 |
| Pic by the excellent Robert Livingstone This is really all getting a bit much IMO. Time for a General Tea Break? |
Showing posts with label bitterness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bitterness. Show all posts
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Tax Avoidance is for people of class.
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
Flashmob Thurs 7 July to protest against Murdochisation of UK Media
When: Thursday 7 July at 5.45pm
Where:Department for Culture Media and Sport, 2-4 Cockspur Street, London, SW1Y 5DHhttp://www.culture.gov.uk/contact_us/7211.aspx
Following the ongoing revelations of phone hacking by the News of the World, Take Back Parliament is organising a flashmob outside the Department for Culture, Media and Sport offices at 5.45pm tomorrow.
We are specifically calling for any decision on News Corp to be frozen until after the police investigation has concluded. Take Back Parliament is another project of Unlock Democracy.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
George Osborne avoids paying his tax, and has also run into trouble with child benefit
George Osborne has avoided paying tax to the tune of £1.5 million.
If this information makes you feel less than happy, here is a petition: http://bit.ly/9tTDzx
I tweeted this, and it got 14 retweets, which is my second best, and an indication of the amount of revulsion at the naked hypocrisy of the Cleggeron Coalition, who are weighing in to the poor, and the fabric of the UK state, while feathering the nests of the rich.
Meanwhile, in another part of the jungle that it Her Majesty's Government, Osborne's brilliant plan to cut child benefit for higher rate taxpayers is in deep doo-doo because child benefit is paid to the mother, who is not necessarily the taxpayer. "A Treasury source says the policy is “unenforceable” and likely to be ditched before its scheduled introduction in 2013"
If this information makes you feel less than happy, here is a petition: http://bit.ly/9tTDzx
I tweeted this, and it got 14 retweets, which is my second best, and an indication of the amount of revulsion at the naked hypocrisy of the Cleggeron Coalition, who are weighing in to the poor, and the fabric of the UK state, while feathering the nests of the rich.
Meanwhile, in another part of the jungle that it Her Majesty's Government, Osborne's brilliant plan to cut child benefit for higher rate taxpayers is in deep doo-doo because child benefit is paid to the mother, who is not necessarily the taxpayer. "A Treasury source says the policy is “unenforceable” and likely to be ditched before its scheduled introduction in 2013"
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
H5N1 in Indonesian pig population. Ideology to blame.
Great. H5N1 bird flu has jumped to pigs. Just in case this gives you a So What? reaction, we are not talking here about the Swine Flu A(H1N1), which was all the rage in 2009, with huge vaccination and public health measures until it turned out to be quite minor, of interest now only to conspiracy theorists who think that it may have been dreamed up by Big Pharma as a measure to boost profits from sale of Tamiflu and vaccines. (My opinion is that the response of the public health authorities was fairly correct, and that we should all count ourselves lucky that it turned out to be so mild).
No, we are talking about H1N1 Avian flu, which kills about 60% of the humans it infects. Luckily, it has great difficulty in spreading from birds to humans, and from human to human. You have to be pretty close to an infected bird or human to catch it. The epidemic of H5N1 in birds has been tailing off in Indonesia since 2007, but it is present in 7% of the pigs. Unfortunately they are mainly symptomless carriers, so we don't even get to identify which ones are infected without a test.Fortunately, it does not yet seem to pass from pig to pig.
So why is it significant that it has found its way into pigs? Pigs are a reservoir for the virus, and in pigs it can shuffle its genes around until it comes up with a winning combination that enables it to spread from pigs to human and between humans. Pigs are closer to humans than birds, physiologically. So far it has not done the transmission trick, and it has been in Indonesian pigs since 2005. It has so far developed the capability of binding to protein in the noses of both pigs and humans.
Maybe we will get lucky again, and by the time the H5N1virus overcomes its transmission problem, it may hopefully have lost the virulence that gave it its 60% mortality rates.
If not, if it gives us another 1918 epidemic, at least we will have someone to blame - the free market fundamentalists.
How so?
Well, take a look here, at this WHO table of human deaths from H5N1.
Compare Indonesia and Vietnam.
Vietnam had a bad problem - the worst in the world - until 2005. Then they cracked it, and Indonesia took over as the main country of infection. The Vietnamese cases since 2005 were mainly from contamination from Indonesia.
How did Vietnam succeed in clearing the infection? Here's How.
After nearly two years of using mainly culling to control the virus, the Communist government last year adopted a combination of mass poultry vaccination, disinfecting, culling, information campaigns and bans on live poultry in cities.
Any rational world health organisation would have tried to replicate Vietnam's success in Indonesia. They did not.
Hans Troedsson, the UN's World Health Organisation representative in Vietnam, said the plan was "technically sound" but could not be copied or used as a blueprint by every country.
The cause of this irrationality, in my opinion, boils down to ideology. Vietnam's solution was deemed socialistic by some influential person within the WHO. Indonesia's sacred free market must not be contaminated with socialism. Instead, it remained contaminated with H5N1, which has passed into the pigs, and may pass thence to us, which may or may not have important consequences for human population numbers.
I am being very careful to remain scientific and objective here.
There is a remedy. Control the Indonesian outbreak with the Vietnamese model. Test all Indonesian pigs for H5N1 and slaughter out all the carriers. It's going to be expensive, far more expensive than applying the Vietnamese solution to the birds, but hey - that's the free market!
No, we are talking about H1N1 Avian flu, which kills about 60% of the humans it infects. Luckily, it has great difficulty in spreading from birds to humans, and from human to human. You have to be pretty close to an infected bird or human to catch it. The epidemic of H5N1 in birds has been tailing off in Indonesia since 2007, but it is present in 7% of the pigs. Unfortunately they are mainly symptomless carriers, so we don't even get to identify which ones are infected without a test.Fortunately, it does not yet seem to pass from pig to pig.
So why is it significant that it has found its way into pigs? Pigs are a reservoir for the virus, and in pigs it can shuffle its genes around until it comes up with a winning combination that enables it to spread from pigs to human and between humans. Pigs are closer to humans than birds, physiologically. So far it has not done the transmission trick, and it has been in Indonesian pigs since 2005. It has so far developed the capability of binding to protein in the noses of both pigs and humans.
Maybe we will get lucky again, and by the time the H5N1virus overcomes its transmission problem, it may hopefully have lost the virulence that gave it its 60% mortality rates.
If not, if it gives us another 1918 epidemic, at least we will have someone to blame - the free market fundamentalists.
How so?
Well, take a look here, at this WHO table of human deaths from H5N1.
Compare Indonesia and Vietnam.
Vietnam had a bad problem - the worst in the world - until 2005. Then they cracked it, and Indonesia took over as the main country of infection. The Vietnamese cases since 2005 were mainly from contamination from Indonesia.
How did Vietnam succeed in clearing the infection? Here's How.
After nearly two years of using mainly culling to control the virus, the Communist government last year adopted a combination of mass poultry vaccination, disinfecting, culling, information campaigns and bans on live poultry in cities.
Any rational world health organisation would have tried to replicate Vietnam's success in Indonesia. They did not.
Hans Troedsson, the UN's World Health Organisation representative in Vietnam, said the plan was "technically sound" but could not be copied or used as a blueprint by every country.
The cause of this irrationality, in my opinion, boils down to ideology. Vietnam's solution was deemed socialistic by some influential person within the WHO. Indonesia's sacred free market must not be contaminated with socialism. Instead, it remained contaminated with H5N1, which has passed into the pigs, and may pass thence to us, which may or may not have important consequences for human population numbers.
I am being very careful to remain scientific and objective here.
There is a remedy. Control the Indonesian outbreak with the Vietnamese model. Test all Indonesian pigs for H5N1 and slaughter out all the carriers. It's going to be expensive, far more expensive than applying the Vietnamese solution to the birds, but hey - that's the free market!
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Hague, Schmague: Cameron is in bed with Andy "Hackmeister" Coulson every day
I rekke nat a fert (Chaucer, allegedly) about William Hague's private life. He has denied any wrongdoing. He is a politician, so his denials may be undenied later. I just do not care, and neither should the Press.
