Biting Back with Mrs Boris
"Life without liberty is like a body without spirit." Kahlil Gibran
- Mr Langham shrunk
- Force jobless to do voluntary work
- The battle against binge-drinking
- Buyer beware - prostition
- Take a pill, it's easier
- Neighbours told to shop drunks
- Why Gordon needs a Tony
- Knife detectors
- Health shock, and Sex addiction
- Man killed for sport
- A point well made
- Until next time... and some fun
- See also
I thought it advisable to wait for a little while after the festive celebrations, just until the initial optimism had worn off, before assessing some of society's issues. There have been so many irks and niggles popping up in what we loosely describe as the News that I have had to rein in my sense of upset and acute irritation. It seems that 2008 has the potential to throw the people of the UK some new challenges, but I suspect it shall stretch out the imposed conditions of 2007 - much of the same in other words. I hope I am proved wrong, but only those in the know can do that....
Shrink wrapping Langham
Last week I watched the quietly advertised interview with writer Chris Langham on More4. This was not a sensible thing to do.
I am aware of the need for the Shrink Rap series to talk to controversial or interesting personalities, but I question the need for giving so much air space to this particular guest. There appears to be an acceptance of his activities and an overall forgiveness of his decisions due to his expressed experience as a child. I wonder why people pick their fallen angels in the way they appear to. What does this man convey which makes people excuse and shrink the importance of both his actions and attitude.
The lasting comment, the one I last heard nearly a week ago but which has stuck in my mind, is his expressing that he now know himself, knows who he is, repeating the need for this knowledge as vindication for his arrogant act. This upset me and challenged my opinons on the crimes he committed. He was found guilty of possessing images of child pornography and was duly sent to prison - kept in isolation away from the people who said nasty thingsto him. He served the time deemed appropriate for his actions and is now free to rebuild his career - the first step in which would obviously be to absolve himself by chatting on tv with a psychologist - for all to see why he did what he did and what a damaged soul he is.
Mr Langham views himself as the victim in this tale, along with an apparent growing number of viewers. Throughout the long interview I was stuck by the self importance and self pity expressed by this star; but even more so by the addiction to his faults and centring upon Me me me me. I am not disputing that his childhood may have been damaging and filled with sadness, and that perhaps he can now receive some help with the abuse he states he suffered; nor am I saying that his alcoholism / addictions are something I would inflict upon anyone; what I do have issue with is the self centred and self satisfying manner in which this man views his actions.
I am sure that society will minimise the potential harm directed towards Mr Langham and will continue to find excuses for his seeking of / accessing and viewing - and viewing again - and viewing some more or high level images of child abuse; deciding that it really isn't his fault and what he did was understandable, his soul must heal and afterall, he understands the pain those children will have experinced. As he expressed this so well..."If these children could endure what they had to endure when these images were created, at least I could have the courage to sit there and watch it."
Picking up the scraps
Mr Cameron's ideas get brighter and brighter, yet more and more predictable. I was so befuddled by his message without substance that this crusade even warranted an email to Mr Cameron via the Tory website.
The rules he talks about already exist. In order to be signed off as to sick to work - and thus receive Incapacity Benefit, a panel of medically trained personnel need to agree that you are indeed to ill. This panel reviews cases regularly as does the Incapacity Benefit department. In order to receive Incapacity Benefit, the claimant needs to possess sufficient NI contribution - earned through recent employment - or else be paid another benefit as substitute at a lower rate. Perhaps the rules for receiving Income Based benefits will be changed so that people can do voluntary work without risking being charged for non-payment of taxes, along with changing the classifications so that doing voluntary work to improve the neighbourhood does not equate to 'obviously a healthy waster, lets stop his sustinence. I therefore look forward to the Party telling medically trained people who will be regarded as ill be non-trained politicians in future and explaining to employed people just why they pay for National Insurance?
Whilst there is a need for encouraging those who can work, and wish to, into a path which provides a brighter future - I wonder how Mr Cameron is going to do so.
A recent look at my local area with the JobCentre website shows that there are currently 12 posts available within 20 miles and most of these are part time and/or seasonal. Where are these jobs? Offering to assist the local councils ( a topic which I aim to return to at a later date) may not prove so welcome or simple - as suggesting there is litter to be cleaned up may be denied by towns charging higher rates of council tax.
I can understand why Mr Cameron and his team have chosen this topic as a method of attack - it appeals to people selfish gene and seems a simple method of sorting all our troubles. Force all these skivers into work, or put them into helping the stupid and lazy classes, and all the bad parts of UK life will disappear with them. Let them know who's boss. If there aren't any jobs, no problem - they can clear up the mess of the worthy until there are. And there is a limit to how long you can be ill, we don't care if you have medical notes to back it up, you can only be ill whilst we say so.
Perhaps improving education, providing jobs, providing careers, allowing councils and all employers to be proactive rather than reactive, allowing more freedom in setting up business, minimising the benefit trap, assisting employers to be flexible in work provision, fostering a society that looks outward more than in..perhaps this would help reduce the impact of ill people upon our society?
Mr Hain - the wise and resilient one - has also followed the Middle England path the righteousness. He aims to tell people how long they can be ill for and how undeserving they are. By making children stay in education - to fail for longer, by forcing single parents into work earlier, by building programmes to help these stupid lazy people into the purposeful jobs created due to society's needs, the government can make us all equal.
Perhaps giving jobs to UK citizens might help, or maybe crearing jobs for the UKs healthy job-seeker? As claimed by recruitment agencies recently; many workers will face unemployment next year as the UK labour market contracts to its worst level in a decade.And as covered by many reports recently: In 2004, Britain granted unlimited access to workers from 10 new European Union states. Employment registration data show that more than 600,000 new Europeans have found work here since. During 2007, the number of British-born people in work was 23,948,000 - down 525,000.
