Sim-O

Chris Christostomou, A.K.A. Mou.

Once again, as always with blogroll additions, should’ve been there a while ago.

Chris is also active on Twitter as Chrismou

After searching for Labours’ Manifesto and getting a load of Conservative results, I thought I’d do the Liberal Democrats today (I did do the Torys’ yesterday but didn’t get chance to post it).

I know the Libdems get a rough time of it sometimes, getting overlooked and stuff, but I never expected Google to be so harsh…

Hand out mephedrone in nightclubs, says ex-drugs tsar Professor David Nutt

You what? Has the man taken leave of his senses? This stuff is dangerous. D.A.N.G.E.R.O.U.S.

But in a classic Daily Mail sidestep, that’s not quite what the Prof said. There’s more to it than just doleing out drugs.

I wouldn’t be against exploring the possibility of some sort of regulated use for MDMA or mephedrone where people, maybe in clubs, could have access to small amounts, safe amounts under guidance.

What Professor Nutt is saying is have a look at regulated access to the drugs. He isn’t even saying we should do that, just that we should look into what sort of harm reduction may be achieved from letting consenting adults, because only adults are allowed in nightclubs, buy untainted drugs that aren’t cut with all the usual rubbish along with the information to let those adults make an informed choice. We do that with alcohol and cigarettes, so why not with other substances that are no more harmful than alcohol and cigarettes?

The headline which gives the impression that every club should have someone just dishing out mindbending drugs to who ever wants them in what ever quantities are asked for. That is just ridiculous. We don’t even do that in pubs, and pubs are only there to sell you a mindbending drug.

This sort of mis-representation would be right at home at the Daily Mail. But it isn’t. It’s the Independent, a supposedly ‘quality’ paper. No wonder it’s had to pay someone to buy it. Which is bribery, isn’t it?

The politicians have made a feeble attempt to save face in Copenhagen and hammered out a deal which by all accounts is not legally binding and falls far short of what is actually needed. Despite all the talk earlier on in the conference about this being the last chance for humanity to do something meaningful, the rich nations are simply not capable of taking responsibility for the climate situation that has overwhelmingly been caused by them. This quote from the Greenpeace UK executive director John Sauven just about hits the nail on the head:

“It seems there are too few politicians in this world capable of looking beyond the horizon of their own narrow self-interest, let alone caring much for the millions of people who are facing down the threat of climate change,” he said.

“It is now evident that beating global warming will require a radically different model of politics than the one on display here in Copenhagen.”

I can’t express my disappointment and contempt for out inept leaders as succinctly as Mr Sauven, so for the time being I won’t – more to follow later.

Well, it’s only day two of the Copenhagen Climate Conference, and already it all seems to be going wrong, a leaked draft treaty that concentrates power in the hands of the rich nations! Could you make this up?

It seems that the world leaders are failing us in a big way, but this is hardly unsurprising. In the last blog, I highlighted the fact that there are too many vested interests that stand to lose large amounts of money, and this is borne out by the attempt to push through a deal that will mean the developing world has to bear the brunt of emission reductions. Of course, this is the only logical thing to do for western big business, as it is obvious that their profits simply cannot exist alongside business practices that treat the climate with respect. Capitalism and the natural environment are simply not compatible.

The question is, where do we go from here? Just yesterday, we heard the conference chairperson, in the opening speach, telling us that this is the last best chance to make an agreement on cutting emissions, yet a day later the only agreement on the table will merely protect the profits of a tiny minority. That the fate of mankind is left in the hands of those who apparently represent us is a farce… We don’t just need disobedience, as Naomi Klein has called for, we need something that will revolutionise the way that we run the world economy…

Gordon Brown has written a note of condolence to the family of soldier killed in Afghanistan.

It is full of spelling mistakes and other errors including getting the dead mans’ surname wrong.

