If history has taught us anything then the only possible outcomes for Colonel Gaddafi in Libya will not make pleasant reading for him.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/201122641559301766.html
The longer he tries to hold on to power the worse he is going to make things for himself and despite the rhetoric he probably knows that himself but is to proud to give in and wants to down fighting like some kind of martyr. The problem is that he is killing his own people in the process, despite the official line which nobody believes: Libyans on the ground know what is happening and the rest of the World see a beleaguered leader resorting to any measure to fool others into thinking nothing is happening. Rumours last week that he had fled to Venezuela were unfounded but were probably the only chance he had of getting away with what he had done whilst sunning himself in South America, assets still intact. In such a scenario no one would have pursued him as it would look vindictive and the West don't want to appear to be interfering. Because of this fear he may still be able to sneak out the back door but with reduced foreign assets but the way things are playing out he is more likely to be overthrown and it remains to be seen whether he is killed in the process or arrested for War Crimes. The more he attacks his own people the more likely the former but if the UN get involved then that would make his arrest favourite although by then his supporters may have taken him into hiding.
Death, jail or on the run - not great prospects for a World leader but then that is the price he will have to pay for not listening to his people.
Saturday, 26 February 2011
Tuesday, 22 February 2011
Well of all the cheek! Prime Minister David Cameron today gave a speech to the National Assembly of Kuwait and he naturally commented on the demonstrations taking place around the Arab World. http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/speeches-and-transcripts/2011/02/prime-minister%e2%80%99s-speech-to-the-national-assembly-kuwait-60983
In the section headlined "Recent Developments" in the above transcript he describes the events as a "movement of the people" and:
So are we now to believe that he is in support of students demonstrating on the streets against a government who are denying them a fair start by e.g. introducing tuition fees of up to £9000. He then adds:
In the section headlined "Recent Developments" in the above transcript he describes the events as a "movement of the people" and:
This movement belongs to the frustrated Tunisian fruit seller who can’t take his product to market. And to the students in Cairo who can’t get a fair start, and the millions of Egyptians who live on $2 a day. In short, it belongs to the people who want to make something of their lives, and to have a voice.
So are we now to believe that he is in support of students demonstrating on the streets against a government who are denying them a fair start by e.g. introducing tuition fees of up to £9000. He then adds:
So whenever and wherever violence is used against peaceful demonstrators, we must not hesitate to condemn it.That was why he was quick to point out unruly student behaviour during the December protests like rattling a Royal but does not explain his reticence to speak out against the violence suffered by protesters like Alfie Meadows http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11967098 or for the police kettling tactics. Presumably he feels such demonstrations are only valid in non democratic countries and the citizens of this country should sit quietly every five years until we are kindly called upon to deliver our judgement. Unfortunately democracy is more than just voting and we as a people have the right to express our view, especially when confronted with policies that were not mentioned in the manifesto in the same year as the election took place. It is often mentioned that compromises need to be made as we have a Coalition government and no one won complete control but that makes it all the more important that we express our views as not one of the major parties produced a manifesto that pleased the majority of the public we are left with a government that picks and chooses its policies as it sees fit believing it has carte blanche to do as it pleases. It is therefore important that we let them know when we are not happy either through petitions or peaceful demonstration and they have a responsibility to listen.
Wednesday, 16 February 2011
Well congratulations to the local news team who have excelled themselves yet again. As I was quickly flicking through the channels earlier BBC Look North was on at the time and they were discussing Professor Robert Winston's visit to the area to open a new complex at the University of Sunderland. http://www.sunderland.ac.uk/newsevents/news/news/index.php?nid=1121
So far so mundane but in an interview with the TV scientist himself the caption came up with his name and underneath to describe who he was there was written "Really bright person". Was the producer debating what of the myriad possibilities they could use to describe him. Perhaps one of his current posts such as the Professor of Science and Society at Imperial College was considered, or maybe they thought that his TV work should be acknowledged and say he was the presenter of e.g. "The Human Body". Possibly they might have even thought to title him as a Labour peer but after racking their brains could not make up their minds and settled for "Really bright person" as this wasn't vague in the slightest and the jokey tone in no way patronises him or the people of the North for whom the visit of an intelligent person is news in itself. It almost says "Well done Sunderland University for this new science thingy, just as well as you've got a really intelligent person to open it for you - if you ask nicely he might explain what it's for".