Tory plan to force jobless to do voluntary work
Francis Elliott 8 Jan 2008
The long-term unemployed would be forced to clean graffiti, pick up litter or carry out other useful community work if they fail to find a job after two years under Tory plans to be unveiled today.
David Cameron’s most radical reform to Britain’s welfare system would require benefit claimants to complete a mandatory year-long work programme on exceeding their entitlement to out-of-work payments.
Currently around 837,000 claim Jobseekers’ Allowance despite an estimated 600,000 unfilled vacancies in Britain’s economy. The Conservatives’ “green paper” on welfare reform, to be unveiled by Mr Cameron in south London today, is designed to outflank Gordon Brown’s own efforts to drive more benefits claimants into available jobs. ....
Building on proposals first set out by former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith, Mr Cameron will say that most of those on Jobseekers’ Allowance would be required to attend new “back-to-work” centres to qualify for their benefits. The new requirement would apply to lone parents as soon as their youngest child was old enough to attend primary school. ..The centres could be run by charities, other voluntary bodies or private companies with funding linked directly to their success in keeping individuals in jobs. ...The time-limit on benefits entitlement is designed to deal with a hard-core of claimants determined to resist all attempts to get them back to work. The limit would be cumulative over three years preventing serial claimants from taking short-term jobs to escape the cap. On reaching the maximum claimants would be forced to carry out “valuable improvement and amenity would in the areas where they live” to carry on getting benefits.
and......
Crackdown to prevent the young falling into life on state benefits
By Andrew Grice 29 Dec 2007
The Government will try to halt a sharp rise in the number of young people claiming incapacity benefit to prevent them slipping into a life on state handouts.
Payments to the sick and disabled have been seen as an unofficial form of early retirement for workers who lose their jobs in their fifties and are unlikely to work again. Now mental health problems have largely replaced industrial injuries as the main reason for claims, many of them by young people with depression.
Although the overall number of incapacity benefit claimants has fallen from 2,655,460 to 2,643,290 since 1999, the number of those aged between 18 and 24 on it has jumped from 149,830 to 159,140 over the same period. The number of young claimants with "mental problems and behavioural disorders," which include schizophrenia, severe learning disabilities and chronic depression, has increased from 81,360 to 91,420 since 2001.
Battling bingers
UK politicians combatting an unwelcome culture leaves a funny taste, yet not as sickly as that caused by masking the causes and feigning action.
Take some time some quiet evening to watch one of the many CCTV based reality programmes which show you how our police control these minnions of drunken dangers - then re-read Brown's battle plan, along with the Tory attack on our Yob culture (see his earlier ex-life in some articles...)
Being an evil young drinker in my fading youth, the emerging subliminal message of hide the booze or lock em up is starting to niggle me; but I doubt you need to be a sinner to appreciate the control desired by both political parties along with the determination to direct police and social resources to paint a rosier picture - keep the children happy...
Meeting targets by targeting kids hanging around, patrolling parks in search of bingers, waiting around for drunken souls; fining them for arguing, swearing, urinating, drinking too much, having a fight - locking them up, wasting eberyones time and spending our money. Policing the pubs with drinking monitors (a serious Labour suggestion), name and shame drinkers, yet open pubs all night and neglect to push the message of the medical harm caused by alcohol.
Of course when drink is used as an excuse for acts of willfull damage to peoples person or property then arrest and hey maybe even jail the criminals, provide courses of action for the victims of drink-excused actions and show less tolerance for serious crimes associated with drink; but stop the targetting of people who want to drink - either with an aim of mollycoddling the misunderstood souls, or in a way to misleadingly highlight the protection offered by our caring leaders.
Prime Minister takes charge of battle against binge-drinking
By Colin Brown and Ben Russell 2 Jan 2008
As Britain recovers from an epic seasonal party spree, a radical package of measures to create a "cultural shift" away from the epidemic of binge drinking is being drawn up by Gordon Brown.
Parents will be encouraged to educate their children in the dangers of drink under proposals discussed at a Downing Street summit. Ministers are also contemplating moves to raise the tax on the most potent beers and mixers associated with binge drinking by putting duty on units of alcohol. Mr Brown is also being urged by Labour MPs to force supermarkets to raise the minimum price of drink to reduce the attraction of cheap alcohol.
The emergency services revealed yesterday that they dealt with thousands of drink-related calls from New Year revellers. The London Ambulance Service said staff took up to 500 calls an hour in the early hours. Between midnight and 4am, the service dealt with 1,825 calls, an increase of 16 per cent on 2007.
The Prime Minister has taken personal charge of the battle against binge drinking amid increasing evidence of the damage it causes.
Powers to implement the first Alcohol Disorder Zones come into effect this month, giving local authorities the right to charge poorly managed pubs and clubs for the extra costs of managing alcohol-related disorder.
Estimates at the time put the cost to the country at about £20bn, with 17 million working days lost each year.
Buyer Beware - prostitution, where lies the crime? Some thoughts..
Who is the criminal - the person selling sex, the person buying it, or no-one?
Currently the one held accountable is the advertiser and provider who is potentially damaging society, and the buyer is analysed as vulnerable and understandably hooked. Sort of like cigarette manufacturers, the UK governement and smokers until recently. There are rumblings though that perhaps the purchaser, the user, should not only be educated as to the error of their ways but should be legally penalised. Sort of like the use of illegal drugs - in theory.
So which came first - the chicken or the egg? Would prostitutes exist if no one went looking for them? Would the customers exist if the prostitutes couldn't be found? Is the only prostitution the type that's shown on Our Evil Country television - skinny, drug addicted women advertising their wares on lamplit dark streets?
