Token Bird

I'm late, I'm late, I'm late!

2007-11-30T03:18:00.000-08:00

Is it just me, or does Jack Straw bear an uncanny resemblance to the White Rabbit in Alice in Wonderland?

Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor -->

<-- The White Rabbit

And on the subject of gender...

2007-11-28T12:02:00.000-08:00

It's tripe like this that has me, as a successful and yet happily married female, fuming.

To go through a few gems from Ms O'Reilly:

"Once a woman has a ring on her finger she is no longer an individual, but a wife. Her existence is defined by her husband. This is an archaic concept, but one that still stalks us like a dark spectre."

No longer an individual? Is that why I am still able to own property in my own name? To vote? To travel on my own? To drive? To have my work recognised as being done by me? Frankly, other than the beaurocratic paperfest involved with changing my name, no one seems to care either way: I'm still known as me, because that is who I am. My existence is not defined purely by my husband, but being married to my husband is an important part of what makes me me. If I make a mistake, that's my fault, not my husband's. If I do well, it's my credit, not my husband's. But when my husband and I do things together, that's our responsibility. There is a distinction, and it's important.

And archaic? Well, yes, maybe, but then all traditions must therefore be archaic. I fully intend to put up a Christmas tree this year. Does this make me an atavistic moron stuck in the nineteenth century?

"If a woman retains her maiden name following marriage, she enters into the commitment as an equal partner, maintaining the individuality and the history she forged during her pre-married days. If she loses her surname, she buys into a tradition that has kept women subservient since Eve ate that apple."

No, Ms O'Reilly. Let me explain. A woman in this country can always enter into marriage as an equal partner. No one compels her to change her surname to that of her husband once she's signed on the dotted line and nor do they compel her to stamp "Doormat" on her forehead at the same time. And you've used an important word there. PARTNER. Here's a thought. Perhaps the name change is a sign of the new partnership? Not to mention that any children (and yes, it may come as a shock here, but some married women intend to have them, even in the UK) would then share their surname with both parents. I'm sure if it were a burning issue (and she didn't mind the extra expenditure on ink for her cheques), she could hyphenate, or they both could. But, hey, if we're going down this route, why not just go the whole hog and make up random surnames to adopt when we marry? So, my husband and I like the countryside and we like dogs, so maybe our surname should be Mr and Mrs Open Spaces Spaniel? Sounds dumb, doesn't it? Or maybe, we could do something else, which partners always do, but which doesn't seem to have occurred to Ms O'Reilly. Wait for it, COMPROMISE, and choose one name. Given my husband agreed that any children we have would be brought up with my religion rather than his, giving our family his surname seemed perfectly reasonable. And even if we weren't compromising on other things, I still don't have a problem with our family brand being my husband's surname rather than my father's.

And that brings me onto another logical inconsistency in Ms O'Reilly's thinking. The names we are born with include our parents' surname: most usually, it would be our father's, but even if it is our mother's, it's still the same form of labelling - from birth we are tagged as "belonging" to someone.

"Cheryl Cole and Sarah Michelle Prinze have highlighted the social pressures placed on women to appear secondary to their husbands in the public eye. Cheryl Cole married in 2006, and by being branded Mrs Cole she wants to centralise her marriage as part of her identity."

So what if Mrs Cole wants to centralise her marriage as part of her identity? Ms O'Reilly, you seem to think that this is a bad thing. Every person I know builds their identity on a series of characteristics, such as their job, their age, their appearance, and yes, their family. Marriage, in case it escaped you, is actually quite a serious commitment. You don't just pop out to the shops and get hitched: you think about it, you get a nice outfit and if you can, you have a nice party, because it's important, and as such I see no reason why women should choose not to advertise this by adopting a new family name. It doesn't mean they "appear secondary" to their husbands. All it shows is that they have entered into a new partnership and that that partnership matters to them.

"The sudden decision to change, and conform to tradition, can be considered the direct result of sex-role stereotyping that would have wider society believe that a woman who fails to taker her husband's name is not fully committed to her partner."

And since the whole point of this post seems to be that these two women were uber-successful compared to their husbands (one of whom is a premiership footballer and is clearly a complete wastrel, in Ms O'Reilly's book), it seems rather strange that she hasn't considered the possibility that both of these women make their living in the public gaze, and that perhaps, just perhaps, these name changes may also have given them some free, wholesome publicity, which may have been more of a factor in their decision than the wish to subjugate themselves to their jealous husbands.

Gender politics: harrying Harman

2007-11-28T11:46:00.000-08:00

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. I almost feel sorry for our beloved Leader (of the House of Commons) who has been so categorically hung out to dry by Gordon over the donations scandal. That is I *would* feel sorry for her, but I am afraid, I am just embarrassed for her: promoted so far beyond her level of competence she's rocketing towards outer space. What kind of example does she set the rest of us in her role as Minister for Women and Equality?

Oh, just get OVER yourselves

2007-11-27T11:15:00.001-08:00

So there has been yet another furore about a group of juvenile betweeded hacks inviting some controversial speakers to participate in a debate at the Oxford Union. Union president Luke Tryl says he's standing up for free speech, whilst OUSU, Trevor Philips and various OU faith groups have weighed in to condemn him for his flippant insensitivity.

There has been a great deal of coverage of the debate, the demonstrations, and the fracas, as well as various comment pieces either calling for the debate to be cancelled or defending it in the name of free speech. I won't rehearse those arguments here.

