The Pope and the real problem....

The Pope, Fuhrer of Vatican plc, has made yet another ridiculous statement which ignores the reality of human existence. He doesn't seem to have recognised that his ancient fairy tale of creation was superseded by scientific knowledge including the reality of sexual orientation, accepted by all major medical and psychological academic bodies.

He also doesn't seem to realise that sex is not the same as gender, and that one's sexual orientation has nothing to say about one's gender or one's sex. So, a gay man is every bit as male as a straight man, in terms of sex, but their sexual orientation is not that which is dominant within the male gender . A minority variant - the world is full of them,nt only in the area of sexuality.

There really is nothing wrong with the pope that a good heart attack wouldn't put right.

Loathsome Nazi scumbag. Never did leave the Hitler Youth, did it?

And in the meantime, Catholic seminaries are full of gay men skulking in their closets. I can't sympathise or respect them. hey should speak out and be prepared to face the consequences. Otherwise, they are quite simply hypocrites

In any case, there is a problem greater than climate change. It isn;t people's sexuality, which is no threat to anyone. Indeed, having more open gay people would do wonders for the real problem facing the world - the elephant in the room which the Left, in particular, fails to talk about.

I mean, of course, overpopulation

The first start should be the removal of all overseas aid and all publicly funded assistance or support for any country which actively promoted overpopulation. hird world aid is largely wasteful in any case - most of it ends up in the hands of tinpot dictators propped up by the regimes they claim to loathe. And their problems are down largely to one issue. Too many people. Overpopulation. There should be a universal one child policy in particular for countries who have to pathetically bring out the begging bowl at every conceivable opportunity. And of course, promoting this overpopulation is Vatican plc and its Gauleiter, Ratfinger!

Irresponsible

I don't know who is more irresponsible.

The woman who thinks it is quite acceptable to have 18 children in the USA, or the TV company which no doubt helps to pay for the circus by making a TV programme about them

Lillian Ladele ruling overturned

The judgment which justified Lillian Ladele, a Christian registrar, in not carrying out an essential part of her job - civil partnership ceremonies - has been overturned.

Quite right too - but lets not have any more shoddy procedure from local councils, please, which meant that the person wanting to discriminate can present themselves as a victim

Police authorities

I served as an independent member of a police authority for four years. It was an interesting experience and I think was worthwhile, although the reliance on the same organisation one is meant to be 'critical friend' to for one's information does limit effectiveness.

The selection process isn't ideal, although it is quite exacting. I applied twice and was successful on second application after quite a gruelling interview process. As an independent member with experience of being part of a minority community, I felt I had some distinctive perspectives to bring. The problem was that it was very hard to remain independent. I declared that I knew the Chair of the authority, and whilst for the first two years of serving I was a party member, never felt any loyalty to that party's position. This was probably my downfall, particularly when I left the party and it became pretty clear that I wouldn't be reappointed.

However, further politicisation of the police via direct elections would be a very bad idea - and I think would undermine the authority of the Chief Constable. It would mean that police governance would be in the hands of one party, and this could easily be an extremist party unwilling to enforce the very important commitment of the Police to serve the whole community.

There are other ways of enabling people to influence the police without placing them further into the hands of party politicians of any colour.

I just don't get it

Journalism is full of the nostalgic 'things are going to hell in a handcart' brigade. So is blogdom. There seems to be something about a certain class of people who are, on the surface, often very different in their concerns, but share a basic loathing of contemporary life and a longing for something better.

So, the concerns are usually about lack of liberty, which seems to mean obsessing about the tyranny of the ID card proposals, or Islam, or loss of the socially conservative Catholic politics they associate themselves with, or whining on about the destruction of civilisation as they knew it

They share a nostalgia for the past and a social order where what they approve of dominates, and where every single 'negative' incident is used to amplify their personal fears

I wonder why they feel like this? What is it about the past or a strangely unappealing utopia (often linked to curious constructs about Englishness, and often linked to Christian religionism) which motivates these people?

If I had the choice, I would prefer to live in our present situation than look back towards this mythical past. I wonder if it is the knowledge that their ideal will never be fulfilled which makes these people so very angry?

Life and death

I watched the programme on assisted suicide earlier this week. It was well put together and honest - wonder why we are still so squeamish about death? Actually, I don't - it is the product of religion and its influence, yet that doesn't manifest itself in the same way everywhere. It is clear that the CPS are unlikely to pursue prosecutions of those who go to Switzerland - and absolutely clear that there will need to be accommodation for the overwhelming sympathy that people in the UK have towards voluntary euthanasia, and assisted suicide. Margo MacDonald MSP put the case forward eloquently on Monday's Panorama.

I don't think Parliament can stand against this very necessary change forever. We cannot continue to enable keeping people alive via medical advance if we are unable to also offer quality of life. And we need to make clear that the sub-text of the value of suffering, promoted by Vatican plc and many of the advocates of failed palliative care , is something which has no place in contemporary society. Suffering is neither beneficial nor compulsory, and people should have the right to end their suffering should they so choose.

As far as the life of Jean Charles de Menezes, though, the situation is far more unclear. I don't think that the police can be entirely blamed, given the situation and febrile atmosphere which existed at the time - but I think they would do themselves a favour or three if they admitted to having made mistakes (they should have stopped him going down into the tube station, for a start, but its easy to say after the event, and he shouldn't have run away, perhaps fearing arrrest because of his illegal immigration status). Fact is, though, that they really did believe that he was carrying a bomb, and given the events of just days before, mistakes with tragic consequences would be made. It was a mistake, I don't think that anyone thought that the police actually thought it wasn't the suicide bomber. And lets not forget that the suicide bombers are the real villains of the piece. But, the police should have been upfront and said - yes, we made mistakes. Why didn't they? Perhaps because there seems to be a wish not so much for 'justice', but money and having a go at the police.

Rights, not liberties

I note that the 'civil liberties' lobby are often associated with the furtherance of 'rights'. But there are others, almost all social conservatives, who are actually opposed to clear legal rights and prefer the nothingness of what they refer to as 'traditional British liberties'. This assumes that our common-law system works well (it doesn't), that religionists, for example, should have the 'liberty' to discriminate against others outside the private sphere (they shouldn't), and that majoritarian views are always correct (they aren't)

English common law is a failure: it cannot cope with the contemporary society we live in, and it is no surprise that it is people who generally hate that contemporary society and long to bring back past values who equally fetishise the idea of 'English liberty'.

'Liberty' to discriminate and enforce majoritarian prejudice - no thanks

Nothing better to do

So-called "Labour" MP and full time moral majority member Claire Curtis-Thomas MP, facing the almost certain loss of her constituency at the next election , has returned to her obsession of "lads mags" , this time suggesting they should carry an age limitation.

I find it incredible that this MP, who has virtually disappeared from local public view, cannot deal with things of some importance, rather than indulge her religionist convert mentality. I do not particularly like these sort of magazines but this is just another excuse for her nanny-state Vaticanist moralism.

The idea that people lap up the media in a way which reflects a hypodermic syringe is too simplistic. Lads mags are not particularly intelligent but are hardly hard-core porn.

Karen Matthews and the 'underclass'

Its always the case that any such story brings out the "broken families" nonsense, and provides many opportunities for simplistic grandstanding, and this one is no exception. I do not pretend to have any easy answers. But the following points appear relevant

1. Reducing benefits for larger families will not necessarily prevent the children from being born. Whilst the gaining of benefits may be one of many stated reasons for having children , there is very little evidence that this is the only reason. I think those who consider that removing benefits will automatically lead to less children is naive. Also, what happens to the children themselves? Will they be automatically placed in care? This will be far more expensive than providing benefits, if cost is the ultimate concern. Is there very much evidence that care is better than a dysfunctional family?

2. Early intervention is vital and this may appear to be repressive in that it may involve the removal of the children. I think there remains a conflict, largely the fault of the family values campaigners, who on the one hand, eulogise the family and kick up a fuss whenever a family is split up by social work intervention, yet who suggest the very same intervention and removal if the family is not to their liking. Things like Sure Start in its early guise may help but it appears to have been so diluted that it may now make little impact

3. Undoubtedly there are people who are intergenerationally unemployed. But given that there is not enough work to go around, and that a minimum wage job will not be financially viable to maintain a family of a large number. any solution that focuses on paid work as the only solution is not going to be effective. It would have to include a reform of welfare benefits to ensure that part time and low paid work is actually worthwhile and does not leave the family worse off. Also, good parenting is a full time job and I think it a mistake not to see this as a suitable activity as well.

4. The friends and neighbours of Matthews rallied round and displayed a close knit and supportive community. The idea of the "underclass" may well be faulty. Its originator saw it as referring to whole areas - but this is not the case in Dewsbury (where I used to work) where many people are in low paid work. Its probably not a very helpful term in that it ends up labelling whole groups of people, although there are definitely people who have fallen into a lifestyle which does not include work and who are reliant on benefits. But be realistic - we don;t have jobs for all who want them - and do you think employers are going to be queing up to employ Karen Matthews and others who are long-tern unemployed?

