Rough around the edges.

Greens . .

2012-01-09T12:41:00.000Z

2011 Battle of Ideas. 29th and 30th October.

2011-09-06T15:30:00.005+01:00

Battle of Ideas 2011 29 & 30 October, London. Two days of high-level, thought-provoking, public debate organised by the Institute of Ideas, hosted by the Royal College of Art.

2011 Programme: Festival weekend overview

The Festival weekend includes more than 70 debates which are listed below ordered by time slot and
room.

Saturday 29 October: 10.30am-12.00pm

Keynote Controversies Upper Gulbenkian Gallery

The Battle against the Fates

Battle for the World Lecture Theatre 1

Unrealpolitik: a new New world order?

Battle for Morality Courtyard Gallery

What is evil? The politics of morality

Thought for the day Lecture Theatre 2

Censoring science: have scientists become the new inquisitors?

Food Fight Café

Is big business ruining food?

Society Wars Henry Moore Gallery

Drinking by numbers: should we count our alcohol units?

Provocation Zone Students' Union

From the sublime to the ridiculous: can we measure the value of the arts?

Saturday 29 October: 12.15pm-1.15pm

Lunchtime Debates Upper Gulbenkian Gallery

What is nature for?

Battle for the World Lecture Theatre 1

Eurozonia: too big to fail; too small to succeed?

Battle for Morality Courtyard Gallery

Maybe I do? Marriage in the modern era

Lunchtime Debates Lecture Theatre 2

Seduced by stats?

Society Wars Henry Moore Gallery

Doing it for charity?

Lunchtime Debates Students' Union

Tomorrow never knows? Sci-fi and the future

Saturday 29 October: 1.30pm-3.00pm

Keynote Controversies Upper Gulbenkian Gallery

Profiting responsibly? Business in the big society

Battle for the World Lecture Theatre 1

Middle East 'revolutions': hopes and fears?

Battle for Morality Courtyard Gallery

Your mind, your high: is recreational drug use morally wrong?

In Conversation Salons Lecture Theatre 2

The Tea Party – defenders of the American Dream?

Food Fight Café

Eating ethics: are some foods morally bad for you?

Society Wars Henry Moore Gallery

Remaking citizens for the ‘Big Society’

Provocation Zone Students' Union

What is the point of being an artist?

Saturday 29 October: 3.30pm-5.00pm

Keynote Controversies Upper Gulbenkian Gallery

Creativity and curiosity: do we make stuff up or find it out?

Battle for the World Lecture Theatre 1

The trillion dollar question: is the US economy resurgent or dependent?

Battle for Morality Courtyard Gallery

Coarse sex and cheap lives

In Conversation Salons Lecture Theatre 2

What's innovation good for?

Food Fight Café

Are we turning our children into food faddists?

Society Wars Henry Moore Gallery

Radical surgery for the NHS? What is a GP's role today

Provocation Zone Students' Union

Dreaming spires for all? Oxbridge and social mobility

Saturday 29 October: 5.15pm-6.30pm

Thought for the day Upper Gulbenkian Gallery

Moral panics or just panic?

Battle for the World Lecture Theatre 1

Is this Africa's decade?

Battle for Morality Courtyard Gallery

Crime and punishment: what are prisons for?

Thought for the day Lecture Theatre 2

Online communities

Food Fight Café

Debating Matters International Final: GM Crops - UK versus India

Society Wars Henry Moore Gallery

Hand-out Britain? Has a dependency culture made us sick?

Thought for the day Students' Union

Performing politics: is all the world a stage?

Sunday 30 October: 9.45am-10.30am

Battle for our Brains Lecture Theatre 1

Life off Earth: are the aliens out there?

Reassessing... Politics Courtyard Gallery

Civil disobedience or violent criminality?

Breakfast Banter Lecture Theatre 2

Haters gonna hate: should we hate hate?

Sporting Contests Café

Fan till I die? The meaning of being a football supporter

Head to Head Debates Henry Moore Gallery

The Simpsons versus Shakespeare

Breakfast Banter Students' Union

Are the Germans still European?

Sunday 30 October: 10.45am-12.15pm

Keynote Controversies Upper Gulbenkian Gallery

Has tolerance gone too far?

Battle for our Brains Lecture Theatre 1

Sex in the brain: do men and women think differently?

Reassessing... Politics Courtyard Gallery

Can conservatism survive the 21st century?

Films Q&A Lecture Theatre 2

Sylvia Pankhurst: everything is possible

Sporting Contests Café

The Greatest Show on Earth: from Olympia to London

Frame Debates Henry Moore Gallery

What is history education for?

Head to Head Debates Students' Union

Abortion: how late is "too late"?

Sunday 30 October: 12.29pm-1.29pm

Lunchtime Debates Upper Gulbenkian Gallery

Fracking and Fukushima: our energy security fears

Battle for our Brains Lecture Theatre 1

Designer people: is technology making us less human?

Reassessing... Politics Courtyard Gallery

Can social democracy survive the 21st century?

Lunchtime Debates Lecture Theatre 2

Silencing sectarianism: football's free speech wars

Lunchtime Debates Henry Moore Gallery

Rebirth of the author?

Lunchtime Debates Students' Union

Burlesque: female empowerment or posh stripping?

Sunday 30 October: 1.45pm-3.15pm

Keynote Controversies Upper Gulbenkian Gallery

Loyalty in an age of whistle-blowing and Wikileaks

Battle for our Brains Lecture Theatre 1

Is there a ghost in the machine?

Reassessing... Politics Courtyard Gallery

Queer times: has the gay rights movement triumphed?

In Conversation Salons Lecture Theatre 2

Tiger mothers: the great parenting row

Sporting Contests Café

Drugs and bionics: enhancing sport?

Frame Debates Henry Moore Gallery

Skilling up the jilted generation: the employability debate

Provocation Zone Students' Union

Roads or ruins? The politics of cultural preservation

Sunday 30 October: 3.45pm-5.15pm

Keynote Controversies Upper Gulbenkian Gallery

Is individualism bad for society?

Battle for our Brains Lecture Theatre 1

Smart drugs: magic bullet or cheating ourselves?

Reassessing... Politics Courtyard Gallery

What is feminism for?

In Conversation Salons Lecture Theatre 2

Islamophobia: the new racism or liberal angst?

Sporting Contests Café

Olympic expectations: can't see the games for the legacy?

Frame Debates Henry Moore Gallery

Ain’t misbehaving - do British children need the army to sort them out?

Provocation Zone Students' Union

Dead Cities: ruin porn and the urban imagination

Sunday 30 October: 5.30pm-6.30pm

Thought for the day Upper Gulbenkian Gallery

The rise of the clicktivists: will the revolution be digitised?

Battle for our Brains Lecture Theatre 1

Can you tell when someone is lying to you? - Film Q&A

Reassessing... Politics Courtyard Gallery

Rise of European populism: the revenge of politics?

Thought for the day Lecture Theatre 2

Through a glass darkly: why do atheists love the King James Bible?

Sporting Contests Café

Who is the greatest ever Olympian? Balloon debate

Thought for the day Henry Moore Gallery

Pax Romana: civilising the barbarians or evil empire?

Thought for the day Students' Union

Interns or slave labour?

Sunday 30 October: 6.30pm-7.30pm

What next for...? Upper Gulbenkian Gallery

Being together?

We need more power!

2011-08-26T23:14:00.000+01:00

How gladdening to read a Guardian comment thread* that seems mostly supportive of something as progressive as Nuclear Fusion (I've yet to read all the comments tho . . 375 at last count).

As many have pointed out, much more money goes into warfaring, cosmetics and even mobile phone ringtones. The Manhattan Project sums are an interesting comparison; irrespective of the dollar cost apparently just 0.4% of US GDP brought the A bomb to fruition. If I recall correctly ( . . hmm?) 0.4% of England's GDP would provide 10 ITERs and fund them for a decade.
This is important as ITER is a research unit - a one-off - with each stage of testing yielding vast amounts of information requiring further investigation as well as complications and frustrations then lengthy shut down periods for rebuild.

At a discussion with the 250 New Towns Club, Robin Stafford Allen, Mechanical Engineer at Culham, yearned for such a scenario akin to Formula 1 racing where different teams developed their ideas based on a common vehicle so as to develop the project as a whole and speed the day when this awesome technology comes on stream. Instead we have scientists grubbing around on eBay for spares!

Unfortunately, too many politicians are short term in their outlook and lack the imagination to see society develop hence the rise of misanthropic snots . . erm . . greens.

When once we believed in space travel and humanity unbound current ideas have us cower beneath rocks and scared of the future.

We need more power; we need Nuclear Fusion or whatever new developments the process brings. After all, there's all those re-runs of Coronation Street (or Crossroads if you're Robin Stafford Allen . . )

(*Damn! - 'Comments closed')

Take it to the bridge.

2011-08-11T12:54:00.002+01:00

There's no two ways about it - Horbury Junction needs a new bridge.
By coincidence, such matters were discussed at a recent WMDC cabinet meeting but disappointing, though not surprised, to see this is largely to do with the precautionary principle - eg, what if a member of public or business puts a claim in? - and wrangling over who is responsible for costs rather than the positivities of 'merely' having stuff that works and increasing mobility.

What was labeled as a temporary measure to alleviate pressure on a weakened bridge has become permanent. Traffic now crosses on one side with the other kerb-stoned off and traffic lights regulate the flow, kind of which begs the question: if the bridge is weak then does it make sense to concentrate traffic to just the one side?

The traffic lights are also problematic as they hinder the free flow of vehicles. Some may see this as a boon as it slows down people happy to get away from work soon as possible, those late getting to work and 'boy-racers' on their way to party at the lagoons. My house is some 30 metres from the road and what calm there is often shattered by trucks clattering past at all hours and must be hellish for those by the roadside.

The bridge and roads are well used due to the industrial estate with many manufacturers of large and heavy steel products, a road haulage company, council building depot and significant others. At one time Charles Roberts wagonworks then Bombardier Prorail had abnormal loads of complete train carriages meandering their way up and down the road.
There's also roughly 170 houses down here - and at one time a proposal for another 140 dwellings on the pallet yard site.

All in all a lot of traffic uses the bridge so there's a substantial case for its renewal. Will it get done though?

In this day and age the 'best' that can be expected is perhaps for strengthening of the existing structure and some cameras to stop us frustrated and impatient motorists jumping the lights. If anything at all - some councils have opted not to repair roads as part of a general campaign to slow down traffic rather than build the dreaded speed bump; maintaining infrastructure isn't quite the norm as our general mobility is under threat, as is our desire for material betterment. And successive legislations seem happier to go for flashier, attention-grabbing 'Regeneration' initiatives.

Maybe having the industrial estate on the doorstep could sway things in favour of a new bridge?

There's a blue heritage plaque on the wall of Charles Roberts' old office complex that draws attention to his pioneering railway wagon works and the manufacture of Churchill tanks during WW2 - the latter something the good people of Horbury are supposed to know chapter and verse about according to Yorkshire Life magazine - we're also supposed to go around whistling and singing 'Onward Christian soldiers' due to the author, Sabine Baring-Gould, having lived locally (the fact that the Luddites caused the most damage in the country as the factory system began to radically alter their lives happened here rarely gets a mention, neither that Chas. Roberts' factory produced still-standing pre-fab housing after WW2).

That tanks were built here is supposed to confer some sense of duty and sacrifice amongst the public - in a sense that while others have lain down there lives supposedly for us - then as now - then we could at least bear some hardships.
Like not having decent infrastructure.

It really ought not be too difficult to replace this bridge or any other large infrastructure. Although beyond the remit of this article the role the military play is interesting. In this case - bridge building - the armed forces have some pretty impressive equipment and vital experience in providing temporary bridges and could provide a much more progressive and productive role as, eg, an army of engineers, rather than 'a body of armed men' whose purpose is mostly destructive in maintaining the interests of the state and the few. Further to that is the military mindset of focus, overcoming difficulties and getting the job done - when not hampered by officialdom . . . ironically, the very thing they fight to maintain.

Heavy lift airships capable of lifting 1000 tonnes are on the drawing board with the capacity to revolutionise building and transport. Whole pre-manufactured units such as bridges, housing - even power stations in modular form - could be lifted into place without the usual disruptions with on site building and transportation.
Needless to say that the military are considering their deployment and not too hard to guess if and when they do come into service who gets them first.

The best way to predict the future is to invent it.

An exhibition by Leeds metropolitan University architecture and design students called Future Wakefield had an idea for a combined rail and airship station but set in 2090 as it's assumed that the public aren't ready for this kind of future just now. But serviceable airships have already existed for over a hundred years and it will be 200 years by 2090.

There is very much a case to be made for modern thinking, mobility and getting things done over the staid, traditional and stay put and rather think it would be considered preferable, inspiring, even, to progress than put up with dilapidated services and infrastructure.
And materials and design students as well as many others would find regular and engaging work.

Who will pay for this? In short, the public will, by either making do with a congested and badly-built environment or the long, drawn-out and expensive consultations that accompany getting anything done these days.

In real, practical terms repairing or replacing the bridge, although not entirely straightforward, should be a piece o' piss. If such necessary things as maintaining infrastructure was the norm, ie, we just got on with it.

ASD Westok, originators and manufacturers of cellular beams could provide two, perhaps three, 32 metre* long beams capable altogether of supporting, say, 100 tonnes load on a deck 10 metres wide. The existing bridge is 9m wide including footpaths either side but increasing the width to 10 or even 12 metres allows greater traffic flow and gives trucks better maneuverability.
(* all weights and measures are 'googled' estimates.)

Even though Westok are significant users of the bridge I'm not suggesting it's down to them to replace it although it would be a good leaving present when they relocate later this year and perhaps worthy of a blue plaque. Of course there are other manufacturers of similar products but just as a matter of sheer simplicity as Westok are on the doorstep (they're also previous employers but that's another story).

Not saying they'd want to, and they'd likely not thank me, but the lads/an inspired workforce could make the framework over a few dinner-times from left over stock and bits in the yard . . .

Stripping things bare: the actual cost of the raw material and its manufacture to finished product - say, if you were doing it for yourself - then the time it would take to install. Done to military efficiencies (on a good day . . ) and with skylifters that's likely: survey, make bridge, clear access, make temporary service connections, demolish old and remove, install new bridge, patch in, tidy up.

With skylifting capacity size and tonnage are much less of a consideration and newer methods and materials could be easier brought into use, eg., plate steel sizes, beam lengths, etc. would not be dictated by existing capacities of road or rail bound transport. Whole sections of slab steel could be profiled in one piece thus limiting the intensity of labour and the compromised solution of splitting and rejoining a universal beam.

Likely there's more to it than a fag packet sketch, maybe it's unnecessary as perhaps cheaper, less elaborate solutions do exist but far from seeing things as a gimmick the maintenance and improvement of the built environment - how and where we live - and the running of a progressive economy are paramount and well worth fighting for.

Pie in the sky?

While we're at it we might as well reinstall the train station that I assume gave Horbury Junction its name so that we have increased and speedier transport options - older neighbours happily recall using the service to get to such as Liverpool and Scarborough and that in Chas. Roberts heyday Millfield Rd had 'streams of workmen' using it to and from work.

Even though this may soon find itself obsolete should airships become commonplace and air travel, freight and other services replace conventional rail systems and much of how the road network is used.

Come to think of it, we might not to replace the bridge at all . . .

(Not to make a specific case for Horbury Junction as there are many bridges in need of replacement from supposedly the world's most advanced economy as well as major projects in under-developed countries.)

BettaKultcha and Pecha Kucha

2010-11-01T12:28:00.005Z

'The battle lines are drawn between the expanders and restrainers; those who believe that there should be no impediments and those who believe that we must live within limits’

Hammy's tales of the riverbank #1

Hammy #2

BettaKultcha.

C ountdown is progressing . . .

Letter to Wakefield Express re ongoing LDF discussion.

2010-10-08T12:13:00.000+01:00

(Not published in Wakefield Express).

Whilst it should be welcomed that Wakefield district is to get thousands more households - there is a pressing need for more housing - it really needs serious questioning as to where they are built, the scale, quality, infrastructure and services but, most importantly, the ideology behind the proposals in the Local Development Framework, ie, environmentalism.

'Where they are built' is a case in point with Councillor Jeffries proving there is no depth too low for her to prostitute herself; namely her recommendation that we pooh-pooh any Health and Safety objections we may have when it comes to putting mass housing on a former chemicals plant. This is rich coming from her as her party did so much to enshrine Health and Safety legislation in the first place. One wonders whether she is as outspoken when it comes to the many public events and even day to day activities that are hamstrung by such legislation.

Current policy has very little to do with facilitating better quality living standards to the public and is much more about containing them or, at best, placing them within a binding framework. Even worse, should we mere ordinary folk be free minded enough to determine our own lifestyles and activities we are highly likely to fall foul of any number of Anti-Social Behavioural Orders.

The council may lay claim to having put their proposals to we public but as has been pointed out this has been consultation in name only; the council gets to tick the box marked 'public involvement' and they then carry on regardless. Truly, they put the con in consultation.

There was never any intention to reshape current thinking as it is cemented in place by the great and the good of the UN, EU, national and local Government as well as promoted by an array of well- and taxpayer funded quangoes. This pretty much gives the lie to Lead Councillor Box's jibe at a previous letter writer concerning democracy. Little wonder he's been given a lackey's badge by those he truly serves.

Lessons haven't been learned from the recent financial turmoil and soon to hit recession. Although it's popular to blame the situation on 'greedy bankers' the underlying message is that we all want too much out of life, that we've gone too far. Many of us my have genuine grievances against our financial institutions but when it comes to raised aspirations maybe we should all call ourselves bankers.

Equally to blame in this scenario are those excessive Americans. Yet they too mostly suffer from land use restrictions and the scrabble for scant packages of land pushes the price of housing up to levels that people just cannot afford. Hence the sub-prime mortgage fiasco - people are paying over the odds for compromised living standards.

The council may claim this part of the LDF to be closed, a done deal, but this is far from the case. These things are written by flesh and blood human beings and supposedly agreed upon by the demos - us - but, as witnessed, this is far from the case. We need a genuine public discussion as to how and where we wish to live, not some compromised version passed down to us.

It's high time our elected, so-called representatives and dubious authority were told to 'patronise off!' and we reclaim the idea of modernity; humanity unbound, free and progressive.

Ev'ry thing's broken?

2010-05-05T18:42:00.000+01:00

Wakefield general election address.                  Mark Harrop,

Broken Britain?                                                                                                  Independent candidate.

Despite the protest of Govt it's undeniable that the UK is in a mess, although, however much is 'broken' it generally means that people no longer care and need repair rather than roads, drains and misguided Regeneration schemes. Much noise is made about returning pride and a sense of purpose as in 'The Good Old Days' but this turns things on their head. The days of Britain being Great were not just through superior arms but in more progressive ways: the industrial revolution starting here, bringing advanced production methods to the world and changing an impoverished, illiterate peasantry into a better educated and aspirational working class.

Today, humanity's place on the planet is called into question. Apparently we've gone too far, become wasteful and destructive; knowledge no longer power but leading to unsustainable desires - for the masses, that is. When once the future was considered to be about jet-packs, colonising distant planets, unbound knowledge and a capacity to deal with any eventuality, these things now seem ridiculous. Today we are led to revere nature above all, limit our footprint and know our place. Babies are considered not so much bundles of joy but bundles of carbon emissions, the elderly as burdensome and all others in need of restraint.
Never before has humanity been viewed in such loathsome terms.

If we're broken and need fixing then who better to do that than Govt and their advisers? Yet, they don't make anything and rely on the productivity and compliance of the rest of society to keep them in their place. If people are wasteful in their ways then it's fairgame to enforce behavioural change - smoking bans, five-a-day, recycling, don't use lifts, leave the car at home, speed bumps and not repairing roads, get off the bus a stop early, voluntary work, ad infinitum.

It is in these areas that Wakefield local government's rating improves from poor to fair with no end of agencies and govt departments urging the self-same advice. Irony being, the only growth area is one that wrestles with 'no growth' and no wonder the country grinds close to a halt.
This Govt remains immune to its faults and even after apologising manages to re-assert itself before claiming how bad things would be under anyone else.
Calls for transparency in politics seem unnecessary under such circumstances.

Britain is patched up and creaking rather than broken.

Maybe because it's Spring or an election but there has been some recent strategic public works. 'Strategic' as they are prominently placed: kerbs and drives being relaid close to main roads, some rural areas have new signs and street cleaners working on Sundays - someone needs seeing to be 'working hard for you'. These may be prominent works but are very much cheap and cynical window-dressing.

Most roads in the district are in an appalling state which is bad enough for cars and begs the question whether the great and good practice what they preach - 'leave the car at home' - and ever travel by bike. New Labour may now promise a considerable cash injection but why aren't these matters done automatically and without fanfare?

With the economy near collapsing and public services all calling for a bail out just where is the money to come from? Unwarranted and overstretched military campaigns, an Olympics on the way and New Labour's hardcore of embedded professional counsellors suggests a messy period ahead for anyone attempting to maintain this tired and tiresome approach.

Gordon Brown may talk of protecting 'frontline' services but given his Govt's whole approach is based on hectoring people to conform he may have a different idea of what public service means. It is not so much the people at fault but the intolerable circumstances lived under - if anything is broken it is current Govt thinking and policy. It's inconceivable that matters can be stabilised - let alone progress - without a complete abandoning of such a programme. The only thing in need of repair is the pioneering spirit and man's further grasp over nature and natural events.

For a life worth living there can be no other way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Tues 4th. May.)

Not the smoking ban, again?

2010-05-03T08:49:00.006+01:00

The smoking ban is actually little to do with smoking. Neither is having a right to smoke the biggest issue facing us. Even so, not too many arguments for the ban stand up and, otherwise, simple arrangements can be made for those wishing to indulge the habit at their own risk. The ban is, however, indicative of wider trends in society.

For the most part, smoking is obviously unhealthy, it's expensive, smells, is disliked by many and others are glad for the ban. Some smokers even state that there has never been so much camaraderie amongst themselves. For now, outside, in shelters good, bad and ugly.

Why fuss over the ban?

Frail and elderly smoking customers hardly get out come the cold weather as smoking in a shed regulated to have less cover than a pigsty is no comfort. Govt legislation is creating more problems as people become less tolerant of others - the noisier beer gardens when neighbours want some peace and quiet or the gauntlet of smokers in pub doorways, for instance. There may not be an 'app' for that but there's certainly a law . . and a fine.

It's well known that many pubs are going to the wall. Publicans suffer variously from ill health, mountains of debt, over-regulation, excessive licensing and being tied to and having punitive get-out clauses with Pub companies, and they taking full advantage of the cull by squeezing as much money as they can from sitting-duck licensees.

Many pubs are barely hanging on under these conditions and it's fair to say that a significant part of public life is set to change, too. Stopping people smoking is among the many intrusions into behaviour: everything from alcohol, food, calling the barmaid 'love', telling jokes; everything. Even train-spotters are suspect terrorists and young boys playing war are labeled as racist.

The smoking ban expresses much that is wrong with the UK. Everything is subject to a risk assessment for the remotest thing that could go wrong or we can be bullied or hurt by a word or activity of another. Supposedly, we need guidance as we're deemed not adult enough to negotiate life without the many helping hands of govt, council officials, professional advisers or charities to regulate, fine or harass us into making the 'right' decisions.

Politics has become less about the best way forward and nearly all about manipulating the character of the public.

A reversal of politics.

For politics, the rise of character and personality is a dead end but reflects what happens to individuals at ground level. If policy is based on character assassination then politicians can't expect to avoid being judged by the conditions they helped create. Hence, MPs are caught short with the so-called expenses scandal, Gordon Brown caught muttering what he really thinks of the electorate and vacuous leadership debates on TV.

There is no longer a progressive character to politics and things today are about how flawed we are, not the way society functions or could be made better.

A reasonable economy?

If this is bad enough for our personal and social lives then it has proved disastrous for the economy, now collapsing under the twin burdens of such over-regulation and notions of sustainability. In essence and practice both deny human capacity to negotiate daily life or larger problems. Yet, our future is being mortgaged to maintain the same problem so won't mean greater freedoms as we do our bit to rescue a situation not of our making.

The market system - capitalism - is far from perfect and to have it replaced with a freer, more productive and beneficial economy wouldn't be a bad thing but, even so, its dynamic character and our livelihoods are thwarted by the actions of a political class hell-bent on restraint.

A public vote?

On current track we can only expect more of the same as main electoral contenders are more like different brands of cheap soap powder. Whether we have a hung parliament or not there's going to be a mess. Unless we use the current election period to sort out some genuine democracy.

Now, while there's an election on is the ideal time to send a message to those who wish to represent us and have them pay attention to our concerns rather than take us for granted. Seeing as how the smoking ban is symbolic of further controls and the aim of politics should be a society where people are free to indulge their pleasures then we ought take a public vote as to whether pubs, clubs, cafes, etc can reasonably offer 'smoking or non-smoking' - part, throughout, occasionally, ventilated or not at all. Even those of us who hate smoking ought allow others to indulge their lifestyle choices as who knows what's next?

These days, tired and tiresome politicians are falling over backwards for votes but remain disconnected from the public to make other than superficial claims. Unfortunately, it remains that New Labour and their official opposition still feel the need to control most things public.
Allowing them to carry on unchallenged is dangerous for personal choices, wider society and the economy, too.

The smoking ban, then, is not just about smoking but us as individuals having the right to choose our activities and the company we keep. Politicians should butt out of private affairs and get on with their proper job - getting to grips with a progressive economy and getting the country working properly.

Mark Harrop. Independent candidate
Wakefield, general election.

At the HoP . . .

2010-05-03T08:32:00.007+01:00

. . . the most Public of all Houses?

2010 Election proposals.

2010-04-16T07:41:00.004+01:00

For the most part my candidacy will promote the Institute of Ideas' 21 pledges for progress as outlined below, to which I add -

Full, meaningful and rewarding employment.

An end to Carbon trading schemes and offsetting, promoting rather than curtailing development in underdeveloped countries and breaking out of constricting environmentalist schema in the UK and beyond.

Decriminalising recreational drug use and ending all intrusive meddling in private affairs and lifestyle choices.

Recognising that recent and ongoing warfaring by western leaders is much more about propping up their dubious authority, right to rule over us and to cement their position at the top table of global affairs. On their own terms it has proven largely counterproductive and for those on the ground a disaster with no end in sight.

21 PLEDGES FOR PROGRESS 2010

Policy ideas that would make candidates worth voting for; positions that voters should argue and campaign for.

Re FREEDOM

Repeal hate speech legislation, in the interests of free speech, with no ifs, no buts.
Repeal the UK's libel laws, in the interests of free speech, no ifs, no buts.
Stop bureaucratic CRB checks and vetting of adults who come into contact with children and vulnerable adults, in the interests of free association between generations and countering the climate of mistrust.
Repeal any equality legislation that interferes with the freedom of private organisations like churches and political parties to act on their beliefs, in the interests of free association.
Revoke unnecessary and nonsensical health and safety rules and guidelines in the interests of countering today's risk-averse, safety-first climate of fear.
Allow pubs and clubs the option of permitting smoking, and get rid of the new 'no drinking zones', in the interests of countering the over-regulation of public spaces.
Scrap the 'database state', including the ContactPoint database which holds information about every child in the country and the DNA database which includes details of criminal suspects without convictions, in the interests of civil liberties, the privacy of families and the principle that we are innocent until proven guilty.
Limit the police's power to detain people without charge to 24 hours rather than 28 days, in the interests of civil liberties and due process.
Declare an amnesty for all illegal immigrants presently in the UK, whether asylum seekers or economic migrants, in the interests of recognising the positive aspirations of those who seek to improve their lives by moving countries.
Open the borders, revoking all immigration controls, in the interests of the free movement of citizens.

