameron has practically guaranteed his next election with the Military Covenant proposals.

The duty of care for military personnel wounded in action has been an issue the RBLI and Help for Heroes have campaigned on for years.

It is a favourite bugbear of the tabloids, who embrace a dedication to troops fighting and the rightful entitlement to care in the event they are injured.

Therefore, in what appears to be a finite proposal from our PM, he has swept the tabloids this Sunday and promoted the status of the military forces.

It's not in the coalition agreement, but Lib Dems would be making an egregious move to object. Labour cannot criticise and it further errodes their reputation for not having a clear policy nor introducing a solid foundation for soldiers while they were in power.

Of course, the other side of the coin is that these soldiers wouldnt be injured were we not to invest troops in escalating civil wars on spurious foundations.

I have to say, I'm impressed.

A Discursive on Death By Television

Is the death of a man on television a significant milestone for the 21st Century?

A man took his dying breaths on the BBC this week, which could be considered a revolutionary step forward for media development, although a much more macabre one than Big Brother.

The "viddy screen" is a huge social and cultural element of our lives, whether you watch while on Twitter or are a regular soap digestor, embracing the best of terrestrial television.

Regular readers will be aware of my dislike for the hyperreal portrayal of events in the media, a sensationalist and dumbing down of social norms which has become more and more invasive and destructive in it's pursuit for instant gratification.

The role of TV takes many forms in our culture, from background noise to all encompassing existence, but the overall understanding of the role of the television is nicely put in this article;

As "modern free time" tends to lend itself to citizen activism and the size of the overall population increases, it is necessary to keep people occupied, and TV is ideal for this purpose

But significantly since the beginning of the 21st Century, there has been a development towards not just consuming a television show, but to vicariously experience a television show.

The showing of a man's death, admittedly in an educational context, contradicts and yet emboldens the philosophical concept that in order to "be" you must "do". Without dissolving into a discursive on existentialism, it is necessary to observe how media, whether television, social media or press, has shaped the current status of human existence, purpose and definition.

Death by television is a further determination of a surrogate experience where culture has evolved to such a degree as to negate the very physicality of the human existence.

When all communication and experience can be simplified into electronic communication, we are conditioned into the human body, and indeed life, as being a circumstantial part of existence rather than a fundamental part.

With computer games that allow activity to be part of the great technology revolution, we are potentially moving swiftly towards an actualisation of "social television", whereby people will interact solely by screen and can be observed and observe through these means. The stark reality of a "telescreen" of Orwell potential is drawing closer.

And as we vicariously die, by screen, we are permitting this change.

In the months to come, we will see Channel Four screen the live consumption of illegal substances, again, commencing in educational context . But don't forget that Big Brother the tv show was borne out of Zimbardo's controversial prison experiment. Let us examine human behaviour, and thus we can understand, empathise and have no need to experience.

As Adrenalin junkies will admit, the rush of hormonal excesses from activity is a hedonistic pursuit. But if television continues down this path, we will have no need to jump from planes, as we can employ similar rushes from watching someone else do it.

So yes, I would say the death of a man on television is a likely milestone. But a milestone of a negative fashion, simply pointing us further down the line towards a "Matrix" like existence.

Truth in Willet's Statements on Uni Pricing War

David Willets MP is in further trouble this morning for opening his mouth again.

It seems he is providing press with badly briefed rhetoric from within Westminster which is providing fantastic u-turns.

First there was the Conservative ideal that rich students could continue to buy into the education system.

Now we have proposals of competitive sales in Uni education completely turned on it's head. Again, we know the Conservatives adore this approach (if the NHS is anything to go by) but have been forced to deny it in public.

However, as this is the second closely fitted Tory ideology to come out in a week, I would suspect this is Tory policy for when they hold an overall majority in Government.

Turning the state into a fully capitalist structure turns my stomach.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Shaping Bin Laden's Epitaph

It appears we still need to demonise the legacy of bin Laden, with American reports of his obsession with 9/11.

How lucky, then, that the day after this story was leaked, Al Queda bombed a military base in Pakistan.

However, this will do little to mitigate growing tensions between the US and Pakistan.

The story came after yesterday's papers went to bed, but the news papers still have the sensational story of Bin Laden's emerging files.

The carefully crafted story seems to be a more fitting epitaph for the US to digest than the fact they hunted down a terminally ill man and shot him, as he was unarmed, in front of children.

The bombing of a military base may be in the name of an organisation whose patron is dead, but will whet the appetite of American Fundementalists who require hyperreal understanding.

We can only hope it unites Pakistan and the US against Al Queda, rather than the US further accusing Pakistan of failing to report to them like naughty schoolboys.


Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Reviving Maddie Cynicism

Want to ensure police take the disappearance of your daughter seriously?