5. If this problem is as serious as suggested, is there a case for restricting the fertility of those unable to care for their own children? I can hear the cries of anguish already - but what other solutions have been suggested which will work? Reducing benefits will only harm the children. If it is irresponsible to have large families, then should smaller families be encouraged? How much coercion do we consider appropriate?

Welfare reforms

I listened to James Purnell today, defending the government's proposed welfare reforms.

Labour have the amazing ability to introduce something I disagree with every time I decide that I realy should join the party again. Sure enough, its not only taking the entirely wrong stance on sex work and mercy-killing, but now the welfare reforms of Purnell.

I am no dinosaur on this matter, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with making the finding of employment a far easier and supported process. But there is a problem with this latest batch of reforms.

First, it assumes there is full employment for all. There isn't. Were it not for the fact that women largely didn't work until the 1970's, the full employment figures of the past would have been rather less full too.

The current plans appear to be particularly targeted on single parents and disabled people, particularly those who have been out of the workforce for a while. But since when has bringing up a child not been a job? Is it really going to benefit lone parents to force them to take work when their children are still small?

And let's get real. In a time of recession, does purnell really think that employers are going to prioritise the employing of people with child care responsibilities and no other carer on call, or people who have been out of the workforce for a while, or those who may be less 'productive' according to the rules of the profit motive? Of course not. If there are not the jobs to go round - and there are not - then those at the back of the queue certainly do not need the sort of pressure which these reforms suggest.

On top of this, it remains a fact that employers remain hostile to part-time employment, and I include supposedly 'progressive' employers in that. Employers want full time staff who they can rely on being 'in position' all week. Once one gets part-time work it is made clear enough that the agenda is for you to go full time as soon as possible - but this simply isn't either feasible for many, or perhaps not what they feel to be best for their well-being? Of course, sharing out the available work is inherently fairer, but the benefit system currently makes matters very difficult for part-time work to pay.

Anyway, there is a petition against the reforms. Please sign it
http://www.compassonline.org.uk/campaigns/campaign.asp?n=3451

The blame game

When will it be accepted that there is absolutely nothing short of removing all children at risk from their parents, which will prevent them killing them if they have a mind to, and public policy wants to keep families together?

Haringey and many other inner-city boroughs are woefully short of staff and will be even more so now - who in their right minds would want to be the fall guy? Their job is impossible

As for the pathetic whining of Damien Green, seems pretty obvious that he used a Tory Boy placeman in the relevant department, to feed him titbits. Iu is NOT an MP's job to leak official documents nor use public servants to do so. he should be ashamed of himself, and would appear a whole lot less culpable if he would shut up and let the police find out what really went on. If he had any moral scruples at all, he would resign not let his pet Tory Boy in the civil service take all the blame.

Tories. Scum, when all is said and done.

Homophobe of the Week

Step forward religionist former PC Graham Cogman, of Norfolk, who couldn't bear to treat gay people equally and felt obliged to circulate anti-gay material via his work email.

If their brand of religionism doesn't allow them to treat people decently then they have no right to hold the jobs they do. Why can't they hold their views but behave professionally at work and accept that gay people have every right to be treated fairly and equally?

Their job is to serve the public - not to inflict their religious prejudices on the job they hold, which is secular and requires respect for diversity.

I really wish we could hear from the Christians who don't agree with these bigots. the problem is that the evangelical extremists, such as those who frequent Anglican Extreme (sorry, Mainstream (sic)), cannot accept any sort of recognition of the right of gay people to live their lives and be respected and recognised in the public sphere. Ideally, they want us to disappear altogether, but if we have to be tiresome enough to exist, accept our place under a stone.

Sorry, fanatics, but those days are gone, and if you wish to work in public service, you need to accept the law as it is and view gay people as equal within civil society. If you can't do that - don't work in any service providing context. The anti-gay view is no longer acceptable under the law with regard to either the equal provision of goods and services, or employment. if you cannot live with that reality - thats your problem.

Tory scum

You know, they say it only needs a crisis to make you realise that really, there still are 'sides' in politics.

The Tories behaviour over the past few weeks has been disgraceful. Showing themselves in their true colurs, it appears that laissez-faire is once again the order of the day.

Question is - should I rejoin Labour?

The whine of the reactionary....

Just heard the whining tones of the evil Nadine Dorries, Tory MP, and mouthpiece of the fundamentalist Christian lobby. The existence of this waste of oxygen is ample reason to question the idea that the Tory party has changed - if so why are they continuing to select reactionary backwoods individuals such as this?

In any case - hasn't Cameron shown this not to be the case by embracing monetarism and spending cuts in their latest economic policy statements.

Same old Tories.

Remembrance Sunday

In my strongly-pacifist days, I always felt very uneasy about Remembrance Sunday. Its still something I can't really feel any great affinity with - just too militaristic for me.

That aside, I wonder how the day will change should those who remember WW2 finally die. I don't think that those of us who cannot remember can give the day anything like the same sort of dignity.

Moreover, as a way of remembering conflict, can the politicised and divisive wars of the post war era bring people together in anything like the same way? The Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan have all been anything but uniting.....

The latest from Vatican plc....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/psychological-tests-for-priests-to-screen-out-homosexuals-1001059.html is the link...

Essentially, it is a link to an article detailing the Vatican's latest plans to root out gay men from Catholic seminaries. Nothing new there, particularly under Gauleiter Ratfinger, well known former member of the Hitler Youth.

There are some questions worth posing.
1. Given that clearly this sort of thing has not made any difference to the intake of gay men into British Catholic seminaries, is there any reason to think it will do so now?
2. This clearly gives the lie to the nonsense that they really only hate us when we do things they don't like. their loathing is far more visceral
3. Given this stance, can we really be sympathetic to gay men who opt for the self-oppressing mode of remaining within this anti-gay institution? They are clearly not wanted and breaking the rules. So why stay within a place where they are clearly not wanted? The only way this can be done is to lie. Is that either healthy or advisable? Should those who follow this path be supported or are they contributing to the oppression of gay people by remaining within such a homophobic institution?

I don't want to sound overly critical. But when does the hypocrisy have to stop and when do these gay men have to say - enough. No more.

The BBC.....

I haven't talked about this yet.....
I'm not a fan of Brand, and Ross is OK but can be a bit self-indulgent. That being said, this is SUCH a storm in a teacup and a total over-reaction.
The original comments were not wise. Its not a god idea to make comments about someone not on the end of the phone. However, it is clear enough that permission was in fact given to broadcast the call or it wouldn't have happened. Changing your mind after the event doesn't give a lot of credibility. Neither does whingeing about something said about one's sex life when proud to be a self-titled Slut. And perhaps a bit less whining from Sachs, famous for one solitary role which takes the piss out of Spaniards, wouldn't be a bad idea. He's complaining again today - 've lost any respect I had for him, and I didn't have a lot in the first place - third-rate bit-part actor who happened to be given a good script.

What this is really about is money. people don't like the idea of Ross getting lots of public money in hard times. Fair enough. But then don't complain when the BBC isn;t able to attract 'big names'. And if the BBC thinks it can continue to win new viewers whilst trying not to offend Daily Mail readers in Torquay - well, you can't please everyone all the time....

More religionist hilarity

Sometimes I think that I write too much about the pathetic and risible activities of religionists. But its just so tempting......
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/martinbeckford/blog/2008/11/06/gay_wedding_dudley_insists_there_was_no_apology_and_no_frank_discussions
is a link to a daily Torygraph (apologies for such infecting of the blog with this unpleasant rag) blog which tells us the latest about Martin Dudley, a London vicar who carried out a blessing for a gay couple.
The church hierarchy wanted to make it appear that he had been severely disciplined. of course, he hadn't. Now, the churchman involved in this case is the entirely vile 'Bishop' Pete (Call Me Pete) Broadbent, who holds deeply homophobic views, yet tries to pretend he is some sort of left wing progressive. He once sat as a Labour councillor, even though he is to the right of Thatcher, and if you talk to anyone who has met this man, the vitriol is only too plain. You never hear anything but negativity about him. My contact has been a series of rude and badly-written emails from when I was still in the church. He is the epitomy of why we should all leave the Church. He is also remarkably easy to wind up.

Broadbent is playing 'bad cop' here, because he knows that there is little he can do. the diocese is stuffed to the gills with closet gays, and it has, laughably, an equal opportunities policy which supposedly includes sexual orientation. You just couldn't make it up. How can you have an equalities policy when you openly and deliberately ban a whole group of people from participation unless you follow their prejudiced and arcane rules found in their Grimm's Fairy Tales 'holy' book. The Bible, think its called - makes great firewood replacement, along with the crucifixes and icons from one's religionist days - try it! Broadbent also made lots of loud noises about not attending the Lambeth conference because of the Gene Robinson issue, yet still won't own his personal homophobia. He is still under the impression that people think he is left-wing, whereas a more apposite representative of Daily Mail thinking, beneath the gloss of episcopal 'call me Pete' trendiness could not be found. A lot of evangelicals are like this - all strumming guitars and clapping, to hide a deeply reactionary set of beliefs. Don't trust them further than you could throw them - snakes, the lot of them.