Re CONSTITUTION

Get rid of police Tsars and unelected 'experts' from government decision-making in the interests of parliamentary sovereignty and democratic accountability.
Abolish the monarchy and the House of Lords in the interests of a fully elected legislature and executive.
Hold a referendum on the EU constitution and any subsequent treaties, in the interests of a national democratic mandate.

Re ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Direct state expenditure into infrastructural projects such as power grids and telecommunications, increased facilities for road, rail and air travel, in the interests of productive economic growth.
Build new nuclear power stations across the country in the interests of ensuring we have more than sufficient energy to power a new round of economic growth.
Reduce the onerous regulation of new scientific and technological developments such as GM technology and biomedicine in the interests of increasing R&D and encouraging innovation.

Re PUBLIC SERVICES

Stop excessive centralisation and bureaucratic control of public services, enabling professionals to make judgements in the interests of those using the services rather than artificial targets.
Scrap the 'impact statement' demands on university research in the interests of valuing knowledge for its own sake and academic freedom from policy outcomes.
Support the arts financially, for their own sake, in the interests of liberating them from ever more prescriptive and politicised instrumental demands.
Direct state funding of health to biomedical research into cures, the latest drugs and equipment, rather than punitive campaigns to change individual behaviour, in the interests of public health and good cheer.
Direct state funding of schools into providing universal access to the highest standard of education in academic subjects, rather than politicised cross curricular themes like sustainability or citizenship, in the interests of passing on real knowledge to our children.

Late notice: Wakefield Salon.

2009-10-22T09:40:00.003+01:00

Wakefield Salon is a discussion group formed to examine topical cultural and political issues.

Our first discussion is on Free Speech, *Thurs 22nd October 7.30pm at the Black Rock pub*, Cross square, central Wakefield.

This week the BNP are scheduled to appear on BBC's Question Time yet local MP and schools secretary Ed Balls calls for any teacher with links to the organisation to be sacked. The local library and education internet service bars some groups that question the accepted stance on environmentalism (now revoked but a Miliband once stormed 'the debate is over!' re climate change so still some way to go.)

Is this right? Should members of the public have the right to make their own minds up or is this an acceptable role for Govt? Can the public handle dodgy or challenging ideas?

2009-08-20T21:01:00.002+01:00

Where can you build in the UK?

Knowledge is power?

2009-08-14T12:38:00.006+01:00

It seems that the good people at Sp!ked have rubbed a few people up the wrong way as access has now been denied through the Yorks and Humberside grid for learning network citing "News/media, Adult themes".
Possibly a bit too adult for 'authorities' on a dumbing down mandate.

This link ought take you to the stop page and a questions box should you wish to task our defenders of the public realm.

Letter to Wakefield Express 21st August '09.

May I, through your paper, and hopefully so that it doesn't offend the Home Secretary too much, raise the issue of free speech? On the library's internet network I can now no longer access one of my favoured sites - www.spiked-online.com. A duty librarian informed she would look into it but had managed to come over all smug when informing a day or two later that 'it seems blocked by 'higher up', that she 'didn't agree with censorship too much' but 'that it was probably because of the environmentalist angle, y'know', lastly that 'if people want to read that sort of stuff they maybe should get their own computer'.

This is no complaint against a public servant having an opinion - no matter how veiled the delivery - but she ought be wary of the erosion of enquiry leastwise for her own profession. As it is, the good people at spiked are not deniers re human induced climate change and see that Environmentalism has become an all enveloping creed that brooks no dissent yet does not provide workable solutions. In short the green agenda is one of control and implementing austerity and this gives firm examples of how far that control is creeping plus the austerity in thinking amongst our non-elected betters.

Obviously everyone's favourite bogeyman - The BNP - have also been censored. I have little agreement with their brand of politics but far more respect for them than people that spend their time wanting to ban them. They are a legitimate party and address the concerns of enough people to gain an MEP in the area. Though it must be pointed out that was on a reduced vote even for them but a much larger disassociation from mainstream parties. The BNP's brand of politics is pale imitation mainstream stuff that needs engaging in free public debate. Who indulges in sneakier, more dishonest politics?

For interests of national security this govt wants access to our emails and phone calls whilst carrying on getting their message through but they've only to look at comments in the broader media to see what opinion is of them and their message. The mass of people seem to have had enough and it's merely the fact that official opposition are so weak that they can dither on. Given the vitriol and occasional deletes then it's safe to assume that what's said in private would keep an actual proper dictator busy. Even when us public are invited to have petitions to govt - let alone a referendum - then our response is reinterpreted to prove us wrong and more tax payer funded gush to get the right answers into our thick skulls.

Environmentalism - the last refuge of scoundrels.

2008-10-12T10:29:00.003+01:00

(Long winded reply to Wakefield Express Green issue*)

We really ought reconsider Environmentalism. At its core it poses people as a problem; The Biggest Problem, not only to the planet and everything on it but also ourselves.
As it is the jury is still out that global-warming - also known as 'dangerous climate change' will prove detrimental or even that we are the main cause. And if it is actually warming. The climate is changing - always has, whether man's contribution poses a significant factor is guessed at via loaded models and 'the science' politically driven.

Even taking the disaster scenarios at their worst - which are the guarantors of our actions - then are we really to take our adaptive actions seriously? So many agencies churn out the same RRRRs but life goes on; we go to work, produce and consume; new technologies build on the capacity of previous and we always find ways to improve.

Environmentalism already greatly affects us - from restrictions on land for housing and the expensive and disappointing product to needlessly sorting through our rubbish and fairtrade schemes that may appease the consciences of liberals but entrap third world producers into western notions of sustainability.
Many claim that for the 7 billion+/- population of the earth to have developed lifestyles - or at least as developed as we in the west - would require 3 or more planets as we don't have the resources. This sees human achievement as static and destructive and fails to pay attention to our remarkable ingenuity eg increased yields in agriculture and even the ability to harness power from natural sources (perhaps just different versions of the same process). The lack of resources are to be found amongst our political leaders and the unimaginative.
Of course there are many shades of green and it's doubtful whether proposals from on high satisfy the eco-worriers amongst us - especially when it's almost business as usual and airports, power stations, roads and houses are still being built or proposed (albeit in dismal fashion) and we all go to work or indulge in activities deemed unsustainable.
Hardly a black and white issue let alone 'Green being the new Red'.

Traditional left vs right notions of the best way forward for us as individuals and as a society have collapsed and given birth to this seemingly radical ideology. Indeed, it is radical - radical in the ways we're going to have to adapt if we accept it as presented. From the spoutings of the green and good it doesn't look that rosy.
Despite the pontificating of our 'leaders' emissions targets haven't been achieved anywhere except in former Soviet bloc countries due to their industrial decline. It's telling that with the opening up of the North Pole - supposedly due to climate negligence - there was a rush to claim exploration rights. UK included. Much talk is made over environmental concerns yet it seems the green elite merely pay lip service whilst the rest of us pay through the nose - in guilt taxes and time wasting activities that actually do more 'harm' than good.

If we truly were to consider the environment then we'd contend ways of dealing with it resourcefully - in ways that benefit humans first. In this the UK seems to have lost its way with the days of great industrial pioneers gone and their contemporaries happier to indulge in the wistful and iconic - or go abroad.
It's only belatedly that sluices in Wakefield are being dredged - perhaps there ought be a major washout of the drains too as many of these are blocked with all manner of debris. These should be activities that are constant and upgraded; it's fine gentrifying the place but a bit more function over form seems necessary. And whilst we're encouraged to dwell on our history we ought remember that Wakefield has it's ings. Instead, and like everything else these days, the blame is laid at us for having patios or concreted drives - to the point that these are considered punishable in taxes.

It's naive and negative thinking such as this that's blighting the economy.

Yawn . . . .

2008-09-23T23:52:00.007+01:00

(speech on Youtube.)

Manchester w . . .

2008-09-21T16:09:00.003+01:00

(Online forum response to Manchester evening News - "Woman fined £700 in bins row')

I'm stunned that Victoria Clarke gets so much flak from equally affected citizens of Manchester. Rather than attack her character (seemingly assumed and maybe people in glasshouses . . . ) we should be demanding a proper waste collection service where binmen/de-waste collection operators, or whatever their called, pick up all the rubbish from a location principally convenient to the tenant. And taken as granted.

While we're at it we ought lay off the binmen too and develop some solidarity. They are no more guilty than the rest of us who work to schedule or even try to beat the clock. Who knows? - they might then be happier doing what is quite a crappy job and do it well.

Despite ever rising - and sneakier - taxes we're getting a much reduced service; in fact we're doing more of it ourselves. Worse than that, our volunteered efforts become expected, then ordered, 'offenders' pilloried and penalised.

It's shaming that we fight amongst ourselves rather than take this up with those that dealt the blow in the first place, or at least (and they quite possibly are the least . . . ) with the most prominent representatives - New Labour.

And wouldn't you know it? - the misanthropic twats are in town right now and enjoying some £18 million in expense accounts 1). For me they can keep 'their' money and maybe we should emulate the approach of MP barring publican Roger Hantulik and even the Police and give our 'leaders' some Northern Discomfort - make their stay as uncomfortable as they're making our lives.

They may even do something other than save their own skins and deal us up rubbish.

1) See Manchester evening News 'An £18 million windfall as Labour bandwagon rolls into town'.

What's red and green?

2008-05-28T10:58:00.003+01:00

New Labour's long drawn out last gasp has fully latched onto sustainability's rise - if not played a huge part in building it.
For those who displace politics with pontificating 'environmentalism' has become a collective wail. Unfortunately for erstwhile radicals they forget how the market can accommodate social trends and even drive them - so, with everyone from boy wonder DiCaprio and his 11thouring, much of what calls itself left wing and BIG industry can flog austerity.

Less costs more and inefficiency celebrated. Cheers.

Cor, blimey!

2008-05-27T10:44:00.003+01:00

This guy needs his lights punching out.

"One other book on the curriculum is written by Johnathon Poritt. Entitled Captain Eco and the fate of the Earth it includes the line 'your parents and grandparents have made a mess of looking after the earth. They may deny it, but they're stealing your future . . . . "

Quoted from The Enemies of Progress: The dangers of Sustainability (p82). Austin Williams

Someone ain't telling the truth . . .

2008-05-06T17:28:00.007+01:00

Whatever happened to the heroes?

2008-04-27T18:27:00.012+01:00

I've met Stuart Smith and he comes across as a likeable enough guy. Yeeah, perhaps a chip on his shoulder, brass neck, motormouth . . . dodgy? pft! - dunno. But as a guy who's put his mug about and been in-yer-face as regards the smoking ban he deserves a medal. Whatever was chucked at him he just kept going - even when people who should know better turned on him. He posted his number directly on The Morning Advertiser website so that his critics could contact him direct (only for his post to be removed), been on video, etc, etc. So he's not scared of facing his critics and believes he's done little wrong in this case.

Even the most outlandish behaviour he's been up for got him just a 6 month suspended sentence - hardly Mr Evil.

I hope the fella becomes a folk hero and would love to see his face on the t-shirts of radical youth, bands, on stickers, etc. I'm pretty sure he'd welcome the idea; I was with him when the above shot was taken (but gave a crappy false name 'cos I should've been at work - oooh!) and it was his suggestion for that shot. Being unafraid of any publicity I'm sure he'd have stuck one up his ass if he'd thought on.

Stu may be contacted at stuartsmithsmoker@live.co.uk. Or various other outlets.
Stuart's full trial is on May 13th.

It's still very much an uphill fight though - some small wins and many setbacks - and council and govt departments getting sneakier by the day. We really ought bar these people for good and demand compensation for those who've lost out at this govt's hands.

While we can still talk about it.

Of interest -

Smoking ban challenged in Germany and China

People in glasshouses . . .

2008-04-24T22:11:00.010+01:00

Hmm.

Re Boons' meeting, 23rd April - Almost disappointing - 2 people and a news reporter but a good many well-wishers along the way and very good informal chats with smokers outside and then up town later on.

Crap organising on my part and working on assumptions meant that those who had expressed an interest went to the downstairs room whilst I was upstairs hastily writing spiel to an audience I 'knew' was never going to appear. (And ManUbleedinited were playing Barcelona - pfft! - see what happens when Ronaldo doesn't intimidate his opponent? (oi!, sidefoot - no!).

Success (credibility even) is a tenuous thing and there is no set way to achieve it. That aside, there is a process and we learn as we go along.

According to most reports some 67% of the UK are against an outright ban on smoking in public places and this figure is about the same with publicans. This shows quite a remarkable degree of tolerance given that some 25% is 'the figure' given for smokers ie. two and a half times the amount of smokers. And obviously pubs don't want to lose custom.

This is borne out on recent hasty visits to pubs. Many publicans are anxious about where this will lead, some figured they'd be able to manage whatever was thrown at them and the odd few were happy with the ban. However, most know there's more legislation on the way and that traditional pub culture is on the way out as things stand.

Although no-one was really happy about being coerced into an obvious unpopular measure there's been an air of resignation - until now. UKIP seem to be the only 'mainstream' party in the upcoming local elections with a libertarian bent, particularly with regard to the issue of our social lives. There is the possibility of a breakthrough, of sorts.

I don't give a rat's cock (sshurely a pub name there?) what else they stand for but on this I'll be a slag for democracy and promote them. It may even lead to political debate in pubs and put the wind up those that claim they're 'fighting hard for our interests' or whatever guff they're coming out with whilst they congratulate themselves and erode our freedoms.

Perhaps one of the reasons many daren't speak out is due to the enormous pressure heaped on individuals who dare stand up. Public houses, even under intense regulation, are still largely informal gathering places and there's an element of schwonky business goes off. This is mentioned occasionally on forums and in the news and is very likely something we all come across.
I should imagine that if 'they' are listening in on phone conversations then most of us would get banged up. They probably don't because it's the way things are. Given the volume of laws and regulation this govt. has introduced, we'll all be likely 'guilty' of something - and if not then soon will be . . . maybe.

And maybe not. Our political class are seriously adrift and seem to like to raid the coffers themselves. Of course, running for public office should be an honourable thing and well recompensed - as should we all be for our labours, after all we make the roads, schools and hospitals, etc. and run them and politics ought be about realising our aspirations. Trouble is that raising apirations has given way to restraint - at least for us hoi-polloi.

Given that the smoking ban was brought in undemocratically and based on a pack of lies then maybe that what should be the most public of our houses is the one that needs examining.

2008-04-21T09:48:00.022+01:00

Of course there ought be choice in the matter - democratic wannabes can state their case for us, or something like that . . .

www.freedom2chooose.info

UKIP . . .

As requested by Wakefield publicans at first meet up.

The lady wouldn't recognise a good night if she saw one.
Now playing - 'You think I ain't worth a dollar but I feel like a millionaire', Queens of the stone age.
(followed up nicely by The Rezillos - 'Somebody's gonna get their head kicked in tonight').

Just for you, Mary.

x

Downloads of other of our representatives available HERE.

pfff . . . some more.

2008-04-20T19:37:00.023+01:00

TBC . . .

Initial inspiration from Tom Mower''s 'Attention Please!' photo essay and gallery at The Manifesto club site.

Challenging the ban . . .

2008-02-27T17:09:00.016Z

#1 I'd just gotten a new job - and was struggling - when the smoke ban came into force in England. Despite the owner managers mostly being smokers and near enough 'one of us'' I was taken aback by the tone of the company statement - very strident and making no attempt to inform that this was pushed on them by Govt. Some in management, it seemed, preferred the extra 'authority' the legislation conferred.

Not all the lads were smokers but in an atmosphere where machinery and activity of alsorts makes the air 'dirty' then our little stick of filth kept us happy; ditto shopfloor pots of tea/coffee/drinking chocolate/etc from the vending machine or 'spice' (the archaic but charming term for sweets up here) - all these are no-nos going by what's 'reasonably practicable'. A blind eye is occasionally turned as no-one in their right mind wants to see the workforce disgruntled, although some places have a preference for keeping the men just on the edge.

The blind eye doesn't include cigarettes and practically overnight the place was festooned with various authoritarian 'No Smoking!!' posters and stickers; so much that smoking must be the worst thing anyone could possibly do. Ever.

We were 'being watched', or led into acquiescencing that we were. Our government attempted to pull an even faster one and get us all policing each other - or else!
'Or else' meant fines of some £50 to the smokee and £2500 to the proprietor but not to worry as my 'on side' health and safety rep told me 'I'll make sure that if they fine you that they get fined two 'n' 'alf grand!'. Whoopee; I can barely catch my breath.

The press brake operator, was gutted; he practically lived for his fags. 'Fuck 'em' he said, 'I'm gonna put the guards back on the press'. The supervisor (like Tommy Cooper but without the looks. And not as funny) said 'if I catch you working without guards on your machine then you'll be disciplined' - pfff!?! 'I've not had the guards on for 12 years, you s*@%> f€¡^!' quoth Al, the operator.

Truth is, we're not as daft as we look and complex and intrusive guards often make life more awkward than not. They may even cause an operator to use energies inefficiently where they could concentrate on being effective in their work and able to determine safe methods of working for themselves and those around them. We do go to work to earn a living don't we?

Al was even more pissed off that his beloved, smokey boozer seemed threatened - 'everyone' smoked and it was just a lively village pub with nothing of an outside to accommodate new regulation, let alone us smoking ne'er do wells.
I truly hope that boozer's still open.
Mindst, Al, near retirement, may be glad with some newly acquired health - encouraged to eat 5-a-day, cut out the fags and booze and maybe even doing early morning calisthenics with the gaffers.

Hmm?

Cut to Carl, profile burner. Carl makes my eyes water just to think of him. He has a disability with his hip joints and can often be seen limping badly throughout the day - particularly bad in colder weather when the chill stays in the metal and 'radiates' cold. Of course it gets heated up with work but it's bad enough to affect my minor injuries so Lord knows what it's like for older or more infirm people.
Carl also has an autistic son who he has to beg to get decent care for and, on top of that, his father needs attention to. All of which is delivered matter-of-factly and without complaint.

He's also there at all hours and travels some distance to do the job. I asked whether he cold have a hip replacement but he told me that it's considered too son. Too soon!, the guy's practically crippled now so ten years down the line when he really needs the operation will see him living a large part of his useful life in pain and not as mobile as he could be.

Pass me the Tai-chi - I'm winding myself up.
And cheers to those that know what's best for us.

#2

Prior to this engagement I'd worked in a smaller fabrication shop and a similar bon-homie (ish) existed. Being more used to this type of work I'd managed to settle in easier (even though one can be an awkward feck). Here the gaffers were largely not bothered about the lads smoking on the floor, though we were all smoking our heads off in the run up.
A senior gaffer minded though and he told me he'd bring it in earlier if he could. He seemed oblivious to other 'risks' - the cramped and cluttered conditions we worked in. True, this was prior to a move to bigger premises and so we generally didn't mind the bit of give and take but even so we were welding, cutting, grinding and occasionally spraying, all in close proximity. Despite the odd grunt we got on with it - it being more norm than exception.
(The new factory is now closer to new built houses, the factory starts at 0700 and they like to be busy enough to work some weekends. See 'coming soon': a pox on all our houses?')

Something of a family business, younger gaffers, perhaps not fuller ingrained into the machinery of management, were much more affable. One told me of when they were first setting up and used to have a game of rugby inside. When it was a small concern, such informality was ' a right laff' but something that falls by the wayside under pressures of running a business and letting us know who's boss.

Next door was a two man fabrication outfit. Given the structure of the building they'd managed to set themselves up handsomely; the place old but clean and cosy. They were both smokers and couldn't believe that legislation meant they had to leave their rarely visited works to have a gasp. Nor that they had to put loads of signs up stating the dangers and dubious legalities of the ban.

In an engineering workshop!?! It being a place of business and therefore open to a public, of sorts, they had to be guarded from this evil.

Am not too sure that a recent arrangement I had whereby having a lodger would make my house into a 'public house' and bound by the same rules. In this instance, it would be patently ridiculous to abide by the ban and go outside as we both smoke and the bulk of either of our friends do. One doesn't like to provide ammo but it can be safely betted that this will be on their cards.

Of course, when particular non-smokers come I voluntarily curtail my habit and even ventilate my house. Fair enough, really.

#3 The Public House

The smoking ban was brought in with much fanfare - it would be better all around, intimidated non-smokers and their families would return in droves, us poor smokers would get help to quit our filthy habit from our representatives in Govt and their lackeys and we'd all be much happier and healthier.

Not much, if any of this, rings true - Public Houses are having a hard time of it these days and many have seen difficult conditions become compounded by the smoking ban. Most trade forums attest to this and talk to any licensee or bar staff and even 'upmarket establishments' tell of a significant drop in takings. Pubs were closing at a trickle before 1/7 but the trend has accelerated to well over a hundred a month now.

Some clubs have seen old non-smoking customers return but certainly not in droves; Wetherspoons, who brought the ban in a year or so before most other pubcos, have seen their takings take a massive dent.

One barman in a non-boozer type pub told me 'Yes, there are some new faces and takings are down but we can cope'. Others, not so. Many publicans have other jobs or subsidise a meagre living by eating with the sports teams. In many places pubs end up subsidising their diminishing clientele by using their savings to keep the place cosy.

On the few occasions I visit pubs it's often the case there are more customers having a gasp outside than in and the pub itself has no atmosphere. Of all the notices this Govt has come out with the one that states 'It's an offence to smoke on these premises' particularly galls. Offensive to the majority who huddle outside of doorways and those not bothered inside? or well paid (out of our taxes) enforcement officers minded by a gaggle of proper coppers on double time and our holier-than-thou government?

Many pubs have bent over backwards to satisfy their smoking customers and maintain their business. Some have parted with lots of cash having built shelters but only to see them fall foul of strict regulations as to siting and construction. Also, anyone having a bit of banter and a laugh - surely that's what pubs are for? - can find they contravene noise regulations and end up in court.

Not happy with that there are calls to remove patio heaters as our comfort gives way to concern about the environment - a bigger topic but one related inasmuch as the reasoning behind it is that us humans want too much out of life and are destroying the planet with our selfish ways.

It's unlikely there'll be a perfect shelter as new regulations mooted to remove vending machines from pubs (pubs!?!) and shops where they'll be on show to the slavish gives the implication that 'we' are to be not seen, not heard and, preferably, non-existent. Back behind the bike sheds then?

Truly, we're being treat like kids.

What's next? - already there are similar campaigns afoot as regards drinking - even passive drinking! - and the food we eat, where we want to travel to and even what we can talk about.

It seems this Govt is only too happy to see pubs die out - they make a killing on stamp duty and other taxes when public houses are redeveloped into expensive and crammed private houses - or 'exclusive' appartments as they're now called. They are barely worthy of being called houses but it seems they're good enough for us - if we can afford them. (The only thing exclusive about them seems to be the price tag.)

#4 Giving up?

A landlady - a smoker - said her pub is very easy to clean now the ashtrays are gone. That's a shame as the pub is also a tool of her trade and obviously not being used as purposed. How long before the beer lines and glasses become redundant? Then nothing to clean at all and no business.

Some smokers even welcome the ban as they 'wanted to cut down anyway' and one smoker said he's in favour as all the smokers now have plenty to talk about and things are generally more sociable in the shelter - for now.

I smoke (quite a lot these days . . ) and most of the time I enjoy it; occasionally it's something to do - space filler, pause for thought or claiming a little part of my working day for myself.
Sometimes I want to stop - morning dog breath (perhaps more old beagles mainly - that's a brand name, surely?), when a little breathless or for financial reasons, seemingly.

Seemingly, but then maybe the anti-smoking campaign is getting to me?
Should I decide to stop then it will be my decision and not rammed down my throat by people with far dodgier habits.

I used to be a keen 'mountain' bike rider and spent enough time and money in the effort. I was never anything special or daring yet managed to pick up a fair share of injury, but nothing in comparison to young bloods who practically ride down cliff faces or batter themselves on stunt ramps. To these guys a pinned leg or arm is displayed almost as a trophy and such injuries, when commonplace, aid development of medical techniques.

It's good that the young, and not so, push the boundaries of excitement and are prepared to face injury in the process. It's also preferable that injury comes, as it surely will, from pastimes and not war time and that medical technique develops accordingly. **Facial reconstructive surgery due to WW1 trench warfare and a high number of head casualties led to the development of today's cosmetic surgery.**

It's particularly rich when smokers are constantly harangued for costs associated with our habit. Smoking related illnesses most often occur in older age when we are susceptible to all manner of ailments anyway and given that smokers contribute healthily to the exchequer and die younger then we're hardly a burden.
Further, lung ailments are disproportionately underfunded due to an association with smoking - regardless of whether the illness is due to smoking.

Not only do we prop up the health service but we get little in return. And, should smoking be fully stamped out, where will tax revenues come from?

#5

The ban itself and what's to follow seems disproportionately aimed at the white working class. It seems we are being blamed for the ills of society rather than it lacking direction. Politics used to be far more polarised with the right standing for the prowess of individuals as a driver to take society forward and the left seeking to ameliorate the conditions worked under, distribute wealth evenly and we all prosper accordingly. Sort of.
The truth probably lies between the two but such ideologies are more bound by the economic system we live under rather than determining the paths individuals and society take.

Such ideas have now collapsed and politics is much less about raising aspiration and more about restraint - a point seemingly lost with Gordon Brown's cynical parading of Margaret Thatcher prior to the Conservatives conference. Her popularity came through her appeal to raise our material aspirations and ditch the cloying hand of Old Labour.

Mainstream parties have lost their moorings and now have no idea how to take society forward. Whether the smoking ban comes from a lack of ideas and an attempt to reconnect with our assumed concerns, or those of a vocal minority, or something to do with moulding us into shape to take on new challenges is debateable.
I hold that it's mainly the latter and as much a knowing nod to recessionary tendencies and austerity. What better way to control us than to make out our desire for material wealth is ultimately destructive to the planet, ourselves and everything else?

As such, smoking is an obvious target as it serves no 'real' purpose. It's not necessary to smoke and is quite literally a throwaway habit. It's not the healthiest of things to do either. When we start to look at what we need to do in order to function in our day to day lives then all manner of things fall by the wayside and a good deal become luxury or superfluous. However, we are more than mere animal and our needs and desires are influenced in many complex and interconnected ways - and much more so than, say, mere advertising.

#The white working class and the BNP.

At a Meanwood WMC meeting a woman informed us that muslims were behind the smoking ban and that the BNP stood up against it. Now, they are very much an opportunist lot, and it would be good if they did. But no, a search of their site revealed nothing other than a sentence in an interview with Nick Griffiths, vaguely saying people should have choice in the matter.

It shouldn't really be that much of a surprise as a previous fund drive of theirs asked for sympathisers to donate the price of a pint - only for this to be later replaced by a more responsible cup of tea. Not too much ambition there then.
It seems that attempts to cleanse their image and project decency and responsibility leave their hands tied when it comes to defending an element of traditional white working class culture - the social life we choose.

Shame really given that It's St. George's day and many would no doubt like to celebrate the matter - with a pint and fag, in comfort in the Kings Arms, Redoubt, Waterloo, Imperial, Duke of Wellington . . . . damn! - they're all fighting names aren't they? Or the Coopers', Weavers', Smiths' and various other, Arms - all names suggestive of trade and relaxing after a days toil. Trouble with the BNP is they can't see much further than portraying the white masses as hapless victims of migrant hordes undermining 'our way of life'. Big cop out given that all this legislation comes from an angst ridden and, on the whole, white Govt with little idea other than to squeeze us.

I tried to see whether there was any mileage to be gained from this on a brief visit to Dewsbury pubs where they have some presence. I'm pretty sure that the first barman spoken to was 'one of them' given what he was talking about and we got no further than him blaming everything on foreigners. Not everyone in Dewsbury is a card carrying member of the BNP though, in fact they're pretty marginal other than securing a howl of indignation vote. Not to say though that the BNP have no role to play as they at least believe they are looking out for the concerns of their kith, kin and countrymen. Shame then that they are predisposed to lay society's problems at the feet of others at the bottom of the pile and cling to past versions of what they despise today. All that pomp, ceremony and sense of duty - to what?