So far so mundane but in an interview with the TV scientist himself the caption came up with his name and underneath to describe who he was there was written "Really bright person". Was the producer debating what of the myriad possibilities they could use to describe him. Perhaps one of his current posts such as the Professor of Science and Society at Imperial College was considered, or maybe they thought that his TV work should be acknowledged and say he was the presenter of e.g. "The Human Body". Possibly they might have even thought to title him as a Labour peer but after racking their brains could not make up their minds and settled for "Really bright person" as this wasn't vague in the slightest and the jokey tone in no way patronises him or the people of the North for whom the visit of an intelligent person is news in itself. It almost says "Well done Sunderland University for this new science thingy, just as well as you've got a really intelligent person to open it for you - if you ask nicely he might explain what it's for".
Tuesday, 15 February 2011
The speed of change taking place in the Arab world at the moment is reminiscent of the end of communism which saw a number of Eastern Bloc leaders relaxing their totalitarian stances and replacing their leaders in 1989. Fom Solidarity being legalized in April to the fall of the Berlin Wall in November and ultimately to Ceausescu's execution in December once the people saw what was possible with organized protests their neighbours took heart and followed suit. So far this pattern is all too familiar with demonstrations in Tunisia and Egypt forcing out Ben Ali and Mubarek respectively and people now taking to the streets in Yemen, Bahrain, Iran and Algeria.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/2011215101053354193.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12463600
It is still early days yet and we have the rather strange sight of people overthrowing a politician and replacing him with the military in Egypt as no strong opposition was allowed but hopefully elections later in the year give people time to organize. Oddly enough the countries currently facing demonstrators have not reacted too well as they see which way the tide is turning with Iran in particular being heavy handed and now calling for opposition leaders to be executed. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/02/15/uk-iran-opposition-mps-idUKTRE71E1N620110215
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2011/feb/15/iran-opposition-protests-tehran-video
Ironically Iran 's leaders were praising the popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt but are not so keen on the one taking place in their own country and are quick to blame opposition leaders and make claims that such protests are exactly what their dreaded enemies in the West, with the US and Israel coming in for especial criticism for a change, whilst ignoring the obvious fact that the thousands of people on the street don't seem to agree. For a long time leaders in the Middle East have claimed, with a certain amount of justification, that Western style democracy was not suitable for them and there was no appetite for it amongst their people so pressure from Western governments to introduce it was only fomenting resentment. The people are speaking now and whilst they may not want what the West wants they have made it clear that they do not want what they have at present either and denying them their voice now is hypocrisy just because you don't like what their saying.
Reassuringly even after strong arm tactics from the authorities against the protesters they are continuing to come out and demonstrate, no doubt buoyed by recent events elsewhere and confident in their numbers. How long and determined they are in each country remains to be seen but having seeing change in other states they are not going to give up easily and the stronger the government attack them the more it may spur them on as the fear of reprisals would be a genuine concern knowing what the authorities are capable of.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/2011215101053354193.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12463600
It is still early days yet and we have the rather strange sight of people overthrowing a politician and replacing him with the military in Egypt as no strong opposition was allowed but hopefully elections later in the year give people time to organize. Oddly enough the countries currently facing demonstrators have not reacted too well as they see which way the tide is turning with Iran in particular being heavy handed and now calling for opposition leaders to be executed. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/02/15/uk-iran-opposition-mps-idUKTRE71E1N620110215
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2011/feb/15/iran-opposition-protests-tehran-video
Ironically Iran 's leaders were praising the popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt but are not so keen on the one taking place in their own country and are quick to blame opposition leaders and make claims that such protests are exactly what their dreaded enemies in the West, with the US and Israel coming in for especial criticism for a change, whilst ignoring the obvious fact that the thousands of people on the street don't seem to agree. For a long time leaders in the Middle East have claimed, with a certain amount of justification, that Western style democracy was not suitable for them and there was no appetite for it amongst their people so pressure from Western governments to introduce it was only fomenting resentment. The people are speaking now and whilst they may not want what the West wants they have made it clear that they do not want what they have at present either and denying them their voice now is hypocrisy just because you don't like what their saying.
Reassuringly even after strong arm tactics from the authorities against the protesters they are continuing to come out and demonstrate, no doubt buoyed by recent events elsewhere and confident in their numbers. How long and determined they are in each country remains to be seen but having seeing change in other states they are not going to give up easily and the stronger the government attack them the more it may spur them on as the fear of reprisals would be a genuine concern knowing what the authorities are capable of.