What I would like to point out is that students are students, for pity's sake. Their whole point is to irritate the crap out of the rest of us wage slaves by lounging around being drunkenly intellectual at our expense and by saying and doing outrageous things. Any student who has not pissed off at least 20 people by the end of fresher's week is simply not trying hard enough.

So, yes, it was inflammatory to invite two people who hold such offensive views to join in their debate, but no, it is just not important enough for us all to be so worked up about it.

The internet: numbing the pain?

2007-11-20T06:02:00.000-08:00

I have been trying to avoid reading the numerous press stories which every day update us with yet more sordid details of the murder of Meredith Kercher, however, the fact of the murder raises some interesting questions regarding mass media and lines of social acceptability.

It seems to me that we live in an age where no matter what your appetites, and how disturbing or damaging they may be to others, if you look hard enough, you will be able to find someone of a like mind. In fact, with the growing sophistication of internet search engines and the broadband technology to share information and images quickly and cheaply, we are in serious danger of losing all sense of moral perspective. It seems it is now possible for anyone, no matter how depraved, to find a willing accomplice somewhere in the world: and so deviance is normalised.

We throw our arms up in the air at the child soldiers in the Sudan and Uganda, who have been so brutalised that they have lost all sense of their humanity, and yet, we seem not to see that by a less violent, less obvious, but more pervasive means, we are all heading for the same fate.

Footage of happy slapping, ever more shocking pornography, and unlimited and uncensored images of violence, which are now so easily accessible to all, desensitise us all to the suffering and degradation they represent. Indeed, it has become almost impossible to avoid this material when using the internet, with hidden links and typo squatters cunningly designed to intercept even the most innocent user.

Whenever I hear of a shocking crime committed against an individual I wonder whether without this ever present bombardment and our seemingly insatiable appetites for new and more shocking filth, the perpetrators of these acts would have had the imagination or the flagrant disregard of the rest of our species to dream up and then enact them.

Gender politics

2007-11-19T09:42:00.000-08:00

Hear hear to Rosemary Behan who has today managed to put into words my feelings towards the incessant stream of drivel being spouted by government ministers on the Today program each morning.

The most woeful thing about all this from my point of view is it seems to be the women who are the worst offenders (Hewitt, Primarolo, Smith, Blears, Jowell, Harman).

If I believed in the conspiracy theories peddled by our more strident feminist writers, it would almost seem as though these women were being deliberately thrust in the limelight by our dominant male hegemony as part of a covert mission to maintain the current gender power imbalance by *proving* that women make dreadful politicians and should get back in the kitchen, but then that would just be silly, and would belie the real reason, which is Gordon Brown's astonishing track record in nipping in the bud any sign of real talent (a.k.a. potential threats to his increasingly tenuous position) and instead surrounding himself with incompetent yes-men of either sex.

Northern Rock

2007-11-19T04:27:00.000-08:00

I have been becoming ever more irate at the seemingly unstoppable waste of my money that is the Northern Rock scandal. Every day brings with it a new revelation of mismanagement and governmental hypocrisy.

The latest chapters in this sorry tale relate that as a British taxpayer, I have now poured £900 of my hard earned cash into this stinking cess pool to prop up incompetence, failure and greed and that the shareholders are not happy that there is no buyer foolish enough to pay a vastly over inflated price for a bank reaping the consequences of its reckless fiscal policies.

Well excuse me, but I don't have any sympathy for the equity holders in Northern Rock. Every investor should have it drummed firmly into their heads that share prices can go up or down and that a company's market value is never determined as of right, but is firmly linked to the company's performance, which in turn is inextricably tied to the competence and wisdom of its management.

And I can't help thinking that if Northern Rock were called London Rock, or South-Eastern Rock, or hang on, wait for it, Barings, there would be no comparable life belt thrown out by a Treasury anxious to appease swathes of Labour voters who want to have their cake and to eat it too.

How to fuel my paranoia

2006-08-24T09:56:00.000-07:00

I was on the tube when the bombs went off on 7/7 last year. I had got on at Edgware Road and was stuck in a tunnel in the dark at Kings Cross for a long time. Although I managed to avoid being on the actual trains that were attacked, I was, nevertheless, somewhat shaken by the experience and am sometimes a little bit jumpy when travelling on the tube.

Today was one of those occasions. I got on at Edgware Road and was immediately sat next to by a man of middle eastern appearance. No problem there - hardly a surprise if you get on at Edgware Road! What did make me more than a tad uneasy, however, was the fact that this guy (1) was wearing a very bulky coat (in August!), (2) was visibly anxious and twitchy (3) kept checking his watch; and (4) was pressing buttons on his mobile phone.

Call me paranoid, but after a tense few minutes, I had to jump out at Baker Street and change carriages. I realise that I was almost certainly being irrational and maligning a perfectly innocent guy who was simply late for a meeting, but there you have it. Even if the police and secret services do manage to discover and prevent new terrorist attacks, the fear remains. It's just not nice for anyone.

Back at last (with one caveat)

2006-08-24T09:54:00.000-07:00

Well, my hectic Summer is drawing to a close. I have moved house, been on holiday, started a new job, etc, etc and am looking forward to resuming regular postings. The only thing I should point out is that I am in the process of switching suppliers for my broadband, so may be internetless in the meantime. C'est la vie!

The old ones are the best...

2006-08-07T09:11:00.000-07:00

A perennial e-mail favourite, this still makes me laugh...

DEMOCRATIC

You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
You feel guilty for being successful.
Barbara Streisand sings for you.

REPUBLICAN

You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
So?

