Free trade is as vital as aid (Guardian)

Oh, Michael. Michael, Michael, Michael. What is all this about? It’s a mess of an article. It’s difficult to read because of the. Very short. Sentences. That sound almost. Like legalese. You don’t want to appear to be playing politics with this tragedy, so you don’t criticise the government too harshly. You put forward this ridiculous idea of ‘twinning’ countries, suggesting it’s more logical for an individual country to help another individual country, rather than banding together to help many countries with similar problems. And then you finish it off with a flourish about the importance of the coming year. What’s it all about? What the heck are you trying to say?

I do not have the words to describe the feelings we all shared as we watched the dreadful pictures of the catastrophe that hit so many people in so many countries last week. The scale, the speed and the ferocity of the tsunami have been almost impossible to grasp.

It’s a nice sentiment. If I were you (which I’m thankfully not), I would’ve done a whole column of sympathy, highlighting the plight of the people affected by this tragedy. This might have helped a little in the fight to show you as a caring politician. Rather than Dracula. But you wander off…

The British people have recognised this and have given generously. And the British people have led the way in Britain’s aid effort, prompting the government to step up its contribution from the original sum of £1million first to £15m and now to £50m.

A bit of criticism, nothing too scathing. I’m not suggesting you could possibly do any more, and I would personally have suggested you didn’t bother with this little poke either. But you did. And we’re still afloat at the moment. But then you go temporarily insane.

Individual countries could be matched with some of those affected… Gap-year students could spend part of their free time helping in the work of reconstruction…

Without wanting to turn in to John McEnroe, ‘you cannot be serious’. No credible politician would suggest that when you have a number of countries needing nearly identical forms of aid, it is sensible to split the region up into small pieces, and for different countries to struggle alone in finding the aid needed. And what’s with the gap year student idea? Instead of responding with military assistance, you want to respond with an army of students? Get real.

This year, Britain has the presidency of both the G8 and the European Union.

Where did that come from? It’s very true, but it makes this look like a column that was written some time ago that’s been rejigged in response to this terrible tragedy. Which just makes you look cheap and uncaring.

2004 ended with great sadness, but Britain’s presidency of the G8 and the European Union offers a real opportunity in 2005. By reforming the way we deliver overseas aid, by promoting free enterprise and by encouraging freer, fairer trade, we can help lift millions of people out of poverty. Let us all make sure we do everything we can to use these opportunities to the full.

Nice sentiments, but, again, it looks very much like the first six words have been tacked on. Not least because it doesn’t fit in with the sentence structure you’ve used all the way through. That is, avoiding mid-sentence conjunctions like the plague. You like to separate ideas into difference sentences. You start paragraphs, not phrases, with ‘but’.

So, Mr Howard, if you insist on re-using your columns like this, please (at the very least) do it well.

£3,000 blow for trainee teachers (Guardian)

This is a rather silly idea. At a time when teacher recruitment is in crisis, the government is insisting on charging top-up fees to trainee teachers who have previously been exempt from fees altogether. And, apparently, they think that this won’t deter people. I can’t understand why the government are being so slow in this respect, especially with teacher training. I can imagine that alot of people do their primary degree, and then, unsure on what they want to do next, do a year of teacher-training since it is free and might come in handy. They then end up in the classroom, teaching kids. If you put a £3000 price tag on that extra year, then fewer people who are still ‘considering their options’ are likely to take that year: They’re far more likely to go out into the big bad commercial world and get a job, so that they have some money coming in and not a further £3000 going onto their student debt.

How does Labour MP who got a maintenance grant to see them through university (ie nearly all of them) can expect me to vote for them, now that they have not only removed the funding that supported them, but also introduced fees, and then increased fees?

I have been virtually netless for the past couple of weeks, so pity me. I’ve also developed a nasty habit of naturally typing the word ‘soon’ as ‘sooooooooooon’.

Driving up to Gateshead last weekend, I passed a sign for Consett, which obviously filled me with a warm LBSC glow.

I actually quite liked Oliver Letwin’s speech, if only because he was the only high-ranking politician from any of the parties this year (and in recent memory) to address Conference without simply reading from an autocue. Good for him. And his hand movements were hilarious.

It’s nice to know that Jack doesn’t have to get up early, considering that my lectures start at 9am most days, and 8am on some bad days. Having said that, this term should be very enjoyable, since it is popularly known as the ‘naughty’ term, alluding to the fact that we spend this term studying the ‘naughty bits’. So far, we’ve really been focusing on the breast. And I’ve seen someone with four nipples. How many people can say that? Apparently, it’s very common to have superfluous nipples.

