Elisa Manningham-Buller, ex-head of MI5, has told the Chilcot Inquiry that the invasion of Iraq had the effect of radicalising more Muslim youth. The implication is that the 7/7 atrocity on London might not have happened if Blair had not been suckered by Bush and Rumsfeld into joining in their ill-judged adventure.
She is the second major player to make this assertion. David Omand the Government's security and intelligence coordinator had the same view.
As does Dr Robert Lambert, ex-head of the Muslim Contact Unit, a counter terrorism squad, who said that the war on terror made more terrorists.
It was obvious to any objective and rational observer (which term excludes most mainstream politicians and journalists) that the invasion of Iraq would have this effect on the minds of Muslim youth. The conclusion now is penetrating into the mainstream that the "war on terror" that they supported has made the terrorism problem worse, not better.
This is a major mistake. If doctors made a mistake of similar magnitude or consequence, they would be struck off. Yet Bush and Blair are roaming free in the world, Blair making thousands of pounds on the after dinner speech circuit.
Not only are they free, but lessons have not been learned. The next time the Government feels the urge to invade some god-forsaken country, we will go through the same ritual: the ruler of the country will be presented by the mainstream media as "The Hitler of our Day", the news will be full of propaganda about his atrocities, peace campaigners will be marginalised, the financial and diplomatic cost of the forthcoming war will be set aside, and in we will go.
How to sum up? Various expletives come to mind, but they are not helpful. We have to accept that Government tends to make irrational decisions. In psychiatry, we try to address irrationality by bringing the patient in contact with reality, so that they can compare and contrast their cognitive world with the real world that exists outside of their mind set. For politicians and mainstream journalists, this would mean some kind of Truth and Reconciliation process, where their writings and statements are methodically compared with the outcomes of their decisions.
Showing posts with label civil service. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil service. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Monday, November 23, 2009
Notes from DECC "Consultation" on Hinkley C
On Saturday I attended a DECC "consultation" on the plan to build a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset.
We had very short notice, and the conference venue was given as "Near J24 on the M5". I could not find it on Multimap, so though it must be a massive well signed centre that I couldn't miss. Wrong. Drove round the vicinity of J24 and finally arrived 10 mins late. Others had the same problem.
As expected, government officials - civil servants - were presenting. My heart sank. Civil servants dwell extensively on the process, and avoid the product if at all possible. Mark Higson was pleasant, polite, unassuming and was skilled, like all government officials, in the art of using an awful lot of well chosen, professional, communicative words to say as little as possible in the available time.
This is from my notes:
UK needs 60 GW electricity by 2025.
35GW will come from renewables, 25 from nukes (NP), from 10 new stations (NPS).
Consultation: top challenges to NP:
The 10 sites that satisfy the strict criteria are all previous NPS sites. Now there's a surprise.
Building will start in 2012, 5 years to build, on stream in 2017 if there are no overruns.
Spent fuel will stay 160 years on site.
Discussion: Leukaemia in vicinity of Hinkley raised. The local HPA paper studied cases in a 25 km radius from Hinkley. Objector said this blurred out the cases, which were closer in. HPA said they analysed closer rings, found nothing. The objector said 10 studies contradict the UK position.
The German study showing childhood leukaemia in vicinity of NPS is "under review". It came out years ago, and but DECC is a bit slow. In fact, as slow as is necessary to avoid facing up to its meaning.
He said UK would build the NPS, then close them down if there was evidence that they were causing leukaemia. Which would be one very good reason to make sure that any evidence of leukaemia is not found.
I asked about flooding. He said that a lot of people had asked that, and that the sites would be "protected" if that became a risk.
I imagine that means a concrete sea wall around the site. if this is the case, the site should not have a basement, as higher sea levels means higher water table, means flooding in the basement.
He rounded off by saying "We hear you". (Polite civil servant speak for "Get Lost").
He said development will not be allowed if the NII say no.
After questions, Adam Dawson spoke about Hinkley itself. He began with dangers of AGW (good)
dangers of a 6*C warming in 100 years (but did not mention that NP would suppley less than 1% of global energy needs over those 100 years.
He detailed the criteria they had applied. There would be no repeat of the 1607 tsunamis that hit the Severn estuary, and earthquakes had been ruled out. If sea level rise occurred in the next 200 years, the site would be "protected". No further details, I take it he means by a big seawall around the site, paid for by our grandchildren.
Radiation in the Bay is done by EDF, (!) the EA and the FSA. Levels of radiation are elevated, but only a bit.
What if EDF runs out of money? Government will not step in. The half built station will remain, a concrete monument to human folly.
