Hello everyone!
I've been meaning to talk about this for ages... and here it is... the Denmark teacher lockout.
Unless you have some sort of connection with Denmark, you probably won't know about this. I do have a connection with Denmark - I know people in Copenhagen, I've been there on holiday and I'm actually flying out there in less than two weeks now - and one of my Danish friends has told me about something appalling that is going on with Danish schools at the moment. Since then, I have been researching all that I can find about it (which isn't a lot) so that I can write a decent blog post about it.
There is quite a backstory to this, I had better explain it in detail (this is mostly information that I have gained through talking to people in Denmark, rather than from news articles and through websites etc). The Danish government (fronted by Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt) has decided that school students, even those young enough to attend primary school, should attend school from 8am to 4pm each day. Naturally, there are many teachers who have raised a lot of objection to this, and there have been demonstrations - even a case of teachers forming a 35 km line in protest. In response, the Government has locked teachers out of their own schools, essentially closing the schools in an attempt to force teachers to accept the changes.
This is obviously very unfair, and extremely detrimental to some of the older students facing exams. Apparently the official line is that this is happening because all of the other developed countries do it. Now, regardless of the very clear 'follow the herd' message that is coming there, I can say with a degree of certainty, as a young person from the UK who was in the school system himself until very recently, that this is absolutely not true. We certainly don't have a system like that in the UK, and if we did it would be terrible. Also, from what I have heard, in countries where these systems do happen they actually don't work very well - although this is speculation. The fact that the Danish government are trying to intimidate teachers into admitting defeat does shock me actually, and I have a lot of admiration for the teachers involved who are standing their ground and can hopefully beat this thing. This has been going on since the end of the Easter holidays, and from what I have heard, neither side is prepared to back down as of yet.
My thoughts for people to cherish and admire in this entry would have to be all of the Danish teachers who are putting their hearts and souls into fighting this thing. My friend in Denmark is a teacher, and luckily her school has not been affected, but the majority of schools have been. I hope that the teachers don't give up so that the older students can take their exams - I completely appreciate their position, but I have no doubt that once all of this has calmed down, they will have the opportunity to retake. For the moment, I think the emphasis has to be on standing up and making sure that the government does not get away with this move. If there are any Danish teachers reading this, please carry on your stance and do not give up! I think it is so important to stand up to get one's voice heard in the face of intimidation, and this kind of action just goes to show how committed these teachers are to their jobs and to their students. If this is still going on when I am in Denmark, I may well try to get involved with this action.
This is only rather a short post, and I concede not as well-written as some. However, I think that it's important to get this message out there, and to increase awareness of this situation to the world at large. If I didn't know people in Denmark, I would not be aware of this myself.
Thanks, blogsters!
Sunday, 21 April 2013
Monday, 8 April 2013
Margaret Thatcher and Lucy Meadows
Hello, blogsters! Been a little while since I updated this again, hasn't it?
Now, I have a few things to talk about, and obviously I have to start with the big thing that has happened. Margaret Thatcher has died. I'll talk a little more on this later, but first up I'll make it clear (as will probably be obvious to anyone who knows anything at all about me) that Margaret Thatcher was not a woman who I like very much.
Now to move on to the first main point of my article. I probably could have done better by talking about this earlier, but recently a primary school teacher called Lucy Meadows was found dead, possibly due to suicide. It is commonly believed that the reason for this was because of negative attention by the press, due to the fact that prior to gender reassignment, Miss Meadows was known as Nathan Upton. There was a particularly vindictive article by the Daily Mail's rather disgusting Richard Littlejohn, which has since been taken down from the website. However, I have found a blog that has reprinted it, which I would like you to read:
http://robinwinslow.co.uk/2013/03/23/hes-not-only-in-the-wrong-body-repost.html
It makes me so angry that in the 2010s, our hatred of someone whom we do not understand can lead to this. What Littlejohn, and others, fail to realise is that children are considerably less judgemental of what they do not understand than adults. The school itself was fantastic in dealing with this situation - the head teacher in particular comes across as being really understanding and supportive - and apparently they went all around the classrooms to explain why the former Mr Upton felt the need to become Miss Meadows. Now, if explained clearly, this does not confuse or upset children AT ALL. Maybe it's because I'm only 19 so it isn't very long since I was one, but I don't understand why adults think certain things should be kept from children because 'they won't understand it, it will just confuse them'. Children aren't stupid, in fact the majority of the time they are better-equipped than adults to deal with such situations. Compare their reaction to that to their reaction when told that their teacher is dead, for example.
