The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
[HL Mencken]
Somehow this has a worry ring of veracity in these trying times.
H/T Julian Allason
Aarrrgggghhhhh!!!!!!
It’s flaming clock change day again!
I get really fed up with continually changing the clocks … forward an hour … backward an hour … forward an hour … ad nauseam.
Why? It isn’t necessary. It isn’t as if are at war now. And the myth that summer time saves lives has been exploded as just that: a myth. All it does is create an irritation and cost industry money. FFS why can’t we stay on GMT. We need to start a campaign:
Bystander, over at The Magistrate’s Blog, has posted the list of our human rights, as promulgated in the European Convention on Human Rights and enacted in the UK via the Human Rights Act 1998. This list is:
Nothing there which one can reasonably object to, of course. Although all these rights (with the exception of torture) are not absolutes and can be overridden by the authorities, eg. in order to arrest a suspect.
The one which stood out to me reading this was
the right not to be punished for something that wasn’t a crime when you did it
I am not a lawyer but this seems to me to negate the whole of the MPs’ expenses fiasco. What MP’s have done was (mostly) not forbidden when they did it. That doesn’t say the rules, and therefore what was done, were right, only that the rules allowed what was done. It is only now that what the MPs did is being made forbidden, retrospectively. That seems contrary to the above right.
Is that alone not grounds for a judicial review? And what is anyone therefore complaining at the MPs for?
Remember that anything not explicitly forbidden by the rules (or legal precedent) is permitted. And if something is permitted, someone will (quite legally) take advantage of it, even if that was not your intent when making the rules.
You can try arguing, as the Daily Mail no doubt will, that the MPs “should have known better”. But really this doesn’t hold water. Why should MPs be any more (or less) moral than the rest of us? They were taking advantage of the rules in good faith (even if perhaps somewhat cynically) in the quite reasonable belief that they would (could) not be changed retrospectively. We all do exactly the same every day of our lives. For example: the law allows me today to drive at 50mph along the A40; in doing so I have a reasonable expectation that I will not be prosecuted for my action today, after the limit is lowered to 40mph tomorrow.
Yes, by all means campaign for the rules on MPs’ expenses, or indeed anything else, to be changed. But don’t vilify someone for adhering to those rules just because you (retrospectively) decide you don’t like them. At worst this violates that great institution “natural justice” and at best it is contrary to our legally enshrined human rights. Perhaps the tabloid press should be prosecuted under the Human Rights Act 1998?
PS. Note that I am not saying whether I agree or disagree with the rules on MPs’ expenses. My personal opinion is of no importance here as I am making a purely logical point about my understanding of our legally enshrined human rights.
This week’s Flickr meme is about sport.
1. Your favourite sport. Cricket — really good club cricket; I’ve given up on professional cricket: not only has it been dumbed down the idiots running the game seem totally inept
2. Your least favourite sport. Darts; the only place it belongs, if anywhere, is in the pub
3. A sport you use to play as a kid. Cricket was my first love, followed by hockey
4. A sport you like to watch. Rugby; I hated playing rugby at school, but always enjoyed watching it
5. The most stupid sport. Netball; how stupid is a game where you have to stop when someone is holding the ball?
6. A sport you wish you could play. Squash, although I’d settle for almost anything now my knees have given up; I used to play a lot of squash as a student, not that I was ever any good!
As always the photographs are not mine so please click on individual links below to see each artist/photostream. This mosaic is for a group called My Meme, where each week there is a different theme and normally 12 questions to send you out on a hunt to discover photos to fit your meme. It gives you a chance to see and admire other great photographers’ work out there on Flickr.
1. Village Cricket, 2. 127/365: Dart board, 3. The Fever named Cricket!, 4. Mini Rugby Tournament Cooke Rugby Club – 4th April 2009, 5. neilhodgins_volley_netball-18, 6. squash
Created with fd’s Flickr Toys
So our pathetic government is planning to sell off even more of the family silver. Well they would; they’re desperate for more money and anything they can do to make the state of our finances look healthier before a General Election. The proposals, which will actually raise at best a drop in the ocean national debt, include the sale of:
Eurotunnel. Yeah, great idea. Let the French, Spanish, Libyans or Saudis buy it. So we have no control at all of who can enter the country. We need more (illegal) immigrants.