Will our saviour Harriet Harman not coe save our empty souls soon? First she'll assist in the ban of newspaper adverts for foreign escorts and then she'll start a crusade - hit those evil, perverted, dirty men where it hurts, fine them.. no, counsel them. Will she reverse the stated view that most drug addiction treatment is a waste of time - as how else will some women be realisically helped?
Currently, prostitution itself is not a crime, yet some of the routes by which this act is enabled are; eg advertising sex for money, kerb crawling, operating or working in a brothel - so, in effect prostitution usually involves the breaking of laws.
Legalising prostitution would lead to problems in protecting prostitutes; cause an increase in women brought into the job,from in and outwith the UK; reduces the legal reasons for raiding houses where abuse may be taking place.
Would criminalising the actions of the buyer improve the situation for society or the women?
The traffickers may see their profits fall and decide it best to go elsewhere where the laws are different - a prosecuted prostitute is often able to quickly reutrn to the same situation and costs the trafficker / landlord / pimp / employer very little, and a replacement can easily be found. By fining the abusers (as this is how the buyer would need to be classed in order to be punished) and creating a record of their crimes, the men may be less likely to search for such a service. Would the fine simply need to be accounted for? How would the country be patrolled in search of these abusers? More observing and monitoring?
If the woman is not carrying out a crime - then there is no requirement for her to be forced out of her role, no way of making her seek help - thus the situation continues.
Would an approach of both the seller and buyer being penalised - and not solely with a fine, not be a more complete approach?
Also, as with areas of health / drink / internet terrorism / crime ... would those is the know also show some reality and show the other sides of this world - not just the soft pink teddy version of Diary of a Call Girl held in contrast with the dark, hidden claw of street prostitution - what about the girl next door, the good looking young lad, the woman you know, the boys you see - in every town?
Since writing my little rant, I raised the issue with older associates and found that there was little sympathy or awareness of the situation; either for the women selling their services as part of their lives or of the girls brought into the UK to provide a service.
This raises the question as to whether prostitution, in any form, is really viewed as relevant or important by the majority, whether it is seen as a form of abuse; whether its just something women are almost expected to do in hard times and something which men need to have available? Is apathy an accepted response to this area of life as much as to many others?
Yes, it should be a crime to pay for sex
Joan Smith 27 December 2007
...Next month, when MPs return from their Christmas holidays, they'll be asked to vote on an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill which would give councils and police chiefs the power to ban men from paying for sex in designated areas. The idea is to extend action against kerb crawlers to brothels and massage parlours, which is where the majority of trafficked women are forced to "work" in this country; it's a British version of a Swedish law which came into effect nine years ago and has radically changed the way many people think about prostitution.
...Like most radical proposals, it has polarised opinion, although the degree of personal invective against those of us who support it is an eye-opener. Actually, I can't help suspecting that some of the critics have a vested interest in maintaining a man's "right" to buy sex, or their responses wouldn't be quite so hysterical.
Their Pollyanna fantasies could not be more out of touch with the real world of prostitution and trafficking, two phenomena which are inextricably linked. Voluntary prostitution – by which I mean that minority of women in the sex trade who go into it because they are poor, out of work and dependent on drugs – is such an awful job that there are simply not enough women and girls to meet demand.
....According to a study published four years ago in the Journal of Trauma Practice, 89 per cent of women in prostitution want to escape; a field study in nine countries showed that between 60 and 75 per cent of women in prostitution had been raped, between 70 and 95 per cent had been physically assaulted, and 68 per cent displayed symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in the same range as combat veterans and victims of torture. Other research, this time from Canada, suggests that women in prostitution are 40 times more likely to be murdered than the rest of the female population.... It's a bold experiment, and the government is unashamed of the fact that the law is based on the notion that prostitution is an aspect of male violence towards women and children. I couldn't agree more, and I have a final thought for those who have steam coming out of their ears. If prostitution is so great, why don't you encourage your daughters to go and work in a brothel? Not to mention your sons.
Fat equals bad, skinny equals good.
If bad - get it fixed. If good - preach.
Ali - the wonder pill is likely to launched in the early months of this year. It claims to help people experience an extra 50% more weight loss compared to dieting alone.
But - there's is always one - there are conditions and some get out of court small print: the subject needs to have no more than 15g of fat in their meals, per meal; a drop in vitamin A,D,E and K may occur - not good, so persons are advised to seek advice of their GP - it also interferes with medications for diabetes, thyroid problems, circulation; the effectiveness of the pill will be low if a strict calorie controlled and very low fat diet is not followed at all times; the effectiveness of the pill will also be reduced if a fitness, fat burning routine is not practiced.
The side effects sound nasty, and in order to avoid most of them it requires total avoidance of oily food and not eating more than the bare minimum of fat - some websites quote users as advising people to carry a spare pair of dark trousers with them!
In cases of extreme obesity and where useage is medically monitored - and considering the governemtn likening obesity in the UK to the global warming situation - then a remedy is needed and medicinal help should be used if appropriate.
However - people always like easy fixes - least work the better - so the availablility of this pill and its perceived benefits will be abused by the general public; the health considerations and the risks being ignored.
Get fat - take a pill. Too thin - take a pill.
Too smart - take a pill. Too dim - take a pill.
Too happy - take a pill. Too sad - take a pill.
Too good - take a pill. Too bad.....
Take responsibility..not these pills
Daily Mail 27th December 2007
It sounds like the perfect antidote to Christmas excess. Eat too much, drink too much, move too little and when the buttons on your waistband are about to ping across the living room like pellets from an air gun - just take a pill.
