Hello!
Now, it seems as though these days my posts are few and far between. I appear to be starting every new blog post with an apology for not writing anything for ages. Recently I have been feeling that my blog is being left by the wayside, I've just been so busy that I haven't had time to do anything political at all.
I'm going to start with an update on Richard O'Dwyer, whose case I have been following since I first heard about it. Just to recap, the powers that be in the USA have been trying to extradite him to face criminal copyright charges, because he used to run a website called TVShack, which provided links to copyrighted TV shows. It's actually rather good news for him... he has been called to America to pay a small sum of compensation and to swear not to break copyright laws again, before coming back to the UK. So, from his point of view, no harm done. I have a more negative view of this actually. While I think it's great that Richard isn't going to be extradited, it angers me that he is still being asked a) to pay any compensation at all and b) to promise not to do it again. How I see it, Richard hasn't actually done anything wrong. He has not been convicted of a crime, either in the UK or in the US, so I don't think he should be obliged to apologise, or to pay compensation. If anything, the authorities should be paying him compensation. If he was going to set up a website like that again, he should be well within his rights to do that - although obviously I wouldn't expect him to want to after the way he was treated the last time. As I said, it's only a minor gripe, because things are going to turn out fine for Richard, and the UK/US Extradition Treaty is being amended so that the US does not have so much power over UK citizens, so generally speaking things are turning out well. It just annoys me that in a sense, Richard is still being treated as though he has committed a crime.
Now for the main point of this blog. I went to a demonstration in Bristol, to save our amazing NHS from being privatised by the Government. We marched from College Green to Castle Park, where we gathered and listened to some speeches. The speeches were amazing - I can honestly say there was not one that did not impress me, and I really wish that I could remember the names of the speakers. The speeches summed up what we already know, but they did it better than I ever could. The fundamental point is that the reason the powers that be want to cut public services is because they can afford them, and they don't care about anyone else. Why can they afford them? Well, it's because they don't pay their taxes. There is a common misconception that they have amazing, luxurious lives that we can't dream of. I disagree. They do have amazing, luxurious lives, but we absolutely can dream of them. It's them that can't dream of the lives of the rest of us. It's easy to dream of luxury, but we cannot imagine what life is like for those less fortunate than ourselves. The decisions are being made by people who are completely out of touch with reality. But I will say this: we will triumph in this. The NHS has survived for 65 years, ever since World War II. Margaret Thatcher could not get rid of it, John Major could not get rid of it. I remain confident that David Cameron and Nick Clegg will not be able to get rid of it either. Right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil, triumphant.
Demos like this remind me of why I became a political activist. I love it. It really feels as though I am making a difference and changing the world. It was actually my anniversary the other week - I have now been a political activist for more than two years! Isn't that cool?
For my People To Respect And Admire section, I would just have to say all of the amazing speakers who spoke at the demo yesterday. Unfortunately I can't tell you who they were as I cannot remember them, but they were all wonderful and all made great points.
Well, that's all for this update. Hopefully, you will see more from me soon. Watch this space.
Cheerio!
Sunday, 2 December 2012
Wednesday, 7 November 2012
The Facebook debate
Hello, rabid readers!
Blimey, I can't believe it's been over two months since I last updated this. This is terrible, please excuse me. In all honesty, I have had a lot on, but even so... there are loads of things that have happened that I've thought I must blog about, and I just haven't got around to doing, like the brilliant demo at Hinkley I was at about a month ago... anyway...
Today I'm going to talk about Facebook, and what it means to have someone as a friend. The idea to write about this comes from a conversation I had recently with some people at a theatre company I'm involved with. (I won't say which theatre company it is, because I'm going to say some quite negative things about them in this post... and regardless of what I'm going to say, they are a fantastic company and I've done some great work with them.)
Anyway... a while back I realised that one of the people I work with there had deleted me as a friend on Facebook. I asked her about it, and she explained that because of her position within the group, she's not allowed to have certain people as friends on Facebook. I find this kind of policy a little odd; I'm not entirely sure what the hierarchy system is, and I'm not entirely sure that even the company understand it fully. The person implied it had something to do with my age - which is a little strange, because she has three people who are actually younger than me on her friends' list - but anyway, that's just what made me realise my interest in this debate; the ins and outs of this person's Facebook account are not really what I want to talk about.
The point I want to discuss is that this company apparently has lots of obscure policies for who its members are allowed to have contact with in the outside world, and I think this is essentially power for power's sake. I have to say that the group has members aged from 7 - 25, and some of the older people in the group can be promoted to 'helpers' or 'session assistants', which actually means that while they don't have any official power, they are paid by the establishment to take more of a lead role at training sessions. Apparently the policy is that people who are in this role are not allowed to have people under 18 as friends on Facebook - although this is obviously not entirely accurate, as age is not a factor in my case. The policy is very confusing, even the people who apparently know the most about it struggled to explain it to me when I talked to them, but the basic point is that the company tries to control the contact people are allowed to have with one another on the outside world.
Personally, I think that a person's Facebook account is their own, and no one else should have any authority over who people are allowed to contact on it (with a few exceptions obviously - you couldn't have a jury member being allowed to contact a defendant on Facebook!) However, in this occurrence I don't actually see what these boundaries are intended to achieve. I've come across people who are really good friends at the sessions and probably would be in real life, and yet a policy that has been enforced on them has prevented them from being friends online. Obviously I understand child protection concerns - but there are three reasons why the Facebook policy actually doesn't affect child safety at all:
1) If someone is intent upon grooming another person, they will do it, regardless of whether they are friends with that person on Facebook. Recently there have been a lot of stories in the news about Jimmy Savile and the sex abuse scandal - Jimmy Savile did not have Facebook, and managed to molest a lot of people anyway. Facebook doesn't make it that much easier.
2) The power thing. I've heard this so often, and every time I hate it. There is a school of thought that believes that if someone has power over you at work, school or on a course, then they cannot be friends with you outside because that is an abuse of their power, particularly if you are different ages. I think that is utter rubbish. If someone has power over you, they can't be your friend within the hours that you are in that position, but outside of those hours, that becomes your personal life, which should be kept separate from everything else. When I was at school or college, I didn't think of my teachers as my friends when I was in the building, but if I saw them outside for whatever reason, I would think of them as that. Why not? I've had teachers as friends on Facebook while they were teaching me, it's fine. In the case of this theatre company, the session assistants actually have extremely minimal power anyway, so what difference does it honestly make?
3) Policies such as this are implemented not because anyone actually believes that they will serve anyone's best interests, but because the establishment wants to be seen to be doing the right thing. There seems to be a perception that because something is frowned upon by some people, then it is out-and-out wrong and there is no room for discussion. When I was having this conversation with some people from my theatre company, someone said, 'But George, it's illegal!' I asked them under what Act of Parliament it was illegal. They were a bit unsure and said, 'Um, child safety laws...' The bottom line is that there is actually no law against it - and even if there was, it would be a law born more out of paranoia than actual sense, logic or reason. I have been involved in other companies that are fine with people of different hierarchical status having each other as friends on Facebook, and I find that it's much easier to be relaxed about these things. Imposing unnecessary boundaries only makes things more formal than they need to be.
I don't hold the position in the company that affects who you can have on your Facebook list. There is a part of me that wishes that I did so I could rebel, but that's just the mischievous part of me that likes to cause trouble, and I wouldn't want to cause a confrontation just for the sake of it. However, if I ever was to hold that position, I would make it very clear that I don't intend to stick by that policy. When I told this to the people I was having this discussion with, they told me that if I didn't stick to it, I would just be out, but I don't actually think that would necessarily be the outcome. True, initially someone may try to insist that I followed protocol if I was going to stay involved, but I honestly believe that if I was determined enough and I talked them through my reasoning, it is very likely that they would come around to my way of thinking - or at the very least, turn a blind eye to me. I've come across situations like that my whole life, and the vast majority of the time, they go my way in the end.
Regular readers of my blog will know that at the end, I always mention someone that I respect and admire. Today the person is the writer Germaine Greer. I've admired her for a while, but I felt the need to refer to her after a video she submitted to Sunday Morning Live about free speech. I'll link to the video below, but needless to say I agree with every word:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0101jqx
I'll see you next time on my blog. Cheerio!
Blimey, I can't believe it's been over two months since I last updated this. This is terrible, please excuse me. In all honesty, I have had a lot on, but even so... there are loads of things that have happened that I've thought I must blog about, and I just haven't got around to doing, like the brilliant demo at Hinkley I was at about a month ago... anyway...
Today I'm going to talk about Facebook, and what it means to have someone as a friend. The idea to write about this comes from a conversation I had recently with some people at a theatre company I'm involved with. (I won't say which theatre company it is, because I'm going to say some quite negative things about them in this post... and regardless of what I'm going to say, they are a fantastic company and I've done some great work with them.)
Anyway... a while back I realised that one of the people I work with there had deleted me as a friend on Facebook. I asked her about it, and she explained that because of her position within the group, she's not allowed to have certain people as friends on Facebook. I find this kind of policy a little odd; I'm not entirely sure what the hierarchy system is, and I'm not entirely sure that even the company understand it fully. The person implied it had something to do with my age - which is a little strange, because she has three people who are actually younger than me on her friends' list - but anyway, that's just what made me realise my interest in this debate; the ins and outs of this person's Facebook account are not really what I want to talk about.
The point I want to discuss is that this company apparently has lots of obscure policies for who its members are allowed to have contact with in the outside world, and I think this is essentially power for power's sake. I have to say that the group has members aged from 7 - 25, and some of the older people in the group can be promoted to 'helpers' or 'session assistants', which actually means that while they don't have any official power, they are paid by the establishment to take more of a lead role at training sessions. Apparently the policy is that people who are in this role are not allowed to have people under 18 as friends on Facebook - although this is obviously not entirely accurate, as age is not a factor in my case. The policy is very confusing, even the people who apparently know the most about it struggled to explain it to me when I talked to them, but the basic point is that the company tries to control the contact people are allowed to have with one another on the outside world.