They ought to be careful as coercive measures to inform our choices already seek to determine what we can say out loud and the BNP, being 'everyone's favourite bogeyman, may find themselves banned.

Looking around the old buildings of Dewsbury reveals an industrial past; a time when society was forging ahead and offered the masses a chance to better themselves. Dewsbury still has it's industry but nothing on a grand scale and the place is now under scrutiny for regenerative investment. Regeneration schemes come under the guise of the government's renaissance agenda - a desire to gentrify 'place' and us along with it. At its root this includes shoehorning us into distinct and passive individuals following a path set down by them and little room for personal expression.
It's much more likely that this will lead to further disharmony as it requires us to acquiesce to coercive measures and almost stop thinking for ourselves. It also appears counterintuitive as the relentless focus on personal behaviour replaces it with much more of the same. Look at food programmes - we're told we eat too much and what we do eat is rubbish so there are no end of cooking programmes - food, glorious food and much of it labeled organic, local or 'sustainable' on very dubious terms.

It wouldn't be too bad if the Govt had a track record that bears scrutiny and lofty decisions could be left to them whilst we get on with ordering our messy affairs. Perhaps I'm looking at things the wrong way around?
Decency and responsibility in our lives can only come so much from the individual. Even in hard times there are those who will prosper but for society as a whole to move forwards requires less inward soul searching and a grander project.

# Just a brief mention of UKIP and no particular sleight intended.

Like any political organisation UKIP may have their faults but in the case of the smoking ban they seem to be the only party making a stand for liberty. This isn't some god given right to blow smoke in the faces of babies but a determining of choice and development of tolerance between people - and what could be wrong with that?

Jason Smith, candidate for Queensbury, told me he was taken aback by the strength of feeling against the ban and when canvassing pubs was practically carried aloft by cheering punters - not bad for a ginner.

With only some 25% of the population being smokers, yet 67% opposed to an outright ban* - two and a half times the amount of smokers - that seems to be healthy grounds for questioning the assumptions behind the ban and perhaps a vehicle for democracy. *(ONS 2006 survey)

I'm no supporter of UKIP but seriously wish them well on this - who knows? we may even get the necessary debate on the pros and cons of our leaders attachment to the European Union.

(To edit . . )

Sweaty takes the piss.

2008-02-05T22:49:00.010Z

Ed Balls may put himself about a bit, even break a little sweat, as a local MP and Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families but, he shows he's pretty useless at providing inspiration.

In a week when substantial parts of the region were underwater, Ed's face was splashed about in the media talking to the kids about their ideas to save the planet - particularly water solutions.
This forms part of an initiative called Little people, Big ideas with Yorkshire water 1).

It really ought be called Big people - no idea.

Kids can be extremely bright given the right stimulus but watching their video shows they've more been watching Button Moon than Tomorrow's World and this promotion more forcefeeding today's barren ecological values and indulging the kids than providing leadership or learning opportunity.
I hope the kids got shown around the place and saw what large scale technologies can do or, instead of indulging 'their quirky ideas' (one or two on the right track but mostly recycled mainstream ones, plus toys) show them the huge leaps being taken by the Chinese - 3 Gorges dam or the canal* that's to be as long as the UK, for instance. This is the sort of thing that will provide us with better living, even 'harmonising' with nature and developing newer means of coping with whatever it throws at us.
It's more than annoying to say that British inventors were once at the forefront of developing grand ideas yet today they are put on pedestals in opportunistic regeneration schemes and, worse, their very ideas laid blame for the supposed mess we are in.
We owe these pioneers a debt of gratitude and need to relocate them from 'renaissance' public space to their true place in history.

What could have been an informative and inspiring occasion for some of tomorrows civil engineers instead turned out to be New Labour's relentless forward pitching of themselves. It could be stretching things somewhat but it seems they have aspirations and diary dates up to *2018* and, further indulging my inner conspiracy theorist, wouldn't mind betting they're grooming the kids along the way.

Maybe not, but their tenure has seen a relentless loosening of faith in current society, if not humanity ie. the very people that make things work. Strangely though they don't seem to be inflicted with our curse - while their policy has roundly just about slagged everyone else off their halos remain intact. They may rob the past and have aspirations to lead us into the future yet have little idea in the here and now. Ed said as much at a patronise the public event in the local library, stating if he 'was Gordon Brown he'd take 2-3 yrs developing a new programme rather than dive straight in'.

As Brown's right hand man (and Brown firmly behind Blair) Ed's been right up there for the past decade - creaming billions in pension raids 2) and stamp duty and hand in hand with the missus cramming us into ever smaller and more expensive housing - if 'affordable' at all 3).

At his 'My life as an MP' promotion I asked him now that Blair has gone did he feel New Labour could progress or, given that he had never voted against him and that he and Gordon Brown were just as responsible for government policy, did he feel implicated and that his and the government's days were numbered?
His reply was pure Bart Simpson - 'I wasn't an MP when the war in Iraq started (no one saw me . . )' . . phew! Got out of that one easy enough, except my question wasn't particularly about Iraq. Given Balls' craven approach to leadership it's highly likely he 'couldn't possibly vote against Blair or else would be out of the cabinet' (sic) and therefore by that rationale would have voted; same as the missus
(maybe not and the reason they have two houses . . ? 4)

He gamely soldiered on giving some tenuous muse about leadership - the leadership that he and Brown's cabal craved for a decade and now want some 2-3 more years to develop. Blair's decade may be looked back on as "the good old days" (and him maybe due a return) and now we get some very awkward teenage years.

Balls does well with doublespeak - whilst giving the kids lessons in emotional well being he gives plenty to be angry about. Perhaps lessons in financial management should start with an analysis of his hand in the most costly of our affairs? On top of robbing us left, right and centre he urges wage restraint and leads by example - Wakefield's socialist MPs have opted for a 1.9% pay increase but Balls n missus claim £300,000 in expenses and more if they want to - nice work if you can get it 5).

Hold on to your piggybanks, kids.
(And get out your wellies.)

1)Young inventors aim to save the planet.
2)Moneyweek
3)Dear Ed and Yvette . . .
4)Ed Balls claims £27,000 subsidy for 2nd home.
5)Kerching!

*Also known as South-to-North Water Diversion Project but also discussed in negative terms as a conduit for invasive species.

Is recycling a waste of time?

2008-01-31T21:11:00.012Z

I must admit to recycling (even have it on good authority that one or two of my learned anti-green colleagues do) even though, as is, it’s a waste of time, effort and resources.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with recycling – a point made by Julia Hailes at the 2007 Battle of Ideas with her jam jar and aluminium foil and remark that Thomas Deichmann considered nuclear waste recycling as viable. She did omit Deichmann’s retort that if it’s worthwhile then the best solutions would be engineering ones - he can claim an interest here as he is an engineer.

In engineering works things are usually worked down to a minimum of effort - certainly in larger, heavier industry. There's still much room for improvement as much still relies heavily on the craft and graft of skilled and experienced employees; this a point brought home when China originally turned down buying MG Rover as this highly robotised factory was deemed 'old fashioned'. I took a look around the 'cutting edge' factory worked in at the time.
Hmmm.

Recycling’s 'feelgood factor' reminds of when I had my own fabrication business - at times of stress (nearly always) I’d sort into small piles screws, washers, nuts n bolts that were actually quite worthless – but it provided ‘something’ to do and stopped dwelling on more urgent tasks. Ms. Hailes, who, admittedly, held out very well in a joint batting with Julie Hill, attested to this therapeutic value of even a small effort helping us feel connected to part of something bigger.
Occasionally therapeutic, perhaps, but not as an all encompassing policy.

'Recycling' is likely a natural part of our nature inasmuch as we see further utility in many things. In steelworks offcuts are used for all manner of things but you wouldn't want household or garden items that look like they'll last forever, or heavily compromised in their use.

An example that ought be familiar (and one that ‘sparked’ this piece) was washing out a milk carton. Nothing too bad about that as it’s usually done at the end of a normal wash (no dishwasher – yet) with waste water (or used, or abused if you want to get caught up in pc semantics). Ok enough if that was the end. But, oh no, the milk oft leaves a residue that requires a flush out with hot water and a squirtette of washing up liquid; after all, when washed n squashed the bottle rim collapses and any unwashed milk begins to stink – not nice inside the house or out. This time of year cooler weather keeps any smells down but the stuff ends up blown all over the streets – as do the bins, of which more later.

I’d already wondered whether the cap and bottle were of the same plastic or whether to separate them before thinking that the label would be difficult to peel off but I better had because it may clog up whatever machine was going to clean up these bottles later, or not.
A retired couple tell me that they cut all their plastic bottles down and compact them as much as possible - whether many of us go that far is questionable but imagining just part of the above scenario replicated by x million seems woefully inefficient.
Long by then I’d begun to question what actual worth was in this bottle – smelt a bit like those coupons with a nominal value of 0.001p and energies to reclaim it far outweighed.(1)

This seems a sad and sickening waste of people’s time; doing little more than patronise effort, inflate the egos of our so-called leaders and give further rein to darling eco-worriers. It may provide succour to the likes of Ms Hailes but surely we have better things to do?

Perhaps we ought to take a step back - much of the ‘excess’ packaging is borne of health n safety or hygiene reasons; or because it protects, aids handling or presents the product. The latter mayhaps a case in point but there’s many an eco-worrier (not to mention politicians) reliant on packaging and dodgy 'science'.

Further to that though is the relatively abundant wealth we can can amass; and here is likely the crux of the matter – our consumption and often more how we reproduce it. It is likely there’s some underlying message to our actions inasmuch as we know the effort we require to purchase items only to see them superseded and our expensive buy worth less. We may decry the process yet we all have our once luxury and now commonplace items and products generally improve.

On the whole we don’t seem to mind recycling – even if the occasional discussion at ‘the bins’ is sceptical. I daresay that should we all put in the effort then those that command it wouldn’t be able to cope. Stories abound of sorted rubbish going to landfill, incinerator and shipped to the Far east. Someone seems to be pulling a fast one as it seems that recycling is largely for ‘feelgood’ reasons (as much as EU diktat (2). It should be noted the propaganda useage of people giving up iron railings and all manner of pots and pans only for them to be stored in warehouses or dumped in the sea during WW1 + 2.

A case could be made for better waste disposal (even how we organise our labours) but does recycling actually do anything of genuine, practical value? I’d argue not and that its major proponents are guilty of simplistic narcissism. Simplistic as argued above re resources but also as this would not be the way to save the planet from apparent impending doom - that can only come about from greater technological development and even more mastery over natural events; narcissistic because ‘those that do’ elevate themselves above 'those that don’t' and berate the very people and processes that make society operate; their feeling good about themselves is largely parasitical on the wealth created by the rest of us.

It should not be forgotten that recycling started out as a nice-as-pie voluntary idea and within a short space of time has become compulsory, with fines and increased charges. That's not nice and what ever happened to public service? Disgruntled binmen,likely feeling the squeeze on their jobs, now leave our bins obstructing pathways; in fact, they can be out for the bulk of the day should the round not arrive until afternoons and during windy weather end up getting blown all over- no cheers for the council.

One wonders how long nice-as-pie rain, bath and god knows what else water recycling becomes enforced due to sewers largely built in a relatively more industrious era and now past their sell by date . . .

(1) a TV advert states that a computer can be ran for x minutes using ‘energy’ tied up in waste bottles – try as I might I can’t find the slot on mine where they are fed in.
(2) At a Leeds City council meeting considering waste incineration I was told by a labour councillor that 'our hands were tied due to EU regulations'. Not so when it comes to opting out of the 48hrs working directive, eh?

See also - Recycled rubbish kept in storage because no one will buy it.
Daily Mail Nov 2008.

Fuck 'em

2008-01-18T13:56:00.000Z

Watch this . . .

2007-08-14T12:18:00.000+01:00

NGOs unwrapped, a 7 minute documentary from WORLDwrite exposing the glaring differences between what western charities/NGOs think appropriate for our contemporaries in the developing world and what they desire.

Read on - De Roy Kwesi Andrew 'You hate being affluent? Then swap with us'.

Are you Priced Out?

2007-05-10T05:42:00.000+01:00

Struggling to buy your first home? Next rung of the property ladder moved out of reach? Not prepared to over-stretch your finances just for the sake of buying? You are not alone . . .

go to . . . www.pricedout.org.uk

'It's New Labour, stupid!'

2007-04-30T08:56:00.000+01:00

Wakefield North, election address

Perhaps the defining features of contemporary UK politics, if not western politics, are the environment, current warfaring, the economy and, perhaps, identity. These features all operate independently yet are linked specifically by New Labour.

Environmentalism and climate change are mostly presented in catastrophic terms, yet combative measures seem piecemeal and mainstream proponents tend to lead a life of hypocritical luxury whilst exhorting restraint and a contented peasantry for the many. Little wonder that many are cynical.
Our daily activities and supposed selfish nature are made out to be the most destructive factors and the ongoing discussion of this has a debilitating effect - what then is the point of our going to work, raising a family and wanting a decent life if that contributes to our supposed demise?

Environmentalism does raise questions as to new ways of doing things. The current direction is one of miserabilism, negativity, increased effort and ever decreasing circles. Its whole basis is that human existence in a modern, developed form is ruinous to life and the planet itself. If it really was the case then surely it would be all hands on deck and a manning of the pumps, instead we're encouraged to reuse, recycle, make do and mend, cycle, scrimp and save.
For the sake of nature and future generations we must demand less, reign in aspiration and live a simpler life. Even though on-message scientists decry the way their findings are interpreted that hasn't stopped the government from continuing its agenda.

For society in general it means everything has to be accounted for from our rubbish to cars, holidays and homes. Rubbish has now become a major issue - voluntary recycling of dubious benefit is now giving way to a more coercive version and we can be fined for putting out the wrong sort or our bins on the wrong day.
Gone are the days when taxes paid for binmen to take the lot away and streets were regularly maintained. Instead jobs are cut at the council, a fatuous and expensive managerial layer is imposed, a voluntary layer of competing community groups is encouraged and we're expected to do more of this ourselves.

If it truly was worthwhile recycling then it would be done efficiently on a grand scale or incinerated for energy production. But no, big projects are out, as is letting machinery do the work. This seems contradictory for a modern economy but it's true worth is ideological - to guilt trip the consumer.
Perhaps it is more symbolic of the state of UK politics.

On a larger scale this affects industry, commerce, our view of humanity and involvement with the rest of the world, how we make a living and the quality of that life.
At its must fundamental is the denial that human beings can have a positive impact or cope with changes. Yet the planet has undergone many changes in its lifespan and people with far less technology coped. In fact it's technology and modernity that have allowed us to thrive; this best witnessed by the high survival rate of people in earthquakes in Los Angeles compared to those at Bam, Iran or the Indonesian tsunami.

The world will continue to change and it can only be through the greater use of technology and ability to meld the natural environment that we can hope to continue prosperity now and for future generations. Much play is made of our impact yet just 2% of landmass is urbanised ie, built upon and this out of a landmass that covers 30% of the globe. Doesn't this make a mockery of resource depletion and overpopulation?

Many have become entirely cynical about the political process as new scares and initiatives are constantly launched and politicians get on the bandwagon. So much to the point they are largely left to their own devices. The promotion of this agenda is dangerous if left unchecked and it remains by default. Despite belatedly recognising its inherent contradictions this has proved too problematic - New Labour's programme is riddled and Blair at his most triumphant was revealed as empty and exhausted. Perhaps not too surprising the rest of the mainstream chose not to attack but to occupy the same ground.
The danger is this encourages an outlook of fatalism and entrenchment just as Britain's elite try to revitalise the economy and standing in the world. In fact UK politicians are at the forefront of promoting the environmentalist message at home and abroad.

If the planet is not safe in our hands then we also need guidance in our daily lives. Our convenience and quality of life is being determined by government and subordinated to nature. This in schemes to limit private transport and mobility to cramped and expensive housing and lack of investment in infrastructure.
How we relate to each other as individuals is officially subject to behaviour and speech codes, we have a tick list achievement chart for babies, contradictory and puritanical advice as to the food we should eat, smoking bans and alcohol restrictions and further increases in state intrusion.
The informal and private sphere is losing out as surveillance and regulation become the norm; surveillance in the form of increased officialdom and gathering of information to CCTV and pilot schemes where 'responsible' teenagers watch the public and bark out orders via public address.
This is a chilling and apt metaphor for Blair's legacy - not so much nanny statism as ill conceived politics of an authoritarian school prefect.

If the enforcement side of politics is bad then it has an equally dismal encouraging side where model citizens are to engage in government sponsored and lottery funded inclusion schemes - the irony being that monies gambled by those wishing an escape from the everyday are used to reinforce it. Even worse is the insular and meaningless heritage or arts scheme used for this - ex MP for Wakefield, Dave Hinchliffe tried to steal Robin Hood from Nottingham until reminded that promoting an outlaw didn't ride well with current ASBO culture. Now we have the promotion of Wakefield as part of the Rhubarb triangle - a food originating in the far east.
Such is the condescending nature of regeneration schemes, the promotion of a sense of place and a pick and mix attitude to establishing cohesion.

This is the 'white side' of multiculturalism - a clumsy attempt to pigeon-hole groups of people to stereotype. Multiculturalism only favours officialdom whereas for everyone else it's a straitjacket that harnesses division. It affects how we view ourselves and others and suspends universal traits. In truth we find common desires and benefits in new influences. Today though, community groups have to meet strict criteria regards diversity, 'inclusion' or the environment to receive funding. In this way the government implants its own view as to the type of people we should be and free association, speech and thought - the right to challenge ideas and criticise becomes curtailed.
If multiculturalism is bad for newcomers then it seems to be disproportionately aimed at the white masses. An authentic heritage is chopped and changed to produce a sterile version, attempts are made to rename Christmas; hot x buns and baa baa blacksheep are banned. On the streets we have bits of history plucked out the air and MPs travel the world to apologise for Britain's dodgier contribution to world affairs. It seems they are more happy to reinterpret the past than to address the problems we face today, and those largely of their own making.

Nowhere is this best exposed than western intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unrest in the middle east comes largely as a result of continual western intervention and dealings with the likes of Saddam Hussein and the Taleban when it suited, only to turn against them when things got out of hand. The only interest western governments have is to cohere a worldview around themselves and maintain their own positions. In this they have failed miserably and these debacles are now more about them saving face.
These and subsequent interventions will only cease when western peoples rid themselves of such self seeking politicians.

The realignment of the economy is set to be more growth in lower paid service sector work, retail and tourism coupled with a higher end financial, managerial and consultancy element. This is probably the driver behind New Labour's efforts to get us all to step into line and be happy with a smaller lot. Here they attempt to lead the way in reorganising various public sector work. As well as job losses, squeezing conditions and service cuts that means passing the buck to an often ill eqipped and more expensive private sector. And all wrapped up in a legislative and bureaucratic framework
Although contradictory, patronising and ill conceived this stuff runs throughout New Labour's agenda and reveals a profound contempt for the public.

It could be argued that government attempts to encourage civility - good behaviour and decent standards - is not such a bad thing (and would be a bit more credible if they lived up to the billing) yet they realise that this comes as much from us having decent employment as to where we live. Shame then that their thinking does much to discourage a progressive view and further undermines UK design and manufacturing.
If we are ever to see genuine progress that means ridding ourselves of the sustainability agenda and social engineering and thinking anew. Decent employment and a better quality of life can be had by questioning that put before us and embracing change.

*******

This intervention may not be the norm for local elections but aims to start challenging some of the contradictions and challenges we face and attempt to turn things around.

Vote Independent!

'Climate change: Why we don't believe it'

2007-04-29T10:13:00.000+01:00

(Reply to New Statesman article, 23rd April)

What is annoying about these discussions is the oft holier than thou assumptions of the new righteous. It is also alarming that these ideas are becoming evermore predominant. Yet no-one with any sense denies climate change as the world has been through many dramatic changes during its lifespan.

What is still in dispute is the level of impact our actions have had. Here again though we are able to see that we can also affect such things in a positive manner should we choose. Though such a view is anathemic to those that cry out doom.

That is the main problem with environmentalism, ie. its denial of human agency as a force for good on a grand scale. Instead we get repetitive and patronising advice as to the simple measures we can take to tackle climate change - turn down the heating, reduce, reuse, recycle, use pubic transport/bicycles and trade emissions.

(Some people really ought to be hoist by their own emissions.)

According to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution report: Urban Environments, just 2% of the world's landsurface is urbanised/built (out of 30% land/ 70% water split). That leaves a huge expanse that is wilderness, natural, preserved or farmed and suggests we've barely scratched the surface let alone depleted resources.

Shame on you treehugger types out there for it is your outlook that will condemn future generations to the whims of nature if unchecked. Intermittent natural power supply will not guarantee controllable and deliverable energy in any amount that gives us a comfortable life (eg. see Wind power in Denmark, Dr V.C. Mason, www.countryguardian.net).

Further, without an enquiring nature and the development of complex and cheap mass produced technologies we would neither have the time nor means to have this discussion nor have been any the wiser.

I think this will prove to be a dangerous and problematic route for, particularly western, society. The UK, seemingly lacking any other credible raison d'etre, is at the forefront of promoting this. How much the UK is reliant on convincing the rest of the world to slow down is anyone's guess but what's left of UK and european manufacture can't compete against it's growing far eastern counterpart, especially if they opt to take less of a head in the sand approach.

The British National Party gains strength?

2007-04-28T17:35:00.000+01:00

(3rd attempt to 'have a say' at Timesonline debate.)

Your article correctly states that the BNP often reflect the concerns of a significant and angry portion of the white masses (whereas the left generally avoid confronting the same). As such they prove to be opportunistic and tail the issues of the day, albeit with their own particular twist.
Though, however odious or cranky we may find them it would be unwise to dismiss what they represent. For instance, in these days of multiculturalism (soft core apartheid) and political correctness many things have been sidelined at the prompting of authorities - everything from free speech to the banning of St George's flag, hot cross buns, baa baa blacksheep and the attempted renaming of xmas - traditional beliefs reinterpreted and repackaged.
This coupled with the promoting of 'foreign cultures' has left a lot of people angry and created the space for the BNP's brand of victim politics.
Strip away their myth take on history, dollops of bigotry and hypocrisy though and we see an underlying element of pride and standards ie. something good about Britain and what Britishness could mean.
It's a genuine shame that Griffin and co don't promote some of the better things that Britain is known for - The Industrial Revolution, significant contributions to the arts, literarture, science and medicine, exploration and so on, or even something of what our character is supposed to be - adventurous, honourable, stoic and industrious.
Sadly, these things are all very much in decline, being apologised for or addressed in contradictory terms.
This is a shame because most of the people encountered who consider voting for the BNP are hardworking, well presented taxpayers who are fed up of being ignored and often respond to the lack of resources or overcrowding message. With cutbacks in services and perceived favouring of newcomers and nowhere else to take their frustration it's little wonder that the BNP are seen as an alternative.

Nevertheless, it would be unwise to panic about this upsurge of interest as more often than not many don't fully identify with the whole package and see through the rest of it.
Even speaking to BNP supporters outside Leeds Crown Ct recently it was evident that most of their anger was directed at the Government rather than immigrants and this even more so when canvassing doorsteps.

Despite the limitations of their programme I'd argue that this positive element ought to be addressed.
Griffin hints at his limitations and reckons he can only take the BNP so far (although he cites 'baggage' - nudge, nudge, wink, wink - what politician doesn't have?). Instead, personally and politically, Griffin prefers isolation; claiming nothing special about being British other than the colour of our skin and attachment to some mud and rocks.
Nothing great about his Britain then.

This denies influence and influences from further afield and throughout history and should be no go.
Geographically it makes little sense to have borders - Scotland, for instance, once on the equator and underwater; landmass, regardless of our hyper real footprint, will alter over time. Further, it makes little sense to pursue isolationism and maintain barriers in a globalised world. The free movement and association of people ought to be celebrated.
Demographically, the UK will need a constant influx of migrant workers and we should be glad they choose to come here and partake in what Britain has to offer.

What about considering Britain as more the people and ideas of the time? I see no basis for patriotism but would feel some pride if the people of Britain turned things around.
The problem is neither the BNP or immigrants but New Labour.

Reply to constituent and public sector employee, Wakefield North ward 17.

2007-04-20T04:59:00.000+01:00

I was very pleased to receive your letter as you have raised some issues I hold dear. However there are significant other things worthy of further discussion.
In this reply I will try to be as brief as possible but reserve the right to elaborate where I feel necessary. After all, I suppose I'm trying to be a politician - however reluctantly.

Politics, particularly in the UK, is pretty bland, uninspiring fare. It is also dangerously invasive and prescriptive to us as individuals - all our quite normal activities are open to scrutiny and increasing regulation. This forms part of the 'battleground' that is politics today. The bigger picture is The Environment; the root being that people, us, are bad.
Of course it's not all bad, the show goes on and we all go out to earn a crust.

We'd be unwise to ignore the changing ground; part of which is the happiness agenda - lowered horizons, felched history, making do and mend, scrimping and saving. Further, the government is shifting responsibility to private companies and individuals and all within a legalistic framework - Blair's true legacy.

I'm not big on economics but it seems like Brown's predictions are proving amiss. With big projects on the horizon and disastrous, costly wars we can only expect more buck passing and ill-conceived, messy private services and perhaps a government making itself redundant.

I'm no nationalist but this would also seem to be no competition to eastern economies which is likely why the UK is at the forefront of promoting this stuff.
This is a dangerous position but one that also provides an opening.

To answer your questions then -

I'm in favour of us being well rewarded for our efforts - good pay and conditions with security during times of change. That whether privately or publicly employed. We cannot operate with our heads in the sand and just be stubborn. We have to recognise change is happening and not be scared of it. I'd go further and suggest we, the workforce, push ourselves and through doing this we realise who does the work, what gets in the way and see ourselves as agents of change.

As regards public services, I question what we are getting and how it is delivered (under the limiting cover of environmentalism). Public services are now set to be more about the public doing much of the delivering and everything watched and weighed.

If people are interested in delivering a true public service then I will back that to the hilt. However, that requires an open debate and winning the public over to the possibility of being able to make a difference - the 'public' being everybody else, friends, family, neighbours, etc.
That, I believe, will be the only way to make athe beginnings of a lasting and positive change.

Letter to Mr Kojan.

2007-03-26T00:19:00.000+01:00

(comment on draft regeneration strategy, Wakefield)

Whilst happy to see plenty of development I cannot help but be alarmed at the general form, the reasons for it and further implications.

For starters, all new housing is subject to higher density build due to land being artificially restricted rather than positively as communities of people with shared interests (and a common timetable). The latter point something our political leaders seem desperate to foster.

Instead of a natural community developing we are getting a sketchily offered, pick n mix version where privacy, individuality and free association are practically sanctioned by authority.

Our homes fulfill a number of roles yet it's hard to imagine a comfortable family life in such cramped conditions. Overclose proximity to our neighbours is bound to lead to compromise and occasional tension as our activities impinge on those of others.
In crude terms merely going to the bathroom during the night provides a dilemma over flushing and disturbing the neighbours. Granted, my house is some 100 yrs old - I just hope these new homes have decent soundproofing.

Houses built for an entirely different era need constant upgrades so there's always noisy rebuilding work going on and little peace and quiet in the neighbourhood. It's probably fair to that within 20 yrs the process will need to be repeated if occupiers haven't already started updating.

And what of normal leisure pursuits such as playing your favourite music just the way you like it or even kids playing out?

Never mind though, if our quite normal activities prove too intrusive, rest assured, we can always rely on an ASBO or CPSO to keep things quiet.

