Stuff

I've been down to a three day week blog posting. I just have a fair bit of shit I don't really need, that's backlogging (in a metaphorical sense obviously) the output I'd like put on "Northernbloke.", but hopefully we'll get the utterly shameful cover up of child abuse that has recently hit headlines, that has been uncovered under the administration of the Church of Rome, Richard Littlejohns piss awful new book, a movie review and perhaps a few other things posted up.

There's Persecution, and there's PERSECUTION Dr Carey.,

Christianity has been in the news for two completely different reasons these past few weeks. The first was due to a letter by Lord Carey (and co-signed signed by a few others.) who you may know better as the bloke who played Ace Ventura.. Only joking, Dr. George Carey the rather low rent former Archbishop of Canterbury, who seems to have gotten a second wind in him since they shoved him into ermine clad retirement in the Lords. It seems that the former archbish thinks that Christians get a rough deal in the UK in relation to how minority faiths are (IHO) pandered to. He has come to this conclusion in large, due to several cases of Christians not being able to wear crosses at work (in a hospital in this case) whilst headscarves are allowed. The kind of thing that gets the "martyr" a photosplash in the paper of them looking wounded in a cardie, whilst fondling their necklace. The letter then connects this to other "attacks" on Christianity such as civil partnerships, and the usual stuff:

"In a number of cases, Christian beliefs on marriage, conscience and worship are simply not being upheld. There have been numerous dismissals of practising Christians from employment for reasons that are unacceptable in a civilised country. We believe that the major parties need to address this issue in the coming general election."

(That end bit loosely translates in to a memo for Dave or Gordon. "Can we be excused on being subject to rules and discourse everyone else has to follow**. Because our set of opinions are more specialler than others, God says so, well we says he says so, so he says so.")

**I'd like to see a racist shop assistant try and use the excuse "I can't serve black people, it goes against what I believe in." on his boss and keep his job. It's a bit of a straw man, but that is the gist of what these people are saying.

there's a footnote condemning proposals to broaden sex education (that has a Muslim signatory as well as the president of a highly conservative family focus group.) The contents of this letter are less of a surprise than seeing a freezer full of lollys in an ice cream van. As the superb stand up Marcus Brigstoke said, the [Abrahamic Religions] are a lot like Scousers, they all like to claim they have it harder than everyone else, and it's an observation that like all good ones has a lot of truth in it.

Now I'm not belittling the fact that people have (and continue) to suffer for their beliefs (and we're talking WAY more than just being told not to wear some jewellery) From monks in Burma to Christians in Sudan to the Muslims in the former Yugoslavia. Nobody should be singled out for persecution (on pain of death even.) on the basis of what they are and believe in. To Careys credit he does highlight the difference between these examples and the ones he brings up (as disrespect) Now it's hard to say these lesser "martyr" cases around stuff like crucifixes, actually constitute "persecution". Everyone has to cede some autonomy in a work place when they sign those contracts. This letter (and the "call to arms") really strike me more as a widespread social belief that religious opinions (which is what revelatory based beliefs are) are somehow different to other opinions, and need to be ringfenced in a way no others do. Also the increasing backlash from more vocal strains of belief, and the "new athiest" movement is causing a counter assertion in response. Lastly the genuine decline of faith in Europe means traditional religious authority has lost the clout it once had, and that aint no fun to the ecclesiastical big wigs with chips on their shoulders. What is surprising about this letter, and all the sympathetic popular press coverage it got from some quarters, was how it contrasted with a much more serious story from the Church of Rome, which didn't quite have the same level of coverage.

It is almost churlish to compare these two cases. The first is really little more than a few clerics throwing their toys out the pram at the horrid old secular world, the second is way, way more serious. But they merge on the issue of "respect" for religion in greater society, so linking them at the hip.

What has come to light from a Panarama programme is that Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) has been accused of directly covering up one of many instances of child rape committed by priests on vulnerable children. Ratzinger was the so-called "Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith" which amongst other things meant he would have overseen any responses to child abuse from his priests. A priest by the name of Friar Lawrence Murphay was accused by several testimonials of abusing 200 deaf boys at a special school in Wisconsin. Despite the wishes of Ratzingers deputy for a clerical trial (not in a "proper" court BTW), Murphay was effectively censured to a remote school after he wrote to Ratzinger saying "he was ill, and wanted to live out his priestly days in dignity." after this heartfelt stuff; in the same state, over 5 new accusations have been made. Things look even murkier when we learn that Cardinal Sean Brady has admitted he was present when children were told to stay silent about their complaints about the child abuser Friar Brendon Smyth. (Do we have the horrible feeling that the childrens silence was conditional on pain of eternal damnation??) Yes Sean Brady, whose only the highest ranking priest in Eire after 35 years, has decided after prayer and reflection to own up to not investigating multiple complaints against what turned out to be a serial child rapist. Then we get this incredible official statement by the Popes PA:

"The Pope's official spokesman, Federico Lombardi, said the Murphy case had only reached the Vatican in 1996 - two decades after the Milwaukee diocese in Wisconsin first learned of the allegations, and two years before the priest died.

The diocese had been asked to take action by "restricting Father Murphy's public ministry and requiring that Father Murphy accept full responsibility for the gravity of his acts", Fr Lombardi said"

So by the PA,s own admission, the diocese had been ordered by another arm of the church to keep schtum, and that no one in 20 years considered 200 accusations of child abuse that big a deal to report to the guy supposed to fucking sort this stuff out!

I really don't need to continue with this sorry story. Chances are more will inevitably come out in due process, and what more can be said really? When it takes one of the emerald isles chief clergyman 35 years to come clean about covering up accusations of CHILD RAPE for gods sake! It's the children I feel desperately, heartbreakingly sorry for. They were told that this organisation was their only way to happiness and salvation and then it betrayed and ignored them in the worst way imaginable. And to top it off the very people they were supposed to revere stood by and did nothing, because in the end all they all they really gave a shit about was keeping up the incense fuelled appearances. So I'm sorry Dr Carey, yeah while I might feel a bit sorry for some spinster who got suspended for wearing a religious chain, it rings a bit hollow saying that the secular west picks on Christians, when in this part of the world even today, high ranking religious officials can be so heavily implicated in covering up child abuse and not even face immediate questioning from the police forces (who really thinks there's any chance the Pope will be brought in for questioning?). It's hard to conclude that religion is heavily discriminated against, when no other organisation would have got off as lightly. If this level of cover up had happened in the royal family, we'd be facing a constitutional crisis. If the government was implicated in this way; at the very least we'd be having the election next week. The red tops usually are on stories like this, like bluebottles round a dog turd. Senior social workers were vilified by the Sun and received death threats for the Baby Peter case, but there's virtually even a squeak here? Because the strange way religion seems to play by a parallel set of rules in our society. If these insinuations are 100% true, this means that the senior authorities not only sheltered recidivist paedophiles from prosecution, but failed to warn anyone else about their natures. This meant more childrens innocence taken, and youngsters that should have been safe, under the influence of dangerous men. At the very least the police should LOOK in to all the relevant papers to this case to obtain names. It is perhaps too much to hope for that the Pope and Cardinal Murphay show up at the local police station to explain themselves in this affair, but perhaps organisations like One in Four might be able to put the pressure on. But I know the victims certainly need more than the damage limitation PR we are getting from the Vatican.

Oh look Littlejohn bailed me out (but only in a really rubbish way.)

My Nostrodamus powers of prediction were looking a bit iffy about the the gay couple turned away from the Cookham B&B story being ideal material for future passive aggressive articles about bolshy gays and persecuted Christians, the sort of thing that appears every month or two in the papers. It seemed that the story had not warranted the coverage I thought it might have done, and had run its course; the end of the affair completely. But I was wrong as Littlejohn has stuck his thruppenceworth in on it, so I don't have to quite give up the fortune telling job quite yet. It is however nice to know that Britain's best paid columnist has continued his time honoured tradition of just making shit up to get his points across better.

Welcome to Tolerance Towers. Rule 1: No tolerance

"Perhaps if her advert had emphasised 'run by devout Christian' (Rule one, No Poofters), John and Michael may have taken the hint and booked in somewhere else.