The media are letting the Hague non-story crowd out the far more interesting story of Dave Cameron's Andy Coulson which has been researched by the New York Times here. The Guardian carries it as its minor front page story. (After Hague, natch)
Coulson is Dave's "media advisor" (=spin doctor). He resigned as editor of the News of the World (a Mordorch publication) after its royal correspondent, Clive Goodman, and a private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, were jailed for phone hacking. Coulson has always denied any involvement in their crimes.
But:
Guardian: "The New York Times, which has had an investigative team at work on the story since March, is citing two former News of the World journalists who specifically claim that Coulson was directly aware of his reporters' use of illegal techniques."
Moreover, the police are also tainted: "...Metropolitan police force...stands accused of favouring Rupert Murdoch's newspaper group by cutting short its investigation, withholding crucial evidence from prosecutors and failing to inform victims of the newspaper's crimes against them."
This is the real story. The Hague story is a homophobic red herring, followed by the press pack in full cry. On 2nd September 10 only the NYT and the Guardian are carrying the Coulson story, but it is trending in the UK twittersphere. Again, Twitter is giving the lead to the hacks.
The Coulson story will ooze slowly out. He will issue further denials. Cameron, in between changing nappies, will deliver a message of qualified support, and soon after, Coulson will resign from his position as Dave's spin doctor. He stands accused of breaking the law, but it is unlikely that he will be taken to court any time before 2020, due to the involvement of the police and his closeness to the Prime Minister. Not to mention the interest of Mordorch in the affair.
(This is a matter for @Konnolsky's analytical skills, but it appears that he has been put in a tin can by Big Oleg).
So I spend the morning on the phone and tweeting. Here is what happened, latest at the top:
- @GreenJennyJones Should MetPoliceAuth take an interest in new ev re alleged lack of due diligence in matter of Andy Coulson + phonetapping?
-
Metropolitan Police standing by their rebuttal. http://nyti.ms/9CqDpP So next move : contact the IPCC #Coulson #MetGate -
@MarthaKearney Why no interest in the Andy Coulson story in today's World at One? -
#MetGate: CPS refer allegations to Met Police. They are going to look again at the NYT article alleging that #Coulson was aware of phonetaps -
BBCR4 World at One too chicken to carry the #Coulson #MetGate story. Reason to cancel the TV license DD? http://bit.ly/1tyqyG -
@torybear Will Coulson really "get away with it?" NYT has new evidence from witnesses as to his knowledge of the NoTW hacking. #metgate -
@BBCNewsnight Will you cover the #Coulson #Metgate story tonight? If not, why not? -
@guidofawkes Never mind Hague - what about #Coulson and #MetGate? -
@TimMontgomerie Tim, never mind rating the LabourLeadership clones - how do you rate Andy #Coulson and #MetGate? - JonathanHaynes
If one watched The Thick Of It, one might wonder if Andy Coulson did this http://bit.ly/b9iLQS to distract from this http://bit.ly/b9SoG9 -
Cabinet Office http://bit.ly/a5MdWo contacted, but kicks enquiry re #Coulson's suspension pending investigations into touch #metgate -
Contact BBC R4 World at One here http://bbc.in/9RhQnr if you want to ask if they will cover #Coulson #Metgate, and if not, why not? -
Ministry of Justice opinion: #Coulson could take Dave to Industrial Tribunal if Dave sacks him before Coulson is convicted. #Metgate -
Conservative Party Central Office Press Office answering machine is unable to comment on #Coulson #MetGate story. What a pity. -
@TimMontgomerie What are your thoughts on the Andy Coulson affair? Do you think Dave should let him go? #coulson #metgate -
@TimMontgomerie What are your thoughts on the Andy Coulson affair? Do you think Dave should let him go? -
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/new is suspended. So no chance of creating a petition for Dave to cleanse his office of Andy Coulson. - JTownend
@r4today will you be asking Andy Coulson on programme tomorrow to respond to NYTimes allegations? #metgate
MORE
7 reasons for the news blackout.
Write to your MP
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Marc Roberts for Cartoonist Laureate
This is from Marc Roberts who is a cartoonist genius and lives here.
He should in fact be made Cartoonist Laureate. But there is no point in petitioning No 10 for that to happen, as it is an Impossibility.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Osborne's cuts will make inequality worse
It shows how the policies of the Chainsaw Maniac will impact on the poor.
If Wilkinson & Pickett are right, this will increase social problems, so No 11 with its chainsaw fetish will in theory be at loggerheads with No 10, with his Big Society fetish.
Will the ghostly feud between Blair and Brown infect the present occupants of Nos 10 and 11?
No, because they are both rich enough to be certain that if UK plc goes into receivership as a result of their policies and becomes uninhabitable, they can just retire to Monaco or somewhere.
Graph 3 shows that countries with the most savage deficit reductions will see the largest increases in inequality. This forces us to one of two conclusions:
1 The Cleggeron cares not a jot or tittle about inequality
2 Osborne has a learning difficulty
Saturday, August 14, 2010
UK locked in a cell with a chainsaw maniac called George Osborne
I am not happy today. Not in a miserable or depressed way, but not content with the way things are. Which is pathetic and wrong really, because compared to a person in Pakistan, Somalia or Rwanda, I have every reason to be content with my lot.
The rain doesn't help, but then again, what right do we to moan about rain, compared to a Pakistani?
I confess, with much shame, that part of the reason for unhappiness relates to the fact that the Mabinogogiblog has slipped out of the top 20 Green blogs, although in compensation, yesterday it was lying in 711th place in the Wikio ratings, which is perhaps not so bad. Pathetic, I know, but I am trying to be open here about the many factors contributing to my lack of contentment.
The trigger was the news that the Cleggeron is to destroy the Environment Agency and various other green institutions. This on top of the destruction wrought on the Sustainable Development Commission.
The hollow laugh is that this is coming from Green Dave "Dog Sled" Cameron, backed by the Liberal "Sensible Green Party" Democrats. The self-proclaimed "Greenest Government Yet".
Hah! Or even, Huh!!
(Red readers may object: "Now you are weeping?! What about the benefits reductions, council housing insecurity and all the other attacks on the poor?" My answer is that those attacks are only to be expected from Tories. The attack on environmental protection agencies from Dave "Vote Blue get Green" Cameron is - well not unexpected, but it shows such a psychotic, total gulf between rhetoric and reality.)
Here we are, watching and waiting while Osborne systematically dismantles the machinery of the British State on the basis of free-market ideology that holds that the State is Totally Bad and the Private Corporation is the Sole Good.
Not that Labour's State was perfect. There are many inefficiencies and stupidities in the state as it stands. But Osborne is trying to treat a case of fibromyalgia by hacking off the limbs of the patient one by one with a chainsaw. Efficiency should be brought about by slow, steady reform from the bottom up, not by the financial equivalent of a suicide bombings.
All sentient beings know, or at least, feel this. The only ones who believe Osborne to be right are the tiny handful of free-market fundamentalist ideologues, and their dupes, the gullible LibDem ministers and mainstream journalists who have bought the propaganda about Britain's parlous financial position. The basic financial fact is that we lie seventh in the league table of wobbly nations, behind the USA, and if the USA gets eaten by the Forex sharks, the whole global financial system goes with it, whether or not we in the UK tear our own heart out and eat it.
The worst bit is that this is only the planning stage. We have not yet got to the realisation of Osborne's dream - the dole queues, the slump, the demonstrations, the crime rates, the social disorder. Nor has Cameron yet started his War. Every Prime Minister has to have a War. A good war had such a wonderful effect in uniting the nation together, don't you agree? Looks as if Dave will go for Iran.
As a rule, I try to stay positive, look for the rational way out of problems. Today, it just feels as if we are locked in a cell with a maniac with a chainsaw.
Ah well. Might feel better tomorrow.
The rain doesn't help, but then again, what right do we to moan about rain, compared to a Pakistani?
I confess, with much shame, that part of the reason for unhappiness relates to the fact that the Mabinogogiblog has slipped out of the top 20 Green blogs, although in compensation, yesterday it was lying in 711th place in the Wikio ratings, which is perhaps not so bad. Pathetic, I know, but I am trying to be open here about the many factors contributing to my lack of contentment.