I thought I was reasonably well informed on matters of male and female genitalia, but from the little we’ve done, I’ve already learned more than I expected. At the very least, it’ll be a fun term to revise in groups…

I meet my babies on Monday night, so that’ll be exciting. And the NTL man cometh on Wednesday to install t’interweb.

Till then, I bid you farewall…

Originally posted on The LBSC

I know that it’s probably poor timing to start ranting about the latest terrible events in Iraq already, but I think that this really needs to be said.

Almost all of the vox-pops and people I’ve spoken to have said that we shouldn’t negotiate with terrorists, even with these potential grim outcomes. That’s a very commendable sentiment, but completely irrelevant. The current situation should not ever have involved either Bush or Blair, let alone left them appearing to need to negotiate with terrorists.

The position of the Iraqi government is clear. They want to release the women in Iraqi prisons, so that the views of all of those Iraqis (and there are more than a few) who think that the imprisonment of women is wrong are represented. Indeed, they see all Iraqis as valid citizens, so that a government can be formed which represents the views of all Iraqis.

The spanner in the works that has directly led to the deaths of two US Citizens, and possibly one British citizen, is George W Bush. The two women are in US custody, supposedly on behalf of the Iraqi government. How sovereign can the Iraqi government be if their wishes are being ignored? Of course, George Bush doesn’t want to be accused of letting Saddam’s friends go. But, crucuially, it isn’t his call. It’s nothing to do with him, and I’m fairly sure that what he is doing breaks international law.

And Tony Blair is left in the middle. Well, actually, I’m not entirely sure of Tony’s stance, but it seems to me that Jack Straw is aware that this situation is incredibly injust, and it’s an arrogant US President that will effectively kill a British citizen.

This isn’t some kind of hidden story. It’s been played out in full on the ‘better’ TV News programmes, and in the broadsheets. But the country doesn’t seem to be getting the message, which suggests that the tabloid newspapers and programmes are over-simplifying the story. Lucky for Blair.

Tony Blair should publically call for President Bush to but out of Iraq’s affairs. But, of course, he would never do that, especially when it’s his good friend’s election year.

Not that Tony’s much better – and this bit’s purely my opinion, and if it’s complete bollocks then that’s my bad – but why has Mr Blair brought up the hunting debate now? Because it’s a very devisive issue, bound to cause protest at his Party Conference. So the news will be full of protestors who support fox-hunting – approximately half of the viewers will disagree with what these protesters are saying, and hence this won’t be nearly as damaging as if Mr Blair had been faced with hoardes of War in Iraq protestors – who would inevitably have grabbed the headlines has it not been for this policy suddenly making a reappearence – with whom the majority of the viewers would sympathise.

Well that’s all been thoroughly depressing. But I did like Charles Kennedy’s speech today. And I move into my new Stocktonite house next week. So it’s not all bad.

Originally posted on The LBSC

In response to Jack’s post… I do not support a ban on fox hunting. Predictable, I know, since I rarely support banning anything. Frankly, though, I haven’t heard a single logical argument for banning it. The fact that it’s apparently ‘cruel’ to foxes certainly doesn’t count as logical. If it’s cruel, then it is already illegal under the Cruelty to Animals Acts 1849 and 1854, not to mention the Martin Act 1822, and the bazillions of other Animal Cruelty Acts (famously passed long before the Cruelty to Children Act 1884 – useless trivia, all part of the Tilly O’Shea service).

It’s like Tony’s ludicrous brainwave of passing legislation to ban using a mobile while driving – it was already illegal, why complicate the matter by introducing another bill specifying that this in particular is illegal? Are we to pass another law to say that killing someone by poking them repeatedly with a fork is illegal, just in case our laws on murder aren’t clear? Unnecessary legislation does nothing but infringes on the freedom of the people.

Back to fox hunting… Whilst I would not want to put on boots for hunting and do it, and whilst I can see Jack’s point that “dressing it up as a sherry guzzling, red jacketed wankfest is wholly unnecessary”, I don’t see any good reason to ban it. If everything I didn’t particularly like was banned, then this country would be somewhat less than a utopian ideal.

Originally posted on The LBSC

I too am nervous about next Thursday – A-Level results day – as it’ll determine who my babies are! It’s beginning to dawn on me that referring to them as ‘babies’ is probably not the best strategy, so I should use their proper title. Except I don’t really know what it is.

To politics: Howard’s education policy – I quite like it. Clearly issues need resolving, but I don’t see why disruptive pupils should be allowed to hinder the life chances of more willing pupils? I, personally, would like to see the widespread reintroduction of streaming in state schools, with more vocational courses more widely available to those who want them. Howard’s expullsion plan clearly needs to have the extra support of an educational alternative.