Why stay where you're not welcome? I certainly wouldn't check into a temperance hotel."

There was no hint for them to take. They didn't know that she was a devout Christian, the advert says anyone was welcome to stay. There's a nice double implication here that a) they should have known beforehand to expect it, and b) blatant homophobia is just something gay people should just "get used to". (the comment seem to me to be loaded that the couple were really to blame.)

"But this is where it gets out of hand. The police are now investigating Mrs Wilkinson and she's been deluged with hate mail from homosexual fundamentalists."

They complained to the rozzers about a homophobic incident, they are going to investigate. I'd imagine even the most trivial calls (homophobic incidents are hardly "trivial") are "investigated", and are concluded as some loony on the phone thinks Elvises ghost lives in their loft. Tell him whatever. Investigation over.

Back to the case at hand. They have decided that the owner hasn't committed an offence, so if they want compensation to speak to a solicitor. Done (for their part.) Investigate don't mean being charged. Oh and nobody really knows who sent the messages (which are vile, and a horrible way to respond to this) so it may not just be down to "homosexual fundamentalists"**, whatever the hell that means.

"But prosecuting someone for holding sincere Christian convictions and making violent threats against her proves yet again that in New Labour's Britain tolerance is a one-way street."

She WASN'T PROSECUTED FOR IT!! You know a minor case of missing the point completely. Some people sadly do react very badly to emotive issues, this did happen before 1997. I bet he was dying to end that one way street sentence with back alley.

"her B&B in Wokingham"

It's in Cookham, Wokingham is a good 15 miles away

Glad to see that £800,000 salary is being well earned.

** The term "Homosexual Fundamentalist" doesn't make a lick of sense in it's original context. It just means getting back to basics. Is a homosexual fundamentalist, just couples who have man love in the nude? Or is it just a term to imply that gay people are the real zealots. I wonder which it might be?

Slightly Loopy "Antichrist Poll" about Barack Obama

If this Harris poll is to be believed a quarter of U.S Republicans think the president of their nation is the Antichrist (14% of the general population). Over half [of Republicans] also think he's a Muslim, 38% think he's quite a bit like Hitler, and oh yes he's a socialist too (about 70%). I repeat 1 in 4 (if the poll of 2000+ is a microcosmic representative of the whole of course.) think Barry has come straight from hell, and is comparable to history's biggest mass murderer. Now I'm not saying that this poll is proof of crackers democracy, but what I am saying is that the results of this poll has proven that some elements of US democracy are a bit mad. This really does bring up serious questions about the kind of ideological paradigms that are making up popular Republican thoughts these days. The sheer visceral stirring up of base prejudices towards the new president is a worrying affair for the overall state of the worlds most powerful nation. I mean for God sake, Obama hasn't crushed the skulls of his enemies in the oval office, or purged Wisconsin, or broken into Sarah Palins house to drank the blood of virgins whilst worshiping a Baal idol in her bathroom, but what he has done has passed his Health Bill through congress this Sunday. The USA should have 95 percent health coverage if it all goes to plan, but opponents of it are going into meltdown, saying it is "Socialised Medicine" and Socialism, in part because the bill means people are obliged to obtain insurance (like car insurance) and the very wealthy will see an (around 1%) increase in their insurance costs, but mostly because calling something that they don't like "socialist" is a nice easy catch all smear, and a good way to scare the shit out of American society. This inevitably results in organisations like the tea party activist group playing the "big government is evil, erosion of god given liberty" card. Now like many in the UK, I see the sheer outwelling of hostility to a relatively modest extension of healthcare provision as pretty baffling stuff, a bizarre glimpse into another societies cultural workings. I also think that these kinds of people are twisting the greater publics genuinely legitimate fear of the risks to liberty by heavy handed government, to their own selfish ends, and observer comments like this don't alleviate this feeling

"They claim that the bank bailout, new taxes on the rich, the trillion dollar cost of health reform over the next decade, threaten the prosperity and even solvency of every family in their land."

I don't think that governments providing healthcare assistance for the poorest citizens is by any means "Evil Socialism" or "Stalinism" It ignores two issues to allow this theory to have any credence. The first being it is just taxing the "hard working" against the "layabouts", not everyone is poor due to idleness, and loaded due to merit and effort. Bad circumstances, luck, prejudice, mental state, outward conformism - can all affect your earning power. Just as inherited wealth and family connections can lubricate the gears of success (the Bush, Clinton and Kennedy dynasties in Washington society.) Secondly does the assumption that all government "interference" is bad always apply to all situations? Shouldn't democratically elected officials be obliged to shield the most vulnerable from the worst aspects of raw market forces, and external threats (strange they never seem to moan about socialised military, who pays for those badass battleships and fighter jets after all?? The scary ass battle corporation) I wonder how you would explain precisely to someone hemorrhaging away their savings to pay for the chemo and drugs they need, that they were "free."

I actually think when the scheme goes active, and when the dividends are reaped by the Americans at large; the lofty protests will end up blowing in the wind. Obama has possibly seen that he will get flack whatever he does and has decided to ride the storm and let the rest of his bill hopefully fight off the hurricane. I don't think he's out of the woods yet, and I leave with this analysis of how polarised the U.S is becoming. Take this example of when we hear of death threats, from this analysis from commentator Max Hastings, I just end up thinking, is this what liberal democracy has come too? And where will it lead too?

"A political scientist friend said to me in Chicago last week: 'I have never felt as apprehensive about the physical safety of a president as I do about this one.'

He perceives a climate in which frightening passions are in play. At the extreme end of the rancour which the health care debate has provoked, more than a few Republicans who own guns hate their president. Pity the Secret Service, who must protect the White House.

Chilling as it seems to Europeans, there are those in this nation with a tradition of attempted and successful assassinations, who believe it would be a patriotic act to shoot Barack Obama."

TV Review. Michael Portillo. Power to the People.

WATCH DOCUMENTARY HERE.

There's something not quite right with the way Westminster interacts with Joe Schmuck like me and you. We aren't quite at George Orwells 1984 yet, but there is a palpable feeling that there is a rift between the public at large and the ruling classes. Almost every day we hear "out of touch." "in it for the take." and "don't live in the real world." aimed at the Whitehall mafia. The nadir was probably last year after the expenses scandal broke. It just seemed to cement to so many that politicians were a world apart from real people. I'd also add that I think that our system of the 3 main parties prioritising scrambling for the marginal seats doesn't help, but that's another story. Voter turnouts are very low on almost every type of elections going, and I feel that people are not utilising perhaps their powers of suffrage, and are falling into apathy (or more worryingly that perhaps less savoury politics might fill the vacuum left.) It seems that former top Tory Michael Portillo agrees, and wants to what has eluded our currant crop of chiefs, to do something about getting people back into politics.

The documentary covers the pros and cons of transferring power away from central Westminster back out to the towns and parishes of the country. He gives an account of how prior to WW2, the town hall had quite a whack, a whack that was lost forever by the centralised semi-command economy a war and the peace time rebuilding needed. Then the Thatchers governments attempts to nip "loony left" councils in the bud by reducing thier spending rates, and then the poll tax (community charge, of which Portillo admits his role in creating) which ostensibly set out to make high spending councils pay more, but was so skewed against many people and unpopular it cost Thatcher her throne. To the current target obsessed central government of today (apparently sent a toilet budget projection to Watford. No really!) Not exactly the direction I'd take.

As I said we see various examples of people power in practice. The democratically elected mayor of Hartlipool, who got the position he signed up for, for a laugh; dressing up as monkey at football matches, but ended up taking to the job seriously, and becoming a pretty good mayor, being elected several times. The film shows how he is known by name to the people of the town, and is popular for being able to tackle local issues and not seen as an insider of the "political class.". Portillo sees how a local shop in Dorset was saved from closure (nearest shop 13 miles away.) by locals stepping in to volunteer (it has had to expand its services.) their time, and how a group of parents were lobbying their MP's in London to provide a new secondry school to keep their close knit kids together. They had actively participated, even eyeing up an old hospital building, and learning about political process of who to contact and what to do to get their school. It was positive to see them actively meeting half way with their local government, implementing an idea to use collective people power to hopefully get their school. The last example was again in London where voters met up in a community hall to see what local council spending should be allocated, using "Who wants to be a millionaire" keypads. They could vote on what they wanted their taxes spent on (CCTV, minibuses for old people.) after debating with each other. It was like a raffle atmosphere, with countdowns, and charts of who got what. It'd be interesting to see how opening up what got spent and how, results in perhaps more representative spending. Sometimes it wasn't to clear in the programme how effective these things were.