The trigger was the news that the Cleggeron is to destroy the Environment Agency and various other green institutions. This on top of the destruction wrought on the Sustainable Development Commission.
The hollow laugh is that this is coming from Green Dave "Dog Sled" Cameron, backed by the Liberal "Sensible Green Party" Democrats. The self-proclaimed "Greenest Government Yet".
Hah! Or even, Huh!!
(Red readers may object: "Now you are weeping?! What about the benefits reductions, council housing insecurity and all the other attacks on the poor?" My answer is that those attacks are only to be expected from Tories. The attack on environmental protection agencies from Dave "Vote Blue get Green" Cameron is - well not unexpected, but it shows such a psychotic, total gulf between rhetoric and reality.)
Here we are, watching and waiting while Osborne systematically dismantles the machinery of the British State on the basis of free-market ideology that holds that the State is Totally Bad and the Private Corporation is the Sole Good.
Not that Labour's State was perfect. There are many inefficiencies and stupidities in the state as it stands. But Osborne is trying to treat a case of fibromyalgia by hacking off the limbs of the patient one by one with a chainsaw. Efficiency should be brought about by slow, steady reform from the bottom up, not by the financial equivalent of a suicide bombings.
All sentient beings know, or at least, feel this. The only ones who believe Osborne to be right are the tiny handful of free-market fundamentalist ideologues, and their dupes, the gullible LibDem ministers and mainstream journalists who have bought the propaganda about Britain's parlous financial position. The basic financial fact is that we lie seventh in the league table of wobbly nations, behind the USA, and if the USA gets eaten by the Forex sharks, the whole global financial system goes with it, whether or not we in the UK tear our own heart out and eat it.
The worst bit is that this is only the planning stage. We have not yet got to the realisation of Osborne's dream - the dole queues, the slump, the demonstrations, the crime rates, the social disorder. Nor has Cameron yet started his War. Every Prime Minister has to have a War. A good war had such a wonderful effect in uniting the nation together, don't you agree? Looks as if Dave will go for Iran.
As a rule, I try to stay positive, look for the rational way out of problems. Today, it just feels as if we are locked in a cell with a maniac with a chainsaw.
Ah well. Might feel better tomorrow.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Lansley's NHS reform: more testiculations all round
As a GP I ought to say something about Lansley's plan for the NHS.
There now follows a pause while I collect my thoughts, and search for a word that will not result in this blog being blocked by filth filters. Aha:
"Testicles!!".
Basically, it is another enormous waste of money, as jobs are shuffled around, buildings vacated, and headed notepaper is changed.
I chaired a Locality Commissioning Group in the 1990s. In those days, we had no money or powers. Now the same group will have millions, and a huge remit, which GPs will not be able to do, as they have the inconvenience of treating peoples sniffles, so they will engage managers to do it for them. SNAFU.
Yes, it is another step in the direction of privatisation. Every change brought on the NHS is about privatisation. Part of the strategy is to waste so much money on reorganisation that there is no sniffle service, so peeps are forced to go private.
I'm going to stop now. Blood pressure.
There now follows a pause while I collect my thoughts, and search for a word that will not result in this blog being blocked by filth filters. Aha:
"Testicles!!".
Basically, it is another enormous waste of money, as jobs are shuffled around, buildings vacated, and headed notepaper is changed.
I chaired a Locality Commissioning Group in the 1990s. In those days, we had no money or powers. Now the same group will have millions, and a huge remit, which GPs will not be able to do, as they have the inconvenience of treating peoples sniffles, so they will engage managers to do it for them. SNAFU.
Yes, it is another step in the direction of privatisation. Every change brought on the NHS is about privatisation. Part of the strategy is to waste so much money on reorganisation that there is no sniffle service, so peeps are forced to go private.
I'm going to stop now. Blood pressure.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Tories and Crypto-Tories: what is wrong with them?
I have lots to do today, like getting my feet 6" lower so they are in contact with the ground, but I do just want to say this to Frank Field, George Osbore, and all other Tories and crypto-Tories who are tooling up to bash benefit claimants:
Look; it is all well and good to encourage and prepare people to take work when it is available. But what in the name of all that is sane and reasonable is the point of tormenting people on JSA, disability benefit &c &c when there is no effing work to be had? It's like explaining the physiology of deglutition in detail to a man dying from thirst. He doesn't want to be taught how to swallow, you idiots, he needs some bloody water! There are two million unemployed, and you think it's going to help by making people on incapacity benefit make a conceptual transition to work readiness?
There's no excuse. The Green Wage Subsidy is the way to help people to find good, green, useful work, in a bureaucracy-lite way that is a precursor to Citizen's Income.
Pah. Politicians and politics. They should be all be given swimming lessons in the non-composting loos at Glastonbury Festival. Honestly. Why do we bother?
Look; it is all well and good to encourage and prepare people to take work when it is available. But what in the name of all that is sane and reasonable is the point of tormenting people on JSA, disability benefit &c &c when there is no effing work to be had? It's like explaining the physiology of deglutition in detail to a man dying from thirst. He doesn't want to be taught how to swallow, you idiots, he needs some bloody water! There are two million unemployed, and you think it's going to help by making people on incapacity benefit make a conceptual transition to work readiness?
There's no excuse. The Green Wage Subsidy is the way to help people to find good, green, useful work, in a bureaucracy-lite way that is a precursor to Citizen's Income.
Pah. Politicians and politics. They should be all be given swimming lessons in the non-composting loos at Glastonbury Festival. Honestly. Why do we bother?
Thursday, March 04, 2010
The Electoral Commission Fails to Inspire Public Confidence
The Electoral Commission (EC) has given the thumbs up to "Lord" non-dom Ashcroft's company, Bearwood Corporate Services*. It was a "permissible donor".
Bearwood Corporate Finance, advises on acquisitions and mergers, minimum fee £10,000.
I will just whizz us through the result of 18 months of Electoral Commission (EC) deliberations.
BCS, ...is not a regulated entity,
Which means what exactly? EC does not develop this thought.
Lord Ashcroft ...provided some information on a voluntary basis, although in response to requests for documents regarding BCS and its parent companies (including ownership, control, beneficial interests or provision of funding to those companies), his solicitors indicated that Lord Ashcroft did not have in his possession any such documents, and that his policy was to destroy documents unless retaining them was a requirement for an auditing, tax, or regulatory reason and any documents not within this category were not retained once their purpose had been served.Great policy. Free tip on How to Succeed in Business. Saves on space. Who wants to keep stuff about clients, outcomes &c?
The first reported donation by BCS to the party was on 28 February 2003. Between then and 31 December 2009 the party reported £5,137,785 of donations from BCS.
The EC gives no data on when BCS was founded, what its turnover was, what its profits were. Nada.
IN the absence of any data, let us assume that a company might choose to donate 5% of its total profits to the excellent Conservative Party. I make that an annual profit of £14,285,700. Nice work if you can get it. Inland Revenue please take note.
On the other hand, the EC says
There is no definition in PPERA** of “carrying on business”. However, in other areas of the law, the term has been interpreted broadly. It is not necessary for a company to generate profit. A company need not be actively trading, provided that the company continues to engage in business transactions, such as employing staff or paying for business facilities. Additionally, even if a company has not yet traded, provided that it is preparing to do so, it is likely to be within the scope of “carrying on business”.
(Money shifted to and fro from Besleaze)
Anyway,
The Commission concluded that BCS met the permissibility requirements for making political donations.
So that's all right then.
I'm bored already. This is like reading a New Age book entitled "Faeries are Real, Faeries are Good, Come Meet the Faeries in My Wood".
Read it yourself, if you think it is worth your time, it's only 7 pages long, with big type.
The point that I take home is that the Electoral Commission should be scrapped as part of the Governments' Debt Reduction Programme, and political party funding should be laid wide open to the free market. Anyone who wants to buy a politician, go right ahead. Be our guest.
Welcome to Britain, the land of unregulated political donations.
Remember this is the same EC that ruled that the Fraudster Michael Brown's company was OK to give a donation to the LibDems on the very day it was set up.
The aim of the Electoral Commission is "integrity and public confidence in the democratic process".
My humble opinion is that they have utterly and completely failed. I could go on, but it would just be a rant, so I will close with just one final word:
Bolleaux!!
