Longrider

Neil Harding asks the question.

However the culture of negativity that we have at the moment is not healthy. If you criticise everything and praise nothing, what you are really doing is arguing for the status quo, and that is reactionary conservatism.

Actually, he has a point – well, half of one. Constant negativity does, indeed breed more negativity. As a professional trainer I appreciate the need for praise even when pointing out flaws in performance. That is human nature; we respond to positive comments more readily than to negative ones. I dispute the reactionary conservatism statement as that is simply political rhetoric. Just as I dismiss this point:

This culture of negativity being pushed by our reactionary press has exactly that purpose - to push us into the hands of the right and the Tories.

Neil offers no evidence to support this assertion.  My own observation is that generally, where “safety” is being used as an excuse, the press slavishly repeat the government line and fail to grasp – or pass on – the significance behind the statement. If anything, they are not critical enough. Not by a long chalk. The press, though, has been a factor in government policy. Indeed, in its attempts to woo the press and remain in the headlines, we have seen government policy driven by sound-bites and headlines. John Reid’s recent pronouncements tend to confirm this.

What we have seen in the past decade is a series of acts of parliament that are without precedent. The Civil Contingencies Act gives ministers the power to declare a state of emergency, yet conveniently leaves that definition of emergency somewhat vague. Having declared such, government can rule by cabinet. The calls for “summary justice” designed to appeal to the hard of thinking is nothing more than the lynch mob by any other name. Habeas Corpus is vanishing before our eyes. In the wake of last week’s massive security exercise, excessive over reaction and the effective closing down of airports (conveniently a day after bruiser Reid tells us we must trade our freedom for security), I fully expect parliament to cave in and give the bastards the power to detain suspects for 90 days without charge. To suggest in the wake of these events that liberties are not being eroded is being wilfully blind to the facts.

In the comments Neil responds to this:

longrider: “Having watched them pull apart the rule of law and destroy our liberties”

Oh come on. We are free to do what we like. I felt much more oppressed under Thatcher, look what she did to the miners civil liberties. Look what she did to the poor. Isn’t incresing inequality so that those in low paid jobs cannot earn enough to enjoy a fair share of this country’s wealth an erosion of their civil liberties?

Yeah… see… I have a big problem with rolling Margaret Thatcher out every time this government is criticised. The Miners’ strike was over twenty years ago and isn’t relevant to this discussion. Even if it was, to suggest that my bogeyman is worse than your bogeyman just isn’t helpful. Put Thatcher back where you found her and discuss – as the rest of us are – this administration’s performance.

Quite apart from blatant attempts to seize unprecedented power via the Civil Contingencies Act or the abolition of parliament bill, we have the politicisation of the police. This means that people are issued with fixed penalty notices for selling T shirts emblazoned with “Bollocks to Blair” logos or pointing out in public that police metal detectors are “shit”. How does that equate to being able to do what we like? Should I mention protest outside parliament at this point? In a free, liberal, civilised society we should be able to comment in any way we please about anything we like without fear of penalty by the state. That clearly does not apply.

This, to me is a betrayal of trust by the government. Is it any wonder then, that I and many others are negative? After all, we have seen our prime minister caught out lying. Whatever you may think about the decision to go to war in Iraq, the man lied about it. The ID cards debate was characterised by demonisation of opponents and outright misrepresentation to the point where the English language was no longer able to define the word “voluntary”.

When politicians lie, cheat, and steal, why should we trust them? Why should we look upon them as decent people? They are not. They have demonstrated that they are nothing more than venal, power hungry authoritarians who will do anything to consolidate their grip on power. So to Neil’s point about the air of negativity not being healthy, I would point out that this is because there is something rotten in the state of Westminster.

Neil draws a comparison between the average Joe and the cockroaches in parliament:

1 in 4 of the adult male population has spent some time in jail (usually a sign of being corrupt, violent, dishonest, a crook etc). The figure for politicians is a fraction of this.