As I said the documentary made clear that People power could become populism by any other name, and two controversial examples of this in practice are the Mayor of Doncaster. Peter Davies (pictured), and Joe Arpaio; the so called "Americas Toughest Sheriff" (you'll probably have heard about the prison camp in the desert he set up where the inmates have to wear pink boxers.). Davies, the English Democrat elected mayor of Doncaster is the bluff talking Yorkshireman archetype, a staunch and vocal plain talking right winger on most issues (e.g PC, out of EU, pro capital punishment.) He is known for his attempts to trim council spending by cuts including his own salary, stopping gay pride funding, and getting rid of PC "non jobs" (though I suppose ironically he would have to spend money in order to create a bureaucracy that deed what was a "non - job".) He has also, even more controversially attempted to cut spending for translation services to new immigrants and established non - English speakers in order to get them to improve English (I can't help think this is like banning Weightwatchers to cut obesity. Are they supposed to read an Oxford dictionary really quickly?) The film does point out (as does a local women) that he doesn't have the mandate as mayor to pull off a lot of what he wants, and that some of it may just be saloon bar politics. Joe Arpaio elected Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona is an even more controversial example of what people power could bring if police chiefs were democratically elected. He is still popular (but popularity falling) for his ultra hard line policies, but we hear that he is controversial for his treatment of illegal immigrants and from Hispanics who claim he singles them out in particular. One man claims to have been badly beaten by his men for a trivial crime. This is one area I'd be wary of a democratic head. Law enforcement is both emotive and a complex body. We hear from a British chief constable that it could result in complex murder and terrorist monitoring resources being shifted away to popular but limited crime prevention methods like high profile beat based policing. I also think it runs the risk of a police chief under pressure to conclude a high profile case, to get results to satiate public opinion. It would have helped to see how affective Arpaios methods were in recidivism and crime reduction, but we didn't so we have little to go on in that regard, a running problem with the documentary.




All in all the documentary (even though it was edited a little to much to give a really big picture.) confirmed my belief that decentralising powers away from Westminster and giving local powers back to local government is a step in the right direction. There is a lot of bean counting goes on in local councils, and my own town of Bolton has suffered from this. Our thriving Market Hall and its independent small shops were revamped as a small shopping mall in a greatly unpopular move that was supposed to put Bolton more in line with Manchester. I think it was a bad decision that has harmed the town. Why would someone pay good money to park in Bolton, when they could go to a mall with free parking that's 20 times bigger in Trafford? I can't help think that an elected mayor, and a more active council with the ear of public opinion could have stopped this from happening. As for whether we would end up with loads of Peter Davies style mayors? The program showed that people when given the opportunity to influence things this way, that they can be quite focused about it, and can learn political process (sadly lacking in the greater public.). Doncaster also happened after the huge corruption that council has had and the expenses so Davies could capitalise on increased populist sentiment (again the documentary is reticent on how popular he actually is.) during unusual circumstances, rather than what would be the norm. He is also limited in the greater social context of his more dodgy ideas, so the pitfalls of this are reduced. But it seems give the public a stick up to local policies, and they seem to take it willingly. Power to the people then.

Postscript. Peter Davies has really been quite low profile as Mayor, he hasn't been as controversial as I thought. I'd imagine he's having trouble putting his money where his mouth is, on the some of his saloon bar talk. This hunch is highlighted by this brilliant interview he has with Toby Foster (aka that guy of Les Alamos on "Phoenix Nights" which shows how depressingly low rent he is. Perhaps showing him up like this will let people be turned away from simple populist tub thumping. Heres Hoping!

Don't undermine the good intentions by bad behaviour.

A post about two articles today, that although ostensibly seem quite different, both seem (no conclusive proof yet) to have led to the same "problem." The first one is this. On Saturday in my home town of Bolton, the hard right football casual spawned EDL or the English Defence League had a rally in the town centre. They ( website here, if you don't know who they are about.) claim only to be against "jihadists" rather than Islam in general. But there has been incidents of them shouting abuse at pro Palastinian protest, and Nazi saluting by members of the analogous Welsh Defence League. On a more subjective level their website has a large splash for the Jihadwatch a blog /website that combines some legitimate concerns with the more militant strains of Islamism with the dodgier right wing conspiracy theories that the terminally insecure "patriots" seem to like so much, that do the rounds across the pond, and get taken up by like minded souls here. The march itself resulted in 74 arrests and was estimated to have cost 3.3 million pounds (a lot of Boltons shops shut, taxi firms basically shut down over the weekend.) in lost incomes and in the preparation for the day itself. From all reports it was a tense encounter, with mutual recriminations from EDL and the UAF, who counter marched the rally, and according to Assistant Chief Constable, Gary Shewen, the trouble focused around:

"It is clear to me that a large number have attended today with the sole intention of committing disorder and their actions have been wholly unacceptable. Turning their anger onto police officers they acted with, at times, extreme violence and their actions led to injuries to police officers, protesters and members of the public.

"The police are not and should not be the target of such violence and anger and this protest and the actions of some of the protesters is roundly condemned by GMP and by Bolton Council. Were it not for the professionalism and bravery of police officers many others would have been seriously injured. I would also like to praise the efforts of the EDL stewards who worked with us in the face of some very ugly confrontations."

200 miles away in the Berkshire village of Cookham (where the exterior shots for Fawlty Towers "A Touch of Class" episode were filmed incidentally.) gay couple Michael Black and John Morgan were turned from a Swiss themed guest house run by a Christian couple, after she claimed that giving them the double room they wanted would go against her beliefs. This kind of story always makes for a good one to the newsmans eye. Mutual recriminations, zealous minorities victimising decent God fearing folk. "The angry people in newspapers" pictures. Fire and brimstone bible bashers persecuting in the name of God, you know the spiel. I mean it even got a look in on the Jeremy Vine Show!

It's hard not to feel for the guests turned away. Being dismissed by a complete stranger who knows nothing about you, and being shunned because of your sexual orientation would be an unpleasant experience for anyone. It also raises questions of misleading statements on the website of the B&B:

"A warm & friendly welcome awaits ALL GUESTS!! at our Swiss Bed & Breakfast in the idyllic village of Cookham, near Maidenhead in Berkshire." (emphasis mine)

I should also add that they [B&B owners] are not deemed to have commited a criminal offence by the police, though civil action against them has been proposed. which I'm sure the right wing press will absolutely avoid bringing up in articles on the case.


Unfortunately, and this is where it ties in to the EDL caper on Saturday; Swiss B&B has had death threats posted on its website as well as warnings of a potential arson attack. This is plainly wrong for reasons I shouldn't have to explain. Now I must emphasise that I think the lady who runs the B&B was out of line. She may pay quite a price for what she did. She has violated the customer service statements on her own website for a start. She has shunned 2 paying customers she knew nothing about for being gay. Despite her claiming she is free to practice what she feels at her home, it is still subject to business regulations (never mind they had paid for customer service. She refunded them though), I'm sure she has to put all the fire safety stuff in, and all the stuff that goes with providing service to a paying customer. And that is the crux of the matter. If you are putting on a service for paying customers, you have to abide by your contract, grit your teeth at those you may not like but who have not actually broken their part of the contract (like smashing the place up.). At the very least if she insists on putting a bit of Christian spirit into running a B&B, stick up a notice saying that only married couples get double rooms. (I think you can still do that.) So although she has brought this sorry situation on herself, trying to right a wrong (a good thing) with a bigger wrong (the worst way to do this thing) can never the way to go.