*Funny name. Whatever would a bear be doing in a wood? I would have thought CathPope would be a more upmarket moniker. Never mind.
** The Law that covers this matter.
Bearwood Corporate Finance, advises on acquisitions and mergers, minimum fee £10,000.
I will just whizz us through the result of 18 months of Electoral Commission (EC) deliberations.
BCS, ...is not a regulated entity,
Which means what exactly? EC does not develop this thought.
Lord Ashcroft ...provided some information on a voluntary basis, although in response to requests for documents regarding BCS and its parent companies (including ownership, control, beneficial interests or provision of funding to those companies), his solicitors indicated that Lord Ashcroft did not have in his possession any such documents, and that his policy was to destroy documents unless retaining them was a requirement for an auditing, tax, or regulatory reason and any documents not within this category were not retained once their purpose had been served.Great policy. Free tip on How to Succeed in Business. Saves on space. Who wants to keep stuff about clients, outcomes &c?
The first reported donation by BCS to the party was on 28 February 2003. Between then and 31 December 2009 the party reported £5,137,785 of donations from BCS.
The EC gives no data on when BCS was founded, what its turnover was, what its profits were. Nada.
IN the absence of any data, let us assume that a company might choose to donate 5% of its total profits to the excellent Conservative Party. I make that an annual profit of £14,285,700. Nice work if you can get it. Inland Revenue please take note.
On the other hand, the EC says
There is no definition in PPERA** of “carrying on business”. However, in other areas of the law, the term has been interpreted broadly. It is not necessary for a company to generate profit. A company need not be actively trading, provided that the company continues to engage in business transactions, such as employing staff or paying for business facilities. Additionally, even if a company has not yet traded, provided that it is preparing to do so, it is likely to be within the scope of “carrying on business”.
- throughout the period under consideration BCS conducted a management consultancy business
- up to July 2006 it also conducted a merger broking business
- from December 2007 it carried on business as a holding company
(Money shifted to and fro from Besleaze)
Anyway,
The Commission concluded that BCS met the permissibility requirements for making political donations.
So that's all right then.
I'm bored already. This is like reading a New Age book entitled "Faeries are Real, Faeries are Good, Come Meet the Faeries in My Wood".
Read it yourself, if you think it is worth your time, it's only 7 pages long, with big type.
The point that I take home is that the Electoral Commission should be scrapped as part of the Governments' Debt Reduction Programme, and political party funding should be laid wide open to the free market. Anyone who wants to buy a politician, go right ahead. Be our guest.
Welcome to Britain, the land of unregulated political donations.
Remember this is the same EC that ruled that the Fraudster Michael Brown's company was OK to give a donation to the LibDems on the very day it was set up.
The aim of the Electoral Commission is "integrity and public confidence in the democratic process".
My humble opinion is that they have utterly and completely failed. I could go on, but it would just be a rant, so I will close with just one final word:
Bolleaux!!
*Funny name. Whatever would a bear be doing in a wood? I would have thought CathPope would be a more upmarket moniker. Never mind.
** The Law that covers this matter.
Monday, March 01, 2010
Green candidate pulls out of Parliamentary race for fear of letting Tory through
I have just issued this Press release to my local media:
No embargo
Dr Richard Lawson, who was to have been the Green Party Parliamentary Candidate for Weston-super-Mare, has regretfully decided to withdraw his candidacy, in order to increase the chance of the Liberal Democrats taking the seat from the Conservatives.
Dr Lawson said: "This is the result of a great deal of soul-searching over the past weeks. It was a very difficult decision, as I have had 3 invitations to attend hustings, which I very much enjoy, and was beginning to get my mind into campaign mode. I was particularly looking forward to arguing for increasing income equality as a solution to many social and health problems. If UKIP had put up a candidate in Weson, I would have challenged them to debate climate change.
The thing that swung it for me is the recent news that the Conservative opinion poll lead is declining. This raises a faint possibility that the LibDems could win in Weston.
My candidature was founded on the idea that Weston was a safe Conservative win. The argument was that in that case, under FPTP all non-Tory votes were "wasted" in the sense that they find no representation in Parliament. People should make a Green Vote as that is a far more powerful protest than merely abstaining from the poll. The Green Vote represents radical political, economic, social and environmental reform.
That platform becomes shaky if Weston becomes vulnerable to a LibDem gain.
I could not live with myself if the Greens in Weston got, say, 1,000 votes, and the Tory won by a margin of 100 votes over the LibDem, and David Cameron formed a Government with an overall majority of one. Unlikely as that might be, it is incontrovertible that there is a big overlap between Green voters and LibDem voters, and in that situation, I would have been responsible for putting a Tory Government in power.
There is no reasonable doubt that the Tories are a major threat to the security of Britain's society, economy and environment. John Penrose is a decent MP, but his Conservative party is infested with climate change deniers and free market fundamentalists. He supports the ridiculous and sub-democratic FPTP electoral system. The Conservative Shadow Chancellor Osborne's economic policies threaten to bring a double dip recession onto the country. Cameron's "greenness" is wafer thin, as evidenced by the lack of emphasis on the environment in his recent speeches.
I am very angry that the FPTP electoral system has forced this decision on me. Under a more democracy-friendly system, all votes cast in Weston would have had representation in Parliament, and people could vote to support their principles. FPTP forces people to vote tactically, and in my case, to stand tactically".
Dr Lawson will continue to set out Green political and economic views on his blog http://greenerblog.blogspot.com/
-ends-
Dr Lawson said: "This is the result of a great deal of soul-searching over the past weeks. It was a very difficult decision, as I have had 3 invitations to attend hustings, which I very much enjoy, and was beginning to get my mind into campaign mode. I was particularly looking forward to arguing for increasing income equality as a solution to many social and health problems. If UKIP had put up a candidate in Weson, I would have challenged them to debate climate change.
The thing that swung it for me is the recent news that the Conservative opinion poll lead is declining. This raises a faint possibility that the LibDems could win in Weston.
My candidature was founded on the idea that Weston was a safe Conservative win. The argument was that in that case, under FPTP all non-Tory votes were "wasted" in the sense that they find no representation in Parliament. People should make a Green Vote as that is a far more powerful protest than merely abstaining from the poll. The Green Vote represents radical political, economic, social and environmental reform.
That platform becomes shaky if Weston becomes vulnerable to a LibDem gain.
I could not live with myself if the Greens in Weston got, say, 1,000 votes, and the Tory won by a margin of 100 votes over the LibDem, and David Cameron formed a Government with an overall majority of one. Unlikely as that might be, it is incontrovertible that there is a big overlap between Green voters and LibDem voters, and in that situation, I would have been responsible for putting a Tory Government in power.
There is no reasonable doubt that the Tories are a major threat to the security of Britain's society, economy and environment. John Penrose is a decent MP, but his Conservative party is infested with climate change deniers and free market fundamentalists. He supports the ridiculous and sub-democratic FPTP electoral system. The Conservative Shadow Chancellor Osborne's economic policies threaten to bring a double dip recession onto the country. Cameron's "greenness" is wafer thin, as evidenced by the lack of emphasis on the environment in his recent speeches.
I am very angry that the FPTP electoral system has forced this decision on me. Under a more democracy-friendly system, all votes cast in Weston would have had representation in Parliament, and people could vote to support their principles. FPTP forces people to vote tactically, and in my case, to stand tactically".
Dr Lawson will continue to set out Green political and economic views on his blog http://greenerblog.blogspot.com/
-ends-
Personal note:
Damn. Damn damn damn. We live in a stinking, smearing, offensive system that is worse than sh*tty, because you can turn that into fertiliser. The present political system needs radical reform, and I was lining up to argue for that in the political debate, but the risk of making things worse was too great. Greens are excluded from the political system by the vote, and by substantial exclusion from the broadcast political debate.
[update] Correspondence with Weston Mercury.
[update 5th May: a YouGov poll today puts the LibDems in the South West at 41% as against 36% for the Tories. Labour are nowhere. YouGov tends to overestimate the Tories, being run by Tories, so the position may be even better.
This country needs radical political reform. Proportional Representation is the first step. The logic is, Vote tactically this time to get PR, then you can vote for what you truly believe in.
