Some that went astray.

A selection of items that went astray either because of my own pc ineptitude or just weren't published.


Reply to MP. Mary Creagh, W/Express, June 28th. 2005.

It’s good to see that Wakefield MP, Mary Creagh, is taking an interest in school meals but it must be asked as to what is meant by ‘junkfood’. Is there any significant nutritional difference between say an Allum’s pork pie (1), one of Jamie Oliver’s mate’s organic sausages or the sausage rolls banned at St. John’s school, let alone chips and burgers?
It’s becoming a well used cliché that we are living longer and healthier lives despite our supposedly bad diets and everything else we do.
Intensified agriculture, industrialised food processes and greater transport links have given us a wide variety and abundance of foods. Much more than small scale production, which I hope is not what Ms. Creagh means when she states that under her bill children will be taught how to grow food. It would be good if that meant GMO food technology but in these wary and backward looking times that seems unlikely.
Food quality and availability has increased to the point that we probably don’t need three square meals a day and can actually do quite well on mass produced and relatively inexpensive snack food - as well as the odd square meal. Testament to this is the earlier onset of puberty in kids. It’s just a pity that this earlier physical maturing isn’t matched by social maturity. That is something for adults to deal with.
Thankfully we are not all the same and to some extent have different needs and wants. That kids choose so called junk food over ‘proper’ food isn’t really the problem and is something they will likely grow out of.
Behind this lies New Labour’s agenda to micro manage ever more aspects of our behaviour, lifestyle and choices. This isn’t forwards, it’s back.


(1) see Mary Creagh’s weblog.

*

BBC fox hunting response: Open season on Politicians?

A one time veggy (5yrs of crap food and many a broken tooth - that's lentils for you) and still a nature lover I think some of the respondents are getting their arguments mixed up. Others hit the nail on the head re importance of other issues. In truth the hunting issue is about much more than how it is presented.
It is a classic Labour fudging issue, a delaying tactic. Why rerun this non issue when there is an election next year and UK presidency of the European Union? Blair proposes having a referendum after the election, but what does he stand for now?
It is also a sop to Labour's sentimental middle class support but has 'radical' chic for bashing the rich. Revenge by proxy for the miner's strike? In this though it catches all, convention paves the way for legislation that extends to all our liberty. The state establishes the right to intervene in our lives. Heads are cracked and peoples lives are severely disrupted, and over what?
We afford nature sentiment that it doesn't have - witness leopard seals after fulfilling their immediate needs playing with dead penguins - Oi! no, cut it out!, or a penguin chick finding itself well down the pecking order and the subject of digestion at dinner. These animals have no morals and no manners, perhaps ALF et al could discuss this with the lions - that would make interesting conversation I'm sure. Or even our friend Basil, the cunning fox, a beautiful creature but full of disease, will he thank us? Unless you are a Doolittle he'll be rummaging through your bins or, in the case of where I live - twixt town and country - killing your chickens. Of course he's more likely to be secretly fraternising with his canine cousins and forming a resistance movement. Then we'll really be in trouble - the pavements will run with . . . .
Hunting, shooting 'n' fishing are fine, bull fights aren't particularly my thing but neither was cricket, a cock-fight? - perhaps, but I'm not too sure about badger baiting - maybe Sky could give it an image makeover.
As a means of pest control fox hunting must rank pretty expensively but then it's no more about that than the ban is about it being cruel. The ignorant should take their blinkers off and take a look at what's going on then we might be able to address some real issues for a change.

*

A response to Mick Hume's column in The Times -'Buy a fish and become a potential abuser'.

Recent events have fair made me want to go and join my 'local' hunt - after all, that seems to be where all the action is. And what could be more fun? A license to do what the bally heck one likes, though mayhaps with a certain etiquette. Even better - the assorted toffs and yeomanry - our country cousins - prepared to stand up and say they'd had enough - had enough of playing by the rules, doing the decent thing, following procedure and getting nowhere for it. And this because the Labour party, when not dragging it's feet over something important like Europe flails around for some self fulfilling mission that has us all for fools.
For a start, since when has nature afforded itself the comforts that we would seem to bestow upon it? Never! Nature may have it's beauty but it will always be savage - witness any quality wildlife programme for details. The current state of affairs risks putting all humanity below nature. Nature has definitely not asked to be liberated - it's too busy eating itself. Are we to assume that the feeding frenzy that is nature will adopt civilized rules? We may as well throw those to the lions that think they come up with a convincing enough argument.
New Labour - take 'em with a pinch of salt.

*

To the Wakefield Express.

Your Express comment of last week - 'Build on brown sites, not green' raised some interesting points. However, I contest developing brownfield sites for housing. They would be much better put to use as parks and recreational areas and we should turn our attention to some fresh material - the countryside.
It is a myth that we are overcrowded and destroying the 'natural' environment. UK agriculture is productive enough to free up vast areas of land so that we could spread out, live in the countryside and with plenty of room too. This would not see everywhere covered in concrete - far from it. Some 75% would remain 'untouched' even at the highest build rates.
Current policy is to cram more people (taxpayers/consumers) into higher density urban housing, limit car use and impose a set of rules and regulations as to how we should be living our lives. The housing market is inflated by low interest rates, high demand and limited supply - coupled with the backward nature of the construction industry and stifling officialdom, development falters.
That this is happening at a time when we have never had it so good and is based on some romanticised, pastoral idyll more reflects todays pessimistic outlook than anything else. Do we really have such a low opinion of ourselves that we believe we are out to spoil the world we live in?

*