Personally, I think that a person's Facebook account is their own, and no one else should have any authority over who people are allowed to contact on it (with a few exceptions obviously - you couldn't have a jury member being allowed to contact a defendant on Facebook!) However, in this occurrence I don't actually see what these boundaries are intended to achieve. I've come across people who are really good friends at the sessions and probably would be in real life, and yet a policy that has been enforced on them has prevented them from being friends online. Obviously I understand child protection concerns - but there are three reasons why the Facebook policy actually doesn't affect child safety at all:
1) If someone is intent upon grooming another person, they will do it, regardless of whether they are friends with that person on Facebook. Recently there have been a lot of stories in the news about Jimmy Savile and the sex abuse scandal - Jimmy Savile did not have Facebook, and managed to molest a lot of people anyway. Facebook doesn't make it that much easier.
2) The power thing. I've heard this so often, and every time I hate it. There is a school of thought that believes that if someone has power over you at work, school or on a course, then they cannot be friends with you outside because that is an abuse of their power, particularly if you are different ages. I think that is utter rubbish. If someone has power over you, they can't be your friend within the hours that you are in that position, but outside of those hours, that becomes your personal life, which should be kept separate from everything else. When I was at school or college, I didn't think of my teachers as my friends when I was in the building, but if I saw them outside for whatever reason, I would think of them as that. Why not? I've had teachers as friends on Facebook while they were teaching me, it's fine. In the case of this theatre company, the session assistants actually have extremely minimal power anyway, so what difference does it honestly make?
3) Policies such as this are implemented not because anyone actually believes that they will serve anyone's best interests, but because the establishment wants to be seen to be doing the right thing. There seems to be a perception that because something is frowned upon by some people, then it is out-and-out wrong and there is no room for discussion. When I was having this conversation with some people from my theatre company, someone said, 'But George, it's illegal!' I asked them under what Act of Parliament it was illegal. They were a bit unsure and said, 'Um, child safety laws...' The bottom line is that there is actually no law against it - and even if there was, it would be a law born more out of paranoia than actual sense, logic or reason. I have been involved in other companies that are fine with people of different hierarchical status having each other as friends on Facebook, and I find that it's much easier to be relaxed about these things. Imposing unnecessary boundaries only makes things more formal than they need to be.
I don't hold the position in the company that affects who you can have on your Facebook list. There is a part of me that wishes that I did so I could rebel, but that's just the mischievous part of me that likes to cause trouble, and I wouldn't want to cause a confrontation just for the sake of it. However, if I ever was to hold that position, I would make it very clear that I don't intend to stick by that policy. When I told this to the people I was having this discussion with, they told me that if I didn't stick to it, I would just be out, but I don't actually think that would necessarily be the outcome. True, initially someone may try to insist that I followed protocol if I was going to stay involved, but I honestly believe that if I was determined enough and I talked them through my reasoning, it is very likely that they would come around to my way of thinking - or at the very least, turn a blind eye to me. I've come across situations like that my whole life, and the vast majority of the time, they go my way in the end.
Regular readers of my blog will know that at the end, I always mention someone that I respect and admire. Today the person is the writer Germaine Greer. I've admired her for a while, but I felt the need to refer to her after a video she submitted to Sunday Morning Live about free speech. I'll link to the video below, but needless to say I agree with every word:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0101jqx
I'll see you next time on my blog. Cheerio!
Saturday, 1 September 2012
Squatters' rights (and an update on Paralympia)
Hi everyone!
Now, before I talk about what this blog is really about, I'm going to put an update on one of the issues I talked about last time. In my last post, I talked about how wheelchair-bound people were having trouble being allowed to attend the Paralympic Games with their families. I'm not going to bother to go into all the details again - it's in my previous blog post, if you'd like to take a look - but anyway, I got an email from Beth - who started the petition - to say that it's all been sorted out, and she's allowed to sit with her family now, and the problem is solved. So thanks to anyone who signed the petition, I think we've made a difference to a few lives there.
Now, onto the main point of this entry. As many people will know, today is 1 September, which is the day when in England and Wales, people will no longer have rights to squat in empty houses. Those that frequently do may face a penalty of up to six months in jail, and/or a £5,000 fine. Now, there are many reasons why people believe this is a good thing; it will decrease motivation to squat, it will give homeowners the right to their own property, it will convince more homeless people to get jobs, money and a place to live... you name it. But this isn't my view on the matter.
What I cannot get my head around is why anyone would think that squatters make the informed decision to squat, as opposed to other alternatives. There may be a very small minority that do, and those are not the people I'm talking about here. I'm talking about people who live on the streets. People who have hardly any possessions. People who don't know where they are going to sleep from one night to the next, or where their next meal is coming from. The Government has decided to make vulnerable people criminals, at exactly the time when they need support - ideally from the Government, but also just from people.
Does anyone honestly think that people in this situation will be able to pay a £5,000 fine? If they had that kind of money, wouldn't they be able to afford lodging somewhere in the first place? Everyone knows that there aren't many jobs around these days. We are moving into an era where you are either born to be successful, or you aren't, and if you aren't, there isn't a lot that you can do. I'm not saying that everyone in the second category won't be successful - there are always the Alan Sugars of the world - but people do not start on a level playing field. Anyone who wasn't lucky enough to have rich, professional parents is only one step away from homelessness, and we now have a law that is making things much, much harder for those people - people who have a very tough life already.
The fact of the matter is, this law has been proposed, discussed and planned by people on the inside. These people cannot get their heads around the idea that some people actually don't have the opportunities to earn enough money to support themselves. If you've grown up with that lifestyle, how can you understand? It reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend (who I won't name) about nine months ago, concerning the plight of the residents of Dale Farm in Essex, at the time that they were being evicted by Basildon Council. This friend is someone who I have a lot of respect for - he is a very kind and empathetic guy - but he is very middle-class, has grown up in a large and expensive house, with parents who have professional and well-paid jobs - and we were having this conversation in his really plush living room. I was very much on the side of the residents of Dale Farm, and he was very much on the side of Basildon Council. He just could not understand how hard life is for some people. It wasn't his fault - after all, he hasn't had that experience himself, and probably hasn't been exposed to many people who have - but he is a prime example of someone who has been fed so much luxury that they can't see anything else in the world.
There is, of course, the argument about homeowners' rights to prevent their home from being broken into. That is all very well and good, and I do have sympathy for people who come home to find their houses broken into, and pizza boxes all over the carpet - however, a lot of the time, these houses are empty. In London, for example, there are a lot of empty mansions which have, in the past, been havens for homeless people to go to when they have nowhere else to go. If they are empty, what is so bad about that? They are not hurting anyone, so why make it illegal? There are 720,000 empty houses in England. Someone has no roof over their head. There are lots of roofs that no one is using. Doesn't take a genius! There is also the argument that squatting is illegal in Scotland, and it works fine there. That is true, but the difference is that in Scotland, the Government is obliged to provide housing for everyone. In England and Wales, this just will not happen. This is a stepping-stone towards the Dickensian picture of grubby children on the street corners, coughing their lungs up, asking for change from unsympathetic passers-by. If the Government was going to provide a home for everyone - and a suitable home as well, not just any old place - then I would be all for squatting being illegal. But that isn't going to happen, so I don't support this law. It just makes no sense that the only legal roof that a homeless person is allowed to have over their heads at night is a prison cell.
Looking back on this blog, I think it's one of the longest I've ever written. I hope that to someone else, it looks more like an intellectual article on my thoughts and feelings, and less like just an angry rant. If it looks like the second one, I suppose I am angry really. I'm not even in that position myself, but I am angry that someone else is. I haven't actually found any petitions to do with this yet, but I will keep on looking for them. And if I can't find one, maybe I will start one myself.
I don't have anyone I'm going to commend for respect and admiration this time, I'm not in the mood to do that, and there doesn't seem to be anyone connected with this that I do admire really.
More updates soon. Over and out.
Now, before I talk about what this blog is really about, I'm going to put an update on one of the issues I talked about last time. In my last post, I talked about how wheelchair-bound people were having trouble being allowed to attend the Paralympic Games with their families. I'm not going to bother to go into all the details again - it's in my previous blog post, if you'd like to take a look - but anyway, I got an email from Beth - who started the petition - to say that it's all been sorted out, and she's allowed to sit with her family now, and the problem is solved. So thanks to anyone who signed the petition, I think we've made a difference to a few lives there.
Now, onto the main point of this entry. As many people will know, today is 1 September, which is the day when in England and Wales, people will no longer have rights to squat in empty houses. Those that frequently do may face a penalty of up to six months in jail, and/or a £5,000 fine. Now, there are many reasons why people believe this is a good thing; it will decrease motivation to squat, it will give homeowners the right to their own property, it will convince more homeless people to get jobs, money and a place to live... you name it. But this isn't my view on the matter.
What I cannot get my head around is why anyone would think that squatters make the informed decision to squat, as opposed to other alternatives. There may be a very small minority that do, and those are not the people I'm talking about here. I'm talking about people who live on the streets. People who have hardly any possessions. People who don't know where they are going to sleep from one night to the next, or where their next meal is coming from. The Government has decided to make vulnerable people criminals, at exactly the time when they need support - ideally from the Government, but also just from people.
Does anyone honestly think that people in this situation will be able to pay a £5,000 fine? If they had that kind of money, wouldn't they be able to afford lodging somewhere in the first place? Everyone knows that there aren't many jobs around these days. We are moving into an era where you are either born to be successful, or you aren't, and if you aren't, there isn't a lot that you can do. I'm not saying that everyone in the second category won't be successful - there are always the Alan Sugars of the world - but people do not start on a level playing field. Anyone who wasn't lucky enough to have rich, professional parents is only one step away from homelessness, and we now have a law that is making things much, much harder for those people - people who have a very tough life already.
