|
Current Thoughts
May 10th 2008  Yet another example of our (UK) uncivilised mentality in the Civil Service and in government. Mayra Cabrera came to the UK from the Philipines
to work as a nurse. That in itself is an indictment of the UK: not providing enough training for its own health care needs. Arnel Cabrera, her husband, joined her. The NHS, indeed the very hospital where Mayra worked "unlawfully killed" her
(the official verdict of a UK jury) by administering an epidural in her arm, rather than her spine, after giving birth. Arnel would like to stay in the UK. The Home Office however has refused to allow him to stay.So, the UK government via its health service arm, the NHS, kills a wife and then the UK government via the Home Office, gets rid of her grieving husband. The pretext is that Arnel had sent their son to be cared for in the Philipines whilst the inquest and his claim against the NHS were in progress. The Home Office therefore said "It is considered that [Mr Cabrera] has not established a family life with his son in the United Kingdom. As his son [Zachary] remains in the Philippines there are no insurmountable obstacles to his family life being continued overseas." Such a cold, mechanistic conclusion chills the blood. Do we employ robots at the Home Office?
May 5th 2008 The UN cannot deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza because there is no fuel. Fuel has been restricted and then cut off by Israel. The World Health Organisation (WHO) says that the number of Palestinians
being allowed to receive medical treatment in Israel has increased 50% between 2006 and 2007 - from 4,700 to 7,000, however, in the same period, the number of those refused medical treatment has increased from 10% of requests to 18.5% of requests.
What a ghoulish 'game' Israel is playing with people's lives in two vital areas, food and health. The violence from Hamas is wrong and cannot be defended but it stems from the reality that Gazans have few alternatives to violence. Israel calmly, deliberately and
callously continues a process of collective oppression and killings that has few modern parallels.
May 2nd 2008 Whilst I welcome scientific evidence on any subject, the conclusion that the natural cycle of the Gulf Stream may cancel out the process of global warming for a few
years is likely to be mis-used by those who do not believe the major scientific evidence that global warming is happening, humankind is a major cause and that the results could be catastrophic. It will certainly be seized upon by those powerful industry groups who
have a narrow, short term, selfish interest in continuing to sell products that accelerate the process of global warming.The underlying reality which gets missed is that we just do not know how the earth's climate system works. The 'natural' short term Gulf Stream cycle may not be happening: it may be the start of a more prolonged (ie centuries, if not millenia) shift, which has happened before, creating havoc with the global system. One result of such a shift would be to make North America and Europe uninhabitable. Poetic justice? There is a simple and wise strategy when we are doing something that we do not understand: either proceed very, very, cautiously, or stop and consider. Humanity is adopting neither of these strategies. If humanity survives and if there remains sufficient archeological evidence and if humanity is capable of deciphering such evidence, then the leaders and all those living between 1950 and 2050 will be condemned for their sins of commission amd for their sins of ommission.
Last Month
April 28th 2008 There were two articles in The Guardian on Saturday 26th. One, by Rabbi Jonathan Romain, in an article about faith schools, mentioned in the context of Passover
that we have to be watchful for new examples of breaches in freedom from persecution. Darfur, Rwanda and Tibet were mentioned. The West Bank and Gaza were not.By contrast, David Abrahams, a former treasurer of Labour Friends of Israel, writes positively of Jimmy Carter's dialogue with Hamas and indeed David Abrahams himself has clearly worked with all sides behind the scenes in the Middle East. He makes the point that all elected representatives have to be included in the peace process. I commend the latter writer and would wish the former be more aware of the oppression carried out in the name of his faith. Meanwhile, Israel rejects the proposals by Hamas for a truce and continues to blame Hamas for everything. "We hold Hamas responsible for anything that goes on inside Gaza and to all the strikes [ie Israeli air and tank strikes]." said Ehud Barak. Hamas, in one of the most densely populated areas in the world, are guilty of using civilian areas for their resistance. Four children under four years' old and their mother were killed today by a tank shell as they ate breakfast in their home. Presumably Ehud Barak blames Hamas for their deaths.