Sustainability is defined in this context as "Are we handing down to future generations more benefit than cost?".
...er...No.
Afterwards, I was able to ask the question that I was unable to put in the plenary session:
"Why is NP allowed limited insurance, yet wind turbines are required to be fully insured?".
He agreed that this was not a level playing field. The present liability of £140 million carried by the NP industry will now be increased to 700 million euros. This represents less than 1% of the cost of a Chernobyl- type accident. He could not see any problem with this, but suggested I should write in on their non-user-friendly form.
At which point I am sorry to say that I got pissed off. Regrettably. This is a bad weakness of mine. It began when he mentioned the subsidies wind was getting. I mentioned the derisory paltry prostatic dribble of £50 million that the Govt squeezing out for domestic solar energy, and the massive subsidies that nuclear power got when that was starting up - and still does.
Overall impression:
We had very short notice, and the conference venue was given as "Near J24 on the M5". I could not find it on Multimap, so though it must be a massive well signed centre that I couldn't miss. Wrong. Drove round the vicinity of J24 and finally arrived 10 mins late. Others had the same problem.
As expected, government officials - civil servants - were presenting. My heart sank. Civil servants dwell extensively on the process, and avoid the product if at all possible. Mark Higson was pleasant, polite, unassuming and was skilled, like all government officials, in the art of using an awful lot of well chosen, professional, communicative words to say as little as possible in the available time.
This is from my notes:
UK needs 60 GW electricity by 2025.
35GW will come from renewables, 25 from nukes (NP), from 10 new stations (NPS).
Consultation: top challenges to NP:
- Security (terrorist attack)
- Nuclear waste
- NP funding crowding out renewable funding
- Flooding of NPS sites
The 10 sites that satisfy the strict criteria are all previous NPS sites. Now there's a surprise.
Building will start in 2012, 5 years to build, on stream in 2017 if there are no overruns.
Spent fuel will stay 160 years on site.
Discussion: Leukaemia in vicinity of Hinkley raised. The local HPA paper studied cases in a 25 km radius from Hinkley. Objector said this blurred out the cases, which were closer in. HPA said they analysed closer rings, found nothing. The objector said 10 studies contradict the UK position.
The German study showing childhood leukaemia in vicinity of NPS is "under review". It came out years ago, and but DECC is a bit slow. In fact, as slow as is necessary to avoid facing up to its meaning.
He said UK would build the NPS, then close them down if there was evidence that they were causing leukaemia. Which would be one very good reason to make sure that any evidence of leukaemia is not found.
I asked about flooding. He said that a lot of people had asked that, and that the sites would be "protected" if that became a risk.
I imagine that means a concrete sea wall around the site. if this is the case, the site should not have a basement, as higher sea levels means higher water table, means flooding in the basement.
He rounded off by saying "We hear you". (Polite civil servant speak for "Get Lost").
He said development will not be allowed if the NII say no.
After questions, Adam Dawson spoke about Hinkley itself. He began with dangers of AGW (good)
dangers of a 6*C warming in 100 years (but did not mention that NP would suppley less than 1% of global energy needs over those 100 years.
He detailed the criteria they had applied. There would be no repeat of the 1607 tsunamis that hit the Severn estuary, and earthquakes had been ruled out. If sea level rise occurred in the next 200 years, the site would be "protected". No further details, I take it he means by a big seawall around the site, paid for by our grandchildren.
Radiation in the Bay is done by EDF, (!) the EA and the FSA. Levels of radiation are elevated, but only a bit.
What if EDF runs out of money? Government will not step in. The half built station will remain, a concrete monument to human folly.
Sustainability is defined in this context as "Are we handing down to future generations more benefit than cost?".
...er...No.
Afterwards, I was able to ask the question that I was unable to put in the plenary session:
"Why is NP allowed limited insurance, yet wind turbines are required to be fully insured?".
He agreed that this was not a level playing field. The present liability of £140 million carried by the NP industry will now be increased to 700 million euros. This represents less than 1% of the cost of a Chernobyl- type accident. He could not see any problem with this, but suggested I should write in on their non-user-friendly form.
At which point I am sorry to say that I got pissed off. Regrettably. This is a bad weakness of mine. It began when he mentioned the subsidies wind was getting. I mentioned the derisory paltry prostatic dribble of £50 million that the Govt squeezing out for domestic solar energy, and the massive subsidies that nuclear power got when that was starting up - and still does.
Overall impression:
- Government is going to go for NP, come hell (terrorist attack) or high water (sea level rise).
