(The Guardian wants an alternative world cup song)
Eng-er-land, Eng-er-land
Every fixture that is planned
We’ll be there to fill the stand
Eng-er-land, Eng-er-land
You can trust your faithful fans
We’re your never failing band
Eng-er-land, Eng-er-land
Rail or car or coach or van
We'll be there to lend a hand
Eng-er-land, Eng-er-land
Sometimes sunburned sometimes tanned
Sometimes sober sometimes canned
Even though we’re sometimes banned
We’ll make sure the stadium’s manned
Eng-er-land, Eng-er-land
Eng-er-land, Eng-er-land
Eng-er-land, Eng-er-land
Eng-er-land, Eng-er-land
Eng-er-land, Eng-er-land
(Repeat ad lib., depending)
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Friday, April 28, 2006
...and another thing, Mr Charles (Protect the Public) Clarke
What annoys me about this business of the Home Office forgetting to deport these foreign rapists &c. is that Clarke and Bliar are forever telling us that the curtailment of our civil liberties that they are bringing in are all justified in the name of public safety. Then when it comes to a real issue of public safety, they cannot get it together to hand over discharged rapists and murderers to the deportation authorities. Yet they ask us to trust them with our civil liberties!
I have not heard this most obvious point aired in the media.
I have not heard this most obvious point aired in the media.
Debating the logic of WMD and MAD
After more than a year of writing, it is always a delight to get some feedback. The world famous and most prolific author, Anonymous, has commented on this posting: Mabinogogiblog: Illegal Logic of Nuclear Deterrence which also recallys this posting: Mabinogogiblog: MAD is not Rational
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Last Hewitt that makes the worm turn
It looks as if my GP colleagues in North Somerset are getting ready to rebel over the Government's ridiculous Choose and Book system, a vast and clunky bit of IT that requires doctors to go through the referral options for a patient at the point of referral. Options such as which hospital, waiting times, outcomes &c. Alll very well in theory, completely unworkable in practice, given our workload, and one that overlooks the fact that what we want is a decent local service, not the luxury of looking at the colour of the wallpaper in Aberdeen. It looks as if this is the last straw- or in this case, the last Hewitt.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
IDeal Solution
The Editor
The Guardian
Nick Rankin MP assures us that if we report our ID card as stolen, it will be cancelled and replaced. (Letters April 25th). So all we have to do is to keep reporting our ID cards as stolen, and the whole system will become unworkable. Problem solved. Next!
Dr Richard Lawson
The Guardian
Nick Rankin MP assures us that if we report our ID card as stolen, it will be cancelled and replaced. (Letters April 25th). So all we have to do is to keep reporting our ID cards as stolen, and the whole system will become unworkable. Problem solved. Next!
Dr Richard Lawson
Illegal Logic of Nuclear Deterrence
Today, a letter to my MP:
Dear John
The Prime Minister is clearly minded to replace Trident with a new nuclear weapon of mass destruction. Now the International Court of Justice has ruled in July 1996 that the use of nuclear weapons would be illegal. Possession of such a weapon without having a firm intent to use it if deemed necessary by Government would be a total waste of £25 billions of taxpayers money. Therefore the Government is prepared to break the law.
The only defence that Government has against this charge is the deterrence argument, that in possessing nuclear weapons it prevents other nuclear weapons states (NWS) from using theirs. They are there “to keep the peace”. There are two flaws in this defence.
First, by possessing nuclear weapons of mass destruction (NWMD), the Prime Minister is creating the perception in other states (notably Iran and North Korea) that they also need to acquire NWMD in order to defend themselves against the perceived threat from ourselves. Our own nuclear weapons stimulate the proliferation of nuclear weapons. In addition, our persistent breach of Article 6 of the Nuclear Non–Proliferation treaty only serves to make this situation worse. The more NW proliferate, the more likely it is that Britain and others will break the law by using them.
Second, deterrence is physically founded on an elaborate system of command and control, a web of sensors, computers, communications and decision makers. Deterrence theory is predicated on the assumption that this system can be made perfect, which is clearly not the case, since no human system is perfect and incapable of failure, not least such a vast and complex system. Therefore the deterrence argument cannot be sustained, and it is a sound legal case that possession of NWMD implies the readiness to break the law by using them.
Now Common Law requires me to take action to prevent another person from breaking the law, especially in such a genocidal way as the Government proposes to do in the case of using nuclear weapons, even if my action is in breach of a law designed to prohibit behaviour of a less harmful kind. In that it would be bound to kill thousands or even millions of innocent civilians if he turned the key on Trident, Mr. Blair is prepared to commit an act of terrorism that makes 9/11 pale into insignificance.