One could respect these people more if they would be absolutely honest about what they really do think. But given that half the gays in the church are skulking in their closets, and breaking the rules without working for them to be changed, they are the authors of their own oppression.

There is only one logical answer. Ditch the church, ditch Christian oppression.

You know it makes sense.

America, gay marriage, pragmatism, and racism

I've recently been drawn to a blog I sometimes visit - Mad Priest's Of course, I Could Be Wrong - http://revjph.blogspot.com/

There has recently been some controversy over the use of the 'N' word in discussion about the rejection of gay marriage in California and the fact that black voters opposed it. I found it amusing that homophobic, gay-baiting sites such as Stand Firm, run by Gauleiter Matt Kennedy, far-right by anyone's reckoning, has come over all moral and anti-racist (I think he rather likes blacks because so many are anti-gay - doesn't seem so keen on those who aren't, such as Barack Obama!) Anyway, being criticised by that bunch of religionist swivel-eyed loons can only be seen as something to be congratulated about....so well done, Mad Priest! They banned me years ago - poor things can't cope with anything outside their rather pathetic little world-view.

Anyway, I'm not going to get drawn in to the race issue with regard to this question but I think its primarily about religion, not race per se. And I think this is the problem. The US gay movement appears to be determined to get religion on their side and so works for things which are unlikely to be fulfilled until that country is considerably more secular. The gay marriage issue is the classic example.

In the UK, we have civil partnership. It brings all the benefits, rights and responsibilities of civil marriage, but its got an official different name, and the church aren't involved. And thats because the church is homophobic. Parts of it are trying not to be, but essentially, Christianity is a homophobic religion, and the sooner gay people abandon it to its own fate, the better. That's the conclusion I have reached, in any case. So, what makes sense is to let them get on with it and to work for what is possible. And it seems to me that the US gay movement has lost a sense of pragmatism. Had we said 'nothing but marriage is good enough', then we may not have made any progress at all. But civil partnership is here, here to stay, and now relatively uncontroversial. Tie it up with religion and then wonder why it causes so much angst.

Barack Obama has made it clear that he supports civil unions, but not marriage. Fair enough. Work with him to bring forth legal equality at a federal level but don't get tied up with the unattainable. Will they do this, or will they continue to reject pragmatism - and get nowhere??

Obama

The election of Obama has made me remember this blog again!
It was a convincing win, and whatever one's views, quite an amazing event. I don't think anyone seriously thought that a black American could be elected President until a year or so ago. I think Obama is highly impressive, and I like his calmness and intelligence. The fact that a liberal black Democrat from a Northern state has been elected convincingly - and encouragingly, that young Americans appear to have shifted clearly in a liberal direction - has to be most encouraging. The demographic trends are favourable.

What is more, look at the reaction of the conservatives. Mad Mel Phillips is foaming at the mouth, after having made all sorts of quite ludicrous claims about Obama over the past few months. The religious conservatives on sites such as Stand Firm are fuming. Furious.

To make them so mad, this man must have something. They recognise that their arguments meant nothing and that their reactionary creed is, again, taking a beating, particularly amongst younger voters.

Julie Bindel and Stonewall

There has been quite an outcry over the decision of the nominating committee at Stonewall (who is on the committee - any insight?) to shortlist Julie Bindel as Journalist of the Year. She is one of a , thankfully, dying and outdated breed of antiquated 'radical' feminists - I use the word in inverted commas as they are in fact deeply conservative and reactionary. Her obsessions are: imposing her views on groups working with sex workers, even when they don't agree. The best example was the situation in Liverpool - which I doubt she has ever visited, but still felt able to overturn local research and wishes. Second obsession is wanting to abolish jury trials for rape. This is owing to the unsatisfactory level of convictions in such cases. That is something many people are concerned about,. but the problem is and will always be that any system which relies on proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt will always be difficult when no witnesses are present.

But her third obsession is dislike of transsexuals, to the extent that she has resurrected the arguments of Janice Raymond et al. These have been pretty much discredited all told.

I certainly agree that she has the right to express her mistaken view, although I think the Guardian should have more sense than to give her ill-informed rants any space. But it makes no sense at all for Stonewall to give them any credibility. They have made a mistake and should admit it.

Offshore investors

Just been watching a news bulletin where people who had invested offshore are bemoaning their being treated like 'lepers'.

Well, if the shoe fits - these people decided to try and evade their social responsibility by placing their money in tax free environments. Now, they pay the cost, and I have precisely NO sympathy for them at all.

They reap what they sow. There are good times, and there are bad. They accept that they benefited from boom, and they lose during bust.

Defeat for 42 day detention without trial

And i should think so too. Not only is there a loophole which can be used in particularly difficult cases, like other countries, we should simply charge those we suspect and have evidence about. Why the Government allowed themselves to go up this dead end is anyone's guess. The outcome was obvious.

The Killing of Thomas Hurndall

Currently watching this very powerful C4 drama. A no doubt ironical comment about Israel being a 'democracy'. Wrong. It is nothing of the sort. It is a confessional state established out of a sense of misplaced guilt, and should never have been created. The supposed need for a Jewish state is no excuse for the initial confiscation of others' land, let alone their behaviour ever since, which if not for the USA's support would have seen the country fall many years ago. I still think it is unlikely that Israel will survive, long-term, and neither should it. This drama sums up exactly why. It has become a millitaristic bandit country which deserves the epithet 'fascist' every bit as much as the nation which helped to bring it into existence. I cannot see a two state solution happening now, more's the pity, but the time for such compromise seems to have passed. Israel's continued existence in its current position is a threat to world peace, and some other long-term solution will need to be found.

Little comment says it all

You may well have already gathered from my topics chosen on the blog that economics doesn't interest me all that much, but at the moment the papers are full of little else

It is interesting that there appears to be a good deal of consensus, and I have very great doubts as to whether this or any other government will sell on their interests in the banks in future.

Monetarism is clearly heaving its last gasp along with the myth of the unfettered free market, and am sure that Keynes is having a chuckle wherever he is.....

Cameron may still be elected but unless they make a major U-turn, it is hardly going to be under policies recognisable as Tory in recent years. I really don't think he is up to it and hope that somehow, this will be accepted. If we are going to have more social-democratic policies and economic interventionism and regulation, then i would rather it was done by Labour.

Kelly's departure....

Think this just about sums it up

Mike

More from Labour....

Brown's speech was OK. It was serviceable and will keep him in post for the time being. But his future and that of the Government will not depend on a single speech.

As for Ruth Kelly's departure....I can't pretend to be anything other than pleased that she has gone. In my view, no-one associated with Opus Dei, essentially the voice of neo-fascism within Vatican plc, should have even been allowed on the candidates list for the Labour party. However, whether her reasons for resignation are genuine or not has raised some interesting issues about the expectations that we have of MP's and ministers. Is it really possible for them to live lives even approaching 'normality'?

I also listened to an interesting feature on the radio this morning which looked at people's choices with regard to their jobs. A number of callers noted how difficult it was to return to work after a break, and moreover, how difficult it was to get any sort of professional post on a part-time basis. I think this is something the Government could have done far more about. The negativity towards part time staff is legendary, and I'm afraid I have found the unions of very little help. If anything, in my field, their promotion of full time secure jobs make it all the worse for those of us who don't actually want to work full time....

First day of the Labour conference

Far from the bloodbath which the press were no doubt looking forward to, the conference was instead, remarkable only because of its sheer dullness. The open defiance of Brown appears to have subsided somewhat, but for how long? here doesn't seem to be very much there to inspire or excite - but really, how could there be? Other than the Government turning round and saying, yes, we got much of the last 11 years wrong, what can they say which will have any credibility?

Miliband's speech was OK, I think he may well be less of a turn-off than Brown, but I wouldn't expect the policies to change greatly. In such circumstances, who else than Labour should be sorting out the city? But they have spent so long slobbering over every word they say, would anyone believe them?

I still think the Tories would be worse than Labour. But there is nothing here which inspires, nothing which would make me want to go out and campaign again.

Well said, Baroness Warnock

Refreshing to hear someone talking sense. Whilst the medical profession insists on developing medications to keep us alive whilst being unable to deal with the effects of ageing, there is a studious inability to get to grips with the consequences. The social services play on people's feelings of guilt in order to reduce their provision, and rely on informal care. And the consequences? Generally disastrous, though again, no-one is honest enough to admit it. Thanks to Baroness Warnock for doing so, despite the whines of religionists and the self-interest groups such as the Alzheimers Society.

We need legalised voluntary euthanasia and the sooner the better.

Sucking up to the City

I don't always agree with Ian Hislop, but he was right on the money with his comment on the Government and the City - pointing out that Government had spent the last 10 years sucking up to them, and forgetting that markets are amoral and so require regulation.

Of course, there are limited measures Government can take, but quite how anyone can now regard the free market as the best way to run a modern economy is anyone's guess. Yet we have three main parties none of who are prepared to be as critical as necessary. The forked-tongue words of the other parties don't wash either. The Tories are equally wedded to the free market, and whilst Cable has warned about the danger of easy credit in the past, the LD's themselves are moving in a more market-orientated direction, not less.