Saturday, 12 February 2011
This is really petty and I know others have complained previously but the BBC in depth weather map seems to be very biased to the South. Only being able to find the overview on their website I include this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzOGt-NlfLE
The south west seems particularly represented by towns with St. Ives, Newquay, Barnstaple, Falmouth, Plymouth, Taunton and Exeter all highlighted with 25 to 45 miles seperating many of these towns and cities. The area to the west of London appears to be well marked as High Wycombe, Basingstoke and Luton are all identified but in the north east the nearest town to Newcastle is over 60 miles away on the other side of the country in Carlisle and after that you have to go 90 miles out to reach Leeds and Scarborough. East Anglia curiously has King's Lynn, Cambridge, Ipswich and Colchester with the latter two only 19 miles apart yet does not mention Norwich. That, I think, is my main point: the selection of the towns seems quite random with no thought of having an approximate equidistance between them so that most areas have an urban centre to identify with or even just listing the most prominent major conurbations in terms of size or history. Aside from Norwich a number of other towns or cities have been omitted including Sheffield, York, Durham, Middlesbrough, Reading and Oxford. I appreciate that there is a limited amount of space but it is a bit southern heavy when the idea of putting them on is to see somewhere close to you to get a better gist of the weather in your area in which case why do Devon and Cornwall have three towns each wrote on the map but the entire north east only has Newcastle to get its bearings.
I am fully aware of the slight tongue in cheek chip I have but it is not the only instance of the BBC (as much as I love the institution) not paying as much regard to the north. The fact that any news story that happened down south saw a report being filed by the relevant specialist correspondent had a similar story being filed by the"North of England Reporter". For instance if a school closed in Devizes then the Education Correspondent would provide the details, but if the school was in Sunderland then the North of England Reporter would get the gig. Similarly a stabbing in Margate would see the Crime Correspondent rush to the seen whereas the overworked North of England reporter would be clocking up the Green Shield stamps if a similar incident was reported in Manchester.
Whilst a certain degree of metrocentricity is unavoidable it would be nice if the occasional non patronising acknowledgement that there is life outside the capital took place now and again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzOGt-NlfLE
The south west seems particularly represented by towns with St. Ives, Newquay, Barnstaple, Falmouth, Plymouth, Taunton and Exeter all highlighted with 25 to 45 miles seperating many of these towns and cities. The area to the west of London appears to be well marked as High Wycombe, Basingstoke and Luton are all identified but in the north east the nearest town to Newcastle is over 60 miles away on the other side of the country in Carlisle and after that you have to go 90 miles out to reach Leeds and Scarborough. East Anglia curiously has King's Lynn, Cambridge, Ipswich and Colchester with the latter two only 19 miles apart yet does not mention Norwich. That, I think, is my main point: the selection of the towns seems quite random with no thought of having an approximate equidistance between them so that most areas have an urban centre to identify with or even just listing the most prominent major conurbations in terms of size or history. Aside from Norwich a number of other towns or cities have been omitted including Sheffield, York, Durham, Middlesbrough, Reading and Oxford. I appreciate that there is a limited amount of space but it is a bit southern heavy when the idea of putting them on is to see somewhere close to you to get a better gist of the weather in your area in which case why do Devon and Cornwall have three towns each wrote on the map but the entire north east only has Newcastle to get its bearings.
I am fully aware of the slight tongue in cheek chip I have but it is not the only instance of the BBC (as much as I love the institution) not paying as much regard to the north. The fact that any news story that happened down south saw a report being filed by the relevant specialist correspondent had a similar story being filed by the"North of England Reporter". For instance if a school closed in Devizes then the Education Correspondent would provide the details, but if the school was in Sunderland then the North of England Reporter would get the gig. Similarly a stabbing in Margate would see the Crime Correspondent rush to the seen whereas the overworked North of England reporter would be clocking up the Green Shield stamps if a similar incident was reported in Manchester.
Whilst a certain degree of metrocentricity is unavoidable it would be nice if the occasional non patronising acknowledgement that there is life outside the capital took place now and again.
Tuesday, 8 February 2011
A report for BBC Five Live has found that mephedrone is still freely available with some people able to buy it over the internet one year after it was banned. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12389321
Is this really so surprising? The majority of the suppliers are the drug dealers already trading in other illegal drugs but a bit of hunting around on forums can apparently allow you access to buy it online. This is not the fault of the internet, which many of these investigations seem to forget, it is only the market place and it is upto the authorities to police it better. There are many unsavoury things potentially at the end of a mouse click but actual criminal activity is generally hidden away, although foreign websites can add to the problem. Yet again with the latter, if a product is being sold legally in one country to another where it is banned then it still needs importing where it can be withheld if the authorities are aware of the transaction.
