I touched on this in an earlier post, but I am definitely seeing signs of a concerted effort to "clean up" London in the run up to the 2012 Olympics. I don't mean sweeping up the rubbish, I mean a concerted effort to crack down on various freedoms and protests, and a further targeting of the disadvantaged, all as part of the process of packaging London for the (increasingly desperate, given Osborne's mishandling of the economy) sales, business, and tourism boom which is what the Olympics is all about these days.
Westminster Council is trying to banish the homeless by banning people from feeding them.
Boris Johnson (aided and abetted again by Westminster Council) is going through the courts to try and get rid of Brian Haw and his anti-war protest in Parliament Square.
There have been various reports on Indymedia about eastern European vagrants in the East End being rounded up and deported back to their country of origin. The UK is allowed to do this to homeless foreign nationals provided they are going back to a hostel or similar in their own country, and apparently the deportation often happens, but the hostel at the other end doesn't.
Finally, of course, following those dickheads from Black Bloc smashing bank windows on Saturday, Theresa May must have been chortling into her Horlicks that night as she seamlessly began the process of tightening up the policing of demos, talking about barring "known troublemakers" (ie anyone who disagrees with Cameron) from the right to protest. Well done, Black Bloc. Home Secretary 1 (black bloc, o.g.) Black Bloc 0. The pretext currently being used for this is the upcoming Royal Wedding, but given that the Olympics is following on in relatively short order behind this, I doubt anything brought in for the Royal Wedding is going to be repealed before the Olympics (or after it, come to that!)
We know already of course, that finding massive numbers of police from the secret deep freeze underneath Scotland Yard where they keep them in cryogenic suspension until there is a foreign tyrant who wants his goon squad to be able to run through London with the Olympic flag, or there's a miners' strike or something, is never a problem for the government. It's only when you are being robbed, mugged or raped that there is rarely a bobby on the beat.
I could be wrong. Maybe it is too early to discern a pattern emerging. But I will be watching this.
Tuesday, 29 March 2011
You're AV-in a Larf!
I got my polling card yesterday for the AV referendum.
I have followed the recent debate on AV as a voting system, and I have to say it holds all the interest for me of watching a steward rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
When you have a situation where the major political parties all run vacuous, negative campaigns based on slogans only one step away from "don't vote for him, he smells of poo", which is what we were treated to last May, while concealing their true intentions and keeping all the nasty things out of the manifesto until they are safely installed in number 10, it is no wonder that a cynical and apathetic electorate can't decide which of these poltroons they hate the most, and stays away in droves, refusing to become engaged in the political process. Especially as you are likely to find that the party you thought you had voted for has ditched all its promises and is now helping its former opponents to shaft you.
In that scenario, a set of venal, corrupt, self-serving bastards kow-towing to the bankers and the money markets represents the same outcome for most ordinary people, whether it was elected by AV or first past the post. I genuinely fear for the future of democracy in this country unless politicians wake up and start to have the courage to frame policies that will improve the lives of real people and make things better. People will turn from democracy to direct action if the democratic system fails to deliver this, and the result could be anarchy. I have previously said that maybe we do need the homeopathic solution of a few cobbles through the windows of 10 Downing Street to alert our political class to this danger, but after seeing the way the anarchy at Saturday's march played right into the hands of the media and the Tories, a better solution would still be a general strike, to precipitate a new, and hopefully more honest, General Election, where the parties tell us their real intentions.
I have followed the recent debate on AV as a voting system, and I have to say it holds all the interest for me of watching a steward rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
When you have a situation where the major political parties all run vacuous, negative campaigns based on slogans only one step away from "don't vote for him, he smells of poo", which is what we were treated to last May, while concealing their true intentions and keeping all the nasty things out of the manifesto until they are safely installed in number 10, it is no wonder that a cynical and apathetic electorate can't decide which of these poltroons they hate the most, and stays away in droves, refusing to become engaged in the political process. Especially as you are likely to find that the party you thought you had voted for has ditched all its promises and is now helping its former opponents to shaft you.
In that scenario, a set of venal, corrupt, self-serving bastards kow-towing to the bankers and the money markets represents the same outcome for most ordinary people, whether it was elected by AV or first past the post. I genuinely fear for the future of democracy in this country unless politicians wake up and start to have the courage to frame policies that will improve the lives of real people and make things better. People will turn from democracy to direct action if the democratic system fails to deliver this, and the result could be anarchy. I have previously said that maybe we do need the homeopathic solution of a few cobbles through the windows of 10 Downing Street to alert our political class to this danger, but after seeing the way the anarchy at Saturday's march played right into the hands of the media and the Tories, a better solution would still be a general strike, to precipitate a new, and hopefully more honest, General Election, where the parties tell us their real intentions.
Hick-ery, Dick-ery, Bloc.
On Saturday, 26 March, half a million people marched through London to show their opposition to the savage, ideological cuts being imposed by the Tories, held up by Clegg and his band of merry men, (whose idea of a Robin Hood tax seems also to be to rob from the poor and give to the rich, while in the background, Caroline Spelman puts Sherwood Forest on e-bay).