Anyway, there is a campaign to get Littlejohn fired, and I totally support this move. To victimise a person such as Lucy in this way is utterly wrong. Regardless of her death, how is it possibly fair to drag the name of someone who has done nothing wrong and has actually been very brave through the mud in this way? I have had issues with Littlejohn in the past, as he wrote a very offensive article about the amazing Jody McIntyre, comparing him to a character from Little Britain. This however, is too far. Littlejohn needs to go. So please sign the petition:
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-daily-mail-fire-richard-littlejohn-for-victimizing-lucy-meadows-possibly-leading-to-her-committing-suicide
And now, coming on to Margaret Thatcher. I have been involved in an online debate today about whether or not it is moral to laugh and celebrate the death of Margaret Thatcher. Now, let's be clear. I don't like Thatcher; although to be fair I wasn't actually born when she was in power, so I don't like her more on what I have heard than what I have experienced first-hand. I have a small amount of respect for her; I think you have to have some respect for someone who will go in and completely change the way things are run because of what they believe in without worrying about the backlash, especially if they are the first woman to fill that role. However, the disdain I have for her policies completely outweigh that very low level of respect. I have enough disdain for her to laugh at the nasty comments about her that lots of people have put on their Facebook profiles.
Now, is this fair? Yes, a person who was hated by a great number of people is gone for good, but still, an old woman has had a stroke and died, and she had family who loved her and are grieving at the moment. Some people feel that it is sick that people make light of this situation, and in all fairness I do believe that they have a point. However, I think that a much greater point is that if someone is a controversial figure and does things that upset people, then it is natural that there will be a number of tongue-in-cheek comments when they die. I won't be going to any parties or celebrating because I think it's horrible to celebrate someone's death - even with someone like Osama, I was baffled at how people could celebrate that. But I still maintain that Margaret Thatcher was someone who was loathed by a great many people, myself included. And while my sympathies go to her family, if her supporters can say what was great about her, her condemners should be able to laugh and take the piss out of her. I myself put her 'The lady's not returning!' comment on my Facebook profile (which I confess to having stolen from isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk.)
Here is an article that if related to this which I found when a friend of mine posted it in a Facebook group:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-death-etiquette
I was going to write about the Denmark teacher lockout as well, but I think I'm too tired right now. I'll write about that tomorrow, or in the next few days.
Ciao!
EDIT: I forgot to mention, I find it very interesting how we do not have enough money for everyone to have free healthcare, somewhere to live and a decent job, yet we seem to have more than enough to pay for Baroness Thatcher's funeral. I know she isn't getting a state funeral anymore, but it will still be a grand affair that will cost a bomb. What an interesting insight into the priorities of the people in charge of our budget...
Now, I have a few things to talk about, and obviously I have to start with the big thing that has happened. Margaret Thatcher has died. I'll talk a little more on this later, but first up I'll make it clear (as will probably be obvious to anyone who knows anything at all about me) that Margaret Thatcher was not a woman who I like very much.