SOCIALIST

You have two cows.
The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.
You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.

COMMUNIST

You have two cows.
The government seizes both and provides you with milk.
You wait in line for hours to get it.
It is expensive and sour.

CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE

You have two cows.
You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.

BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE

You have two cows.
Under the new farm program the government pays you to shoot one, milk the other, and then pours the milk down the drain.

AMERICAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one.
You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when one cow drops dead. You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses.
Your stock goes up.

FRENCH CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You go on strike because you want three cows.
You go to lunch and drink wine.
Life is good.

JAPANESE CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.
They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains.
Most are at the top of their class at cow school.

GERMAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour.
Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.

ITALIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows but you don't know where they are.
While ambling around, you see a beautiful woman.
You break for lunch.
Life is good.

RUSSIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You have some vodka.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You have some more vodka.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.

TALIBAN CORPORATION

You have all the cows in Afghanistan , which are two.
You don't milk them because you cannot touch any creature's private parts.
You get a $40 million grant from the US government to find alternatives to milk production but use the money to buy weapons.

IRAQI CORPORATION

You have two cows.
They go into hiding.
They send radio tapes of their mooing.

POLISH CORPORATION

You have two bulls.
Employees are regularly maimed and killed attempting to milk them.

BELGIAN CORPORATION

You have one cow.
The cow is schizophrenic.
Sometimes the cow thinks he's French, other times he's Flemish.
The Flemish cow won't share with the French cow.
The French cow wants control of the Flemish cow's milk.
The cow asks permission to be cut in half.
The cow dies happy.

FLORIDA CORPORATION

You have a black cow and a brown cow.
Everyone votes for the best looking one.
Some of the people who actually like the brown one best accidentally vote for the black one.
Some people vote for both.
Some people vote for neither.
Some people can't figure out how to vote at all.
Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which one you think is the best-looking cow.

CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

You have millions of cows.
They make real California cheese.
Only five speak English.
Most are illegals.
Arnold likes the ones with the big udders.

Still silent, but not for long

2006-08-07T09:09:00.000-07:00

After what I would say has been the most hectic Summer I have ever had, I am hoping to get back into regular posting in the next week or so... this is subject to the demands of my new job (starting Monday), but watch this space.

My lack of posting...

2006-07-21T07:02:00.000-07:00

Is because life is just too hectic! Things should become more regular towards the end of the Summer...

It couldn't happen to a nicer person...

2006-07-21T06:58:00.000-07:00

D'oh! Omar Bakri realising he's cocked up now...

It was with a delicious sense of irony that I heard that Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed is now festering in Lebanon, stuck between the rock of the Hizbollah/Israel confrontation and that hard place that is Syria, and that the UK will not be doing anything to help him escape. Ha ha ha!

7/7 - One Year On

2006-07-11T06:11:00.000-07:00

I meant to put a little post about this up on Friday, however, was running around like a headless chicken closing a deal at work.

Although I did not have time to pop outside at noon Friday, I was able to observe the silence from my window, and to see thousands of people from neighbouring offices reflecting on the horrors of last year's attacks together.

It has surprised me just how quickly the last year has passed and, just how little has changed.

In fact, it seems to me that rather than stepping up our search for would-be terrorists, our politically correct media would have us fetter the Met in its dealings with terrorist suspects - how else can we explain the widespread media condemnation of the Met following the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, and the Forest Gate raid?

Don't get me wrong. The police have been given far ranging powers to fight terrorism, and these powers must be kept in check. If the police cock up, they must be held accountable and be prepared to explain what went wrong. However, should this accountability stretch so far so as to tie the hands of the people whom we have mandated to protect us?

Similarly, given that radical Islam is (self acclaimedly) responsible for creating a very real and serious terrorist threat, should we really be dancing attendance to the politically-correct brigade who say it is somehow racist to focus our attentions on our muslim communities? Much has been made in the media of the worsening attitudes of British muslims to the West (including, in the aftermath of 7/7 the fact that 6% of muslims questioned gave their support to the bombers). So far entrenched is the anti-West and victimhood culture within our muslim communities that it seems to me that instead of taking action to stamp out the sources of this resentment (whether by taking steps to help poor muslim communities or to encourage greater integration or by taking legal action against those who encourage terrorism) we are excusing it. Why is it that other than the very high profile trial of Abu Hamza, and his entirely deserved convictions for a raft of incitement-related offences, I have not seen a public crackdown on people who peddle these messages of hate?

Britain has always prided itself on its tolerance. However, it is this very tolerance which has allowed the muslim community to isolate itself from mainstream society in Britain, at the cost of the very all-inclusive society which we are trying to create.

So one year on from 7/7 our public transport system remains a sitting duck target, it's still ok to preach the destruction of the West and all the time our politicians and media continue to apologise to the muslim community for victimising them. Meanwhile, call me paranoid, but I change tube carriages every time I see a rucksack.

OK, so I am a fuddy duddy

2006-07-04T07:04:00.000-07:00

So, I read in today's Telegraph that the French businessmen and politicians are abandoning the traditional "vous" form in favour of the less formal "tu". I notice that the DT's Leader bemoans this shift and indeed, voices a wish that English had a similar way of distinguishing between informal and formal second person addressees.

I would agree that we are in general becoming less formal to strangers. One of the manifestations of this I have noticed over the past year or so is people in call-centres calling me by my first name, without even asking me. Is it just me, or this really irritating? What's next? A telephone call to your bank is answered by "All right, love, Dave here. Oooh, didn't you spend a lot in Selfridges the other day?"