I would be very grateful if you would ask the Prime Minister, who carries the ultimate responsibility for ordering this crime to be committed, if he can find a reason that I and other citizens should not break the law if such lawbreaking actions might prevent him from committing the crime of actually ordering the use of Britain’s weapons of mass destruction.
With many thanks
Richard
Dear John
The Prime Minister is clearly minded to replace Trident with a new nuclear weapon of mass destruction. Now the International Court of Justice has ruled in July 1996 that the use of nuclear weapons would be illegal. Possession of such a weapon without having a firm intent to use it if deemed necessary by Government would be a total waste of £25 billions of taxpayers money. Therefore the Government is prepared to break the law.
The only defence that Government has against this charge is the deterrence argument, that in possessing nuclear weapons it prevents other nuclear weapons states (NWS) from using theirs. They are there “to keep the peace”. There are two flaws in this defence.
First, by possessing nuclear weapons of mass destruction (NWMD), the Prime Minister is creating the perception in other states (notably Iran and North Korea) that they also need to acquire NWMD in order to defend themselves against the perceived threat from ourselves. Our own nuclear weapons stimulate the proliferation of nuclear weapons. In addition, our persistent breach of Article 6 of the Nuclear Non–Proliferation treaty only serves to make this situation worse. The more NW proliferate, the more likely it is that Britain and others will break the law by using them.
Second, deterrence is physically founded on an elaborate system of command and control, a web of sensors, computers, communications and decision makers. Deterrence theory is predicated on the assumption that this system can be made perfect, which is clearly not the case, since no human system is perfect and incapable of failure, not least such a vast and complex system. Therefore the deterrence argument cannot be sustained, and it is a sound legal case that possession of NWMD implies the readiness to break the law by using them.
Now Common Law requires me to take action to prevent another person from breaking the law, especially in such a genocidal way as the Government proposes to do in the case of using nuclear weapons, even if my action is in breach of a law designed to prohibit behaviour of a less harmful kind. In that it would be bound to kill thousands or even millions of innocent civilians if he turned the key on Trident, Mr. Blair is prepared to commit an act of terrorism that makes 9/11 pale into insignificance.
I would be very grateful if you would ask the Prime Minister, who carries the ultimate responsibility for ordering this crime to be committed, if he can find a reason that I and other citizens should not break the law if such lawbreaking actions might prevent him from committing the crime of actually ordering the use of Britain’s weapons of mass destruction.
With many thanks
Richard
Monday, April 24, 2006
Strike to save the NHS??
A letter to the Editor, Metro
As a GP about to retire early because of Blair's managerialist meddling with the NHS, I have much sympathy with the hospital workers who are ready to "strike to save the NHS" (as your front page puts it on Monday 24th), but in reality a strike by NHS workers would only make things ten times worse. A far better tactic would be for all non-NHS workers to take a five minute break at nine AM on a Monday morning to discuss the plight of the NHS. The weekly discussion should continue until some agreed Government climb-down has been achieved. This could be the cancellation of the present wave of threatened redundancies of nurses, together with the cancellation of Mr Blair's planned "Choose and Book" scheme, which is generally held by health professionals to be a ill-thought out waste of NHS money.
This discussion break is not a strike, so would escape the legal penalties for secondary strikes, but if it was widely adopted it would irritate employers so much that they would soon force Blair to climb down. When all is said and done, Blair listens to business, not to people. If you find this suggestion interesting, why not discuss it with your colleagues at work - say next Monday morning, first thing?
Dr Richard Lawson
As a GP about to retire early because of Blair's managerialist meddling with the NHS, I have much sympathy with the hospital workers who are ready to "strike to save the NHS" (as your front page puts it on Monday 24th), but in reality a strike by NHS workers would only make things ten times worse. A far better tactic would be for all non-NHS workers to take a five minute break at nine AM on a Monday morning to discuss the plight of the NHS. The weekly discussion should continue until some agreed Government climb-down has been achieved. This could be the cancellation of the present wave of threatened redundancies of nurses, together with the cancellation of Mr Blair's planned "Choose and Book" scheme, which is generally held by health professionals to be a ill-thought out waste of NHS money.
This discussion break is not a strike, so would escape the legal penalties for secondary strikes, but if it was widely adopted it would irritate employers so much that they would soon force Blair to climb down. When all is said and done, Blair listens to business, not to people. If you find this suggestion interesting, why not discuss it with your colleagues at work - say next Monday morning, first thing?
Dr Richard Lawson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