Only the State can regulate these markets. Its about time that the Government started being proper social democrats. They interfere where the State should not encroach, yet they will not use the necessary regulation to prevent the charlatans of the City behaving in a completely unacceptable way. Even now these people are walking away with massive bonuses.

It is simply a disgrace from a so-called Labour government

The Liberal Democrats

Today, the Liberal Democrats, who I had considered as a possible home for my vote at the next election displayed that they have abandoned social democracy and become a fully fledged neo-liberal party. Indistinguishable from the Tories, only with a leader even more toe-curlingly yeuch. Not progressive in the least - right wing, pure and simple. The outcome of tax cuts will be service cuts. One leads to another - it's obvious to everyone else, but clearly not to these neo-liberals.

I won't be voting for Clegg under any circumstances. Let them chase Tory voters - why vote for the pretend Tories when the real ones are credible?

Boston and Cape Cod

Got back a couple of days ago from a very good holiday on America's East Coast. Boston is a great city - quieter than New York, but busier than San Fran. Lots of seafood, plenty to do - including some quite unusual attractions. Its the birthplace of Christian Science, and the Mary Baker Eddy museum is fascinating indeed. I have a copy of Science and Health, but have never read it in depth....included within the museum is the Mapparium, a model of the earth and its countries dated 1935 which you enter - its a huge globe.
Did a bit of travelling round - wineries in Connecticut and Rhode Island (two more states visited....) and a trip up the coast to Gloucester and Rockport. The latter is particularly pleasant.

Cape Cod was charming - Provincetown is delightful, and early September is a good time to visit.

Whilst we were there, the truly dreadful Sarah Palin was chosen as republican VP candidate. Loathsome woman, vile views. The thought of her as president is risible: she really does sum up everything wrong with America. But I don;t think her appeal is as great as reported - she seems to have roused democrats into action. I think that black voter turnout may be key.

My article in Liverpool Confidential....

http://www.liverpoolconfidential.com/index.asp?Sessionx=IpqiNwEiNwfnI0qiNwF6IHqi&realname=Pride_and_prejudice

Some interesting comments - here is the text

AUGUST Bank Holiday is all about civic festivals, and not just Mathew Street. Every year at this time, the call goes out: Liverpool needs its own Gay Pride celebrations.

This is inevitably accompanied by a wistful glance 33 miles east to Manchester, to compare the two cities in terms of their gay-friendliness or homophobia. The conclusion is often unfavourable to Liverpool, and issues like a local Pride, and a more high-profile, developed “gay quarter” are often viewed as ways of making improvements.

Liverpool is not Manchester, and even if there was a concerted effort to improve or promote Liverpool as a gay-friendly destination, with the policies to accompany it, the outcome would not be a clone of Manchester. And is that what anyone really wants?

When these conversations begin, I often feel like the resident wet weekend (other than the one which will inevitably accompany the Manchester event), expressing doubts as to whether either of these things will really make any great difference.

Let’s start with Manchester's Gay Village. The “village” idea has always been more about hope than reality. It is essentially a commercial zone where there are selections of drinking establishments, most of which are owned by the major breweries, all of which are either gay-identified or gay-friendly. The old chestnut about the invasion of hen nights and tourists is well-worn and, given that barriers and entrance fees exist only for the duration of Pride, where gay people have to pay to enter “their” village, this is unlikely to change. There is a barbers, a taxi firm, a GP surgery, and a florist. But does this consist of a village – or simply a specific commercial district? And while, at least, the volume of drinking spaces does mean some variety, there is a clear tendency for a shift in at least some of Manchester’s lesbian and gay socialising towards the more cultural Northern Quarter, or suburbs such as Chorlton.

The Village was the product of particular circumstances. It emerged in a political climate where a combination of equality activism, sympathetic businesses, beneficial planning and regeneration initiatives, and a (pro-gay) city council wanting to take a pop at the (anti-gay) Tory government of the day came together at an opportune moment.

It is no coincidence that no other city has actually produced anything similar. The same reference points may be used – zones, villages, and so on – but Manchester’s Gay Village is a product of a particular time and place. It developed organically, and if Manchester was starting from scratch today in terms of creating a gay-friendly commercial zone, then I think it certain that the outcome would look nothing like the Gay Village. And the Village itself is not at all as some of the more visionary hopes for it at its outset.

So, when discussing Liverpool’s commercial gay scene, I would question whether the Village analogy is either helpful, or particularly useful. Liverpool is not Manchester: and even if there was a concerted effort to improve or promote Liverpool as a gay-friendly destination, with the policies to accompany it, the outcome would not be a clone of Manchester. And is that what anyone really wants?

Much the same can be said about Pride. In recent years, Gay Prides have been contracting rather than expanding, and with the many legal changes which have benefited gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people, the initial reason for their existence has changed.

Gay Prides can be an exhilarating experience. My first Prides were in the late 80s, the days of Thatcher and Section 28, and they were times when there was clearly all to fight for. That hasn’t entirely gone away. Recent events have demonstrated that the issue of homophobic violence remains all too real, and the presence of people who are proud of and open about their sexuality has been and remains a vital element in combating this sort of threat.

But would a Liverpool Pride really assist this? The easiest sort of Pride to organise is the standard formula of “march followed by party in the park”. Sometimes the march ends up being abandoned altogether, or entirely overshadowed by the party. And is it really worth all the effort to provide a one day event where people can get pissed and dance to Kylie?

It’s almost as if that is typical of what gay and lesbian people do all the time – whereas I would argue that those who use the commercial scene regularly make up a small proportion of the gay population.

I’m not a party-pooper, and I have been to fantastic Prides in San Francisco and Amsterdam which are major events in those cities’ calendars for the whole community to enjoy. But given that Liverpool Pride isn’t going to be on that scale, I would question whether it is the best use of time, money and energy. Liverpool does have both a specific lesbian and gay film festival (Outsiders), and a yearly arts/cultural festival (Homotopia) and they are both things which few other cities have. Perhaps our energies might be better spent looking for and developing initiatives which won’t turn out to be pale copies of those which exist elsewhere.

And in doing this, local councils and other providers need to ensure that community development money and necessary support is provided to ensure that Liverpool and the rest of Merseyside becomes a genuinely inclusive and gay-friendly environment – and that means a far more profound cultural shift than simply creating pedestrianised commercial zones or single-day drink-fests.

Does Cameron agree with this?

The Policy Exchange, Cameron's favourite think-tank, has advocated an abandonment of regional strategy and suggests that we should all move down south instead....

This isn't going to happen. I'm not going to look at the various reasons as to why this is not a sensible idea. What is clear is that this proposal would be unpopular in the South. It would mean huge amounts of building across the green belt. It would certainly threaten the so-called green strategy of the Conservatives. And how exactly would it fit with the development of stable and supportive communities and greater social cohesion and participation if we are all living in new towns? Not to mention the quality of life in heavily built up areas far from the coast. I can't somehow think that people in those areas would be happy to suddenly find a million new houses created around them. The tendency would be to create very inward-looking and privatised residential areas - which wouldn't contribute to the sort of social setting the conservatives supposedly support.

The answer is to move jobs to people, but that requires something other than the workings of the free market, which does not create anything approaching sustainability or coherence. Sadly, much regional policy has also been equally inept.

Oh, and all the authors of this report are based in London!

And there seems to be an assumption that everyone can be prosperous. Not the case. Capitalism requires winners and losers. You would simply shift problems elsewhere.

Georgia, Russia and the like

The problem with this entire question is that there is a lack of consistency.

I'm no great fan of Russia but if one thing has managed to retain its salience it is the pull of romantic Russian nationalism. It is very much the basis of the appeal of Putin.

In addition, the support of small nations to achieve independent governance is clear enough, Kosovo being the latest example.

In this situation, isn't it clear that the two renegade Georgian provinces should be able to return to Russia if they wish? They are not ethnically Georgian, their inhabitants regard themselves as Russian, and they are Russian citizens.

And whilst the Georgian leader may have designs on joining NATO, hasn't this been made extremely unlikely? Does NATO really want the equivalent of a yappy, bad tempered terrier snapping at the heels of the local Great Dane?

Boycott the Olympics

It has become crystal clear that the Chinese government's position on a range of human rights issues has not improved as a result of the Olympics. If anything, it has become worse.

The Olympics, that corrupt drug-fest of chemical endeavour and ridiculous nationalism, just about deserves the Chinese! I shall not be watching any of it, and I hope others will be joining me. The Chinese should have never been given such a free publicity opportunity in the first place, and given the widespread use of drugs, does the entire event have any credibility any more?

Some random thoughts

A few interesting titbits to chew on.....

I really ought not to start with the Church. But I have to! Rowan Williams has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that his position is simply not credible. Those of you who have been involved ot exposed to far left politics will be aware of the idea of democratic centralism. This is the expectation that one's own publicly stated position will change in line with the expressed view of the party. RW has demonstrated that his way of working is essentially the same. So, he holds his own view, but lies about it in public, and goes as far as to defend a view which he does not hold.