Outrageous.

I'm not dead - just very, very busy

2006-06-26T17:48:00.000-07:00

Apologies for the lack of posting recently: I have been extremely busy at work and at home and while the Reptile has been off-line, I have been posting on his blog to keep it active...

The good news is that the Reptile should be getting his BT Broadband tomorrow, so fingers crossed, I can get back to posting on my own blog as normal.

Australian angst: is the tide turning?

2006-06-20T08:52:00.000-07:00

Further to my previous posts on this subject, it would appear that the accepted strategy of non-intervention in Aboriginal communities may finally be falling out of favour, with Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott calling for a new "paternalism" in indigenous affairs. I must say, I applaud this concept: for too long Australians have allowed a two-tier version of citizens' rights to exist, based on an outdated and misguided idea that the Australian Government should not intervene in indigenous affairs. I hope that this new idea catches on. There is clearly a great deal of work to be done, in terms of healthcare, law and order, education and eliminating poverty, and the first step on the way to this should be to acknowledge that both the Australian Government and the Aboriginal communities must share the responsibility in addressing these difficult issues.

You must be joking

2006-06-14T03:54:00.000-07:00

In another blinding example of how out of control the bullying State has become, the government is to issue the "Dad Pack" to prospective fathers, dishing out otiose and patronising advice. The absurdly unnecessary booklet, for which the taxpayer has paid £50,000, tells fathers not to hassle their partners for sex, on the one hand, but also implores them not to go out and have an affair during pregnancy and after the birth of their child.

Not content with accusing men of being rapists and wife beaters, the State is now talking to men who are new fathers as though they are immature, selfish little brats.

When will this overweening State learn to butt out and let people take responsibility for their own lives? Ah yes, it's New Labour, so that would be never. How depressing.

Eng-er-land

2006-06-13T10:25:00.000-07:00

I am an unabashed loather of the so-called beautiful game and only watch matches (even internationals) on sufferance. The results of the World Cup have always been to me a matter of indifference. I have, however, been goaded into taking an interest by the nasty and small-minded attitude of some people towards our English football fans and towards England's team. And by football fans, I don't mean the yobs, but the millions of law-abiding members of the population who are really excited by the World Cup and are backing England for all their worth.

Tell me. What is wrong with people showing their support by festooning shops and cars with the St. George's flag? Why does this cheerful display of English nationalism offend so many? And why do so many people choose to support anyone but England, (including most Scots, despite Gordon Brown's feeble charade)? And, even more inexplicably, why do so many people who choose to live in England still persist with their benighted down-with-England attitude? It's pathetic.

So, much as it pains me, I will be watching England's next match, frantically waving my St. George's flag.

COME ON ENGLAND

Sporadic Postings - update

2006-06-12T05:13:00.000-07:00

Nearly there! Should be back to regular postings in the next few days...

Visual geography

2006-06-07T09:34:00.000-07:00

I was going through my old e-mails (asyerdo) and found this very cool photograph which I was sent a fair while ago. Here is the explanatory text...

This photograph was taken by the crew on board the Columbia during its last mission. This photograph was taken via satellite, on a cloudless day.

The picture is of Europe and Africa when the sun is setting. Half of the picture is in night.

The bright dots you see are the cities lights. The top part of Africa is the Sahara Desert.

Note that the lights are already on in Holland, Paris, and Barcelona, and that it's still daylight in London, Lisbon, and Madrid.The sun is still shining on the Straight of Gibraltar. The Mediterranean Sea is already in darkness.

In the middle of the Atlantic Ocean you can see the Azores Islands; below them to the right are the Madeira Islands; a bit below are the Canary Islands; and further south, close to the farthest western point of Africa, are the Cape Verde Islands.

Note that the Sahara is huge and can be seen clearly both during daytime and nigh ttime. To the left, on top, is Greenland, totally frozen.

Too damned right

2006-06-07T09:02:00.000-07:00

Now here is a blog after my own heart...

Definitely worth a look if you are a Londoner who is fed up with our incompetent buffoon of a mayor.

The Human Rights Act

2006-06-06T13:21:00.000-07:00

I had the unusual opportunity today of attending a brief talk by Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty fame. Her subject was human rights in the U.K., and the threat which they are currently under.

Shami Chakrabarti's main thrust was that the Human Rights Act (the "HRA") was a fragile and vulnerable piece of legislation, which was becoming more and more endangered by an increasingly authoritarian government and complacent electorate. She described the HRA as the only bulwark standing between the rights of the citizen and the powers of the executive and urged us to engage upon a wide civil society campaign to raise awareness among the general public of the importance of the HRA in protecting individual human rights.

Shami also touched on several other points: for example, that the war on terror has had the effect of turning murderers into soldiers (reference the video of London suicide bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan), and that the government's ID card scheme is dangerous as it has no defined purpose (and as such is therefore likely to grow and grow) and also because it proposes to store information unverifiable by the individual.

These wider issues are also interesting, however, it is Shami's impassioned plea to protect the HRA which interests me most. What she singularly failed to address was the the question of enforceability. It is all very well to claim that the HRA enshrines fundamental rights owed to all citizens and that in some circumstances, such as the Belmarsh prisoners, it is the only constitutional bar between prisoners' basic rights and a knee-jerking, opressive state. What puzzled me, however, was her complete failure to explain how, once a court has ruled an action or piece of legislation to be incompatible with an individual's human rights, we propose to enforce this. So far as I can see, the HRA is simply a fanciful wishlist of values we would like our judiciary, legislature and executive to enforce. However, I cannot see its teeth. Without teeth, it strikes me that the HRA is in fact, quite pointless, as it cannot bind anyone, whether an individual or an emanation of the state.