It used to be said that an englishman (or woman)'s house is his (or her) castle. It would appear not so now. Gordon Brown's prudence will cost us dear both in money and increasing intrusion into our homes. His profligacy with taxes has led to suggestions of window, patio and even 'view from your house' taxes.
It gets worse - they now want to photograph and catalogue every room in our homes. Which with some snide irony perhaps, is being introduced into Northern Ireland first.

Despite our relative wealth we get slammed by high house prices due to this restriction of land; only ameliorated by low interest rates. How long this situation lasts is anybodys guess but there have already been murmurs of trouble ahead in the economy.
Interestingly enough, the debate heard was more concerned with the lack of prison spaces to house us should we resort to criminality as a result.
No focus on decent jobs then?

Decent jobs and a better quality of life could be had by ditching the sustainability agenda and building spaciously on redundant farmland with modern services and infrastructure.

But no, Castleford MP and housing minister, Yvette Cooper, gets herself all excited at the prospect of theoretically building most, if not all, UK housing on dilapidated brownfield land at high density; aided and abetted by hubby, economic secretary to the treasury and Normanton MP, Ed Balls.
That is some double act from so called socialists.

In this way our own private space gives way to chaperoned public space replete with selective heritage features and equally meaningless but instrumental public art.

And what of transport? Private motor cars are frowned upon as unsustainable, antisocial; every regeneration plan attacking private car use and our freedom to roam. This could almost be bearable if public transport was reliable, ran an extended timetable and was user friendly.

Defra minister, Dave Miliband talks of his environment policy as being for 'a land fit for heroes'.
I can only asume he's been watching too many Disney videos.

Drugs are for mugs?

2007-03-25T23:59:00.000+01:00

"I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness . . . " (Ginsberg, Howl )

Society does need to have an open and honest debate about 'drugs' as it is often something known about but a blind eye turned and discussed mostly in terms that avoid clarity.
For starters, everyone from royalty to politicians, to doers and makers, athletes, armed forces and aged has its share of drug takers.
So why do we do it? Possibly as much a release from or aid to the mundane as football, dancing, reading or a hobby. Some of us even become too absorbed in our work to the detriment of other things and miss out on what those things mean.

It's partly a question of balance - quality, quantity, frequency and variety.

Do we also condemn football, love, alcohol or even politics? The efforts people put into 'the beautiful game' can take those connected through every emotion, affect their well being, cost plenty and takes up plenty of time that could arguably be put to better use. And the world of sport doesn't come without significant risk in the form of injuries, hospitalisation and occasionally death. That said, the world of sport, as most other areas, is evermore subject to increased regulation.

Love is the sweetest thing? Hmm, who could honestly say that our most intimate of relationships don't come without there fair sure of turmoil, disappointment and sometimes even hatred. Some of us do crazy and irresponsible things in the pursuit of what we consider to be love. I'm not too sure we know what love is . . . .

What of politics . . . . ?

What of the abuse/misuse of drugs for 'recreational' purposes? - a significant proportion take a little of what tickles their fancy and are able to cope with life just as much as the rest. Some have their best thoughts or can see through problems that hound them through the week . . . . and, of course, many talk and do utter bollocks.
Though there are plenty of others doing the same without substance.

There shouldn't be any problem with people taking drugs as 'pick me ups/put me downs' as a matter of choice rather than, say, as prescribed by busy Doctors on a mandate not necessarily of their own choosing.
This can be illustrated by an article from The Press, a Dewsbury newspaper, headlined 'OAP drug dealers' (2005?). it appears they were selling on their prescribed medication (which oft just made them into zombies) to the local junkies (who didn't mind 'zombing') and the situation only coming to light when the usual pharmacy break-ins stopped. The medication used in this manner alleged to be more deadly than even heroin.
People go to great lengths to get their kicks, so much that to some the journey and nature of it becomes part of the deal - been there, bought the t-shirt, hat, bumper sticker and badge . . . what a rebel. But no cause.

Behind the drugs 'issue' lies the notion that people are feckless no-hopers/addicts and intrusions into our private affairs are fairgame. Yet, often people from these quarters, pursuing these lines, prove to be hypocritical. David Cameron says that politicians ought to be able to have a (previously) private life. Shouldn't we all?

Surely people should have the freedom to choose their poison without the condemnation of others? Recreational drugs may form part of what we consider to be bad about society but that can be argued is largely due to their illegality. Then there's the guilt trip aspect of the west's decadence causing impoverishment and squalor in other countries. So the likes of Kate Moss, Robbie Wiliams and others are given a derisory snort for causing the plight of Colombians.

Perhaps if the stigma attached to drug use was dropped then better drugs could be developed for all walks of life - recreational, sport and medicinal and these fields having a reciprocating nature. Advanced pharmaceutical companies could then devote less time to maintaining patents and allow production of drugs generically and cheaper abroad where they are required.

60 year old Sylvester Stallone was recently busted for possessing 'a drug containing human growth hormone somatropin, said to help muscle mass, boost the immune system and hair growth', as reported in The Daily Star, 14th March. The Star also says 'the illegal substance is used by cheating sportsmen around the world'.
Given the often short length of career in sport, its injuries and stresses a case could be made or it being an ideal testing ground for drug development.
Perhaps better treatments could be developed through sport that benefit the elderly and infirm, alleviate some of the terrible, debilitating illness that blights the lives of many; a developing ground similar to Formula One racing for the humble family motor.

What of boldly going . . . astronauts, deep sea divers, etc face different pressures and conditions, their bodies stretched or compressed and requiring something a bit more potent than aspirin.

Many drugs and treatments have their origins or development on the battlefield. This in dealing with injury - rapid advances were made in plastic/cosmetic surgery due to the high level of facial injuries resulting from trench warfare. And armies throughout the ages have used and developed more than marching powders to gain that competitive edge.

Johan Hari writes (in Prospect) of the chronic global shortage of medicinal opiates and the particularly cruel irony of this in Afghan Hospitals. This in a country where impoverished farmers are encouraged to destroy poppies and adopt poor returning agricultural schemes promoted by an oppressive force.
Surely that's criminal?

It's truly sad that the battlefield provides an arena for development rather than elsewhere. If we developed a better view of humanity - one that didn't just shoehorn us into stereotype - then those 'hippy types' that huff n puff or others that see hedonism as the way or may be inspired to achieve in other areas . . . as well as choose their poison.

We need more power

2007-02-14T18:57:00.001Z

Entry into www.spiked-online.com debate: The future of energy.

13 February 2007

Underpinning the current debate concerning energy useage is the contemporary notion that our activities harm the planet. In theory this extends to all our activities and, to some, our very existence. The late Tony Banks MP referred to humans as ‘the most obscene, perverted, cruel, uncivilised and lethal species ever to inhabit the planet’. Why we elect such politicians to represent us is beyond me. Perhaps that is a matter for further discussion.

I think humanity’s impact on the planet is overstated. Yes we do affect nature. However, the planet is constantly changing - Scotland was apparently once on the equator and underwater. Any mining or quarrying exposes layer after layer of previous life. Doubtless every square inch of the planet could tell the tale of its existence.

The current Western outlook, however, does not appreciate this, seeing the world as bound in equilibrium and only upset by our activities - but this is untrue. Many things affected the planet long before we stood up. On a naturally changing planet and one that is likely to experience vast changes irrespective of our presence, should we opt for a harmonious relationship with the elements or seek to make things more habitable for the only known being that can make any constructive difference?

I’m enchanted by the idea of free power in solar, geothermal heat pumps or wind power and better insulation and building materials. These things are all useful to a degree. But they are no more of a panacea than recycling our rubbish. This approach will not mean mankind lives comfortably and prospers over time.

The planet will eventually die out anyway - and what then? Does all of humanity go with it safe in the knowledge that at least we did no harm? Or do we get a grip and build on the endeavours of our forebears and develop means to cope in any circumstances? Our future descendants may naturally face greater environmental hazards than we now know; surely they would be in a better position to deal with things with an abundance of energy too cheap to meter?

"These are a few of my favourite things . . . .

2006-12-21T11:31:00.000Z

*

As development is billed as the dirtiest of words and sustainable its contemporary default l'd like to put the case for development with a capital D. Without wishing to sound alarmist the current environmentalist message is the message of the doomsayer although flies in the face of reality. People have progressed remarkably over time yet current thinking seeks to constrain that. Far worse seems to be the hatred of any solution offered and the preferred choice is to slow down (1). Maybe that suits those who have attained a level of comfort and prefer their experiences authentic but others wanting better creature comforts not so.

Call it what you will, the developing world needs better than to exist at the level of charity handout, subsistence farming, hand pump and smiley photo. Hot and cold running water, abundant electricity, decent housing, hospitals and roads wouldn't be a bad start. And we in the west ought to be able to get on with something a bit more progressive than sifting through our rubbish or living like battery tenants.

What is particularly alarming is the stranglehold that green thinking exerts everywhere. lsn't this tantamount to humanity throwing in the cloth and giving in? We uphold primitive developments such as Stonehenge, the pyramids or Machu Picchu but eschew true development today. Telling that the Incas averaged more roadbuilding than New labour (2).

We get excited when we stumble over the remains of previous human habitation - the broken pots and other earth covered remnants as to how they lived a 1000 years ago but seem to despise the current version.

There are those that say that the planet is changing because of our impact upon it and that the under-developed world suffers disproportionately, yet devastation disproportionately effects those that don't have the benefits of development.

Green thinking seeks an imagined harmony with natural forces that just don't exist in holy equilibrium. lsn't nature just a series of happenstances? Doesn't the march of history tell us we live on a planet that is constantly changing? Without advanced technological solutions we confine ourselves to wishful thinking and an ahistoric view of the world.

'You say Matterhorn, I say materials . . . '

The hills really ought to be alive with the sound of development, as do the valleys, plains and oceans. it'd be good to see a more progressive humanity, one that turns back the tide of ecodoomsayers and offers genuine solutions to what lies ahead. We ought to be gladdened that our endeavours can be seen by satellite - more of it please!

A non exhaustive (and in no particular order) list of my favourite things -

Kirk Leech presents an excellent website concerning the row over true development at Rosia Montana, Romania. It seems that the greens are in full evangelical mode and want nothing but a peasant existence for the locals - how quaint. The bulk of the locals seem to have better ideas. See www.goldenmyths.com Is this worth preserving and for whom?
(A cheap holiday in other people's misery . . . )

Mirna, Siberia.

Building the 3 gorges dam.

They didn't just dig a hole at Kennecott, Utah, they mined away a mountain.

*Female astronaut courtesy of NASA.
(1)Every silver lining has a cloud. Stuart Blackman
(2)Transport innovation: slowing to a standstill. Woudhuysen, Both www.spiked-online.com>Environment
The Incas: The South American empire lasted just 100 years from 1438AD (began 1200?), and built 22,530km of road
New labour averaged 64km a year since 1997.

One man's mince . . .

2006-10-21T01:23:00.000+01:00

ls Peter Tatchell being a poof?

Tatchell whinged about Chris Moyles and Rio Ferdinand's interchange on Radio 1 , recently when Ferdinand disputed being a 'faggot' after saying that Peter Crouch was something of a looker (or words to that effect) then followed something of a discussion of homme et homme, etc.

One doesn't have to be gay to appreciate the merits of our fellow man in whatever shape or form. Blokes may be envious of a fellow's good fortune, see a bloke and think - 'l wish l could be something like that', etc. Blokes don't generally openly acknowledge this sort of thing as it doesn't befit the form we reckon we're supposed to adhere to - gruff, heroic, macho, etc, etc.

Butt really, does Tatchell represent the bulk of gay opinion? l doubt it - in day to day parlance people take the mick in many forms and with little of real consequence. Sure, some may take offence only to end up with egg on there faces as their colleagues rip the the piss even more - pretty much par for the course. lf we were to take offence at every sleight presented then we probably wouldn't get through our day.

Peter Tatchell was supposed to be appearing at the Battle of ideas (see below), Chris Moyles perhaps not.
(prev unpublished)

Open reply to Green taxes letter, Wakefield Express.

2006-09-20T11:09:00.004+01:00

David Speight presents some good argument for scrapping green taxes.
l don’t own a car but see, like everyone else, the shoddy state of public transport - often overcrowded, too hot, bumpy ride and poor shelter when waiting all weathers. At 42 yrs old this presents little problem. Others not so - the elderly or those with kids in tow and shopping plus, love ‘em or hate ‘em, our blessed schoolkids. All cramped up in poorly designed buses and an inefficient network. Somehow we daily manage our way through this mayhem with muted protest. True, some are darn right disrespectful in their protests but can you really blame them? There are better ways to register complaint with our lot.

Doesn’t all the transport system need upgrading for public and private use? Many of us prefer the freedoms associated with our individual means of transport, car or otherwise. For instance in these days of DIY we couldn’t manage repeat trips to suppliers for our materials by bus. Plus of course the freedom to roam - on a whim and for pleasure.

Britain has masses of countryside and a wealth of offerings in other villages, towns and cities. Yet investment in roads is pitiful if not generally anti-motorist.
There’s a duality here in that our Townmasters seek to encourage visitors for revenue yet limit the mobilities of inhabitants (low wages, high house prices, taxes, fines and traffic schemes.) lnstead we are offered a sense of ‘place’. An identity chaperoned by selective nostalgia.

As for London’s transport system being up to the job then Mr Speight is very much mistaken. London has all the benefits and pitfalls as anywhere else but in concentrated form. Too much haphazard design and based on similar faulty logic of minimizing our footprint and sticking with an imaginary past.

It’s not just cars. All consumption is up for consideration - clothes, activities, food, socialising, holidays, energy; our daily lives and wastes.
We put so much effort into saving by products that are worthless that the whole exercise becomes one of going backwards. This stuff comes from the ground and could easily compress and go back there. Or what of machine processed separation or clean burn incineration as a power source? If there’s a case to be made for our rubbish being useful then surely it lies on the larger scale and not at the level of the individual householder.

Which ever way it is looked at retail is to feature heavily as everywhere ‘regenerates’. Yet we are set to be guilt tripped and green taxed by some pretty naive and disingenuous thinking. This from people who have often benefited the most from society’s abundance.

There is a good argument for redesign of homes as they are generally built today guided by a lack of forward thinking - nostalgia and environmentalism. There are some fantastic looking developments on the Leeds waterfront and Wakefield also making an offering. But too much crowded in. This may suit hard working, hard living city types all well and good but not so those with families or wishing peace and quiet or different lifestyle.

This overcrowding is happening everywhere. Wakefield, as well as anywhere else, is experiencing a building boom. More of a whimper given low build rates and the state of housing stock old and new.

Plots of land are being taken up and high rise and compacted dwellings abound. People are offered relatively huge sums of money to sell off their gardens for new housing. Tales abound in these parts of offers in the region of £50 - 70,000. Houses are expensive due to the cost of land, not materials or labour. High profits are generated by the demand for limited stock and our desire for a place of our own.

Good plots of land are hard to come by because of artificial restraints. Supposedly overcrowded Britain is just 10% built, 75% farming that is held back by environmentalist sentiment and 13% ‘other’.

So whilst we are constantly upgrading and patching up the old, living increasingly cheek by jowl in expensive and inefficient housing and getting taxed for the benefit of maintaining this we could actually be looking at pastures new - our out moded, subsidised and romanticised countryside.

Britain is in crying need of regeneration. Regeneration writ large and not this small scale, anal retentive stuff.

Great efficiencies and improvements in housing and living will only happen on the larger scale - at the level of town and country planning and a consideration of our place in that.
There are fantastic, easily built house types looming on the horizon and new materials and techniques that offer more. All held back by petty, contradictory convention and regulation.
These design types will make the best efficiency savings rather than small scale and expensive energy generation. Energy absorbent materials are constantly being developed and certainly have a part to play though still reliant upon the weather and thus requiring back up. Retrofitting is expensive and offers diminishing returns for intermittent power.

Why kid ourselves? A developing economy needs masses of cheap, reliable and clean energy.That can only mass generation and nuclear power. We need to ditch our aversion to the ‘big monster’ and embrace our capacity to improve all situations. l’m pretty sure that if something as inefficient as a windmill can be made elegant then something as useful as a nuclear power station can be made a thing of beauty.

This could well set the alarm bells ringing ringing with some who would believe that the country will become one big housing plot. Not really so. Better living standards seem to lead to a decrease in the size of families. This coupled with the marvelous news that we live longer (despite all our bad habits) is leading to the requirement for immigrant labour - and we all came from somewhere.

Regardless, Britain’s glory days of empire and assumed superiority are long over. We may still be an island but that is purely in geographical terms. Despite the protests of Greens and Little Englanders our destiny will always be reliant on interacting with the outside world. How can it be otherwise?

Despite maintaining something of a bargaining chip by looking both ways, the UK is part of Europe and rightly so. As well as the benefits of increased immigration to this country - new culture, outlook and determination to progress there is also opportunity abroad. Europe is a two way thing and many opportunities await the willing. Many take advantage of cheap travel and low costs abroad to set up there and why not?

Even our good friends at the BNP say (somewhere) that there should be no problem with migrant workers developing skills to take back home with them to rebuild their country. We can discern their reasons for saying so but perhaps something a bit more progressive than our green chums?
Our eastern european chums are taking full advantage of opportunities offered whilst the predominant outlook, particularly in the UK, is an entrenched one. People from developing cultures have little of the self loathing impressed upon us and are keen to develop.

We should be pleased that many choose to come to the UK out of choice. Perhaps they were attracted by our sense of tolerance and fairplay, or that Britain once stood for something to be proud of - the cradle of the industrial revolution, scientific endeavour and ingenuity. All sadly things that are out of fashion at present as the west looks backwards at its peril.

Open reply to Cllr. Roberts, Heckmondwike. (The Press (1)

2006-09-20T11:09:00.001+01:00

l'm not overfamiliar with Cllr. Roberts stance on funding English teaching to, it's presumed he means, foreigners. But judging by your article in last week's Press he seems to want it both ways. How can you argue for the withdrawal of funding and then expect 'foreigners' to speak it as their main language? Would you argue the same for 'homegrown' kids that need their rudimentary understandings guided in the classroom? Perhaps funding and the runnings of education are further matters for discussion.

What is 'english' anyway? It does seem to be a form that can adopt others and continuously adapt itself. Spend some time checking the roots of words, their meanings and use and we find that they come from all over. This continues today and new words and expressions are always arising. Not sure whether this is the case with other languages though - l recall a welsh speaking couple sounding completely alien until hearing 'supermarket'. Likewise Croatia's Franjo Trudjman coming out with 'device for holding up trousers' when divorcing Serbo-Croat.

l take the point that English should be the main language when used in this country. This is even established in much of global trade and in diplomatic circles, having replaced French.
But what of when we 'Brits' go abroad? How many of us speak the lingo? Erm . . . ? not many. Even when some of us do make the attempt we find our efforts appreciated but generally our continental counterparts speak more than adequate english, french, spanish, etc. This seems to be even more so at the lower end of the jobs market. I wouldn't put myself high up the pecking order but have often been embarassed by those of lower 'status' who demonstrate command of many languages and myself struggling with the basics.

Bloody tourists, eh?

l'd counter Roberts' point about a reluctance on the part of others to learn and say it's more one of traditional resistance to the 'other' in this country. Compounded today by the multicultured approach to societal realtions accepting the 'other' as 'always other'.

Given Cllr. Roberts leanings it's presumed that his bottomline is 'they' should go home yet immigration to this country and the mobility of its occupants has always been a feature of its make up. lf any of us trace our family hisory then we find it's been a long and winding road to get to this point.
Despite geographically being an island Britain cannot be other than part of the bigger picture. We have a global economy with goods and people travelling far and wide. (The latter should be considered to be the most basic of freedoms.)

Regardless of Cllr Roberts' approach and the shilly-shallyings of mainstream politicos immigration and mobility will always make the world go around with benefits and challenges for all. lt seems that despite a wealth of cultural differences we find there are more things that bind us than not and assumptions made about people expected to conform to tradition don't actually fit the stereotype.

Maybe there are forms and nuances of expression that just don't translate via language so an understanding of other forms of expression enhances our own to the point that words or phrases become accepted, thesaurusised (made that one up) or adapted. Our understanding and language given some ad hoc je ne sais qois, so to speak.
Much can be learnt from the study of other language and culture. l profess to not having much understanding of other languages let alone script. Looking at eastern forms with odd symbols written fom right to left is incomprehensible to me but does suggest another side to learning. Perhaps the mere ability to read in this manner has an effect on comprehension and the ability to do both in many languages opens up far more than the seperation. Which ought to go without saying really.

Maybe in the future language will reflect an absorption and filtering of the lot into one common but enriched 'english' or other. Further than that though, our eastern contemporaries seem a lot less encumbered by the insularities of mainstream western thought and the world may come to speak in a modern eastern form. Somehow doubt that but Cllr Roberts may yet speak from the other side of his mouth.

(1)http://www.thepressnewspaper.co.uk/NewsDetails.asp?id=801

Public service Fightback!

2006-09-13T11:00:00.000+01:00

Volunteers required . . .

The National Health Service is undergoing considerable change at present. Changes big on promise, all the right boxes ticked - but on the ground service becoming a nightmare and staff and patient care suffering.
We're sold stories of bright new shiny hospitals which are definitely needed but scratch beneath the surface and we're getting a lot of self-congratulatory hype from people whose vested interests lie elsewhere.

We face job cuts, closures and cutbacks - a diminished service replaced by one ran to quotas, an attendant bureaucracy of well paid consultancies, managers and sub managers, privatisation for the sake of it and practically a licence to print money.

In real terms these cuts are unnecessary. There is no real reason - or the reasons stated are various and incoherent. Part slap in the face and taste of things to come and part due to Labours fixation with targets.
Even in the Govts own cheesy cliche-speak of ‘best practice’ and ‘value for money’ this makes no sense as many of the services up for grabs are set to be more expensive. In fact many business analysts are baffled as to the Govts actions stating that the figures are nothing to be alarmed about. And they are a fraction of the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These are the actions of an administration trying to look dynamic at our expense and reveal nothing but contempt for the public.
We are being sold short by a bunch of goons that get by on spin and hype but with no effective opposition to challenge them. People that get off on telling us we drink, smoke and enjoy ourselves too much and ram patronising and hypocritical sermons down our throats as to how we should live our lives. This is a parliament stuffed with lawyers and ‘fairplay’ rulemakers with no direction other than to see society stifled and stepping to their tune.

Whether we like it or not this period is one undergoing substantial change, much of it seemingly without direction. Changes are afoot in the economy, labour market and beyond and we can no longer afford a head-in-the-sand approach.
If we allow this period to fester with, at best, hopeful gestures and placing faith in foot-draggers and sellout merchants then they will wriggle out of it in one form or another, something else will replace it - immigration, criminality and general bad behaviour likely to the fore. Expect stories of unscrupulous care workers, scamming immigrants and general unfeeling, uncaring and self-interested behaviour. Basically, how crap we all are and that we need decisions making for us.

Too often this is where we fall down. We allow a mood to fester, individuals and groups picked off, others keep their heads down, regulations follow and we’re stuffed.

So what do we do?

Merely ask the bosses to be nice to us whilst we leave them to do their jobs? Their jobs being nothing more than to whip us into some indeterminate shape and in real terms our paymasters. ln very real terms they have little to do with actually running the health service.

Despite 'bending over backwards' to minimise the harm of cuts in the Health service it's fairly obvious that with the appointment of two new turnaround directors Mid-Yorkshire Health trust are determined to see through some nasty treatment. Therefore anything we do will have to be determined.
Health workers need to be able stick up for themselves day to day and to be comfortable that others will genuinely support them - us, the general public as users and fellow workers with an interest in our livelihoods. If we do this we prove that there is nothing to fear by making a stand.

lt’s suggested that staff adopt a policy of non compliance with unnecessary paperwork, refuse to comply with target driven initiatives that allow management to please their political masters (but do nothing for patient care) and break the 'vow of silence'. Professionalism is nothing to do with speaking out against a drop in service, in fact quite the opposite.
And no victimisation. Management and their friends will do everything they can to win this - everything from soft soaping to disciplinary action for petty reasons and more.

*
By now the current swathe of redundancy notices will have been handed out and staff worried about their livelihoods. Management have said they will do all they can to minimise redundancies yet haven’t ruled out the option as a continuing part of their plans. There shouldn’t be a single one. lf the principle of us losing jobs to save their necks is accepted then how long before one becomes 93, 450, 1100? And remaining staff carrying an increased workload.

*
Even at low levels of growth, the nation’s wealth is predicted to double over the next 40 years. Advances in medical science and practice mean more and better treatments are constantly being developed yet held back by red tape, underfunding and an aversion culture. Notwithstanding groundbreaking new technologies, today we face the rundown of essential services and health staff, effort and resources diverted into meeting quotas and targets. The results of this are well known - people are dying and losing out on basic healthcare whilst all the time we are told things are getting better.

The NHS has never been perfect and we should be clear that ‘nationalising’ it, ie. keeping it in public ownership, is a limited call. What is meant by public ownership? In truth we own precious little of it although our collective labours create it. Usually it means run by the state yet it is state policy to stitch up the NHS and private entrepreneurs are merely doing what they do best.
Further, in a globalised economy shouldn’t we be thinking of an international health service? To some extent it already is - staff, products and patients from all over the world.

*
To stand any chance of stopping the rot we need to make a determined stand and stick up for ourselves. For that we need to recognise the general nature of this battle.
No job cuts, no closures and no loss of services should be the most basic stand taken - for decent employment and a health service worthy of the name.

*
This leaflet aims to help set up health worker support groups to discuss further actions and activities. Every inch forward will be a hard fought one as despite overwhelming anger and public sympathy there is little that people believe can be done under the present circumstances.
ln the past people have been motivated into action for various reasons - good and bad. Isn’t it time that we consider something worth fighting for today - before we get caught up in events?

Health workers need support now.

*

Unison are coordinating other aspects - 01924 212335

(psf! *3)

*A case of the shovel calling the spade a nigger?

2006-09-07T09:41:00.000+01:00

(letter handed to Wakefield anti-fascists)

Should we be bothered by 'fascists'?

Are we to believe that the BNP and their like are a problem? Sure they have a handful of Councillors and gain a reasonable enough vote in elections but what does this mean? lsn't it the case that they merely occupy the arse end of politics adding a twist to the outpourings and actions of mainstream politics? At the end of the day these are the people with the say-so. For instance when so-called respectable mainstream politicians go on about the level of immigration or asylum seekers and pander to ideas of being overcrowded and under resourced, yet in the eyes of many do little about it, then the BNP hit home by giving a populist twist to the argument.
Let's not forget that it is state authorities that make the decisions to inter and deport people or even invade foreign countries.

White supremacist ideas may not be that strident anymore but appear in soft-core form under the guise of multiculturalism at home and humanitarianism abroad - 'we are different' still being the message. Though perhaps inverted here whereby any and every other 'culture' is promoted and home grown tradition is sanitised - though not at the request of immigrant groups.
These ideas are evolving under the pressures of globalisation yet in island Britain there is a smug remnant of complacent superiority.

The BNP's popularity is something of a myth - many decent people have voted this way purely out of anger at what they see as ineffectual politicians and not out of any support for what they stand for. Pretty much the way that most voting goes ie. loose affiliations that are acted upon every four or so years with no genuine commitment to 'the cause'. The BNP at best are seen as something that will do what they say and seemingly a logical response to problems posed by elements of the mainstream.

Perhaps we confuse the BNP with fascists from times past when these labels meant something and people had an active involvement with their political parties. Not so today - people on the whole have little faith in active involvement with politics and go along with the loose belief that voting an outfit into power can change things.

In effect the BNP are a pisspot* outfit and we do ourselves no good by campaigning against them. Surely their are bigger and better ways to operate than picking this seemingly easy target? lf we go around telling people not to have any associations with them then we only make the case that there is something remotely coherent about them.