I don't honestly care if he can cite ecclesiological reasons for doing this. Its a form of 'heavenly deception': in colloquial terms, he lies, and misrepresents his true view. In doing so he entirely removes himself from any consideration of integrity. If you believe something, then you should say so and defend it. The alternative is that you are seen to be a duplicitous liar. the result of that is that you treat your supposed friends appallingly even though you supposedly hold views sympathetic to them. There simply in so excuse, no reasoning which can justify RW's stance. I can think of few people I despise more. He still has time to admit that he has lied and that he has been dishonest. But I don't think he is able to understand the depth of his hypocrisy and the lack of integrity he has.

Politics. Dearie me.....the comrades in my erstwhile party continue to tear each other to bits. The problem is that without a clear ideological reason for existence, one has to ask what the Labour party is for? More and more, we have a public choice of A and B, both following essentially the same path. This has its advantages. The Tories won't be repealing the gay rights legislation and have made it clear that they accept the progressive outcome of legislative changes. This comes as no surprise, since the changes have proved to be largely uncontroversial, albeit some institutions on both sides of the debate have made a pigs ear out of implementation (think Church of England, Islington Council). But it does mean that political choices will be based largely on who the electorate are less bored with.

More later....

Religionist symbols and the law

I can't quite decide what I think about this.

On the one hand, I can't really be sympathetic to the pernickety policies in both workplace and school which make such a song-and-dance about jewellery, which the religious symbols usually are declared unacceptable within.

On the other hand, there are certainly situations where I think some religious symbols might be considered problematic. The full veil may not be suitable in all work environments where communication is needed. There is also a case for ensuring the religion remains in the private sphere but until Christian religionists accept this, they cannot impose it upon minority religions

But when it comes to a bangle - really, does it cause that much of a problem? It is well known that it is a symbol for Sikhs and it doesn't really cause all that many problems.

I am quite sure if there was a Christian equivalent - something which was considered to be an integral part of following the religion, then there wouldn't be so much fuss made....

Mary Honeyball - well said

It is such a relief when a politician doesn't spend all their time crawling and slobbering over evil organisations such as Vatican plc.

Mary Honeyball MEP has been doing a sterling job at exposing their hypocrisy and their underhand attempt to impose their religionism upon those of us who choose to have nothing at all to do with Catholicism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/20/cardinalssins
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/25/catholicism.eu
http://maryhoneyballmep.blogspot.com/

Glasgow East

The victory of the SNP came as no surprise to me. In one way it was quite refreshing, as their candidate was determinedly uncharismatic, rather like an animated garden gnome. But most of all, their platform was very much one of the promotion of social democratic policies, which Labour ought to be carrying out.

I was a Blairite once. Correction. I still think that there were aspects of the Blair government policies which I welcomed and think were very positive. However, their mistake was to be too entranced with their huge majority. The problem is that MP's never want to consider losing their seats. Governments do not need majorities of over 100 to govern, and in gaining such a majority, there were Labour MP's in some very unlikely places, who only voted Labour simply because the Tories were so inept and unelectable. The voters in some of those seats are and remain right-of-centre, and it meant that Labour MP's were constantly looking over their shoulders, fearful of doing anything which might possibly upset those fairweather voters. Of course, the vast majority of them fled after 1997, and simply didn't vote in 2001. By 2005 some had returned, and who knows, were it not for the presence of Dracula, a hung parliament may have been likely. Since then the Tories have become credible, international trends have led to economic downturn, and Labour have managed to upset and annoy almost everyone.

The core Labour vote see little in the way of genuine redistribution and a demonisation of the poor. The middle class guardianista vote ( which is obviously people like me) liked the cultural liberalism of NL but we don't like the foreign policy and are often in the position of seeing little real difference between what Labour in government is doing and what the Tories are promising. Or the LD's , for that matter. three identikit centre parties. No wonder it becomes so easy just to shift to a fresher, brighter model.

Not being of the far left, I would simply want the government to return to essential social democratic values. Forget Essex Man, and gaining large parliamentary majorities - not needed for government. Look towards those who are simply not going to bother to vote in the next election but are still essentially Labour. There is such a thing as the electoral cycle, and it is likely that the Tories will be elected next time no matter what the government do, simply because most governments get voted out after a long time in office ( and sometimes when they don't the outcome is disastrous - the Tories should not have won in 92 and reaped the consequences). But some basic social democracy would be a good idea. For a start, a ban on bonuses to company directors, particularly those in the city. A more protectionist policy in terms of trade ( about time Fortress Europe really did come into existence!). Restructure of the tax system which is far too flat and taxes the low paid at a far too early rate. Abandonment of PFI. Windfall taxes on profiteers. We need a party which has a properly sceptical view of the market - for it is the free market which has caused the current problems. It cannot be the solution.

More conservative religionist nonsense

This time emanating from that well-known centre of progress and democracy, Sudan - how much easier it would be to take anything African religious leaders seriously if their countries didn't do so very much to give succour to colonialist sympathisers! In this case we are talking about a country where the Christians are so right wing that their ideals are little better than Sharia law, and where the country has been plagued with religious and communal violence, encouraged by the Church. They are so concerned to appear even more conservative than fundamentalist Muslims that they expect Anglicans to go down the same path, worldwide.

They are trying to blackmail the American church by telling them to get rid of Bishop Gene Robinson.

This particular Bishop said that he knows no gay people and that in Sudan "we do not have them"

In other words, too scared to be anything other than hidden because of the Muslims and the Christians. Delightful. And he thinks it right that Christians essentially support Sharia law so they don't lose support to fundamentalist Muslims. He thinks that its OK to be homophobic so, according to his warped logic, less people will be murdered by fundamentalist Muslims.

What rot. The thing which gets people murdered is the war between two sets of premodern religious extremists. They are two sides of the same coin. Muslims in Sudan hate Christians no matter what they happen to teach. Using the presence of liberal Christians in the West is a shameful distortion of his own country's lack of civilised values. If he was any sort of leader, he would be rejecting those premodern values.

I have a better idea

How about all you pre-modern primitive thinkers fuck off and play fundamentalism with one another - and whilst you are at it, lets have you stop asking all these terrible liberal countries for money. Now, that's something African countries are very good at - other than internet corruption scams! No more aid from these dreadful Western countries with their horrible liberal ideas. After all, how can you condemn Western morality on the one hand and be happy to accept its assistance on the other?

In any case, aid should only be given as long as population control is part of the package, and no support should be given to governments who will simply waste the money and have no democratic foundation. Ludicrous amounts ogf money have been wasted in Africa, and I thiunk that sometimes, we have to stand back and ask some hard questions. And I think it is my colleagues on the Left who have the most to answer - particularly the third world can do no wrong brigade.

Nick Clegg and taxation

I'm not keen on Nick Clegg. Given my current antipathy towards Labour, you would think that, recognising that there is really quite a large group of people who feel similarly, he would have the sense to look towards winning out votes. But not so.

The latest wheeze from this Cameron-lite insignificant nothingness is that he thinks taxation should be reduced. he makes the usual vacuous comments about how much scrapping ID cards would save - and , because he hasn't actually sat down and thought it through, then starts to go on about the savings which could be made through 'waste' reduction.

The Tories were always ranting on about this and they didn't appear to manage to do much about it for the 18 years they were in power. Its a smokescreen - and shows that, sadly, the LD's are really bereft of original and creative ideas. Yes - the taxation system is not progressive enough and, in particular is too high at its lowest end and too low at the higher end. But the idea that taxes overall could be cut without nit having a detrimental affect on services is moonshine. Clegg just isn't up top the job: he's a jumped up school prefect who seems to do little but try to sound like a weaker version of Cameron. Because that is actually what he is.

I won't vote for the sitting Labour MP in the constituency I will be voting in next time, so unless there's a Green or some sort of alternative candidate on the left to vote for this may be my first spoilt ballot paper.....

The proposed welfare reforms

I haven't read these in depth yet, but have heard the Minister responsible talk about them.

There seems to me to be a basic problem. I am quite happy about having personalised responses to unemployment. Makes sense. Encouraging private sector American companies to provide that service is another matter. I'm also OK about helping people in a practical and hands on way.

However, there are three major problems with this plan.
1. There are not enough full time jobs for everyone who wants them at wages which make it realistic for people to take them. Of course you will have seasonal minimum-wage work available in the Lake District - not a lot of use if you happen to have dependants and live in St. Helen's. So, yes, young people from Eastern Europe will come over and do them for a year before returning, and that is a lot simpler than trying to relocate a family to an expensive area and expecting them to survive on low wages.
2. Making empty threats about removing benefits from people with drug problems who won;t accept help is grandstanding. The main reason people don;t accept help is because what there is on offer is largely crap and based around becoming addicted to methadone instead of heroin. Proper rehab costs. You can't get that on the NHS
3. And this, to me, is the main issue. If there are necessary community based jobs which need doing, then why aren't these being created as proper jobs and ringfenced for the long term unemployed?

Israel

I tend to be something of an agnostic on the whole Middle East issue. The complexities of the situation are immense, and the intransigence of the participants such that it makes Paisley and Adams look like Liberal Democrats. I sympathise with the plight of the Palestinians, I also think Hamas is a pretty vile organisation and if I thought I was constantly at risk of being bombed I may react irrationally too. I also think that Israeli expansionism has brought much of its problems upon itself.