...We are not quite there yet, but next year GlaxoSmithKline will launch a cheap, potent over-the-counter slimming pill, the first of its kind to be sold without prescription. ..By stopping the body absorbing undigested fat in food, the drug - Alli - has had dramatic effects in clinical trials, cutting body weight by between 5 and 10 per cent within four months. For an 11-stone woman, this can mean losing more than a stone and dropping a full dress size. ...In this pharmaceutical age, there now appears to be a pill for everything.
License to snoop and rule
Firstly - a suitability assessment:
Fallen out with your neighbours?
Hate those pesky kids?
Believe the headlines?
Want rid of peasants and trash?
Think your parents did it the right way?
Agree with government intervention? Think most measures are really for the publics own good?
If you ansered a big loud Yes to the above then the answer is clear - Scotland needs You!
The Scottish Parliament / Government / band of Merry Men is to call on Scottish citizens to help further the moral rescuing of souls (as being seen in the UK as a whole) by calling a Helpline should they have concerns about the drinking / drug / lifestyle habits of their child-rearing neighbours. The authorities will then be alerted and actions can be taken to stem the effects of the country's emergency - drug and drink affected children.
So, if you want to ignore the statistics of how low a percentage of children who already come to the attention of social services / police actually receive active support and practical help; or if you are unaware of the stigma attached to being listed by social workers; unaware of the official uses of records listing you as at risk or as a potential abuser - based on the comments of anyone; or if you reject the view that many cases involve children being removed from the full care of their parents due to actions which many parents consider normal - then a voluntary job for the Scottish Parliament may be right for you.
I am not suggesting that families in need of help and children at serious risk of abuse / neglect should not be accessed and assessed by trained professionals, this already takes place. Any member of the public can already telephone any social work office or police station to report any concerns - so why push the message that this doesn't happen and that people are neglecting their moral duty. This can only lead to the moral policing of people's lives by yet more self-considered as superior citizens.
On a purely practical basis - now that the Scottish leaders are aiming to get rid of most medical posts concerned with the protection of children - how are the extra required social workers / family protection police officers / health visitors going to be provided - or do we do away with the need for trained personnel and hand the compass to the chosen few?
Neighbours told to shop drunks and drug addicts
By Eddie Barnes 6 Jan 2007
Scots are being urged to shop their neighbours to police and social workers if they suspect they are neglecting their children because of drug addiction or alcohol abuse.In a major new campaign to be launched next month, the Scottish Government will call on residents to expose any addicts or alcoholics in their area who are failing to care for their children.
They want people to use a new dedicated national phoneline, linked to the authorities, who may then visit the affected families and take their children away if they are deemed to be in danger.
Ministers denied last night that the plan would become a "snooper's charter", insisting that, such is the scale of the crisis affecting vulnerable families, drastic measures are now necessary.The latest figures show that there are as many as 60,000 Scottish children who currently live with drug abusers. A further 100,000 are believed to be living with parents with an alcohol problem.
...Ministers hope the phoneline could become as well-used as the Crimestoppers line.
........The new drive is to be launched in February with an advertising campaign. The national child protection phoneline has been piloted in four parts of Scotland – Highland, Edinburgh, North East Scotland and Midlothian – but ministers now say they want to promote it nationwide.
...Ewing said it could no longer be left to the state to monitor such families. Communities carried a "moral responsibility" to play their part as well....The plans were backed by children's groups last night who said that too often neighbours did not know who to turn to when they were concerned about a child who was potentially in danger.
...Scots Tory leader Annabel Goldie said: "This represents a small step in the right direction and we welcome the fact that more children will be protected from the horrors of drug and alcohol abuse. However, it is still not the sea change in government attitude that we were promised and the SNP now needs to start matching their early rhetoric with action."...Former First Minister Jack McConnell said he supported moves to put such children into care, rather than let them stay at home.
A spokeswoman for the Scottish Government said: "In February we will be launching a national advertising campaign for the 24-hour gateway line to local child protection services, CPLine. The campaign will have a community focus, using local press and radio across the country to raise awareness that child protection is everybody's business."The campaign will encourage people to report concerns about a child being neglected or abused, including any concern about children affected by their parents' alcohol or drug misuse."
Gordon, oh Gordon
I thought he was the one. Steadfast, determined, morally led and sure. Big and tough, thick skinned and yet aware of people and humanity. Someone I could relate to, someone familiar and who knows what they are doing. Now I see a floundering, stubborn man who is finally where he always wanted to be - with no more plans. I see a man I cannot believe nor trust. I used to wonder what he would say when he first got the job, wonder with interest - not the confusion and dread I now hold; although sometimes the dread is switched with yawns and a feeling of 'heard it before' boredom.
Sometimes you read that he cant be held repsonsible because it simply wasnt his fault. Other times he decides its his moral responbility although its not his fault. The financial problems are due to The States so we just have to buckle ourselves in, accept whats unavoidable and erm....? China can save us I guess. The situation with Russia can be solved by the scariest of ministers - sure to put the frighteners on anyone -'let me at 'em Milliband'. Social problems need to be investigated by reading the newspapers. Judges need to be obeyed. America must be pleased yet not worshipped for no ther reason than a fear of USA UK Puppy-Syndrome.
People must be monitored and controlled and protected though control or shut away and ignored. Does he need to feel in control of everything? Is there any situation which may lead him to re-evaluation his views or stance?
That word - control - seems to sum up Mr Brown for me - me, a loyal Labour fan until recently - now heading to Toryland or WhyBother Land. I would almost rather have a jumped up little boy from Eton who had experienced little of common life than an unmoveable puppeteer who refuses to see me struggle and loosen the grip, although he can be described as a runaway puppeteer when the water gets a little warm!
Why Gordon needs a Tony
Simon Hoggart Dec 29, 2007
Why, Labour MPs ask themselves, is it all going wrong for Gordon Brown? Are recent events just an unfortunate concatenation of accidents which will be soon forgotten? Perhaps it will be like Heathrow airport - the fog will clear, flights will resume, families will wake up on the floor, and begin their holidays only two days late.