Their health policy isn’t quite as good – offer a choice so that people flock to ‘popular’ hospitals, leaving less popular ones almost empty so that government figures can look good by reflecting minimum waiting times as the empty hospitals, and ignoring the overcrowding at popular ones: “If you need a hip replacement, under this government you need only wait ten days, whereas under Labour you had to wait six months”.

To the police, then: I think Jack will find that Labour have closed more local police stations in their seven years than the Conservatives ever did – including the two closest to my house (one of which is now a funeral directors, in the most obscure location). I’m now a good twenty, maybe twenty-five minutes away from my nearest police station. And, incidentally, a good hour away from the nearest A+E that accepts children. It’s not as if I live in the middle of nowhere, just in case you’re wondering.

I also note that Mr Blair wants the children of criminals tracked from an early age to prevent them from following in their parents footsteps. I think this policy is absolutely appalling – it assumes that the children of a criminal will have the same value system as their parents. This may be a statistical likelihood, but children should not be subject to increased stigma and ultimately distress by being treated differently like this. The parent may have been forced into criminal action by extenuating circumstances… whilst this certainly doesn’t justify the action, special treatment of their children is equally unacceptable.

The only thing Labour have got largely right it what they’re traditionally good at – support for low income families. Their policies on this front are largely admirable, certainly moreso than those of the Conservative party.

The Lottery argument is completely absurd. So stupid, in fact, that it doesn’t even deserve discussion. I still stick by my belief that the vast majority of criminals – perhaps all criminals – are not ‘bad people’, and so shouldn’t be treated as such. I’d like to see widespread reform of this country’s penal system, but that’s probably just my liberal ideals slipping through, and it certainly wouldn’t appeal to middle-England.

Anyway, I’m unhappily suffering with ‘flu at the moment. Given that it’s supposed to run for about seven to ten days, and I’ve been feeling half-dead for about a week now, I figured that I might start feeling better by today. No such luck. And I’m off to London tomorrow, so if you happen to be on the same plane as me, look forward to a period of ill health, because I’m not cancelling my trip for the benefit of the other passengers. I’m just not that generous. Hell, if they suffer badly they can have the blood I donated the other week (see, I’m really a nice person).

Until next time, I’m off to sniffle some more and find some LemSip.

Adios.

Originally posted on The LBSC

A trail starts on Monday of the proposed ID cards…but what do you think of them? I’m personally against them really, since I don’t think they will be of benefit. The arguments put forward for them are, generally…

Prevent illegal immigration
I can’t see how this can be the case. Why will an illegal immigrant find it any more difficult to ‘disappear’? They don’t have any identification documents at the moment, so why will not having a card hinder them? Unless, of course, we’re going to be forced to produce them at request, which is a dangerous route to take.

Prevent illegal working
Most employers who have illegal workers know that the workers are illegal. Besides which, we all have National Insurance numbers that can (and do) do this anyway.

Aid anti-terrorism measures
If I’m going to fly a jumbo into a towerblock, why will a plastic card stop me? The Spanish have identity cards, and they’ve suffered one of the worst terrorist attacks of modern times.

Tackle identity theft
This depends very much on how they are used, and if they are used as I suspect, as a single identity document in themselves, then stealing this card immediately opens you to identity theft. Biometric data is only useful for those who have readers, and photographs don’t prevent someone passing themselves off as someone else, as we see with stolen Passports every day.

Reduce benefit fraud and abuse of public services
We have a number of systems already in place to ensure that public services are only used by those entitled. If these were properly enforced, which would be a much cheaper option, then there would be no need for any new system (eg you are supposed to take your NHS Card each time you go to the doctors….Do you?)

Enhance sense of community
Tell me this is a joke. If I was racist, I would still be racist whether or not the other person had a card.

I do understand that they would be a handy form of ID, but that’s an argument against them. When you have to provide two forms of photo ID, it’s hard to find them, you have to go searching to dig out your passport and driving licence (or similar). If you have this card on you all the time, and your Driving Licence, then there’s two forms of photo ID that are stolen right off the bat if your bag is stolen.

The whole point of this ID process is that it’s difficult for the real person, and so almost impossible for a fraudster.

So why ask us all to pay £35 for a card that is pointless?

Originally posted on The LBSC

Blair, March 2003: “I have never put our justification for action as regime change.”