People from all walks of life were there, people I know, either personally, or online,of all ages, across the whole community, people whose sole aim was that they wanted to demonstrate, peacefully and in a dignified manner, that these cuts in services and funding, affecting the poorest and those least able to manage, were "not in their name".
Unfortunately, none of that got on the news. The news media are often lazy, sometimes stupid, they have a "slot" to fill, and the VT gets edited to fit the time available. All of this is common knowledge.
And so, predictably, on the news on Saturday and all over the print media at the weekend, the story was dominated not by the vast, peaceful, dignified majority, but by two linked, but essentially separate activities - the occupation of Fortnum and Mason's by UK Uncut, and the actions of the so-called "anarchists", all 400 or so of them out of a crowd of half a million, who make up the organisation "Black Bloc".
It was very naive of UK Uncut, to have scheduled an action to take place in the context of this march. In the past, I have admired and applauded their cheeky, non-violent inventiveness in highlighting the part which big companies avoiding tax and shirking their responsibilities plays in the large black hole in Britain's balance sheet. But by doing what they did on a day when anyone with half an amoeba inside their skull must have known that it would be kicking off, they have scored a spectacular own goal, compounded by the feeble performance of their spokesperson on Newsnight on 28 March in failing to condemn the violence. Idiots. It plays right into the hands of the establishment, who now have the brush of anarchy and violence with which to tar UK Uncut. They have set their campaign back years. If they had only had the sense to occupy Fortnums the day after the demo, they would still have hung on the coat tails of the publicity, but the story would then have been the contrast between their peaceful demo and the violence of the previous day.
The "anarchists" of course, are, like the poor, always with us. They tag along at every demo, sticking it to the man by breaking the windows of a bus shelter. Freedom for Tooting, what did the Romans ever do for us? They are beyond satire, and, being bone from the neck up, impervious to it. But they are not that dumb, they have spotted how successful UK Uncut has been at organising and recruiting, and they have now "written" an open letter to them, offering their "support". Well, if you wanted a perfect example of an attempted reverse takeover by a wolf in sheep's clothing, there you have it. I hope UK Uncut have the sense to tell them to sod off.
I could rant for hours about what idiots these people are, but I will leave that for another day. Instead, here's an extract from a post on one of their forums from a trade unionist who was actually on the march, and took the time to register in order to tell them exactly what he thought.
It was a demo. It was supposed to set an agenda and make the public aware that we're not going to accept the cuts. It wasn't a revolutionary moment.
Those red'n'black lot (why do they all dress the same, its weird, like some cult) 'joined' the march at various points (Piccadilly mainly) and made gigantic pricks of themselves by such predictable and irrelevant acts of violence that were utterly meaningless in the bigger picture. Throwing paint and smoke bombs at the Ritz does absolutely zero to further any revolutionary aim.
What it did do however was enable the media to focus on the violence and avoid the issues in question. And, yes, they would have covered it well without the violence. The media have been all over the unions and TUC who organised the march for weeks in advance of this. But now they're ignoring us in the trade union movement and giving all the attention to the perpetrators of violence.
What the actions of the various show offs, self-obssessed and selfish bellends that decided to play revolution for the day managed to achieve was to directly support the objectives of the media. And to detract from the social movement against this government.
Oh and they also managed to scare the shit out of some familes and kids that got caught in the crush outside Fortnums in the process.
Well done. I hope they are very proud of themselves
Says it all, really.
People from all walks of life were there, people I know, either personally, or online,of all ages, across the whole community, people whose sole aim was that they wanted to demonstrate, peacefully and in a dignified manner, that these cuts in services and funding, affecting the poorest and those least able to manage, were "not in their name".
Unfortunately, none of that got on the news. The news media are often lazy, sometimes stupid, they have a "slot" to fill, and the VT gets edited to fit the time available. All of this is common knowledge.
And so, predictably, on the news on Saturday and all over the print media at the weekend, the story was dominated not by the vast, peaceful, dignified majority, but by two linked, but essentially separate activities - the occupation of Fortnum and Mason's by UK Uncut, and the actions of the so-called "anarchists", all 400 or so of them out of a crowd of half a million, who make up the organisation "Black Bloc".
It was very naive of UK Uncut, to have scheduled an action to take place in the context of this march. In the past, I have admired and applauded their cheeky, non-violent inventiveness in highlighting the part which big companies avoiding tax and shirking their responsibilities plays in the large black hole in Britain's balance sheet. But by doing what they did on a day when anyone with half an amoeba inside their skull must have known that it would be kicking off, they have scored a spectacular own goal, compounded by the feeble performance of their spokesperson on Newsnight on 28 March in failing to condemn the violence. Idiots. It plays right into the hands of the establishment, who now have the brush of anarchy and violence with which to tar UK Uncut. They have set their campaign back years. If they had only had the sense to occupy Fortnums the day after the demo, they would still have hung on the coat tails of the publicity, but the story would then have been the contrast between their peaceful demo and the violence of the previous day.