Or possibly not. Before Christmas I chatted to an MP who knows Brown well, and very pessimistic he was. For one thing, he said, the prime minister needs a Tony Blair. For 10 years a departmental minister would ask the Treasury for money, Brown would say "no" and Blair would decide between the two. Now the minister faces the PM and his faithful catspaw, the chancellor. Hence the ludicrous decision not to backdate the police pay rise....
In this Gordon Brown resembles those people who go to extraordinary lengths to avoid buying their round. They might save, say, £500 a year. But who would want to pay the price of being mocked, resented and despised by friends and colleagues? In the same way, we might think it's worth 50p per citizen not to have an embittered police force. As for inflationary pressure, what on earth is Northern Rock going to create?
And there's another problem. Gordon Brown genuinely thinks that if something isn't his fault, then he's not responsible. He didn't make unsafe loans so he can't be blamed for Northern Rock. He didn't pop the child benefit data discs in the internal post, so you can't pin that one on him either. He didn't personally know about the illegal gifts to the Labour party. But in government you cannot wriggle out of anything. To an extent - too few civil servants, inadequate oversight of banking practices - it is your fault....
Covering over the cracks
Jacqui Smith was recently described during a television interview as being weak, and unable to stand up to Mr Brown. I think that that comment lets her off too lightly - its not her fault she comes up with all these wobbly ideas, its just her personality and its because the PM is tougher than her, its cause she's a woman etc. I think that surely a Minister is placed because someone somewhere considers them suitable for the post. That accepted, then Ms Smith is not a quivering wall flower who's every move is dictated by those around her, and she had given some considersation and an element of belief to the plans she puts forward.
So - banning immitation and deactivated guns in order to stop gun crime, suggesting that selected websites and blogs can be erased or edited to fight terrorism, fitting metal detectors in selected schools, pushing for an extension to suspect detention and no doubt more measures to come are being supported by a memeber of the PMs cabinet who is not being sacked nor challenged for her suitability for the post. Todays news suggests that detention law plans are being insisted upon by Ms Smith - perhaps she is both weak and insistent, stuck on one course of action, like a terrier - sound familiar?
Some questions for the cabinet:
What percentage of knife attacks are carried out in schools, and what percentage of these will be eliminated by metal detectors?
How many people are victims of seroius crime carried out with deactivated guns? - including antique and inherited pieces? Is it still approximately 0.04 per cent of gun offences
Where is the evidence that an extension to detention rights would improve life and protection of life for UK citizens?
How are the plastic police and target led police officers going to make ministers or anyone else feel safer without actually taking criminals off the street - note I meant actual criminals.
When are all these 'for their own good' plans going to become acts and visible in the real not virtual world around us? Or could is be more suggested guidance of what kind of people they would love us to be, yet are to afraid to act upon? Half measures designed to gain from human nature or am I getting paranoid? Why not use the laws we have - which exert sufficient control over people's actions rather than make more which attempt to predetermine people's thoughts and plans?
School knife detector plans backed
Press Association, Jan 20, 2008
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith gave her backing to airport-style metal detectors in some of the country's toughest schools.
Ms Smith said it was a "good idea" to look at how schools could use the search arches, following reports she will unveil proposals next month as the centrepiece of the Government's new violent crime action plan.
In an interview with BBC1's Andrew Marr Show Ms Smith said: "We can build on some of the initiatives we have already seen, the British Transport Police using search arches for example. I think it is a good idea if we look at the ways in which in some schools it might be appropriate to use search arches."She added: "I want young people to know that it doesn't make them safer to carry a knife - it actually makes them more likely to be a victim."...
The Observer newspaper reported that ministers were said to be particularly keen to encourage their use in the worst affected cities - London, Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham. The plan was reported to have the backing of senior police officers and head teachers who persuaded Ms Smith that the effectiveness of the detectors in tackling knife crime outweighed any concerns regarding pupil safety.
...The Sunday Telegraph reported that the total rose from 17,590 in 2003 to 24,102 in 2006 - the last year for which figures are available - an increase of 37%. The paper said that the figures were contained within Ministry of Justice reports relating to offenders aged 10 to 17 who were either convicted in court or issued with a police caution.
The overall total for all offences for the period rose from 184,474 to 222,750 - a 22% increase.
Referring to the figures, Ms Smith said: "Let's be clear about those figures, what that is is an increase in the number of young people who have committed offences who have been brought to justice. It is an increase in the numbers of those caught and convicted - not in the number of crimes, which actually, figures suggest have remained broadly stable."
Can we sue?
Eating more things that have been growing in the ground or on it than factory produced chemical enhanced foodstuffs is seen through the miracle of scientists as being a good idea. Not drinking too much of a poison, nor smoking dried out tar are also found to be beneficial nwhen compared to the alternatives. And yes, those in the know; who's intelligence and insight we can only dream of possesssing have also come up with proof that moving muslcles and making our organs work a little may be better than the alternative way of living.
So - ready meals everyday probably don't provide so many health benefits as eating natural produts with less saturated fat and more absorbable vitamins and minerals; who'd have guessed.
The point here, isn't that the obvious has been stated but that scientific research can be quoted and used as a lever in the future, or as an excuse - depending upon the user.
It is interesting to read between the lines and see that - eeek, big people may actually live longer on this formula than skinny ones! Where's that headline?
Healthy living 'can add 14 years'
BBC 8 Jan 2007
All social classes are at risk from an unhealthy lifestyle
Taking exercise, not drinking too much alcohol, eating enough fruit and vegetables and not smoking can add up to 14 years to your life, a study says.