Now to move on to the first main point of my article. I probably could have done better by talking about this earlier, but recently a primary school teacher called Lucy Meadows was found dead, possibly due to suicide. It is commonly believed that the reason for this was because of negative attention by the press, due to the fact that prior to gender reassignment, Miss Meadows was known as Nathan Upton. There was a particularly vindictive article by the Daily Mail's rather disgusting Richard Littlejohn, which has since been taken down from the website. However, I have found a blog that has reprinted it, which I would like you to read:
http://robinwinslow.co.uk/2013/03/23/hes-not-only-in-the-wrong-body-repost.html
It makes me so angry that in the 2010s, our hatred of someone whom we do not understand can lead to this. What Littlejohn, and others, fail to realise is that children are considerably less judgemental of what they do not understand than adults. The school itself was fantastic in dealing with this situation - the head teacher in particular comes across as being really understanding and supportive - and apparently they went all around the classrooms to explain why the former Mr Upton felt the need to become Miss Meadows. Now, if explained clearly, this does not confuse or upset children AT ALL. Maybe it's because I'm only 19 so it isn't very long since I was one, but I don't understand why adults think certain things should be kept from children because 'they won't understand it, it will just confuse them'. Children aren't stupid, in fact the majority of the time they are better-equipped than adults to deal with such situations. Compare their reaction to that to their reaction when told that their teacher is dead, for example.
Anyway, there is a campaign to get Littlejohn fired, and I totally support this move. To victimise a person such as Lucy in this way is utterly wrong. Regardless of her death, how is it possibly fair to drag the name of someone who has done nothing wrong and has actually been very brave through the mud in this way? I have had issues with Littlejohn in the past, as he wrote a very offensive article about the amazing Jody McIntyre, comparing him to a character from Little Britain. This however, is too far. Littlejohn needs to go. So please sign the petition:
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-daily-mail-fire-richard-littlejohn-for-victimizing-lucy-meadows-possibly-leading-to-her-committing-suicide
And now, coming on to Margaret Thatcher. I have been involved in an online debate today about whether or not it is moral to laugh and celebrate the death of Margaret Thatcher. Now, let's be clear. I don't like Thatcher; although to be fair I wasn't actually born when she was in power, so I don't like her more on what I have heard than what I have experienced first-hand. I have a small amount of respect for her; I think you have to have some respect for someone who will go in and completely change the way things are run because of what they believe in without worrying about the backlash, especially if they are the first woman to fill that role. However, the disdain I have for her policies completely outweigh that very low level of respect. I have enough disdain for her to laugh at the nasty comments about her that lots of people have put on their Facebook profiles.
Now, is this fair? Yes, a person who was hated by a great number of people is gone for good, but still, an old woman has had a stroke and died, and she had family who loved her and are grieving at the moment. Some people feel that it is sick that people make light of this situation, and in all fairness I do believe that they have a point. However, I think that a much greater point is that if someone is a controversial figure and does things that upset people, then it is natural that there will be a number of tongue-in-cheek comments when they die. I won't be going to any parties or celebrating because I think it's horrible to celebrate someone's death - even with someone like Osama, I was baffled at how people could celebrate that. But I still maintain that Margaret Thatcher was someone who was loathed by a great many people, myself included. And while my sympathies go to her family, if her supporters can say what was great about her, her condemners should be able to laugh and take the piss out of her. I myself put her 'The lady's not returning!' comment on my Facebook profile (which I confess to having stolen from isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk.)
Here is an article that if related to this which I found when a friend of mine posted it in a Facebook group:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-death-etiquette
I was going to write about the Denmark teacher lockout as well, but I think I'm too tired right now. I'll write about that tomorrow, or in the next few days.
Ciao!
EDIT: I forgot to mention, I find it very interesting how we do not have enough money for everyone to have free healthcare, somewhere to live and a decent job, yet we seem to have more than enough to pay for Baroness Thatcher's funeral. I know she isn't getting a state funeral anymore, but it will still be a grand affair that will cost a bomb. What an interesting insight into the priorities of the people in charge of our budget...
Saturday, 23 February 2013
1000th day of Manning imprisonment
I almost forgot to blog today! Which would have been bad, because there is something specific I had been planning to talk about, and it can only really be effective today, so... it's only going to be a short one, but still an important one.