- Consultations are a pretence.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Afghanistan: success is possible
The Green Party has consistently opposed the war in Afghanistan. In common with the majority of British opinion, we want to see the NATO troops withdrawn.
An IPSOS Mori poll in July found that 41% wanted to stay in Afghanistan, and 51% wanted our troops withdrawn. Yesterday the Independent on Sunday found this has moved up to 71%.
We Brits are not alone.
According to a November 11th poll, 58 percent of Americans oppose the conflict.
Of Afghans themselves, a poll in February showed that only 32% think US forces are doing a good or excellent job now, compared with 68% in 2005.
In Canada, a massive 76% oppose keeping any Canadian military forces in Afghanistan.
This amount of public opposition to a war is unprecedented, because normally in any war the corporate media supply automatic support.
Poor Gordon keeps murmuring his mantra that the boys and girls are there to keep the streets of our cities safe from Al Qaeda. Even my cat understands that the presence of our boots on Muslim soil is the best recruiting motivator for that bunch of fundamentalist killers. The best and most successful defence against terrorists lies in intelligence, police and financial controls, even though the latter efforts are pretty flaky at times, certainly in the case of Abu Musa al_Zarqawi.
What would happen in Afghanistan if NATO just pulls out?
We would leave a country at war, with an incompetent corrupt government, armed insurgents, some of whom are Taleban fundamentalists thirsty to get back in control of the Afghan Government, and active war lord culture, and an economy 50% of which is dependent on the illegal opium trade.
Now some will argue that all of this badness is the result of our presence, and will resolve itself when NATO pulls out, just as the inflammation is resolved when a splinter is removed.
I really wish I could believe this. But wishes are not much good in politics. The reasonable expectation is that Afghanistan will move to the state that Somalia has been in for two decades, with no central government, and the regions dominated by war lords fighting to maintain their manor. The Taleban could form a government in at least part of the country, with all that means in terms of subjugation of women and girls.
We should also expect a fresh wave of immigration, legal and illegal, from Afghanistan.
All this is not a good outcome. There is an alternative, one that could let our troops come home with honour, a job done successfully, leaving behind a peaceful, prosperous and stable country.
Here's how:
Every year, some 6 million people die of cancer in the Global South without the benefits of opiate painkillers. The Afghan opium crop, which at present supplies 90% of the heroin used on our streets, should be bought up by the World Health Organisation, purified to medical grade, and used to treat terminal pain. Green Party leader Caroline Lucas has been conducting a long correspondence with the Foreign Office, who respond with the absurd argument that some of the produce “might leak onto the black market” – absurd because at present ALL of it is leaking onto the black market.
They are deaf to the argument that it is impossible to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan farmers when their livelihoods are dependent on the opium crop, which is valued at up to 50% of the Afghan economy.
They are deaf to arguments that to legitimise and purchase the opium would pull the financial rug out from under the feet of the Taliban.
They refuse to understand that the policy would slash the criminal activity and health problems associated with illegal Afghan heroin.
They are blind to the corruption associated with the drugs trade, which penetrates high into the Afghan administration.
And they are blind to the immense suffering associated with untreated terminal pain in Africa.
The Green Party’s policy is shared by the International Council on Security and Development, the Afghan Red Crescent and the Italian Red Cross. The core objection by the Government to the is that the Afghan Government does not have the necessary control mechanisms in place; but this puts the cart before the horse. At present, the Afghan Government’s writ does not run in opium producing areas because the crop is illegal, and the Taliban is the farmers’ buyer. If the Government were to become the buyer, the allegiance of the farmers would change. We have a strong case for our policy, and should use every opportunity to publicise the irrationality of the Government’s position.
An IPSOS Mori poll in July found that 41% wanted to stay in Afghanistan, and 51% wanted our troops withdrawn. Yesterday the Independent on Sunday found this has moved up to 71%.
We Brits are not alone.
According to a November 11th poll, 58 percent of Americans oppose the conflict.
Of Afghans themselves, a poll in February showed that only 32% think US forces are doing a good or excellent job now, compared with 68% in 2005.
In Canada, a massive 76% oppose keeping any Canadian military forces in Afghanistan.
This amount of public opposition to a war is unprecedented, because normally in any war the corporate media supply automatic support.
Poor Gordon keeps murmuring his mantra that the boys and girls are there to keep the streets of our cities safe from Al Qaeda. Even my cat understands that the presence of our boots on Muslim soil is the best recruiting motivator for that bunch of fundamentalist killers. The best and most successful defence against terrorists lies in intelligence, police and financial controls, even though the latter efforts are pretty flaky at times, certainly in the case of Abu Musa al_Zarqawi.