Now I wasn't there at the EDL march, so I can't directly comment on the UAF conduct, or the veracity of the police chiefs statement first hand. But if the claims were valid and the UAF did do some of the things stated, then the same thing applies to people threatening the B&B owners. Right minded people know that homophobia and racial prejudice have no rightful place. By sending out death threats to this couple, apart from being an evil thing to do just gives the religious homophobes out there ammunition. Yes it's the GLBT who are the real fascists! I wouldn't be surprised if we get an article this week on this being the next best thing to chucking the Christians to the lions. The usual sort of buck passing twaddle bandied about "it's my religion to oppose gays.**" and the usual semantic party games trying to explain why banning to gay people from a B&B isn't homophobia. The more overtly racist postings on nationalist websites, and the more guarded letters published in "normal" papers by these people are full of passive aggressive squirming references to "liberal fascism" and the "UAF are the real Nazis" etc. They can't really say anything else. It is self evident to most rational people that blatantly judging people on ethnicity and sexual orientation is wrong. They can't justify their prejudices, because they literally have nothing justifiable to back them up. That is why they are so keen to try and shift the blame, to distract from this. The great causes of countering prejudice by its own merit should rise above its opponents. Stooping lower than the people you claim to righteously oppose just harms genuine attempts to obtain a society based on genuine merit, and free of base prejudice. The truth shall set us free and all that.

** I always find this statement by devout Christians odd. The man who their faith is named after was so concerned about homosexuality, he mentioned it the grand total of never. I think that says more about the beliefs of the people making the statement, than J. C. But what would an athiest like me know. Hmmmm)-:

Prohibition may end up letting the cat out the bag.

A legal "high" drug called Methedrone (or meow, as its abbreviated name is MMCAT, due to the chemicals it is made from) distilled from the khat plant in Somalia (the militia men there like to get high on khat) and similar to the illegal ecstasy drug has hit the news recently. Like most people unfamiliar with the more devoted club scenes, I'd never really heard about the stuff until this week when the substance has been implicated (but has not been proved to have caused) in the deaths of two young men, Nick Smith and Lewis Wainwright after a night out in Scunthorpe on Sunday. They along with friends had been on a cocktail of booze, meow and methadone, when they died the following day. This, and along with some other (unconfirmed) reports of meow being involved in deaths of this nature have meant that the government has asked the Misuse of Drugs advisory council to look into the risks this stuff poses in order to consider banning it in the UK. This move has been welcomed by head teachers, some opposition politicians and some of the relatives of those who died. Others like David Nutt have suggested alternatives to this such as putting restrictions on it's sale, and waiting for a more in depth analysis of the risks it poses. It could even be risky to immediately ban its use, as potentially more dangerous new drugs may supplant the now illegal drug.

The Sun however decided that weighing up the pros and cons of banning methedrone in a rational and empirical way was a waste of time and demanded action now on the "killer meow" by banning it immediately. They have strung together a series of anecdotal "proofs" that the stuff is extremely dangerous, from post hoc testimonials from the grieving relatives (post hoc means, in the opinion that A (meow) happened before B (the deaths). Therefore A caused B.) The chemical similarities between ecstasy has been mentioned, despite the fact that that really counts for little. Methanol and ethanol, water and hydrogen peroxide, sulphurous and sulphuric acid are similar respectively, but totally different in toxicity and other properties, change one molecule, change a lot. Meow has been called the drug equivalent of putting a loaded gun to the head, without any statistical justification to back that claim up. The Sun has conveniently "forgot" that the reason the review on this stuff has been delayed is because the researcher hire to do this resigned after Professer Nutt was fired (you know the guy the Sun wanted sacked.) It becomes enormously difficult when grieving family members start to throw their weight (I absolutely understand them feeling that way. It's automatic to try and make the senseless death of a loved one have meaning by trying to prevent others from the same fate.) behind the campaign to immediately ban something like this. We remember when the dangers of ecstasy was statistically shown to be less than horse riding and aspirin, that the emotive straw man "tell that to the victims [of E] families." was thrown at the people who pointed this out. I can understand people feeling that way, but I don't think that the subjective risks of a substance should determine an immediate ban.

Now I don't recommend taking this stuff (like anything like this, the user has to analyse the risks by the benefits, with the correct information.). And it would be silly and premature to say it is totally safe. (at least 3 deaths are partially responsible with it being used, according to post mortems.) These testimonials from clubbers highlight that although it has similar sensations to uppers like E's, and isn't contaminated by being cut with other things. the comedowns can be fairly unpleasant and more harsh than it's illegal cousin (and the temptation to redose when on it is fairly high.). Mixing drugs and alcohol, and dosing when worse for wear has extra harm effects added. Abusing or misusing any kind of substance, alcohol or cocaine is a terrible thing to happen to anyone, and it's wise to be aware of this before you dive in. But taking these aside I still don't think prohibiting Mephedrone, or indeed prohibition per se is the solution to this sort of thing. Firstly it doesn't effectively stop what it sets out to do. Despite the families claiming that if the drug was illegal it would not be taken doesn't stop illegal ecstasy being distributed. Perhaps the very fact that something being forbidden is the key to it's appeal and excitement. Secondly prohibition stops quality control (like pushers are going to bother). In a bid to save resources, artificially inflate quantity, or a half brained attempt to up potency, illegal drugs will be "cut" with other stuff like chalk, cleaning powders, and even rat poison, there is no guarantee what you see is what you think you are getting. If this stuff is legitimately produced then cutting it becomes more risky on the producers behalf. The drugs trade is a risky and unpleasant cycle. The dealers can often resort to extortion and violence to keep their trade, and punters are at risk from being ripped off and put in harms way, not to mention risking a criminal record for what they are doing. One of the things that appeals to users of mephedrone, from the testimonials is that it bypasses the hassle of obtaining illegal stuff and it isn't contaminated. It may even be lowering demand for ecstasy, by pushing it out of the market. Lastly, although far from being risk free, these things stand a greater chance of undergoing damage limitation if they are legal. There has been great success in initiatives to lower the numbers of people who smoke, and everyone knows the genuine risks from smoking. With illegal substance these risks are not clear, and are often misunderstood. Things that shouldn't be taken together are taken, because the guidelines are not easy to obtain. Substance abuse is a bad thing for society (recreational drug use is something different, which is not always pointed out.) and there is never going to be a magic wand to make it go away any time soon. But damage limitation is a start, prohibition just seems to create more problems than it sets out to start. Sadly this kind of story puts the emotional cases, and appeals over reason to respond knee jerkingly to a drug the experts freely claim, do not even know much about. Not good.

PS. One of the most eye opening essays I ever saw on this is on Nick Davies brilliant Flat Earth News website. Now I don't know how his thesis shores up scientifically, but I was astounded what I read in THIS article on drug use and prohibition.

Stop the Traffic. Leave the kids behind! Liz Jones has got a new blog!

Ditzy former fashion editor Liz Jones has gone and set up a brand new blog . Liz is kind of the modern equivalent of what you would get if you stuck Marie Antoinette in front of a word processor and gave her a column in a popular Sunday newspaper. She'd not so much be a "Let them eat cake" sort of gal, but more a "Let them eat cake, preferably an ASDA smart price cake for 18p from the bargain basket, as I don't want to give the unwashed ideas. Oh and tell em to eat it down wind and 2 continents away from me, as they may spray crumbs on my carpet, and my spiritually cleansed cat, the smell poor fuckers." Reading some of her stuff, you begin to think no-one can possibly be that self absorbed and gormless for God sake! She has to be a piss take, a genius satirist deliberately planted into the fashion business, to expose from within;- the pointless and bitchy vacuousness and the one long and subtle, shared practical joke on all the rest of us that is the industry. What other explanation is there?

Or maybe she isn't and really is like that in real life?

Now from the "dispatches from the fashion front line" header, I may not be able to dig up as many gems as I might want, if all she talks about are stupid bits of overpriced shite draped on a girl who'd be advised not to walk across a cattle grid. I know nothing about fashion, and have no intention of taking the time to learn. I think we would all be better off wearing old sacking, and shoes made of straw. Fashion is rubbish, and a burks running race.