The "anarchists" of course, are, like the poor, always with us. They tag along at every demo, sticking it to the man by breaking the windows of a bus shelter. Freedom for Tooting, what did the Romans ever do for us? They are beyond satire, and, being bone from the neck up, impervious to it. But they are not that dumb, they have spotted how successful UK Uncut has been at organising and recruiting, and they have now "written" an open letter to them, offering their "support". Well, if you wanted a perfect example of an attempted reverse takeover by a wolf in sheep's clothing, there you have it. I hope UK Uncut have the sense to tell them to sod off.
I could rant for hours about what idiots these people are, but I will leave that for another day. Instead, here's an extract from a post on one of their forums from a trade unionist who was actually on the march, and took the time to register in order to tell them exactly what he thought.
It was a demo. It was supposed to set an agenda and make the public aware that we're not going to accept the cuts. It wasn't a revolutionary moment.
Those red'n'black lot (why do they all dress the same, its weird, like some cult) 'joined' the march at various points (Piccadilly mainly) and made gigantic pricks of themselves by such predictable and irrelevant acts of violence that were utterly meaningless in the bigger picture. Throwing paint and smoke bombs at the Ritz does absolutely zero to further any revolutionary aim.
What it did do however was enable the media to focus on the violence and avoid the issues in question. And, yes, they would have covered it well without the violence. The media have been all over the unions and TUC who organised the march for weeks in advance of this. But now they're ignoring us in the trade union movement and giving all the attention to the perpetrators of violence.
What the actions of the various show offs, self-obssessed and selfish bellends that decided to play revolution for the day managed to achieve was to directly support the objectives of the media. And to detract from the social movement against this government.
Oh and they also managed to scare the shit out of some familes and kids that got caught in the crush outside Fortnums in the process.
Well done. I hope they are very proud of themselves
Says it all, really.
Emergency, War 10!
The Tories and their stooges in the Mini-Tories have been quick to point out that the cost of the war against Libya will not come out of any existing budgets from Government departments already squeezed by the cuts, cut - in some cases - to the bone, and then beyond.
No, it will, instead, apparently, come out of a "contingency fund" in the Treasury, which is kept for emergencies and dire situations, according to Danny Alexander, on BBC's Question Time.
Now just hang on a cotton-pickin minute, thar, boy! Run that by me one more time, as Captain said to Tenniel or vice versa. The country is allegedly stony broke, on its uppers, so much so that the church mice are having a whip-round for us and yet, all the time, we're all in this together (though clearly some of us are "in it" up to our necks and sinking fast, while others haven't even had their expensive shoes splashed, yet) and all this time, the Treasury has a secret slush fund, a giant piggy bank in the underground car park, a hidden panel that, when pressed reveals a cupboard stuffed with £50 notes or something? What?!?!
Not only a secret slush fund, but one which must be fairly substantial, since it can stand funding the UK bombing the crap out of Benghazi with missiles that cost £800,000 each!
This, for me, raises a very important question. If this money is supposed to be used for emergencies, when is an "emergency" not an "emergency"? If we have got to the stage where we're shutting hospital wards, Sure Start centres and libraries, that is a bloody emergency! If we have got to the stage where we're cutting police because we can no longer afford to keep our streets safe, that is an emegency! If we've got to the stage where thousands of people are being laid off - in the construction industry for example - that is an emergency. If we've got people having their houses repossessed and being turned out onto the streets, that is an emergency.
Forget foreign adventurism and posturing on the world stage. We have little or no idea who these Libyan rebels are, or, in the long run, whether the situation there would be better or worse for our intervention. The examples of Iraq and Afghanistan don't hold out much hope.
Meanwhile, you don't need a flashing blue light and a howling siren to see that there are many more urgent "emergencies" at home, caused by the Con-Dims "bombing" their own economy, to appease the markets and bankers, that deserve much more to benefit from the judicious application of Danny Alexander's secret slush fund.
No, it will, instead, apparently, come out of a "contingency fund" in the Treasury, which is kept for emergencies and dire situations, according to Danny Alexander, on BBC's Question Time.
Now just hang on a cotton-pickin minute, thar, boy! Run that by me one more time, as Captain said to Tenniel or vice versa. The country is allegedly stony broke, on its uppers, so much so that the church mice are having a whip-round for us and yet, all the time, we're all in this together (though clearly some of us are "in it" up to our necks and sinking fast, while others haven't even had their expensive shoes splashed, yet) and all this time, the Treasury has a secret slush fund, a giant piggy bank in the underground car park, a hidden panel that, when pressed reveals a cupboard stuffed with £50 notes or something? What?!?!
Not only a secret slush fund, but one which must be fairly substantial, since it can stand funding the UK bombing the crap out of Benghazi with missiles that cost £800,000 each!
This, for me, raises a very important question. If this money is supposed to be used for emergencies, when is an "emergency" not an "emergency"? If we have got to the stage where we're shutting hospital wards, Sure Start centres and libraries, that is a bloody emergency! If we have got to the stage where we're cutting police because we can no longer afford to keep our streets safe, that is an emegency! If we've got to the stage where thousands of people are being laid off - in the construction industry for example - that is an emergency. If we've got people having their houses repossessed and being turned out onto the streets, that is an emergency.