Well, yes, that may be so. But, then, we have around 3,000 new offences on the statue book. This may just have a part to play… :dry:

My answer to Neil’s question, therefore is: No, the average politician is not nicer than the average Joe. They have the same human failings but with greater opportunity to abuse and misuse power. That makes them worse; far, far worse. They have betrayed the trust of the people who put them where they are. Betrayal of trust is not a simple matter to overcome. If there is negativity in British politics, look to the root of the problem, don’t blame a disillusioned electorate; blame those directly responsible. Blame the politicians.

A few heads on spikes outside Traitor’s Gate mightn’t be a bad idea… :devil:

There’s been a positive storm brewing recently in the land of blog regarding Inigo Wilson’s “Lefty Lexicon” over at  Conservative Home and plenty have commented. Much has touched on freedom of speech and others have pointed out – rightly – that such freedom brings consequences. Still, I thought I’d bring my comment to the discussion.

Inigo Wilson may not be a natural wit, but his Lefty Lexicon was an attempt at satire. The problem is that while it made a valid point about a tendency to change the meaning of words in order to demonise people, the satire didn’t really get going. A hint, Inigo; satire is supposed to make people laugh; even if they feel a bit guilty doing so. The Lefty Lexicon just didn’t do the business in that department. Consequently, despite hitting its intended target on occasion, it came across as a bit, well, dire, really…

Inigo’s other mistake was to be open about himself and what he does for a living. As Chris Applegate points out, finding out who that employer is, is not a difficult thing to do. It’s Orange, if you missed it. So, given that his employer has found out, he is now suspended pending disciplinary action and, it would seem; the sack. Given his role in the company; community affairs, perhaps that’s not too surprising.

Okay, let’s get the freedom of speech thing out of the way. Inigo Wilson indulged in his right to speak freely. The Muslim Public Affairs Committee complained and are now crowing about their success. They had the absolute right to complain. It is, after all, a free country and they can say what they wish to Inigo’s employer. Freedom of speech carries consequences. You can say what you like, but don’t complain about the flack if you are controversial in what you say.

I guess the matter revolves around how Orange’s managers dealt with the matter. Of course, there was the devil and the deep blue sea scenario opening up before them. Do nothing and face a furore in the press for “Islamophobia” or take decisive action and face a furore over free speech. Sheesh! What a choice. Personally, had it been me, I’d have thanked the Muslim Public Affairs Committee for bringing the matter to my attention, given Inigo a sound bollocking and left him in no doubt about what would happen should he repeat the offence (probably including a review of his performance) and consider the matter dealt with. I would advise the MPAC that the matter had been managed internally and consider it closed. I would then ride any further storm. Orange chose the dhimmi option, which means that the beast knows it can always come back for more – and will.

There have been accusations that Inigo’s comments were racist. One of my all-time irritations occurs when a critic of Islam is accused of being racist. It is, after all, confirming Inigo Wilson’s definition of the term “racist” rather nicely, making his point for him (as did the MPAC). My Collins dictionary defines racism as follows:

racialism or racism n. 1. the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority. 2. abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis, of such a belief racialist or racist n., adj.

And the definition of Islam:

Islam n. 1. Also called: Islamism. the religion of Muslims, teaching that there is only one God and that Mohammed is his prophet; Mohammedanism. 2. a. Mus­lims collectively and their civilization. b. the countries where the Muslim religion is predominant. – Is’lamic adj.

Note please; not one mention in the Islam definition of it applying to any particular racial group. It is a religion; an ideology, not a race. Please can we stop this nonsense whereby those who dare to criticise or ridicule Islam are accused of being racists? Nor, necessarily are they suffering a phobia. I don’t like any organised religion, but no one accuses me of being Christianophobic, Judaophobic, Bhuddistophobic or Hinduophobic, do they? I’m not. Dislike and fear are two separate things. Please, enough already.

The ridiculous hyper-sensitivity towards Islam is in danger of reaching epidemic proportions. Those who recall Dave Allen will also recall that the Christian religion (in this case, Catholicism) has been lampooned for generations and they, for the most part, let it go. More recently Father Ted picked up where Allen left off. Yes, sometimes the church gets its knickers in a knot over some silly slight, but they have generally become immune to satire and ridicule and that’s as it should be. Islam should not be subject to special treatment, it is not deserving of special treatment. Those who do not believe in its ideology are under no obligation to abide by it and should be able to criticise and ridicule without having their comment stifled by accusations of racism and Islamophobia. As Wilson pointed out; these are the tools used by those who would stifle debate – and haven’t they made his point rather well?