However, piss take or genuine. (I'm still a bit unconvinced we see the real Liz in some of her more "eccentric" articles.) If she stays true to form, we may get a few bits of comedy gold from the blog. I mean if we get stuff half as good as getting her letterbox shot at for saying her rural neighbours have bad teeth and smell of cow poo. Should she ditch her hens shrink (no really.) to save a few bob. How she was relieved her mum got Alzheimer's as she would not blurt out her age (not actually funny, you understand. But a WTF moment.), and the delights of hiring a pet psychic to contact her dead cat. ("Why are my horses always biting me?" Liz asks. "Cause they think you are a horse!" the psychic replies. Absolute genius!) As Richard Littlejohn says. You can't make it up!

I Deleted My Post by accident, then my shower broke.

I was supposed to post today, after being away for weekend. But I went and deleted what I was going to post, which is both a ballache, and a very silly thing to do. I was then going to have an evening wash and re-write it, when my shower started leaking water out of a crack on the ceiling of the back room, probably due to the overflow running beyond capacity and backlogging the baggage onto my dining room chair. Brilliant.

A Road to Nowhere.

It's almost strange that I would single out this article by Richard Littlejohn on road infrastructure. It is after all by his own standards quite tame. He doesn't resort to playground abuse disguised as cynical irony. He doesn't show a strange and almost obsessive homophobia in the contents, and doesn't dismiss the murder of prostitutes as no big deal. He does however comment on the road network, and as it it happens that is an area I have some (above layman's) knowledge in, and once again the article highlights the strange lack of joined up thinking we get on this topic. It also gives me a post to write, as I'm a bit thin on the ground for material. The crux of the article is about Lord Adonis (Secretary of State for Transport) bemoaning the lack of warning when the Blackwell Tunnel (A102 crosses the Thames here at Woolwich next to the Dome) left traffic stranded for 5 hours (nasty). As I know a little about the history of road building from college, and owing to Litlejohns liberal attitude to factual consistency, this stirred my interest up. Littlejohn goes on:

" Labour came to power promising a 'world-class' transport network and then put Two Jags in charge. His contribution was immediately to cancel vital road-widening and construction projects which had been in the pipeline for years."

Yeah Labour are generally less in love with road building than the Tories perhaps are. But this is not entirely accurate. I assume he means the 1989 [road building] white paper called "Roads for Prosperity." a very ambitious document that would have seen an 8 lane M25 for the whole length, and the M1 from the M25 to the M18 interchanges, just South of Sheffield amongst other things. Not withstanding that the paper was very ambitious (and didn't have the NIMBY factor to contend with.) and that some of it has actually been implemented before Littlejohn typed the article. (the entire 1959 built M1, from Luton to the M25 interchange has been virtually razed to the ground and rebuilt to 4 lanes during the widening of 2008. There are portions of the M25 is due for widening and other things to try to salvage the mess we have during rush hour.) Prosperity was axe as a scheme in 1996!, in part a response, due to the huge uproar at Twyford Down near Winchester some years prior, when the M3 was brutally ploughed through a chalk hill, and a protester chained his neck to a JCB. This is before Prescott even had a chance to paint that bus lane on the M4, due to the fact Labour were voted in the year after!

"You can still see the carnage on the North Circular road, which is lined with boarded-up houses compulsorily purchased 15 years ago in anticipation of a widening scheme which still hasn't happened. Similar projects have been shelved all over Britain."

Since 1996 several major roads have been built. Roads like these:

*M65 extended westwards from Blackburn to M6 and M61 at Preston (1997. Started under Tory govt.)
*M1 realigned and extended at Northern terminus from Leeds to A1(M) at Tadcaster (1999)
*M60 created around Manchester from pre-existing M63 and M66 motorway with new extended line around East of City (2000)
*M6 Toll Road Built (2003)
*A1(M) bypasses of Knottingly and Wetherby (2004 - 2006)
*M6 "Cumberland Gap" built to connect Carlisle to the A74(M) on the Scottish Border (2008)

The North Circular is awful, I'll give him that.

The late nineties and early 2000's saw quite a lot of road building after a gap in the late eighties.

"Perhaps matters might improve if ministers got out more and experienced the real world they have created first hand."

Lord Adonis travelled around the Motorways on a tour last year. I listened to him talk about it on Jeremy Vine on Radio 2. They couldn't use the gents loos at Toddington services apparently, cause they were broken.

"To be fair to Adonis, he has been travelling the length and breadth of Britain by train to investigate the state of our railways."

So by his own admission, he's berating him for not doing something he should have done, and actually did. So errr... Right.

"Typically, though, he has reached the wrong conclusion. He is proposing a £30billion high-speed [rail] link through the Chilterns, when what we actually and urgently need are improvements to existing services, particularly our hellishly overcrowded commuter routes."

Transport has a strange effect on the British psyche. We know that the roads are saturated, and that things like widening the M1 are at best temporary solutions, to at least perhaps get the average mileage notched up a bit. It's a sad irony that the most vocal public opinion, like these guys always seems to favour building our way out of road congestion,with more roads, which frees up yet more cars to come on roads, to cause those roads to build up as well, a vicious cycle. Aside from the obvious and serious environmental issues of more cars on the roads, there is always the inevitable backlash against large roads near residential areas, ironically that is why the North and South Circular is so bad. What should have been upgraded to a Motorway called "Ringway 2", was shelved when they realised how much of residential London would be on the receiving end of a JCB (Who wants a Motorway in the back garden?). Back to the question, I've never agreed with that build loads more roads analysis, and I think organisations like the ABD have an overt political agenda rather than a genuine interest in traffic management. We are in the situation where effective queue busting techniques, like ramp metering, and variable speed limits are unpopular, and seen as "the nanny state", which is unhelpful. It will require a much more joined up and integrated transport system, than the one we have now. We are car junkies, and any attempt to change that habit, and seriously try to reduce road congestion, will be painful and a long transition. If it can be changed, and governments tend to be wary of the motoring lobby. This doublethink about the problems of traffic we have is summed up nicely by this quote

"90 percent of commuters think other drivers should use public transport more often."

Sounds about right.

Not Gettin Down With the Kidz, or with Streetview either.

The Internet has been under fire on two fronts by the Daily Mail this week. This is hardly the most surprising revelation in the world, from a paper that thinks anything and everything that has happened in the UK since 1961 has been directly passed out of the fiery bum of Satan and then been shite splashed (with the help of the PC brigade and liberals probably) all over the the beige and posy clad metaphorical front lawns of the law abiding respectable people of Middle England. (also known as middle class white people) This also includes the world wide web (which the mails website, and the reader comments often agree with. Irony lives on), which apparently exists to directly beam hard core pornography and drugs into middle class toddlers brains. But what has got on the Mail readers collective noggin this week is; firstly the news that Google maps has extended Street View coverage to almost all the UK, and secondly and more seriously, the role of Facebook in the horrific murder of 17 year Ashleigh Hall by serial sex offender Peter Chapman, whom she met online and was lured to her death by Chapman who had impersonated a teenage boy on the net, more on this later.
I for one am glad that Street View has almost full coverage of the UK. I never knew how we managed to survive without being able to use the computer to look at strange looking people with blurred faces curiously gawping at a Streetview car in a provincial street in Doncaster. It's very addictive being able to have a nosey around old places you used to live and work, and of course has the added advantage of not having to physically travel there, which is great as I am too lazy to be bothered driving the 130 miles just to nostalgically ponce around in the centre of Worcester. But it seems (to be fair the Mail doesn't take sides) some aren't too happy. Now this isn't a new story in the UK as the residents of Broughton, Milton Keynes Village blocked a google car photographing their street (all of Broughton is covered. I decided in the interests of the residents privacy, to have a nosy anyway.) lest it invites burglars to steel their DVD players. Strangely they didn't seem to bothered to pose for the multimillion selling Mail, in the obligatory "angry people in the papers" picture, taken in broad daylight (yes) in their secluded street To be honest you can't really make out the interiors of peoples houses, the unrasterised pictures are similar quality to the pictures from the Mars Rover. The cameras are there for quantity not quality. The only thing me and a team of experts (which consisted of just me) could deduce about footage of my own house was that it was made of bricks and had windows. Street View is really; for all intents and purposes no more intrusive than walking down someones street, as for being an invasion of privacy (which is notoriously difficult to legislate what cast iron constitutes privacy), I don't think the exteriors of houses count as this. They also aren't real time pictures, as the Pugh cartoon in the Mail depicting a man spying on what his neighbours are doing doesn' t seem to understand. But we still get the unintentionally funny comments on the the article about it. Comments like this:


"Good job I didn't see it, I would have thrown a brick at the car, no one asked me if I wanted my house splashed all over the Internet, so much for Data Protection, and what about all the kids who play in my street are they photographed as well.? this is a buglers dream come true. Typical Nu Labour, snooping and spying on all of us, I'm never using google again, hope they go bust, there are plenty of search engines out there that don't help NU Labour spy on us and our children."