Today is 23 February, which marks the 1000th day of the imprisonment of Bradley Manning. Now, I'm not going to bother typing up exactly who Bradley Manning is - if you follow this blog you should know because I've mentioned him quite a few times, but for anyone who doesn't, here is a video that I made with a co-worker:
It is interesting how much debate this issue has caused as a matter of fact... below is a transcript of a Facebook conversation I had with a friend about this, who I often tend to agree with on political debates but on this occasion I was actually quite shocked by their viewpoint. (I won't name the friend, but they did agree to me making our conversation public. In fact, they said I could name them if I wanted to - which I sometimes do, as we all know - but on this occasion I'd prefer not to.)
The conversation went like this:
Me: Hey, did I ever show you my Bradley Manning video?
My friend: I saw it. Someone you know posted it, and you commented. It came up on my feed.
Me: Did you like it?
My friend: I'm not sure I agree.
Me: Go on?
My friend: I think he had it coming.
Me: Do you honestly think that the way he is treated is fair?
My friend: Yes. I don't condone what the government did, don't get me wrong, but I don't agree with him either.
Me: If it's fair, why has every single psychologist who has assessed his case strongly advised the powers that be not to treat him in the way that he is being treated at the moment? His trial been kept so private, postponed as much as it can be, and whenever anything does happen, the information released is so complex it is hard to understand. Why would that be? If it was fair, it wouldn't matter the world knowing. Tomorrow marks the thousandth day of his imprisonment, when his trial is not even concluded yet. Surely if there was enough evidence to convict him of something properly, he would have been treated fairly. My belief is that the information that he released should have been public knowledge in the first place, and if the authorities are too corrupt to release it, it falls to an ordinary person to do so. The ins and outs of his crime essentially were embarrassing his superiors, and sometimes that needs to happen, otherwise it just results in more innocent deaths.
My friend: But George, life isn't fair. He did something wrong, and he has to have a punishment. I *do* believe though that the US Government should be tried before the International Courts of Justice breaching the Geneva convention.
Me: Just because something is illegal, doesn't necessarily make it wrong.
My friend: I know. I did a presentation on it. It's like the Euthyphro dilemma. Is it illegal because it is wrong or is it wrong because it is illegal?
Me: And which is it in this case?
My friend: Here, we disagree.
Me: We're going to disagree whichever option you pick, because I don't think what he did was wrong in either way. I'm just curious, with regards to the case of Bradley Manning, you think what he did was illegal because it was wrong, or wrong because it was illegal.
My friend:It's definitely malum prohibitum. The latter. The former is malum in se.
Me: Well, I think if something is not wrong in any way apart from being illegal, then it isn't wrong and does not deserve a punishment. And for the record, what Bradley Manning did would not have been illegal if the people he reported for doing wrong had not been the people who made the laws in the first place.
My friend: I know. It's a double standard, and as I said, the US Government should be tried as war criminals. Without them commanding so, this would never have happened. If he gets punished, they deserve to be. If he wasn't, I would see it as fair that nothing would happen to them. Karmic justice.
Me: I don't think that in this case, that makes any sense. They have been directly responsible for the creation of war, death and suffering for no reason at all, apart from reasons that they have erroneously created themselves. Bradley drew attention to their treachery, and made the world see how unfair they are. They deserved to be punished for war crimes even before he got involved, how they are treating him as a result is something else entirely.
My friend: I'm thinking of how the USA has an undue influence on the world. If they let him go, then they would have been seen as good guys and would thus be likely to get off scot free, and then money would be wasted. If they are being like they are, there is a countermovement which is quite strong and there is a greater chance that they will be found guilty.
Me: No, because letting him go now, while it would be fantastic for him, would still not undo a) the way that he has been treated so far and b) what they did that prompted Bradley to blow the whistle in the first place. Your comment about the fact that they are more likely to be found guilty if they treat him like they are makes sense, but the end does not justify the means, and it is totally unfair for Bradley to be used as a pawn in a political game.