The fact of the matter is, this law has been proposed, discussed and planned by people on the inside. These people cannot get their heads around the idea that some people actually don't have the opportunities to earn enough money to support themselves. If you've grown up with that lifestyle, how can you understand? It reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend (who I won't name) about nine months ago, concerning the plight of the residents of Dale Farm in Essex, at the time that they were being evicted by Basildon Council. This friend is someone who I have a lot of respect for - he is a very kind and empathetic guy - but he is very middle-class, has grown up in a large and expensive house, with parents who have professional and well-paid jobs - and we were having this conversation in his really plush living room. I was very much on the side of the residents of Dale Farm, and he was very much on the side of Basildon Council. He just could not understand how hard life is for some people. It wasn't his fault - after all, he hasn't had that experience himself, and probably hasn't been exposed to many people who have - but he is a prime example of someone who has been fed so much luxury that they can't see anything else in the world.
There is, of course, the argument about homeowners' rights to prevent their home from being broken into. That is all very well and good, and I do have sympathy for people who come home to find their houses broken into, and pizza boxes all over the carpet - however, a lot of the time, these houses are empty. In London, for example, there are a lot of empty mansions which have, in the past, been havens for homeless people to go to when they have nowhere else to go. If they are empty, what is so bad about that? They are not hurting anyone, so why make it illegal? There are 720,000 empty houses in England. Someone has no roof over their head. There are lots of roofs that no one is using. Doesn't take a genius! There is also the argument that squatting is illegal in Scotland, and it works fine there. That is true, but the difference is that in Scotland, the Government is obliged to provide housing for everyone. In England and Wales, this just will not happen. This is a stepping-stone towards the Dickensian picture of grubby children on the street corners, coughing their lungs up, asking for change from unsympathetic passers-by. If the Government was going to provide a home for everyone - and a suitable home as well, not just any old place - then I would be all for squatting being illegal. But that isn't going to happen, so I don't support this law. It just makes no sense that the only legal roof that a homeless person is allowed to have over their heads at night is a prison cell.
Looking back on this blog, I think it's one of the longest I've ever written. I hope that to someone else, it looks more like an intellectual article on my thoughts and feelings, and less like just an angry rant. If it looks like the second one, I suppose I am angry really. I'm not even in that position myself, but I am angry that someone else is. I haven't actually found any petitions to do with this yet, but I will keep on looking for them. And if I can't find one, maybe I will start one myself.
I don't have anyone I'm going to commend for respect and admiration this time, I'm not in the mood to do that, and there doesn't seem to be anyone connected with this that I do admire really.
More updates soon. Over and out.
Sunday, 19 August 2012
Paralympia and Pussy Riot
Hi everyone!
Now, I said I was going to start updating this more often, and I intend to stick to that. I have two things to talk about today, and I'll start with Pussy Riot just because that was something I myself was involved with.
For the benefit of anyone who doesn't know, Pussy Riot is a feminist punk-rock band in Russia, who stage spontaneous performances in unusual locations, usually opposing President Vladimir Putin and their the Russian Orthodox Church. Back in February, Pussy Riot staged a punk prayer on the soleas of Moscow's Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, and after a video of their performance appeared online, three of their members (two of them mothers) were arrested and charged with hooliganism. They have just recently been sentenced to two years in jail, which needless to say I passionately disapprove of.
I don't care about the views of Pussy Riot, or the Russian Orthodox Church. The reason why I object to this is because everyone should have the opportunity to express themselves, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone. To jail someone because of something like this is quite, quite wrong. On Friday I went on a demonstration to object to how Pussy Riot have been treated. The demonstration took the form of an impromptu performance in the Bear Pit in Bristol, and considering it was organised in only an hour, there were quite a lot of people there.
This demonstration was filmed and put on YouTube (I have embedded the link below). When you see this video, please please please share it with lots of people. Our aim is to make the video go viral, and hopefully people in Russia will see it. A lot of people will tell me that this is naive, idealistic and just won't work - but those people would also have said that it wouldn't have been possible to organise something as large scale as what we did on Friday in such a short space of time, and we managed to do that. The bare bones of the matter is, you cannot say what will work or not until you try it. I can't imagine that our video will become the next Charlie Bit My Finger or the next My Tram Experience, but I hope it will be seen by enough people to make everyone realise how much support Pussy Riot have. If you do just one good thing today, I'd like it to be sharing this video with your friends. Come on, do your bit! If you were in the position that these women are in at the moment, you would want the rest of the world to help out.
For some reason, Blogger isn't letting me embed, so I'll just have to post a link to the video. There is a petition in the info box on the YouTube page:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Fljvk3_PoVA
(Update: For some reason, this video has been taken down by the uploader, as the people who made it felt it looked too amateur. I'm not sure if they are going to re-edit it and put it up again, or if they're just going to leave it, but I hope the video of our demo reappears in some shape or form. I guess we'll have to wait and see...)
There is one more thing I want to talk about in this blog. Obviously the Olympics are over, and many people are now looking forward to the Paralympic Games - an amazing chance for many disabled athletes. I have recently read something quite shocking about the seating arrangements for the Games, which will start on August 29. Spectators who have a physical disability (such as wheelchair users) have to sit in a certain part of the venue that has been converted to suit their needs, and are only allowed to be accompanied by one accompanying adult. This means that many wheelchair-bound parents are being told that their children need to sit in a different part of the venue to them. In addition to this being completely unfeasible in many cases (Beth Davis-Hofbauer, who is the face of the campaign against this, has a four-year-old autistic son and a 19-year-old baby), it is blatantly discriminatory against disabled people, at the very thing which should be targeted more towards opportunities for people with disabilities. I don't really have any opinion on the Olympics, because it is not really relevant to my life. The Paralympics interest me more, because they are an opportunity to do something great for disabled sport. I am really shocked that the seating arrangements discriminate against disabled people. Each and every one of us is just one step away from being disabled - anyone can have an accident - and I think that a lot of the time, the rest of us forget about that, and don't really think of disabled people as real individuals. I try not to think like that, but I reckon a lot of people do.
Anyway, there is an online petition on change.org to persuade officials to change their seating arrangements so that wheelchair-bound users can enjoy the Paralympic Games with their families. Please sign it:
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/international-paralympic-committee-london2012-review-ticketing-policy-for-wheelchair-users?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=9645&alert_id=LiKtPYoCyW_mrkBBUWLVq
As regular readers of my blog know, I always reference someone that I respect and admire. This time, it's going to be Beth Davis-Hofbauer, the woman who created this petition about the Paralympic seating arrangements. She has had to cancel her tickets because her disability will make it impossible for her to go, and it takes guts to start a campaign on this level. The world needs more people like Beth.
More updates soon. Thanks for reading!
George
Now, I said I was going to start updating this more often, and I intend to stick to that. I have two things to talk about today, and I'll start with Pussy Riot just because that was something I myself was involved with.
For the benefit of anyone who doesn't know, Pussy Riot is a feminist punk-rock band in Russia, who stage spontaneous performances in unusual locations, usually opposing President Vladimir Putin and their the Russian Orthodox Church. Back in February, Pussy Riot staged a punk prayer on the soleas of Moscow's Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, and after a video of their performance appeared online, three of their members (two of them mothers) were arrested and charged with hooliganism. They have just recently been sentenced to two years in jail, which needless to say I passionately disapprove of.
I don't care about the views of Pussy Riot, or the Russian Orthodox Church. The reason why I object to this is because everyone should have the opportunity to express themselves, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone. To jail someone because of something like this is quite, quite wrong. On Friday I went on a demonstration to object to how Pussy Riot have been treated. The demonstration took the form of an impromptu performance in the Bear Pit in Bristol, and considering it was organised in only an hour, there were quite a lot of people there.
This demonstration was filmed and put on YouTube (I have embedded the link below). When you see this video, please please please share it with lots of people. Our aim is to make the video go viral, and hopefully people in Russia will see it. A lot of people will tell me that this is naive, idealistic and just won't work - but those people would also have said that it wouldn't have been possible to organise something as large scale as what we did on Friday in such a short space of time, and we managed to do that. The bare bones of the matter is, you cannot say what will work or not until you try it. I can't imagine that our video will become the next Charlie Bit My Finger or the next My Tram Experience, but I hope it will be seen by enough people to make everyone realise how much support Pussy Riot have. If you do just one good thing today, I'd like it to be sharing this video with your friends. Come on, do your bit! If you were in the position that these women are in at the moment, you would want the rest of the world to help out.
For some reason, Blogger isn't letting me embed, so I'll just have to post a link to the video. There is a petition in the info box on the YouTube page:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Fljvk3_PoVA
(Update: For some reason, this video has been taken down by the uploader, as the people who made it felt it looked too amateur. I'm not sure if they are going to re-edit it and put it up again, or if they're just going to leave it, but I hope the video of our demo reappears in some shape or form. I guess we'll have to wait and see...)
There is one more thing I want to talk about in this blog. Obviously the Olympics are over, and many people are now looking forward to the Paralympic Games - an amazing chance for many disabled athletes. I have recently read something quite shocking about the seating arrangements for the Games, which will start on August 29. Spectators who have a physical disability (such as wheelchair users) have to sit in a certain part of the venue that has been converted to suit their needs, and are only allowed to be accompanied by one accompanying adult. This means that many wheelchair-bound parents are being told that their children need to sit in a different part of the venue to them. In addition to this being completely unfeasible in many cases (Beth Davis-Hofbauer, who is the face of the campaign against this, has a four-year-old autistic son and a 19-year-old baby), it is blatantly discriminatory against disabled people, at the very thing which should be targeted more towards opportunities for people with disabilities. I don't really have any opinion on the Olympics, because it is not really relevant to my life. The Paralympics interest me more, because they are an opportunity to do something great for disabled sport. I am really shocked that the seating arrangements discriminate against disabled people. Each and every one of us is just one step away from being disabled - anyone can have an accident - and I think that a lot of the time, the rest of us forget about that, and don't really think of disabled people as real individuals. I try not to think like that, but I reckon a lot of people do.
Anyway, there is an online petition on change.org to persuade officials to change their seating arrangements so that wheelchair-bound users can enjoy the Paralympic Games with their families. Please sign it:
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/international-paralympic-committee-london2012-review-ticketing-policy-for-wheelchair-users?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=9645&alert_id=LiKtPYoCyW_mrkBBUWLVq
As regular readers of my blog know, I always reference someone that I respect and admire. This time, it's going to be Beth Davis-Hofbauer, the woman who created this petition about the Paralympic seating arrangements. She has had to cancel her tickets because her disability will make it impossible for her to go, and it takes guts to start a campaign on this level. The world needs more people like Beth.