How it helps people who play the bugle is unclear, and how is it Nu Labours fault what a private company does?


"I have every right to privacy ! How dare this shameless country post pictures of my house on the Internet for the whole world to see !!! For all suckers saying anyone one see my house walking down the street , it is like saying, people can see me walking down the street but that doesnt mean I want pictures of me posted on the Net !!!

Fiona Sunderland"


God why can't these people see that what a private company does, is not the same as what a government does. I like comments like these, they seem to be so pompous, they think that everyone will think "Thank God for Streetview, I can now try to see if I can see Fiona from Sunderlands knickers on her washing line, from her street!" It's sad but true that Fiona's house, like my own house is of no interest at all to 99.9% percent of Street Viewers.

The second Internet gripe regards young peoples safety on Facebook. As we know Ashleigh Hall was lured to her death by a sex offender on the networking site, and that it was a tragic and senseless, but thankfully rare example of the absolute worst case scenario in meeting people on line. Now I know that meeting strangers on line can have dangerous consequences, and that the unworldiness of lonely youngsters, and the natural impulsiveness of teenagers can override their better judgement, and anyone willing to promote guidance for vulnerable kids about the risks of contact with on line is OK by me. But what I object too in this affair is the Mail blatantly distorting the risks posed by social networking (in this case Facebook), with lurid articles like this.

Now Williams-Thomas says that the editors added the Facebook references to the article after he had submitted it. (and the printed paper itself implicitly says he used facebook.), and in true Soviet Unionesque revisionism, the facebook references have now gone. I'm sure this has nothing to do with Facebook threatening to sue the Mail . But a cursory read of the article by anyone familiar with the website will easily show that he hadn't used it at all. I mean it can't even do the things he says it can.


"Even after 15 years in child protection, I was shocked by what I encountered when I spent just five minutes on a social networking [EXPLICITLY NAMED AS FACEBOOK IN THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE] site posing as a 14-year-old girl. Within 90 seconds, a middle-aged man wanted to perform a sex act in front of me.
I was deluged by strangers asking stomach-churning questions about my sexual experience. I was pressured to meet men with whom I'd never before communicated.
So I wasn't surprised that a vulnerable teenager, Ashleigh Hall, was groomed on Facebook before being brutally raped"


None of this can be done on facebook. You can't talk to people unless you are friends (on the site) with them, and this means you have to search for someone (who has to be signed up on facebook) you want to befriend, you've got some odds against you to locate a middle aged paedophile in one minute thirty ( sending a friend request, (and receiving a confirmation from the other person) This takes longer than 90 seconds. For a start they would have to be on-line the same time to immediately respond. You can't post real time videos either. Facebook is for the main part, communal. So these men would be posting the stuff he says they were in full view of everyone who is their "friends" news feeds. You know stuff that would draw attention, and the sort of stuff that would be kind of incriminating if the cops got hold of it.

The Streetview stuff is water of a ducks back for me. If people want to look stupid, commenting on a facility they know nothing about then that's up to them. But the Facebook (apart from being mislabeling and libelous to that company) thing misleads and obfuscates parents or friends who may not know much about the risks of the Internet, and can be mislead about where the danger really lies. So they may not be aware, or looking in the wrong places about the dangers to vulnerable people on the Internet. It does have dangerous places on it, and people need the facts, not misleading scare stories that look good for a tabloid audience. That won't help, and certainly won't stop the next Ashleigh Hall from potentially happening.

This is what happens when mob mentality is stirred up. The wrong people get hurt.

This morning must have been a shock for 27 year old David Calvert, a Liverpudlian who moved to Blackpool, a shock but not; perhaps a surprise. By breakfast time this morning two and a half thousand people on facebook, with a lot of righteous anger, and not so much possession of the facts had decided to start a facebook group (some even got this name texted to their phones.) making the claim that he was none other than the secret new identity for Jon Venables who is currently in prison, and that he has received threats, obviously by people so stupid that they can't see that a man who isn't in jail at the moment, can't really be a man who is in jail at the present time. You know little technicalities like that. This has happened before; five years ago. He was mistaken for Venables, largely because of two things, he's a Scouser who moved away from Liverpool, and he spent 4 months in the clink for fraud (you know, just like murder) Inevitably the threats and insinuations duly arrived, and presumably died down. I assume his name resurfaced after people have googled Venables for his whereabouts, seen this article and Calverts name, put 2 and 2 together, and come up with the letter Z. Now he has to relive the entire ordeal over again. He is said to be too afraid to leave his house, and fears for his wife and kids, and to be honest, who can really blame him? Even more worryingly he says he has received messages threatening to get him out by any means. I must emphasise that his tormentors are apparently so dense, that they are trying to hound a man they think is Venables inside of a Fleetwood house, but who is in fucking jail for God sake !!

This doesn't really do much for the case that Venables should be outed now, or indeed ever. If some people are really acting like this, and are so fired up by this lynching mob mentality, (read the Facebook comments. They're shocking.) on the basis of so little evidence. An innocent man is now cowering in fear in his own home, when it should be self evident, even to a child, that he can't possibly be the target of their ire! I won't say this often, but I almost felt sorry for the government ministers who are trying to placate this vengeful atmosphere, and are largely not succeeding.

I also think paradoxically, it weakens the case for identifying Venables to prevent others from being misidentified for him, and falling foul of the mob. As we have seen this kind of mentality flairs up (his recall brings him back into public eye, and tabloid headlines) and tends to sort of build to a positive feedback, with the mob mentality gathering momentum. If they were outed, we would get a fair amount of coverage of them, stoking the flames, and raking it up every so often. Even the toughest law and order advocate will realise that innocent bystanders are going to get hurt (friends, relatives, neighbours,) by association, if there whereabouts were known. Although we don't know the full story of what he was recalled for, and it could be argued what about the danger they may still (if they still do) pose to others? It is still more difficult for either to be a severe danger, what with the monitoring. (the recalling however may raise questions about how they are being monitored) It is probably for the best that they slip out of the greater consciousness as much as possible, in the hope that the mob lose interest. (these things tend to run out of steam fairly quickly, after the initial source of the ire) I don't even think outing them would stop innocents being attacked. From some of the facebook comments, some of the stupider mobbers would probably attack a sardine tin with a photo of Venables stuck on it, or even footballs Tery Venables. Too little brain and a lot of rage does that.

It's easy to stoke up this kind of unthinking lynch mob atmosphere, and there are many willing to take it up. It's less easy to put the genie back in the bottle, and innocent people like the David Calverts of this world often find themselves on the wrong side of the mob, whether it's malicious gossip, shitty information or general stupidity (a bad combination if all present). As Charles MacKay wrote in his book over 150 years ago "Madness of Crowds"

"Men think in herds. It is seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover thier senses slowly, and one by one."

Still applies today.

Review. Star Trek (2009) (Spoilerish)

You know if you go to this with an open mind, and can resist scrutinizing the movie against the established franchise (which isn’t a problem if you aren’t a Trek fan, so you may be in a better position than a Trekky to judge this film.) then this is actually a really enjoyable action romp. (Or is that trek?) This is a new film from a long and established franchise that has spanned decades, was on life support for about most of Voyagers run, and eventually flat lined when Enterprises low ratings (composed of three slightly nerdy single men, an ash tray and a dog) meant Paramount wasn't going to just sign cheques away no questions asked; to anything with "Trek" in the title. It's been rebooted and repackaged for a contemporary audience, in the mold of a FX laden adventure film. It doesn’t really ponder the human condition any more than it really has too (and it doesn’t have much of that either) which could be problematic to those who may have (justified) presuppositions as to what defines the franchise. I think the scene when Spock and Kirk debate the fate of the lead baddy at the end, will be most problematic to fan consensus (after all Trek has had many different writers) on what was Gene Roddenberry's (the creator of Star Trek) take on his shows philosophy and on its greater take on the human condition.