At this point, our debate rather drew to a close as we weren't going to agree, and we had each said pretty much everything that we could for our respective sides. I find it odd how with a debate like this, someone can have such a different point of view to mine. I can see how in some debates, it might not be so clear-cut and someone's viewpoint may be fundamentally different to mine, but to me, in this case it is a no-brainer. He should be released; that is the only just thing to do. He saw someone doing something wrong to people, and he thought, no, that's not right - and so he did something about it, in much the same way that many of the people that we hail as heroes did. My friend clearly sees things from a more political stance, and I admit that that might be the more realistic attitude - but when I have opinions about how the world should be run and how certain people should be treated, I refuse to be swayed by politics. I am a passionate idealist, and I view the world from a point of view that says, actually let's try to do something about this and make a positive difference. If as a political activist, I had only ever worked on things that I thought had a realistic chance of success, I'd have done precious little - but making an effort, even erroneously, makes me feel better about things, because we never know what we can make a difference to if we try.
So in summary, please join the Save Bradley Manning campaign. Like the Save Bradley Manning Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/savebradley?fref=ts
Log onto the website, upload your 'I Am Bradley Manning' photo and read about what else you can do to help:
http://www.bradleymanning.org/
Remember, while we are talking, a young brave man stands in a high-security prison, not knowing if he will ever experience freedom again. Please help him. I do what I can, I hope you will do the same. I apologise that the majority of this blog post has consisted of a video I made and a transcript of a conversation I had - I wasn't in a very good frame of mind to write this, but sometimes duty calls.
Take care, readers, and check back soon for another update!
Sunday, 17 February 2013
Communication between political activists and police
Hello!
Okay, it's been an appallingly long time since the last time I blogged. This is my first blog of 2013, and even at New Year I hadn't put anything on here for nearly a month. I've thought of lots of things I've wanted to blog about, I just haven't got around to it. I think it's a self-fulfilling prophecy in a sense - the less frequently I've been blogging, the less likely it is that I'm going to write about something that jumps out at me, because I'm not really sure how to get started talking about it. I am ashamed that I've been letting my blog fall by the wayside so much, hopefully I'll be picking it up again over the next few weeks.
Today I wanted to talk about something that has been occurring more and more to me recently that I feel really strongly about, and that is the relationship between the police and activists/demonstrators such as myself. I'll be honest about the fact that since I started becoming involved in political demonstrations, my respect for them has declined a lot. However, recently I have found that people I have talked to at political demonstrations have a personal vendetta against all police officers. I can understand why they might have this attitude - after all, many of these people have been involved in this side of life for longer than I have - but I have to say, it does annoy me. There are some demonstrators who will see a person in uniform and instantly and instinctively class them as the enemy. I was at a very small demo quite recently, and a few police officers were alerted to it and arrived to make sure that everything was all right. One of the people on the protest - who I won't name to protect the innocent, but they know who they are if they're reading this - spoke to the officers in an extremely rude and unpleasant manner, and I did actually speak to him afterwards to tell him that I thought that he was being quite unfair. I don't actually see all the police as being enemies. Some are, absolutely, and if on this occasion the officers had been trying to move us or cause trouble to our cause, I would have completely stood by my colleague's actions. However, I think that one's manner should always start off polite, and after that it depends on what you get from the other party. Being unpleasant to someone because of what they represent is very judgemental, and actually sounds to me like the very attitude that we campaign against in the first place. I don't appreciate the police and other authority figures such as politicians writing activists and anarchists off as troublemakers; therefore I don't do the same thing myself. Plus, you never know in advance what the police at a demonstration will be like; sometimes they are aggressive and intimidating, while at other times they just try to keep the peace. Occasionally they are openly supportive of the cause - it doesn't happen as often as I'd like it to, but you come across it from time to time.