That being said. Let us be practical. There are always going to be a lot more Arabs in the Middle East than Israelis. With attitudes being as they are, can there ever be peace? Can a two-state solution ever work? And what, ultimately, matters more - peace in the region or the Zionist right of Israel to have their state there?

Reluctantly, it has to be the former. So, I think the mistake being made is not to question the sense of expecting there to be peace whilst Israel still exists. If land was needed for a safe space for Jewish people, then those responsible for their oppression should have provided it (Germany and Russia)- not displacement of another set of people to assuage the guilt of the west. There was a case for a safe space, I think that a quasi-religious claim to land should have been rejected.

I don't think that the continuation of Israel is feasible. Whether it be a good thing or not, is not the point. The point is, or should be, that its existence remains and will always be, a threat to world peace. I rather wish that were not the case, for there is much to admire about Israel - like being the only liberal and reasonably gay-friendly nation in that region, for example. But I simply don't see how the ring of hostile nations around it and ever going to be anything but hostile, and the impact that has on the stability of the region is obvious.

The anger of religionist conservatives

There are various ways that one can make a point. Sometimes, it takes a lot of work, making sure that you get everything right, that you dot the i's and cross the t's.

Other times, your opponents make it easy for you.

Take the arguments about gay equality. The reliance of opponents on essentially falling back on 'yuk-factor' arguments which were so blatantly homophobic those in the middle didn't want to be associated with them was a great boon to those working for equality.

We see much the same happening in the CofE. Basically, the conservatives are getting so ridiculously angry that they fail to see where they are falling into traps, or where their oft-heard cries that they really don't hate gays at all are belied by the sheer fury and nastiness of their pet blogs. The sheer loathing and personal nastiness they display to Bishop Gene Robinson is an example ( have a look at Stand Firm website for examples)

The problem they have is that they don't see how Gene comes over to those not involved. He is great on the media. Like ot loathe what he has to say, he has the common touch, and he comes over as warm and folksy as the good ol' Southern boy he is. And whilst he does this, his opponents get angrier and angrier. They just don't see how the average CofE parishioner isn't impressed with hecklers disturbing a church service - whether that be Peter Tatchell or some unnamed fundamentalist.

Then you have silliness such as trying to find out whether Gene Robinson is to celebrate the Eucharist whilst in the UK. Its obvious that no group is going to respond to an inquisitory email by a known opponent of gay equality who has set himself up as a professional anti-gay campaigner online (amusingly, one who started off ranting about how he preached without permission whereas he is not prevented from preaching - which has now been acknowledged). Yet this same person kept digging - and digging. And just doesn't see how he comes over and how the axe he has to grind is crowding out the issues and making him, and only him, look daft.

OK, we have our goons too - those who won't accept sensible compromises ( who really cares what CP's are called when they give you all the rights of civil marriage and when everyone calls it marriage anyway?), those who pursue agendas which don't have wider support (reduction of the general age of consent - I don't support that, I don't think any of the sensible groups do) - and those who manage to lose tribunals by their sheer ineptitude and failure to carry out basic procedures and treat everyone fairly.

But I think that sometimes, we end up winning arguments largely because of the inability of our opponents to argue cogently and because, quite simply, they are too furiously angry to appreciate their image to those who have no strong feelings.

Question

I wonder why those who claim to have altered their sexual orientation feel that they need to spend so much time online trying to convince themselves? If its not posts about how great it is to be heterosexual, its pictures of marital beds, wives, or offspring.

The insecurity is all too apparent, and mildly amusing that they seem to think that anyone is fooled.

Poor dears. Wonder if it stops them thinking about those broad backs, footballer's thighs and fat sausages when they do the biz with Wifey?

Knife crime

I don't intend to write much about this. If I had any coherent answer then I would be doing more than just writing about it on here.

Two points, though. There seems to be a lack of logic in the 'prison is the answer to everything' brigade point of view. They appear to argue, on the one hand, that we are in the grip of a liberal left establishment who won't adopt tough sentencing. They then argue that the only reason the government do not make prison sentences for knife possession mandatory is because there aren't enough room in the prisons.

Now, if we were dominated by liberal penal policy, then the prisons would be empty , wouldn't they, because none of these lefty do-gooders would ever send anyone to prison. In reality, the prison population is higher than ever before and prisons are bursting at the seams. So who exactly is sentencing all these people? The reality is that far from pursuing a liberal regime, there has been a singular lack of imagination and a continuation of the 'prison works' philosophy.

Which it clearly doesn't, or so many people wouldn't keep going back.

The other issue is the flawed idea of hospital visits. Restorative justice is a good idea, and it has a pedigree which displays its effectiveness ( as does community punishment if done properly). But I can't see what use random visits to hospital wards would be. bring offenders face to face with what they have done and the consequences, yes - but to try and do this with general incidents is pointless. Not to mention inappropriate in that environment.

Barmy libertarians at it again.....

Libertarians are nuts. Bonkers. They exist in some sort of parallel universe which believes that everyone can somehow do exactly as they wish to do without it affecting anyone else. Amusingly, some of the more loopy specimens loathe the police whilst supporting self-styled militias and wider gun ownership, whilst also affecting a hardline stance on law and order, usually tied up with a bit of good old fashioned racism.

The latest wheeze are whingeing on about speed cameras. Now, I wouldn't imagine that anyone likes them all that much. But the real complaint of the libby loons is that - wait for it - they are ' a tax on the motorist'.

Now, this may have escaped the attention of our free marketeer friends, but there is a simple answer to this, and its something they love ranting on about. personal responsibility. you see, people only have to pay fines when they speed. And, believe it or not, the aim of speed cameras is to act as a deterrent to people speeding. So, no speeding, no fines.
One can only assume that their love for 'Laura Norder' only extends to things which don't affect them. When, quite sensibly, cameras are introduced to deal with the unacceptably high deaths on the roads, the only reason they make a penny for the local authority is because stupid drivers are unable to take responsibility for their own speeding.

Therefore, they are not a tax on 'the motorist' but on the criminally irresponsible, who don't appear to realise that a car is a lethal weapon when driven too fast

Hypocrisy and Thatcher

In the news this weekend was a proposal that the evil hag who set out to destroy this city in the 1980's is to be given a state funeral.
Well, I shall have the champagne on ice on the day she dies, and don't care who knows it.

Lower than vermin. That's what Bevan said, and he is right to this day - pity the Labour party have forgotten that fact.

Bishop Gene Robinson

Since departing from the Church, I now look on as an outsider - but its good to see Gene standing up for equality and acceptance. I think he is brave, inspiring and, unlike the vast majority of other bishops, actually comes across well on the media!

And anyone who gets called a heretic by some loud-mouthed fundamentalist has to be doing something right!

The United Nations - what is the point?

There is nothing wrong with international co-operation, indeed, it has to be seen as a Good thing. But the latest little wheeze, where those sterlking democracies of Russia and China used their veto to prevent economic action being taken against Zimbabwe, displays to me that this organisation is toothless and quire possibly entirely redundant.

Mock-democratic oligarchies such as Russia and the Chinese dictatorship - soon to be given ample publicity by way of the Olympics (in which all who compete should be thoroughly ashamed) making decisions on behalf of the international community - not worth the paper they are written on, all told.

Barclays Bank, Standard Chartered Bank and the mining corporations Anglo American and Rio Tinto have decided to stay in Zimbabwe. Given the past actions of Barclays, the Apartheid bank, and RTZ, who can be in the least surprised?

Life can be a bit trying....

Apologies for having ignored the blog in recent weeks - combination of a lot of short-term contract work and a family crisis.....

But...some comments on the big issues

Women bishops: has to be a Good Thing. The conservative Anglo-Catholics don't like it, but then that is to be expected. many of them are closet gays who can't form decent relationships and, frankly, are more screwed up about relationships and sexuality than those outside the institution. They also can't cope with women, hence the creation of an exclusive little fairy ring within a homophobic institution for them to hide in and self-flagellate via casual sex they shouldn't be having according to what they are supposed to believe.
Let's make it clear. No excuse for gay priests in the closet pretending to be something they are not. None at all, ever, under any circumstances. It is hypocrisy. Come out, fight for change, and win respect for doing so.
And I do think a church with women bishops will be more open to change in the area of sexual orientation, largely because there won't be quite as much of that visceral 'yuk factor' which is at the heart of so many homophobes' fears.

The NHS: the 60th anniversary was celebrated at a time when the scourge of PFI has literally eaten up all the additional money ploughed into the system, and where NHS dentistry is likely to become a thing of the past in the next few years. I have recently agreed to join the local LINK, which is the half-baked new labour replacement for the PPI Forums. They weren't perfect but at least we were able to make some changes and representations. these Links are barely talking shops which appear to me to have no teeth and no clout - and they are likely to be full of organisational placepersons afraid of speaking out of line for fear of losing their grants....

The Labour party: continues to sink in the polls and deservedly so. I think there needs to be a major change of direction, but perhaps that will have to happen in opposition. I think that the Tories will have huge expectations placed upon them and given that their policies are either the same or argue that government can't do anything anyway, expect their honeymoon to be very short indeed.