I know the Reptile has a fair amount to add regarding the consequences of giving the HRA teeth, so I will not open that debate here.

I merely wish to ask the question: if the HRA has neither bark nor bite, what is its purpose?

Let's kick marriage while it's down

2006-06-02T05:41:00.000-07:00

It was with weary resignation that I read about the Law Commission's proposals to water down further the status of marriage by according the same or similar financial rights to unmarried, cohabiting couples.

I am deeply upset by this development and was going to post a long rant explaining exactly why. However, reading the Telegraph comment pages yesterday, I saw that Mary Kenny had already voiced most of my concerns.

Basically, her concerns (and indeed, mine), are threefold:
1. The proposals undermine an individual's freedom to contract
2. The proposals imperil an individual's property rights
3. The proposals restrict an individual's freedom to decide whether or not to marry.

I would expand Ms Kenny's third point by saying that it represents yet another example of the increasing infantilisation of society. What business is it of the state to impose the rights and responsibilities of a marriage upon a cohabiting couple? It strikes me as absurd that a couple who do not marry (whether as a result of ignorance, apathy or design), and who have therefore not made the same public and formal commitment to each other as a married couple, should expect the same financial treatment. Honestly. If a couple is mature enough to be cohabiting, surely they are grown-up enough to consider the consequences of so doing and to decide to marry if they feel they need the greater financial protection afforded by that institution. If a couple decides not to marry, it's not the state's job to intervene. These people have deliberately chosen to put themselves into that situation. This is especially true now that we have civil partnerships: no couple, whether childless, gay, rich or poor is unable to put into place the legal framework to secure their position.

It strikes me that this is another loopy intitiative by a bunch of liberal, sock and sandal wearing bearded lefties, aimed at redressing the so-called injustice that occurs when a cohabiting couple with children splits up and one partner is left, quite literally, holding the baby.

Why it takes such far-reaching legislation to address what is essentially (from the state's point of view) a non-problem eludes me.

Furthermore, exactly how do we propose to enforce this? Will we deal with claims through the already overburdened family court, or will we use the risible Child Support Agency?

This whole scheme is ridiculous and should be booted out with all due haste.

Sporadic Postings

2006-06-02T05:34:00.000-07:00

Just a quick apology: my postings might be a little sporadic over the next week or so. I am totally swamped. Moving house, arranging weddings, full time job, etc, etc.

I will, however, be making an effort to keep posting, despite this!

You couldn't make it up

2006-06-01T01:49:00.000-07:00

I read a most amusing story in the Telegraph today. In fact, I can do no better than to quote the opening paragraphs:

"A teenager left at home while his parents were on holiday decided to do some washing - and ended up blowing the roof off and causing £35,000 of damage.

"In a freak string of mishaps, Sean Davey, 18, left a washing basket full of clothes on top of the electric cooker. He then accidentally knocked one of the hob controls, turning on one of the rings, before going out to meet friends.

"The heated ring set fire to the basket of clothes which, in turn, heated a nearby bag of shopping that his sister Nicky, 20, had left for her brother earlier in the day.

"And that caused a can of Sure deodorant to explode with such force that it not only blew out windows but cracked a wall and even, briefly, lifted the roof off the bungalow."

And the most astonishing part of this story? His parents have said they would be willing to leave him home alone again!

Family Tax Credits: The Farce Continues

2006-05-31T07:26:00.000-07:00

So, we learn today, that in the year today, the government managed to overpay £1.8 billion in Family Tax Credits. Apparently, however, we should be reassured that it won't be so bad in the next year: the government expects to overpay a third less. Great, so the government is only overpaying £1.2 billion.

What?

What?

What?

1. Why is the government so monumentally incompetent at calculating what is and what isn't due?

2. More pressingly, why is the government taxing these low income households in the first place?

Call me outrageous, but I have always believed that the poorest families should not be paying tax. And, that includes National Insurance. It doesn't take a genius to work out that the cost of collecting and then reimbursing taxes is a ludicrous waste of public money. Why not up the tax-free allowance to £10,000?

It's not rocket science now Gordon, is it?

Violent feelings

2006-05-30T07:00:00.000-07:00

Yet another tragic story in the news has failed to surprise me: that of Tom Grant's being stabbed when he made the mistake of trying to intervene in an altercation on a train.

Whenever I read about yet another grizzly story of GBH, murder, rape, etc, I often ask myself whether there really is more violence around these days, or whether I have just become more sensitised to these reports and therefore think there are more of them than there used to be, when in fact there are not. Given the frequency with which these stories appear, however, and the official statistics (already pointed out on this blog), I am forced to conclude that society is indeed becoming more violent.

As well as the increasing violence in this country, the stabbings of Tom Grant and Kiyan Prince highlight a disturbing trend. According to reports, both of these young men intervened in a fight in which they were not involved in order to protect the vulnerable underdog. Both of them were promising, popular students and both of them are now dead. The message which is being sent loud and clear is that if you see someone doing something obviously wrong and obviously harmful to another, you should turn a blind eye or be prepared to accept that you may join in the original victim's fate. These thugs are so emboldened by the incompetence, impotence and apathy of the criminal justice system, that they feel entitled to carry on as they please with impunity, and woe betide anyone who tries to stop them.