[update] Correspondence with Weston Mercury.
[update 5th May: a YouGov poll today puts the LibDems in the South West at 41% as against 36% for the Tories. Labour are nowhere. YouGov tends to overestimate the Tories, being run by Tories, so the position may be even better.
This country needs radical political reform. Proportional Representation is the first step. The logic is, Vote tactically this time to get PR, then you can vote for what you truly believe in.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Blair knew Iraq war would increase the terrorist threat
I wrote in July 2005 that the London bombings were the result of Blair's Iraq adventure. This was the assessment that all anti-war protesters had made: the war would radicalise young Muslims.
In defence, the pro-war people use the fact that Al-Qaeda was active before the Iraq war. This avoids the question of whether the Iraq invasion would give Al-Qaeda a boost.
Now the Chilcot Iraq Inquiry has uncovered evidence that Blair was advised that his invasion would increase radicalisation and disaffection of Muslims.
Middle East Online reports thusly: Former British prime minister Tony Blair knew that invading Iraq in 2003 could increase the threat from extremism but pressed ahead nonetheless, a former top civil servant said Wednesday.
Here is the transcript from the Iraq Inquiry:
p41 line 10
Sir David Omand held the the post of Security and Intelligence Coordinator in the Cabinet Office from June 2003 until April 2005
SIR LAWRENCE FREEDMAN:So there is a sort of question of the strength of the warning that was going out on this question of the risk of terrorism within the UK, resulting from the war.
SIR DAVID OMAND: Well, I read out quite a long list of quotes from the JIC. I don't think there is any doubt that that was the conclusion. There was no dissent from any quarter that that was the conclusion.
The assertion is explored further, and Omand does not resile from that position.
Blair knew that what he was doing was going to alienate Muslims, going to increase the risk of terrorist attacks against the British people, increase our insecurity, but he still went ahead with his beloved war.
The role of Government is to protect the people. Blair chose to do the opposite, and in the process messed up a country, killed 100,000 people, lost the lives of hundreds of British soldiers, and sprayed toxins all over Iraq which are affecting the health of the Iraqis.
But, hey, he's a pretty straight kind of guy who believed he was doing the right thing.
So that's all right then.
[update] University of Chicago political science professor and former Air Force lecturer will present findings on Capitol Hill on Tuesday that argue that the majority of suicide terrorism around the world since 1980 has had a common cause: military occupation.
In defence, the pro-war people use the fact that Al-Qaeda was active before the Iraq war. This avoids the question of whether the Iraq invasion would give Al-Qaeda a boost.
Now the Chilcot Iraq Inquiry has uncovered evidence that Blair was advised that his invasion would increase radicalisation and disaffection of Muslims.
Middle East Online reports thusly: Former British prime minister Tony Blair knew that invading Iraq in 2003 could increase the threat from extremism but pressed ahead nonetheless, a former top civil servant said Wednesday.
Here is the transcript from the Iraq Inquiry:
p41 line 10
Sir David Omand held the the post of Security and Intelligence Coordinator in the Cabinet Office from June 2003 until April 2005
SIR LAWRENCE FREEDMAN:So there is a sort of question of the strength of the warning that was going out on this question of the risk of terrorism within the UK, resulting from the war.
SIR DAVID OMAND: Well, I read out quite a long list of quotes from the JIC. I don't think there is any doubt that that was the conclusion. There was no dissent from any quarter that that was the conclusion.
The assertion is explored further, and Omand does not resile from that position.
Blair knew that what he was doing was going to alienate Muslims, going to increase the risk of terrorist attacks against the British people, increase our insecurity, but he still went ahead with his beloved war.
The role of Government is to protect the people. Blair chose to do the opposite, and in the process messed up a country, killed 100,000 people, lost the lives of hundreds of British soldiers, and sprayed toxins all over Iraq which are affecting the health of the Iraqis.
But, hey, he's a pretty straight kind of guy who believed he was doing the right thing.
So that's all right then.
[update] University of Chicago political science professor and former Air Force lecturer will present findings on Capitol Hill on Tuesday that argue that the majority of suicide terrorism around the world since 1980 has had a common cause: military occupation.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Positioning the Green Party for the General Election
It is right and good that the Green Party should use the coming General Election to put forward and celebrate the many achievements of our elected representatives. Truly, we punch well above our weight when we manage to overcome the dysfunctional electoral system and fight our way into the corridors of ...er...influence.
However, General Election 2010 demands far more than a quiet recitation at how good our representatives are at doing what they are paid to do. The political territory in 2010 is a No-Man's Land where political reputations hang fluttering on the barbed wire, where credibility of politicians lies blasted into shredded heaps of quivering red jelly. There is no point in sending Green Party Political Candidates out to walk forwards towards the massed machine gun posts of the Hun Media carrying rifles to which are attached a little flag inscribed with the words "We are quite good at doing what politicians do".
Stuff that for a game of soldiers. The Green Party is a radical party, a party that wants to transform economics and politics in a way that leads to sustainability. Sustainability is an cliche' now, but what it means is that the present way of doing things - economically and politically - is doomed. It has no future. It will crash. It will fall off its perch, off the edge of a cliff. It will soon be no more. Orthodox politics and economics is a smoking flax, a bruised reed, a pile of well-rotted manure, fit for only one thing, to be buried in the ground to act as fertiliser for new growth.
I am struggling to make myself clear here, but I hope the basic message is comprehensible. We need to attack the whole rotten system, the ridiculous FPTP electoral system, the Parliamentary old-boys' club, the inside-out, back-to-front economy, the way Brown has pumped money into the swollen pockets of the banksters, the way he has sent our soldiers to be ripped apart with IEDs in a futile effort to provide a pipeline for fossil oil products to reach our markets - and so on.
We have an opportunity in the General Election to position ourselves as a truly radical party, to appeal to the mass of voters who are royally pissed of with the smug set of economists-with-the-truth who are pleased to call themselves our rulers. Our ideology, though non-violent, is more radical than the far left, who seem content that bankers should have a monopoly of the money supply; more radical over immigration than the BNP, who are silent on the subject of how to prevent the desire of millions to migrate to the UK; more radical than UKIP, who rank lowest in the MEP probity department, and whose policies would freed from the yoke of Europe, only to accept the even heavier yoke of subjection to psychopathic TransNational Corporations such as Trafigura.
We need to be setting up NOW with a
- Twitter based campaign alerting to viral videos on YouTube actually demonstrating what our representatives are doing, giving examples of how the Green New Deal would work, using video-based imaginative techniques to illustrate the point,
- we need to show how the Green Party is the political wing of the mass of NGOs who are fighting to clean up the effects of a dysfunctional economic system, showing them that green reforms would switch off the fan that is spreading the muck that they are cleaning up.
- We need a powerful, radical Party Election Broadcast that will give people a single, stark, real understanding of the mess that grey politics is making of the planet, and giving hope for a radical transformation of the system.
We do not need a succession of talking heads in suits telling us in manager-speak what good chaps and chapesses they have been. That should be a given, a footnote and a link on each press release to a page that documents our achievements.
We need a radical attack on a rotten, tottering political and economic system, backed with a clear exposition of how green solutions work.
[Long pause before hitting the Publish button. Partly caused by whether I am going to be slung out of the Party for Bringing the Party Into Disrepute, and partly seeking a suitable word to round off the argument. The only suitable word I can think of is French, and rhymes with "Bared".]
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Osborne: "We are all in this together". NOT!!
Isn't it funny how you can never find a Marxist when you need one?
The sentient world gazes in numbed disbelief at the spectacle of the Conservative Party, who will (barring either divine intervention or a sudden accession of the electorate to a rudimentary grasp on reality) form the next government of the UK, drawing up and presenting its plans to punish those on low incomes who have the temerity to use, and indeed to work in, public services.
The key phrase is George Osborne's seven times repeated mantra: "We are all in this together".
NO, GEORGE OSBORNE WE ARE BLEEDING NOT ALL IN THIS TOGETHER!!
You and your clique are rich, privileged MPs with private means, and you are chums with the banksters whose stupid, systemic errors have created the enormous debt that has been dumped onto the public sector, to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds for every citizen.