More updates soon. Thanks for reading!
George
Thursday, 16 August 2012
Sunday, 8 April 2012
Is freedom of speech no longer valid?
Hello, faithful readers!
This post comes from something I read recently about a guy called Liam Stacey. I need to say straight away that I actually know absolutely nothing about this case, which is a little unusual. Normally I do lots of research into whatever I am blogging about, but on this occasion, I thought I should write about this as soon as I heard about it so that I can use my own untarnished opinion, and not be blinded by what someone else might or might not have said.
Anyway, Liam Stacey supposedly wrote racist and offensive comments on Twitter about footballer Fabrice Muamba (the guy who had the cardiac arrest on a football pitch the other week), and when challenged, went on to write more offensive posts, possibly because he was drunk. Liam has recently been jailed for 56 days by a district judge.
Now, maybe I have the wrong end of the stick, but isn't this a really extreme reaction? Sure, I'm not racist (I hope!) and I generally dislike people who say that kind of thing, but surely the whole point of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Blogger is for people to be able to express their opinions on things like this. If I was talking to someone on Facebook or Twitter and they said something really racist or homophobic, I would tell them that I find it offensive and ask them to stop, but I wouldn't report them for it, because it's just my opinion against theirs. Like it or not, personally offending someone should not be a crime - it is a horrible thing to do, certainly, but sending someone to jail for it is just wrong.
I have not read Liam's tweets and I don't intend to either, I quite frankly have better things to do with my time than read things like that. But I do think that once someone says that they are monitoring what people say on social networks, there is no telling how far it will go. How long will it be before, for example, anything that denounces the Government is illegal? Does that mean I could be jailed for writing this blog? Obviously, I'm being a little facetious, but the principle is the same - however offensive someone's opinion is, it is still their opinion and no one else has the right to tell them not to express it. That's just another form of censorship.
This post is a little shorter than normal, but I've pretty much said all I need to say really. Let me know what you think of this topic, if you like. I'll write more soon.
This post comes from something I read recently about a guy called Liam Stacey. I need to say straight away that I actually know absolutely nothing about this case, which is a little unusual. Normally I do lots of research into whatever I am blogging about, but on this occasion, I thought I should write about this as soon as I heard about it so that I can use my own untarnished opinion, and not be blinded by what someone else might or might not have said.
Anyway, Liam Stacey supposedly wrote racist and offensive comments on Twitter about footballer Fabrice Muamba (the guy who had the cardiac arrest on a football pitch the other week), and when challenged, went on to write more offensive posts, possibly because he was drunk. Liam has recently been jailed for 56 days by a district judge.
Now, maybe I have the wrong end of the stick, but isn't this a really extreme reaction? Sure, I'm not racist (I hope!) and I generally dislike people who say that kind of thing, but surely the whole point of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Blogger is for people to be able to express their opinions on things like this. If I was talking to someone on Facebook or Twitter and they said something really racist or homophobic, I would tell them that I find it offensive and ask them to stop, but I wouldn't report them for it, because it's just my opinion against theirs. Like it or not, personally offending someone should not be a crime - it is a horrible thing to do, certainly, but sending someone to jail for it is just wrong.
I have not read Liam's tweets and I don't intend to either, I quite frankly have better things to do with my time than read things like that. But I do think that once someone says that they are monitoring what people say on social networks, there is no telling how far it will go. How long will it be before, for example, anything that denounces the Government is illegal? Does that mean I could be jailed for writing this blog? Obviously, I'm being a little facetious, but the principle is the same - however offensive someone's opinion is, it is still their opinion and no one else has the right to tell them not to express it. That's just another form of censorship.
This post is a little shorter than normal, but I've pretty much said all I need to say really. Let me know what you think of this topic, if you like. I'll write more soon.
Monday, 2 April 2012
How the police should get respect
Hello!
This blog actually comes from a Facebook conversation I stumbled upon tonight. The conversation is about a YouTube video of police evicting people from a mansion in Bristol (the video is below if anyone wants a look.) We had a conversation about tactics the police use, and whether they are ever justifiable. There are so many videos out there showing police during different scenes, and there are so many points of view - some claim that the police need to be heavy-handed to enforce the law, keep people in control and gain respect, other people insist that the police are bullies who are violent for no reason, and nothing is ever done about it.
Personally I think that if the police are there to enforce the law they need to be shown respect - but you can't respect something that has nothing to be respected for. Being heavy-handed is inevitably going to be necessary sometimes when you are in that kind of job, but it goes over the limit far too much. Some people complain that the amount of physical and verbal aggression towards the police is appalling - and it may well be -, but I'm afraid that that works two ways. I don't recall having ever seen a video of physical and verbal aggression towards the police where the police haven't been physically and verbally aggressive back, and not just in self-defence either. Many times the police are confusing, unclear about the process (or don't know it themselves) and they try to make up for this by trying to intimidate people. The problem is that when they do this, this creates aggression. If you are in that kind of situation, it is psychologically very difficult to avoid losing your cool, and becoming aggressive yourself - and once that happens, the police have grounds to avoid any trouble if you try to complain - they can just claim it was self-defence. I think that people need to be trained in how to stay calm if that situation occurs, so the police have no reason to get violent - and the police need to show people that they are someone to be trusted by being the better person, not getting involved in shouting matches, and being clear what the situation is. You don't get respect by shouting loudly or by wearing a uniform with all your achievements on it, you earn respect by being a good person, and that's how it's done.
It's not just police that I think this about, and it wouldn't be fair just to mention the police. I did actually have a conversation about teachers with some friends a few weeks ago, after I made the controversial statement that it is never acceptable for a teacher to raise their voice at a pupil. We argued about it for a while, and we still don't agree. I know it's controversial, but I think that if a student - of any age - is being uncooperative, difficult, or even just plain wreaking havoc, you can move them, you can have a conversation with them and you can make them realise themselves, but the moment you raise your voice, that immediately lets your personal emotions take over, and I firmly believe that that never improves a situation. It is really unprofessional to let your emotions take over at work, and it stops you from being objective. In my life, I have lost respect for anyone who has ever raised their voice at me, because there are far, far better ways to sort the situation out. I'm not going to be really self-righteous and say I never raise my voice, because we all do occasionally - but on those occasions, I generally apologise to the person afterwards, and make it clear that I shouldn't have talked to them in that way.
So anyway, let me know what your thoughts are on this...
There is one more thing I want to talk about... Does anyone remember Bradley Manning? I've talked about him a few times on here... anyway, in case anyone doesn't know, he's the man who released the Collateral Murder video to WikiLeaks, and he was held in solitary confinement for a long time. He still hasn't been tried, but something great has happened... he has won the People's Choice Human Rights Award! Here is the statement released:
'We are proud to announce PFC Bradley Manning as this year’s People’s Choice Honoree. He received over 2900 votes.
It takes great courage to stand for what you know is right. Bradley Manning, a 24-year-old Army intelligence analyst, joined the Army at age 19. Bradley is accused of leaking a video showing the killing of civilians, including two Reuters journalists, by a U.S. Apache helicopter crew in Iraq. He’s also charged with sharing the documents known as the Afghan War Diary, the Iraq War Logs, and embarrassing U.S. diplomatic cables, with the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks. Journalists have credited the release of these documents with helping to motivate the democratic revolution in Tunisia as well as the final withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Although Bradley has not yet been tried, he was held in solitary confinement for the first 10 months of his incarceration. If the military continues refusing to acknowledge Bradley as a whistleblower, he may become the first person in U.S. history to be convicted of “Aiding the enemy through indirect means,” a crime punishable by life in prison or the death penalty, for telling the public the truth. Learn more about how to support Bradley at www.bradleymanning.org.'
I think that this is fantastic really! He's a world hero, at least in my opinion, and this will hopefully help him achieve the outcome he deserves!
This blog actually comes from a Facebook conversation I stumbled upon tonight. The conversation is about a YouTube video of police evicting people from a mansion in Bristol (the video is below if anyone wants a look.) We had a conversation about tactics the police use, and whether they are ever justifiable. There are so many videos out there showing police during different scenes, and there are so many points of view - some claim that the police need to be heavy-handed to enforce the law, keep people in control and gain respect, other people insist that the police are bullies who are violent for no reason, and nothing is ever done about it.
Personally I think that if the police are there to enforce the law they need to be shown respect - but you can't respect something that has nothing to be respected for. Being heavy-handed is inevitably going to be necessary sometimes when you are in that kind of job, but it goes over the limit far too much. Some people complain that the amount of physical and verbal aggression towards the police is appalling - and it may well be -, but I'm afraid that that works two ways. I don't recall having ever seen a video of physical and verbal aggression towards the police where the police haven't been physically and verbally aggressive back, and not just in self-defence either. Many times the police are confusing, unclear about the process (or don't know it themselves) and they try to make up for this by trying to intimidate people. The problem is that when they do this, this creates aggression. If you are in that kind of situation, it is psychologically very difficult to avoid losing your cool, and becoming aggressive yourself - and once that happens, the police have grounds to avoid any trouble if you try to complain - they can just claim it was self-defence. I think that people need to be trained in how to stay calm if that situation occurs, so the police have no reason to get violent - and the police need to show people that they are someone to be trusted by being the better person, not getting involved in shouting matches, and being clear what the situation is. You don't get respect by shouting loudly or by wearing a uniform with all your achievements on it, you earn respect by being a good person, and that's how it's done.