I have experienced a few minor, but nasty incidents myself. For example, when I looked at a brutish looking man casually throwing his fast food wrappings in the street, he rushed at me screaming abuse. Another time, I saw three kappa-beshelled youths brazenly attacking the locks on a mountain bike with an enormous pair of boltcutters in broad daylight and was told to keep walking or to risk discovering to what other purposes their boltcutters could be put. These, as I said, are minor incidents, but they have left me cowed. Now, whenever I see an argument, or a kid with their feet on the seats of the train, or a man urinating in the street, or any number of unpleasant manifestations of human behaviour, I look down, and walk on. I am too afraid to intervene, for fear of bringing the attention of these yobs upon myself.

I know I am not alone. Most people who see someone being beaten up, or even someone collapsed on the street, will not intervene, for fear of endangering their lives. It is a damning indictment on the state of our communities, not to mention a tragedy for our society, that we have reached the point where the majority of the population is held to ransom by an unchecked and violent minority.

Brief hiatus...

2006-05-24T14:11:00.000-07:00

As outrageous as it is to do this so early on in a blog's life, I'm going to be away for a few days... lil' sis is getting hitched (hence the enforced field trip to Moss Bros)

normal rants, etc will resume early next week.

Marriage and Divorce: the true cost

2006-05-24T12:18:00.000-07:00

It's always been said that the only people who really profit by divorce are the lawyers, but now the House of Lords has issued its landmark ruling on how the marital pot should be divvied up on divorce, and confirming that the role of the wife as home maker and mother is of equal financial value to the partnership as that of the breadwinner. Divorcees of millionaires can expect handsome divorce settlements, million pound houses and even a seriously generous income for life. It's one up for the feminists and one in the eye for evil (male) investment bankers/pop singers/idle rich, etc out there who thought a short and childless marriage would not seriously damage their pockets.

Am I the only one who sees this as yet another nail in the coffin for marriage as an institution? We've abolished the married couple's tax allowance, created a gravy train for single mothers, belittled the importance of the actual ceremony with our civil partnerships and all the while, ensured that prenups are pretty much unenforceable in this country. So, if you are a millionaire, or even if you are not, I suggest you think very carefully about the financial consequences of marriage before tying the knot.

Brian Haw: Cut down to size?

2006-05-24T07:56:00.000-07:00

It gave me a warm fuzzy glow to read how 20 brave officers of the Met (who clearly have nothing more pressing to do) dismantled most of Brian Haw's protest materials during the small hours of this morning, in order to enforce a notice they had issued to him under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 that he must limit the size of his placards to 10 feet in length.

There has been a lot of discussion today about this, ranging from the implications for free speech in the U.K., police priorities, the shift towards an ever increasing authoritarianism that this represents, the dangers of retrospective law-making, etc, etc. I do not wish to further rehearse these debates here. I merely wish to raise this question: given the intense attention which Parliament and the police have devoted to this protest, am I to assume that it is only a matter of time before he is shut down or locked up? Indeed, is the 10ft length limit merely to accustom Mr Haw to such a confined space for his persistent protesting?

Fighting cancer: a good idea

2006-05-22T08:56:00.000-07:00

The United Devices Cancer Research Project is a scheme run primarily by the National Foundation for Cancer Research, the Department of Chemistry at the University of Oxford, United Devices, Inc, and various other organisations and individuals, which aims to use idle PCs around the world to assist in finding new cancer drugs, by modelling the interaction of potential anti-carcinogenic compounds with proteins. The idea is that you download a simple, non-intrusive screensaver programme, which uses your PC to process data, which is then returned to the server. There is a useful Oxford FAQ page with more information.

Grid.org are also running the Human Proteome Folding Project, which builds upon the work carried out by the Human Genome Project, and is aiming to discover the functions and structures of all of the proteins encoded in the Human Genome. The project works along the same lines as the Cancer Research Project by getting people to install a programme called Rosetta onto their PCs.

These are both fascinating projects, with millions of people having signed up to help.

I want doesn't get

2006-05-22T05:32:00.000-07:00

Once of the most ugly things about living in the UK today is the very effective way in which Labour has manipulated the national psyche for its own purposes, and sought to legitimise the politics of class hatred and envy and to engender an attitude of entitlement without responsibility or merit.

This rot is setting in at all levels of our society: no teacher can discipline an unruly pupil without running the risk of infringing his rights, dangerous prisoners are released by a litigation-phobic probation service and law-abiding citizens are warned to hide their MP3 players and mobile telephones so as not to encourage muggers and pickpockets.

Labour has even allowed this nasty culture to permeate one of its most noble goals: that of eradicating child poverty. There are a number of ways of defining child poverty, but the one used by the Government is to define child as living in poverty if the family's income is less than 60% of the "contemporary median equivalised household income". By using this subjective test and measuring child poverty relative to national average wages, Labour is further reinforcing the attitude that if you have less than someone else, this is somehow unfair and something should be done about it.

I do not wish to denigrate from the very difficult conditions in which some of our poorest families live, and nor do I wish to detract from the very laudable work of the ECPC. I wholeheartedly agree with the Government's aims to provide assistance and opportunity to help lift families out of the cycles of unemployment and poverty which can be so destructive. However, I would point out that on an international scale, British families can hardly be said to be living in poverty (i.e. living on less than a dollar a day). We do have a welfare state which provides housing, healthcare and income support for the poor.