Employ a PR officer.

Yesterday's Standard revealed the McCanns were appealing to Cameron to get Scotland Yard on board.

While I appreciate it must be a distressing situation for any family to go through, one wonders why Cameron does not invest the Met in any other of the millions of missing persons enquiries.

However, it clearly helps if you are from the same class structure and can employ your own media handling as well as, off the back, write a book for publication.


Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

The Conservatives are Beginning to Unveil Their True Agenda

Chris Blackhurst argues in the Evening Standard that those pesky Lib Dems are attempting to divide and disrupt parliamentary proceedings and slow down addressing the financial deficit.

I would imagine he considers the cuts, the redundancies, the reductions in services and the hikes in fares not swift enough. Clearly not a Labour columnist then.

His concern is chiefly with political infighting distracting from the work that apparently 'needs' to be done.

He is, of course, making a subjective point based on a Conservative ideology. What he fails to appreciate is that it is not a Conservative Administration and the apparent pec-flexing of the Liberal Democrats is not , as he dictates, peers and MPs being pains in the arses but in fact their right as (a) politicians and (b) politicians in a coalition.

With a clear interest in economy, Blackhurst denounces Cable as 'too much of a social thinker to...champion commerce'. I would suggest that is exactly what we need in politics, people with a social and strategic nature inclined to see the bigger picture, not blinkered bankers out to make a profit and sod the people.

And above all it is strong Tories like this that make me so very glad the Lib Dems are involved to sand the corners off their worst and misanthropic policies in the name of preserving the pound.

During the Tory Autumn Conference, members interviewed said they didn't feel the cuts were severe or quick enough. And this is exactly the argument Blackhurst is making. With added Lib Dem squeeze like a cherry on top.

I fear we will see more and more of these style of articles as the Tories prepare to go for a majority government. They may as well stoke the fire.

I just hope there are enough sensible people out there to realise just how much worse a Tory majority would be than our coalition.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Another Right Wing Vote Winner For the Tories

On the spot fines will be targeted at "Boy Racers" says Transport Secretary Phillip Hammond.

The great middle class myth of Boy Racers, a stereotype guaranteed to win votes via urban myth, where, one would believe, that this plague upon us is likely to end in some "Tell Laura I love Her" hyperreal disaster.

I'm not saying there are not large groups of people who meet up in vastly decorated vehicles and drive too fast, too dangerously and risk lives on the road. But to target an entire legislative motion at them is ludicrous.

On Spot Fines

Prosecutors are generally overwhelmed with traffic incident processing, therefore, in principle, the issue makes sense. Remove the paperwork, free up the work load for other cases.

But practically, what is the likely result of this proposal?

I am very aware we have parking issues in my community, but parking wardens are unable to issue fines without a witness and evidence.

Therefore, I predict, within the first moments of fines being issued, drivers will demand evidence of the offence. The fine will be delayed and forced to court. And thus, no money or time will be saved.

Careless Driving

Now let's look at the apparent offence it's self.

The Road Traffic Act 1978 lists in Section 2;

If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence.”

The BBC argues that the proposed on-the-spot-fines will result in "safer roads". However, where the offence is an offence and will result in one of the following;

• "a £2,500; and
• mandatory 3 to 9 penalty points; and
• discretionary disqualification."

The reduction to a fine would infact undermine the offence it's self.

We should observe that Careless Driving can and does cause death in a number of cases, and as a result there is an offence of Death By Careless Driving.

Proposals by the Government undermine the offence of Death By Careless Driving and are likely to outrage campaigners for tougher regulation on drivers. Issuing on-the-spot-fines immediately degrades the offence and could, in theory, develop into people seeing it as less serious and therefore legitimate to drive without reasonable care.

Keeping the Tories Sweet

It is a clear policy to placate right wing voters who live with delusions of fear of crime and little or no experience of crime.

The practicalities mean people who do not challenge will end up with fines and people who do will end up without.

At the same time it is likely to increase danger on the roads and potentially risk lives as people grow more confident with less serious sanctions.

Throw it out!

A Quiet But Significant Sanction on Syria

Quietly quietly, tucked in a side column in the i paper, is a note to the beginnings of action on Syria.

'An EU statement said it was banning the shipment to Syria of "arms and equiptment that could be used for internal oppression"'.

This is a significant step towards sanctions being taken against another country in the Arab League.

Along with this, the EU is applying minerva injunctions and preventing free travel on specific citizens.

As the UN are not united on action, we may well see NATO adopt a strategic approach as they did in Cote Ivoire. Surruptitious invasion, removal of dictator, allow to descend into civil war again so they can keep the gun economy moving.

This insignificant paragraph has a significant affect on where Britain stands on what is fair and what is not. I predicted earlier that Syria would have sanctions imposed on 6th. I'm two days out.