It's not just police that I think this about, and it wouldn't be fair just to mention the police. I did actually have a conversation about teachers with some friends a few weeks ago, after I made the controversial statement that it is never acceptable for a teacher to raise their voice at a pupil. We argued about it for a while, and we still don't agree. I know it's controversial, but I think that if a student - of any age - is being uncooperative, difficult, or even just plain wreaking havoc, you can move them, you can have a conversation with them and you can make them realise themselves, but the moment you raise your voice, that immediately lets your personal emotions take over, and I firmly believe that that never improves a situation. It is really unprofessional to let your emotions take over at work, and it stops you from being objective. In my life, I have lost respect for anyone who has ever raised their voice at me, because there are far, far better ways to sort the situation out. I'm not going to be really self-righteous and say I never raise my voice, because we all do occasionally - but on those occasions, I generally apologise to the person afterwards, and make it clear that I shouldn't have talked to them in that way.
So anyway, let me know what your thoughts are on this...
There is one more thing I want to talk about... Does anyone remember Bradley Manning? I've talked about him a few times on here... anyway, in case anyone doesn't know, he's the man who released the Collateral Murder video to WikiLeaks, and he was held in solitary confinement for a long time. He still hasn't been tried, but something great has happened... he has won the People's Choice Human Rights Award! Here is the statement released:
'We are proud to announce PFC Bradley Manning as this year’s People’s Choice Honoree. He received over 2900 votes.
It takes great courage to stand for what you know is right. Bradley Manning, a 24-year-old Army intelligence analyst, joined the Army at age 19. Bradley is accused of leaking a video showing the killing of civilians, including two Reuters journalists, by a U.S. Apache helicopter crew in Iraq. He’s also charged with sharing the documents known as the Afghan War Diary, the Iraq War Logs, and embarrassing U.S. diplomatic cables, with the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks. Journalists have credited the release of these documents with helping to motivate the democratic revolution in Tunisia as well as the final withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Although Bradley has not yet been tried, he was held in solitary confinement for the first 10 months of his incarceration. If the military continues refusing to acknowledge Bradley as a whistleblower, he may become the first person in U.S. history to be convicted of “Aiding the enemy through indirect means,” a crime punishable by life in prison or the death penalty, for telling the public the truth. Learn more about how to support Bradley at www.bradleymanning.org.'
I think that this is fantastic really! He's a world hero, at least in my opinion, and this will hopefully help him achieve the outcome he deserves!
Wednesday, 14 March 2012
Am I middle-class? I don't think I am
"Just because I'm from working-class backgrounds doesn't mean I don't have higher-class ambitions. You know, it's not where I'm from, it's where I'm going that matters." Lizzie Magee, Young Apprentice semi-finallist 2011
This blog post isn't really political as such, but I'm writing it because I had a conversation recently with a couple of friends about whether or not I am middle-class. There is a bit of a backstory behind this. The school I went to until I was nearly nine was a private school, so was plainly and simply extremely middle-class. The school I went to for the next three years was in quite a working class part of Bristol, so by the time I had finished there I had had experiences of both kinds of lifestyle. The secondary school I went to for five years had everything really - people from every background and culture that you could think of. You were never surprised by anyone you met there, and that was why I loved it. And this is really why I do not feel that I am middle-class.
I grew up in a household without a huge amount of money, my mum has been a single parent for most of my life, she is a professional person but the only reason we have more money than some people is because we take in lodgers. The college I am at at the moment actually is in a more middle-class part of Bristol. I know why people think that I am middle-class, it's because on the surface I appear to be everything that middle-class people stand for. I want to show people that just because I have a nice accent, a passion for good theatre and an olive fetish, does not make me middle-class, it just makes me George Millman. I suppose because of my upbringing I've learned to not think about different social classes at all when I talk to people. In fact, the time that I have thought about it the most in my life is on the coach trip when this conversation arose, and then I just couldn't get it out of my head.
What is more, I don't think that upper-class really exists any more, in the UK at least. Middle-class has become a very broad term to make upper-class sound more acceptable. If upper-class did exist I would probably be more likely to call myself middle-class, but the term 'middle-class' has so much stigma attached to it that I simply do not feel right calling myself by it. I would not say that I was working-class by any means, but I don't feel that I am at all part of society's hierarchies. Class is not just about money and profession, it is about values and frame of mind - and my values are about everyone being equal in society, and not being part of a caste system. We need to wake up and realise that we're not in India, or in the 1950s - we should show the rest of the world that these systems are not necessary for everyone to live together and be happy with one another.
One more reason that I don't think I'm middle-class... I don't want to make a sweeping generalisation, but I don't think middle-class people challenge the status quo very much. The way things are seems all right for them, so they are happy to live with it. I'm not like that. If I think something is unfair, I challenge it. That is what this blog is for in the first place, and I think that everyone should have an equal place in society.
My nomination for someone to love and admire in this blog is Lizzie Magee, who made the statement I've quoted at the top of the page. I admire Lizzie because she comes from what some would call a working-class background, but from the statement she doesn't see herself as being working-class. I think that is wonderful, because so many people are pushed into this box their whole lives, and they accept that and never come out and open their minds to new experiences and new ways of life. I felt an affinity with Lizzie earlier this week when someone told me I was middle-class - my situation was the other way around to hers, but the principle is the same. I was being told that I was someone who I didn't feel I was, and I felt that needed to be addressed. So I've done that here on this post, which I am proud of.
So anyway... feel free to leave any comments if you'd like to agree on any points, or to vent your frustration about anything I've said... always happy to listen!
Take care, rabid readers
George
Update: Someone pointed out that Lizzie didn't actually say she doesn't see herself as working class, she said that just because she comes from a certain background doesn't mean she should be a confined to a certain lifestyle, and that she may well identify herself as working class. That is a really good point - which is why I am writing it down - but the overall meaning is the same as what I was saying. The whole point of social classes is to confine people to a certain lifestyle, and I'm trying to break away from that. Apologies to Lizzie if she reads it and doesn't agree with what I've said about her statement. I think you're great, honest!
This blog post isn't really political as such, but I'm writing it because I had a conversation recently with a couple of friends about whether or not I am middle-class. There is a bit of a backstory behind this. The school I went to until I was nearly nine was a private school, so was plainly and simply extremely middle-class. The school I went to for the next three years was in quite a working class part of Bristol, so by the time I had finished there I had had experiences of both kinds of lifestyle. The secondary school I went to for five years had everything really - people from every background and culture that you could think of. You were never surprised by anyone you met there, and that was why I loved it. And this is really why I do not feel that I am middle-class.
I grew up in a household without a huge amount of money, my mum has been a single parent for most of my life, she is a professional person but the only reason we have more money than some people is because we take in lodgers. The college I am at at the moment actually is in a more middle-class part of Bristol. I know why people think that I am middle-class, it's because on the surface I appear to be everything that middle-class people stand for. I want to show people that just because I have a nice accent, a passion for good theatre and an olive fetish, does not make me middle-class, it just makes me George Millman. I suppose because of my upbringing I've learned to not think about different social classes at all when I talk to people. In fact, the time that I have thought about it the most in my life is on the coach trip when this conversation arose, and then I just couldn't get it out of my head.
What is more, I don't think that upper-class really exists any more, in the UK at least. Middle-class has become a very broad term to make upper-class sound more acceptable. If upper-class did exist I would probably be more likely to call myself middle-class, but the term 'middle-class' has so much stigma attached to it that I simply do not feel right calling myself by it. I would not say that I was working-class by any means, but I don't feel that I am at all part of society's hierarchies. Class is not just about money and profession, it is about values and frame of mind - and my values are about everyone being equal in society, and not being part of a caste system. We need to wake up and realise that we're not in India, or in the 1950s - we should show the rest of the world that these systems are not necessary for everyone to live together and be happy with one another.
One more reason that I don't think I'm middle-class... I don't want to make a sweeping generalisation, but I don't think middle-class people challenge the status quo very much. The way things are seems all right for them, so they are happy to live with it. I'm not like that. If I think something is unfair, I challenge it. That is what this blog is for in the first place, and I think that everyone should have an equal place in society.
My nomination for someone to love and admire in this blog is Lizzie Magee, who made the statement I've quoted at the top of the page. I admire Lizzie because she comes from what some would call a working-class background, but from the statement she doesn't see herself as being working-class. I think that is wonderful, because so many people are pushed into this box their whole lives, and they accept that and never come out and open their minds to new experiences and new ways of life. I felt an affinity with Lizzie earlier this week when someone told me I was middle-class - my situation was the other way around to hers, but the principle is the same. I was being told that I was someone who I didn't feel I was, and I felt that needed to be addressed. So I've done that here on this post, which I am proud of.
So anyway... feel free to leave any comments if you'd like to agree on any points, or to vent your frustration about anything I've said... always happy to listen!
Take care, rabid readers
George
Update: Someone pointed out that Lizzie didn't actually say she doesn't see herself as working class, she said that just because she comes from a certain background doesn't mean she should be a confined to a certain lifestyle, and that she may well identify herself as working class. That is a really good point - which is why I am writing it down - but the overall meaning is the same as what I was saying. The whole point of social classes is to confine people to a certain lifestyle, and I'm trying to break away from that. Apologies to Lizzie if she reads it and doesn't agree with what I've said about her statement. I think you're great, honest!
Monday, 12 March 2012
They will never take my freedom from me
Hello!
I've been meaning to write another blog for a while, but I haven't really got around to it... and then today I saw that I last blogged over a month ago, and that was about something fairly minor, so I thought I really should do it now.
Richard O'Dwyer still hasn't been extradited, and I'm beginning to wonder whether it will actually happen. At the moment, my hopes are pinned on the theory that everyone has more important things to worry about than some guy who made a website, and this case will just fizzle out. This would obviously be a victory in many ways - it would be far better if our Government actually showed some backbone and said no, but as far as Richard is concerned, if he isn't extradited it will be far better for everyone, regardless of the way that it happens. After all, Gary McKinnon happened back in 2008, and he hasn't been extradited yet. I may be proved wrong, but I very much doubt it will happen in practice.