To you, George, £10,000 is a trivial number to be written on a cheque and popped in an envelope. To your recently-made-redundant low skilled constituent, £10,000 represents the net profit of a lifetime of work - if they are lucky.
Your banksters chums have not only succeeded in annihilating millions of such lifetimes' savings with their fraudulent activities, have not only continued with Business as Usual, have not only dumped their losses on the public sector, but are also manipulating both the Tories and the NuLabs into making public sector cuts.
We are emphatically not all in this together. On one side, there are the banksters and the NuLabTory complex, on the other side are the longsuffering people, the turkeys of the Murdoch-reading masses who are about to vote for Christmas.
God, it makes me angry. In fact I am so angry that it makes me want to join some revolutionary socialist marxist leninist groupuscule and spend the rest of my life ranting against the analytical errors of some other revolutionary socialist marxist leninist groupuscule. That's how angry I feel. It'll pass.
The sentient world gazes in numbed disbelief at the spectacle of the Conservative Party, who will (barring either divine intervention or a sudden accession of the electorate to a rudimentary grasp on reality) form the next government of the UK, drawing up and presenting its plans to punish those on low incomes who have the temerity to use, and indeed to work in, public services.
The key phrase is George Osborne's seven times repeated mantra: "We are all in this together".
NO, GEORGE OSBORNE WE ARE BLEEDING NOT ALL IN THIS TOGETHER!!
You and your clique are rich, privileged MPs with private means, and you are chums with the banksters whose stupid, systemic errors have created the enormous debt that has been dumped onto the public sector, to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds for every citizen.
To you, George, £10,000 is a trivial number to be written on a cheque and popped in an envelope. To your recently-made-redundant low skilled constituent, £10,000 represents the net profit of a lifetime of work - if they are lucky.
Your banksters chums have not only succeeded in annihilating millions of such lifetimes' savings with their fraudulent activities, have not only continued with Business as Usual, have not only dumped their losses on the public sector, but are also manipulating both the Tories and the NuLabs into making public sector cuts.
We are emphatically not all in this together. On one side, there are the banksters and the NuLabTory complex, on the other side are the longsuffering people, the turkeys of the Murdoch-reading masses who are about to vote for Christmas.
God, it makes me angry. In fact I am so angry that it makes me want to join some revolutionary socialist marxist leninist groupuscule and spend the rest of my life ranting against the analytical errors of some other revolutionary socialist marxist leninist groupuscule. That's how angry I feel. It'll pass.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Mendip Licensing Department in a BiGG hole and still digging
Just finished a half-hour telephone conversation with Jason Kirkwood who works at Licensing, Mendip District Council, (tel 01749 648999 ) in response to my letter below. (scroll down to Dear Charlene). I asked him at the outset to write, but the poor bugger insisted on trying to deal with it over the phone. We got as far as discussing road safety and lower speed limits on the fast roads around the sites, covering a lot of related territory as we talked. Mendip could have brought in temporary traffic orders to slow the traffic, but failed to do so, and then blamed their own failure on the BGG.
The conversation reinforced my feeling that Mendip and Avon and Somerset Police have constructed the closure of the BGG.
Jason is now on the phone complaining that Charlene's email is on the blog, so I have agreed to take it off.
In our conversation Jason refused to deny that he was a climate change sceptic, pleading political neutrality of the council officer. I pointed out that climate change is not a political but a scientific matter. I did not say that that climate change denial is a psychiatric matter, but if he is in climate change denial, I think his fitness for public service is open to question.
The conversation reinforced my feeling that Mendip and Avon and Somerset Police have constructed the closure of the BGG.
Jason is now on the phone complaining that Charlene's email is on the blog, so I have agreed to take it off.
In our conversation Jason refused to deny that he was a climate change sceptic, pleading political neutrality of the council officer. I pointed out that climate change is not a political but a scientific matter. I did not say that that climate change denial is a psychiatric matter, but if he is in climate change denial, I think his fitness for public service is open to question.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Big Green Gathering - Read all about it
The echoes of the cancellation of the big green gathering rumble on. I am getting several emails a day, and trying to take some action by phoning Mendip District Council (I confess I do not have the courage to phone the police, after all, I have wife and children to think about).
Sincerely
Dr Richard Lawson
------------------------------
Now, this one. I am not sure of the provenance, let's say "sources close to the BGG":
Mendip Council issued the licence on condition of a road closure. When that closure was applied for it was refused by the Highways Authority of the newly Conservative Somerset County Council.
Mendip Council also insisted on Stuart Security - or at very least it was always a lot easier to get a licence if you hired this particular firm. Stuart Security, worried that they weren't gonna get their money from the BGG were insisting being paid by a given date. The BGG didn't meet that deadline and then decided to hire a different security firm. Probably not the cleverest decision 2 weeks or so before the festie. Stuart Security went straight to the police and said something like
"These guys are dodgy. They've reneged on their contract with us. What can we get them on?"
Stuart Security apparently employ several members of this same police force as security officers.
------------------------------
I paste below some of the information that has come my way: First, my response to the Mendip Council's letters of justification; then their letters (I put it this way round because I know that life is much too short to read everything laid before us); next,a straw blowing in the political wind, and finally, an allegation about the part played by Stuart Security in the outrage.
We should always compare action taken by the Home Office (Now renamed the "Just-us Department") against the gold standard set in 2000 by the policing of the fuel protests, when lorry drivers closed down the oil refineries in protest at fuel prices. If that had been Greens doing that, we would have been beaten to a pulp, thrown in that state into police cells, and damned by every journalist in the land for recklessly endangering civilisation as we know it.
Being as how the protesters were Daily Mail readers who shared with the policemen and women a deep conviction of that oil is an infinite and side-effect free resource, the police put on their kid gloves before they dealt with the fuel protesters, and the Conservative Party gave them moral support. (Maverick that I am, I wanted the Greens to go out and mingle with the fuel protesters on the grounds that every day a fuel depot is closed down is a day that the planet's imminent fever is delayed).
But I digress. The police, no doubt smarting at the grief they are getting over their outrageous behaviour at the G20, want to get back at the hippies. Over the past years they have been rachetting up the demands and the costs of policing and security for the BGG. This year, in a fit of spite, they have succeeded in closing it.
Success comes in many forms. Some forms involve defeating your enemy, and this time the police and Mendip District Council have triumphed. But such triumphs involve creating a sense of resentment that will find its expression in other ways. Greens are non-violent, which is possibly one reason for the way that the State has been able to exclude us from the political and media process for so long, but we have many ways of exerting pressure on organisations that exhibit signs of gross stupidity when we are minded to do so.
The CEO of Mendip District Council is David Thomson. He was on holiday when the malicious decision to block the BGG was made, and his deputy Stuart Brown was in charge, but the way that these things work. David is your man to complain to.
david.thomson@mendip.gov.uk
Needless to say, Mendip is a Tory Council, and their leader is Cllr. Ken Maddocks.
--------------------
[xxxx]
Licensing Dept.
Mendip District Council,
Council Offices, Cannards Grave Road, Shepton Mallet,
Somerset, BA4 5BT
01749 648999
[email removed at boss' request]
Dear [name deleted]
Thank you for emailing me your material regarding the cancellation of the Big Green Gathering.
I would request some questions arising from your FAQs:
1. What historic public safety and crime and disorder occurred at past gatherings? I would like to have a detailed record of these.
2. For what reason did the "important security company" involved with the event withdraw their services?
3. What were the precise objections of the police, ambulance, and fire services.
4. Who is the "etc" referred to in the paragraph titled Did the police pressurise the council into threatening an injunction?
5. What precisely were the "requirements that had to be completed before the event?"
6. Please elucidate the logic in this sentence: "This is not an issue about whether it has been safe... but is an issue as to whether the forthcoming event would have been safe based on the fact that certain requirements were not met."
7. What exactly is the serious incident referred to in this sentence: "if we had done nothing and a serious incident had happened"
8. Re this paragraph:
"How much crime and disorder results from the BGG?
This is a policing issue and the BGG spent significant time working with the police on this event."
Is the Council aware that the cost of policing of football matches, outwith the cost of the the police working in the ground itself, is borne by the community charge? Does the same rule apply to the BGG?