April 21st 2008 Everyone knows that to achieve peace in a conflict situation all parties who can influence the way forward need to be involved.
Yet Jimmy Carter, doing the the job that President Bush should be doing, is pilloried for talking with Hamas. Hamas is, like it or not, the elected representative body for the Palestinian people. The US is suppposed to
support democracy, but that depends upon the opinion of the US about those who other countries vote for. I deplore the tactics that Hamas uses but I deplore the tactics that Israel uses even more.
Whilst the US propoganda machine goes into overdrive about Hamas, Israel continues to announce the building of new houses in the West Bank - another hundred announced today - in flagrant violation of the agreed conditions of the peace process.
Israel also continues to increase its economic blockade/siege - call it what you will - of Gaza and continues to escalate the violence. Israel does not believe in the old 'eye for an eye' maxim.
Ten eyes for one eye, ten deaths for one death is the track record. No matter if the deaths are cameramen, children, whole families.If 'militants' in Tibet started to attack Chinese soldiers and civilians in Tibet and the adjacent provinces of China, would the US brand them 'terrorists'? I think not. Yet whatever ills the Chinese have visited upon Tibet - and they are many - the Tibetan people have rather less cause for violence than the Palestinians, who have been ethnically cleansed and subjected to violent oppression for decades. In the face of this the 'democratic' West is silent. It falls to private organisations, private citizens - inside Israel too, as well as outside - to enable the Palestinian case to be made. Including one former American president.
April 14th 2008 At a time when the first 'newsworthy' signs of food shortages causing disturbances in developing nations we read that biofuel must contribute 2.5% of petrol in the UK from tomorrow, rising to 5% by 2010.
So we are using land - expending anergy in its cultivation - in order to fuel our luxurious car-based lifestyle whilst the poorer nations go hungry.
In 2007, the Department of Agriculture in the Philippines was urging the country to grow sweet potato and cassava for biofuels. This week we read that the Philippines is calling for an Asian summit because of the high price of rice, for which the Philippines is the world's largest
importer. The Philippines is capable of growing rice. This is one example of how markets and the sheer economic power wielded by the West distorts national economies.Biofuels are not necessarily more carbon neutral than oil, indeed may be just as damaging to the atmosphere, but the main issue is that emissions need to reduce, car and aviation use must reduce. The world needs food above energy.
April 13th 2008 Yesterday I referred to laws passed in haste being bad laws. Right on cue we hear that Poole Borough Council has been using powers granted to it under the
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to put a three year old child under surveillance for two weeks to check if the child's parents were entitled to apply to a local school (and have admitted to 5 other instances). Some 600 organisations were granted powers under RIPA, which was enacted
primarily to regulate surveillance and communications interception for matters of national security and serious crime. However, the relevant section on surveillance says:(2) A person shall not grant an authorisation for the carrying out of directed surveillance unless he believes— (a) that the authorisation is necessary on grounds falling within subsection (3); and (b) that the authorised surveillance is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by carrying it out. (3) An authorisation is necessary on grounds falling within this subsection if it is necessary— (a) in the interests of national security; (b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder; (c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom; (d) in the interests of public safety; (e) for the purpose of protecting public health; (f) for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department; or (g) for any purpose (not falling within paragraphs (a) to (f)) which is specified for the purposes of this subsection by an order made by the Secretary of State. Clearly, Poole Borough Council acted under (3) (b) - preventing crime, (assuming that trying fraudulent means to get your child into a school of your choice is a crime - how far above parking tickets and below murder is that?) but can be deemed to have fallen foul of (2) (b) - proportionality. Because it is badly drafted, (no reference to the seriuousness of the alleged offence or intention to commit an offence) the Act enables no fewer than 600 organisations to carry out surveillance on people who are believed to be contemplating any criminal offence, subject to a subjective and debatable view on proportionality. So we in the UK can be spied upon by our local Town Hall for what? That we are suspected litter louts, so are followed around until we drop litter, or the local authority gumshoe gives up? That we are suspected of illegally using disabled parking spaces or using someone else's disc and said gumshoe is put on our tail? The Act is draconian enough - what constitutes (c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom - and of course the Secretary of State can authorise surveillance for any other purpose, conveniently not described or limited by the Act. Of course, the taxpayer in the form of the Council Tax, foots the bill for all this surveillance. Maybe the surveillance itself can be deemed to be against "the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom"? I hope the taxpayers of Poole let the local council know what they think of the use the council is making of their money.