Of course, had the MPAC not made a fuss, the whole thing would have been ignored and quietly gone away; but that’s not what they want, though, is it?

I see that others have picked up on this story already, but I can’t resist a comment of my own.

The BBC was yesterday plunged into a row over its foreign reporting after its new “diversity czar” said there were too many white journalists reporting from non-white nations, particularly in Africa.

Mary Fitzpatrick said that she was tired of repeatedly seeing programmes where the situation was “here we are in Africa, and here’s a white person saying, well, look at these people”.

No, what you are doing here is projecting your own prejudices onto the audience. I don’t think any such thing – I prefer to listen to what the reporter has to say rather than note their skin colour – but, then, I don’t have any racial prejudices…

She said it was vital that BBC news reflected the audience that it was serving, with “valid and culturally accurate voices speaking.”

She added: “I would prefer to see somebody who understands that culture, understands what’s going on and can say, ‘Look with me because I am part of this’. It feels more authoritative and more involved.”

Where do you even start with such patent nonsense? What is going through Fitzpatrick’s mind? Logic, it certainly ain’t. So because a report from Africa is presented by someone with black skin the piece is suddenly more authoritative? While I was in France last week, did the aliens land and steal everyone’s brains? That must be it; an invasion of body snatchers. It’s the only rational explanation for such tosh.

What Mary Fitzpatrick is positing here is that journalists are selected not on the basis of their suitability, qualifications and expertise; not on their understanding of the situation because they have relevant experience in the field, but on “supposed” authority on the basis of their skin colour. I wasn’t aware that skin colour gave people authority in their subject. Must be those body snatchers again.

People who believe that discrimination on the basis of peoples’ skin colour is acceptable behaviour are racists. By her own terms of reference, Mary Fitzpatrick is, therefore, a racist. That, or she is a fool.  Whatever she is, or is not, her comments are despicable.

Another absurd story to hit the headlines on a similar note was this one:

A five-year-old girl’s passport application was rejected because her photograph showed her bare shoulders.

Hannah Edwards’s mother, Jane, was told that the exposed skin might be considered offensive in a Muslim country.

The photograph was taken at a photo-booth at a local post office for a family trip to the south of France.

Because of the way the camera was set up, the picture came out showing Hannah’s shoulders.

The family had it signed and presented it at a post office with the completed form but were told that it would not be accepted by the Passport Office.

A woman behind the counter informed them that she was aware of at least two other cases where applications had been rejected because a person’s shoulders were not covered.

Sigh… Why should we care about someone in a Muslim country being offended by a five year old girl’s bare shoulders? Do Islamic passport offices care about whether we are offended by their acceptable passport photographs? Of course not. And, likely as not, no offence will be caused anyway. This is, once more, someone being over sensitive and seeing an opportunity for offence where none exists.

Update: Mr E picks up this story over at the Devils Kitchen.

I was eight years old when I was first introduced to poetry. My form mistress during that second year at primary school was an imposing – and to an eight year old boy, terrifying – figure. Despite being a strict disciplinarian, she never did drum the times tables into my mathematically challenged head. Yet she successfully introduced me to the delights of John Masefield’s “Sea Fever” and T. S. Eliot’s “McCavity, the Mystery Cat”.

I recall being horrified when she insisted that I read a poem (long since forgotten) at morning assembly. I managed to get through the ordeal, but didn’t see what it was that she saw then; a love for verse and the English language and an ability to hear the natural cadence in the sounds of words. Frankly, I spent that year far too terrified to realise that I enjoyed English literature and poetry in particular.

Forty years later, I still read and write poems and the love of language remains undiminished by the passage of time. “Where My Muse Takes Me” is an antholgy of these poems; the random thoughts of a wandering mind. I hope that you enjoy them as much as I enjoyed rambling through the strange, dreamlike places in my head from whence they came.