What would happen in Afghanistan if NATO just pulls out?
We would leave a country at war, with an incompetent corrupt government, armed insurgents, some of whom are Taleban fundamentalists thirsty to get back in control of the Afghan Government, and active war lord culture, and an economy 50% of which is dependent on the illegal opium trade.
Now some will argue that all of this badness is the result of our presence, and will resolve itself when NATO pulls out, just as the inflammation is resolved when a splinter is removed.
I really wish I could believe this. But wishes are not much good in politics. The reasonable expectation is that Afghanistan will move to the state that Somalia has been in for two decades, with no central government, and the regions dominated by war lords fighting to maintain their manor. The Taleban could form a government in at least part of the country, with all that means in terms of subjugation of women and girls.
We should also expect a fresh wave of immigration, legal and illegal, from Afghanistan.
All this is not a good outcome. There is an alternative, one that could let our troops come home with honour, a job done successfully, leaving behind a peaceful, prosperous and stable country.
Here's how:
Every year, some 6 million people die of cancer in the Global South without the benefits of opiate painkillers. The Afghan opium crop, which at present supplies 90% of the heroin used on our streets, should be bought up by the World Health Organisation, purified to medical grade, and used to treat terminal pain. Green Party leader Caroline Lucas has been conducting a long correspondence with the Foreign Office, who respond with the absurd argument that some of the produce “might leak onto the black market” – absurd because at present ALL of it is leaking onto the black market.
They are deaf to the argument that it is impossible to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan farmers when their livelihoods are dependent on the opium crop, which is valued at up to 50% of the Afghan economy.
They are deaf to arguments that to legitimise and purchase the opium would pull the financial rug out from under the feet of the Taliban.
They refuse to understand that the policy would slash the criminal activity and health problems associated with illegal Afghan heroin.
They are blind to the corruption associated with the drugs trade, which penetrates high into the Afghan administration.
And they are blind to the immense suffering associated with untreated terminal pain in Africa.
The Green Party’s policy is shared by the International Council on Security and Development, the Afghan Red Crescent and the Italian Red Cross. The core objection by the Government to the is that the Afghan Government does not have the necessary control mechanisms in place; but this puts the cart before the horse. At present, the Afghan Government’s writ does not run in opium producing areas because the crop is illegal, and the Taliban is the farmers’ buyer. If the Government were to become the buyer, the allegiance of the farmers would change. We have a strong case for our policy, and should use every opportunity to publicise the irrationality of the Government’s position.
Monday, November 02, 2009
Nutt Sacked: Why? What'd he say?
Is this ^ the man who sacked the good Professor? Thanks to yessirnigel.com
Alan Johnson Says that Prof Nutt was sacked for campaigning against the Home Office policy.
What exactly was the campaigning message that so offended the Mr Johnson and the Home Office officials?
I have pasted selections from Professor Nutt's position statement below, with commentary from Sir Humphrey. [You can read the whole paper here]
A Gloomy Day in the life of Alan Johnson
Scene: Home Office office of official officer, seated. Home Secretary Johnson is sitting uneasily opposite, looking brow beaten.
Sir Humphrey: Here is Nutt's paper, Home Secretary. I am sure you have read it and taken it in, so I just wish to draw your attention to some of the more interesting items relating to the present crisis: Nutt says:
...we need to improve the general understanding of relative harms. I think we need to educate people about drug harms in relation to the harms of other activities in life, so that it is possible for them to make sensible decisions about relative harms. One of the ways we are thinking of doing this is through using a technique called multicriteria decision-making...a proven technology, which I think could well be applied to something ... as difficult as ... drug harms.
Sir Humphrey: That seems sufficiently obscure, Home Secretary, to be safe from Mail readers, but all he has to do is to change it into an acronym, MCDM, and it could appear as the antidote to MDMA, thus giving people the impression that no harm would come from taking MDMA because they could always get some MCDM from A&E.
Next, we find this: Nutt says:
...we should gather evidence about the impact of change of classification – something we are not routinely doing at present. We do not know the effects of downgrading cannabis from B to C. There was a fall in use but we do not know whether this was related to reclassification.
Sir Humphrey: I am sure that you can see that this is dangerous stuff. As you know, information is power, and the kind of information that Nutt is seeking could lead to a total overthrow of law and order from Land's end to John O'Groats. Information is power, and so we Must control the information if we are to keep control of power in this country, to keep anarchy off the streets of London, of Manchester of Glasgow. Not to mention Belfast and Londonderry. You do not want to be responsible for a drug-fuelled sequel to the Troubles, so you home Secretary? I am bound to advise you that it would be a brave decision to go down the road of gathering data that might undermine the wishes of the Policing Agencies. Very brave indeed.