April 11th 2008 The judgement in the High Court yesterday condemning the decision to halt the Serious Fraud Office's (SFO) investigation into the BAE arms deal with Saudi Arabia is
a welcome, but temporary assertion of the rule of law. Temporary because Lady Scotland, the present Attorney General, wants to add into the proposed constitutional reform bill powers to the Attorney General to direct the SFO to drop criminal investigations
on the basis of 'national security' or 'international relations'. In these circumstances, the BAE case and any others like it where a foreign government or member of the security services expresses displeasure, criminal cases could be dropped without any explanation, or even knowledge by
anyone other than the parties concerned. What a recipe for unaccountability, let alone corruption!The fundamental issue is quite clear and simple. Does the UK want to have a judiciary which is independent of the executive or not? If so, the Attorney General should not also be a Minister in the government. If the present arrangements continue and more powers added as proposed to the Attorney General's office, then criminal justice is not subject to the rule of law, as enacted, but to politically motivated decisions. This is directly in contravention of the aims of the Attorney General's Office: The Attorney General, assisted by the Solicitor General, is the chief legal adviser to the Government. They are responsible for ensuring the rule of law is upheld. (The first sentence on the Attorney General's website. It is in bold)) Maybe the web site should have a caveat entered after those fine words 'unless foreign governments get upset or they are worried about national security, in which case they set aside the rule of law'. Commentators make much of 'elected representatives ie Parliament, government, as against unelected judges', siding with some notion that the 'elected representatives' are in some way more accountable and that they in some mystical way discern the wishes of the public, whereas judges are inevitable 'fuddy duddy' and 'out of touch'. Well, the Attorney General is not elected/accountable. Judges should be above political pressure/considerations and to an extent, immune from day to day fashions, fears, panics. Good law takes time to create and be refined. We know to our cost how law created in haste and to match short term political considerations results in bad law. Who knows whether or not there was corruption in the BAE case. What we do know is that the rule of law was thrown aside for political considerations. It will be interesting to see how the American case involving Saudi Arabia proceeds. I criticise the US administration considerably, but I suspect that the US legal system is and will be rather more robust than that of the UK.
April 9th 2008 "I have pleasure in enclosing the final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle
TB (ISG). After nearly a decade’s work, I believe that the ISG has fulfilled its original
objective and can now provide you with a comprehensive picture of TB epidemiology
in cattle and badgers. Further research will doubtless improve the knowledge base, but
I believe that the work described in this Report will allow you to develop future policies
based on sound science.
The ISG’s work – most of which has already been published in peer-reviewed scientific
journals – has reached two key conclusions. First, while badgers are clearly a source of
cattle TB, careful evaluation of our own and others’ data indicates that badger culling can
make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain. Indeed, some policies under
consideration are likely to make matters worse rather than better. Second, weaknesses in
cattle testing regimes mean that cattle themselves contribute significantly to the persistence
and spread of disease in all areas where TB occurs, and in some parts of Britain are likely
to be the main source of infection. Scientific findings indicate that the rising incidence of
disease can be reversed, and geographical spread contained, by the rigid application of
cattle-based control measures alone.