Sincerely
Dr Richard Lawson
----------------------------------------------
The following is the statement and FAQ document being put out by Mendip DC in an effort to cut down on the work they have incurred as a result of their ill-considered action.
Following a statement issued by Mendip District Council on Sunday regarding the cancellation of the Big Green Gathering, the council would like to issue the following update:
Following a decision by the Big Green Gathering to cancel its event by surrendering the licence, this has meant that Mendip District Council has not needed to apply to the High Court for an injunction to stop the event.
The failure of the organisers to address a number of serious public safety issues meant that they had no other option but to cancel it themselves.
The fact is that organisers chose to surrender the licence before an application was made to the High Court.
The final decision to prepare legal papers for a High Court hearing was made on Friday evening (July 24), but a court application was not expected to be made until yesterday (Monday, July 27).
In addition to the several months of help and advice they had been given by both us and emergency services, the weekend provided even more opportunity for the organisers to fulfil their licence obligations. However, they handed their licence back to us on Sunday morning (July 26).
Many hours of council time have been committed to help make this event happen, but the lack of assurances from the organisers about the safety of their event were continually causing concern for the council and emergency services.
There has been an apparent lack of coordination in managing and meeting the obligations of the licence, and now the cancellation of this event creates many more issues and a heavier workload for the council and emergency services than if it had gone ahead safely. Mendip is a council which is recognised nationally with its partners for licensing large events.
The bottom line is we know about licensing festivals, and therefore would not have taken a decision to consider legal action lightly. Preparing for legal action is a last resort.
All festivals, no matter how big or small, must go through a strict licensing process with public safety and crime and disorder playing a major part in that process.
A number of untrue accusations are circulating throughout the media and on internet sites. These are without substance.
The council’s decision to pursue an injunction was a last resort. It only considered such action because the organisers did not fulfil their obligations under the licence.
The council recognises people’s frustrations but despite the best efforts of the council and emergency services, the event was cancelled by the organisers because the requirements of the licence were not met.
-----------------------------------------------
Following a number of calls and emails to the council regarding the cancellation of the Big Green Gathering, the following frequently asked questions have been compiled:
The seriousness of the concerns meant that despite days of negotiations the organisers had still not complied with some aspects of their licence and other legal requirements connected to fire safety. This amounted to concerns that public safety could have been seriously undermined should the event take place in such circumstances. Therefore the council had no other option but to consider applying for an injunction, which if successful may have forced the event to shut down.
When was the decision made to progress with an injunction?
During a meeting between the council and emergency services at 6.30pm on Friday (July 24). However, the injunction application was not due to submitted until Monday (July 27) which gave the organisers more opportunity to address their licensing issues.
When was the council first made aware about concerns surrounding the licence?
On July 17 we became aware there were serious issues about the licence including the confirmation that an important security company involved with the event had withdrawn their services.
What happened next?
Internal investigations at the council alongside the emergency services flagged up other areas of concern. The organisers of BGG were invited to attend a meeting at the council offices on July 22 to help resolve various issues. Some issues were resolved at that meeting, but a number of issues remained outstanding. The council and emergency services had already arranged to meet with the organisers the following day on-site to ensure the outstanding issues had been resolved.
Who would have granted the injunction?
The council had prepared a case to take to the High Court where a judge would have listened to both sides of the argument and made a decision. There is no guarantee the court would have agreed with the council, but the council felt so strongly about their concerns that it had no other option but prepare for an injunction.
Did the police pressurise the council into threatening an injunction?
No, the council works in partnership with many agencies. This decision was based on advice from emergency services including the police, ambulance, fire etc. Ultimately, as the licensing authority the council weighed up all the factors and risks and made the final decision.
Was the threat of an injunction a political decision?
No, this was purely based on public safety and potential for crime and disorder.
Why wasn’t this issued sorted out sooner?
The council and other agencies have been working closely with BGG since February this year on the licence application, which was finally granted. However, there were a number of requirements that had to be completed before the event. Some of these crucial elements had not been completed.
Does the council not feel that this is a safe and green festival?
This is not an issue about whether it has been safe and green, but is an issue as to whether the forthcoming event would have been safe based on the fact that certain requirements were not met.
Does the council not support the ethos of events such as the BGG?
The issue here is not about the ethos or messages this event wants to send out but about ensuring public safety during the event.
Is the council not victimising this event and those that attend?
Since BGG came to this area a number of years ago it has had significant support from all agencies in planning and running this event. Over the past couple of weeks there has been significant ongoing discussion between organisers, the council and emergency services to try and resolve the licensing issues. The organisers signed up to legal commitments associated with the licence, some of which they failed to meet, and are bound by other legislation.
Did the council not want this event to go ahead from the beginning?
The council strives to ensure that any licence application is considered properly and fairly, but it also works closely with other agencies and organisers to attempt to organise safe and well run events. We realise the potential benefit that large events create for the area and local economy. In short the cancellation of this event creates many more issues and a heavier workload for the council than if it had gone ahead safely.
Has the council gone health and safety mad?
No. However the council has a duty to protect the public from potential harm, and concerns existed due to certain plans not being in place. We realise that the cancellation of this event will be blamed on the council by some and has had a huge impact, however if we had done nothing and a serious incident had happened the council would have been also been blamed for not acting where concerns existed.
All events however well run do have a significant potential for crime and disorder issues, however part of our role is to minimise this effect through proper licensing. We were not satisfied that this event had addressed some of those issues.
Did we have an intention of creating financial difficulties for the BGG?
No. The council would never wish to see any financial difficulties affect any local event or businesses as one of our corporate goals is to support the local economy.
Did the council create problems with the BGG signing up a security firm?
No, we simply needed assurance from the BGG that they had security arrangements in place.
How much crime and disorder results from the BGG?
This is a policing issue and the BGG spent significant time working with the police on this event.
There is another FAQ document in circulation, with responses by one of the BGG team, pasted above in the blog entry 30 July.
-------------------------------------------------
Big Green Gathering Shut Down
“It’s political” Chief Superintendent tells BGG Director
Chief Superintendent Paul Richards admitted to a Big Green Gathering Director that the decision to shut down the Big Green Gathering was political and confirmed to the Chair of the Big Green Gathering that orders had come from the highest level.
During a meeting today between the police and directors of the Big Green Gathering, the superintendent said the decision to shut down the BGG was taken over a week ago, confirming the statement from the BGG lawyer that the ‘injunction was a red herring.’
Directors from the BGG are horrified at this partisan interpretation of licencing law. Big Green Gathering Chair Brig Oubridge said, “At the multi-agency meeting on Thursday 23rd July, we were still negotiating with the police and the council under the genuine belief that things were progressing and we were continuing to spend money on infrastructure, wages and security. If they knew they were going to cancel the event, we can only conclude that this drive to increase expenditure appears to be a deliberate attempt to bankrupt the Big Green Gathering.
The injunction served on the Big Green Gathering was primarily addressing the fact that the Big Green Gathering did not obtain the necessary road closure despite the fact that the Highways Agency had previously indicated that this would be done.
The Big Green Gathering has been running an event since 1994 and never before has public safety been an issue. The BGG has an exemplary record on health and safety and crime levels have always been low for the number of people on site.
Despite the concerns over the behaviour of the Council and the Police, event organisers will work with them to ensure the safety of those at the premises and ensure that they leave the land in an orderly fashion. Brig concluded, “We are very aware of our responsibilities to those already on the site and very sad for all those who were coming to enjoy one of the most peaceful festivals in the UK.”
This email came from Holly de Sylva------------------------------
Now, this one. I am not sure of the provenance, let's say "sources close to the BGG":
Mendip Council issued the licence on condition of a road closure. When that closure was applied for it was refused by the Highways Authority of the newly Conservative Somerset County Council.
Mendip Council also insisted on Stuart Security - or at very least it was always a lot easier to get a licence if you hired this particular firm. Stuart Security, worried that they weren't gonna get their money from the BGG were insisting being paid by a given date. The BGG didn't meet that deadline and then decided to hire a different security firm. Probably not the cleverest decision 2 weeks or so before the festie. Stuart Security went straight to the police and said something like
"These guys are dodgy. They've reneged on their contract with us. What can we get them on?"