Unfortunately the same cannot be said for 65-year-old businessman Christopher Tappin, who has already been extradited on charges of providing arms to the Iraqis. Apparently the arms he was providing to Iran were actually batteries that supposedly could possibly be used in missile systems. He also did not export them to Iran, but to the Netherlands, from where they could possibly have been re-exported to Iran. (I confess that I actually obtained this information from something that somebody said on a Facebook comment so it may not be completely accurate - but I think that it is likely to be, as in my experience Facebook comments are often a lot more accurate than widely sourced media sources.) Anyway, he's being held in some American jail somewhere, and our Government are doing jack all for him. I think he should just have refused to go. If I was in his position, I would chain myself to the railings outside my house, and when they came for me I would stand calmly and say, 'I have made my decision, and my decision is no. I will not be coming with you today.' (That is actually a cool line from a 2006 episode of Doctor Who, but it sums up what I would want to say.) Some people would gasp at this and be like, 'But the international Governments require you to go! Whether you agree with them or not you have to go along with them!' Yes, that's all very well and good, but if you stop and think about it - I am a human, and the Governments are comprised of humans, and the only power that they have over me has been given to them by other humans. Therefore, they actually are not any better than me, and they have no power that they have not just given themselves. I firmly believe that everyone else in the world is my equal, and that is why, as I have said in my title, no one can take away my freedom.
There is one more thing I want to discuss here, and that is the UK's stance on making us more British and giving us a more British identity. What on earth does that even mean? I am British, and I would not be any more British if the Government decided that everyone had to look, dress and talk the same as everyone else. I think that the Government are distracting people from the real issues like the NHS by ironing out problems that are not really there. I'm lucky enough to have been to a really multicultural secondary school which contained students and teachers from every background, and I am so happy to have had that experience. It made me realise that being British can in fact be summed up in a sentence, and that sentence goes as follows: We can be proud to be British because we are open-minded enough to have allowed our culture to integrate itself with lots of different cultures, and we have become a really fair and balanced society because of it. There is one thing that I agree on, and that is that not enough of our immigrants are fluent in the English language, but there are two immediate counter-arguments to that:
a) If that is such a problem (and it is), we should be encouraging courses on English as a second language, not cutting the funding for said courses.
b) Lots of British people who go to live abroad never bother to learn the language, so that is very hypocritical.
My person to love, respect and admire this time is the poet Benjamin Zephaniah. I confess to not actually having read very many of his poems, but I have always thought that from what I know of him he is a really fantastic guy, and I saw him on TV recently saying the things that I have just said about this 'British identity' rubbish, and the way he made his points was one of the main things that aspired me to write this blog.
I have recently thought of a few more things I would like to blog about, so it hopefully won't be too long until the next one.
Cheerio, everybody!
I've been meaning to write another blog for a while, but I haven't really got around to it... and then today I saw that I last blogged over a month ago, and that was about something fairly minor, so I thought I really should do it now.
Richard O'Dwyer still hasn't been extradited, and I'm beginning to wonder whether it will actually happen. At the moment, my hopes are pinned on the theory that everyone has more important things to worry about than some guy who made a website, and this case will just fizzle out. This would obviously be a victory in many ways - it would be far better if our Government actually showed some backbone and said no, but as far as Richard is concerned, if he isn't extradited it will be far better for everyone, regardless of the way that it happens. After all, Gary McKinnon happened back in 2008, and he hasn't been extradited yet. I may be proved wrong, but I very much doubt it will happen in practice.
Unfortunately the same cannot be said for 65-year-old businessman Christopher Tappin, who has already been extradited on charges of providing arms to the Iraqis. Apparently the arms he was providing to Iran were actually batteries that supposedly could possibly be used in missile systems. He also did not export them to Iran, but to the Netherlands, from where they could possibly have been re-exported to Iran. (I confess that I actually obtained this information from something that somebody said on a Facebook comment so it may not be completely accurate - but I think that it is likely to be, as in my experience Facebook comments are often a lot more accurate than widely sourced media sources.) Anyway, he's being held in some American jail somewhere, and our Government are doing jack all for him. I think he should just have refused to go. If I was in his position, I would chain myself to the railings outside my house, and when they came for me I would stand calmly and say, 'I have made my decision, and my decision is no. I will not be coming with you today.' (That is actually a cool line from a 2006 episode of Doctor Who, but it sums up what I would want to say.) Some people would gasp at this and be like, 'But the international Governments require you to go! Whether you agree with them or not you have to go along with them!' Yes, that's all very well and good, but if you stop and think about it - I am a human, and the Governments are comprised of humans, and the only power that they have over me has been given to them by other humans. Therefore, they actually are not any better than me, and they have no power that they have not just given themselves. I firmly believe that everyone else in the world is my equal, and that is why, as I have said in my title, no one can take away my freedom.
There is one more thing I want to discuss here, and that is the UK's stance on making us more British and giving us a more British identity. What on earth does that even mean? I am British, and I would not be any more British if the Government decided that everyone had to look, dress and talk the same as everyone else. I think that the Government are distracting people from the real issues like the NHS by ironing out problems that are not really there. I'm lucky enough to have been to a really multicultural secondary school which contained students and teachers from every background, and I am so happy to have had that experience. It made me realise that being British can in fact be summed up in a sentence, and that sentence goes as follows: We can be proud to be British because we are open-minded enough to have allowed our culture to integrate itself with lots of different cultures, and we have become a really fair and balanced society because of it. There is one thing that I agree on, and that is that not enough of our immigrants are fluent in the English language, but there are two immediate counter-arguments to that:
a) If that is such a problem (and it is), we should be encouraging courses on English as a second language, not cutting the funding for said courses.
b) Lots of British people who go to live abroad never bother to learn the language, so that is very hypocritical.
My person to love, respect and admire this time is the poet Benjamin Zephaniah. I confess to not actually having read very many of his poems, but I have always thought that from what I know of him he is a really fantastic guy, and I saw him on TV recently saying the things that I have just said about this 'British identity' rubbish, and the way he made his points was one of the main things that aspired me to write this blog.
I have recently thought of a few more things I would like to blog about, so it hopefully won't be too long until the next one.
Cheerio, everybody!
Thursday, 9 February 2012
My struggle for independence at college
Hello!
Now, I'm sorry that I haven't blogged in a little while. The reason for this is that apart from my A-levels, there hasn't actually been that much going on in my life at the moment - except that a couple of weeks ago I went to a workshop on non-violent protest, which I should have blogged about and didn't... anyway, in a few weeks time we're blockading a nuclear power station, so I will probably blog about that!
Anyway, today's blog is actually about something really minor, but it means a lot to me, so I decided to talk a bit about it. I am an A-level drama student in Bristol, and recently we have all been excited about a trip to the National Theatre, which is a compulsory part of our course because we have to write about the play that we are going to see. We have all been given letters about it, and we are supposed to get our parents to sign our permission slips - which is a little odd, as the trip is compulsory. Anyway, I have been challenging this, because I am 18 - legally an adult - and I don't think that it is fair that I should be expected to rely on someone else to agree to let me go. So I did some digging, and compiled a list of all my rights, and then declared that to my drama teacher, along with the form that I had signed - he wasn't too happy about it...
I know that it seems like a really petty thing to complain about, but as followers of my blog will know, I am a keen supporter of independence and taking responsibility for oneself. I feel that if I got my parents to sign it, I would be conceding to the idea that I am not psychologically capable of taking responsibility for myself on this trip. I can legally sign forms for medical procedures, which carry a lot more risk than this trip will. I can legally leave home without my parents consent, and if I had left home, I don't honestly believe that my college would make such a big deal out of it - so why should the building I live in make so much of a difference? It's just bricks and mortar. My drama teacher says that the reason is that this is a trip where I will not be thought of as the independent man that I am - but if I were to run amok at National Theatre and vandalise it, I would be held criminally responsible and at that point I'm pretty sure that they would think that I was capable of making my own decisions - so why do they not think that way in a situation when I can achieve something?
I don't know why any of these things are to be honest, it's just a bureaucratic policy that probably hasn't been thought through very carefully. But I will continue to fight for my independence, because my independence is very important to me. In my last blog, I used the example of Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on the bus, and I will use that example again here. Like me, she was fighting an establishment that didn't view her as an equal, or in high esteem at all, and she stood up for what she believed in, like I am doing. I know that it is a little bit rich to compare my situation to that of Rosa Parks, but the only reason it is rich is because racism has become such a hot topic around the world. At the time, she was just standing up (or sitting down) for what she believed in, and I believe that this is as important to me individually as her protest was to her. Obviously I don't want to miss out on this trip and fail my A-level, but I am willing to do it if that is what it takes, because someone needs to stand up, and there is no reason why that person shouldn't be me. What happens next is up to my drama department, isn't it?
I'm going to finish with People to Love and Admire. Now, I haven't done one of these in a while, but today I did hear of a man who definitely deserves recognition on here. His name is Alki David. As you know if you are a frequent viewer, I have been very interested in the case of Richard O'Dwyer, who faces extradition for setting up a website called TV Shack. Alki is a very kind man who has offered to pay Richard's legal fees if he is extradited! I was so chuffed to find that out, I thought I simply must mention him on my blog. What a kind man! I'm sure that we all can do something like that for someone at some point in our lives.
Anyway, I'll blog again soon when something happens! Ta ta for now!
Update: I sorted this out today, and they were lovely! I got exactly what I was asking for, and I suppose it goes to show that it is really worth putting in the effort if there is something that you really want. Thank you, drama teacher!
Now, I'm sorry that I haven't blogged in a little while. The reason for this is that apart from my A-levels, there hasn't actually been that much going on in my life at the moment - except that a couple of weeks ago I went to a workshop on non-violent protest, which I should have blogged about and didn't... anyway, in a few weeks time we're blockading a nuclear power station, so I will probably blog about that!
Anyway, today's blog is actually about something really minor, but it means a lot to me, so I decided to talk a bit about it. I am an A-level drama student in Bristol, and recently we have all been excited about a trip to the National Theatre, which is a compulsory part of our course because we have to write about the play that we are going to see. We have all been given letters about it, and we are supposed to get our parents to sign our permission slips - which is a little odd, as the trip is compulsory. Anyway, I have been challenging this, because I am 18 - legally an adult - and I don't think that it is fair that I should be expected to rely on someone else to agree to let me go. So I did some digging, and compiled a list of all my rights, and then declared that to my drama teacher, along with the form that I had signed - he wasn't too happy about it...