Student Loan Book. Another great idea! Let’s package up all this bad debt and sell it off to someone else. Hold on … isn’t this where we came in??
And when should we sell these assets? Oh let’s choose to do it at the bottom for the market!
Talk about the blind leading the inept! They just do not get it do they?
First of all apologies for the non-existence of postings for most of the last 3-4 weeks. Yes, you guessed we’ve been away and have struggled with the quantity of the work fore-log and post-log.
Almost 3 weeks in Washington, DC – partly at the 5th Biennial Anthony Powell Conference – was certainly different. I liked Washington; I didn’t expect to. Apart from a couple of areas of high-rise office blocks it is a small and fairly human-scale city: most of the official buildings of the US government are 100+ years old, so usually only 4 or so (substantial) floors and built of light coloured stone. The public monuments are, as befits America, monumental. The streets are wide, often tree-lined, light and airy with an almost continental feel. The White House is a lot smaller than I expected and, err, white; you can stand at the railings in full view of, and not many yards from, the building and protest – unlike in paranoid London. Georgetown is full of very pretty late 18th century houses (a bit like the best parts of Chiswick, Kew or Richmond), but it is expensive!
The food was excellent, especially recommended are Papa Razzi and Mr Smith’s. The beer was cold. The weather was hot – we didn’t have a day under 75F – and humid but mostly dry. American service was not everything it is cracked up to be: the 50% of the time it was good it was excellent; when it wasn’t the customer care was equally as bad as anything you’ll find in Britain. And contrary to expectations, and warnings, the airport staff (immigration, security and customs) were polite and friendly – although immigration on the way in through Dulles Airport did take 90 minutes even at a quiet time, thanks to too few checkpoints open and a plane-load of Far Eastern tourists with large complex family structures in front of us in the queue. The taxis were friendly, efficient and much cheaper than in the UK; the metered cabs were 40% cheaper than I pay for a minicab in outer London, which makes them half the cost of London black cabs.
We even got taken to Colonial Williamsburg (thanks Alden!) which is rather delightful: interesting and a lot less Disney-esque than I expected; it isn’t cheap though, but then it is a theme park of sorts. It was a bit too hot and humid for comfort though – but a good excuse for some extra traditional cider! But why does an historic attraction like Colonial Williamsburg need not one, but two, 18-hole golf courses? It beats me!
All in all a good time was had. The flights were fun, out over the spectacular fjords of Labrador and back over night. Photos to follow on Flickr when I get some time to sort out the decent from the dross.
This is the headline on a BBC News item this morning.
The [UK] government is to pay for graduates struggling to get a job to go on trips abroad […] It will pay for 500 young people under the age of 24 to travel to places such as Costa Rica and India to take part in projects such as building schools […] A government spokesman said he would not go into details about funding ahead of the launch.
OK this keeps them off the unemployed register. However, I have just one question. With what are the government going to pay for this? Cork buttons and rubber cheques?
Sounds to me like another NuLaba initiative which will turn out to be just empty promises. Let’s hope so anyway; the country can’t afford to pay kids to go jollying round the world.
There’s a wonderful article over on the BBC News site. Well the article isn’t actually wonderful, it’s pretty hack, formulaic BBC journalism about a TV show. It is the idea, intelligence, thoughtfulness and guts behind the programme which is wonderful.
The programme was on BBC3 last evening and follows a couple of teenage girls and their mums as they visit various people in UK and Netherlands so the girls can discover for themselves about whether they’re ready to lose their virginity. Clearly this had to involve a lot of very open discussion between the girls and the people they met (including a group of teenage boys who were asked some pointed questions by the girls) and between the girls and their mums. From reading the item (sadly I missed the programme) clearly the mums were struggling to cope – but cope they did and I get the impression everyone came out of it much stronger and better balanced.
But why does it need a TV programme to get people to do this? OK so not everyone will take on for themselves a 2000 mile journey. But everyone has a surprising number of local resources to draw on: parents, teachers, doctors, health workers, not to mention their friends, peers and relations. Why can’t people talk about these things? Openly? I just don’t get it. Everyone (almost) has sex in some form or another at some time. Sex is an important part of life so why not admit it and be open about it? Reading and writing are important in life and we get taught those at a very tender age, and hone our skills over many years – some more than others, but everyone improves and learns. So why not sexuality?