Everton FC: Where are the signings, Moyesy? Why do we always leave it to the last minute?

More to come....back to work....

A further petition....

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Stopdeportinggay/

This is directed at the Prime Minister and looks at the more general issue of deporting gay and lesbian people back to repressive regimes where they face almost certain persecution and death

Prossy Kakooza must stay

Furing nthe surreal press conference for the fringe fundamentalists of the African-led 'churches', the usual suspects deniewd the existence of violence against gay and lesbian people in their countries.

This is the truth

Prossy Kakooza is a 26-year-old woman seeking asylum in the UK. She fled Uganda after suffering vicious sexual, physical and verbal attacks due to her sexual orientation.

Prossy had been forced into an engagement when her family discovered her relationship with the girlfriend she met at university, Leah. Both women were marched two miles naked to the police station, where they were locked up.

Prossy’s inmates subjected her to gross acts of humiliation. She was violently raped by police officers who taunted her with derogatory comments like ‘’we’ll show you what you’re missing’’ and ‘’you’re only this way because you haven’t met a real man’’. She was also scalded on her thighs with hot meat skewers.

Prossy was eventually taken out of prison after her father bribed the guards. Her family had decided they would sacrifice her instead, believing this would ‘’take the curse away from the family’’.

Whilst her family were making arrangements to slaughter her, Prossy managed to flee to the United Kingdom to seek asylum.

When Prossy went for treatment to her local GP’s surgery in the UK they were so shocked by the extent of her injuries they called the police.
She was taken to the St. Mary’s Centre in Manchester, and she is still receiving counselling there for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Prossy’s asylum application has been refused by the Home Office, who acknowledge she was brutally raped and burnt because of the medical evidence, but have dismissed these appalling attacks as ‘’the random actions of individuals’’, and state she can be returned to a different town in Uganda.

This judgement ignores the clear danger to gay people throughout the country where the penalty for homosexuality is life imprisonment.

Also, in Uganda, you cannot settle in a new town without a reference from your previous village, and on the basis she is a lesbian, Prossy would be subjected to similar persecution wherever she went.

We consider that if Prossy is sent back, she faces the continuing threat of incarceration, and further sickening attacks - which next time may be fatal.

Prossy is a highly educated woman who can be a productive member of society.

She has a right to be free with her sexuality, which is causing no harm to anyone, and she has a right not to be raped, attacked, or murdered.

YOU CAN HELP by signing this petition, writing to the UK Minister, Liam Byrne, and downloading, printing and displaying a poster

See http://www.mccmanchester.co.uk... for details

Watch Prossy tell her story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Sign the petition at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ProssyKakooza/

Oh, and according to our Home secretary, it is possible to be a 'discreet' gay or lesbian in Iran without being stoned to death. Is that discreet in never telling anyone or doing anything about it for fear of being ...stoned to death? Yes, that one! Got it.
And I thought Ruth Kelly was a right-wing harridan.....what planet are some of these 'Labour' MP's on?

Zimbabwe

If Zimbabwe had oil or was adjacent to Israel, how long ago would invasion have happened to support 'regime change'?

Both Burma and Zimbabwe have regimes which are worse that Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Yet still they continue in power.

In this case, the weakness of the so-called 'international community' can be seen only too clearly. But also, the pathetic response of Mbeki. It is simply not good enough to excuse a murdering lunatic simply because he was on the right side of an argument that was settled some years ago.

What is the problem with Africa's governance? Why does it appear that not a single country on that continent can govern itself adequately?

More religionist hypocrisy

With the current 'controversy' about the blessing after the civil partnership in London (of which there have been many, many before), it appears that once again, there is a little bit of dishonesty creeping into the proceedings.

It appears that these cowardly, spineless Bishops who supposedly support change but hide behind the lies of the collective voice might just have different views in private than in public

And that some of them may just have been involved in such blessings before.

And by all accounts, this includes the King of the Spineless Slugs itself, Rowan Williams.

If this is true, doesn't this make hin utterly beyond contempt. we already know he is pious, out of touch, a useless communicator, a worse administrator, and betrays and abandons his friends.

Now it seems that he is a hypocrite and a liar as well.

I can't think of anyone I despise more. How I would love the opportunity to tell him so, but he likes to hide behind the safety of never facing those who have worked him out a long while back.

Anyway, the latest little spat should show only too well why the Church as an institution is no place for gay people, and why the so-called 'ministries' which try to encourage gay people to suppress their sexuality for the cause of a failed and erroneous superstition are getting precisely nowhere.

Grow up, Shami

I've made it clear enough that I am not in favour of 42 days.

However, if Shami Chakrabati is really so naive as to believe that Davis isn't both an opportunist and a right-winger who just happens to have got it right on this issue, then she is naive and perhaps a closet Tory?

And as for suing Andy Burnham - don't be so utterly pathetic. Perhaps a little less eulogising of Davis might help, eh, Shami?? Or are we after a Tory seat?

Bush, Iraq and Afghanistan

How depressing to see our PM schmoozing up to Bush like a good little puppy-dog yesterday.

But quite how the current level of support for both Iraq and Afghanistan can realistically be sustained is something I think has not been faced.

Still, both situations were the outcome of past policy mistakes.

We should withdraw from Iraq and reduce involvement in Afghanistan.

Church and industrial tribunals

Once again, the Church has lost an industrial tribunal, and once again it is trying to brush away the findings. This one was so cut and dried that an immediate decision was made in the appellant's favour.

The findings included the following gems about the Bishop of Liverpool:
1. He doesn't like the city
2. He is more interested in national fame and his public image that what happens here. It is a standing joke here that if you want the Bishop to attend all you have to fo is let him knw that the BBC will be there - he is to microphones what dogs are to .....
3. He is known to be economical with the truth
4. He cares more about his personal 'credibility' than anything else and will sacrifice anyone else to maintain it
5. He desperately wanted to be Archbishop of York

All of those things emerged during the tribunal; there is no reason to believe they are not the case given the outcome. Of course, some will disagree.

My own impression is that the Bishop really ought to consider his position. He is not popular and not respected in Liverpool.

My own experience is that he, in my view, doctored a report which I was involved in producing and ensured that it made little impact. I used to meet him and liaise with him regarding gay issues when I was involved with the church. When I started to draw away, I know that he was aware of why - yet I heard nothing at all from him. This is his problem. As the appellant in this case noted: "There was no grace or mercy: no humanity". Wouldn't a pastorally concerned church leader have wanted to talk to me and find out why i felt so disillusioned?

The Bishop should accept that he is unpopular , not up to doing the job, and resign. On the other hand, maybe he shouldn't - because the Bishop, and the result of this, and the tribunal lost by the bishop of Hereford, epitomises what I have realised the Church is really all about. Which is why I left.

GO SUPERLAMBANANAS!

For those of you not accustomed, these are SUPERLAMBANANAS of which we have 119 appearing in the city to celebrate the Capital of Culture 2008, for the next 10 weeks. They will be auctioned off for charity at the end of the run.

Gay blessings, the CofE and the inevitable split

So, we have a public same sex blessing of a civil partnership in a church. The first, according to some news reports. Who are they trying to kid? Just goes to show that the level of sheer hypocrisy and lies within the Church knows no bounds.

Naturally, our dear homophobic friends at Anglican Extreme and StandFirminBigotry are having a frothing-at-the-mouth day. I do find it amusing how they play good cop/bad cop - so you have the angry, straightforward gay-haters, such as a character called 'Rooney' who hails from this fair city - probably attends one of the nuttier fringe churches. But then you have people like 'vicar' - every bit as prejudiced, but he does it 'nicely', no doubt as a way to get unsuspecting gays to enter his temple of bigotry. Fortunately we have more sense - warm words don't wash.

As for the blessing, I wish the happy couple all the best, and high time that clergy and parishes with courage started to speak out. I recall being offered blessings when we had our civil partnership, but didn't take up the offer - I wasn't really into being blessed by a homophobic institution and was outside the church to all intents and purposes by then in any case. But it is good to see the bigots being challenged and the homophobic nonsense that is 'traditional' Christianity being shown up for what it is.

Gay relationships are here to stay. the Church will have to get used to it - and I think this is one more welcome step towards the split which needs to happen, and soon.

more thoughts on civil liberties...

There does seem to be an issue which I think the by-election has to be used for. The problem with people like Akehurst is that they can turn around and bleat about popular opinion being on their side - and indeed, poll evidence suggests so, although it does depend what question is asked. I think libertarian-minded people on both left and right are already convinced.

I have my doubts as to whether the authoritarian wing of the Tory party actually believe what Davis says at all - they just wanted to have a pop at Labour, and that is their job as an opposition

What is clear is that there is still a large wedge of the population who are swallowing the autoritarian 'safety' lone on this one and that we need to explain exactly why it is nonsense - from both left and right wing libertarian perspectives.

Shami Chakravarti is doing a sterling job . She manages to relain above ideological fray whilst expressing clearly and succinctly what the problem is.

This is certainly making me think again about some issues which have bothered me less in the past. For example, I have been relaxed about ID cards, as I see them working in Europe witout problem. But can we trust a government which such authoritarian instincts not to misuse them?