Underlying all this is that the knee jerk reaction to ban this chemical before all the test data on it has proved ineffective. Those who wish to take it can still access it but now it is likely to be more harmful as it gets cut with anything by the dealers. Some people would have been put off from using it but they have probably moved onto the next compound that will be marketed as a legal high until legislation catches up with that as well. Others may well have been attracted by something that they were initially wary of using until it was given Class B status when they may have thought that bracketing it with cannabis might mean it wasn't that dangerous after all.
There are no easy solutions to drug policy but to say everything is dangerous don't touch will never work as long as people continue to take them and personally enjoy them without a bad experience. Labelling new compounds as drugs raises awareness and those so inclined will be curious to experience this new high. Perhaps if they were called poisons people would think twice but then as long as they are prepared to lick toads, smoke banana peel or whatever urban myths are doing the rounds at the time then probably not. The tragic cases of people dying when using drugs are relatively rare and users no this. They know heroin is dangerous and cannabis is comparatively safe and choose what they feel comfortable with for social purposes. Telling them that all drugs are bad gets no where as they won't change their lifestyle but a proper debate as to where these new chemicals fit in the scheme would be far more helpful than simply banning them with flimsy evidence.
Is this really so surprising? The majority of the suppliers are the drug dealers already trading in other illegal drugs but a bit of hunting around on forums can apparently allow you access to buy it online. This is not the fault of the internet, which many of these investigations seem to forget, it is only the market place and it is upto the authorities to police it better. There are many unsavoury things potentially at the end of a mouse click but actual criminal activity is generally hidden away, although foreign websites can add to the problem. Yet again with the latter, if a product is being sold legally in one country to another where it is banned then it still needs importing where it can be withheld if the authorities are aware of the transaction.
Underlying all this is that the knee jerk reaction to ban this chemical before all the test data on it has proved ineffective. Those who wish to take it can still access it but now it is likely to be more harmful as it gets cut with anything by the dealers. Some people would have been put off from using it but they have probably moved onto the next compound that will be marketed as a legal high until legislation catches up with that as well. Others may well have been attracted by something that they were initially wary of using until it was given Class B status when they may have thought that bracketing it with cannabis might mean it wasn't that dangerous after all.
There are no easy solutions to drug policy but to say everything is dangerous don't touch will never work as long as people continue to take them and personally enjoy them without a bad experience. Labelling new compounds as drugs raises awareness and those so inclined will be curious to experience this new high. Perhaps if they were called poisons people would think twice but then as long as they are prepared to lick toads, smoke banana peel or whatever urban myths are doing the rounds at the time then probably not. The tragic cases of people dying when using drugs are relatively rare and users no this. They know heroin is dangerous and cannabis is comparatively safe and choose what they feel comfortable with for social purposes. Telling them that all drugs are bad gets no where as they won't change their lifestyle but a proper debate as to where these new chemicals fit in the scheme would be far more helpful than simply banning them with flimsy evidence.
Monday, 7 February 2011
In an astonishing fit of pique the think tank The Policy Exchange has claimed we should cut ties with the European Court of Human Rights because they are starting to dictate policy and they are obviously not keen on votes for prisoners. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12338931
Whilst being interviewed their representative, Neil O'Brien, listed the various pros he could think of for such a move before stating that the only con was that it may mean withdrawing from the European Union but felt that this was unlikely. Seriously this is the only negative you could think of that such a drastic measure would have. How about eroding the human rights of every citizen of this country who would no longer have a higher court to appeal to once the established courts in this land had refused an appeal. The Strasbourg court have made a number of landmark decisions against the UK where the highest court in Britain was overturned. In Soering v UK (1989) the extradition of a German student to the US was prevented by the European Court as he possibly faced the death penalty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soering_v_United_Kingdom
http://www.law-essays-uk.com/resources/revision-area/immigration-law/cases/soering-vs-united-kingdom.php
Also in the case of Ireland v UK (1978) the UK was found guilty of inhumane treatment of prisoners after adopting the five techniques in Northern Ireland including sleep deprivation.
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-human-rights-act/the-convention-rights/article-3-prohibition-on-torture.html
That is why a European wide court is necessary to keep national governments in check. You might not agree with all the decisions that are pronounced but they are not there to be popular similarly to most national laws and you can not pick and choose those that you don't like. I might declare that the law on theft was too autocratic and that I wished to opt out and follow my own moral code but as a member of society I must respect the rights of others within that society much as this nation must also respect the rights of other nations in the European Union (and everyone else).
Incidentally how are these think tanks still existing? At a time when quangos are getting chopped down all over I would have thought paying a non governmental organization for policy advice when you have ministers for that sort of thing would come near the top of the waste pile rather than The Health Protection Agency or The UK Film Council.