Forget foreign adventurism and posturing on the world stage. We have little or no idea who these Libyan rebels are, or, in the long run, whether the situation there would be better or worse for our intervention. The examples of Iraq and Afghanistan don't hold out much hope.
Meanwhile, you don't need a flashing blue light and a howling siren to see that there are many more urgent "emergencies" at home, caused by the Con-Dims "bombing" their own economy, to appease the markets and bankers, that deserve much more to benefit from the judicious application of Danny Alexander's secret slush fund.
Gadaffi! Duck!
Colonel Gadaffi (is it Gadaffi or Gaddafi? It looks wrong both ways) may not be clinically insane, as some cohorts of our media wish to portray him, but I wouldn't be surprised if, at times, he didn't feel more than a tad schizophrenic, particularly on the subject of whether or not he is a legitimate target for the Western military air strikes that are currently pounding Libya. The answer seems to change day by day, and to depend on who it is you are talking to. Sometimes, it changes by the hour.
The UN resolution which is sort of "authorising" all of this activity, as I understand it, speaks merely of safeguarding innocent civilians and ensuring that the cease fire is enforced, things like that. Say what you will, but it can't be denied that, by giving air support to the anti-Gadaffi faction, the West is currently, if anything, prolonging he conflict, rather than seeking to curtail itand bring it to a swift conclusion. And presumably the argument which links regime change to the safeguarding of civilian lives rests on the rather shaky premise that, without a strong dictator at the helm, Libya won't degenerate into a completely shambolic, anarchic mess, post-conflict, with factions fighting proxy wars and Al Quaida using it as a training ground, in exactly the same way as Iraq did after the fall of Saddam Husseuin. We know very little about these people we are helping, but seeing one of them on the news miming the act of putting a pistol to Gadaffi's head doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that they will be rivalling the ancient Athenians as a paragon of democracy any time soon. In these types of circumstances, the lives of innocent civilians are probably just as much at risk, if not more, as they would be if Gadaffi stayed on. All that is different is which set of innocent civilians gets fed through the shredder.
Have we learnt absolutely nothing since 2002?
The UN resolution which is sort of "authorising" all of this activity, as I understand it, speaks merely of safeguarding innocent civilians and ensuring that the cease fire is enforced, things like that. Say what you will, but it can't be denied that, by giving air support to the anti-Gadaffi faction, the West is currently, if anything, prolonging he conflict, rather than seeking to curtail itand bring it to a swift conclusion. And presumably the argument which links regime change to the safeguarding of civilian lives rests on the rather shaky premise that, without a strong dictator at the helm, Libya won't degenerate into a completely shambolic, anarchic mess, post-conflict, with factions fighting proxy wars and Al Quaida using it as a training ground, in exactly the same way as Iraq did after the fall of Saddam Husseuin. We know very little about these people we are helping, but seeing one of them on the news miming the act of putting a pistol to Gadaffi's head doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that they will be rivalling the ancient Athenians as a paragon of democracy any time soon. In these types of circumstances, the lives of innocent civilians are probably just as much at risk, if not more, as they would be if Gadaffi stayed on. All that is different is which set of innocent civilians gets fed through the shredder.
Have we learnt absolutely nothing since 2002?
Sunday, 20 March 2011
Doing a Dubya on Libya
So, we are bombing Libya. As I wake up on this cool, grey, Sunday morning in March, listening to the birds tweeting and some distant church bells pealing over rural England, British service personnel, some of whom probably have a P45 from the government waiting in the post for them at home, are putting their lives at risk once again in the cause of naked political horse-trading and the sort of selective American foreign policy we thought we’d seen the back of when Dubya finally donned his spurs and stetson and rode off into the sunset.
My first thought, on hearing we would be sending our warplanes was “what warplanes?” We’ve got rid of the Harriers and we’ve mothballed so many Tornados, we’ve watched the Nimrods being cut up on the ground, on prime-time TV, I wouldn’t be surprised if all we had left to send was a couple of Tiger Moths, dropping hand grenades on elastic so we could get the bits back to use again! Still, at least with the RAF involved, you know that the bombs, such as they are, will hit their targets, whereas the USAF counts it a success if they can just manage to hit Libya.
Actually, before proceeding to the rights and wrongs of this situation, it shows up once again the criminal folly of the scale of the defence cuts imposed by the Tories. No aircraft carrier, no Harrier jets, no Nimrods, and now that the Tornados from Leuchars are presumably based temporarily in Malta or Cyprus or Southern France somewhere, nobody guarding the back door here, unless they’ve managed to rustle up an old Shackleton or an Avro Anson to stooge up and down along the coast off Skegness and count in the “bogeys”.
Why are we bombing Libya? If you believe the likes of David Cameron, it’s to protect the lives of innocent civilians. These would, of course, be the same innocent civilians who were being killed last week when we couldn’t give a stuff and were busy sending black helicopters in the middle of the night carrying “diplomats” to help resolve the situation.