Now we come to the real deal, to the heart of the matter: Nutt says:
I think we have to accept young people like to experiment – with drugs and other potentially harmful activities – and what we should be doing in all of this is to protect them from harm at this stage of their lives. We therefore have to provide more accurate and credible information. If you think that scaring kids will stop them using, you’re probably wrong. They are often quite knowledgeable about drugs and the Internet has made access to information extremely simple. We have to tell them the truth, so that they use us as their preferred source of information.
A fully scientifically-based Misuse of Drugs Act where drug classification accurately reflects harms would be a powerful educational tool. Using the Act in a political way to give messages other than those relating to relative harms undermines the Act and does great damage to the educational message.
Sir Humphrey: This is pretty inflammatory stuff. This is the kind of thing that they talk about in the Green Gathering. "protect them from harm??" This is Nanny State material, Home Secretary. You don't want to have to face that accusation across the floor of the house do you, Home Secretary?
But this is the most abhorrent part: Nutt dares to raise the question of morality. He, a Professor of psychiatry, dares to raise an ethical question. He is clearly off his manor here, Home Secretary. Listen. Listen to this:
Another key question we have to address as a society is whether our attitude to drugs is driven because of their harms or are we engaging in a moral debate?
What does he, a scientist, know about morality. It is we, we in the Home Office, who decide what is moral in this country! This is our remit! This is what we have been doing for hundreds of years!
And here's the sting in the tail:
I think [evidence based change] should happen because, while I’m not a moral philosopher, it seems to me difficult to defend a moral argument in relation to drugs if you don’t apply it to other equally harmful activities.
Sir Humphrey: Difficult to defend!? It will take months of bluster, obfuscation and economies with the truth if that question is let out of the bag. This man wants evidence based change. For 600 years the Home Office has been funcitoning perfectly well with making official judgments, and now this scienist, this psychiatrist, this loony doctor, this dare I say it, this Nutter thinks he can walz in and start ramming evidence based change down our thorats. Well, he's got another think coming, Home Secretary. He's got another think coming.
You must rid yourself of this turbulent scientist!
I have here a paper for his immediate removal from office.
Sign here... and here. Thank you Home Secretary.
You may go now.
[Alan Johnson leaves the office, shutting the door behind him]
Sir Humphrey: [whispers to himself] ...you may go and face the music. You have got 2 weeks trying to clean the political shit off the walls, and then you'll probably have to resign, which puts paid to your leadership bid and your dangerous dalliance with Proportional Representation. Yess...soon I will have a new Home Secretary.. hahahahahahahah [fade Sir humphrey]
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
MPs are crap, but so is retrospective application of the law
This piece is not going to win much agreement, so first, let me make my basic position clear. I am not an admirer of MPs as a genus. They are ineffectual and supine, submitting too easily to their party line. They got where they are by the outrageously archaic and unrepresentative First Past the Post electoral system, and they are unwilling to change it. They are happy to let corporations take over domination of the world. They do not understand where money comes from. They are like sheep. They do not give straight answers. And so on and so forth. Get it? I am not a friend of MPs.
Having said that, it is a principle in law that new laws are not applied retrospectively. If the expenses system administered by the Civil Service previously was crap. We all deserve a better system. But applying a better system retrospectively is dubious, and I for one will not criticise an MP that challenges the ruling of "Sir" Thomas Legg.
Having said that, it is a principle in law that new laws are not applied retrospectively. If the expenses system administered by the Civil Service previously was crap. We all deserve a better system. But applying a better system retrospectively is dubious, and I for one will not criticise an MP that challenges the ruling of "Sir" Thomas Legg.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
No 10 G20 epetition response - more evidence of Govt brain fade
TSG officers using lethal intimidation and violence on a citizen
Proper police officers doing their duty at Glastonbury
There was a petition to No 10 Downing Street about the policing of the G20 Climate Camp
The Government response here begins"It is a long-standing tradition in this country that people are free to gather together and to demonstrate their views provided that they do so within the law. Equally, people have a right to be free to carry out their lawful business without fear of intimidation and violence."
The implication being that among the protesters are agents of intimidation and violence, and it is the duty of the police to protect the right of peeps to carry out their lawful &c.
The fact of the matter is that Ian Tomlinson was an ordinary citizen carrying out his lawful business of making his way home from work, and that he was exposed to intimidation and violence by an unnumbered police officer from the TSG which led to his death.