Will Syria end up like Libya?

And what of Bahraim, where the page in the i paper is dedicated to slaughter, torture and abuse of a dictator? I guess we'll have to watch the side columns again.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Social Divide and the Super Injunction

The super-injunction, tool of the rich and famous, so special you can't even mention it exists.

I prefer law that is tangiable and definable. Recent debacles over peoples' sex lives don't interest me beyond Fleet Street bar gossip, but I do take the freedom of the press seriously.

As Maxwell Mosely goes to the ECHR, we are presented with a conundrum. If press have to notify before publication, then Freedom of Speech is comprimised. To decide to do so would result in the an automatically created right of passage for the rich to protect themselves, while mere mortals suffer.

Rather like defamatory actions, to allow any part of the law to be accessible only to the rich goes against the rule of law founding principle.

But now the ECHR must further confuse this by answering a priority of human rights. Which is more important? Freedom of Speech or Right to Privacy?

And where does right to privacy end and right to scrutiny or public interest begin?

One could argue the law is based on a system of each case on it's merits; but it's merits should not include whoever can pay to protect themselves.

The government in the UK is unlikely to revoke legal aid reductions, but will be extremely unlikely to challenge the rich-proxy of injunctions and libel. Therefore they are likely to use whatever the ECHR decides as a principle and get out of the responsibility of deciding at all.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

NHS Proposals are Conflicts of Issues at Every Level

NHS reforms are tipping the press headline scales again, as more and more proposals and rejections are outlined.

In this morning's i paper, Health Secretary Lansley is referred to as saying that he understood the conflicts of interest with GP Consortia and Doctors from hospital both commissioning and providing.

What he, and the press, seem to have missed is that GP Consortia will always be in a conflict of interest as currently PCTs commission GP surgeries, so it is irrelevant if hospital docs also breach this interest.

The proposals to reform the NHS would go much further if they addressed the glass ceiling and projected seniority between doctors and health professionals. Current proposals continue to put doctors on a pedestal allegedly befitting to their status, but not in a world where there are a range of health workers, from nurses to physios, who are equally trained and capable but on a quarter of the salary.

The proposed 'pause' also fails to address the 30-40% of PCT workers whose expertise and employment has already been lost in mass redundancies, not least of all through clustering.

However, I doubt Jeremy Hunt MP could alter the progression in any way.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

"I Was Elected to Westminster and All I Got Was This Lousy Duckhouse" T Shirt

One could suggest this is capitalism gone mad. The Pugin architectural marvel that is Westminster is to be hired out by the evening.

Perhaps they could hold stag and hen do's, children's birthday parties and waxing fundraisers in the chambers?

Certainly with proposals to retail Commons souveneirs (Speaker's costume anyone?) and eateries, the House of Commons looks to be exploited by marketing and advertising along with the next person.

MPs call for Westminster to 'take advantage of it's brand'. I would suggest this is one way of dragging archaic tradition into the 21st Century, but I dread the results.

I also cannot reconcile the financial advantages to this scheme. With the ever widening social divide, legitimate but amoral tax avoidance and houseprice rises, there seem to be many more opportunities of low hanging fruit than this.

However, a tshirt proclaiming 'I was elected to West Minster and all I got was this lousy duckhouse' has certain macabre appeal as a money saving initiative.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Various Marches that Would Be Better for Feminism

Slut Walks. Nothing like inspiring a "marmite" response.

As Rosamund Urwin puts it in today's Evening Standard, do women, "in the name of protecting rape victims... attempt to turn a sexual slur into a badge of honour", really fully consider the implications of what they are doing?

As I commented previously, it seems rather like sticking a plaster on a broken leg. Calling women sluts will not change the perjorative implications of the word, and will simply fuel "full frontal feminism"; that exploits sex as a consumer asset and denies repression where it so clearly exists.

So what should feminists do instead?

Here are several walks I'd like to see;

Dyke Walk
Where women can claim back the right to have short hair, not wear makeup, wear trousers and flats and generally not flaunt their so-called-assets and not be called a dyke

Single and Happy Walk
Where women can shake off the Bridget Jones sydrome that has spread through generations like a wildfire out of control, contributing to more patronising and defaming remarks based on stereotypes.

Child-free walk
where women are not persecuted for having no maternal desire whatsoever, where they can avoid the pitying patronising looks and comments of "you'll change"; because they have seen through fallacies of motherhood and biological destiny

PMT Bitch Walk
Where women line up to prevent PMT and Hormones becoming synonymous with the repressive term "hysterical";, convoluted out of all sense to imply all women are effectively mentally unsound therefore nothing a man does is a problem, it's all them.

Got any more?
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device