Hopefully this programme will be repeated, and repeated, and repeated. And used by schools. And parents everywhere. Maybe, just maybe, it will start the revolution in (most people’s) thinking about sexuality and their bodies that our society so desperately needs.
Incidentally one interesting fact which is often overlooked: Holland has the lowest teenage pregnancy rate and the lowest rates of sexually transmitted infections in western Europe. Britain has almost the highest. Despite a very open attitude to sex, teenagers in Holland start having sex on average one year later than in the UK. Why? Because the Dutch are pragmatic and willing to discussing sexuality etc. openly; they don’t treat it as dirty and hide it in the coal-shed like we do. I lived through the sexual revolution in order to do away with coal-sheds!
Parents and teenagers (even sub-teens) everywhere please note!
I saw this today posted on the wall of the gents in the Royal Oak at Brookland, Kent. It has to be preserved for posterity …
Modern Day Prayer
Gordon Brown is my shepherd, I shall not work.
He leadeth me beside the still factories.
He restoreth my faith in the Conservative Party.
He guideth me in the path of unemployment.
Yea, though I wait for my dole,
I own the bank that refuses me.
Brown has anointed my income with taxes,
My expenses runneth over my income,
Surely, poverty and hard living will follow me all the days of his term.
From hence forth we will live all the days of our lives in a rented home with an overseas landlord.
I am glad I am British,
I am glad I am free.
But I wish I were a dog
And Brown was a tree.
Picture: BBC
I’ve written before about my attitudes to nudity and our bodies (see for instance here, here and here) and I return to the subject quite unashamedly especially as Channel 4 TV’s “Life Class” (which I admit I have not been watching) has created a bit of a backlash in certain circles. So it was good to see a couple of articles last week coming out in favour of nudity and trying, quietly and sanely, to redress the balance.
The first was written for BBC News’s online magazine by life model Sarah Snee (who is herself also an artist). The piece went under a banner Starkers for Art; here are some snippets of what she has to say:
As a student strapped for cash the allure of making money modelling for art was too much to resist. But there was another motivation – self exploration.
“I was intrigued by the idea of being naked in front of strangers,” says Sarah. “Especially at the age of 20 when you’re still getting to know your own body and developing your own sexuality. It was a very romantic idea, a bohemian idea […] My first time was daunting. I was wondering what people thought of my body. Was I attractive enough? Did my bum look big? The things most people would be concerned with.”
Despite being under the intense scrutiny of a room full of pupils, male and female, Sarah found she quickly became used to being under the artist’s gaze. “It made me feel more confident about my body. I felt liberated. I feel more self-conscious wearing a bikini on holiday with friends than I did when I was naked in front of strangers.”
“People say to me isn’t life modelling really weird? Isn’t it a bit sexual? Of course there are men who have this idea they’re all going to draw these naked women and it’s going to be thrilling […] But the artists don’t view you sexually. They see the body as a series of lines and shadows, a piece of art.”
The second piece, titled Nudity does us all good, was by Jemima Lewis in last Saturday’s Daily Telegraph. Again Jemima Lewis has a refreshingly down to earth view of nudity, and echos my view that nudity is not only normal but we would all be better adjusted if we grew up with nudity and understanding our bodies. This is (part of) what she has to say:
[…] who are these children who have never seen a naked body before? And more importantly, why not?
Going naked in front of your offspring is one of the duties of parenthood. Studies show – and common sense suggests – that children from households where nudity is commonplace grow up to feel more comfortable in their own skin. We need the background scenery of other people’s bodies – dumpy, scrawny, dimpled or lean – in order to be reassured that our own peculiarities are normal.
Especially now, when most public images of the human form are airbrushed into a preposterous lie, children ought to know what actual people look like under their clothes.
Some of my favourite memories of school feature middle-aged men and women disporting themselves in the buff. Our A-level teacher, like many artists, preferred her life models on the well-fed side, their rolls of fat allowing for plentiful chiaroscuro.
Although it is a long time since I picked up a sketchpad, those life classes, combined with the tireless domestic nudity of my parents, are proving more useful to me now than ever.
As my wife’s uncle used to say: “If you see anything God didn’t make, heave a brick at it.”