This weekend I took part in a workshop about direct action, and this debate came up in the discussion. I said that while I appreciate that it is sometimes not feasible - and in fact, it probably isn't feasible the majority of the time - I think that it is good to be completely open with the police at demonstrations. Someone else - who is considerably more experienced than I am - said that they completely disagreed with me, and thought that it is best to keep one's plans for a demonstration as private from the police as possible. From a realistic perspective, I suppose I agree with that; the way it works at the moment is that a group of people form a demo, an inordinately large number of officers arrive and then either attempt to disperse the group or let them carry on with it - but the majority of the time, it is difficult to actually make any kind of difference without behaving in a way that is likely to get someone arrested. Because of this, a lot of the time a successful protest or demonstration relies on having the element of surprise against the police, and therefore, it is not a good idea to be open with them about your plans. You might ask then, why I think protestors should be open with the police at demos. Well, people who know me know that I am an idealist, and as an idealist I think that there are better ways for demos and protests to be run, on the side of both the demonstrators and the police. I would in no way condone demonstrators to be 100% open with the police the way that things stand at the moment; that is not what I was saying at all. What I think is that there should be a system whereby the police and demonstrators can be open with one another.
For this to happen, there are really two things that need to be worked out. Firstly, powers of arrest need to be limited to a much lesser extent than they are now. At the moment, people can be arrested at protests for things that just do not add up - if the police wish to arrest someone, whatever that person is doing. they will be able to find a clause in an Act somewhere which allows them to arrest that person for something. As a political activist and also a former law student, I have been amazed over the past few years by how many powers of arrest there are, particularly in situations high in emotion such as political demonstrations. These powers need to be limited if the protest movement has any chance of succeeding in its vocations. The second thing is an increase in knowledge of everything on both sides. Both demonstrators and the police need to be fully aware of EXACTLY what is legal and what is not, so that no one will be wrongly arrested and no one will do anything that they do not know to be illegal (although I think that the powers of arrest ought to be basic enough for it to be obvious to everyone what they can be arrested for, but still it's a safeguard.) Also, the police should be aware of what has been arranged in advance, and stick to that. You can't always trust the police to be fair - if, for example, you have planned for a certain number of people to join the demonstration at a particular time, and the officers on duty claim to have not been made aware of this, then that arrangement is not honoured, and I think that is not on. I think that there should be a system where the police and protesters can work together, fairly and honestly. If that were the case, there would be fewer arrests at demonstrations, the police would not be victimised by demonstrators and anarchists in the way that they are, and the world of political activism would not be so dark. Because it is dark, it pains me to say. I am aware that there are certain things that I am involved with that it is dangerous to talk about in certain places and with certain people. I find this rather frustrating, because I am a passionate supporter of freedom of information, and if I could, I'd tell everyone what was going on. The only reason I can't do that is because I'm worried about what some people might do with that information.
Well, that's it then! Apologies once again for the really long gap between blogs. I hope to get back into blogging regularly. I do enjoy it immensely once I get down to it.
Take care, guys!
Okay, it's been an appallingly long time since the last time I blogged. This is my first blog of 2013, and even at New Year I hadn't put anything on here for nearly a month. I've thought of lots of things I've wanted to blog about, I just haven't got around to it. I think it's a self-fulfilling prophecy in a sense - the less frequently I've been blogging, the less likely it is that I'm going to write about something that jumps out at me, because I'm not really sure how to get started talking about it. I am ashamed that I've been letting my blog fall by the wayside so much, hopefully I'll be picking it up again over the next few weeks.