Stuart Security apparently employ several members of this same police force as security officers.
------------------------------
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Support our boys, buy the opium!
Paradox: the Government is beginning to admit the inevitability of defeat in Afghanistan, talking about talking to the Taliban, talking about an exit strategy that would leave Karzai's corrupt little coven of shysters and drug dealers in a position to stem the rising tide of Taliban women-abusers. What absolute Whitehall bolltox.
The paradox is that the Green Party, which never wanted to go into Afghanistan in the first place, and wants to get our boys home safe and sound as soon as possible, also holds the key to victory over the gay-bashing Taliban. With one notable individual exception, our Party Conference voted to buy the Afghan opium, and use it for relieving terminal pain in the Global South. This policy would pull the financial rug from under the Taliban, cut endemic corruption, and win hearts and minds of the Afghan population, allowing our troops to withdraw, job honorably done.
Lord Malloch-Brown of Brown-Ballochs, the outgoing Foreign Office has played a dead bat to Caroline Lucas' series of letters proposing this solution. Buying the Afghan opium is a non-issue - even at a time when the UK body count is climbing towards to 200 mark, and even the normally war-loving right-wing press is beginning to wonder whether this is a winnable war.
The absence of debate about this most sensible solution makes me wonder at the extent to which drug based corruption penetrates into the heart of Government, not just the Afghan Government (Karzai's brother is thought to be a drug runner, see links on labels below), but also our Government, and possibly the UN. I put this policy to the UN-UK conference, and one of the policy wonks said no, he did a paper on it for UNODOC. I said could I see the paper? He said he would ask. The answer was no, I could not see the paper, presumably because the arguments in it were as lacking in structural integrity as a bit of toilet paper that has spent the night out in the rain.
The paradox is that the Green Party, which never wanted to go into Afghanistan in the first place, and wants to get our boys home safe and sound as soon as possible, also holds the key to victory over the gay-bashing Taliban. With one notable individual exception, our Party Conference voted to buy the Afghan opium, and use it for relieving terminal pain in the Global South. This policy would pull the financial rug from under the Taliban, cut endemic corruption, and win hearts and minds of the Afghan population, allowing our troops to withdraw, job honorably done.
Lord Malloch-Brown of Brown-Ballochs, the outgoing Foreign Office has played a dead bat to Caroline Lucas' series of letters proposing this solution. Buying the Afghan opium is a non-issue - even at a time when the UK body count is climbing towards to 200 mark, and even the normally war-loving right-wing press is beginning to wonder whether this is a winnable war.
The absence of debate about this most sensible solution makes me wonder at the extent to which drug based corruption penetrates into the heart of Government, not just the Afghan Government (Karzai's brother is thought to be a drug runner, see links on labels below), but also our Government, and possibly the UN. I put this policy to the UN-UK conference, and one of the policy wonks said no, he did a paper on it for UNODOC. I said could I see the paper? He said he would ask. The answer was no, I could not see the paper, presumably because the arguments in it were as lacking in structural integrity as a bit of toilet paper that has spent the night out in the rain.
Friday, June 12, 2009
H1N1 Pandemic: Stay Calm, and Stay Home if Ill
Some quick notes on the A H1N1 pandemic declared yesterday by the WHO
The latest WHO figures give a total of 29699 confirmed cases af AH1N1 world wide, with 145 deaths.
This gives a case mortality rate of 0.5% - that is, you have a 0.5% chance of dying if you get it.
How does this compare with ordinary seasonal flu?
Here we are given a clinical attack rate (i.e. the proportion of the population that catches flu) of 5-15% for seasonal flu. Let's call that 10%, which would give 30,400,000 cases out of a total USA population of 304,000,000.
Annual death rates due to seasonal flu are around 30,000 in the USA, giving a case mortality rate of 0.1%.
Therefore case mortality rates are five times higher for pandemic flu.
Because less people have antibodies to the new strain, the clinical attack rate is higher with pandemic flu, 25-50% as against 5-15% for seasonal flu - 3-5 times. Let's take that as 4 times higher. That would give 5*4= 20 times the number of deaths that seasonal flu causes - 120,000 in the USA. I make that 0.04% of the US population. Individually each a tragedy (especially if pandemic hits younger people harder) but statistically the figures are not highly significant.
I stress that these are very crude calculations indeed, but they give us a ball park figure of what to expect. The actual numbers could be several times higher or several times lower.
The mortality rate for H1N1 may have been held down by the high level of vigilance and high use of antivirals in these early cases. Stocks are not infinite, so later on people may have to face the virus without support from drugs. In fact, their effect is to reduce the severity and duration of symptoms by a not very large margin. I would be very interested to see them compared with high dose Vitamin C and Zinc, which supports the immune system. There is some evidence for its efficacy. (I know, Dr Goldacre, not a lot, but this is because nobody gets a patent for vitamin C and Zinc).
Key messages are to reduce the case attack rate by emphasising the Stay Home If Ill message. Politically, employers are stupidly going to resist this message, on the grounds that absenteeism will increase. In fact, absenteeism in the longer run will be worse if ill people come in to work and spread it around. Government should help by abolishing the duty of GPs to issue medical certificates, since this drives infectious people out into the community to get their sick notes.
There should also be air quality monitors in civil airliners that could be tested and signal whether the aircraft was carrying H1N1. The passengers could be contacted, and advised to regard themselves as infectious for a week.
Government is deaf to these suggestions, just as they are deaf to the suggestion that we should find out if the effective masks that NHS staff will use can be sterilised in a microwave and re-used, which would save the NHS many millions of pounds a year in purchasing disposable masks. All of these suggestions have been put to Government and the NHS and have met with a complete ignoral.
Expletive deleted.
The latest WHO figures give a total of 29699 confirmed cases af AH1N1 world wide, with 145 deaths.
This gives a case mortality rate of 0.5% - that is, you have a 0.5% chance of dying if you get it.
How does this compare with ordinary seasonal flu?
Here we are given a clinical attack rate (i.e. the proportion of the population that catches flu) of 5-15% for seasonal flu. Let's call that 10%, which would give 30,400,000 cases out of a total USA population of 304,000,000.
Annual death rates due to seasonal flu are around 30,000 in the USA, giving a case mortality rate of 0.1%.
Therefore case mortality rates are five times higher for pandemic flu.
Because less people have antibodies to the new strain, the clinical attack rate is higher with pandemic flu, 25-50% as against 5-15% for seasonal flu - 3-5 times. Let's take that as 4 times higher. That would give 5*4= 20 times the number of deaths that seasonal flu causes - 120,000 in the USA. I make that 0.04% of the US population. Individually each a tragedy (especially if pandemic hits younger people harder) but statistically the figures are not highly significant.
I stress that these are very crude calculations indeed, but they give us a ball park figure of what to expect. The actual numbers could be several times higher or several times lower.
The mortality rate for H1N1 may have been held down by the high level of vigilance and high use of antivirals in these early cases. Stocks are not infinite, so later on people may have to face the virus without support from drugs. In fact, their effect is to reduce the severity and duration of symptoms by a not very large margin. I would be very interested to see them compared with high dose Vitamin C and Zinc, which supports the immune system. There is some evidence for its efficacy. (I know, Dr Goldacre, not a lot, but this is because nobody gets a patent for vitamin C and Zinc).
Key messages are to reduce the case attack rate by emphasising the Stay Home If Ill message. Politically, employers are stupidly going to resist this message, on the grounds that absenteeism will increase. In fact, absenteeism in the longer run will be worse if ill people come in to work and spread it around. Government should help by abolishing the duty of GPs to issue medical certificates, since this drives infectious people out into the community to get their sick notes.
There should also be air quality monitors in civil airliners that could be tested and signal whether the aircraft was carrying H1N1. The passengers could be contacted, and advised to regard themselves as infectious for a week.
Government is deaf to these suggestions, just as they are deaf to the suggestion that we should find out if the effective masks that NHS staff will use can be sterilised in a microwave and re-used, which would save the NHS many millions of pounds a year in purchasing disposable masks. All of these suggestions have been put to Government and the NHS and have met with a complete ignoral.
Expletive deleted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