Blair, September 2003: “I can only go one way, I’ve not got a reverse gear”

Blair, March 2004: “We surely have a responsibility to act when a nation’s people are subjected to a regime such as Saddam’s”

Choice Quotes from the 2001 Manifesto:

• “We have a global responsibility to play our part in reducing international conflict”
• “Our armed forces are the best in the world at … keeping the peace where they can.”
• “We will not introduce ‘top-up’ fees and have legislated to prevent them.”
• “We will ensure that the [university] funding system continues to promote access and excellence.”
• “With Labour, by 2004 patients will be able to see a GP within 48 hours”
• “We will give every citizen a personal smartcard containing key medical data giving access to their medical records.”

Originally posted on The LBSC

The BBC made a mistake in broadcasting an inaccurate report, which was unfair to the government and eventually led to the death of Dr David Kelly. Consequently, the two most senior figures have resigned, and the BBC has been heavily criticised by Lord Hutton.

The Government made a mistake in interpreting intelligence material about Iraqi weapons, and huge numbers of Iraqi and British citizens were killed as a result – including Dr David Kelly, who publically spoke out about the infamous dossier. The two most senior figures are still occupying their posts, and the government has not been criticised by Hutton.

Fair?

Oh, and if you think the BBC’s bad, look at how Fox is reporting the story…Talk about hypocrisy, you really HAVE to see this…

The transcript:

My Word. Well, today the British Broadcasting Corporation was forced to pay up for its blatant anti-Americanism before and during the Iraq war – a frothing at the mouth anti-Americanism which was obsessive irrational and dishonest.

The BBC – the Beeb – was one of the worst offenders in the British press because it felt entitled to not only pillory America, Americans and George W Bush but felt entitled to lie and when caught lying felt entitled to defend its lying reporters and executives.

The incident involved the reporter Andrew Gilligan who made a fool of himself in Baghdad when the American invasion actually arrived in the Iraqi capital. Gilligan, pro-Iraqi and anti-American insisted on the air that the Iraqi military was heroically repulsing an incompetent American military. Video from our own Greg Kelly, of the American army moving through Baghdad at will put the lie to that.

After the war, back in London, Gilligan got a guy called David Kelly to tell him a few things about pre-war assessments about Iraqi weapons programmes and Gilligan exaggerated – lied – about what Kelly had told him.

Kelly committed suicide over the story and the BBC, far from blaming itself, insisted its reporter had the right to lie, exaggerate, because, well, the BBC knew the war was wrong and anything it could say to underscore that point had to be right. A British government investigation slammed the BBC today and a Beeb exec resigned today to show they got it – but they don’t. Next time you hear the BBC brag about how much superior the Brits are about delivering the news rather than Americans who wear flags in their lapels, remember it was the Beeb caught lying. My Word.

Originally posted on The LBSC

Fightbox – 7.30, BBC3, Daily
Is this the worst thing on TV in the history of the world? Quite possibly, but you should really watch it at least once in order that you see how bad it really is.

Teen Big Brother – 10pm, C4, Daily
I was invited to audition for this. I didn’t. I think I made the right decision.

BBC News 24
Could their CSO studio be less convincing? Why not be normal, and use a temp studio? Or even their second one?

IDS Row
If he spins this right, this could be hugely beneficial to the party – if he’s cleared of any wrongdoing, he could come out of it looking like the honest man standing up for his family and integrity. Of course, if it doesn’t go that way, he’s for the chop.

Cadavers
I’ve just had my first session with them. It’s not in any way freaky, and it didn’t smell horrible like everyone tells you it does. But that’s all I can say as they still count as patients and so are protected through confidentiality and general respectful agreements.

My Morning
I spent two hours this morning, requiring me to start at 9am, in a two-hour IT training session, which included this invaluable advice: “If you don’t want to print in colour, don’t use the colour printer”. Fortunately, the lecturer realised how pointless the exercise was, and didn’t bother that the majority of us spent the two hours on the internet, while he stood and told us how to drag and drop. Luckily, the remaining three sessions are optional (But I do have an hour tomorrow on how to use the library).
Little Britain, 9pm, BBC Three, Tuesdays
Fantastic, almost as good as the radio show

Sexism in Medicine
Regulations prevent two male medical students from doing family visits, during my Personal and Professional Development Family Project. You’re also not allowed to go alone. This means that I effectively have to have a female chaperone, whereas two females are allowed to go together (two lads are allowed together two, if there’s a girl with them). Also, male doctors doing intimate examinations of female patients are legally required to have a female chaperone. Female doctors with male patients are not required to have a chaperone. I think this is sexist, and it makes me want to cry.

Cheese and Wine
I’ve been invited to a Cheese and Wine evening – a MedSoc event. The invitation says that wine will be on sale, but the cheese is free. This made me laugh.

That’s all for now!

Originally posted on The LBSC