People have been defending the PM about this…

Lest we forget, the man is all but blind, and the idea that he – even he – would deliberately set out to insult a grieving mother is just stupid. If he really didn’t give a shit, he’d get his secretary to type the letters and then sign them at the bottom, and none of this would ever have been a story in the first place.

but FFS…

I completely agree but it’s a note of condolence not a shopping list. You get these things right not go ‘fuck it that’ll do’.

The arguement that Gordon is nearly blind and that if someone else had written it or he’d knocked it up on a computer means he doesn’t care just doesn’t stand up.

1. As Justin says, It’s a letter of condolence, even if your writing is scruffy, you at least get the name correct. Nothing says you don’t care more than getting the name wrong, especially when you’re the prime minister with all those people around that are supposed to help and advise you.
2. If Gordons’ eye sight is that bad, why are we expecting him to hand write letters? Did Blunkett get it in the neck every time someone else wrote a letter for him?

What’s worse? A load of unintelligable scrawl or a typed letter with a real signature at the bottom?

At least Gordon doesn’t have rubber stamp to sign with.

Two more people have resigned from the drugs advisory council in solidarity for Professor Nutt…

Two members of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs resigned todayin protest at Alan Johnson’s treatment of Professor David Nutt. Another member told the Guardian that the experts were “planning collective action” against Johnson, adding: “Everybody is devastated. We’re all considering our positions.”

Nutt said today that there was “no future” for the council in its present form and it is thought the group’s members may use a meeting next Monday to announce a mass resignation.

I would suggest that it needs to be swung on it’s head and it is not the councils’ present form that is at fault, but the governments attitude to it’s advice.

When the evidence is there for all to see that Nutt knew what he was talking about and some jumped up twat that wouldn’t know his arse from his elbow says ‘No, you’re wrong’ because the evidence conflicts with policy, then we’re all a little bit fucked, really.

What you make of it if Alan Johnson had made these decisions?

– Alan Johnson bans antibiotics saying ‘we must instead trust to the graces of Saint Dymphna and not confuse scientific advice with policy.’

– Alan Johnson says prospective female MPs are to be vetted with trial by drowning. ‘We must not confuse scientific advice with policy,’ he says.

– Alan Johnson announces the introduction of daily human sacrifices to ensure sun comes up. ‘We must not anger the Fire Gods or confuse scientific advice with policy,’ he says.

– Alan Johnson says he is to have Galileo exhumed so he can sack him because his scientific advice does not reflect policy.

Because that is what he has done. It is all well and good having a policy on something, but when the evidence shows something is not as bad, or as good, as was previously thought, then surely the only thing to do is modify that particular policy.

Lord Winston makes an obvious point…

I think that if governments appoint expert advice they shouldn’t dismiss it so lightly

Exactly. MPs’ deal with a huge range of subjects and can’t, and shouldn’t, be expected to know about everything. Alan Johnson is not an expert on the effects of drugs, just like David Cameron is not an expert on the problems of the working class. That is where the role of expert advisers come in, to tell politicians what is happening, so they can then figure out how to deal with it. It is one thing if the advice is a bit ambiguous, then fair enough, but in a case like this drugs one, where the expert says that alcohol is more dangerous than cannabis, where is the justification for not lowering classification of cannabis? There is none. Johnson was either a) indulging in his own prejudices or b) unable to deviate from policy that it makes a mockery of the whole fucking system.

It could be Alan indulging himself, but then the policy is the American led pointless ‘War on Drugs’, which for twenty years or so has achieved fuck all except divert funds and effort away from areas that would help.

Kevolution says that this episode…

…highlights a bigger issue, that of the state of our democracy. In all the big decisions, the government either tell us we don’t know enough and that if we knew what they did we would understand (but they can’t show us the evidence as it is too sensitive), or they ignore the evidence and just do what they want. They are no longer representing us, they are just setting forth their own agenda’s

And there’s the nub of it. They no longer represent us.

How do we fix this? I dunno except that it won’t be sorted out by a general election*.