One thing it does do well and takes from the original series, which is chosen as it is the most recognisable part of the franchise to people new to Trek, is to recreate the great characterisation of the original crew. Particular stand outs are Chris Pine as Kirk. He fortunately doesn't try to impersonate Bill Shatner in the role, but delivers us a cocky but still likable lead. Kirk in the original was a seat of the pants guy (and doesn't believe in the no win scenario like this Kirk) but this was tempered by his experience and command role, this Kirk through the events in the movie has had differing circumstances, where he has had the lifestyle of a drifter and a rebel who has been through the school of hard knocks, and perhaps because of the tough knocks he's had we sympathise with him despite him being cocky. So he doesn't come across as a swaggering, priggish cock. Zachery Quinto is also excellent as Spock, he almost feels and looks like a young Leonard Nimoy, one of the best bits of casting I've seen. He also plays the role with subtle differences to the original. This one has more trouble bottling up his human half, (and this dichotomy of his half human status is most of the human element of the show.) and tolerating a certain young future captain. His "up yours" to the Vulcan council is a great scene (especially in regard to his mum. Freud would have a field day), and this leads too some harrowing scenes between the two on the bridge. The other bridge crew each get at least a look in (unlike much of the original) Karl Urban is superb as Dr. "Bones" Mccoy, as the cynical but thoroughly decent ships medic, Zoe Saldana adds a zesty bite to her role as Uhura, and doesn't come across as just background eye candy. Simon Pegg is comedy relief as chief engineer Scotty. The scenes of Kirks birth are played well and give the film an emotional and poignant punch at the beginning of the film to drive the rest of it along. We care about these people, and what's happening to them.
The film has been designed to appeal to a wide audience not just the trekky niche. This will inevitably mean it will appeal more to the non trekky elements, than the fan base, so someone who has never seen the show can enjoy it purely on its own merits, rather than needing a framework in the context of the franchise, which is more the case for the Next Generation films. In fact you could probably drop all the Trek references , and change the names of the ship and the planets /aliens and it would still work as a film. This means that it has quite a different feel to the older films. It's not a bad feel, but for me it was most noticeable in the scenery and visuals of the films. The warehouse shots of the Enterprise engine room and the abandoned base feel grungey and industrial, which don't seem to fit into the shiny Star Trek universe to well. But besides this, for the fans, there are subtle nods to all the shows in there. The people writing it obviously have a deep respect for the 60's show, and the action scenes are as tightly paced and exciting as the best of the episodes were.

The film has only two really majorish flaws with it. The first is that the execution of the plot can sometimes be a bit dodgy, with obvious holes in logic. Apparently federation planets don't have any surface defences whatsoever to fight back against a baddy Romulan ship that just sits there. Why is this mining ship of all things like the most powerful and biggest thing ever built? Where are these guys mining at? Mordor? All sci-fi mining ships are always grotty and rusty (in space??!!) The matter that makes black holes (literally a hole. So the laws of physics must have been rebooted as well.) I mean come on! But if you take all this with a pinch of salt you should be OK. The second, and more serious flaw is the main baddy Nero. He just never gets the characterisation he deserves as main villain. Eric Bana is a great actor, he was chilling, idiosyncratic and charming as the lead in Chopper but his talents are wasted here, and we get none of these on display. Just him standing about in the gloom glaring in the middle distance at everything and everyone, and I never felt we knew him or what motivated him. The other Romulans are really only there to be baddys to get shot.

But if you take it for what it is, a well paced action film with a bit of pathos here and there. It's a well spent two hours. Whether the more dedicated trekkie can make the leap, or whether it is the right direction for trek films in general (I thought a sort of high concept, ideas driven reboot like the new Batman films would have been nice) is another matter entirely.

This isn't about Justice for James

As we have seen this week, John Venables, one of the two 10 year old boys who tortured and murdered toddler James Bulger in Liverpool in 1993, has been recalled to prison after breaking the conditions of the strict terms of his release licence. (for his entire lifetime.)

There was something tangibly ghastly about James Bulgers murder. I was 13 when he was killed on a railway line in a grim estate in Liverpool, and I remember it well. How could two kids do the things they did? Snarling adults pounding at steel mesh windows of a police Transit Van, trying to get at two 10 year old boys inside. The incendiary headlines like the "Star" offering 20 grand to "snare the bastards who slaughtered Jamie", and the Expresses "Monsters", and the infamous grainy CCTV footage of the two boys luring him to his fate. We have a strange dual standard about children in the UK. On the one hand, as a glance at any of the obituaries to dead children, whether Baby P, or yet another hit and run victim, will show -there's talk of angels in heaven, and innocent tots full of love. But then we are castigated by Time magazine for deliberately alienating and fearing our bling crusted, and hoodie wearing teenagers. It is perhaps not too much of a stretch to say that some of the visceral hatred directed towards them was because they shone a dark and shattered mirror in the publics face about something we don't want to see. Pre teen childhood violence. It lead to much soul searching. How do we square that two boys brutally killed a toddler in such a hideous manner, with the circle of the presumption of childhood innocence, and how they could be judged by adult standard. It created a debate on criminality that has never been adequately settled, and still stirs up strong emotions even today, as we have seen.

As the two are subject to lifelong anonymity orders (including new identities) that the press have to (reluctantly as we'll see.) legally abide by, the details of what he has been recalled for are vague, but it seems that if the Sunday Mirror is to be believed, that it may pertain to suspicion of child porn. From what dribs and drabs the press are legally allowed to disclose about Venables, it seems that release has been mentally tough for him, with reports that he uses alcohol and drugs and has, on more than one occasion - blurted out his real identity to strangers. (and even possibly inmates at where he is being held.) The tabloids are of course going to town on him being banged up again. It is in their eyes a vindication of their theories that the pair are monsters beyond the pale of all human redemption, and that if they had been allowed to publish their whereabouts (this theme is recurrent in editorials, and loaded statements in articles on the case) this would not have happened. The government are coming under fire from both the tabloids and emotionally charged interviews with James parents who believe that their sons killers got off too lightly in the first place anyway, and want what alleged terms Venables was recalled for made public, and even Venables new identity to be made known if and when he stands trial. Gordon Brown and Jack Straw have put out rather tenuous statements about how they sympathise with "public opinion" on the issue but are unwilling to interfere with the workings of the legal system. Jack Straw was quoted as:

"I said on Wednesday that I was unable to give further details of the reasons for Jon Venables' return to custody, because it was not in the public interest to do so.
That view was shared by the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

We all feared that a premature disclosure of information would undermine the integrity of the criminal justice process, including the investigation and potential prosecution of individual(s).

Our motivation throughout has been solely to ensure that some extremely serious allegations are properly investigated and that justice is done. No-one in this country would want anything other. That is what the authorities remain determined to do."