It’s not exactly bothered us before; when Saddam Hussein was also killing his own civilians (much more terribly and efficiently that Gadaffi) using weapons which we in the west and other opportunist nations had sold him, (like we did to Gadaffi) we turned a blind eye then, because he was our ally, as Gadaffi was, briefly, in between two periods of being our enemy. And Cameron’s justification that we had to wait until it was legal rings very hollow with me, considering it didn’t bother Blair and we had no compunction in the past in acting illegally, on a lot flimsier pretext when it came to saving innocent civilians, in Iraq. If the UN hadn’t voted to allow this action, would that have stopped us, with oil at stake? And if we are that bothered about saving the lives of innocent arabs, what about Bahrain, inviting in the forces of a neighbouring dictatorship to suppress its own revolt on the streets?
No, I am afraid what is happening in Libya is that old favourite dish, Realpolitik, on the menu again, served up this time with a stinking garnish of hypocrisy. We ignored (by we, I mean Europe and Obama) the uprising in Egypt, because it became obvious that the only “freedom” the protestors in Tahrir Square were gaining was the freedom to get rid of one dictator and be ruled by the army instead. So they were unlikely to do anything to destabilise the region, because they were not exactly Jihadists to start with. Plus, Egypt has lots of sand, camels, pyramids, tourists and potatoes, but not that much oil, in comparative terms. Plus, once the army was in charge, it opened up another sales opportunity for selling them weapons! Kerching! We ignored the rising in Bahrain, because the US Fleet is quartered there, and therefore, naturally, Obama would prefer the status quo. We ignored Saudi Arabia’s rumblings for the same sorts of reasons.
What it boils down to is that if you are an innocent citizen in a country ruled by a megalomaniac with no oil and no strategic importance to the USA, bad luck, old chap.
We actually ignored the Libyan situation for long enough, because we thought, wrongly as it turned out, that the rebels would do “our” job for us and get rid of our former enemy then ally now enemy again, Colonel Gadaffi. But the rebels couldn’t cut it, and they started to lose. Realising that Gadaffi wouldn’t then be that kindly disposed in future to those who supported the uprising against him, Europe and Obama, given the crucial importance of Libyan oil, have painted themselves into a corner, and have now no option but to step in and ensure the rebellion succeeds, having realised belatedly that they had backed the wrong horse and it was on a one-way trip to the glue factory. Still, at least they can dress it up with high flown rhetoric, bollocks and bluster, and try and disguise what it is that British service men and women will potentially die for, when the body bags start trundling through “Royal” Wootton Bassett.
I have no brief for Gadaffi, and I never expected David Cameron to be honest about anything, not even for a nano-second. I had slightly higher expectations of Obama, but it turns out he’s just like all the others, only slightly more inept. More fool me, for harbouring a vestige of political idealism and investing it in a cracked vessel.
But I do want to record that this morning, as our planes are in the air, I am sad, disappointed, and just a tad furious at the way in which once again we are not being told the real reasons behind our colonial adventurism, and exactly what it is our people are, potentially, being asked to die for.
Not in my name.
My first thought, on hearing we would be sending our warplanes was “what warplanes?” We’ve got rid of the Harriers and we’ve mothballed so many Tornados, we’ve watched the Nimrods being cut up on the ground, on prime-time TV, I wouldn’t be surprised if all we had left to send was a couple of Tiger Moths, dropping hand grenades on elastic so we could get the bits back to use again! Still, at least with the RAF involved, you know that the bombs, such as they are, will hit their targets, whereas the USAF counts it a success if they can just manage to hit Libya.
Actually, before proceeding to the rights and wrongs of this situation, it shows up once again the criminal folly of the scale of the defence cuts imposed by the Tories. No aircraft carrier, no Harrier jets, no Nimrods, and now that the Tornados from Leuchars are presumably based temporarily in Malta or Cyprus or Southern France somewhere, nobody guarding the back door here, unless they’ve managed to rustle up an old Shackleton or an Avro Anson to stooge up and down along the coast off Skegness and count in the “bogeys”.
Why are we bombing Libya? If you believe the likes of David Cameron, it’s to protect the lives of innocent civilians. These would, of course, be the same innocent civilians who were being killed last week when we couldn’t give a stuff and were busy sending black helicopters in the middle of the night carrying “diplomats” to help resolve the situation.
It’s not exactly bothered us before; when Saddam Hussein was also killing his own civilians (much more terribly and efficiently that Gadaffi) using weapons which we in the west and other opportunist nations had sold him, (like we did to Gadaffi) we turned a blind eye then, because he was our ally, as Gadaffi was, briefly, in between two periods of being our enemy. And Cameron’s justification that we had to wait until it was legal rings very hollow with me, considering it didn’t bother Blair and we had no compunction in the past in acting illegally, on a lot flimsier pretext when it came to saving innocent civilians, in Iraq. If the UN hadn’t voted to allow this action, would that have stopped us, with oil at stake? And if we are that bothered about saving the lives of innocent arabs, what about Bahrain, inviting in the forces of a neighbouring dictatorship to suppress its own revolt on the streets?