What is good about the BNP is that they give ground level expression to ordinary every day anger and propose means to deal with problems that people perceive - however crap that may be. Most of us in our daily lives come across sentiments that the BNP echo ie, their 'ideas' are commonplace. We should relish the challenge that these arguments present as it is often here that we can make headway and build a true expression of ground level politics.

Sadly if we concentrate our fire on 'fascists' then we let the real culprits escape and they carry on reinforcing the shaky ground that the BNP occupy. Worse, if we adopt the slogan that even mainstream politicians are better than 'fascist scum' then we dig a hole for ourselves too.
Shouldn't we be a bit more daring and find ways to channel that muted anger into meaningful expression?

The left should seriously be just that little bit braver. The BNP may occasionally fight a bit dirty but they are good at it - and after a significant section of the same audience as us. They may be reactionary in some circumstances but they are at least brave enough to stick their necks out. And they do set a standard, of sorts. Can we say the same about ourselves?

"We' well outnumber 'them' yet concentrate too much effort in being scared. Turn all this around and hit the audience instead of leapfrogging it by thinking they can be won over to our cause by 'celebrity' figures. If we don't understand our arguments or at least work to principle then how do we think others can be convinced by celebrity?

l'd actually go further - we should attempt to win this lot over. Why? As mentioned before their arguments are commonplace - amongst our workmates, friends and family. If we say don't speak to the BNP then we deny their arguments can be countered - unless Sting or someone says so. If we can't counter these arguments and promote something our closest can believe in it's probably because we're not too sure of our arguments. We'll only find out by putting them to the test.

Recruit from the BNP!?!

Quite serious. Whatever their faults they do seem to believe in something and put in good effort. The days that they seem to hanker for are long gone, arguments incoherent and a just a bit hypocritical. Misguided Nazis? Hmm

If that is to be met with apoplexy the the left should at least defend - to the hilt - the BNP's right to free speech, not seek official sanction to quieten them, side step or simply deny their arguments.

Land wanted . . . .

2006-08-13T13:43:00.000+01:00

According to the CIA factbook (1) there are 6,525,170,264 (6.5 billion) people in the World occupying a total of 148,940,000 square kilometers of all available land (global surface total is 510,072,000 km2). Laid out as a square block this gives a grid with sides of 12,204 km. Placed on this grid we would be in 80,778 rows and 80,778 columns and each occupying 0.0228km2 (22,826m2) every man, woman and child.  
This doesn't sound a lot especially as it equates to a square with sides of 0.151km, or 151 metres. For comparison, regulation football pitches range from 90 x 45m (surface area of 4050 m2 and squared off to 64m sides) to 120 x 90m (10,800 m2 and a square of 104m sides).   
In the UK with a land mass of 244,820 km2 and 60,609,153 people we get 4040m2 - equivalent to our smallest football pitch of 64m sides. Unlike the grid example, and fairly obviously, the world's population is not evenly distributed. Africans would have 50,000m2 and box sides of 224m, Australians get a third of a km2 each and box sides of 577m, Chinese have 7,097m2 with box sides of 84m and so on.  
In the UK almost 85% live in England, just 12% of UK land is built/urban, 75% cultivated and 13% other. The UK is fairly densely populated as far as statistics go yet take a flight with Google's Earth programme or even a road or train journey and there is plenty of countryside.  Even in 'overcrowded' England you can travel miles without hardly seeing a soul. 

It's expected that human population on the planet will peak as development grows and living standards raise. However true this may prove to be it is frequently given as sop to shrill environmentalists, is part denial and admits that we need to put the brakes on. But what about an expansive humanity? Panics aside about a shrinking landmass and encroaching oceans but shouldn't we be thinking the more the merrier and see our progeny scattered far, wide and developed? For instance, the UN calculates that Africa could support a population of 32 billion if developed to western standards.  

' . . . lies, damned lies and statistics'

 
Spread out like a gas (or virus if one adheres to some contemporary views regards human beings) there is surprisingly little room for each of us. Yet, according to Alan Coren the entire population of China - 1.3 billion plus people and counting - could fit on the Isle of Wight (2). This at the rate of three per square yard. Using the same calculation then the entire global population could fit on the island of Maui, Hawaii. By 2030 it's estimated that the World's population will reach 8.3 billion and the same exercise could be held in Luxembourg (which to some could prove a good enough reason to limit population growth . . . ). Of course on the whole we would choose neither to live in isolation from one another nor could we live cheek by jowl; all the above merely being a consideration of space. 

The final frontier? 

Considering that Planet Earth is actually quite small even within our own solar system (3) that there are billions of other galaxies and countless billions of other stars, planets and God only knows what else 'out there' then the contemporary outlook of reigning in human aspiration and minimising our footprint on the world is pathetic. lt's safe to assume that we are alone in the universe - it's our universe just as much as it's our world.   
Human beings are the unique product of naturally occuring events specific to Earth's composition and existence in time and space - 4,550,000,000 years, a tilting axis, hurtling through space in an expanding universe, etc. The Universe as much as natural life on Earth operates to no plan and unless a planet has evolved under the exact same circumstances then there is nothing else out there remotely like us.  I'd go as far as to suggest that the 'sci-fi community' and their search for intelligent extra-terrestrial life is merely pseudo-scientific wishful thinking to find answers about ourselves and replacement for religion. Both are human constructs.   
Our ability to understand things has not been God-given. We are The superior being; we stood out from the rest, developed to the point of being able to understand everything else and to make it fit for our purpose.  
In the unlikely event that humanity disappears - choose from any 'popular' scenario be it a colliding asteroid, avian flu, nuclear war, climate change, the slow death of lowered horizons, etc, etc, etc - then what we call Mother Nature will, over time, eradicate all traces of our existence on the surface leaving only fossilised remains, artefacts, etc that nothing else will have any interest in. 'Mother Nature' will carry on as it always does - organisms will develop that can survive and thrive in certain conditions and evolve into other creatures - unconcerned, no game-plan, no sigh of relief and no possible means of comprehending events; arbitrary. Knowledge would exist at the level of primal intuition and history would have no basis until intelligent life resumed.

Should the ultimate prophecies of eco-miserablists prevail and, God forbid, we 'destroy the whole planet' that again in the grand scheme of things would only ever matter to the human race. Really, it seems, we are talking about life in our time, for us and ours. Nothing else can mean anything unless we reclaim a progressive view, can project ourselves forward and make things fit for a better humanity - above all else.  
Today ideas of human progress are severely limited. Environmentalism now the mantra and humanism its nemesis. Like most creatures just by existing we impact upon that that occupies the same space. Every step we take impacts on some aspect of life yet creates as much by accident as it destroys. Like new growth after fire, oilspill, earthquake then our footfalls or even scratching an itch wipes out life forms but creates space for new life to flourish.  
Plain fact is our bodies teem with life-forms other than our own (4) -  
'Of the trillions and trillions of cells in a typical human body — at least 10 times as many cells in a single individual as there are stars in the Milky Way — only about 1 in 10 is human. The other 90 percent are microbial. These microbes — a term that encompasses all forms of microscopic organisms, including bacteria, fungi, protozoa and a form of life called archaea — exist everywhere. They are found in the ears, nose, mouth, vagina, anus, as well as every inch of skin, especially the armpits, the groin and between the toes. The vast majority are in the gut, which harbors 10 trillion to 100 trillion of them. “Microbes colonize our body surfaces from the moment of our birth. They are with us throughout our lives, and at the moment of our death they consume us.” (5) Eeeeuww indeed . . . Which kind of makes trying to preserve every bug and critter's habitat intact a non-starter.

Environmentalism severely impedes 'boldly going' - at present no end of development projects are being held up on the say so of misanthropes. Anything from vast damming projects to telescopes (6), Arctic drilling and so on. Such things would have an impact on the lives of millions immediately and billions far off into the future. The last one particularly gets me - explorative drilling stopped because the lubricant could contaminate an unknown environment. But then that one opening provides a treasure chest of discovery and yes the environment will change - we'll be there poking, prodding and cataloguing anything that moves.
Otherwise we prolong the day of understanding or lose the opportunity entirely.  
What next? Space exploration stopped because we may harm possible habitats of beings unknown, infect them with our germs? What if . . . . the world is ultimately doomed? Do we meekly hope that reducing, reusing and recycling our carrier bags we could prevent it? This static, orderly, textbook world of ours where everything fits neatly in a box . . .
 
Every creature 'contaminates' its environment. For it to exist there has to be something to sustain it and things of itself it leaves behind. In the UK there are efforts to make a more 'British' wildlife, to eradicate or curtail the march of invasive 'foreigners'. What period in history do we take as a starting point and where do you stop - Chinese Mitten crabs that threaten to erode the river banks, since the 30's (?) (and considered a delicacy), sunfish, dolphins, American crayfish? Rabbits, hares, mink? Do we bring back the boar, bear and wolf? What about migrating birds leaving 'exotic' seeds in their droppings? ln truth nature knows no national boundaries and neither should we - national or natural.

Any creature new to an environment sinks, swims or gets out of there. Likewise the weed. Wheras nature merely adapts to itself we can adapt endlessly, bring in ideas from any angle, transform things and increase knowledge. Whenever the world does 'go' - a catastrophic 500 years or we may just squeeze another couple of billion out of her - everything else that matters goes with it should humanity decide to rein in aspiration. All life would have been meaningless . . pff.
Nothing else can do anything about that.  

Really shouldn't we be considering bombarding planets with bacteria, etc that could form the building blocks of life? Future generations may be better grateful for that than us cowering before an uncomprehending and everchanging nature. 

On the eighth day . . .

Human comprehension of the natural world not only benefits ourselves but also that being studied. Karl Marx remarked that one day food may be produced in the laboratory and recent advances in agro technology, sport and medical supplements certainly point that way (it's assumed he didn't mean Quorn). Over time foodstuffs could be developed to feed all of God's little creatures so that they don't have to eat each other and nature exist in sweet harmony. Which is nice but then it would cease to be nature and we've better things to do.  
A more enlightened humanity could unravel planetary physics, possibly manipulate or even re-engineer them to create idealised environments - get to grips with the secrets of the universe and extend them further. Of course something of the sci-fi/religious there but consider the manpower and effort going into destructive technologies then surely that could be put to positive use? Perhaps something of turning tanks into ploughshares and naive but given the justifications for war and the lack of direction in the west it just might fly. (7)

Current global figures for military spending are to the tune of $950 billion with the US on top at $466 billion (8). How much of this represents a true figure is unknown but, despite the conception of the good ol' US deemed to be an all out military machine, that comes out of an economy operating to the tune of over $2 trillion. Depending on how well you know your 'illions that is a lot of money and suffice to say there's plenty of other things going on in America.
Although merely seeing this as a redistribution of finances is perhaps the wrong way to consider. More concerning is the effort, ingenuity and resources that goes into devices to kill people or restrain them. Seeing that put to constructive use and more people free to prosper and develop opens vast new horizons. This can't be done without viewing humanity in a more positive, universal and expansive light. Today's ideas of treading warily, overcrowding and overuse of resources do the opposite. 

Weary old west?

lt came as a surprise to hear of China's involvement with Kyoto as it was assumed to be an expression of western political exhaustion. But perhaps 1.3 billion people with upwardly mobile aspirations will doubtless be good but ultimately bring pressures to bear on the State (and possibly the Isle of Wight . . )
It's probably safe to say that dynamism in eastern economies will encourage a greater worldview amongst our eastern neighbours and rising confidence. This at a time when the west offers little positive vision and all previous influential institutions are on shaky ground. Should for instance the Chinese leap ahead then hopefully this translates into new developments in science, technology and arts and a positive influence to the developing world (as yet a long way off as 'they' haven't fully ratified Google). lf the west only offers 'save the world' efforts and the east - development and prosperity and a loosening of the shackles - could there be any real contest? 

Whatever does happen in the future it is highly unlikely that humanity will disappear. Society in one form or another sputters on as new events and movements arise. We've moved on from considering that the earth is flat but now mainstream western ideas seem to be in danger of sinking down the plughole.

lt doesn't have to be that way. Just as history is constantly being rewritten then neither is the future set in stone.

 
(1)www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/xx.html (2)www.geocities.com/heartland/valley/8414/china.htm (3)Google search Universe, solar system, Galaxy, etc. (4)www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/9812/fngm/index.html www.andrewlost.com/hair_k1.htm (5)www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/magazine/13obesity.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5087&en=091c29f788379524&ex=1171771200&excamp=mkt_at4 (6)www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1573/ (7)www.battleofideas.co.uk>

NIMBY

2006-08-13T11:46:00.000+01:00

Whilst there is no objection to the developer building (particularly as he is a generous donor of a football team once 'hung around' with . . ) it’s more that we should be a bit more selfish about what goes on in our backyard. After all our houses have considerable influence in our lives and possibly set to be even more so. Therefore isn’t it timely that we consider what informs house building practice and its relevance to us?

*

This open letter forms the basis of an objection to planning application No. 06/99/484444/B - an outline proposal for the development of 27 apartments, off Millfield Road on land previously used as factory space.

This is a NIMBY complaint and deliberately so, although it aims for a wider remit. Versions of this letter will be widely dispersed and a housing survey is forthcoming.

As yet this letter forms no public campaign. Given the choice the local community would likely prefer housing instead of a working factory and all its busy comings, goings and 'intrusions'. Why not do everyone a favour and move the remaining industry to the ex-Bombardier works?

This objection is based on the notion that this type of housing and its siting is unnecessary, overpriced, old hat, based on false premises and represents a disservice to us, the taxpayer, and the wider community. More so than that, it neither bodes well for the would be occupants nor the notions behind it for the economy paying for it.
Overpriced rabbit hutch housing plus an economy aiming for diminished wants, the creation of erstatz heritage and legalised community.

Unnecessary because there is no actual shortage of land - merely a question of how it is used as a resource. In supposedly overun Britain we are merely 12% 'built", the rest - 75% Agriculture, and the other 13% preserved, relic and other.
'Other' including such gems as The Yorkshire Dales National Park. Something of a favourite of mine. Wide valleys carved by glacier , natural forestry removed for sheepfarming and early source of Yorkshire prosperity, inclusive of many a ruin of earlier occupation, development and industry; erratics and other features. Now, farmed and preserved in some incoherent view of history.

Constant gains in agriculture mean that what we view as a traditional farming landscape is obsolete - a romantic idyll; a man-made, inefficient patchwork, and all supported by the taxpayer.

Ah, the taxpayer!
5% of the population in this way own 95% of the land, the EUs farming budget eats 40% of the total and we live in old and/or expensive houses.

Even the Royal family receive farming rebates (of one form or another) and farmers are paid compensation to leave land to return to the wild.
Telling figures - African farmers receive $200 conditional subsidy per year whereas european cattle are subsidised to the tune of $937. Here too domestic influence is reflected by its continental counterpart and the vision of restricted development for what is ironically refered to as the developing world.
A developing Africa would unlock huge land and other natural resorces/raw materials. That is if it shakes off the white man's burden in the phantom of sustainable development.

Back home.

At home this deliberate restriction of land means that prices are unnecessarily high and for what can be poor quality. And the resultant houses and landworks 'jerry built' as what is known as The building lndustry goes gung-ho to make its rapacious gains.

l don't think they're rapacious enough. Design criteria and density regulations mean that they are forced to operate within narrow confines and UK design and build though capable of remarkable things is largely haphazard at best but outmoded and inefficient in the main.
Bearing in mind the central role that housing plays in the economy methinx this doesn't bode well for the long run and Britain will be outpaced by external developments.

This at a time when there is plenty of room for maneouvre but just a niggardly view of our impact on the environment. As such it displays intellectual bankruptcy, moral cowardice and a lack of will.

Practical objections to this proposed development are the quality of land and accompanying infrastructure that is archaic and overburdened - this in 'affluent' Horbury.
This type of build needs rejecting everywhere as an unneccesary intrusion and the developments returrned to open areas, parkland and amenities - living room.
My own pet project is landscaped parkland down to the riverfront. Perhaps a floodplain bay area and boathouse.

There is neither a genuine objection to housing going on any of this land. l'd be happier if experimental forms in housing were tried, maybe with landscaping; either as temporary exhibition and showcase for UKs latent design capacity and to act as fillip for industry.

Perhaps it's worth considering how we live positively affects further innovation and development.

Coxley Valley is a local area of some 'natural' beauty and is an attraction for many. But anything special? Other than mud, trees, babbling brooks, wildlife and swooping farmland, not really.
Officially it's use is limited yet it has long been a playground for the rambler, cyclist, dogwalker and dambuilder - we do like the countryside and many of us dream of living nearer or in it. And why not? Coxley Valley could support some highly desirable residences and very nice locations; or perhaps landscape more Coxleys with housing.

A transitional program could see the destruction of swathes of old stock housing, bulk modernisation of others with more open spaces and a rebuild program. Newer developments in housing, urban and rural planning could also reinvigorate road and transport design and drive the UK out of its demoralising slumber.

A huge undertaking? Possibly so, but the UK, for whatever reason, still features large in the world. Apart from the negatives there is the 2012 Olympics, the possibility of a World cup and who knows what else in the pipeline?

Many happy returns of the day . .

2006-04-21T14:47:00.000+01:00

. . . Elizabeth, my dear.

l wouldn't want to spoil the party as obviously many of us enjoy the pageantry of the Royal occasion and it is a birthday after all. Although figures are set to change it seems that 'a reasonable crowd of some 20, 000 came to cheer the Queen and some '17,000 emails and 20,000 cards' were sent. Not to mention how many other countries, associations and individuals are duty bound to honour and promote this spectacle.

ln footballing terms that's pretty crap. An average side in the championship/premiership commands that (and is vastly more entertaining) and the original march against the war in lraq drew a sympathetic crowd of 1-2 million. As institutions go monarchies nowhere near get the attention, affection or passion of, say, football or even politics. The assumed collective 'we' - the people may have an affection for our monarchs and their charmed lives. A fact that will be beamed around the world and appear endlessly on TV and in the press. One young girl from West Yorkshire spoke affectionately of meeting the Queen (before and after as it seems), England football fans sing the national anthem (although am not sure whether it's all the way through - yet), etc, etc. (and quite possibly we wonder what it's like to lead such a pampered life).

Her majesty even drew a crowd out in Wakefield where she distributed maundy money to the deserving. At the time it caused something of an outcry in the local press when a set or two was sold off for some £70 (someone obviously preferring the real thing) and Mick Griffiths of the Socialist Party getting arrested for attempting to shake a collecting box in front of the Queen.

Our figureheads are not what they seem. The loyal and faithful cling on and attend to the duty of serving and promoting privilege whilst all around we, the people, see our jobs cut, wages curtailed and many a barrier put in the way of getting on with our lives - often by the same people.

But then, as Queen, Elizabeth Windsor must have a particularly awkward life. Sure the holidays, homes and retainers, etc is likely fantastic, but the endless formality, dutiful appearance and fawning attention must take its toll. Although given now that the Royal family are discussed in terms of tourist revenue as much as anything else it could be considered nice work if you can get it.

l associate myself with a tradition that had its Royal family executed and mashed up their bones. Although that was a long time ago and may have been grudge motivated. Our Royals don't serve the same function as the Romanovs did and merely rubber stamp the nations approval.

What is objectional is that normal people - the doers and makers - are treat so shabbily and this empty institution is upheld and paraded before us as something holier than thou and worthy of maintaining.

See/hear also -

BBC radio 5 live coverage
Most local press

www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000687F4/103-8178019-9456643?v=glance&n=130

RRRRs

2006-04-07T00:07:00.000+01:00

I love the countryside - its sights, smells and away from it allness. Having said that l think we give all this mud, trees, rocks, insects and animal life too much reverence - something we should see as a resource rather than something to be preserved as is and forever. Environmentalist thinking seeks to do just that - put a stop to real development and settle for, or hark back to, some imagined equilibrium with nature, minimize our footprint and then tread warily.

Wakefiled Metropolitan District Council's 4Rs campaign takes this up - reduce, re-use, recycle, repair.

I was brought up in a make-do-and-mend environment, grew to love the great outdoors, became a teenage vegetarian and avid reader of John Seymour's Self sufficiency books (1). Like many others, the great escape from the ratrace beckoned - if today it was the allotment then tomorrow it was most certainly a farflung croft. . .

. . . growing your own food, rearing your own livestock, the natural cycle and handicrafts. Idyllic, the work seemingly its own reward and the chance to sit on some red-skyed hilltop basking in some romantic oneness with it all at the end of a back-breaking day's toil. But then the quest to make it all work seemed to involve writing books for romantic urbanites with evermore ridiculous advice as to how to be more self sufficient.

Such pearls as chopping wood for fire is of double benefit as you get warm chopping it as well as burning it. And another being a way of getting free hot water on a sunny day - chopping the bottoms out of bottles, sliding these over a hosepipe with slow-running water passing through and goodbye gas bill. Other heating beauties were the use of woodburning stoves (no, not the trees!) or peat - erm? . . . ancient flora and fauna. In the end it all appears to be 'let's see how many things we can produce for ourselves' - self-sufficiency for the sake of it; a microcosm of life in one family plot, all very nice hard labour and getting nowhere fast. If ever subject to a risk assessment most allotments and smallholdings would be shut down. Although many an opening for insurance services, licensing and hot air carbon offsetting schemes.

The four Rs prove to be just as much romantic erm? . . . rubbish really.

For starters 'reduce' would seem to be at odds with the consumerist nature of even our uncertain society. We do like to shop and, considering Big Business is becoming unfashionable, retail looks to feature heavily in most's plans.

Even the most ardent environmentalist benefits from an abundance of consumer goods and services, most pay lipservice and are well stocked up even if it is with organic 'alternatives'.

'Recycle'

I hate rubbish. Kids casually dropping litter as they idle along their way, bad boy racers chucking MacDonalds/KFC/etc. packaging out of their car windows, man-made detritus strewn along river banks . . . . and the lack of bins in public places. The last point first noticed umpteen years ago in Leeds rail station. Nowhere to put an apple core. Pocket? Walk around with it in my hand until l find a bin? Yeah, right.
Noticing the same lack of bins in Wakefield Westgate station l was informed by a very dapper station attendant that bins were no longer provided due to Terrorism. Hmm . .

It gets worse, in London we have the anally retentive bin inspectors making sure us punters put our rubbish in the correct bin - or risk a hefty fine. Apparently someone recently received a £5o fine for putting a letter in a street litter bin and obstructing other litter. Some people ought to get proper jobs.

l do hate litter and am not opposed to recyclng per se. One of the last Tomorow's World programmes l saw featured a massive processing machine that with use of magnets, cyclones, blowers and filters, etc. seperated household wastes into a few basic elements, all of which were apparently useful. The technophobe l was thought that like the washing machine/tumble dryer combo of the time this was a snarl-up waiting to happen. True, they did and even full scale industrial processes have their breakdowns and hold-ups where one operation failure holds up the whole process - but also provides a chance to get ahead with other parts of the operation. Likewise modern machines like the car carry many interconnected operations; complex machinery works and even with down time is superior to previous operations.

Instead though recycling is done inefficiently in the home. Every process carried out indepently - washing, seperating, storing and transporting to the correct bin and arguably wastes more resources, time and energy than is saved by recycling.

And what of the end products? Aluminium (and possibly plastics and glass) maybe the only real candidate as all the other stuff is likely produced cheaper or more efficiently from raw materials. Much of the other stuff is recycled into material that then has to have a use found for it or is a compromise or expensive - and thus requiring our extra labour to purchase; our labours seemingly the only thing considered to be abundant.

Consider that all of the American waste of the 21st century will fit into a single landfill, using just 26% of Woodward County in Oregon. Of the entire US landmass, the landfill would take up about one-12,000th or less than 0.009 percent (2). That's America and without using other methods of waste disposal.

'Reuse' covers quite some remit - everything from our houses, body parts and materials. To the homeowner it can be any number of tips from Viz or erm . . women's mags. Anyone familiar with the hoarding of things that may come in handy will be blessed with sheds, attics and/or cellars full of things that can be repaired or used for something else. lf you can find, fix or match them up that is. Frustrating, arduous and inefficient.

The beachcomber/skiprats amongst us may pick up the odd find or draw some personal pleasure out of fixing something up or improving it. But then for that one there are plenty of others that disappoint, many an oddly patched up item and nothing matching.
lt is interesting being inventive but any product worth fixing usually becomes mass produced, has many forms and develops and older stuff becomes obsolete. The original intentions behind extending something's use being to make a saving become lost and the path taken becomes the focus.

Part of the argument seems to concern the cheapness of an item and its disposability, that nothing is built to last. . . .

tbc . . .

(1)http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/Environment/WasteServices/facts.htm

(2)http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0751364428/qid=1137940226/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_3_2/026-8287842-2278834
http://homepage.eircom.net/~odyssey/Politics/Quotes/Lomborg.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article340238.ece
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA841.htm

No such word as can't

2006-03-31T10:46:00.000+01:00

(Google 'Canute')

I'm smoking a fag . . . .

2006-03-14T23:44:00.002Z

*
Never really considered myself to be a smoker until always making sure l had some on me (otherwise end up tapping).
There are many things that make me want to stop - morning 'dog-breath' (nothing beats it more than another fag), being out of breath on the football pitch if l've overdone it too recently, the cost in my impoverished state (extradoubly guilty when monies are owed) but the kickback came when signing on at my new doctors' surgery.
Amongst other questions were - how many cigarettes do you smoke?
At a guess 50-100 a week, but l don't really count.

This was viewed with some alarm by the practice nurse who went on to inform me that l would be a burden, particularly as l got older.
I was mildly apoplectic with this. Considering my own injuries (l'll spare you a full blokeish account) then they are all through work, sport and misadventure but likely par for the course and significantly less than what older generations put up with. For instance, there are very few people walking around with couldn't-stop-a- pig-in-a-ginnel legs or bent double retired binmen of yore. Ergo despite all the gripe we are doing quite well.

ln our productive lives and fag taxes we contribute plenty and on the whole don't mind doing so.

Further - l actually enjoy a fag. Not always, but then do we always enjoy football, sex, food, work or the company of our friends or family?

Fags are a small but significant part of my life - night out, breaktime, when writing this stuff and as offering to the god of late buses. They are an icebreaker in social situations; in fact, the most sociable people l know tend to be smokers - in the smoking carriage on trains there was a genuine easy-going camaraderie; almost a bond. This particularly now as we stand (huddled outside stations, etc) enjoying a defiant puff or two with anyone from scabby youth to old ladies, and my favourites - healthworkers, catering staff and, actually, business types. All of 'em really, and now semi-united in tacit recognition that we may be a dying breed. FKoff!

Band of smokers.

Smoking performs a variety of small tasks, often it seems to do with connectivity -

a last request and penultimate act of humanity at the firing squad,
troops in squalor making tabs out of teabags,
a peace offering after a petty squabble or run-in with a perp,
a sole light for an ex-inmate from a long term institution.

The fagtapper, friend-in-need-pain-in-the-arse or easy going bonhomie, sharing yours with those who are closest to society's arse-end, merely asking someone for a light - 'you hev fire?' of the immigrant worker, 'thanks, love' from the doll uptown, the please and thankyou, cheers and ta of it all - Smoking! the musical, perhaps.

Other people aren't all that bothered either by the scourge of the smoker. Sure, some have taken on their privilege to play oneupmanship, others recognise its use as a disciplining tool and many go along with the prevailing climate and succumb but people on the ground and in many pubs and clubs aren't all that bothered about the smokers evil habit.
Actually, when asked, as is the polite thing to do these days, people are quite civil (maybe always are but never really noticed - could be a sign of the times) and don't mind. Especially, for instance, when bus stops are cold, cramped and uncomfortable. One lady told me that she has never smoked but likes the smell which brought some ironic cheer.

l'd be happier if we smokers didn't leave our detritus everywhere but in amongst the rest of the trash, poor facilities, boarded up and degenerated social fabric then it's nuisance and odd charm is lazy rebellion.