Once again, I’ve chosen Lulu.com to publish my work. The 22 poems are avaliable as a print book or downloadable as an ebook. Some of these verses have already been published here. And, as a sampler, here is the title poem:

Where My Muse Takes Me

Nothing could make my life more complete;
Than watching warm sunlight reflect on a tropical lagoon.
As I walk alone with the white sand burning beneath my feet.
Palm trees swaying in the warm afternoon.
I must away to that far sea;
For that is where my muse takes me.

Could there ever be a more breathtaking ride
Than to soar in an old string kite high above the Earth?
Where only the sparrowhawk and eagle dare to glide.
Freedom like this is far beyond money’s worth.
Oh! To join that eagle so free;
For that is where my muse takes me.

I long to be far away from the busy, bustling city lights
To the wild lonely places, still and quiet and desolate;
Solitude will my companion be, among the mountain heights;
To be alone in the wilderness should be my fate.
Because there is where I want to be;
For that is where my muse takes me.

Having been on holiday for the past week, I’ve not felt much inclined to blog. This post therefore is a bit of a catchup on those events and the comments I’ve been browsing but not felt inclined to comment upon at the time.

Lebanon

I’ve not discussed this so far. I haven’t felt that I could add much to that already mentioned elsewhere. While broadly supportive of Israel, I believe the current conflict misjudged. Taking on a guerilla army hiding among a civilian population is inevitably fraught with difficulty and leads to predictable accusations of unnecessary civilian casualties. That this is the fault of those waging a war from within that population and is a despicable, cowardly way to conduct a war, cuts no ice in the media driven world of sound-bites and blood soaked images of children in under equipped hospital beds. The Israeli offensive was onto a propaganda loser before it started. And don’t mention the execrable UN to me, just don’t. If ever there was evidence that this bunch of windbags is an expensive, pointless and wasteful blot on the political landscape, this is it.

I understand Israel’s motives – living among neighbours who seek to wipe you off the map is bound to harden your resolve somewhat – but I question their application. Not that I have any alternative strategy up my sleeve. Despite discussions and “road maps” the Middle East remains a hotbed of conflict because for the most part that is what its inhabitants seem to want.

More Terror Plots

All of which leads me to what has been going on recently in London, Pakistan and on transatlantic flights. Given John Reid’s dire warning of terror plots and doom one day, the closure of Heathrow, reports of arrests and another plot foiled the next, caused in me exactly the same reaction as that expressed by Nosemonkey. That’s the problem with constantly pounding the terror drum; sooner or later people stop believing you. This administration has lied and spun so many terror stories, so many of which turned out to be fantasy, that this time around, my response was cynicism. Okay, this time it does look like a real terror plot – although as others have pointed out the tinfoil hat brigade are claiming it is all a plot by Bush MacHitler to cover up some dastardly scheme or other. I’m sorry, but these morons are in serious need of psychiatric help. Anyone who seriously believes that our government is busy engaging in black flag operations against its own population is deluded. The usual nonsense resurfaced about Peter Power and Visor consultants in the wake of the July bombings last year. That this is patent nonsense seems not to affect the judgement of these loons. There are hundreds of agencies that have to be prepared for emergencies (including terror outrages) and at any one time one of them may be carrying out an exercise. Having been involved in these myself, I am aware of what goes on and it isn’t black flag operations. Get a grip, please.

Islam

All of which leads me to Islam. While I may not go as far as the Devil’s Kitchen and seek to deport all Muslims, I certainly share his revulsion at the “religion of peace”. I might respect those Muslims I’ve known, worked with and done business with. Fine, upstanding members of society, all. But… I will never respect their ideology. This is a medieval death cult that actively subjugates women and engages in a brutal, primitive and incompetent legal system that executes people for nothing more than their sexuality.

Curiously, those who exhort us to discriminate “positively” in order to further women’s rights or who tell us that gays should be afforded equal rights under the law also tell us we should respect Islam. That there is a contradiction here seems to bypass them. As it bypassed Peter Tatchell when both he and Iqbal Sacrine found themselves on the same side of an argument recently. Islam flies in the face of enlightenment values. To afford it respect or even tolerance is to undermine those enlightenment values. Islam is a vile, evil, suppressive disease that has infected the minds of its followers. I no more tolerate or respect it than I would tolerate or respect a cancer. So, while I will accept and live with peoples’ right to believe what they want to believe, I make no pretence at respecting Islam. This is because I don’t. I despise it with every fibre of my being as it offends me and contradicts my values of liberty and equality.