Research involving 20,000 people over a decade found those who failed on all criteria were four times more likely to have died than those who succeeded.
The findings held true regardless of how overweight or poor they were.
The Public Library of Science Medicine study suggests many could increase their lifespan through simple changes.
The research was carried out by the University of Cambridge and the Medical Research Council in the English county of Norfolk between 1993 and 2006. Participants were aged between 45 and 79. They were socially mixed although overwhelmingly white, and as far as they were aware at the time, did not have cancer or any heart problems.
...."And we also found that social class and BMI - body mass index - really did not have a role to play. "It means a large proportion of the population really could feel health benefits through moderate changes."
..."By not smoking, drinking alcohol in moderation, taking regular physical activity and eating a diet rich in fruit and vegetables, people can improve their chances of living longer."
...A Department of Health spokesperson said: "Everyone has responsibility for their own health, which was highlighted last year when we kickstarted the Small Change, Big Difference initiative to show people that there are simple changes they can make in their lives that will have a direct impact on their health."
Gonna have to face it, you're addicted to...
The term addiction, when in the context of medical terms and situations, is a 'chronic relapsing condition characterized by compulsive drug-seeking and abuse and by long-lasting chemical changes in the brain. The state of addiction is the same irrespective of whether the drug is alcohol, amphetamines, cocaine, heroin, marijuana, or nicotine. Every addictive substance induces pleasant states or relieves distress. Continued use of the addictive substance induces adaptive changes in the brain that lead to tolerance, physical dependence, uncontrollable craving and, all too often, relapse. Dependence is at such a point that stopping is very difficult and causes severe physical and mental reactions from withdrawal. The risk of addiction is in part inherited. Genetic factors, for example, account for about 40% of the risk of alcoholism. The genetic factors predisposing to addiction are not yet fully understood.' (medterms.com)
However this term is now attibuted to, and used to explain why people dom what they like to do - sex being one of these activities over which the poor addicts have little chance of being able to control.
Why can't we accept that people often do things because they want to?
As an ex-smoker I am aware that the physical reactions which led my brain to get very upset without nicotine have long since faded and that if I want a ciogarette now it is don to me, me desires and my associating of smoking with some feeling which I like. Chocolate contains tryptophan,a chemical which stimulates the Happy Chemical and transmitter in our brains - Serotonin; so there is some evidence that cocoa can become addictive. Caffiene is a legal psychoactive susbstance - drug which stimulated our bodies and minds and which our systems build up a resistence to over time.
Sex is not a chemical, it is not a substance and it does not enter our system and alter our metabolism or neuro structures; it is an action and activity which most people claim to enjoy. People, or at least one person, usually participate in this action because they obtain a sensation of happiness and pleasure in some form or other.
So there is no other physical addiction to having sex other than a chemical which makes us happy, and other feelings of pleasure can be caused be an endless list of memories / associations / emotions / circumstances.
Can people be addicted to sex? And if yes - is a rapist responsible for their actions? Is a teenager with several non-supported children be held accountable? Is there any point in providing sex education? Should drugs to limit their addictions be prescribed?
Should marriages be allowed to be ended due to unfaithfulness or affairs?
Can saying 'I can't help it' provide an excuse for other behaviours?
Male sex addict cases 'increase'
By Helen Neill 10 Jan 2008
The Internet means pornography has become more easily available
Sex and relationship therapists are seeing an increase in the number of men suffering from sex addiction, a BBC investigation suggests.
Almost 80% of the 43 therapists in the survey said sex addiction is a problem.
Many said the obsessive use of internet pornography is now the most common form of the condition.
The counselling service Relate has also seen a "huge increase" in people who say compulsive sexual behaviour is straining their relationship. ...One respondent described the worst case they had come across. "The most debilitating was a man who had to have sex 10-12 times every day. Lately with internet pornography men seem to get addicted quicker".
...Christine Lacy, Relate Sex therapy consultant said those with sex addiction problems felt their lives were: "spiralling out of control".
Not mentioned
I was surpised that this horrific story did not make the national news last week. I am equally surprised (yet relieved) that Mr Cameron has not used this tale as a lever in his most recent crusade to save Britain.
The Summing Up of this case is due to take place on Monday, so perhaps I comment prematurely - but I wished to bring this case into the open.
The sense of saddness and sickness needs no explanation, but the world in which this occurs perhaps does.
Brent killed for sport, court told
By Craig Thompson 19 Jan 2007
Vulnerable Brent Martin was killed over a £5 bet, a court heard.
A murder trial jury was told a teenager who trained as an amateur boxer beat the disabled 23-year-old to death "for sport."
The 17-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, bet £5 that his friend could not knock out Mr Martin with a single punch, prosecutors claimed.
Newcastle Crown Court heard how Mr Martin, who suffered from learning difficulties and was described as a "gentle giant," was lured to grass and parkland on Sunderland's Town End Farm estate, so he could be floored without fear of fracturing his skull.
Prosecutor Toby Hedworth said: "On the evening of Thursday, August 23, last year, Brent Martin, a young man who had spent almost nine years of his life in psychiatric hospitals suffering a learning disability and other psychiatric conditions, was systematically attacked, demeaned, headbutted and beaten – by people whom he misguidedly believed to be his friends.
"They behaved like a pack of animals as they repeatedly punched, headbutted, kicked and stamped on Brent Martin – and that man, Brent Martin, never lifted an aggressive finger towards one of them.
"They did that to him until he was dead."
Mr Hedworth said the 17-year-old was one three assailants who carried out the attack. The others, William Hughes, 21, of Washington Road, Sunderland, and a 16-year-old youth, who cannot be named, have each admitted murder.
"The three of them were, from start to finish, in it together," said Mr Hedworth.
"They did it for their own sport."