No, I am afraid what is happening in Libya is that old favourite dish, Realpolitik, on the menu again, served up this time with a stinking garnish of hypocrisy. We ignored (by we, I mean Europe and Obama) the uprising in Egypt, because it became obvious that the only “freedom” the protestors in Tahrir Square were gaining was the freedom to get rid of one dictator and be ruled by the army instead. So they were unlikely to do anything to destabilise the region, because they were not exactly Jihadists to start with. Plus, Egypt has lots of sand, camels, pyramids, tourists and potatoes, but not that much oil, in comparative terms. Plus, once the army was in charge, it opened up another sales opportunity for selling them weapons! Kerching! We ignored the rising in Bahrain, because the US Fleet is quartered there, and therefore, naturally, Obama would prefer the status quo. We ignored Saudi Arabia’s rumblings for the same sorts of reasons.
What it boils down to is that if you are an innocent citizen in a country ruled by a megalomaniac with no oil and no strategic importance to the USA, bad luck, old chap.
We actually ignored the Libyan situation for long enough, because we thought, wrongly as it turned out, that the rebels would do “our” job for us and get rid of our former enemy then ally now enemy again, Colonel Gadaffi. But the rebels couldn’t cut it, and they started to lose. Realising that Gadaffi wouldn’t then be that kindly disposed in future to those who supported the uprising against him, Europe and Obama, given the crucial importance of Libyan oil, have painted themselves into a corner, and have now no option but to step in and ensure the rebellion succeeds, having realised belatedly that they had backed the wrong horse and it was on a one-way trip to the glue factory. Still, at least they can dress it up with high flown rhetoric, bollocks and bluster, and try and disguise what it is that British service men and women will potentially die for, when the body bags start trundling through “Royal” Wootton Bassett.
I have no brief for Gadaffi, and I never expected David Cameron to be honest about anything, not even for a nano-second. I had slightly higher expectations of Obama, but it turns out he’s just like all the others, only slightly more inept. More fool me, for harbouring a vestige of political idealism and investing it in a cracked vessel.
But I do want to record that this morning, as our planes are in the air, I am sad, disappointed, and just a tad furious at the way in which once again we are not being told the real reasons behind our colonial adventurism, and exactly what it is our people are, potentially, being asked to die for.
Not in my name.
Sunday, 13 March 2011
The Bye-Bye By Election
It has taken me a while to get down to posting about the Barnsley Bye Election, and specifically about the Liberal Dimwits coming sixth, just above the Monster Raving Loonies. In fact, had Wing Commander Boakes stood, he would probably have beaten them as well, and he is currently deceased.
It would have been a major cataclysm if Labour had lost. They could put up a donkey in a red rosette in Barnsley Central and it would get in. In fact, when you look at some of the Labour councillors on Barnsley MBC, I think they probably have. Whatever their origin, Barnsley Met, as a council, is bone from the neck up. They once sent a poll tax bill to my cat.
Many people outside Barnsley thought that Labour might struggle because of the previous incumbent, Eric Illsley's troubles over his expenses. However, many people inside Barnsley, and they are the ones with the votes after all, core Labour voters, felt that Illsley had been made an example of, and that others had got away with far worse and not been castigated in any way.
In Oldham and Saddleworth, the Lib Dims were stronger to start with and were aided by a strategic lack of campaigning by the Tories. But in Barnsley, there was nowhere to hide. I'm not going to add to the vast mountain of analysis, I just wanted to put down this marker to the effect that the predicted electoral disaster for the Lentil Munchers will indeed come to pass, if these results continue, and, it would seem, soonerrather than later, from the reports emerging from the Liberal Spring Conference in Sheffield about Clegg being humiliated by his own membership over NHS reform. Now let's see him try and square that with the Tories.
Sadly for the Literal Dimwits, however, even if they gave Clegg the Mussolini treatment from a lamp post in Barker's Pool this very afternoon, it would be too late to save them. As the late, great, Bay City Rollers once put it, in another context, "Bye-Bye Baby, Baby Bye Bye..."
It would have been a major cataclysm if Labour had lost. They could put up a donkey in a red rosette in Barnsley Central and it would get in. In fact, when you look at some of the Labour councillors on Barnsley MBC, I think they probably have. Whatever their origin, Barnsley Met, as a council, is bone from the neck up. They once sent a poll tax bill to my cat.
Many people outside Barnsley thought that Labour might struggle because of the previous incumbent, Eric Illsley's troubles over his expenses. However, many people inside Barnsley, and they are the ones with the votes after all, core Labour voters, felt that Illsley had been made an example of, and that others had got away with far worse and not been castigated in any way.
In Oldham and Saddleworth, the Lib Dims were stronger to start with and were aided by a strategic lack of campaigning by the Tories. But in Barnsley, there was nowhere to hide. I'm not going to add to the vast mountain of analysis, I just wanted to put down this marker to the effect that the predicted electoral disaster for the Lentil Munchers will indeed come to pass, if these results continue, and, it would seem, soonerrather than later, from the reports emerging from the Liberal Spring Conference in Sheffield about Clegg being humiliated by his own membership over NHS reform. Now let's see him try and square that with the Tories.