Whilst being interviewed their representative, Neil O'Brien, listed the various pros he could think of for such a move before stating that the only con was that it may mean withdrawing from the European Union but felt that this was unlikely. Seriously this is the only negative you could think of that such a drastic measure would have. How about eroding the human rights of every citizen of this country who would no longer have a higher court to appeal to once the established courts in this land had refused an appeal. The Strasbourg court have made a number of landmark decisions against the UK where the highest court in Britain was overturned. In Soering v UK (1989) the extradition of a German student to the US was prevented by the European Court as he possibly faced the death penalty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soering_v_United_Kingdom
http://www.law-essays-uk.com/resources/revision-area/immigration-law/cases/soering-vs-united-kingdom.php
Also in the case of Ireland v UK (1978) the UK was found guilty of inhumane treatment of prisoners after adopting the five techniques in Northern Ireland including sleep deprivation.
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-human-rights-act/the-convention-rights/article-3-prohibition-on-torture.html
That is why a European wide court is necessary to keep national governments in check. You might not agree with all the decisions that are pronounced but they are not there to be popular similarly to most national laws and you can not pick and choose those that you don't like. I might declare that the law on theft was too autocratic and that I wished to opt out and follow my own moral code but as a member of society I must respect the rights of others within that society much as this nation must also respect the rights of other nations in the European Union (and everyone else).
Incidentally how are these think tanks still existing? At a time when quangos are getting chopped down all over I would have thought paying a non governmental organization for policy advice when you have ministers for that sort of thing would come near the top of the waste pile rather than The Health Protection Agency or The UK Film Council.
Thursday, 3 February 2011
Aside from the unpleasant views expressed by the EDL representative on Newsnight last night his argument showed a lack of logic which he failed to comprehend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeD5maZmAXg&feature=related
During his interview with Jeremy Paxman he started asking him whether he knew of any Muslims who had commented various crimes from drug dealing, paedophilia and murder before answering each question himself "You probably don't, but I do". His admission that others probably don't know of such criminal activity aside from himself and his prejudices highlights that such cases are very rare and that he has been very unlucky in his dealings with the Asian population or he's a bigot. The latter is the more likely especially given his brushing aside of Paxman's response to his claim of being worried by the presence of Muslims when Paxman said that people would be worried by his group claiming that they had a righteous cause. Just because you think you're right does not mean you are.
**************************
This morning the Conservative MP for Sevenoaks was defending the Governments decision to sell of forests and before long he got round to the "Big Society" and how local people would do a better job of running their local forests than the Forestry Commission can which has been losing money in that cut-throat economic cauldron of looking after some trees. This would be the MP Michael Fallon who is so keen on local issues that he used to represent us in Darlington (despite being born in Scotland) http://www.michaelfallon.org.uk/?page_id=1171 before losing his seat to Alan Milburn in 1992. Did he bravely stand by the people who had elected him since 1983 and continue to take an active role in local politics until the chance to win the seat back in the subsequent election in 1997 presented itself? I think you know the answer already. Instead he opted to be parachuted into the safe Tory seat of Sevenoaks which he has held since 1997. A hypocritical politician, whatever next?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeD5maZmAXg&feature=related
During his interview with Jeremy Paxman he started asking him whether he knew of any Muslims who had commented various crimes from drug dealing, paedophilia and murder before answering each question himself "You probably don't, but I do". His admission that others probably don't know of such criminal activity aside from himself and his prejudices highlights that such cases are very rare and that he has been very unlucky in his dealings with the Asian population or he's a bigot. The latter is the more likely especially given his brushing aside of Paxman's response to his claim of being worried by the presence of Muslims when Paxman said that people would be worried by his group claiming that they had a righteous cause. Just because you think you're right does not mean you are.
**************************
This morning the Conservative MP for Sevenoaks was defending the Governments decision to sell of forests and before long he got round to the "Big Society" and how local people would do a better job of running their local forests than the Forestry Commission can which has been losing money in that cut-throat economic cauldron of looking after some trees. This would be the MP Michael Fallon who is so keen on local issues that he used to represent us in Darlington (despite being born in Scotland) http://www.michaelfallon.org.uk/?page_id=1171 before losing his seat to Alan Milburn in 1992. Did he bravely stand by the people who had elected him since 1983 and continue to take an active role in local politics until the chance to win the seat back in the subsequent election in 1997 presented itself? I think you know the answer already. Instead he opted to be parachuted into the safe Tory seat of Sevenoaks which he has held since 1997. A hypocritical politician, whatever next?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)