The defendant and the 16-year-old had each trained as amateur boxers and knew the consequences of violence, Mr Hedworth added.
"They set out quite deliberately to do serious harm to Brent Martin for their own amusement and to make themselves look big in front of their friends, even inviting others to hit him.
"As the attack went on its nature, its ferocity, and its perservence made it quite clear they were not going to be happy till he was dead.
"Subsequently one or more may have regretted they went as far as they did but at the time they had no such sensibility – no restraint, no qualms and no mercy."
The court was told all three youth were bragging and "seemed pleased with themselves" immediately after the attack.
Brent Martin was admitted to psychiatric care when he was 15 years old. Described by friends as a "gentle giant," he was treated for behavioural difficulties at the Northgate hospital near Morpeth, Northumberland, and was in May last year released from the hospital into the care of his mother in Sunderland. But soon after his release he fell in with a group of youths who, it is claimed, took advantage of his vulnerability and desire to be accepted. While in hospital Mr Martin had saved £3,000, but in the three months between his release an his death nearly all of it had been spent.
Mr Hedworth said he was so keen to be accepted that on the evening he was attacked he repeatedly apologised to his assailants, shook their hands and told them he loved them. He said: "You may take the view this was a pitiful situation for a man with significant limitations – that there were those who were willing to use those limitations for their own distorted pleasure and amusment."
The jury was told the 17-year-old defendant dared the 16-year-old £5 to see whether he could knock out Mr Martin with a single punch.
The 16-year-old asked which he should use, then kissed his left, then right, fists and knocked Mr Martin to the floor unconscious.
When Mr Martin came round the 16-year-old hit him again, and the 17-year walked towards him, and said "watch this, knock out with an uppercut", the court heard.
Hughes then punched Mr Martin, who again fell senseless to the floor. When he recovered the 16-year-old told him: "Stay with us and nothing else will happen." The group walked to the nearby Boozebuster where Mr Martin sat on a low wall, his lip bleeding. The 17-year-old then punched him in the face and pushed him backwards off the wall.
Mr Hedworth said a girl who was with the group went to help Mr Martin up "and he was crying and saying sorry and telling all the lads they were canny and they were his mates." He told the 17-year-old: "I love you; me, you, mates," the court heard.
Hughes then attacked Mr Martin, punching him several times, and when he ran told the 17-year-old: "You go and kick him all owa," the court heard. The pair chased Mr Martin and when they caught him all three attacked him mercilessly, repeatedly punching him, stamping on his head and kicking him in the ribs. They left him on the floor unconscious and when a girl with the group went to see whether he was alright she found him lying in a pool of blood, "making snorting noises" and breathing very fast.
Hughes then stamped on his head and ribs. The group then dragged his unconscious body to the side of the road where he was propped against a parked car.
The court heard how on the night he died Mr Martin, in a possible attempt to ingratiate himself, told the group he had taken five Ecstasy tablets, and had suggested they go to nearby Boldon Colliery to burgle an old lady's house. The suggestion was used by Hughes as an excuse to "flip" and launch the savage attack, the court heard. Toxicology reports showed no trace of Ecstasy in Mr Martin's system. Medical reports said Mr Martin died of an acute subdural haemorrhage as a result of blunt force to the head. He died in hospital two days after he was found with multiple injuries in Baxter Road.
The 17-year-old, from Sunderland, denies murder.A 47-year-old woman, the mother of the 16-year-old who has admitted murder, has denied attempting to pervert the course of justice in connection with the crime.
Proceeding.
Simply a point well made:
Whatever happened to news? And what is news anyway?
Peter Hitchens 15 January 2008
The revival of 'News at Ten' is unlikely to persuade me to get back in front of the TV screen.
In the last couple of years, television news has become so feeble and peculiar that I find it very hard to bear.
Until recently, apart from 'University Challenge', the news was about the only thing I could bring myself to watch on TV any more. But the BBC late evening news programme, which I used to make sure I saw every night, has become almost intolerable for anyone who has any idea how the world actually works.
Absurd, over-emotional reports about horrors abroad, randomly selected, conformist conventional wisdom about politics at home, ridiculous backdrops for 'live' reports which the reporter could equally well have delivered in the studio; open-mouthed 'Security' stories which accept the MI5 or police version of events without reservation and serve to create an air of irrational fear, in which our liberties can more easily be stolen, sentimental piffle from the Middle East in which the Israel-Arab conflict is never, ever explained.
I often suspect that the reporters involved don't understand the Middle East or know its basic history, even though they are standing with Jerusalem floodlit behind them.
There are occasional exceptions, but in general it's like this, and it's a struggle to keep watching.
At least the BBC Radio 4 news bulletins and programmes are immune from some of these problems.
Radio's political reporters aren't required to stand in front of 10 Downing Street, a building they're rarely allowed to enter and certainly can't roam around inside, and there's less emoting because it tends to sound sillier on radio than on TV.
They also allow a little more time, and their presenters are often (not always) people who have knocked about a bit and know more or less what they are talking about, and thus not cool enough to be on TV. Not that this always makes much difference. Let's not go onto the shared assumptions of reporters and presenters which work against any serious understanding of what's going on.
Yet once, especially in the late 1970s and the 1980s, I couldn't go to bed until I had seen two, and sometimes three TV news programmes. It wasn't just because of the pure delight involved in watching Reginald Bosanquet and Anna Ford.
In the days of the Thatcher government and the Cold War we had, it seemed to me, quite a lot of real news - actual events that justified the big headline and the long TV news reports.
Now, we tend to have items magnified out of all proportion, emphasised to suit a particular view of what is important or fashionable, but often profoundly unimportant.
Take for example the story in many papers this week about how some photographer specialising in lookalikes cannot find anyone who looks like the 'bovine' Gordon Brown.
