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.