
|
Current Thoughts
May 10th 2008 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
May 2nd 2008 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 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 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 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 (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 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 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
April 5th 2008
|