Sadly for the Literal Dimwits, however, even if they gave Clegg the Mussolini treatment from a lamp post in Barker's Pool this very afternoon, it would be too late to save them. As the late, great, Bay City Rollers once put it, in another context, "Bye-Bye Baby, Baby Bye Bye..."
A Rose By Any Other Name
I thought I heard a report during the week that Sir Fred Goodwin had taken out an injunction to stop people referring to him as a "banker".
OK, fair enough. I can appreciate it's a nasty word, and nobody would like to be referred to in those terms.
We need to find something more appropriate for these people, something more politically correct.
How about "septic wart on the bloated arse of capitalism"?
Yep, that does it for me.
OK, fair enough. I can appreciate it's a nasty word, and nobody would like to be referred to in those terms.
We need to find something more appropriate for these people, something more politically correct.
How about "septic wart on the bloated arse of capitalism"?
Yep, that does it for me.
A Mess of "Potage"
I stood amazed, during the week, at the proposal by Westminster Council to ban the “soup run” to homeless people in their area. Of course, on one level, we should not be surprised at a bunch of self-serving, fat burghers and Pharisees have concocted such an idea. They have “form” in that respect, after all. Was it not Westminster Council that banned the run in their hallowed precincts at Christmas the other year? Unbelievably, on that occasion, it was supported by the editor of “The Big Issue” and I wrote to him and told him he was an idiot. He never replied. Perhaps he already knew.
To the councillors of Westminster, it would seem that the homeless are a sort of wilful and tiresome irritation, so obsessed with the taste of Campbell’s Condensed Tomato that they are willing to leave their homes and their jobs, hitch-hike to London, and sleep rough in a doorway in Covent Garden just for a sniff of the stuff. It is an indicator of just how far those set in authority over us take us for mugs, that this kind of bollocks is actually served up as some sort of justification for the ban.
The truth, I suspect, lies nearer to the fact that rich people who live in Westminster don’t like seeing poor and homeless people as they go about their daily social round. It grates on the residual node of what used to be their shame gene, before they had it surgically removed. It reminds them of the fundamental injustice of their continued existence, compared to the people in our society who are really struggling. Johann Hari, writing tellingly about this in The Independent, points to the distant view of Canary Wharf and all its glittering towers, from the perspective of the homeless who “live” – or rather, exist – in Covent Garden.
Anyway, I have written to the Worshipful the Lord Mayor of Westminster asking her what she intends to do about the homeless, because you can’t ban them from existing. Now that no one will feed them, will they be left, in some cases no doubt, to starve in the gutter? I await the reply (if any) with interest. Because, as it says in my Bible, if they cared to look, “the poor are always with us”.
And if you could make horrible nasty things vanish just by banning them, someone would have banned Westminster Council a long time ago.
To the councillors of Westminster, it would seem that the homeless are a sort of wilful and tiresome irritation, so obsessed with the taste of Campbell’s Condensed Tomato that they are willing to leave their homes and their jobs, hitch-hike to London, and sleep rough in a doorway in Covent Garden just for a sniff of the stuff. It is an indicator of just how far those set in authority over us take us for mugs, that this kind of bollocks is actually served up as some sort of justification for the ban.
The truth, I suspect, lies nearer to the fact that rich people who live in Westminster don’t like seeing poor and homeless people as they go about their daily social round. It grates on the residual node of what used to be their shame gene, before they had it surgically removed. It reminds them of the fundamental injustice of their continued existence, compared to the people in our society who are really struggling. Johann Hari, writing tellingly about this in The Independent, points to the distant view of Canary Wharf and all its glittering towers, from the perspective of the homeless who “live” – or rather, exist – in Covent Garden.
Anyway, I have written to the Worshipful the Lord Mayor of Westminster asking her what she intends to do about the homeless, because you can’t ban them from existing. Now that no one will feed them, will they be left, in some cases no doubt, to starve in the gutter? I await the reply (if any) with interest. Because, as it says in my Bible, if they cared to look, “the poor are always with us”.
And if you could make horrible nasty things vanish just by banning them, someone would have banned Westminster Council a long time ago.
Testing Times II
Last November there was a threat by the EU to backtrack on the pledge to ban the selling of animal-tested products in Europe, which is due to come in force in 2013. Thanks to the efforts of people such as Uncaged in publicising the attempted U turn, there has been enough of a public outcry to at least make the EU think again, though I wouldn’t trust those bastards at the EU to run me a bath, let alone do anything so important as implementing an EU wide ban on animal tested products
But just as one threat is potentially deflected, another has reared its ugly head. The prospect that British animal experimentation laws may be explicitly weakened for the first time since the days of Queen Victoria.