So…

While all that was going on, I had a good week away. Well, apart from the bad reaction to a wasp sting, that is…

At 05:30 yesterday morning I was checking our rail tickets as I explained to my mother in law when our connections were at Waterloo and Lille. That was when I realised that something was wrong. Two of the three tickets for Lille to Montpellier had incorrect times. Booked on the 08:39 from Waterloo, we couldn’t possibly be on a TGV departing at the same time.

I decided to try and change the tickets at Waterloo. No such luck. “SNCF” was the reply. Now, if I am to change a ticket, I’m supposed to do so before the train leaves and I had just failed. I could only hope that the SNCF staff at were more accommodating.

Immediately we arrived at Lille, I tried again.

“Sorry,” we were told, “The train is full.”

Try as we might, she would not budge. The tickets were wrong and it was our fault. I tried explaining that I had requested the correct tickets only to be told that I should have checked them properly. Well, yes, that much I had already figured out for myself. Fault wasn’t the issue; I merely wanted help with a resolution. A resolution, nor even an attempt at one was not on offer. The rules were quoted at us; job done.

Much as I love France, when it comes to dealing with their bureaucracy, the French official would try the patience of a saint. Having cornered the market in jobsworthery, they fold their arms, sit back and leave you to your fate. I almost detect a hint of barely subdued pleasure… almost.

We made a decision. We decided to board the train anyway and take our chances. For a full train, it seemed to me that the empty seats suggested anything but. Indeed, it didn’t start getting busy until we reached Lyon. Even then, we had seating in the foldaway seats in the corridor. When checking our tickets, the ticket inspector didn’t question the wrong times at all. So, it all came down to much the same as if it had happened on the UK network, we lost our seat reservations, that was all. Now, if only the girl on the information and ticket desk could have said that rather than turning “customer service” into an oxymoron.

Prayers and Crime

The police in Lincolnshire are hoping to harness the power of prayer in solving crime:

Police and Christian groups in Lincolnshire are to combine forces to tackle crime with the power of prayer.

Churches and Christian groups will get emails alerting them to crimes on which they can then focus their prayers.

The Prayer Watch scheme has been proposed by the Lincolnshire branch of the Christian Police Association (CPA).

I wonder sometimes, really I do. Remind me, which century is this? What happened to sifting through the evidence and detective work? Prayers involve talking to… well, what, exactly? Who knows? And if this God really exists, are we to believe that he, she or it, just sits around waiting to see if there are enough prayers from the faithful before pointing a finger at whodunit? Really? It must be the silly season for news. Mind you, Jeremy Vine had a guest on today to discuss this very matter; one Gerald Coates who seemed to think that it was a fantastic idea; despite there being no scientific evidence to back up any of his assertions – relying as he did entirely on anecdote to convince us that this hokum really works. Thank goodness for the reasoned arguments of psychologist Dr Sue Blackmore who preferred evidence to superstition. Frankly, the idea of relying on superstition to solve crimes is akin to returning to the ducking stool and trial by combat; oh, and Gerald Coates came across as a deranged lunatic – that’s the power of radio for you… :dry:

Identity Cards Again

Continuing the silly season theme, we have the Right Dishonourable Blair reminding us that identity cards are to be in the Labour party manifesto at the next election. A major plank no less. I can think of another plank, but that’s another matter…

Prime Minister Tony Blair has insisted that identity cards will form a “major plank” of the Labour Party manifesto at the next General Election.

His pledge, which comes despite the fact he will step down before then, was made in his monthly news briefing.

Mr Blair was responding to recent delays in the identity card scheme.

He insisted ID cards were “a huge opportunity” and necessary to tackle immigration and crime. He added there was no doubt the scheme “goes forward”.

Huge opportunity? A huge opportunity to waste billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and achieve absolutely bugger all in return. Notice that he plays the fear card again; it’s needed to control all those Johnny foreigners coming over here and stealing our jobs. FFS!