The lack of irony in Government using this phrase in these circumstances is truly terrifying, showing how far from reality the Government officials who draft up these statements are.
We should go back to Government and point this out, but today I am beginning to weary of the Sisyphean task of trying to speak truth to power. So I am going to do some woodwork, to make a natural bracket to hold the hose that conducts the rainwater from my water butt to do its lawful business on the garden. I just home someone from the TSG doesn't come and cut it - or, more to the point, cut my car's brakepipes.
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.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Big Green Gathering to relocate to Vestas
The Big Green Gathering has been shut down by the police, Mendip District Council (Cannards Grave Rd., Shepton Mallet, BA4 5BT, 01749 343399) - and some high up official or minister, presumably in the Home Office (Telephone: 020 7035 4848 (09:00-17:00 Mon-Fri).
In the past they have tried to price it out of the market by imposing unreasonable standards of security, creating ever rising security costs.
This controlling action will backfire on them as disappointed would-be BGG attendees, with their bags ready packed and a window in their diaries, head for the Vestas factory in Newpoort Isle of Wight to support the sit-in at the wind turbine blade factory. Seize the Day are already there with a song to back the action, and Mr Plod's hamfisted attempt to frustrate the hippies will contribute greatly to the size of the demonstration. Remember that the Isle of wight is not the enemy - they aim to turn Wight into an eco-island. The real enemy is the bowler hatted, conservative (and Conservative) mindset of Whitehall Civil Servants who are determined to further the cause of nuclear power and Government Control at all costs.
We are going to need wind turbines. The Vestas factory can change from building American style blades to British style blades. This is a situation borne of Government malice and stupidity.
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.”
In the past they have tried to price it out of the market by imposing unreasonable standards of security, creating ever rising security costs.
This controlling action will backfire on them as disappointed would-be BGG attendees, with their bags ready packed and a window in their diaries, head for the Vestas factory in Newpoort Isle of Wight to support the sit-in at the wind turbine blade factory. Seize the Day are already there with a song to back the action, and Mr Plod's hamfisted attempt to frustrate the hippies will contribute greatly to the size of the demonstration. Remember that the Isle of wight is not the enemy - they aim to turn Wight into an eco-island. The real enemy is the bowler hatted, conservative (and Conservative) mindset of Whitehall Civil Servants who are determined to further the cause of nuclear power and Government Control at all costs.
We are going to need wind turbines. The Vestas factory can change from building American style blades to British style blades. This is a situation borne of Government malice and stupidity.
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.”
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Should Public Services be cut?
Thanks to the frothing at the mouth madness of the bonus-crazed profit seekers in the private financial corporations we have a massive national debt standing at 47% of NDP. Great. So Govt needs to rein make means massive public spending cuts. Tories and Labour have been having a pseudo-debate about how much each is and isn't going to cut. Also great.
So public sector pay is to be frozen. Private sector jobs have been lost in the recession. Should public sector pay rises and jobs therefore go too? Is this fair? Or are public sector jobs underpaid anyway in comparison with the private sector? Polly Toynbee thinks they are.
So we go looking for some facts, and find some on the site of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD). It was the nearest I could get, but dates back to 2005. Probably as good as it gets, because it takes a couple of years to process the data.
First, 1998-2005 the number of people employed in the public sector (PubSec) rose by 11% and those in the private sector (PrivSec) by 4%. Some of this is acounted for by a phase of the cycle - public jobs tend to lag behing private, then catch up. This was the catch up cycle.
Since the late 1990's earnings in PubSec rose by 4.5%, PrivSec by 4%. Not much of a difference.
PubSec wage bill took 37.2% of National Income in 1999, rising to 42% in 2006/7 - the product of more numbers and more wages.
In 2004 the average PubSec workers earned £27.6 per week less than PrivSec.
However, the median PubSec workers earned £12 per week more than PrivSec.
This difference is due to the fact that private sector pay is more divergent, with greater numbers at the extremes of high and low pay.
At the highest extreme, the top 25% of PrivSec (executives &c) earners are clearly better off than their PubSec equivalents, although the PubSec are doing their best to catch up and pay their top dogs fat cat salaries. IDS finds that a grade 5 civil servant gets 22% less than his PrivSec equivalent, and a Grade 2 gets 65% less.
So there we have it. It's all very complex, and I have simplified it as much as I could. There is much more data to be taken into account, but so far there is no real evidence that the public sector is significantly overpaid.