A separate EU law, this time governing how all animal experimentation across Europe will be regulated, has been finalised, Now, each member country has to update their own domestic legislation to make it consistent with the new European Law. As with all EU directives, if implemented here, it could have a mixed effect, and may, in some cases, even make things worse. Up til now, the UK government has pledged that it will keep our domestic legislation stricter than the EU requires, but it now emerges that the government is preparing to rip up the rules that give animals at least some protection from the very worst cruelty.
Because time is short, and I want to get this up on the blog quickly, I am doing a straight cut and paste from Uncaged’s site:
Government threatens to cut protection for animals in laboratories
British animal experimentation laws may be explicitly weakened for the first time since Queen Victoria’s day
A new EU Directive (2010/63/EU) to govern animal experimentation across Europe was finalised last autumn. Now, each country has to update their own laws so they are consistent with the new European Directive. In some areas this could reduce animal suffering in British laboratories, but in other ways it may make things worse.
Up until now, the UK Government has assured Parliament and the public that they will keep any British rules that are stricter than the EU Directive. However, we have discovered that the Government is now prepared to rip up measures that give animals at least some protection from the very worst cruelty.
In other words, the Government is prepared to sacrifice British sovereignty and the lives of innocent animals to serve the interests of big business. This could have terrible consequences:
• More primates could be imprisoned and killed in research for trivial conditions such as baldness, hangovers, mild allergies or the common cold.
• Secret proposals to conduct chemical poisoning tests on dogs would be approved without public knowledge.
• The Government could start allowing researchers to inflict excruciating injuries on animals such as head trauma, burns or infected fractures without pain relief.
• Abandoned and stray cats and dogs could end up in vivisection labs once again, over a 100 years after the practice was banned in Britain. This could open the door to companion animals being stolen by animal dealers and sold to labs.
• It will be easier for researchers to repeatedly starve, mutilate, stress, poison and give cancer to the same individual animal.
• The Government could give the animal testing industry carte blanche to abuse animals with impunity, free from independent oversight.
• Animal research establishments will no longer have to even consider whether the pain they inflict on animals is justified by the expected test results.
The impact of these changes would be devastating – more pain, more suffering, more distress and more killing. Human health will also suffer as there will be even less incentive for researchers to replace crude animal tests with more effective and reliable non-animal methods.
The Government is hoping to push these appalling measures through by exploiting a loophole which allows them to change UK laws without Parliamentary scrutiny.
This is a major battle which will affect the fate of animals and medical research for years to come. Please stand up for animals at this pivotal time.
But just as one threat is potentially deflected, another has reared its ugly head. The prospect that British animal experimentation laws may be explicitly weakened for the first time since the days of Queen Victoria.
A separate EU law, this time governing how all animal experimentation across Europe will be regulated, has been finalised, Now, each member country has to update their own domestic legislation to make it consistent with the new European Law. As with all EU directives, if implemented here, it could have a mixed effect, and may, in some cases, even make things worse. Up til now, the UK government has pledged that it will keep our domestic legislation stricter than the EU requires, but it now emerges that the government is preparing to rip up the rules that give animals at least some protection from the very worst cruelty.
Because time is short, and I want to get this up on the blog quickly, I am doing a straight cut and paste from Uncaged’s site:
Government threatens to cut protection for animals in laboratories
British animal experimentation laws may be explicitly weakened for the first time since Queen Victoria’s day
A new EU Directive (2010/63/EU) to govern animal experimentation across Europe was finalised last autumn. Now, each country has to update their own laws so they are consistent with the new European Directive. In some areas this could reduce animal suffering in British laboratories, but in other ways it may make things worse.
Up until now, the UK Government has assured Parliament and the public that they will keep any British rules that are stricter than the EU Directive. However, we have discovered that the Government is now prepared to rip up measures that give animals at least some protection from the very worst cruelty.
In other words, the Government is prepared to sacrifice British sovereignty and the lives of innocent animals to serve the interests of big business. This could have terrible consequences:
• More primates could be imprisoned and killed in research for trivial conditions such as baldness, hangovers, mild allergies or the common cold.
• Secret proposals to conduct chemical poisoning tests on dogs would be approved without public knowledge.
• The Government could start allowing researchers to inflict excruciating injuries on animals such as head trauma, burns or infected fractures without pain relief.
• Abandoned and stray cats and dogs could end up in vivisection labs once again, over a 100 years after the practice was banned in Britain. This could open the door to companion animals being stolen by animal dealers and sold to labs.
• It will be easier for researchers to repeatedly starve, mutilate, stress, poison and give cancer to the same individual animal.
• The Government could give the animal testing industry carte blanche to abuse animals with impunity, free from independent oversight.
• Animal research establishments will no longer have to even consider whether the pain they inflict on animals is justified by the expected test results.
The impact of these changes would be devastating – more pain, more suffering, more distress and more killing. Human health will also suffer as there will be even less incentive for researchers to replace crude animal tests with more effective and reliable non-animal methods.
The Government is hoping to push these appalling measures through by exploiting a loophole which allows them to change UK laws without Parliamentary scrutiny.
This is a major battle which will affect the fate of animals and medical research for years to come. Please stand up for animals at this pivotal time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)