Now leaving aside the fact that calling for the details (and by extension the identity of the man himself) of the terms of the breach of licence he is only suspected of doing is a complete legal minefield of thorny issues. It would also likely jeopardise any proceedings that could be subsequently brought against him, a judge could easily say that a jury who knew Venables was in the dock could be too easily swayed by this knowledge to come to a reasonable conclusion about this separate case, and that the verdict does not stand up to the required standard of acceptable justice. Then you have the legality of breaking an anonymity injunction. It would cause severe problems for any future proceedings against him that may be put in place. On a more personal level, revealing what has happened would make him easily identifiable to other inmates / wardens, and revealing his new identity means everyone can identify him. Now whatever your views on forgiveness of past crimes or punishment and retribution, I find it very hard to swallow that a move that would potentially lead to a vigilante lynching of a man who, although committed a dreadful crime, did so at ten years old. This kind of thing has no place in any civilised society. It would also set a dangerous precedent in legal procedures. If we want a good and humane justice system, it must be fair and applied objectively and evenly, not shook up to cater to the whims of stoked up mob mentality, which means some will be dealt with more severely in relation to others who are not as infamous

As I said before, the tabloids have always had the Bulger killers in their sights. Partly it is due the uniquely awful nature of the killing and with it the enormous amounts of public consciousness the murder resonated, and in that lies stories people want to read, and the tabloids are willing to supply. What also fuels this obsession with the pair is the press injunction that provides them anonymity. Obviously tabloids and their bombastic editors love the enormous influence and ability to make mischief whilst sitting out the consequences of the near useless PCC (I honestly think the Tweenies would do a better job running this organisation). The injunction is a block on their power and they hate that. Also they are thinking of the potential windfall in readers if their identities were allowed to be printed. Probably everyone, to varying degrees is a little curious about what became of them. Memorable murders bring in readers (that's why we all still know the name "Jack the Ripper") and have a strange interest to some people. I'd imagine a "Bulger Killers Revealed" headline would be a goldmine for a red top editor. This injunction is the only thing stopping this happening, and that is why we get comments that subtly hint at this like Carole Malone from the NOTW:

"And if now, Venables knew the public would be told of his every transgression, it might just kick him back on track. No, his identity must never be revealed because he'll be pursued by lynch mobs.
But the result of years of anonymity is he now thinks he's bulletproof, that whatever crime he commits the police will protect him. It's a privilege afforded to no other criminal - except, perversely, the very worst ones.
So what is this government's message to young thugs - the more heinous the crime you commit, the cushier life you'll have?
Nice one! At least it is if you're a child killer!

and the Mail on Sunday editorial. How they typed this with a straight face I'll never know?:

"We do not know. But the bitter irony in this case is that with myriad rumours swirling around, Venables may be being maligned in a way he may not deserve.
Forget the fact that, once again, Labour has put the rights of the criminal ahead of those of the victim and his family.
Forget the £4million that has been spent on rehabilitating Venables and Thompson - giving them new identities and a lifestyle almost certainly more comfortable than they would have enjoyed had they not killed James.
What is truly disturbing is that somebody can be jailed in Britain without the authorities having to reveal why."

The Mail has some considerable sympathy with the need for Venables' anonymity to be preserved. But equally we believe in the sacredness of open justice and that incarcerating people in secret is the first step towards the Kafkaesque world of totalitarian regimes."

Now the press claiming that they are fighting the noble fight, when they are just pursuing naked self interest is nothing new, but there is one person who I do think is being manipulated by all this, and perhaps isn't aware that she is being used as a tool to promote other agendas. That is Denise Fergus, James' mother. Now let me stress I have absolutely nothing but sympathy for her and her plight. Losing your child in the most appalling way possible, and having to relive his last moments through a lengthy trial, and then being denied the sense of catharsis at the trials conclusion, due to the unique and more morally ambiguous nature of the juvenile killers is something no one should ever endure in their lifetime. Although I don't agree with her desire to see her child's killers "outed" I can understand why she feels let down by the system. No-one can tell her that she is wrong to feel the way she feels, because almost no-one endures what she has so tragically had to bear. But sadly Mrs. Fergus is tabloid dynamite for stories like these, and editors keen for the "right" kind of soundbites, and are pounding on her door. She says all the right things (She still hates the pair, and time has not dulled that) and comes out with those hard line unanswerable rhetorical questions (what about my rights over the killers rights. I've got a life sentence, they haven't) that are make great quotes for right wing newspapers. It's hard not to feel for her, constantly being interviewed whenever a particularly salient murder makes the headline. The emotional toll it must take on her? It is sad to think that the Suns "Justice for James" e-petition (over the government not publishing the exact details of what Venables has been recalled for) may be seen as a genuine campaign to help the family of a young murder victim than what it really is, an attempt to flog a shed load of papers.

Richard Littlejohns take on Michael Foot.

I'll try to avoid posting articles on Richard Littlejohn. Trying to pin down exactly what is wrong with the articles he writes is like trying to explain why you didn't think Gigli was a good film, or subtly pointing out to Shane McGowan of the Pogues, just why he should try out those people called dentists now and then. Where, and at what logical point do you even possibly begin to start? It's frankly quite depressing to be faced with most of his articles (a black hole of bad puns, lousy skits on 70's sitcoms about gay policemen or whatever, and all the other thinly veiled prejudices and spite he doles out.) and I leave it to the guys who post on Mailwatch to do that sort of thing. I'd just end up slitting all my arteries with rusty garden shears mid way through an article, at the sheer volumes of drivel Littleprick taps out on his word processor. But as he's written about Michael Foot, like I did I thought I should comment on it.

Now as anyone who knows the name Jan Moir will know, the Mail has no objections about their journos writing speculative innuendo and insinuation about the target of their article, irrespective of if they are still warm in the morgue, and this one is no better (I mean they didn't pull any punches for a former boy band member, what hope did a former Labour leader have?) Michael Foot. Good Old Footy. No dangerous deluded hypocrite. In it we learn that the late party leader was a draft dodger during WW2; that he was a Soviet stooge, oh and he wore a donkey jacket at the cenotaph (sigh). Well I did a bit of research into "Footys" background here and here. It's a wonderful research tool, is t'internet, and don't think I'm pointing this out to lazy columnists. So lets have a look at Dickys claims.

FOOT WAS A BATTLE DODGER.

Littlejohn says Foot all but shirked fighting in the second world war, (fine line between conscientious objector and cowardice) to lap it up in comfort in smart Islington society. Well it does seem he was rejected for military service due to asthma problems. It also is unfair that Littlejohn said that he didn't contribute to the war effort. He wrote a popular book condemning appeasement. He was editor of the Evening Standard during much of the war, a protected position, and considered necessary for the domestic war effort. (Londons largest local newspaper) and was considered one of the most able public morale boosting editors. His pieces outlined the need to defeat Hitler, and the strength and value of British democracy against Nazi tyranny. Now it's a "how long is a piece of string" argument what is considered "doing your bit" in war time. But I think that being an editor strongly supporting the need to act against Hitler was a pretty important responsibility in that war. He also claims Foot let others do the fighting against Francos forces in the Spanish civil war, (he did not fight himself.) but he ignores the fact that Foot did visited dissidents to the Franco regime (I'm sure he'd have loved a left wing critic of his regime chewing the fat with his enemies, in his own prisons) in the 70's and was almost imprisoned for doing so. Not the actions of a cowardly person I think.

FOOT WAS A SOVIET STOOGE.
Littlejohn stops short of calling Foot an outright traitor to Britain during the Cold War. But he does claim that Foot was unaware / unwilling to comment on Stalin's crimes, and the repression the USSR committed on the Warsaw Pact countries. This doesn't seem to be the case if we read up on him. Although he was undoubtedly a socialist, and believed in some aspects of Marx's philosophy, he was vocally disappointed that the USSR was behaving dictatorially, and that a long established liberty supported British based system coupled with socialism would have avoided the bloodshed that occured under the regime. He opposed Stalins tyranny and Gulags, and was pilloried by some on the left for what he said, and condemned the tanks being sent in to Hungary in 1956. He even supported NATO.

He also wasn't an outright pacifist in the sense we would understand it, and the charge levelled by some against anti-nuke protesters. (all wars are unjust all the time.) He was passionately anti -nuke and pro CND. He did however support the action in the Falklands against the junta in Argentina. This contradiction between a hatred of war and a need to preserve democracy even by force bothered him immensely throughout his life.

THE DONKEY JACKET.
If you can't go for the big things, just resort to low rent ad hom attacks. And they say that journalism these days relies to much on dumbing down, and low level cheap sniping. I can't imagine why.

Now let me stress I'm NOT saying he should have been banned from writing it. I just think we need a bit more journalistic rigour when we are writing articles that have some pretty serious insinuations (draft dodging and being a kept creature of a hostile power) in them, towards a man who hasn't even been dead for 3 days. It's not too much to assume that Britains (reputedly) highest paid columnist should perhaps do a bit of homework (I didn't know that much about Foot until I researched for these posts) before committing to print. You know, its like good practice.