Classical Keynesianism argues that Government should borrow to keep them in public service. Culling the Civil Service (much as anyone who has had anything to do with them would like to do so) will just increase the unemployment total, the social security bill, crime and mental and physical ill-health.
It all depends on what they do and how efficiently they do it. There would be an enormous benefit to the country if the idiot high ranking Civil Servants who are blocking development of a decarbonised economy were to be removed from office. We can dream.
The main gain would be to improve efficiency. The way to do this is to reinstate the old Suggestion Box, where sharp end workers can continuously modify and improve the efficiency of what they to. There must be thousands of lowly Civil Servants who are plodding along every day doing stuff that they know full well is pointless and inefficient. Their suggestions could improve efficiency enormously. Successful suggestions would be rewarded. It would improve their health and well being, since it would empower them. Marmot has found that powerlessness in the Civil Service is a cause of ill-health.
So - keep the public services going through the recession, but make them more efficient through grass roots empowerment.
So public sector pay is to be frozen. Private sector jobs have been lost in the recession. Should public sector pay rises and jobs therefore go too? Is this fair? Or are public sector jobs underpaid anyway in comparison with the private sector? Polly Toynbee thinks they are.
So we go looking for some facts, and find some on the site of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD). It was the nearest I could get, but dates back to 2005. Probably as good as it gets, because it takes a couple of years to process the data.
First, 1998-2005 the number of people employed in the public sector (PubSec) rose by 11% and those in the private sector (PrivSec) by 4%. Some of this is acounted for by a phase of the cycle - public jobs tend to lag behing private, then catch up. This was the catch up cycle.
Since the late 1990's earnings in PubSec rose by 4.5%, PrivSec by 4%. Not much of a difference.
PubSec wage bill took 37.2% of National Income in 1999, rising to 42% in 2006/7 - the product of more numbers and more wages.
In 2004 the average PubSec workers earned £27.6 per week less than PrivSec.
However, the median PubSec workers earned £12 per week more than PrivSec.
This difference is due to the fact that private sector pay is more divergent, with greater numbers at the extremes of high and low pay.
At the highest extreme, the top 25% of PrivSec (executives &c) earners are clearly better off than their PubSec equivalents, although the PubSec are doing their best to catch up and pay their top dogs fat cat salaries. IDS finds that a grade 5 civil servant gets 22% less than his PrivSec equivalent, and a Grade 2 gets 65% less.
So there we have it. It's all very complex, and I have simplified it as much as I could. There is much more data to be taken into account, but so far there is no real evidence that the public sector is significantly overpaid.
Classical Keynesianism argues that Government should borrow to keep them in public service. Culling the Civil Service (much as anyone who has had anything to do with them would like to do so) will just increase the unemployment total, the social security bill, crime and mental and physical ill-health.
It all depends on what they do and how efficiently they do it. There would be an enormous benefit to the country if the idiot high ranking Civil Servants who are blocking development of a decarbonised economy were to be removed from office. We can dream.
The main gain would be to improve efficiency. The way to do this is to reinstate the old Suggestion Box, where sharp end workers can continuously modify and improve the efficiency of what they to. There must be thousands of lowly Civil Servants who are plodding along every day doing stuff that they know full well is pointless and inefficient. Their suggestions could improve efficiency enormously. Successful suggestions would be rewarded. It would improve their health and well being, since it would empower them. Marmot has found that powerlessness in the Civil Service is a cause of ill-health.
So - keep the public services going through the recession, but make them more efficient through grass roots empowerment.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Johnathon Porrit fingers Sir Humphrey
"Jonathon Porritt, one of Britain's leading environmentalists, has attacked the Treasury for being "startlingly arrogant" and for dragging its feet over sustainability...This month Porritt steps down as chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission, an independent government watchdog, after occupying the role since it was founded nine years ago.
He said: "Looking back now, as I am in my last few days, I see a terrain of wasted opportunity. I am not saying the only reason is the intransigence of the Treasury, but I do think the Treasury has killed a lot of the energy around sustainable development."... "Too often they have been foot-dragging and obstructive... a startlingly arrogant part of government. There is almost no curiosity about sustainable wealth creation. There is no readiness to interrogate the macro-economic model. SDC produced a report, Prosperity without Growth, in an attempt to start a debate on redefining prosperity, but we were met with a weird mixture of hostility and indifference."...Since it was founded in 2000, the SDC lobbied the government consistently to use its multibillion-pound budget to promote sustainable development through its procurement of buildings, goods and services. But Porritt said his efforts fell on stony ground for years. "At meetings relatively senior civil servants from the Treasury were sitting there glowering and wondering what they could do to scupper things when they got back to base," he said".