What is perhaps more annoying is the continual barrage of public service broadcasts - truly antisocial and a pet hate. Uncomfortable stations with piss-poor toilets (alright when new but inadequately ventilated and disgusting in summer and aged. See Dewsbury bus station for details of the 'old' and Wakefield ought take note for the coming years).
What about accepting that people who occasionally smoke are actually civilised and provide ventilated areas? And proper ashtrays.

Some of the hardest working, get-on-with-it type people l know are or have been smokers - no big deal.
Of course not all the best people are smokers and smokers themselves do other things - there is no community of smokers, it's just that smoking is the easy target in the ongoing health war.

Smoking is stupid, irresponsible, a waste.
Smoking leads to the big C . .
. . smokers are cunts.

You can't say that.

It wouldn't surprise me if some environmentalist fag-hag or govt thinktank linked cigarette smoke with climate change. Factor in all the industry involved, alleged co2 emissions from growing plants and transport, etc. then it's enough to create an industry around or at least commission an audit.

l'd wager though that could be more than offset by the cumulative effect of various health and safety concerns output - itself a runaway monster of self-fulfilling function, a gold mine for the legal and advisory professions and a brake on forward motion in the wrong hands.

l've said previouly that we generally don't go about life or work attempting to injure ourselves and in our normal activies encounter what could, if broken down, become a health and safety nightmare of Matrix proportions . Ooh, all those hazards!
Butt stupid as we are we to tend to make our way through them, indeed, oblivious to the harm, potential trauma and terror around us, absorbed in our selfish, consumerist fug.

See -

Hmm . . .
Smoked
The smoking ban is shit
Pfff . . .

* Don't think so - some of the smokingest people come across are shag merchants. Though by no means all.

Pfff!

Smoking makes little sense when analysed objectively. Obviously physically unhealthy and not pleasant for the non-smoker in a smokey environment - tears used to stream from my eyes on the odd occasion visiting my Dad's Navy social club, ameliorated only by the then rare treat of ice cold lemonade and crisps. My first ever puff on a cigarette, from an uncle at Christmas time, left me puking up and brought forth howls of laughter from assembled relatives - 'that'll learn 'im!'.

And so it did. Like olives, sprouts, sex, alcohol and many others the youthful mind meets many a stepping stone in progression to adulthood. Once you get to find out that your bits are for more than pissing out of and a source of crude humour then all manner of things fall by the wayside. Alcohol, no longer the liquid sustenance of necessity, became a socialising brew of choice. Initially distasteful but perhaps a preparation for all the other rites of passage to maturity and things that are alien to the youthful mind.

There are of course modern fixes to smokey or other 'poor air' environments -

www.purennatural.com
www.truveo.com
www.tornex.com
www.sharp.ca/products/ion/video.html
www.smokefreesystems.com
www.guardiantechnologies.com

Info provided by Bill Gibson of freedom2Choose

Rethinking Earth.

2006-03-14T21:37:00.001Z

Bad Days?

Quite enjoyed BBC2s Meltdown and was encouraged most of the way through. l nearly even dropped my bacon sarnie when they brought on the Danes and all the talk of longer glaciers, ie. we've been here before, the climate changes for whatever reason and conflating the two our Viking forebears coped and part got us where we are today. What would a contemporary Viking do today? I'd say the cnutters anongst them would be eyeing up the planets. When you consider their technology and the conditions and then consider ours today then it ought make us wonder. There may have been some berserkers amongst them but l dare say the odd clever bastard.

Instead today we're incontinent with fear; the skies falling in and it's all our fault, we're in for some very stormy weather and can't go on as we are, etc.
The name should have given it away really - Meltdown; and l was expecting gloom. After what appeared an objective opening, the final third of the programe seemed to go slightly awol all of a sudden and take up a less optimistic view. It seemed to read too much into just 2000 years of human history, skipped over changes in how climate has been recorded, didn't allow for the fact that we are still developing our understanding of the world and superimposed the perceived effects of the industrial revolution into one hockey stick when there have been quite relatively sudden changes in the earth's climate over it's existence as much as the longer gradual ones and anomalies within them. Whole species and life forms have been wiped out and the conditions for others have arisen, continents have shifted and so what if the earth and indeed heavens move?

Maybe we should get back to calling the planet The World as it is far more than just 'earth'. And likewise the solar system - various other planets and things we don't even know about yet and couldn't possibly imagine with our current navel-gazing, backward looking and anal retentive outlook - liquids, solids, gases, detritus, maybe even other forms of life.
But then no real spirit of adventure anymore?

Not seemingly so amongst our western leaders. l hope the east does rise; if l could draw cartoons l'd have a Hyundai Moonweekender c/w bumpersticker saying 'the other pod's a Honda' flying past a clapped out spaceshuttle. One day spaceshuttles may even be the equivalents of Volkswagen camper vans and the preserve of doom-mongering, unwashed space-hippies - "No! stoppit - you'll destroy the universe!'

That's not to say that the The World is doomed and we need to get off it. It will likely resemble something different over the following millenia; whatever. Even at todays worst predictions of, l think, a 70 metre rise in sea level there would still be a huge amount of land available; and if it was warm as well then hello watersports and new environment. And if it gets cold we have the technology. . . .
That's assumed of course that any of these worse-case scenarios bear out. Given that these are various hypothesis based on unknown unknowns and a liberal splash of doom and gloom mongering then the outome is likely to be more of the same.
Others have said that these bleatings merely add to the catalogue of gloom and misery everywhere - SARS, birdflu, asteroids, obesity, smoking, pervs, paedos and other assorted weirdos and god only knows what else can be summonsed.

So what if our activities effect the planet? Part of discovery and enterprise is dealing with side effects and quantifying their importance and if necessary developing the means to deal with them. Usually we find that other innovations come as a result. Further than that though is the recognition that if we can effect such things as climate by accident then we can also do so by design.

If it really was the case that we are heading for a catastrophe of our own making then surely the most powerful people on earth, the great and the good, would hold a moratorium of sorts and discuss the most beneficial way to take things forwards.

Oh, they are trying/ Those who cry Kyoto . . .

They talk of leaving a legacy for future generations, a cleaner, more habitable environment and a vision of heaven on earth whilst all the time telling us that we're hellbound if we don't mend our ways. This is a time standing still argument and one that is not likely to arm our future generations with the capacities to deal with a world that has, is and will change and sometime may even die out.
That doesn't mean humanity has to though, which arguably it would if the current argument was taken to its logical conclusion.

Many others have said todays pessimistic outlook likely originates from the elite (?) running out of steam. Yet seeing as how it's business as normal and there are bills to pay and all of the rest of it this doom-mongering effects all of our actions, how business operates or not and represents a pitiful legacy.

Our future generations may look back on this period as one when the western world entered a dark age of its own choice rather than one that put humanity at the forefront and heralded a brighter future. As such climate change represents an apt metaphor for the ever decreasing circles that our leadership set out for us but also themselves.

Meltdown? Read on -

(1)http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/programmes1.shtml
(2)http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4753876.stm

Fcking Welsh!

2006-02-17T15:27:00.000Z

The Welsh Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority has decided that 'intimate physical contact' is to be ruled out with regards to schoolplays - just in case anyone gets any ideas. I never read Romeo and Juliet at school but did experiment with Lorraine Ferriday under the table, likewise I gawped at Andrea Belkus' mottle- skinned chest (just because it was 'rude' most probably (5-6 yrs old or thereabouts).

Like most other living creatures we are likely genetically programmed to be attracted to the opposite sex (unless you're a slug or something). And a good job really, considering. Further, our own life experiences prove that a) babies come from ladies and b) men have something to do with them getting there. The former becomes apparent by the lady in bloom and the latter - 'all the mucky stuff that we don't talk about' but do, thankfully. My innocent enquiries as to why is that lady so fat copped for a clip 'round the ear - people were likely even more uptight back then.

It seems mighty strange that this most animal of instincts is sought to be codified, certificated, given a clean bill of health and hidden . . . . sometimes.

Even the great and the good will use whatever 'appeal' they have hence - Tony '5 times' (one often wondered why the missus seems to walk sideways).

Call me a prude - porn, eroticism and the like have their place but the act itself - one of intimacy - suggests that it is no one else's business other than those involved. As novelty in drama it titillates, too much and it's commonplace, gratuitous and boring. There's no doubt that emotion and portrayal of intimate acts are fundamental to drama but I wouldn't fancy some great Dionysian sexual-gymnastic display. Maybe I am a prude.

Others have chortled at this bout of political correctness and rightly so. Kids aren't stupid yet this latest notion treats them so - and everyone else.

Where will it end?

(*I have enjoyed many visits to Wales.)

Something rotten in Islam?

2006-01-17T01:17:00.000Z

Whatever the reasons for the Jutland Post's publication of 'offensive' imagery in the form of what are really some quite crappy cartoons (proving that whatever else the Danes make they probably don't do the best cartoons in the world) it does add to the discussion of Religion. If I were a muslim I'd be offended at worst or perhaps disappointed. If I had true belief in my religion then I'd probably pity the infidel and his philistine ways. But then if I lived in the land of the infidel and enjoyed the benefits of innovation in all forms then I may question what my religion says and how people interpret it. As such there are as many varying interpretations of Islam as Christianity.

Others have said that religion is meant to be a way of being good, at its most simple interpretation, and one that no-one should really have complaint with. However, in practice, this covers anything within a very wide remit - being squeaky clean and expecting others to be also, praying that nothing bad will befall your family or friends or those in faraway places, the capitalist kerching of religious businessmen (the lord helps those who help themselves), claiming that however badly your voters think of you then at least you'll have a go at twisting the arm of the almighty (although He didn't elect you). Maybe I'm paraphrasing, but then l wouldn't be the only one.

There is no more Unity in Faith than there is a true Muslim Brotherhood or that I see eye-to-eye with my own brothers or colleagues; or for that matter amongst our own communities (of whatever description). All these things imply a muted desire for something to unify us but based on what?

Can 'Our Muslim Brothers' really have that much to complain about? Not really it would seem, not as far as the cartoons go.
In the west we lampoon pretty much everything - everything from the weakest to mightiest, man-made* or not. At its most basic it is a critique, it finds chinks in the armour. It can slap the hypocritical false prophet around the face or punch one square on and undermine the lot. Humour itself is even used to get The Lord's message across or to laugh at those deemed to be against one's faith. Our muslim friends are as guilty here as they make out our Danish cousins to be.

Are we to suppose that images of Allah's name in arabic appearing in everything from fruit and fish to cloud formations are miraculous apparitions yet scorned when they appear in bastard form in trainers or even the inverted wisps of a coffee advert? What god is this that writes his name everywhere yet denies us imagery, enquiry and progress? Likewise it's likely the case that all manner of hidden words, scripture, pictures and messages can be read into any object. Are they signs?
What if the sign said something disagreeable? or appeared on a pig?, is it the mysterious workings of Allah? (1)

The most offensive of the cartoons - those depicting Allah or Mohammed as terrorists and thus having a swipe at the whole notion of Islam can be said to be disagreeable but no more so than claiming that ranting mullahs endorsing jihad represent all muslim opinion or that Allah's name appearing on a fish has any more relevance than Elvis' image appearing on a slice of toast.

l find the idea that any religion can forbid the graven image (from engraved ie. man-made) truly offensive. I'd assumed previously that it was the 'craven image' until reading Anila Baig in The Sun newspaper (2) - " . . (T)he Muslim religion FORBIDS hand-drawn pictures of any person or animal. It might sound old-fashioned and alien but this was laid down by our Prophet to stop idol worship.
Islam is not the only religion that forbids pictures. Christians and Jews also had the same restriction and the second Commandment tells followers not to make any graven images."

Going out on a limb here l'd say some 84.2% of muslims (and any other faith for that matter) that have ever put pen to paper are probably 'guilty' of graven imagery or have benefitted from them. At its most fundamental it denies progress in medical science, human and animal biology, art, fashion and expression - quite a large chunk of what makes us who we are. And likely fundamental to whether faith is put in humanity or the workings of some higher hand inasmuch as only God knows the answers and humans cannot or shouldn't ought to.

(Links to follow)

(1)www.miraclesofislam.com
*Man as per Balderdash and Piffle 'M'. In Old English, the word 'man' meant 'human' and did not become gender-specific until much later. Moreover, it goes back thousands of years to Sanskrit, and (rather wonderfully) is cognate with the same root as the word 'mind'. (Wording lifted from http://carlanayland.blogspot.com/2006/01/balderdash-and-piffle-tv-review.html)
(2)http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006050636,,00.html

No nukes?

2006-01-16T22:44:00.000Z

What possible legitimacy can western officials now have in their efforts to bring other countries into line?

Iran's peaceful or otherwise development of nuclear technology seems to be a bridge too far for our current crop of leaders.
But surely what is being missed is all that is positive about developments in nuclear power. To quote Jeremy Paxman (Newsnight, 16th January (1) 'Iran is floating on oil' so, why the interest in another energy resource?

Why not? Oil may be abundant in Iran (the world's 4th largest supplier) but what self respecting country would want all it's eggs in one basket? Why not Iran use it's current wealth to invest in what ought to be one of the most exciting developments in power supply? Oil may be plentiful, but it won't last for ever. It is also limited in future oriented applications ie. spaceflight and going ever further. There are many other uses for nuclear applications - medicine, for instance.

Western leaders have got the jitters over Iran and their bold defiance.
In Colin Powell (et al)'s opinion Iran could develop Nuclear weapons. Given the level of interfering by the US and others it would hardly be surprising should Iran desire to protect itself. Or, indeed, to spout off over Israel - not uncommon amongst middle eastern regimes and many that have been on the receiving end of western sponsored (or ignored) Israeli attack.

Many have commented on the Iraqi debacle and the all-too-willing coalition's poor handling of every aspect of it. This unfinished business should be what our government's are held to account over before they even dare threaten another country.

And lay off the sport as the beginning of the slippery sanctions slope. Sport should perhaps be a unifying element and celebration of human physical skill and prowess and not a political football used at the whim of dodgy politicians - hands off!

A positive case for the development of nuclear power would be better for international relations.

Of further interest -

(1)http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4617704.stm
http://www.newstatesman.com/nslibrary?qs=iran&x=9&y=10

For Zoe

2005-12-25T18:30:00.000Z

The case of a 12 year old girl supposedly commiting a devious crime against a 5 year old boy hurtled around the world and was relayed to people throughout a bewildered community before anyone on the ground got to hear what really happened. 'Attempted murder!' screamed most headlines and the court of public opinion was being cast come teatime. (1)

Given the level of coverage of the story and the venom hurled at the young girl surely the media and official line must be true? In the days and weeks following the case being made public typing in 'Earlsheaton hanging' into a Google search revealed many entries for papers around the globe - all with the same (associated press?) tagline stringing the girl up. Go to internet chat forums about the case and the discussion largely follows the same thread - ' she is evil, her parents must be wasters, what kind of community allows such a thing to happen?, what is the world coming to?' and so on. (2)

More to this than meets the eye? - quite possibly so. However, initial contacts didn't look good. Some two weeks after the event first broke I asked a couple of older teenagers from the area what they thought about it. Not good - 'she's an evil cow and she should be locked up' came the reply. Punters in the local pubs no longer wanted to talk about it - they were sick of having intrusions into their private lives and having their words twisted around and used against them - the girl, her family and the wider community all held up to be in a state of moral degeneracy and confidences betrayed.

Ongoing reports in the media talked of the park where the incident occured as an area where gangs of 'feral youth' caused mayhem. Yet 3-4 trips revealed the usual park activities - dog walkers, parents and children and 'gangs' of kids all enjoying usual park like activities. Sure, there had been the odd spot of vandalism but the park largely served it's function well and is definitely not a no-go area.

A 19 yr. old youth, wrapped up warm for a cold evening, said the area could do with lighting up to make it safer; so that such things do not happen again. Suspicion? In that case maybe he should be wary of talking to strangers in raincoats in dark parks and I should avoid hoodied and baseball-hatted youth in the same - who knows what might happen? A better case for lighting up the park would be to extend its use in winter time.

The best news came from talking to the groups of scattered cherubs that presumably make up this 'feral youth'. Quite an encouraging picture of youth culture emerged. Yes there was the odd fallout amongst friends, the general ribbing and mickey-taking but all kiss and make up stuff, and par for the course.

I asked whether there was bullying but the kids generally looked after each other and nothing much really goes amiss. Here was where the young lady really scored her points. Any kid has their detractors and one or two did have their disagreements but the overwhelming impression was that this 'evil young girl' was actually quite well liked and despite her personal problems (seeing her mother die suddenly on Xmas day 2004 for one) reasonably well balanced. She stood her ground when cornered and defended her mates when they were picked on, she would share her school dinner amongst her friends if they had forgotten their money and so forth. Hardly evil then.

It further transpires that she would study at home and even set herself extra work. Steve, her father, says she runs rings around him with her abilities. He was reluctant to say too much given the character assasination of his daughter and self - a quiet and tidy man who, when gardening on a hot day and enjoying a beer, saw himself labelled an alcoholic in the media. He hasn't bought a paper since and rarely watches the news and, even rarer, dare have a drink. Him, his daughter and the community want no more bad press and hope that this will all blow over so they can get on with rebuilding their lives. He speaks to his daughter daily on the phone and despite everything they are ok, if not slightly sullen. It's an extremely humbling experience to hear him talk of things not being so bad now - that he can see his daughter without counselling services being present.

There is not much good feeling within the wider community towards the family of the boy involved. Close and friendly neighbours, perhaps, but after taking their thirty pieces o' silver and scarpering off to a new life most in the area feel that the guilty party has been let off the hook - chat rooms, opinion pieces and workplaces laying into this party perhaps unfairly too. Comments ask how come a small boy can wander off and end up in such a situation? Yet given what I've found out about the community he seems to be largely in safe hands and it is some testimony to the companionship within such a place that he can do so.He has recovered from his 'ordeal' and 'injuries'. So much that he was back out playing soon after all the fuss and was lastly reported wishing he had a girlfriend. Clearly then, not put off the fairer sex.

The young lady has quite a good reputation amongst her peers and the neighbourhood, even in her unwarranted absence. Everyone hopes things will blow over and get back to 'normal', yet she has a blot on her character and possibly something that will lurk at the back of her mind and undermine her.

From what has been found out from people that genuinely know her she does have tremendous character and allowed herself to carry the can in a case that never should have been. The facts of the case as presented do not seem to match up to reality - perhaps the real reason why it took some nine attempts to get a truth to fit the billing?

And also allowed a lot of grown ups to make themselves look big.

The worst 'crime' that this young lady has done was to have a child's game or prank go maybe that little bit too far - everyday childhood experiences where boundaries are learnt naturally. In this case it was the girl herself who sorted the boy out after his ordeal - she bought him a drink and, apparently, called for an ambulance. In the mainstream media this was reported as bribery. After their shenanigans the word hypocrisy springs to mind.

No doubt offered counselling by 'concerned' authorities so she can come to terms with her 'defects'. Maybe it's their heavy handed and shameful approach that needs re-examining.

After all - they started it.

See also -

(1)http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=daily+mirror+earlsheaton+hanging&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
(2)http://www.onlinearsenal.com/forums/printthread.php?t=5208&pp=40
http://www.thesims.co.uk/forum/printthread.php?t=14699
These views are typical apart from the immediate locale.
(3)Very good reporting can be found in the 7th. October 2005 edition of The Press (Dewsbury paper) , email news@dewsburypress.co.uk
(4)http://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/section-item.asp?sid=12&iid=1568
(5)http://www.instituteofideas.com/publications/index.html - 'Who's antisocial? New Labour and the politics of antisocial behaviour'.
ASBOs: Politicians behaving badly http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA9C0.htm

What's working?

2005-12-25T17:52:00.000Z

It seems a bit rich the government launching another review of the benefit system and hassling the unemployed. Sure, everyone should work and that work should be beneficial, progressive and rewarding and maybe people shouldn't be 'wasters'. Ok, notwithstanding the usual antagonisms of the employer/employee relationship and some utopian vision of a better society then surely official ideology should be held up to more scrutiny?

Whilst far eastern economies are beginning reaping the rewards of progressive development the angst of our western leaders stifles much that is forward. Itself mocking New Labour's slogan 'Forwards, not back' and, indeed, 'Thiiings can only get bettter'.

Yeah, right, it would be hilarious if the consequences weren't likely to be disastrous. Britain is stuck in the mud and our leaders seem to like wallowing in it or being beholden to the stuff (mayan rebirthing and environmentalism (1).

UK industry is in a right state - it cannot use the talents of the workforce properly, is mired in reams of bureaucracy (what happened to saving the rainforest?) and 'real' jobs are losing out to low skilled work or growth in layers of admin.

The benefit system is not one that offers a decent existence and to some could be a cop out but given that the powers that be seem to be doing their utmost to hamper everything progressive maybe they should give themselves a looking over while they are at it.

What are our MPs for anyway? (2)

Of further interest -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4617308.stm
http://www.instituteofideas.com/transcripts/policywatch12.pdf

Cheap shots -
(1)http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/volume118issue2_comments.php?id=8_0_2_0_C
(2)http://www.wakefieldtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=702&ArticleID=1308889

(Actually) Cider with Rosie

2005-12-16T23:17:00.000Z

Google's earth programme is a must see - highly recommended. Words almost fail me. You can type in anywhere - I've just relived my youth @ po13 0ll.

Enjoy yourselves.

http://earth.google.com/

Happy christmas?

2005-12-12T17:23:00.000Z

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=2387532005

Review (sort of): The politics of fear: beyond left and right.

2005-12-05T16:43:00.001Z

This review does not intend to provide a complete insight into this book but merely covers the parts recalled or that caused myself to think of what the author's message is.
Much of Furedi's work once read and seemingly not absorbed at the time has a tendency to creep up on you - Mythical past, elusive future, for example (1). It has resonance and I am a fan though would not call myself a sycophant. Yes, I'd buy him a pint and maybe even ask for an inspirational quote in a book. I even considered nominating a spot in Prospect's leading intellectual poll. Though am sure he wouldn't appreciate an enamel badge being struck.

To those familiar with Furedi's work a significant part of the book covers ground that has been issued in essay form - perhaps an unbeknownst recognition of the fact that there is a great deal of competition for our attentions (2) and he is inadvertently accommodating to this. Books most definitely have their uses but in a fast paced world where lies travel around the world before teatime then information of worth needs presenting in many forms. In this though his early essays serve to soften up the reader before the book proper. Perhaps academic training on the sly?

In this I must apologise to many an author for an often scant recall of their works. Sometimes it's a mere passage or sentence that hits home. A key one in The politics of fear is when that shibboleth of the left is probed - religion. Advocating the devil mayhaps? It does sort out the fakers from the makers (one day I'll grow out off this but for now it's lubricant) and makes a wannabe consider what they are on about. In a non polarised but fragmented society it could also offer something of a key to newer engagements and thinking.

The ending session at the Battle of Ideas (3) event provided a spirited and reasonably anglo-saxon rejoinder* against this point. Some dissenters maybe missing out that the event seemed aimed at analysing the strengths of contemporary ideas and how we begin to deal with them. Maybe I'm astray here as my mind was, as always, preoccupied with other matters.
The range, calibre and quality of contributors was impressive enough to make the inquisitive question themselves and maybe attempt a gearchange. Dare we take the first step? A willingness to study and challenge one's own thoughts and motivations? Perhaps then an ability to remain focused in debates and rise above bar room banter?

I think so. I had a humbling experience observing the sixth form debate re sustainable architecture - a subject I really ought to be able to talk about by now. A couple of teenagers revealed a reasonable enough grasp of their subject to offer a confident and commanding delivery. The fact that I disagreed with their views, and worse - they hoped to become members of the legal profession, was alarming. I wanted to offer my twopenceworth but couldn't. Not very full vessel requires filling.

Getting back to the book -

The phrase pre-political also interests and seems somewhat ambivalent for aren't the problems we are dealing with those of a state actually in some disarray? Whose adherents lack a positive message and latch onto any bandwagon going to score points, comfortable in the knowledge that rivalries just aren't what they were. Whether new kid on the block, Cameron, can prove up to the task is debatable and better commentators have raised this. If perhaps he mounted a strong case for investment in development and industry rather than the stifling growth in bureacracy under Labour then I may even vote. I've done worse, albeit with no illusions.

Our politicians are daily ridiculed for the most part. There are maybe good ones amongst them but it seems to be something of a quagmire. The ridicule part is the easy bit but as a strategy makes poor politics. There is perhaps an element of fiddling while Rome burns; UK politics desperately in need of a volte-face and, on the surface at least, not getting one. One wouldn't profess expertise at any level but all projections thus far have proved optimistic and selfcongratulatory obscuring the fact that there are quite big problems ahead on current track. How to turn that around seems beyond their ken.

How long before the pre-political becomes Political and to what extent is it necessary, in particular, for the UK?

(1)http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0745305318/qid=1134624695/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_0_1/026-0715067-7125224
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAD5B.htm
(2) At 169 pages and for less than the price of a reasonable evening's entertainment there are few - if any - excuses for not reading and discussing such a book.
(3)http://www.battleofideas.co.uk/
*http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=rejoinder
For the aspiring radical a reading of Norman Geras' The legacy of Rosa Luxemburg further illuminates this book. Although by no means discussing the same circumstances.

More thoughts on dancing . . . .

2005-12-05T16:43:00.000Z

(Got some Edith Piaf duet on at the mo' (pass the tissues) *

(' A life lived in fear is a life half-lived' from Strictly Ballroom. pff!)

I've always loved dancing. From being a kid in the juniors and getting all excited about clutching Maria Jarvis's sweaty palms in scottish country dancing to dancing like a complete twat to happy hardcore (how old are ya? It was a rite of passage for my daughter and I must admit it did put a smile on my face) or even back in my teenage years when dancing meant exploding.

My interest was rekindled when a few years ago I read of a Tango event held in a park in that there London, apparently held over two separate weekends. The first weekend attracted some 400 but for the second, when it rained, 200 turned up and danced under umbrellas. Sweet.
I later came across an article on salsa holidays and classes mentioning that there was a shortage of willing fellas - get yourself forward, lad.

Initially something just to get out of the house and loosen off salsa became something else, something that I had to work at - it took six weeks just to learn to mambo. The feet just don't want to go in them places but it makes sense when you see how the moves unfold. The breakthrough came when some spanish people came to the class and their feet were all over the place - not like us mechanical english clompers and bobbers.

Then there was the flamenco weekend at West Yorkshire College of dance. Just me and some thirty ladies - woof! I must admit I did feel a bit of a pillock, especially when I caught sight of myself in the mirror being all graceful. No doubt the lads building outside in the cold on the cherrypicker must have had a laugh but this was saturday and it was no 'Y.M.C.A'.

It's a tough job, but someone's gotta do it. . . .

Go dancing!

Like many recently (I think it was Zoe Ball's hip movement on an ad that finally drew me in) I've become a bit of an addict of Strictly come dancing (1). I'm loving seeing fat yorkshire lad Goffy enjoying himself so much - most of 'em really. In fact as soon as he and the charming Lilia hit the floor I actually voted (being fairly merrie at the time I also voted for a couple of others but to make sure gave The Dazzler another. This is some going for someone who doesn't like the idea of charidee.)

For me the show is too audience focussed. I'd like to see the dancers dancing for no-one else but themselves. Methinx this is something that besets all these kind of shows - the crowd and judge pleasing that encourages a degree of superficiality lacking at club level. I get the impression that the celeb dancers seem constrained having to hold their heads at awkward angles - maybe I just lack finesse. It does seem to put them under added pressure.

And please - get closer! Anyone can be a three minute hero so to dance with someone for two like you are one shouldn't be too hard. And Zoe Ball ought to ease up on the cheese. (rearange book, leaf, ect (sic) Perhaps hubby could knock up a dance track? - naw . . . .