I know that it seems like a really petty thing to complain about, but as followers of my blog will know, I am a keen supporter of independence and taking responsibility for oneself. I feel that if I got my parents to sign it, I would be conceding to the idea that I am not psychologically capable of taking responsibility for myself on this trip. I can legally sign forms for medical procedures, which carry a lot more risk than this trip will. I can legally leave home without my parents consent, and if I had left home, I don't honestly believe that my college would make such a big deal out of it - so why should the building I live in make so much of a difference? It's just bricks and mortar. My drama teacher says that the reason is that this is a trip where I will not be thought of as the independent man that I am - but if I were to run amok at National Theatre and vandalise it, I would be held criminally responsible and at that point I'm pretty sure that they would think that I was capable of making my own decisions - so why do they not think that way in a situation when I can achieve something?
I don't know why any of these things are to be honest, it's just a bureaucratic policy that probably hasn't been thought through very carefully. But I will continue to fight for my independence, because my independence is very important to me. In my last blog, I used the example of Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on the bus, and I will use that example again here. Like me, she was fighting an establishment that didn't view her as an equal, or in high esteem at all, and she stood up for what she believed in, like I am doing. I know that it is a little bit rich to compare my situation to that of Rosa Parks, but the only reason it is rich is because racism has become such a hot topic around the world. At the time, she was just standing up (or sitting down) for what she believed in, and I believe that this is as important to me individually as her protest was to her. Obviously I don't want to miss out on this trip and fail my A-level, but I am willing to do it if that is what it takes, because someone needs to stand up, and there is no reason why that person shouldn't be me. What happens next is up to my drama department, isn't it?
I'm going to finish with People to Love and Admire. Now, I haven't done one of these in a while, but today I did hear of a man who definitely deserves recognition on here. His name is Alki David. As you know if you are a frequent viewer, I have been very interested in the case of Richard O'Dwyer, who faces extradition for setting up a website called TV Shack. Alki is a very kind man who has offered to pay Richard's legal fees if he is extradited! I was so chuffed to find that out, I thought I simply must mention him on my blog. What a kind man! I'm sure that we all can do something like that for someone at some point in our lives.
Anyway, I'll blog again soon when something happens! Ta ta for now!
Update: I sorted this out today, and they were lovely! I got exactly what I was asking for, and I suppose it goes to show that it is really worth putting in the effort if there is something that you really want. Thank you, drama teacher!
Tuesday, 24 January 2012
What can one person do about censorship?
Hi everyone!
Now, firstly, I have changed my plans to systematically talk about each episode of The Big Questions, because they might easily not be about something that I want to talk about. I will carry on mentioning it in my posts, but I'm not going to systematically discuss everything they talk about, because I have better things to do on here.
My last post was about Richard O'Dwyer, and since then, it has come to my attention that we are living in a world that is becoming worryingly overcome by censorship. Last week, Wikipedia was down in protest against SOPA and PIPA (two things which I really can't be bothered to explain about, but would basically ruin everyone's use of the Internet, and also threaten our right to share information. Look it up if you haven't heard of it, but most people have). The popular video-sharing sites, MegaUpload and MegaVideo, have been closed down and replaced with a snazzy but depressing FBI logo. YouTube are taking things down, and who knows where it could lead next? Blogger, perhaps? I hope no one closes my blog, I have some pretty important stuff on here!
Anyway, hopefully this will only be a temporary thing - after all, if MegaVideo and the other things don't come back, someone will probably create something similar once the fuss has died down) but here is George's Official Advice for Guarding Yourself Against Censorship on the Internet and Worldwide (GOAGYACIW) (Well, the feds would probably like me to phrase it like that anyway):
1. Be a scavenger. If you can't find the video you want, or the information you need, go through every single link... even if it doesn't look like it will lead to anything. That is how I found MegaVideo in the first place. It feels kind of like scratching and scrabbling through the Net. The feds are like a fire - no matter how powerful they are, there is always something left behind.
2. Create a domino effect with what you find. A domino effect is when something happens, which triggers something else, which triggers another event, like dominos leaning against each other and ultimately knocking themselves over. When you find something... find out who made it, who they are associated with, and you might find something else... and something else, and something else...
3. Write a blog, or something similar. I've been writing this blog for quite a while now, and it is so rewarding. If anyone wants to read my opinions, they can just click on a link and see what I have to say. Writing all your opinions publicly also makes them more clear in your own mind, and makes it easier to justify them to yourself.
4. Stand up in the face of authority. There are some people who feel that just because someone has socially more power than them (like the Government, the police or the FBI) then that means that they have to do it. I want to emphasise that it is fine to challenge, or say no, to someone who is trying to intimidate you into doing what they want. Why should they have more power over your life than you? With a few very obvious exceptions (like murderers and people like that), there is no reason why one human being should have that kind of power over another human being's life. Rosa Parks challenged authority when she refused to give up her seat on the bus, and she is remembered as a hero. In this day and age, if someone does the equivalent of that, they are criticised and condemned.
5. The fundamental answer to the question 'What can one person do about censorship?' is 'Team up with someone else!' The overall answer is: make friends. It is difficult for one person to make a difference entirely on their own. Even this blog is inspired by ideas which I have taken from other people, like Laurie Penny and Jody McIntyre and the other people I have commended on here. The thing is, everyone has ideals, but it is only when people choose to share them with each other that something wonderful can occur when everyone's ideas and information is pooled. I have some wonderful friends who I talk to and learn things from, and I would not be the person that I am without them. So the overall answer to guard yourself from censorship, whether on the Internet or not, is: Talk to people! After all, they can't control what you say... yet.
Anyway, I'm not sure this post is quite as good as some of my previous ones, but hopefully someone will see where I am coming from here. America has too much power over the rest of the world, and I will sit here and tell the world about it from my living room in Bristol, because that is what I do.
I will leave you with a comedy sketch, which has a vague connection to what I have been talking about. It's not very practical, but it is about standing up to authority - and I would love to treat the police like that! Watch the girl's hat as well:
See you on the next blog!
Now, firstly, I have changed my plans to systematically talk about each episode of The Big Questions, because they might easily not be about something that I want to talk about. I will carry on mentioning it in my posts, but I'm not going to systematically discuss everything they talk about, because I have better things to do on here.
My last post was about Richard O'Dwyer, and since then, it has come to my attention that we are living in a world that is becoming worryingly overcome by censorship. Last week, Wikipedia was down in protest against SOPA and PIPA (two things which I really can't be bothered to explain about, but would basically ruin everyone's use of the Internet, and also threaten our right to share information. Look it up if you haven't heard of it, but most people have). The popular video-sharing sites, MegaUpload and MegaVideo, have been closed down and replaced with a snazzy but depressing FBI logo. YouTube are taking things down, and who knows where it could lead next? Blogger, perhaps? I hope no one closes my blog, I have some pretty important stuff on here!
Anyway, hopefully this will only be a temporary thing - after all, if MegaVideo and the other things don't come back, someone will probably create something similar once the fuss has died down) but here is George's Official Advice for Guarding Yourself Against Censorship on the Internet and Worldwide (GOAGYACIW) (Well, the feds would probably like me to phrase it like that anyway):
1. Be a scavenger. If you can't find the video you want, or the information you need, go through every single link... even if it doesn't look like it will lead to anything. That is how I found MegaVideo in the first place. It feels kind of like scratching and scrabbling through the Net. The feds are like a fire - no matter how powerful they are, there is always something left behind.
2. Create a domino effect with what you find. A domino effect is when something happens, which triggers something else, which triggers another event, like dominos leaning against each other and ultimately knocking themselves over. When you find something... find out who made it, who they are associated with, and you might find something else... and something else, and something else...
3. Write a blog, or something similar. I've been writing this blog for quite a while now, and it is so rewarding. If anyone wants to read my opinions, they can just click on a link and see what I have to say. Writing all your opinions publicly also makes them more clear in your own mind, and makes it easier to justify them to yourself.
4. Stand up in the face of authority. There are some people who feel that just because someone has socially more power than them (like the Government, the police or the FBI) then that means that they have to do it. I want to emphasise that it is fine to challenge, or say no, to someone who is trying to intimidate you into doing what they want. Why should they have more power over your life than you? With a few very obvious exceptions (like murderers and people like that), there is no reason why one human being should have that kind of power over another human being's life. Rosa Parks challenged authority when she refused to give up her seat on the bus, and she is remembered as a hero. In this day and age, if someone does the equivalent of that, they are criticised and condemned.
5. The fundamental answer to the question 'What can one person do about censorship?' is 'Team up with someone else!' The overall answer is: make friends. It is difficult for one person to make a difference entirely on their own. Even this blog is inspired by ideas which I have taken from other people, like Laurie Penny and Jody McIntyre and the other people I have commended on here. The thing is, everyone has ideals, but it is only when people choose to share them with each other that something wonderful can occur when everyone's ideas and information is pooled. I have some wonderful friends who I talk to and learn things from, and I would not be the person that I am without them. So the overall answer to guard yourself from censorship, whether on the Internet or not, is: Talk to people! After all, they can't control what you say... yet.
Anyway, I'm not sure this post is quite as good as some of my previous ones, but hopefully someone will see where I am coming from here. America has too much power over the rest of the world, and I will sit here and tell the world about it from my living room in Bristol, because that is what I do.
I will leave you with a comedy sketch, which has a vague connection to what I have been talking about. It's not very practical, but it is about standing up to authority - and I would love to treat the police like that! Watch the girl's hat as well:
See you on the next blog!
Saturday, 14 January 2012
Richard O'Dwyer
Hi everyone
Now, I know I said I was going to write something each week for The Big Questions, but I might not do one for tomorrow's episode, because it's all about spiritual stuff and I'm not really into that. I might still write about it when it's on, but there's no certainty I will be bothered with it.