The thing with which I violently disagree is the culture of entitlement which seems to eminate from the New Labour machine. Part of growing up is realising that you cannot always have what you want, although you can work to try and obtain it. Too many people in this country are not learning that "I want doesn't get" and are instead adopting an I-want-therefore-I-deserve attitude to life. If we are to succeed at restoring respect in our communities, a good start would be teach children (and adults) the satisfaction of achieving things for which they have worked.

More stick and less carrot: deterrence is the only way

2006-05-22T04:11:00.000-07:00

It was with weary resignation rather than any great surprise that I read the disclosure on the front page of the Telegraph today that an average of almost 2 prisoners a week have been escaping from Leyhill Open Prison, Gloucester over the past 3 years.

The local police have been left with the double burden of rounding up these criminals, and of having to deal with the "mini-crime wave" for which the escapees are responsible.

The Home Office has not provided absconding rates for the other 12 open prisons, however, I share The Telegraph's pessimistic view that they would be much lower than Leyhill.

In a statement given to the BBC, The Prison Service stated that although prisoners were "rigorously risk assessed" prior to transferring them to Leyhill, the number of prisoners escaping was because "less trustworthy" prisoners were being placed in open conditions.

Leyhill and other minimum security prisons are used as a rehabilitative half-way house for prisoners who are due for release. According to the HM Prison Service's website, Leyhill has a special function of "assessing and preparing life sentence prisoners for release, providing an environment in which prisoners can assume more responsibility and benefit from opportunities to make decisions for themselves before returning to the outside community".

This all sounds very laudable: after all, rehabilitation of prisoners is an essential function of the Criminal Justice System (the "CJS"). However, the fact that 393 prisoners have escaped since 1999 (most of them in the past 3 years) strikes me as indicative that Leyhill is viewed by some prisoners as a easy exit route than as a useful step on the road to rehabilitation.

This goes back to my point in my last posting on this subject, that the whole mechanism of the CJS is failing in one of its key purposes, deterrence. Too many criminals are discovering that despite the posturings of various home secretaries, crime under New Labour does pay and moreover, will go unpunished. Until the various arms of the Criminal Justice System are sufficiently banded together and adequately resourced to ensure convicted criminals are properly punished and so that a clear message of deterrence is given to would-be criminals, crime rates will continue to rise, criminals will continue to run rings around the CJS and we, as taxpayers and the general public will continue to bear the consequences. It is time criminals learnt that if they commit a crime, they must accept the consequences of that crime, and that those consequences are severe.

RIP Gladys Hammond

2006-05-19T09:09:00.000-07:00

I was much relieved to hear last week that Gladys Hammond's remains were finally found and returned to her family, albeit as part of a pathetic, last-ditch attempt by John Smith to reduce his sentence for his part in the campaign of terror and hate he had waged against the Halls of Darley Oaks Farm.

I am sick and tired of militant anti-vivisectionists using illegal methods to impose their views upon the law-abiding majority and was relieved that the judge in the Darley Oaks case took as dim a view of the quartet's behaviour as I did and sentenced them accordingly.

I hope that these sentences will send a clear message to these terrorists that their tactics are not acceptable and will be punished by the full force of the law. Unfortunately, there are still a whole range of nuts out there willing to use bully-boy tactics to cower the rest of us into submission and I do not think Andrew Baker or Brian Cass will be sleeping any sounder in their beds.

Gladys Hammond, on the other hand, I hope you will now be left to Rest In Peace.

People's Petition

Young Tories: Party Poopers?

2006-05-19T08:39:00.000-07:00

I was particularly taken by Floreat Aula's description of some of the more obnoxious Tory youths to be found haunting the dreaming spires and similar places. Having met several similar specimens as an undergraduate, by whom I was alternately patronised and pawed, there was nothing I would have been less likely to do than to join my university's Conservative Association. I cannot but feel that this is a shame, as I was probably not the only young female to be totally turned off by such idiots. Surely, if we are truly to engage more women in Tory politics, grass-roots conservatism must include all new shoots (and be less obsessed by roots)?

Retribution, Rehabilition and Reform

2006-05-19T05:54:00.000-07:00

One thing that bothers me a lot is my inability to come up with the be all and end all solution to our well-documented problems in the Criminal Justice System (the "CJS"). Successive governments have sought to address the issues of how to bring down crime, run the prisons and rehabilitate offenders, and whilst I have looked upon their tinkerings with interest, I have yet to be convinced that any one of them has come up with a definitive solution.

In particular, I am torn between my soft-liberal-fluffy wish to rehabilitate reformed offenders back into the bosom of society and my damn-'em-all-to-hell-they-deserve-it impulse to lock 'em up and throw away the key.

Given that unofficial figures to soar), our prisons are almost at full capacity and convicted criminals persistently re-offend (in 2003, 61% of prisoners were re-convicted within two years of release), I am forced to conclude that the CJS's purpose of deterrence is failing to cut ice with criminals.

So how do we get the Criminal Justice System's snarl to be sufficiently scary to deter criminals?

In my view, the first priority should be that convicted criminals are properly punished. If this requires a prison sentence, then send them to prison. If our prisons are full, we should build more. A prison term should be as long as the original sentence and there should be no automatic right to parole, (HRA or no HRA).

The Government should stop meddling with the criminal law and allow judges greater flexibility in sentencing. In particular, the life sentence should mean life, and should be retained as an option for judges when sentencing offenders who have committed the most serious crimes. Instead of continuously passing new laws which criminalise ever more specific acts, the police and CPS should be compelled to use effectively our existing criminal laws to charge and prosecute.