Our Report provides advice on the need for Defra to develop disease control strategies, based
on scientific findings. Implementation of such strategies will require Defra to institute more
effective operational structures, and the farming and veterinary communities to accept the
scientific findings. If this can be achieved, the ISG is confident that the measures outlined
in this Report will greatly improve TB control in Britain."Thus the covering letter by the Independent Scientific Group, set up by the UK government to investigate the link betwenn badgers and bovine TB. The group spent 10 years conducting research and submitted its final report in June 2007. The study cost £34m and killed 12,000 badgers in randomised trials to establish what links there are between badgers and bovine TB. Again, from the above: "Scientific findings indicate that the rising incidence of disease can be reversed, and geographical spread contained, by the rigid application of cattle-based control measures alone." Also: The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in England (Defra)conducted trials (the Krebs trials), starting in 1998. Badgers were culled for five years, but the trials were halted in 2003 because the incidence of bovine TB increased. Bovine TB occurs on the Isle of Man. The Isle of Man has no badgers. Today we read: Welsh Rural Affairs Minister Elin Jones announced yesterday a three-year £27m programme to cull badgers in specific areas of Wales. In order to do what? Certainly it will not eradicate bovine TB. Certainly it will kill thousands of badgers. Also certainly it will prove nothing. In North Wales, and I suspect this is not unusual, cattle are only inspected every four years. The scientific evidence is against it. Common sense says that bovine TB in cattle must be controlled by measures involving cattle. I have found it difficult to get any information about bovine TB in Europe except that Germany, France, Scandinavia, Holland and Luxembourg are considered to to be free of bovine TB. Do we know how these countries achieved this? One further point. Bovine TB is called mycobacterium bovis. The vaccine BCG adminstered to children is mycobacterium bovis bacille Calmette Guerin, ie a live attenuated vaccine. Does the vaccine work on cattle? Apparently it can. In fact, there have been successful trials and the UK government plans to test the vaccine in the next 3 to 5 years, it was announced in July 2007. Spending to date on a vaccine is £18m. So, other countries do not have bovine TB, but we don't know why. The UK government plans to develop and introduce a vaccine in the next few years. Independent reports and experience show that culling wildlife does not work and that the living conditions for cattle - as for humans in the nineteenth century - significantly affect the rate of infection. Bovine TB occurs where there are no badgers. Wales is about to spend £27m killing badgers in one or more small areas of Wales. Welcome to the UK in the 21st century, a society supposedly based on rationality and scientific study. In fact a society run by politicians who obey various pressure groups, in this case the farmers.
April 8th 2008 It is depressing to write, to believe, but Zimbabwe seems fated to suffer further until Robert Mugabe dies - and then Zimbabwe will also suffer until stability returns in whatever form that takes.
The West can actually do little, apart from providing aid without conditions. Robert Mugabe's propaganda machine against so-called Western (ie white) interference is too effective for anything other than no-strings aid to be productive in terms of helping a process whereby Zimbabweans gain
the power to elect leaders of their choice. South Africa is the key to the solution but Thabo Mbeki says "I think there is time to wait, let's see the outcome of the election results." He must know full well that time grants Robert Mugabe the opportunity to regain power and probably by violent means too,
looking at the way the 'war veterans' have been encouraged to restart their campaign of intimidation. Election officials have already been arrested, charged with undercounting votes for Robert Mugabe. A few more instances of that and, hey presto, Zanu-PF won after all! That is the price of waiting patiently.
Is that what South Africa wants? If so, then South Africa is playing politics with peoples' lives. I doubt this, so Thabo Mbeki, having influenced events in favour of a fairer election, must come off the fence and publicly stand up for justice and fairness. It is time for the South African
President to embrace the role of elder statesman and put aside political calculations. Africa needs leaders who are wise, fair and who can change the culture across the continent and those wise and fair leaders have to assert their beliefs, loudly and clearly.
April 5th 2008 Whilst in principle the intention to provide much more aid to Zimbabwe is welcome, the conditional nature of the proposals is disturbing.
It appears that the IMF are insisting that exchange rate 'liberalisation' is a condition of aid. Such conditions have impoverished developing nations over the last two decades whilst enabling the multi-national corporations
and the financial gamblers based in the already wealthy nations to make more profits. Aid should generally be without strings and certainly should be in Zimbabwe, with the lowest life expectancy in the world bar none.
Even if Robert Mugabe steals another election, the UN should park aid lorries on the borders if necessary, drop food from the air. Anything to shame the leadership and provide some relief to his suffering people.
|