Today I wanted to talk about something that has been occurring more and more to me recently that I feel really strongly about, and that is the relationship between the police and activists/demonstrators such as myself. I'll be honest about the fact that since I started becoming involved in political demonstrations, my respect for them has declined a lot. However, recently I have found that people I have talked to at political demonstrations have a personal vendetta against all police officers. I can understand why they might have this attitude - after all, many of these people have been involved in this side of life for longer than I have - but I have to say, it does annoy me. There are some demonstrators who will see a person in uniform and instantly and instinctively class them as the enemy. I was at a very small demo quite recently, and a few police officers were alerted to it and arrived to make sure that everything was all right. One of the people on the protest - who I won't name to protect the innocent, but they know who they are if they're reading this - spoke to the officers in an extremely rude and unpleasant manner, and I did actually speak to him afterwards to tell him that I thought that he was being quite unfair. I don't actually see all the police as being enemies. Some are, absolutely, and if on this occasion the officers had been trying to move us or cause trouble to our cause, I would have completely stood by my colleague's actions. However, I think that one's manner should always start off polite, and after that it depends on what you get from the other party. Being unpleasant to someone because of what they represent is very judgemental, and actually sounds to me like the very attitude that we campaign against in the first place. I don't appreciate the police and other authority figures such as politicians writing activists and anarchists off as troublemakers; therefore I don't do the same thing myself. Plus, you never know in advance what the police at a demonstration will be like; sometimes they are aggressive and intimidating, while at other times they just try to keep the peace. Occasionally they are openly supportive of the cause - it doesn't happen as often as I'd like it to, but you come across it from time to time.
This weekend I took part in a workshop about direct action, and this debate came up in the discussion. I said that while I appreciate that it is sometimes not feasible - and in fact, it probably isn't feasible the majority of the time - I think that it is good to be completely open with the police at demonstrations. Someone else - who is considerably more experienced than I am - said that they completely disagreed with me, and thought that it is best to keep one's plans for a demonstration as private from the police as possible. From a realistic perspective, I suppose I agree with that; the way it works at the moment is that a group of people form a demo, an inordinately large number of officers arrive and then either attempt to disperse the group or let them carry on with it - but the majority of the time, it is difficult to actually make any kind of difference without behaving in a way that is likely to get someone arrested. Because of this, a lot of the time a successful protest or demonstration relies on having the element of surprise against the police, and therefore, it is not a good idea to be open with them about your plans. You might ask then, why I think protestors should be open with the police at demos. Well, people who know me know that I am an idealist, and as an idealist I think that there are better ways for demos and protests to be run, on the side of both the demonstrators and the police. I would in no way condone demonstrators to be 100% open with the police the way that things stand at the moment; that is not what I was saying at all. What I think is that there should be a system whereby the police and demonstrators can be open with one another.
For this to happen, there are really two things that need to be worked out. Firstly, powers of arrest need to be limited to a much lesser extent than they are now. At the moment, people can be arrested at protests for things that just do not add up - if the police wish to arrest someone, whatever that person is doing. they will be able to find a clause in an Act somewhere which allows them to arrest that person for something. As a political activist and also a former law student, I have been amazed over the past few years by how many powers of arrest there are, particularly in situations high in emotion such as political demonstrations. These powers need to be limited if the protest movement has any chance of succeeding in its vocations. The second thing is an increase in knowledge of everything on both sides. Both demonstrators and the police need to be fully aware of EXACTLY what is legal and what is not, so that no one will be wrongly arrested and no one will do anything that they do not know to be illegal (although I think that the powers of arrest ought to be basic enough for it to be obvious to everyone what they can be arrested for, but still it's a safeguard.) Also, the police should be aware of what has been arranged in advance, and stick to that. You can't always trust the police to be fair - if, for example, you have planned for a certain number of people to join the demonstration at a particular time, and the officers on duty claim to have not been made aware of this, then that arrangement is not honoured, and I think that is not on. I think that there should be a system where the police and protesters can work together, fairly and honestly. If that were the case, there would be fewer arrests at demonstrations, the police would not be victimised by demonstrators and anarchists in the way that they are, and the world of political activism would not be so dark. Because it is dark, it pains me to say. I am aware that there are certain things that I am involved with that it is dangerous to talk about in certain places and with certain people. I find this rather frustrating, because I am a passionate supporter of freedom of information, and if I could, I'd tell everyone what was going on. The only reason I can't do that is because I'm worried about what some people might do with that information.
Well, that's it then! Apologies once again for the really long gap between blogs. I hope to get back into blogging regularly. I do enjoy it immensely once I get down to it.
Take care, guys!
Sunday, 2 December 2012
NHS demo, and an O'Dwyer update
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!
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!
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)