Mr Blair went on: “If people want to track illegal migration and organised crime in this country, you’ve got to have ID cards. Any other solution simply won’t work.”

Bollocks! It was bollocks the first time this dissembling arsehole said it, it is bollocks now and will continue to be bollocks no matter how many times he says it and no matter how much he puts on his fake sincerity face and gesticulates appealingly at us. He lied before, he is lying now. Nothing this man says can be trusted. Please, Tony, do the decent thing, just this once in your tawdry, pointless existence and go. Go now and take your damned identity card scheme with you and never darken our shores again.

Jeremy Vine was discussing the matter of couples and children the other day. In this instance, how things worked out for those who discovered that their decision and that of their partner may have changed and the effect that it had on the relationship. Fortunately, Mrs Longrider and I have never varied from our initial decision – we are childless by choice. We both knew this to be the case from early on in our relationship and nothing has altered in the intervening years. Indeed, watching siblings raise children simply reinforced our decision.

Early on there were one or two comments about “pattering of tiny feet” from more distant relatives. The close ones knew not to make such remarks. A short, negative response put a stop to such nonsense. And anyone who believed that we would change our minds must, after nearly twenty years, realise that they were wrong.

I knew when I was still a child myself that parenthood was not for me. I still feel that way at forty eight. I am indifferent to children, preferring the company of adults. I am not bothered by the oft used excuse that children will look after us in our old age – take a tour around some of the care homes to see that myth exploded. I have no qualms about being alone – I like being alone.

Although we are now more mainstream than when we married, there is still controversy - as witnessed during the discussion I listened to. We are perceived as being “selfish”. Indeed? And ask any parent why they chose procreation and listen carefully to the response. Childfree.net has.

In 1992, Rathus and Nevid (both psychologists) interviewed hundreds of couples on their reasons for having or not having children. They found couples with children had 9 common answers for their decision, and that couples without children had 13 common answers for their decision.

And the outcome of those responses?

In our opinion, it seems that all of the 9 reasons given for having children are selfish; they are all about what the parent will gain for themselves (love, bonding, etc.) While only 5 of the 13 reasons for not having children are selfish, the other 8 involve concerns for the world, the community, and the child that would be born.

Cultural pressures aside, when the church gets involved, it turns rather nasty. Back in 2000 we had the Bishop of Rochester sounding off:

 The bishop told the BBC he was not making “dogmatic statements” on marriage but he repeated his views that couples had a duty to have a family.

Isn’t it strange that just before making a dogmatic statement people start by denying they are making a dogmatic statement? There is no such duty to have children. It is a matter of choice. A choice that is none of anyone else’s business; particularly not the bishop’s. Still, it didn’t stop the good bishop inferring that it was.

“If their intention is never, ever to have children, they will find that the pleasures of career and travel will cloy after a while,” he said.

It hasn’t cloyed yet…

The Bishop of Rochester wasn’t the only one to impose his bigoted, narrow minded, self-righteous condemnation of other peoples’ lifestyle choices on the world at large. In 2004 we had R Albert Mohler Jr giving us the benefit of his wisdom. He regards childfree couples as rebelling against God.

Christians must recognize that this rebellion against parenthood represents nothing less than an absolute revolt against God’s design. The Scripture points to barrenness as a great curse and children as a divine gift.

Oh, well, that’s a relief. I’m not a Christian, so it doesn’t apply.

The Scripture does not even envision married couples who choose not to have children.

This, presumably, because the scriptures hadn’t envisaged contraception… Mohler’s rant is nothing more than the outpouring of a narrow mind inhibited from broader thinking by the slavish devotion to the rambling scribblings of ancient nomadic desert dwellers. His choice; not mine. And that, surely it the nub of this discussion. We all make our choices and live by the consequences. If people like the Bishop of Rochester and Albert Mohler want to live by the imaginations of some long lost civilisation, they may do so. What they may not do, is impose that belief on those of us who choose differently.

If having children is your choice and provides your life with a sense of fulfilment, good. Just be aware that there are a growing number of people who feel differently; who do not see parenthood as a necessity, who seek fulfilment elsewhere and don’t go all gooey over the sight of a baby in a pram. Get used to the idea.