Actually Gordon Brown doesn't look specially bovine, not least because he's so obviously an intelligent man, and his facial features are of course influenced by the fact that he is half-blind as the result of a sports injury and an unsuccessful operation in his boyhood (which nearly left him wholly blind).
So how come it is all right to say he is 'bovine' and - by implication - so uniquely ugly that there's nobody in the country who looks like him?
Why, because the current fashionable 'story' is that Gordon Brown is a disastrous failure, and even looks horrid, unlike that nice David Cameron. I yield to nobody in my dislike for Gordon Brown's politics. But this is just silly.
And that brings me to the question of what 'news' is. There are several respectable definitions.
My favourite is "Something someone, somewhere doesn't want you to read". Then there's the simplest of all, "something shocking, out of the ordinary, a reversal of the normal way in which things happen".
But one of the reasons why news is now getting harder to find is that we have, as a nation (and as a world) been through a profound shock in which almost everything that was abnormal is now normal.
Newspapers and TV bulletins now ignore, night and day, thousands of stories which 25 years ago would have led their bulletins or been splayed across their front pages.
And the time when I watched three news bulletins a night (and then hungrily tore through a great bundle of newspapers at breakfast the following day) was a revolutionary period in which there was more news of that kind than the papers or the bulletins had room for.
We saw it all go roaring by, and often did not realise what it meant.
Now it's over, we merely record the aftermath of that revolution, its slow, relentless consolidation in the form of political correctness allied with globalism and a loopy consumerism mainly concerned with high-heeled shoes, celebrities and electronic devices.
Will this current dull, conformist phase last? Are we just numb at seeing national boundaries overwhelmed, Communist and capitalist dining together, common sense dethroned in the home, the classroom and the street, vacuousness rewarded with fame and money, talent bullied into the background or dispensed with altogether?
Will we eventually realise that we are at the receiving end of one huge news story - that the people of the free and advanced countries have lost much of their liberty and their safety following our apparent victory in the Cold War, that we are in many important ways growing poorer while appearing to be richer, that family life and personal freedom are almost at an end, that parliamentary democracy has ceased to operate?
Increasingly, I fear not, for the other great development of modern times, very much reflected in much of what nowadays passes for news, is that we have for the most part lost any key to the past.
We don't know what happened before, or we simply refuse to believe it when we are told, and we have very few ways of finding out.
So we don't have anything with which to compare our current plight and so come to sensible conclusions about how much we have lost, and how much we have gained. Often we can't believe our own memories, and imagine them to be quirky individual things rather than a key to general change.
In my own lifetime I can recall several things that now seem impossible (I don't say I want all of them back, before I am accused of doing so, or told I am against central heating. I just find it harder and harder to believe I experienced them in person) - currency limits when you went abroad, with the amount you'd drawn having to be entered in your (British) passport, shoplifters having their trials reported in the papers, teachers wearing gowns and mortarboards, riding in the front seats of cars without a seatbelt, Town Clerks, metal dustbins that took a whole week's rubbish, TV sets that took a minute to warm up, coalmen, AA motorbike patrols, bus conductors in peaked caps, sweets sold loose from jars, mudlarks diving for worn copper pennies in the mud of Portsmouth harbour, Mild ale, pubs shutting in the afternoons, grocer's shops with counters, early closing days, carol singers who actually knew some carols, 56-pound sacks, standing for the National Anthem in cinemas, cattle markets, the great phalanx of bicycles at Rowntree's factory gate in York as the workers waited for the hooter so that they could ride home after work, the Berlin Wall, and the Border troops with sub-machine guns who stood in the girders at Friedrichstrasse station; crossing the Channel by boat, passport control at the border between France and Germany, boarding an aeroplane without being scanned and searched, cyclists observing red traffic lights, servicemen in uniform a regular sight on the streets; eating fish and chips out of newspaper, or sandwiches not enclosed in plastic armour, people smoking during TV chat shows, huge crowds waiting for the appearance of minor royalty, pirate radio stations, dockers, steam trains on regular service, often with carriages for 'ladies only', being able to see the Milky Way.
And these are all just superficial changes, which express for us the other deeper changes in morals and language and the shape of civilisation.
I feel more and more like the old geezer in the pub in 1984 trying to order a pint of beer from a barman who's never heard of anything but litres, or like George Bowling, in 'Coming up for Air' remembering with astonishment a rather recent childhood - both books by George Orwell, of course, and linked by much more than the burying of the past.
Until next time
Some lingering thoughts as I prepare to switch of my understanding and interpetation and turn on the BBC News.
I have an idea should Mr Brown or the current undercurrent to the Labour Party succeed in leading us citizens beyond 2011. A Nanny State Opt Out form - perhaps it can be called the COONS Form (Choice to Opt Out of Nanny State). This would help make up for the referundums that have apparently been denied us and allow the goverment to save some money. There could be some questions on areas of daily life, education, law and health; in which the respondent / applicacants understanding of facts and outcomes could be assessed. Based upon a point system (the goverments over the years seem to like them) the applicant could then be classified as able to make own choices and be permitted to live without the hand-holding and reins of government ministerial control. I shall refine this idea a little and get back to you - let me know your thoughts....
For some fun:
Play some loosely described as scrabble. http://www.scrabulous.com/
See also
Mrs Boris in 2007
Crimes of seeing and doing
Too fat to work
Unfit to be a mother?
Med diet cuts lung cancer risk 'by half'
Poverty in the UK
Why addiction must be treated as a chronic disease
Socialism and democracy needed to reshape the world
'Islamist' is the word for these terrorists
Gordon Brown should watch his back
Families 'must pay an extra £2600 a year tax'
Health and class
Readers please email comments
to: editorial AT
martinfrost.ws including full name