Talking of which, I was wondering who else they could have in the series - Keith from Prodigy? Roy Keane? Go on, break a leg. What about a flamenco face-off? Hmm.

And I do like Anton wotsisface.

Best quote of the show so far? Julian Clary: 'I'm sure he'll pull something out of the bag', which is a tad cheeky even by his standards. (Ok, and CJ's 'You filthy minx!')

(1)http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=strictly+come+dancing&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

*(Finishes off with 'ain't misbehavin' ' via 'On a little street in Singapore' - very nice.)

Lost in music.

2005-09-18T18:18:00.000+01:00

Muzak schmoozak - I love it and enjoy everything in it's place. Anything from classical music (granted mainly from adverts and incidental music but would go to one of them hamper and blanket on the ground events. Champagne? cheers. Schmoke? don't mind if I do, etc, . . . )

And back off on The Smiths (ya cnuts!) - anyone who can write such gems as -

'' . . If a ten ton truck* kills the both of us
to die by your side is such a heavenly way to die . . .
There is a light and it never goes out (etc)'' - gets my vote.

Morrisey writes some beautiful lyrics. I prefer them as irony and couldn't care less what he is on about overall. Meat is murder sucks (in a dark corner of my mind I have a remix c/w chainsaw, chickens** and whatever else I can pen. If anyone gets there before me then I'd like a cut.)
Viva Hate? - I'd buy that for a $1.
(Good at being miserable but you wouldn't want too much in one go. Go one on yourself you mourngy git and do 'happy talk')

How often have any of us been disappointed by an offering from a favoured artist? Often the words I've been singing for ages turn out to not be the same as those on the sleeve, and then some - ''You saw Sir Winker?''. Quite.

As a salsa dancer non. . . (etc) I enjoy many a track that I haven't the faintest clue what they are on about - Los bomberos, Dos gardenias por amor, Dos cervethas por favor - they could be singing about a bunch of fascist chicken-plucking nuns for all I care (hmm? - this remix may even have a video).

Simply read?

Some words are better left unspoken or perhaps best not committed to a blog. However, in a time-honoured tradition of dodgy footwork and in the spirit of defending the incomprehensible I'll put my hand up and admit to having enjoyed - (oh no!) Happy hardcore. To those who don't know this has got to be quite simply the daftest music about - not big or clever but then it doesn't pretend to be either.
Sped up music, lyrics about magic carpets, rainbows and other escapist bollocks abound all brought together by an enlivened m/c - full chat and rarely the voice of an angel but often uplifting.

Don't go there, no really, don't . . . . . oohhhh go on then. One really shouldn't make an arse of one's self but when in Rome (Milton Keynes, actually, and erm? . . Luton, Elephant and Castle, etc (some bons mots really are left private) make like a Roman. One meets quite a cross section of people - not just yer tabloid-typical wild-eyed raver.
Dressed up warm for the night and pleasantly conversational adult chaperones (one even reading her Mills and Boon!), muscle-bound squaddies out on RnR, an athlete who told me it was the best workout she ever gets, and, hand on heart christianly clean, naturally aspirated - respect.

Then of course there's the rest of england's finest - council house asbo-fodder, m/c bad boy racers and lots of oddly cute, pigtailed skippy young ladies. Any of the Birkenhead crew in? watch your stereo. A lonng time since I went - probably satnavs or, heaven forbid, the whole jalopy now. Snakes are often spotted a mile off. As are mugs and dodgy security guards. Methinx we all know who we are.

My good daughter's inauguration into a life less ordinary came when, I figured, if she was gonna go experiment in life's wonderfully rich bounty then I may as well make sure that I could assist her if things went tits up, as it were.
And we all fall down from time to time.
(Hands up anyone who hasn't publicly gaffed - Cherie Blair? pff! - ''When I get older . . '' - I rest my case. I'd maybe spin her in the middle of the floor but karaoke? naw (2). What about the lifestyles of the rich and famous ? Looking at them, can you really blame us? They know how to unwind from a day down at the factory - are You really telling me how to bring my kids up? (leaf, book . .) (3)

Back to the . .

We actually never thought we'd get in what with us being rave virgins 'n' all. But some very kind people helped us along the way - people I'll always remember. And as an opener - m/c Junior with Force and Styles belting out 'So glad you made it' as we walked in. ***

I'll be back . . coffee, fagbreak and Carmel's The Falling on the box (available at all good stores and in time for . . erm? whateveritscalled)

* It may have been a double decker bus (Routemaster even - catch 'em while you can http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAEBF.htm
** Bugger all to do with Bird flu!!
(2) http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=when+i+get+older+cherie+blair&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
(3)http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=euan+blair&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Straw_(politician)
***Actually, l made that bit up - it's what l sang to my brood after gaining entry.
(4)One off the cuff. I thought I talked bollocks but this guy can certainly big up the little issue http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page8123.asp

RnR ptII: press the eject . . .

Not really wanting to make any more of a song and dance of it (as there are other things to do) but amongst all the badinage there were some inspirational words -

'If I can do it; so can you'. Unknown m/c. It made me more determined to get out of a hole, of sorts.

That's enough of that - off to work.

Fourth plinth.

2005-09-18T16:36:00.003+01:00

As a piece of artwork Marc Quinn's sculpture of Alison Lapper certainly provokes interest and on many levels. (Some puns are intended, that however was not one. It's more the case that if everything is edited for pc reasons then the subject cannot be properly discussed.(1)

If you 'Google' Alison Lapper there are about 40,000 references (possibly 40,001 now). And you've got to hand it to her she's got herself first on the list (2).

Alison Lapper has been very much in the public eye recently, due mainly to her condition(3). To most of us mere mortals, nothing is known of her art other than her being art. Although, couldn't it be said that her suffering is her art? To be sure she is now feted and her opinions may resonate for a while, there may even be an interest in her work. But it is largely a self portrait. In that case, Quinn's sculpture is like a chapter in a biography. And perhaps appropriate enough for the turnaround that is the 4th plinth project. Will we get to see chapter two?

Quinn's Lapper seems to stand in stark contrast to Nelson's column, well actually it squats. Now, I'm not sure what art is supposed to do other than be provocative and Lapper is certainly that. Is she a hero? I'm sure that even in the fairest of fights Nelson could kick her head in* but then I've never seen his artwork.

Lapper's though, I have (a bit). I was going to make some joke about 'Venus de milo' but hey, she's there already. And that is likely the crux of the matter. One couldn't argue that in selective shots she sure looks purrdy - if'n you go for a gal's looks that is. And for some blokes she has got the bits that seem to count - someone has certainly proven a point.# And there are microwaves. Ironing could be the scene of a domestic though . . .

Perhaps Lapper issues a challenge of what we look for in another person. Are we superficial in our tastes to want someone else's idea of perfection? Lapper says 'I can do it as well as you' and she can - up to a point. James Heartfield's article on Lapper points out that her survival and progress comes with a great deal of assistance - Ms. Lapper would not have survived in the wilds and as a mutation is not one that would see the human race thrive in her form(4).

One could criticise yet Alison Lapper in spite of her condition does many things and can inspire others that are wont to seek therapy in one form or other. I'm heartened by the likes of Beth Hamilton (5) and others that over ride their condition. Many a restless night has me watching niche Tv and I'm stunned by the capabilities of disabled athletes - one-legged slalom skiers going full pelt and achieving commendable times, for instance. Mayhaps an unfair aerodynamic advantage? Don't think there'll be a queue for the operation though.

I also recall the tale of a young german tank commander in WW2; shot some 5 times, left for dead, patched up and eager to return to the front after 6 weeks. Stirring stuff even if you don't agree with his cause (6).

Quinn's Lapper is notable in that it is a sign of the times - it comes to the fore in a culture uncomfortable with its past glories and seeking comfort in frailty. It will be something to celebrate when medical science can achieve limb grafting and the like so that the disabled can function as near normal as possible 7).

If 'the statue' had been created by Alison Lapper herself it would've been more impressive but l don't think it belongs on the fourth plinth.

(1)http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/closeup/lapper.shtml
(2)http://www.alisonlapper.com/
(3)http://images.google.com/images?q=alison+lapper&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images
*NB. Although she does have some fighting prowess. Read on - http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,6761,1561045,00.html
(4)http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAD61.htm
(5)http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLR%2CGGLR%3A2005-51%2CGGLR%3Aen&q=+bethany+hamilton+&btnG=Search
(6)World at War series (?)
(7)Hooray!
(8)See also - http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAEEF.htm

§Out-take

'. . It reminds me of a schoolboy fantasy involving a rope, RE teacher and a table (I'd've let her have one arm free) . . . etc.'

Originally removed as figured was kind of gratuitous but reposted in light of Welsh quacks. See F*cking Welsh! (this blog, Feb 2006). Like it says - schoolboy fantasy and not deed.

Lapper. Round 2

The devil within had far worse lined up for Ms. Lapper - and a sneaky chance to indulge some other penchants. I couldn't help thinking that 'Alison Lapper 8 1/2 months pregnant' resembled a lump of plasticine capable of being moulded into anything. Seeing as how I've alluded to raping her, giving her a kicking and sewing some arms on her then I may as well crucify and resurrect her as well

Why? Is it fun to pick on the disabled? Up to a point maybe. Maybe in as much as no-one would rightly choose to be disabled and we laugh at such concerns so as to cope with them or even in recognition that the disabled are still people and we interact as normal as possible, albeit perhaps patronisingly.

Call it a version of Tourette's syndrome but I imagined nailing some arms on Alison Lapper in my own blood-dripping bastard artwork creation but thought better of continuing l'enfant terriblisme. However, with all the hoohar surrounding religious imagery, particularly amongst some members of our muslim brethren and also to make a not so subtle play on resurrection and notions of Divinity versus human ingenuity and medical science (and what with easter coming up) then I may as well.

Why the cheap shot at religion? After all a great many good people have connections with matters of faith and to rubbish their icons maybe hilarious or just nasty, maybe even tonic for the troops, but without a plainer distinction between The Divine and Humanity it remains a small part of the argument.
Others have said, the story of religion is essentially a human one.
As is Alison Lapper's.

Whether it is the military icon, religious representation, science-fiction architectural or other, 'art' should provoke or stimulate thought. Quinn, Lapper and the 4th plinth project challenge the militaristic associations with Trafalgar Square - a pregnant, disabled woman, giver of life Vs. Nelson, disabled warrior, etc (et al).
If Alison Lapper was the stopper of war or harbinger of peace forevermore then she may be considered heroic and worthy of claiming a place at Trafalgar (am begining to like the idea of Trafalgar Sq as a cultural battleground).

The reason why Alison Lapper has become elevated is manyfold but she can be because society has developed to the point where disability can be accommodated, cared for and patched up. However, Alison as Goddess of beauty and disability is a poor reflection of what society accepts regards notions of a common humanity.

Perhaps she asks to be loved (and 'the disabled' by association), that we see through her disability and beauty and get to know the person within; capable of being loved and loving but also a thinking, acting and creative being. That's fine - that's the human part but elevating disability is to accept being part human.

Anyone can get cut by steel, paper or even grass but it's nice to know that we can generally patch ourselves up or have access to people and things that can. Likewise, if injured at work, in a crash, playing sport, etc we should feel safe in the knowledge that medical practice and science has developed to the point of being able to fix most injury. Of course, if better resourced and if that was the focus rather than overmanagement and too many a lightweight scheme.

There's a bitter irony revealed in Generation Kill where a Doctor/Soldier is torn between continuing his patriotic duties and tending to an injured Iraqi. He cites that if the man's injuries are attended to he can be saved, albeit with some lasting damage. Yet still an increase in survivability from earlier times.
The moral being that even in situations designed for death, destruction and serious injury medical technique, prowess and capabilty follow close behind.

' . . l'm only dancing'

I chanced upon a dance program called DV8 in which a guy with no legs, Dave l believe he's called, peers through the window of a ballet studio (this after mischief in a wheelchair at a bus stop which sets the tone). Mischievious and mis-shapen you wonder what he's up to as he watches the graceful ballerinas. Himself perhaps an object of ridicule or even repellance - an opposite of the dancers. He enters the studio and shuffles through the rising and falling legs of the ladies at the bar, approaches a seated ballerina whom he links up with to dance/roll about with - a work of some elegance.

The next scene is Dave astride his mate's back; his mate walking on all fours with arms and legs straight yet done in such a way that it is hard to determine which torso the legs belong to or if they are all as one.
Perhaps this raises further questions as to acceptance of what is, Dave and co 'wishing' he had legs or a play on homo-eroticism and love of one's fellow man as brother and reflection of self - room on my horse for two, he ain't heavy . . or putting yourself in his shoes and vice versa.

I wouldn't like to patronise Alison Lapper by suggesting she would be a better person if only she had arms, nor Dave some legs, merely to state that the alleviation of all illness as much as possible is more desirable than accomodating to it.

Round Three: Militant dwarf and pretty lady spend all day pestering shoppers. 19th. March'06.

Don't know what it was the other night but basically a programme about disability and how society accomodates it.

A section of the show was about people parking in disabled spots at supermarkets and featured a small man in matrix garb and a lady with a walking stick. The lady was quite pretty, which may not be significant (the man l couldn't really say). Basically, they proceeded to hassle people (predominantly asian - again, maybe not significant) who for whatever reason were taking the piss out of the disabled by ignoring their existence and nicking their carparking spots.

Oh, you bad people (coming over here and) nicking our carparking spots . . . There is a seperate, if not related issue of supermarket, and other, carparking design and one that effects everybody. Carparking for 'normal' people leaves a lot to be desired. Often cramped and just as awkward for the old and perhaps not so firm, those with children, large people, lots of shopping and even those on foot. My bad self has parked in the bay. Excuse? none, other than believing that the disabled should be treat no better or worse than any body else. Whether it's one of those things that have changed over time or not but it's recalled that many a time at busy hypermarkets, etc., these spaces have been empty and wasted. All the while us able bodied types have to weave our way with our laden and lopsided trolley on ramped causeway through everyone else's pride and joy.

Haven't people got better things to do? This is an example of petty and selfish single issue 'activism' of the worst kind. It pulls on the heartstrings; who does want to see the differently abled abused and ignored? The better part of the show was 'Dave' (aka MD - sorry, don't know the names) interviewing 'Steve' - 25 years old, cerebral palsy, wheelchair bound, etc., and profoundly differently abled. Steve seemed to be something of a whizz on computers and wanted to work, contribute and attain a measure of independence but all too often got the knock back. The person without 'won' and Steve lost.

It's a tough world out there . . . and not just for the differently abled. Society does have a poor record in care for the infirm in many situations but also a substantial care sector running right the way through from the family and voluntary sector to hospital, lowest to highest wages and so on.

By percentage disability seems to have quite some say, albeit and like most things not one of open and honest discussion.

Round 4

Now playing - (My Baby Does) Good Sculptures - Rezillos . . .

b b b b b but(t) . . . .

2005-09-11T21:02:00.000+01:00

There was a scotsman, englishman and another scotsman who got caught out on the land of the DefraMyarsi. High prince Usurpa Miliband was furious that they had footprinted on his sacred 'land fit for heroes' (!?!) and sent them out to get him 5 samples of fruit whilst he thought of their punishment.

First back was canny scot, Gordon; he'd been frugal in his efforts and brought back 5 juniper berries.
Miliband told him he had to shove 5 of these up his ass everyday. Gordon, sweaty, shaken but a little relieved, mopped his brow and realised he could manage that.

Next to return was earnest Ed; he'd brought a handsome peach, a bunch of small but nice looking bananas and three different bunches of grapes. When Miliband told him to shove these, 5 a day, where the sun don't shine his face dropped (but he figured his missus could give a hand packing 'em in . . . ).
He wearily joined Gordon to discuss their fates.

Enterprising Tony returned much later, for he had scoured far and wide. Gordon almost suppressed a wry chuckle when he saw that he had brought with him a pineapple, prickly pear . . . the NHS IT programme and (insert whatever applicable) and (make your own assumptions) for he was vainglorious and sought to impress with the legacy of the fruits of his Labour (still, he could wipe up using the justifications for his wars in Iraq . . )

etc, etc, etc

New Labour - they won't like it up 'em/blow 'em out ya ass/this town needs an enema. . . . . etc. X

(Some thoughts on sex, dancing, porn and ladies.)

2005-09-02T10:43:00.000+01:00

Sex is everywhere. At a basic level it exists as the animal within us all - men and ladies. My good self - as a red-blooded male cannot help but be enchanted by the ladies.

As an occasional salsa dancer non extraordinaire one can and does get away with murder on the dancefloor.

With odds ranging anything from 5 ladies to one gent (ha ha) and up then every joe average prepared to have a good time can be almost John Travolta.

Formula is -

* tidy up fellas but don't worry too much as you'll never get out of the house. Put your best food forward and relax.
* dress as you see fit. Chances are if you're gonna have a go then you'll loosen up. Relax.
* Lynx if you're that kind of guy (1)
* couple of stiff shandies
* wallet, fags, chewing gum, charm.
* Go.

If you're out of practice then it's best to loosen up with a) a stiff drink, b) say hello to people you vaguely remember and c) the warm up lesson.
And fellas, get in close - too many dance at arm's length as if we might catch something. Sheesh! it's supposed to be an 'intimate' dance and yes, it's a contact sport but it's not marriage. Relax! Listen to the music and don't go mad with your feet - best take short steps. If you watch freestyle then the feet are all over the place, some shake, gyrate, pause and body pop. Attitude and rhythm are king - hey nonny no it ain't.

One of my favourite tricks is to hit the floor spinning but usually sending my partner on doing erm? . . . a man's turn, grab her as if she is taking the lead, chuck in a couple of cross body leads from the wrong side and then let go into some freestyle messing about just to let them know what they're dealing with.

In salsa (meaning sauce/spice it up ie. not pasta) as in most types of dancing the male role is the lead. For the new starter this can be quite daunting keeping time, opening the moves, keeping it interesting and enjoying yourself all at the same time and this often with a partner who knows more than you.
Us Englishmen don't like to do poofy stuff like dancing so since the GIs left the sisters pretty much have to do it for themselves. They can anyway. One woman in a class completely led a routine from her 'secondary' position unbeknownst to her and I didn't have a clue. Ginger Rogers said words to the effect of doing everything he (Fred Astaire) does backwards and in high heels (2).

Unfortunately some women insist on being led so really one ought to learn some basic moves. However, there being more of them than us then they get what they're given. If you get one that carries on a bit then give her a slap . . . no, that's something else. If it doesn't work then fair enough she can always dance with her mates.

Dancing is best learnt face to face. A book can be handy for back up but is unneccesary in the long run. Although reading the background to the Argentine Tango you find there was a surfeit of men particularly in and around Buenos Aires and that they had to dance with each other. Excuse me? Blokes dancing with blokes? You're having a laugh, mate. (3)

Not so in the UK, well not up north anyway. Thankfully we can all talk about football and other manly things instead. A night out in The 'merrie citie' of Wakefield (pre and post 'let's get tough on drinkers' campaign) often resembles something of a cattle market or zoo. There's a lot of mingling and gazing, whatever but often it's groups of lads ogling the ladies and progressively viewing the night through beer glasses.
There's more to it than that of course; it depends on who you are and what you go for.

'Pretty women out walking with gorillas . . .'

At a salsa class or event us average Joe's get to dance with ladies of all shapes, sizes, ages, colour, nationality, class and intellect. It can be overwhelming in amongst all those ladies wanting to dance with a limited supply of partners and you can find yourself 'hot property'. You don't realise it but an arrogance can develop - subtle or otherwise, maybe an element of charm. Who knows, you might even start to scrub up.

Over time though you may get to see the ladies in a different light. You may find a partner if that's what you want but you can also get a finer appreciation of women on one level (not compulsory).

The man to woman ratio can lead to the man getting a puffed up sense of his own importance - something of a prima donna outlook. Although the moment when you think you're the greatest dancer is usually that before your biggest cock-up.

However, you can always wing it. My favourite music is uptempo, loose, brassy latin as it is very forgiving with mistakes. One partner went flying over one of my two left feet only for me to catch her, swing her around 180 degrees and carry on dancing. She thought it was amazing. (I do it all the time, love.)
It would be nice though to do it properly.
Ken can. Women that dance with Ken, a big fella, talk as though they have been on a white knuckle ride and more - some say that their feet hardly touch the ground. He is confident, strong and more to the point has got excellent timing and can dance. And I hate him.

(1)http://www.unilever.co.uk/ourbrands/personalcare/lynx.asp
(2)http://www.reelclassics.com/Teams/Fred&Ginger/fred&ginger.htm
(3)http://totango.net/sergio.html

Porn.

What red-blooded male doesn't appreciate the female form? (Intellect is a different attraction. Here we are talking about 'basic instincts').

Porn is readily available in any format, shape or size. Apart from the nether regions of the market the vast majority of porn is dominated by the female form and aimed at men.
Everyday titillation is provided by the red tops. The Daily Star and Daily Sport (UK newspapers) are often low core porn mags and one doesn't mind admitting to having one's interest aroused but after 3 or 4 pages of the stuff it becomes pretty ordinary. It may make the day go around for some but it seems to be an escape in itself or a delusion.
Surely after the umpteenth spread, awkwardly reclining torso or hands through the hair doesn't it wear a bit thin?

The market may be saturated but that hasn't stopped the weird and wonderful from springing up. Every angle is catered for - squirters, milfs, barely 16, Big and Busty, old swingers and all manner either side and on top of them and no doubt very interesting too.
Sex sells and for anything from £3 - 4 and up it's not too hard to see that your right hand's for dipping into your pocket and shelling out.

Perhaps we would all like the 'perfect' figure or like to at least come across well. Leaving aside the fetish ends of the market then the bulk loosely centres around your 34-24-34 model or thereabouts. Although this zone has been augmented to accentuate the allure of the female form.
The character Jessica in 'Who framed Roger Rabbit?' epitomises the caricature - botoxed lips, curvy thighs, large breasts and soft purr voice - enough to make the sanest rabbit slobber.
With cosmetic surgery, gymnasiums and diet plus make up, accessories and media techniques even the quite plain can become Jessica Rabbit. Hence Katie Price becomes uberbabe Jordan.

Flesh, curves and lots of it.

Many a male would like to wallow in the stuff. So much that an attack of the 50 foot woman could be appealing - bedding down in sumptious marshmallow woman. Mmmmmm . . .
Although the last time any man found himself anywhere close to a woman of those proportions it will have been at birth.

Run away!

See also -
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/magazine/30feminism.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5087&en=4c0bd9b9392f83a7&ex=1152421200&nl=ep&emc=ep

reading, 'riting and 'rithmetic - arse?

2005-08-30T07:33:00.000+01:00

There is a considerable amount of discussion over the use of language - written, spoken and in a wider context. An article in the New Scotsman exposes an appalling lack of standards in the educational sphere(1). Professor Frank Furedi argues much the same in his book 'Where have all the intellectuals gone ?', lamenting the lack of indepth, intellectual inquiry and lack of discipline(2). When I go to amazon to see a book of interest I'm frequently surprised that there are no customer reviews. All testimony to the fact that we are not paying perhaps as much attention as we should. Yet we supposedly have more free time than ever before. So what's amiss?

Some say we move too fast. Texting and computers have been said to have undermined correct english - gr8, lol, ect, etc . Maybe, but the kids can multitask like no other and hold adult conversations when it suits. Ok, so the writing isn't always spot on but then they could become Doctors.

Back2Basics? The three 'r's give it away from the start - who's fooling who?
I wouldn't profess to know the ins and outs of the discussion - that's best left to the experts. An embarassing moment was when talking to a workmate, I strung a sentence together and for some reason ended up banging in loads of 'big' words (many of them in context). Lordy, am I clever! The reply? - 'I don't know what you're saying, but I know what you mean'. Shoot me down in flames. Anyway, that was a long time ago and we were very drunk at the time.

When in the sixth form rumour had it that one of our english Tutors had written a forty page essay on The letter a. I tried to fathom this out - its uses in singular form, colloquialism, dialect and influence in words and sound - a cat sat on a mat, open wide, say 'aaaahh'? 40 pages? go on, Sir!, but not for me. As much as I'd like to read the good man's work there is way too much to absorb already.

Every locale seems to have it's paper or papers, the papershops are stuffed full of magazines showing stuff that we may get to do fleetingly, selling dreams or just talking shite, everywhere sells books and yesteryear's news was the day after's underlay - all very fascinating and enough choice for everyone. Plus internet, blog, junkmail and all that stuff from various councils. Let alone rereading old 'favourites' or books not understood first time around.

The spoken and written word (those for others or to be viewed again L8r) - the presented word? - can do many things and some that the presenter is unaware of at the time. One can either strike lucky - a case of a positive direction and all the lights are green. And then sometimes one overcooks it and suffers a proverbial egg.
One that thankfully went astray from yours truly was an early attempt at a critique of a spirited club singer. Many things about the evening acted on what I felt at the time and the resulting review turned out to be a thinly veiled missive to an ex- missus. Thankfully that one's 'buried' now but one really must be careful.

What of Eminem? the staccato rap attack of in-yer-face provocation. He is whatever you say he is and if you call him he will chew it up and spit it back at you. And make a few bucks at the same time.
Sometimes you don't need words. A patient in a psychiatric unit once introduced me to the lulting* rhythm of Mendelssohn and Fingal's cave. I could feel what he meant.

Then of course there's politicians, comedians and word association football. Not to mention spoonerism - half heard words that you thought you heard but weren't sure.

Messing about with language extends the use of words and their meanings. A deft choice of word or subtle omission can carry deeper resonance than at first understood or the orator's take can be the result of chinese whispers. A colleague once complained that he could shit in the eye of an eagle. I was impressed.

Anglo-saxon verbiage is said to have been particularly coarse. Retrospective actions by the Victorians to clean up the language resulted in many name and language changes including the whitearse to the wheatear (2).

Call me a philistine but with so much to choose from it's difficult to pick the 'right' book(s) - and I don't mean those to be seen reading - the work that inspires, educates or encourages one to think afresh. Harder to read and absorb than your average novel, autobiography or eyewitness account these require quality attention, note taking and discussion - worth the effort.

Unfortunately, for those of us that would like to see the world a better place, there is no shortcut. My own stumbling forays into the world of politics have been hampered by this. Sure, an individual can offer insights or play a bit part but winning arguments requires study and the development of intellectual stamina.

Must try harder.

(1) http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1959942005
(2)http://www.birdsofbritain.co.uk/features/bird-names.htm
* Quite possibly should be 'lilting' but can't bring myself to change it. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=lilting m/e root 'lulten'.

The end of the world is nigh?

2005-08-29T16:27:00.000+01:00

'We're all gonna die' - txt msg from 'Pinky'.

Our hedonistic plunge into all things Sodom and Gomorrah is apparently upsetting more than your average priest/mullah/rabbi (delete where applicable (Spoilt for choice really). Doom laden predictions of the future come from all quarters. Not so subtle Tv programmes, books magazines and articles abound on 'healthy living' and how cool it would be to 'save' the planet.
For those spared a creationist or unchanging view of the world it ought to come as no surprise that it is in plain organic fact constantly changing (1). From Tsunamis, volcanoes, 'freak' weather and everything inbetween the earth gets a battering and is constantly on the move. Mother nature is somewhat schizophrenic and we should get used to it.

It's not all bad. There are two good things to come out of the doom laden whingeing of eco warriors. One being an acceptance that the earth is changing, at whatever pace, and therefore we really shouldn't view our lives as static, although significant changes are unlikely to occur over an individual's lifetime (unless with human agency). And, two, the paucity of ideas from the let's panic brigade - limited at best and nigh on fatalistic otherwise. Definitely not an aspirational vision.

