|
Current Thoughts February 6th 2012  There is so much hypocrisy in the reaction of the US to Russia and China's veto of the UN Security Council's
resolution on Syria. The complaint that it gives the Syrian regime clear scope for further oppression has a hollow ring when we consider how much licence the US through persistent vetoes of
similar UN Security Council resolutions has given Israel to continue her oppressive and murderous actions.A year or so ago I was in Syria. I ate street food in Homs. I had a brief encounter with the secret police in Damascus. In Hama the damage from the 1982 massacre (thirty years ago to the month) is still only too visible. The people of Syria deserve support. It is difficult to see how to achieve this without violence, especially with the Russion/Chinese vetoes. The international community needs to strain every sinew to find a non-violent solution.
February 4th 2012 It is generally acknowedged that those senior executives in the banking business are grossly overpaid. The
general excuse for this is that such money is needed to attract the "best", or even to attract anyone to do such a thankless job:"He is doing one of the hardest jobs in the world. He is being paid at the low end of the range. I think and hope he will continue to see it through." (RBS chairman Sir Philip Hampton (note the "Sir") on Stephen Hester, who was effectively forced to forgo his £963,000 bonus. So, let us see examples of the thinking of Stephen Hester's boss. The row over the bonus surprised him. This can only be explained by such a saturation in the rarefied world of banking that the standards and experience of non-bankers is simply not noticed or thought worthy of notice. No-one else was surprised at the public's reaction. "Pay has been high for too long ...... particularly in the investment banks," he also said. "That needs to be corrected. It actually isn't a society or fairness issue, it's a straightforward business issue. Too much of the money has not been going to the right place." Note he refuses to address the fairness issue, merely that the revenue from gambling with other peoples' money should be split more evenly between the executives and the shareholders. Yet at the same time he believes no-one would take a senior job in banking at the same rate of pay as the Governor of the Bank of England, who struggles along with £305,000 a year, with no bonuses. That is more than twice the rate we pay our Prime Minister. Meanwhile Spain is capping the salaries at bailed out banks to £500,000 with no bonuses.
Last Month
January 27th 2012 There is much talk of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East if Iran develops a nuclear weapon. It will never
happen, but one simple way of preventing such a race is for Israel to give up her nuclear arsenal in exchange for a similar committment by Iran and comprehensive inspections across Iran to ensure
compliance with her promise. Better than war. Better than threats and sanctions.
The double standards concerning private and public pay continue. I strongly oppose the high pay in both sectors,
but the assertion that it is OK for the head of a private company to be paid millions per year but not OK to pay at a similar level the head of a public organisation just as large and complex is just
illogical. If the jobs warrant such grotesque salaries, which I dispute, then parity of pay is the only logical and fair principle.
January 21st 2012 Chinese investment in Thames Water (my water company is already owned by a Singapore company) is hailed as
good for Britain. Meanwhile people on benefits are to have them stopped or reduced to force them off "dependency." Would the Tories like to explain how it is bad for individuals to be dependent
on outside finance but OK for the UK economy? Dependence is dependence and the UK semms unable to generate enough of its own income to run essentila services. You don't get more essential than water.
January 14th 2012 There was an example on the BBC today which shows how our civilised values are silently slipping away. In an
interview a scientist was being asked whether or not the murder of an Iranian scientist was ethical or not. The issue appeared to centre on the ethics of working on "unethical" projects. In this case
working on the Iranian nuclear programme, itself being considered unethical, may be seen to justify murdering those taking part in it. What was completely missing was any consideration that such
murders are unacceptable, irrespective of whether activity is unethical or not. There has crept in, unnoticed by many, that it is OK to kill someone because you disapprove of their actions. The West
appears to be blind to the obvious logic that, if it's OK to kill, say, members of the Taliban, Palestinian militants, Iranian scientists, especially the leaders of such groups, then it must follow that it is OK for Islamic militants to
kill Americans occupied with military programmes, up to and including the President of the United States. Anything else is hypocrisy and double standards. It has of course until recently been accepted
that all such murders are unethical and uncivilised.
|