Once we have tried and punished criminals, how do we prevent them from re-offending? The continuous stream of embarrassing stories highlighting the incompetence of various parts of our CJS should serve as a wake-up call to all of us. It is not enough to punish an offender and then to release him and forget about him. We must ensure that an adequate programme of education is offered in prison and that the prison, probation and (in light of recent disclosures) immigration services are made to communicate with and assist each other. With this compulsion for co-operation must come increased transparency and accountability. The probation service must do more than cast a distracted eye over its charges, and instead must actively assist ex-offenders in securing housing and employment (although what sort of landlords and employers could be found for them, I cannot say).

Sadly, as I am only too aware, the sheer volume of offenders, the staggering cost and the megalithic unwieldiness of its institutions have and will continue to make any reform of the CJS virtually impossible until politicians and civil servants are willing to rebuild the whole piece for the long term.

Australian angst : From Reaction to Action?

2006-05-19T03:51:00.000-07:00

Continuing on from my last post, the debate Downunder following the revelations of serious domestic and sexual abuse in Aboriginal communities continues apace.

The national mood has turned to anger, with many voices clamouring that the abuses have been happening for years and that the Australian government's policy of non-intervention and the reluctance of politically-correct do-gooders to condemn what has been a long-standing and little publicised culture of abuse has served to reinforce and legitimise this abhorrent behaviour.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard has called for immediate action to bring the perpetrators of these abuses to book. "We're doing a great disservice to indigenous communities by … holding back from the proper enforcement of the laws against people who transgress those laws". The Indigenous Affairs Minister, Mal Brough, has announced an emergency summit, however, there has been widespread cynicism as to how effective this "Talkfest" will prove, given that several federal and state leaders have chosen to boycott the event.

For some commentators, this furore is strangely reminiscent of the media attention surrounding John Howard's 2003 summit. Let's just hope that Australia manages to harness the national mood and to act now, instead of sidelining the problem for another 3 years.

Australian angst

2006-05-19T02:19:00.000-07:00

I have noted with interest the recent national display of shock and sadness following the publication of Nanette Rogers's dossier of domestic and sexual violence which is endemic in the remote Aboriginal camps of central Australia.

Australians have come a long way since the country was first declared "terra nulla" by its early settlers and over the past few decades, the national conscience has become increasingly exercised by the plight of Australia's indigenous people. There have been numerous initiatives which have been aimed at protecting and restoring Aboriginal communities, whilst at the same time seeking to preserve their culture. In 2000, the organisation Reconciliation Australia was founded to "promote and build reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians".

Sadly, one of the unintended consequences of Australia's policy of non-interference with Aboriginal culture has been to lock the remote Aboriginal communities deeper into desperate cycles of poverty, ignorance, poor health and substance abuse.

So what can be done to address these problems? In my view, it is wrong to allow a veneer of "culturalism" to cover systematic abuse within any community: an Australian is an Australian is an Australian, whether indigenous or not. Aboriginal women and children are therefore entitled to the same protections as any other citizen. Moreover, it is a fiction to pretend that these communities have not already been greatly influenced by non-indigenous culture (please don't tell me Aborigines have been addicted to petrol-sniffing for 40,000 years). To allow these communities to implode under the weight of their own depravity because it is not for the Australian government to interfere with their "culture" is both patronising and wrong. I sincerely hope that the mass outrage felt by most Australians translates into an effective campaign to address these abuses and help pull the Aboriginal communities away from their path of self-destruction.

Faith Hope and Charity

2006-05-19T02:17:00.000-07:00

There has been much debate recently over Ruth Kelly's recent appointment as Minister for Equality and the compatibility of such office with her widely publicised Catholicism. The question that has arisen is that, given that the Catholic Church is very clear in her condemnation of homosexuality, and given that Ruth Kelly is a devout Catholic and supernumerary of Opus Dei, how can she perform her governmental function as champion of gay rights and equality?

To those commentators who are calling for her to be disbarred from holding this office, I would say this: is this truly the path we wish to go down? Surely, the state is secular and must remain blind to an individual's personal beliefs and religion when selecting her representatives. For so long as a minister is competent to perform their role, it is not up to the government to consider how they might feel about doing so. To discriminate against public servants on the grounds of their privately held views sets a dangerous precedent, as demonstrated by the European Parliament's decision to oust Rocco Buttiglione for having the moral courage to publicly declare his disapproval of homosexuality based upon his faith. If we continued along this route, then surely no Catholic could work in any hospital in which abortions were carried out, no Muslim could work in the Treasury (which derives significant income from sources prohibited under Shari'ah law, such as the sale of alcohol), no animal rights sympathiser could work for the NHS (which routinely procures and prescribes drugs which have been tested on animals), and ... you get the point.

To Ruth Kelly, on the other hand, I would say that if you really believe in the truth and integrity of the Catholic faith and in its teachings, (including the doctrine that practising homosexuality is a sin), how can you, in all conscience, defy your God and your Church in order to further your political career?

Sadly, the conclusion I am forced to draw is that Ruth Kelly has at this crucial moral moment chosen to ignore her faith in the hope that her electorate and her God will have the charity to ignore such blatant hypocrisy.

Token Bird

2006-05-18T05:50:00.000-07:00

This is Token Bird.

I am starting this blog because I was invited to appear as a guest contributor on the Reptile's blog. Having had many a debate with the Reptile about various issues, he has suggested I might enjoy my own blog (although I suspect there is a hint of Reptilian self-interestedness, as the more I write, the less we "discuss"!).

New blog

2006-05-17T11:04:00.000-07:00

Token Bird is under construction...