*That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t bother to vote. If I lived in the right place I would vote for D-Notice

Because of an idea in the comments of this post on Liberal Conspiracy, I fired a few FOI requests to whatdotheyknow.com.

I sent one to each of the following councils:

• Vale Of White Horse District Council
• Oxfordshire County Council
• Oxford City Council
• Abingdon Town Council (I made a bit of a pigs ear of that one so may have to submit another request if this one turns out to be shite)

asking for
– What are the top 10 websites visited by the Vale of White Horse
District Council staff during the months of June, July and August
2009.

– How many times the Daily Mail website (any URL beginning
http://dailymail.co.uk) was accessed in the above months if not in
the top ten.

The prize for the quickest proper response goes to *drum roll*… The Vale of White Horse…

Further to your recent FoI request please find attached reports on the
top ten sites visited by Vale employees during the months June – August
2009.

Unfortunately our software does not provide the functionality to report
on the number of minutes spent on each site, or to report on how many
times a particular website has been visited within a given period.

The Vale has 278 employees.

I hope this information is of assistance.

The results were sent in a .pdf format and are here, June, July and August.

June:

July:

August:

More to follow… hopefully.

Three times the normal level of testosterone would be why this girl has masculine features, then. He her level is higher than, does it make her abnormal? No, of course not. Shouldn’t the word they’re looking for be ‘usual’? After all, wouldn’t they sciencey people take offence if they were described as having abnormally thick glasses because of their abnormally rubbish eyes. Not a very good example, but you get the idea. Apologies for rubbish formatting, but I had to type this out on a train like a txt message.

Posted via email from Sim-O

The BNP’s Red White and Blue Festival takes place this weekend, with several thousand expected to both attend and protest at it. The planned protest, called by UAF, has received a degree of hostility from the press and police to date. The police are getting in some pre-emptive strikes, with echoes of the G20 operation,  preparing the country for a brave defence of the Red White and Blue festival against those violent anti-fascist thugs. Not them again, the collective country asks, they are always up to no good – there’s bound to be some trouble if they are involved. Alongside them, the BNP are on the charm offensive, trying to convince us all that this is effectively a village fete, and all they want is to be left alone to enjoy themselves. After all, aren’t they a legitimate political party?

The general arguments that are made against the UAF protests can be broadly grouped into the following themes.

Firstly, we have the argument about free speech. The BNP are a) entitled to free speech, and b) aren’t the anti fascists being fascist for denying this free speech? Following on from this, the UAF are then shown to be ‘just as bad as the BNP’.

Secondly, there is the presentation of the festival as some sort of casual, lawful celebration, with attendees going for no other reason than to have fun, which they should be lawfully allowed to do without harassment. The quote from Simon Darby, deputy leader of the BNP, on the Guardian web site says it all: ‘”It’s not in our interests to cause trouble. We’re up there with our wives, girlfriends and children. We just want to have a good time, but these protesters want to latch trouble on to us.” Clearly, we are led to believe that this is just a family event, with fun and games in the sun. The police are treating this at face value, with the local spokesperson saying of their operation “The people attending Red, White and Blue have a right to do so in peace and safety but we also realise that people have the right to protest in a lawful and peaceful way.”.

Thirdly, we have the view that the protesters are also violent, and that this amounts to some sort of contradiction – you can’t resort to violence and call yourselves anti-fascist. The methods of the UAF are questioned and compared to the BNP’s thugs. There are other ways of trying to stop the BNP, which must be done without confrontation.

Lastly, some argue that we should all just ignore it. The election results clearly show that the BNP’s vote has not increased in absolute terms, but that the rest of the country has become disillusioned with politics, and with no alternatives to the 3 mainstream parties simply didn’t vote. The BNP will never get in, as the vast majority of the country do not support them. By making a fuss of their festival, we are giving them publicity and national coverage.