Bizarre indeed...

We have the obnoxious Kelvin McKenzie, former Sun editor, offering himself as an anti-civil liberties candidate to challenge Davis. And this receiving support from some of the more fringe right-wing New Labour enthusiasts.

A progressive party just doesn't support locking people up without charge.

42 days, David Davis, and the death of the Labour party

The 42 days incarceration without trial got through with the backing of the DUP, for which some sort of dodgy deal was undoubtedly done. For me, this represents the death of the Labour party as a progressive force.

It is strange to see David Davis be the standard bearer of civil liberties. I have never thought of him as being the obvious trailblazer, but at least this will keep the issue in the news and will ensure that the arguments against this illiberal and undemocratic legislation do not go away.

It is simply unacceptable to lock people up without charge, and if the Government feel that there is any mileage in trying to win those over who will provide the necessary intelligence, they are going about it in the wrong way.

I do not think that a supposed obsession with safety excuses blatant ignoring of civil liberties.

Sent to me by the Terrence Higgins Trust

Urgent Action - Don't Deport Amdani Juma


Amdani Juma, a torture survivor, pro-democracy activist and Terrence Higgins Trust volunteer, was taken into detention by the Home Office seven days ago. Faced with imminent deportation to Burundi, a country where his activism has resulted in his appearing on wanted posters, Amdani needs your support to keep him in the UK.

Since his arrival in the UK, Amdani has worked tirelessly to improve the lives of people with HIV in Nottingham. As well as providing face to face support and mentoring to THT service users, he also started the first African women's support group in the city. His considerable abilities and rapport with the local community have made his health promotion work with Africans in Nottingham invaluable. In the words of his MP, Alan Simpson, "He is an outstanding asset. Removing him from the UK would leave Nottingham (and beyond) much the poorer. There is no one, particularly within the HIV field who could replace the work he does."

We are asking all our supporters to contact the Home Secretary to ask her to recognise Amdani as a political refugee and intervene to prevent his deportation. Please take a moment to send a quick message voicing your support to public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk. There is a sample letter below. Please quote his Home Office case reference number, A1179608, in your email.

You can also sign the associated petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/amdani/petition.html. Please also pass this message to your friends to help gather momentum for the campaign. We only have a matter of days to show our support and reverse the decision.



Sample letter:


Dear Mrs Smith,


I am writing on behalf of Amdani Juma, currently in detention and due to be deported, to ask that you intervene on his behalf. His Home Office case reference number is A1179608.

Mr. Juma is an asset to the UK and to health and social care in the city of Nottingham. As a volunteer case worker for Terrence Higgins Trust, he has given freely of his time, skills and energy to help people living with HIV. Amdani's hard work has led to the setting up of Nottingham's first support group for women living with HIV, and his considerable abilities and rapport with the local community have made his health promotion work with Africans in Nottingham invaluable. Mr. Juma is a key link for healthcare to a community acknowledged to be hard to reach but in great need of help.

We believe that Mr. Juma should be allowed to remain in the UK. He has more than proved his commitment to being a part of Nottingham's community, and that community would keenly feel his loss should he be deported. We ask that you intervene to allow him to stay and continue his important work.


Yours sincerely,


(Your name)

Anonymous comments

I don't publish them, so don't waste your time bothering.

If you have the honesty to say who you are and provide a link, fair play. But if you want to post the equivalent of a poison-pen letter on the web - well, you know what most people think of those who do that sort of thing!

And the amusing thing is that so far, all the anonymous comments have come from self-proclaimed Christians!

UPDATE

Since I posted this, I have received an anonynous comment, which asks me to reconsider. No, I won't be doing so. I am quite happy to print comments in opposition to my own (unlike some!), But they should be identified - I am simply not going to give space here for people to abuse the facility. With free speech comes responsibility, and whilst I am not asking for names or locations, I think that snide anonymous posts do no one any good.

Latest in terms of politics....

The government appear to stagger on from one day to the next. Yet I think much of what is going on has very little to do with them either positively or negatively - and is there anything in the ory programme that offers anything greatly different let alone a solution? With regard to fuel taxation, they have been all but silent - yet any reduction would certainly make a mockery of all that 'vote blue, go green' stuff we kept hearing so much of last year.

And on that topic, I find it impossible to feel an ounce of sympathy for the hauliers. Selfishness could be their middle name. More should be transported by rail in any case, but the arrogance of this band of petty-minded bullies knows no bounds. Any attempts at blockades - arrest them and confiscate their lorries, selling them at a cut price rate to Eastern European competitors if necessary. That should annoy them! They should have no special deal - although the time for road pricing really is well overdue.

The latest appears to be a report saying that recidivism with regard to youth crime is still as high as ever. Given that the strategy appears to be to use institutional punishment as the basis for dealing with the issues - universities of crime producing fitter criminals who learn lots of tricks whilst inside - who is in the least surprised? About time the Government abandoned populism and looked towards countries whose policies actually work - and prison isn't the centrepiece.

What I find hard to understand are those who think that we are still in 1996: who fail to realise that the new voters opting for labour in 97 never voted for them again. 2001 and 2005 were characterised by abstention, and many of those who didn't bother to vote were Tories who have now returned to the fold after a flutter with Labour in 97. Yet there are still those who think that all the government have to do is make lots more right wing noises and the voters will return.

I have my doubts as to whether the next election is retrievable - but as someone who did genuinely welcome New Labour in the late 90's, it appears obvious to me that new times need a different approach.
The biggest two groups of voters who Labour are pissing off at the moment are the core voters who feel utterly abandoned by a party which doesn't appear to be Labour any more. The second are middle-class professionals who are ideologically committed to the left-of-centre but are exasperated by a combination of target-driven lunacy in the public sector, and the government's insistence in progressing issues such as the 42 day limit for interviewing suspects. Those issues win no added votes - but lose many to the LD's and the Greens.
The Labour party should be ensuring that its policies are aimed at those two groups as a priority, not spending its time chasing after voters in the south-east who are certainly not coming back in time for the next election.

Eurovision - one week later....

Been neglecting the blog again - wish there were more resposes to what I write. I know people do read it, but few ever respond....

Anyway, Eurovision was last Saturday. I won't write a full song by song review, but some of my thoughts.

First, that the winner was deserved. It was a good song, well sung, and clearly Russia were going to win at some time. Why not this year?
However, the victory has brought forth the most unacceptable selection of anti-Eastern European bile I have seen for a while on some of the ESC fan websites. Hardly appropriate.

Second, the UK did badly, as usual. I thought it was a good song this year - but it wasn't particularly memorable and in a field of 25 and a televote it needs to be.

Third, none of the novelty entries did particularly well, and that can only be a good thing....

My faves: Russia, Portugal, Israel (excellent performance) and Poland. Norway, Bosnia and Georgia also very good.
Worst: didn't like Ukraine , Greece or Sweden, but performance wise, Germany was simply embarrassing. What is it about girl groups and the ESC? Why are they so inevitably unable to sing in harmony? Indeed, sing in unison!

Eurovision - two days to go

Its been quite a Eurovision week - with two semis, and a performance of Eurobeat to see in Manchester!

Most of my faves made it through to the final - Belgium didn't, which was always touch and go, nor Moldova, which was no surprise. The Swiss singer was very nervous tonight, and the only real surprise for me was Hungary not making it

Portugal were fantastic tonight and is my current fave, and I also rate Russia. Other good ones are Poland, Bosnia, Georgia, Norway, Israel, Romania, Serbia and the UK!

HF&E Bill

I was pleased to see that all the clauses in the Human fertilisation & Embryology Bill were passed, and that no change was made to the abortion regulations.

I find it bizarre that anyone would want to prevent research which may be able to take us further in combating appalling diseases, and to try and prevent parents from helping their existing children. The Tories proved that homophobia still runs all too deep in their party. There are some honourable exceptions, but on the whole, they are still the same old Tories.

As for abortion, again, the right decision was made, and the usual gore-fest tactics of Vatican plc and the anti-abortion movement failed to work. I really feel that the Church must understand that it has no right to force through its will and stop others from making their choices - for inevitably, that is what Christianity does and is - simply a method of controlling the lives of others. How I didn't see through this before I don't know - perhaps I heard what I wanted to hear.

Malcolm Bailey RIP

Had some sad news at the weekend - an old friend of mine from university days, Malcolm Bailey, died from a second brain tumour. He had battled against and defeated the first, but the arrival of the second seemed to be just too much.

We hadn't seen that much of each other in recent years with the geographical distance between us - always something one regrets afterwards. There's never much one can say under these circumstances. I hope that his widow Debbie and their children are coping.

Life certainly isn't very fair.

Abortion

With largely religionist MP's attempting to force vulnerable women to be banned from having very necessary terminations, this article from Zoe Williams in the Guardian is well worth reading. Remember that the aim of the anti-abortion movement is to ban all abortion - nearly all of them are conservative religionists and have an (im) moral attachment to banning abortion. The nonsense about reduction of weeks is a smokescreen as they then go on to talk about their definition of life, which includes a clump of cells in a petrie dish.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/07/gender.health