What if the climate heats up and the seas rise? (I think that's still the latest prediction.) Do we suddenly forget how to cope with living under different conditions? After all, human beings survive in more habitats than any other species being able to adapt the environment to suit. Isn't it also the case that a warmer or more varied climate encourages and supports more species? (2)

What if . . we didn't bury our heads in the sand and made a pre-emptive strike (albeit by a few millenia)? The oceans are vastly unexplored for starters and developing craft and structures for their study may shed great light for our future descendents should their world shrink but also be of benefit should we take the leap into space. There are possibilities for living by, in or underwater (3).

What of vast civil engineering works? - irrigating wilderness, carving vast inlets into continents, desalination plants? (4) Surely that would leave the world in a better state for future generations. Although I'm not so sure that is what our noble leaders mean when they use such phrases.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,782628,00.html
http://www.policynetwork.net/uploaded/pdf/IPN_impacts_report_embargoed.pdf
(1)http://www.scotese.com/earth.htm
http://images.google.com/images?q=rising+sea+levels&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images
(2)http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/mid_/4176182.stm
(3)http://www.conway.com/ssinsider/snapshot/sf030915.htm
http://www.poseidonresorts.com/virtualtour.html
(4)http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/china.50/asian.superpower/three.gorges/
http://www.hitachizosen.co.jp/english/solution/en_solu5-e.html

The plot thickens?

2005-08-29T04:28:00.001+01:00

Was the moon landing a hoax? Did Diana suffer at the hands of hired men? Are referees bent? (or just occasionally crap) ls Shabaz for real? etc., etc., ad infinitum.

Any tale is open to interpretation and tellers well always put their bent or be subject to 'unknown unknowns'. We see plots where there aren't any, patch up loose ends to get a beginning and so on. Indeed many a quirky fact or interesting lead is turned up but it would seem that once you go down that route things become evermore outlandish (1).
Scour the net and there's loads of this stuff, enough to make you believe that not much 'out there' is, erm, believable.
However, once you start picking through them their incoherence becomes apparent.

9/11 for instance - planes guided from the ground, mock-up at the Pentagon, explosives in the Towers, brainwashed dupes, etc. Enough and more to make Tolkein look like an amateur and not bad going for people that supposedly can't organise proverbials in a brewery.

There can be reason to believe that an unfair hand has been involved. The moon landings occured at a time when The US wanted to be the undisputed champions in space and given the uses of fabricated evidence it could have been a Hollywood set. Like the cow, though, get over it - we've been to the moon.

Diana was certainly an embarassment to the status quo and the accident was fortunate for those that uphold the sanctity, if not the sanity (2), of the monarchy. (I'd actually let Charles off talking to plants after all the earbashing my pc gets). However, Diana was merely a chapter in an unravelling saga.
Although you wouldn't put it past them.

Most of us accept that Elvis is dead, don't we?

What do hoax theories reveal? Probably that we don't believe much of what is put before us. There is an unacknowledged understanding that life is often valued or explained at a superficial level. Most of us just want to get through it intact, sort of plod on. Some want to make it one way or another. Those that idly dream are perhaps wont to drag down achievers or go getters whilst indulging in wishful thinking. Not believing in anything today, enchanted by the ancient but scared of the new or believing that some more intelligent (yet strangely humanoid) alien life form exists in another dimension (3).

Then, of course, you wouldn't put it past them. Anyone with a passing interest in politics, military affairs and indeed those of the heart will know there is always duplicity, cover up, intrigue and other flirtations with the truth. It makes this world go around, sort of. (4)

I must admit to sniffing some plotting after reading of Pentagon involvement with aspects of the film industry at the time of the release of the film Pearl Harbor (2001). This when the US was bristling and Bush upping the ante (6).

Perhaps the problem with conspiracy theories is the suggestion that the powers that be are all powerful, all controlling and that their operations run smoothly . .
. . hmm.

(1)http://www.rense.com/
http://www.vialls.com/
and http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html
(2)http://videodetective.com/home.asp?PublishedID=5607
(3)http://www.geocities.com/tasdevil42/featured-photos.html
http://images.google.com/images?q=alien+life+forms&svnum=10&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N
(4)http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1855852005
(5)See also http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAE89.htm
(6)Top gun versus Sergeant Bilko? Duncan Campbell, MediaGuardian.co.uk, Aug 2001.

ps Poor sleep etzzz . . . . meant an eyeballing of Big Brother just to see what the attraction is/was. People offering themselves up to that level of scrutiny can't really expect much sympathy if it 'all goes wrong'. Shabaz aside, methinx from what l've seen of Pete, he suffers a social illness in that he's largely unrestrained in what he wants to say and is overegging it with his caricatures. He did seem to hit the nail on the head (in the bits that l saw) and strike something of a common chord. Who else agrees that when he called various of his colleagues 'hwanker! he expressed what we were thinking?
Perhaps more revealing is how he is more relaxed and less prone to express himself in that way now that he's in an 'open' environment and can express himself more freely.
Big Brother should maybe turn the screw some here and flood or aversion therapy the guy - or maybe he's the ringer? (Jus' kidding).

Not fair? Who are you trying to kid? The whole show is an expose of the self (of sorts) and all it's extensions. Others have probably said that we see in the participants extreme forms of ourselves. Our quirks naked for all to see. Us perhaps squealy voyeurs and closet wannabes (could also be the start of a successful career - l suggest a spinoff Pete and Shabaz on a desert island or flat that is hooked up via net and mobile phone to the outside world. My guess is they'd probably 'cure' each other - and would be up for it).

Not fair, cont'd . . Bullying perhaps? Funny that the blonde haired lady was hauled up for a 'mauling' and sherzzassshhh was allowed to continue his manipulation of events for far too long. He was allowed to act the spoilt brat to get his way. The opposite end of the spectrum to bullying perhaps but far more insidious in effect. ln this case the emptiest contestant held full sway and now the manipulation continues (Like, l say it could all be a plot and Sheraz is in on it. Pff mugs ain't we, eh?) lf it's the case that the poor guy had gotten to the point of considering suicide then Big Brother is guilty as charged. l'm sure the contestants had some clue what they were letting themselves in for. . . .

. . .Zzzzz

Saving Charlotte Wyatt.

2005-08-27T07:55:00.000+01:00

Why is medical science too afraid to take on the challenge that the Wyatt's have presented them? Charlotte Wyatt is to all intents and purposes a living human being and her parents 'little fighter'. Granted the poor girl has considerable difficulties and may endure a naturally short and painful life and has only survived thus far with considerable attention. . . . . Her parents want as much support given to her as is possible and really, shouldn't this be the case?

Maybe it's not so ironic that Charlotte's parents are christian (of one loose affiliation or another). Having their broken daughter fixed to become whole again may be rich in symbolism, say, resurrection or something. I'm not sure and wouldn't want to burden them with another argument. However, it should be the case that every endeavour is made for Charlotte's survival and improvement. And while we're at it maybe we could discuss the value of human life.

Mr. and Mrs. Wyatt may be fighting something of a losing battle both legally and medically but that doesn't mean that they lose. There's a window of opportunity here.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1749984,00.htmlork

NIMBY#5 Housing for the future?

2005-08-21T18:40:00.000+01:00

According to a Times Bricks and Mortar supplement some 67% of us are disappointed with our houses. Whether respondents were transplacing other feelings onto their houses or whether this relates to the houses themselves is a moot point. It could be the spiralling cost or some concern over where society is headed. Astute buyers may have made a killing on the back of an inflated market but one does wonder what sort of dwellings our children or grandchildren may inhabit. Houses built at todays level of output would have to stand for 1500 years! Somehow can't see that happening by any measure as modern housing lacks the solidity of its predecessors and merely apes the style, particularly mass built housing.

Most modern housing is stuck in a timewarp. New developments of mock tudor or georgian 'style' are hastily built on any scrap of land where demand is high. New environmentally sensitive regulations call for higher density build so we still live unnecessarily in the lap of our neighbours.

Despite many improvements in materials and construction methods new housing still attempts to replicate the old. Where factory built housing components are manufactured they still resemble brickwork and little genuine prefabricated work exists particularly in the UK. Even manufacturers of prefabricated buildings still feel the need to encase buildings in brick tiles for that traditional look ie. to make them look like something that they are not.

This is pathetic but understandable in a culture that dare not face the future and seeks comfort in an imagined past.

What of bolder visions?

Although some architects may produce expensive and gimmicky one offs there are houses designed and built with increased specification and functionality, relatively simple in design and execution yet far from commonplace. Frank Lloyd-Wright with his Fallingwater house, for one, showed that nature should not bind us to limitations . . .

View/read on:
http://www.audacity.org/Acrobat%20Reader%20files/Housing%20Forum%202002.pdf
http://www.lmearchitecture.com/houses.htm
http://brasembottawa.org/cd/1arq_3.9.2.res_macab_helio.htm
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=falling+water+house&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
http://www.treehugger.com/files/prefab/index.php
http://www.channel4.com/4homes/diyandbuilding/buildinghouse/kit_homes.html

Money, money, money . . .

2005-08-19T00:52:00.000+01:00

Currently there's to be a revamp of UK currency with a £3o,ooo prize for the six winning designs. Being totally crap with money, and bearing a grudge against my bank manager I'd rather do away with the stuff completely then we could discuss a better way to manage our affairs. (And my bank manager could get a proper job.)

http://money.guardian.co.uk/news_/story/0,1456,1551368,00.html

NIMBY#4. Go wild in the country.

2005-08-14T16:34:00.003+01:00

The route to and from work can be a particular joy - especially this time of year with the fields, meadows, wetlands and woods all in brilliant colour. On good days the whole area comes alive - joggers, fishermen, canoeists, barges, 'mountain' bikers, dog walkers and so on.

It teems with wildlife and farm animals - heron, kingfisher, woodpeckers - in fact more birds than I could throw a stick at (jus' kidding) let alone name - even a couple of rare (to these isles) stork. Then there's mink, shrews, mice, bats and the occasional deer . . one could go on.

Oh, and wild cherries grow around the sewage treatment plant - tasty.

Despite all this though in real terms the area is nothing special. Disused railway lines, quarries, tips and crumbling old buildings show that we've been here before. When the motorway network was in its infancy a proposed link road was outlined to join the M1 and M62 from Dewsbury to Wakefield. Though such a scheme would likely cause a great deal of protest today it should be noted that the canal network was a development from navigable rivers and a forerunner of such things as motorways. Myself, despite being pro-industry and for development, wouldn't particularly want to live too close to a major road - who does?

But then nobody should really have to. There is no shortage of available land - according to the government Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) only 10.6% of UK landmass is built upon. This figure is from 1991 but since then most development has occurred on previously developed sites - 'brownfield'. Far from covered in concrete then and plentiful land so that we shouldn't have to live on top of one another. (Not that there is anything wrong in particular with high rise, hustle and bustle city living but that is a different matter.)

Many problems face those that wish to live in the countryside. One respondent had the good fortune to acquire some old buildings but nature and officialdom won the day. Not only did the old, listed buildings have to be rebuilt to specification but since Bats moved into the residence the new owner was not allowed to occupy it!

(1)http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/land/lduse.htm
(2)See also http://www.newstatesman.com/landreform/lrindex.htm

NIMBY#3, Border dispute.

2005-08-13T17:07:00.000+01:00

Despite the cosiness of the neighbourhood private property issues do surface. We all like our own space from time to time and our private concerns clash with others. 24/7 living and working means that people come and go all times of day or night, Canadian geese honk in excitement(!?!) as they approach Pugneys Lake (an ex quarry), kids playing out, the relentless DIY and garden maintainance or just playing music.

The neighbourhood is more or less constantly 'active'.
Weekend mornings become slowly disturbed as someone dares to break the relative peace and tranquility. Usually about half past nine the first few lump hammer and bolster chisel blows or power tools can be heard only to die off for a sheepish half hour as the slumbering neighbourhood resigns itself to arousal.

One of the chief culprits is Dave (whose bloody kids make World War 3 sound as though it's going off in my backyard - bless 'em).
When fixing the fence in my lower garden he asked if I could do something about the privet hedge that threatened to push out the wall into his backyard.
Pfff, go on then. As the fence was being held up by the bush they both went. Dave and family got used to the increased light and openess and I couldn't be arsed rebuilding a fence so everything turned out well.

When a new neighbour dropped a row of leylandii things got even better - much more openess. It led me to think of how we view our territory and the uses we put it to.
When we consider that, at a guess, some two thirds of homes all have common features in their gardens - shed and tools, benches, etc and the occasional use we put them to it seemed like a good idea to have all the gardens minimised opening up to parkland and backing on to the pub. Do away with all the replicated junk that we horde and have a proper public house and 'garden'. It would be even nicer to move the adjoining pallet yard and follow through to the River Calder's edge, perhaps build a boathouse.

To the front of the Pub and behind the old Post Office (now closed) there used to be a Foundry - a longstanding bone of contention to residents. Now closed down the land is to be used for yet more houses. Not a village green then.

Back to the real world.

The local pub is undergoing a fair amount of renovation as the landlord approaches retirement age and is considering selling up. Part of this is the erection of a new wall dividing the offset gardens and the pub's beer garden. Long established and overgrown hedges that had formed a natural barrier gave way to a border dispute, lines were drawn and some choice cussing was to be heard.

Bollocks!

Some muthas do 'ave 'em.

2005-08-11T13:45:00.000+01:00

Generation Kill by Evan Wright is an 'easy' read into the minds of men in battle. As one reviewer remarks, it's a 'visceral' read. Perhaps everyone should read one book like this just to see what are the 'on the ground' consequences of what is, effectively, colonial policy.
The book provides a snapshot into the lives, method and thoughts of U.S. combat troops at the very front in The Iraq War - now the war whose major protagonists wish to disown.

Hoo-har?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0552151890/qid=1136017454/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_3_1/203-8675549-9723131

Also of interest is Acts of war by Professor Richard Holmes (admittedly, part read). Early in the book he mentions there is something of an 80% chance of success in a military operation; this presumably when the odds are in favour. A figure perhaps as relevant as Vic Reeves' '84.2% of statistics are made up on the spot'. (82.4%?) Add in Rumsfield's 'unknowns' and then do the math(s).
When you consider the eficiencies and operation of peacetime industry then war, as the dirtiest of business, and its manner shouldn't really come as a surprise.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0304367001/ref=sib_rdr_dp/203-8675549-9723131

Whose ideas?

2005-08-09T00:35:00.000+01:00

The ongoing palaver over chinese computer guru Kai Fu Lee could do with discussing in detail (1). Bill Gates of Microsoft is reluctant to see Lee move to Google's chinese operation and work in competition using ideas and information gained whilst at microsoft.

Whether Gates is right or even fully voicing his concerns is open to interpretation. Regardless, taken at face value, copyright or intellectual property operates both ways and cannot be truly regulated or monopolised. I assume Bill Gates didn't hand rear Kai Fu Lee and teach him every thing he knows. Doubtless that Lee will have picked up or developed many an idea whilst at microsoft. Yet, and particularly in Lee's case, it seems just as likely that as much if not more was contributed.

Likewise, are we to assume that Gates designed or developed every aspect of microsoft innovation or did he manage to hoover up as much from others? Not to doubt Mr. Gates intellectual or technical prowess by any means. But it does seem to be the case that the expertise in question resides with the host.

Lee's work for google may serve to refresh or refine his capabilities due to the different environment. A change is as good as a rest, so it's said.

(1) http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002426557_kaifu08.html

Ps. I am deeply indebted to Mr Gates and his team for the Windows (Tm.) 'concept' as it aids a scattered mind. Buy that man a drink.

NIMBY #2. My house*, !7 Industrial st.

2005-08-08T13:22:00.000+01:00

(*Strictly speaking the house isn't mine - it belongs to the Bank - although they had precious little to do with building it.)

' If the street was called something other than Industrial St. then the estate agent said it would probably add £2000 to the value.' (neighbour.)

'Like - Shit farm at the end of the St.?' (me.)

Of all the houses looked at this one had instant appeal as it fit in with what I assumed to be needs at the time - close enough to family and work and with enough surrounding facilities to keep ourselves occupied. The backgarden faces easterly, receiving plenty of sunshine throughout most of the day. The bulk of residents 'love it down here' and it's not too hard to see why.

Initially the desire to have a place where my immediate family - 2 rather grown up 'children' - could come and stay meant that the structure of the house would have to change - watch out Heath Robinson!

The loft as it is is too small for any meaningful conversion. However, there is sufficient ceiling heights on both levels to lower floors and gain loft space and a 'cabin' bedroom and sundeck. Of course there would be an issue of privacy but then knocking down the neighbour's houses at the back would go some way to alleviate that (see N#3 'Border dispute').
Taking out floors does seem like a mighty task but with organisation, method and understanding neighbours it wouldn't prove too difficult. In my most recent employment, a welder/fabricator in the modular building industry, such things are done in a relatively short space of time. For instance if a roof is welded on the wrong way around (I'm not the only one to have done this!) it is easy enough (despite the ball ache) to grind it off and spin it around, albeit with use of an overhead crane. (see forthcoming N#? for 'The future of building: Prefabs?').

A partition wall between kitchen and living room that never looked right was removed making the downstairs open plan. It also revealed a stone slab floor that had been partially brutalised by fitting a gas supply for the fire. Potentially lovely and offering some continuation of the house to the patio via the newly fitted patio doors. It's coldness in winter was to be alleviated by installing underfloor heating thus giving a reservoir and even spread of heat. Time and money are lacking so this idea has been shelved. A quickfix solution is to board over the floor but I'm in more than two minds about this hence the gap above the patio doors (infilled with Kingspan insulation panels) allows the finished floor to be any height required.
Then of course there is all the rewiring and plumbing, etc but one thing at a time (or not). All this work on a house that is some 100 years old!

Despite the uniform appearance of the street from the front the houses have been built in fits and starts and probably for workers that supplied local industry its labour. Humble in their origins and never anything that special they have taken on new significance due to the prominence of housing in the economy and our lives. The build quality is nothing special either despite the solidity of traditional materials. This last point can be thrown into perspective by a comparison with 'temporary' housing built for railway construction workers about the turn of last century at Dodworth, Barnsley. South Yorkshire Buildings are built to similar standards as these workers' cottages yet still exist today and are 'worth' considerably more than was originally intended.

These days there are many people extending and 'modernising' their houses, in fact it's a continuous phenomenon so God help those working the nightshift let alone anyone wanting peace and quiet. It doesn't need to be this way.
When the amount of work upgrading old housing stock is considered against the efficiency of factory built housing it makes one wonder.

See also -
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/opinion/12krugman.html?8hpib

Who do you think you are kidding . . . . ?

2005-08-08T11:42:00.000+01:00

These days it's not just asian youth that suffer from identity but pretty much everyone. After all isn't the very notion of identity something of a superficiality? No one has a fixed identity other than perhaps given ones. Of course there are some that will devoutly follow a cause rightly or wrongly and this is perhaps where we should begin.

Ignorance can never be bliss.

According to Roger scruton '(i)t is not a question of the actual history, but rather the history that is required to create a national loyalty' (1)(my italics). Now anyone can commit the odd faux pas, the odd factual error or emphasis, etc. but a sanitised history should be a non starter. To all intents and purposes official histories have always been cleaned up or spun although with greater access to information - book , TV, internet, etc - a much more complete view can be gained and that is to the good. Once the project of rewriting history starts where does it end? Buildings and Empires may be ground into dust but events cannot be erased.

Call me a pessimist but after initially being pleasantly surprised at the UK's successful Olympic bid the next thought was that of it being a target of sorts. And so it was. It would be nice to think that the world could be a nicer place but such things happen and not without reason. That a handful of individuals could cause such alarm with their misguided aims is telling as to how fragile society is cohered.

After the 7th July london bombings I went to discuss the issue amongst the asian community - a very loose term. Older men (50 years old or thereabouts), couldn't understand why asian youth are so disaffected. After all, today's relative integration and prosperity stands in stark contrast to what they knew at a comparative age. The overwhelming view was that they loved this country, counted themselves as British and indeed 'would fight for this country' (2). Although when asked whether the war in Iraq was justifiable there was as much difference of opinion as amongst my predominantly white colleagues.

Of course one or two went for the war for oil line - 'Respect' had been 'fighting the fascists' in the area (but not arguing for their ideas in mainly white areas where the BNP, their ideological foe, were standing). Many held an equally misguided view of ' if you bomb them, they will bomb you' which avoids the issue as much as saying 'not in my name'.
When the conversation turned to the tyranny of Saddam Hussein opinion began to diverge and it was remembered that many of the attrocities commited had been conveniently talked down when there was any sniff of western involvement at the time (3).

Asian youth were somewhat suspicious and more reticent in offering their views (but could take the mick just as good as any group of white lads). Outwardly it would appear that asian youth have similar problems as their white counterparts but with the added burden of being part of a 'community by default'. One youth stated that he had aplied for some 30 jobs in the past 2 months but had not received one reply back. Unless they are prepared to do a dirty, shitty job(4), go into the family business, taxi driving, etc., or, even worse, a job that is set aside for 'ethnic minorities' then they are caught between a rock and a hard place. Of course with the headlong pursuit into multiculturalism, and indeed the merits of individuals, there are more people of obvious or comparatively 'recent ' arrival in top flight jobs. Not a bad thing by any means but stands in stark contrast to the days of the token black face of the eighties and the even cruder stereotyping of earlier years.

Speaking to a white company director with recruitment problems I asked why he didn't employ any asians. His reply was 'the (white) lads just wouldn't get on with them'. When 'the lads' were asked why they had negative views I was told that 'pakis' (a catch all term) were dirty, ignorant, drug-dealers, treat their women bad, don't pay taxes, sponge off benefits and generally 'shouldn't be here'. Although much of the same could be applied to themselves if truth were told. Yet the same people were matey enough when meeting asians face to face - in the takeaways, taxis and shops. In fact one guy who espoused particularly backward views - generally mouthing off about the BNP and white power - was politeness personified in his local asian ran shop. What you see isn't always what you get.

Likewise, in a kebab house in deepest Savilletown, Dewsbury, where the owner and staff were all dressed in mufti and pictures of mecca adorned the walls I figured I'd get that bugbear of many whites that 'they would all speak their own language', yet colloquial english was the order of the day - one lad got a full on effing earbashing that would have done any off TV comic or sergeant-major proud. (There's also a Kosher-Halal fish and chip shop - something for everyone?)

Bradford city council was one of the first to ban the displaying of the St. George flag for fear of arousing underlying tensions yet the fact that asian taxi drivers were amongst those flying the flag seemed to escape them. Again, there are many asians just as likely to be seen wearing England football shirts as white people (although maybe not so after the Danish debacle).

(1)See Prospect (Subscription), April 2005 http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=6832&AuthKey=104793ed6d8a973ae04abfbd3e5ff03b&issue=503
(2)And not for the first time. See Asians in Britain by Visram, pp 169-195 and 341-353 http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0745313736/qid=1123568219/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_10_2/026-0984041-7434865
(3)See Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack.
(4)' I feel like a wog' by The Stranglers.
(5)See Fitzpatrick The price of multiculturalism

2005-08-08T10:50:00.000+01:00

Cut and paste .

2005-07-27T09:45:00.000+01:00

Reply to Wakefield Express letter:’Have more respect’ (22nd. July 2005). http://www.wakefieldtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=733&ArticleID=1092126

It seems both Andrew Longstaff and Howard Miles ought to wise up.
Romanticised views of the past are long gone, well, except in the minds of some politicos, suicide bombers and little englanders. Past events are being rewritten to suit a changing world but the trouble is no one seems quite sure what to write. Indeed, the powers that be will struggle to cohere a vision of unity when that unity is based on loose values – multi faith, multi cultured, sanitised heritage or dodgy humanitarian mission.
New Labours middle class angst plus a school prefect attitude to law and order is a recipe for disaster. Chuck in some mysticism – any flavour and it’s mush at best.
But disparaging our leadership gets us nowhere without condemning their actions. History may yet record Tony Blair as a war criminal, and if we’re not mindful then oureselves by association. After all, isn’t this a favourite trick of those that viewed Germans as inherently war-like and prone to invading other countries?
If the truth be known Higher British intentions were no more worthy than those of their opponents – as true then as now. Not quite two world wars and one world cup anymore but then it’s easy to sing when you’re winning.
Iraq seems to be little more than a vainglorious reality TV project, albeit one with devastating consequences for the Iraqi people. After a decade of sanctions, ‘illegal’ US, UK and French military interventions and direct dealings with Saddam then it’s not too hard to understand why the coalition weren’t met with flower garlands, dancing girls and a ticker tape parade.
Iraqis weren’t fooled and neither should we be. There was never any concern for Iraqi people – this was more about making Bush and Blair look like the good guys.
Iraq won’t go away and as it was an ill conceived venture in the first place all that our leaders have done is create a power vacuum. That’s almost as telling at home as abroad.
Much has been said about official war commemorations from the 200th Anniversary of Trafalgar to the 60th of the end of WW2. Yet these commemorations have been notably tame affairs. Why is this? For fear of arousing passions that are irrational or because society views itself through the prism of victim hood? All of this is worth discussing further.

Maybe that’s something our elites can ponder as they get decadent en Provence.

Nimby project #1 Working title: 'Einsturzende . . '

2005-06-20T06:17:00.000+01:00

This piece is a ramble through 'my own backyard', a shameless adventure of sorts.

Unfortunately, the original script for this introduction was lost when (badly) editing photos. Bollocks! bollocks and more bollocks.

(It may be recovered at a later date.)

Rough around the edges.

Greens . .

2011 Battle of Ideas. 29th and 30th October.

We need more power!

Take it to the bridge.

BettaKultcha and Pecha Kucha

Letter to Wakefield Express re ongoing LDF discussion.

Ev'ry thing's broken?

Not the smoking ban, again?

At the HoP . . .

2010 Election proposals.

21 PLEDGES FOR PROGRESS 2010

Re FREEDOM

Re CONSTITUTION

Re ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Re PUBLIC SERVICES

Late notice: Wakefield Salon.

Knowledge is power?

Environmentalism - the last refuge of scoundrels.

Yawn . . . .

Manchester w . . .

What's red and green?

Cor, blimey!

Someone ain't telling the truth . . .

Whatever happened to the heroes?

People in glasshouses . . .

pfff . . . some more.

Challenging the ban . . .

Sweaty takes the piss.

Is recycling a waste of time?

Fuck 'em

Watch this . . .

Are you Priced Out?

'It's New Labour, stupid!'

'Climate change: Why we don't believe it'

The British National Party gains strength?

Reply to constituent and public sector employee, Wakefield North ward 17.

Letter to Mr Kojan.

Drugs are for mugs?

We need more power

"These are a few of my favourite things . . . .

One man's mince . . .

Open reply to Green taxes letter, Wakefield Express.

Open reply to Cllr. Roberts, Heckmondwike. (The Press (1)

Public service Fightback!

*A case of the shovel calling the spade a nigger?

Land wanted . . . .

NIMBY

Many happy returns of the day . .

RRRRs

No such word as can't

I'm smoking a fag . . . .

Rethinking Earth.

F*cking Welsh!*

Something rotten in Islam?

No nukes?

For Zoe

What's working?

(Actually) Cider with Rosie

Happy christmas?

Review (sort of): The politics of fear: beyond left and right.

More thoughts on dancing . . . .

Lost in music.

Fourth plinth.

b b b b b but(t) . . . .

(Some thoughts on sex, dancing, porn and ladies.)

reading, 'riting and 'rithmetic - arse?

The end of the world is nigh?

The plot thickens?

Saving Charlotte Wyatt.

NIMBY#5 Housing for the future?

Money, money, money . . .

NIMBY#4. Go wild in the country.

NIMBY#3, Border dispute.

Some muthas do 'ave 'em.

Whose ideas?

NIMBY #2. My house*, !7 Industrial st.

Who do you think you are kidding . . . . ?

Nimby project #1 Working title: 'Einsturzende . . '

Fcking Welsh!