I'm going to talk about a man named Richard O'Dwyer, who has been in the news a lot recently. Like the founders of Google, Yahoo, Megavideo and many other websites, he set up a website containing links to other websites, most of which contained copyrighted television material. The USA have decided that they want to punish him for it, and for some reason, our Government is actually going along with this. They are currently planning to extradite him to the United States, which Judge Quentin Purdy has ruled in favour of. He is still appealing, so hopefully he can get out of this.
There are many reasons why I think this is blatantly ridiculous, so I'll try to bullet point them:
1. This contravenes freedom of expression. There are many people who want to post something online - myself included - and something that we should be really proud of in this country is that we don't censor people, because that's just not what we do. I'm sorry if some companies are being breached in terms of copyright, but that's life, and if they really want to prevent it, there are better ways than this.
2. The potential penalty is way out of proportion. If someone does something illegal to this extent, you fine them - you don't ship them off to another continent and give them up to 10 years jail time in a foreign nation, a child can see how pathetic that is.
3. Richard hasn't actually done anything wrong. He set up a website, that people posted some links on to other websites. Boo hoo. Extradite him, and you might as well extradite the people who created Google. But those people have more money than he does.
4. Richard is British, and these crimes happened in the UK. There may be occasions where it is necessary to work with another country in order to capture a criminal, but that treaty is supposed to be there to protect the innocent and tackle crimes where people are actually at risk. If there is going to be a criminal trial - and I don't think there should be anyway - there is absolutely no need to subject Richard to the stress and humiliation of having it happen in the USA, when this actually doesn't have anything to do with them at all. We are not America's puppets, we are the UK and we shouldn't feel the need to jump when America snaps its fingers.
5. The USA doesn't care about Richard at all, all they are interested in is showing him off as being this big pantomime villain and making an example of him, which is NOT FAIR UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
There, I managed five. I think that sums it up.
Anyway, I found a petition against him being extradited, which I think everyone should sign. This isn't just about Richard, it is about our rights to have freedom of expression on the Internet. If this goes ahead, anyone could be next. Here is the link:
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-extradition-fair-uk-trial-for-richard-o-dwyer.html
And finally, you may notice that throughout this blog, I referred to Richard not by his surname, as most articles do, but by his first name. The reason for this is that I like to make these things a bit more personal. When referring to someone by their surname, it becomes easy to think of them as a unit, but by using a first name, you remind yourself that here is a real person, and any one of us could be in his shoes. So please sign this petition and do your bit to help a man who is in a very unfair situation at the moment.
See you soon, blogsters! (Ooh, I think I just created a word then!)
Now, I know I said I was going to write something each week for The Big Questions, but I might not do one for tomorrow's episode, because it's all about spiritual stuff and I'm not really into that. I might still write about it when it's on, but there's no certainty I will be bothered with it.
I'm going to talk about a man named Richard O'Dwyer, who has been in the news a lot recently. Like the founders of Google, Yahoo, Megavideo and many other websites, he set up a website containing links to other websites, most of which contained copyrighted television material. The USA have decided that they want to punish him for it, and for some reason, our Government is actually going along with this. They are currently planning to extradite him to the United States, which Judge Quentin Purdy has ruled in favour of. He is still appealing, so hopefully he can get out of this.
There are many reasons why I think this is blatantly ridiculous, so I'll try to bullet point them:
1. This contravenes freedom of expression. There are many people who want to post something online - myself included - and something that we should be really proud of in this country is that we don't censor people, because that's just not what we do. I'm sorry if some companies are being breached in terms of copyright, but that's life, and if they really want to prevent it, there are better ways than this.
2. The potential penalty is way out of proportion. If someone does something illegal to this extent, you fine them - you don't ship them off to another continent and give them up to 10 years jail time in a foreign nation, a child can see how pathetic that is.
3. Richard hasn't actually done anything wrong. He set up a website, that people posted some links on to other websites. Boo hoo. Extradite him, and you might as well extradite the people who created Google. But those people have more money than he does.
4. Richard is British, and these crimes happened in the UK. There may be occasions where it is necessary to work with another country in order to capture a criminal, but that treaty is supposed to be there to protect the innocent and tackle crimes where people are actually at risk. If there is going to be a criminal trial - and I don't think there should be anyway - there is absolutely no need to subject Richard to the stress and humiliation of having it happen in the USA, when this actually doesn't have anything to do with them at all. We are not America's puppets, we are the UK and we shouldn't feel the need to jump when America snaps its fingers.
5. The USA doesn't care about Richard at all, all they are interested in is showing him off as being this big pantomime villain and making an example of him, which is NOT FAIR UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
There, I managed five. I think that sums it up.
Anyway, I found a petition against him being extradited, which I think everyone should sign. This isn't just about Richard, it is about our rights to have freedom of expression on the Internet. If this goes ahead, anyone could be next. Here is the link:
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-extradition-fair-uk-trial-for-richard-o-dwyer.html
And finally, you may notice that throughout this blog, I referred to Richard not by his surname, as most articles do, but by his first name. The reason for this is that I like to make these things a bit more personal. When referring to someone by their surname, it becomes easy to think of them as a unit, but by using a first name, you remind yourself that here is a real person, and any one of us could be in his shoes. So please sign this petition and do your bit to help a man who is in a very unfair situation at the moment.
See you soon, blogsters! (Ooh, I think I just created a word then!)
Sunday, 8 January 2012
The Big Questions episode 1
Hello! I am so sorry that I haven't blogged in such a bloody long time. Almost a month! Seriously though, I had tons on... and then all of a sudden it was Christmas and New Year etc, and you know how it goes... and everyone knows how pathetic I am at keeping this blog up to date anyway!
So. I am going to be talking about episodes of The Big Questions, which you may or may not know is a faith and ethics show that is broadcast on Sunday mornings. Every week they have one political debate, one moral debate and one religion debate, and I am going to give my views on the debates on this blog. This week they were discussing:
1. Did Mrs Thatcher make Britain better?
2. Should the terminally ill have the right to die?
3. Has the time come to repent?
With Margaret Thatcher, I wasn't actually born at the time she was in power, so I really can't have a fair opinion of her. There are so many arguments supporting what she did, and so many arguments against, that without being around during that era I think it's impossible to say really. One thing I will say though is, whether or not you support her politics, she managed to go into office and completely revolutionise the country, which is a very impressive thing to do, especially as she was the first woman prime minister. With what I have heard about her, I am probably more against her politics, but I have to give credit to her for being as strong as she was really. I think what the bloke said about the future showing whether or not she really had a positive effect on Britain is correct. And by the way, I really can't wait to see that new film about her that has Meryl Streep in it!
I think the decision on the terminally ill having the right to die can only be made by the terminally ill. If it is made by someone else, how can they possibly have an opinion? What the lady said about her husband was very moving, and I think that if someone in that situation wants to die, they will do it, like he did, by going to Dignitas in Switzerland. Obviously this is going to be a very stressful and traumatic ordeal, so if they are going to do it anyway, why not offer it here? I do, however, agree with what one person said about this not necessarily being the best time to do it though - Cameron (or Ca-MORON as I call him) has put the country into chaos, and doing it now might mean that people were pressured into doing it - which obviously isn't the way. I think people need a lot more choice in this kind of situation - ministers may think that they know best for the country, but the fact of the matter is that they are not in that situation for themselves, and so are not qualified to judge what other people should be able to do.
As for repenting, I never will! I don't think anything will happen on the 21st December 2012, but if it does, I don't think it will be as literal as that bloke thought. If anything does happen, I think it will be more like we all realise something about ourselves, and can mean a fresh start for everyone. I also find Kate Smurthwaite quite funny, because for everything she says, I either wholly agree with it or fundamentally disagree.
By the way, 21 December is the day that the legislation about more equal women's and men's car insurance comes in, so it will certainly be the end of the world for some women!
Here is the iPlayer link to this week's edition of The Big Questions
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b019jh9x/The_Big_Questions_Series_5_Episode_1/
So. I am going to be talking about episodes of The Big Questions, which you may or may not know is a faith and ethics show that is broadcast on Sunday mornings. Every week they have one political debate, one moral debate and one religion debate, and I am going to give my views on the debates on this blog. This week they were discussing:
1. Did Mrs Thatcher make Britain better?
2. Should the terminally ill have the right to die?
3. Has the time come to repent?
With Margaret Thatcher, I wasn't actually born at the time she was in power, so I really can't have a fair opinion of her. There are so many arguments supporting what she did, and so many arguments against, that without being around during that era I think it's impossible to say really. One thing I will say though is, whether or not you support her politics, she managed to go into office and completely revolutionise the country, which is a very impressive thing to do, especially as she was the first woman prime minister. With what I have heard about her, I am probably more against her politics, but I have to give credit to her for being as strong as she was really. I think what the bloke said about the future showing whether or not she really had a positive effect on Britain is correct. And by the way, I really can't wait to see that new film about her that has Meryl Streep in it!
I think the decision on the terminally ill having the right to die can only be made by the terminally ill. If it is made by someone else, how can they possibly have an opinion? What the lady said about her husband was very moving, and I think that if someone in that situation wants to die, they will do it, like he did, by going to Dignitas in Switzerland. Obviously this is going to be a very stressful and traumatic ordeal, so if they are going to do it anyway, why not offer it here? I do, however, agree with what one person said about this not necessarily being the best time to do it though - Cameron (or Ca-MORON as I call him) has put the country into chaos, and doing it now might mean that people were pressured into doing it - which obviously isn't the way. I think people need a lot more choice in this kind of situation - ministers may think that they know best for the country, but the fact of the matter is that they are not in that situation for themselves, and so are not qualified to judge what other people should be able to do.
As for repenting, I never will! I don't think anything will happen on the 21st December 2012, but if it does, I don't think it will be as literal as that bloke thought. If anything does happen, I think it will be more like we all realise something about ourselves, and can mean a fresh start for everyone. I also find Kate Smurthwaite quite funny, because for everything she says, I either wholly agree with it or fundamentally disagree.
By the way, 21 December is the day that the legislation about more equal women's and men's car insurance comes in, so it will certainly be the end of the world for some women!
Here is the iPlayer link to this week's edition of The Big Questions
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b019jh9x/The_Big_Questions_Series_5_Episode_1/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)