This is not an exhaustive list, but a brief survey of the ideas emanating from the mainstream media. What is striking is that in almost all the coverage, the fundamental issue of the racist and fascist roots of the BNP is never discussed. We have somehow moved on from this argument – the terms of debate have changed. Whether this is a sign of the gaining legitimacy of the BNP, or merely lazy sensationalist reporting, the fact of the matter is that  UAF finds itself in the unusual position of having to defend themselves for organising a protest against a party that the majority of people would probably accept are racist, and in general oppose.

So how do we address the 4 themes outlined above?  Extremist parties such as the BNP have often used the free speech argument to gain a platform for their ideas, though free speech is the last thing that would be on their minds if they ever got into power. Did Hitler stand up for the principles of free speech when he was in power? Are we to make the mistakes of the past and allow the racists to use free speech and democracy with the aim of destroying it?

We also have to ask ourselves what we even think free speech is. Is it being able to say whatever we want? How do the people that are the victims of the racial hatred that is spread by the BNP feel about free speech?  As with many things that we label as ‘free’ we generally consider within the framework of not causing harm to anyone else. Freedom to do whatever you want does not include things like attacking or murdering other people, and in the same vein, freedom to say what you want has limits too, such as inciting violence against people based on the colour of their skin or ethnicity. If this is too fascist for you, then clearly you have lost faith in the ability of society to set some basic rules for itself.  I would be interested to see if anyone was prepared to defend a festival celebrating pedophilia on the grounds of ‘free speech’, so why do we consider it in a racist context?

The BNP’s characterisation of this event as a peaceful festival has been given an astronomical amount of spin. As noted in previous posts, there is mountains of evidence, including their own manifesto, that the BNP is a racist party, with it’s philosophy based on white supremacist theories,  links to many violent far right groups, participation of many of it’s leading members in earlier racist organisations and struggles, and the previous convictions that some members, such as their leader, have had for racial crimes. Amongst the tombola stalls and coconut shys will be speeches and talks pushing the white is right message, and the aims of hounding out of the country of all those who are non white.  This festival is not about peace and tolerance, it is about hatred and violence. The police know all this too, which makes it even more astounding that they are preparing to defend it.

How do we deal with the violence question? There is undoubtedly a violent element within the UAF, but this is limited to a minority. Without dismissing this, the contrast is with the BNP, whose entire immigration policy is based on violence, something that the vast majority of the BNP membership buys into, and is one of the central unifying themes within the party itself. Arguing that the UAF are as fascist as the BNP is comparing a coalition who are trying to stop the BNP spreading their doctrine of hate with a party whose logical conclusion is the holocaust! This is not just misguided, it is wrong.

The argument as to whether to use violence or not is a fair enough question. Most people there will not use violence.  Force, maybe, but violence, no. We are not going there to beat them up, we are just going there to stop the festival happening. The press will of course get their usual shock pictures, but as with the G20 protest, there will be one day of tutting at the protesters, before the truth seeps out over the following weeks. Those that claim that using violence against the BNP is wrong of course reserve the right to support violence elsewhere – the general populations of Iraq and Afghanistan are far more deserving of our violence than the BNP! I don’t have an unequivocal view on the violence question, but the threat posed by the BNP, the vile messages that they are trying to spread means that the possibility of violence from a minority is no reason to stop the protest.

So should we just ignore it all? Not at all. The recent election victory has lead to an increase in racial attacks and racist demonstrations, as the BNP and it’s thugs gain confidence. We  have the historical example of the rise of Hitler, and the deaths of millions. ‘It will never happen here’, they say. Well, I bet they never thought anything like that would happen in Germany either. But it did, and it was not a sudden event, it was a process that took place over a number of years, with Hitler building a party and using the democratic machinery of the state to spread his doctrine. We need to learn from the past, and instead of sitting back and ignoring it, make sure that history does not repeat itself.

We need to fight the BNP every step of the way. Nothing is set in stone, we make our own history, and we need to collectively make sure that our history is one that is not dominated by the the racist, fascist BNP.