Ah. The Civil Service. The physical bowler hat has gone, but a virtual bowler hat (tricorn hat in the case of the Treasury) is etched into the brain of most senior Government officials. They are the substrate of political power, a cadre of lifelong dictators who will have naught but what is beaten out on their own anvil. Like insincere hotel workers, they project an obsequious servility while pissing into the customers' soup. They obstruct the will of the people, as faintly represented by elected ministers, ("Yes, Minister, but that would be a courageous decision"). They project their own agenda through the "options" that they present.
I cling to a chosen, existential optimism, but when I look upon the Civil Service, my optimism fades. They must be brought to heel. The Green Party has a paragraph in its Government policy about holding them responsible for the mistakes they make, but this is only the beginning. How can the service be revitalised, brought forward a couple of hundred years into the twentieth century, or even (idealist that I am) into the twenty first century? (At least, Conference did pass such a motion, though I see that it has not found its way into the MfSS on the web)
The best I can offer is the Suggestion Box, where workers at the sharp end can put forward suggestions to improve efficiency, said workers to be incentivised by receiving a percentage of the money saved by their improvement. This would increase their health too, as Marmot finds that disempowerment is the cause of much illness in his long-term study of the health of the civil service.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Spy vs Environmentalists (Infiltrated, spied on, moles)
Seminal piece here by John Vidal on environmentalist groups who are infiltrated by spies. He cites an action against Land Rover in 2005, 114 arrests before a Nottingham climate change action, Infiltration of Plane Stupid, moles in Greenpeace UK, the McLibel mole, 1990 road protesters, and of course, the Rumsfeltian Unknowns.
I remember that CND in the 1970s was infiltrated by a "Intellegence Service" agent called Mr Cox, who got to be Vice -Chair, and whose role emerged after his death.
In the same period, one of the founders of War Veterans against the Bomb told me how he picked up his phone to hear a recording of a conversation that he had had the previous evening with his son.
I have an unsourced anecdote that an early CND group suspected that it had an MI5 infection, but did not know where the local Regional Seat of Government was. So they sent a message around their telephone tree saying to meet outside the RSG on Monday morning. They drove around the general area, then saw a clot of police persons standing guard outside an otherwise nondescript property. Asked why they were there, the police said they were guarding it from a CND demo. Two problems solved.
There are those of us who believe that the Green Party has been similarly infiltrated. In fairness it must be said there is no absolute proof of this, only a body of circumstantial evidence, and it is quite possible to argue that our Government's innate standards of fair play are such that they would never dream of infiltrating a non-violent and pro-democratic political party. Indeed, why should they waste money in supporting such a person, given that the Green Party is excluded from playing its fair share in the political process by the electoral system, and given also that the BBC steadfastly refuse to grant us an amount of political airtime proportional to our share of the vote in the last general election?
The thing about spies is that they carry a double whammy. Apart from their role in leaking information from the targeted organisation, and holding back reasonable policy development, they also generate paranoia. Remember that poor PM Harold Wilson was regarded as mad for believing that South African secret agents were on his case? After he left office, it turned out he was right.
Accurate information about how to recognise spies is hard to come by. Word has it that infiltrators bear certain stigmata to enable them to be identified and spared a beating in the event of a police raid. Infiltrators of environmentalist movements are called "beardies" for obvious reasons. They also tend to wear hats, often with a badge placed front centre (I have been heckled at an Aldermaston demonstration by a pair answering to that description).
I remember that CND in the 1970s was infiltrated by a "Intellegence Service" agent called Mr Cox, who got to be Vice -Chair, and whose role emerged after his death.
In the same period, one of the founders of War Veterans against the Bomb told me how he picked up his phone to hear a recording of a conversation that he had had the previous evening with his son.
I have an unsourced anecdote that an early CND group suspected that it had an MI5 infection, but did not know where the local Regional Seat of Government was. So they sent a message around their telephone tree saying to meet outside the RSG on Monday morning. They drove around the general area, then saw a clot of police persons standing guard outside an otherwise nondescript property. Asked why they were there, the police said they were guarding it from a CND demo. Two problems solved.
There are those of us who believe that the Green Party has been similarly infiltrated. In fairness it must be said there is no absolute proof of this, only a body of circumstantial evidence, and it is quite possible to argue that our Government's innate standards of fair play are such that they would never dream of infiltrating a non-violent and pro-democratic political party. Indeed, why should they waste money in supporting such a person, given that the Green Party is excluded from playing its fair share in the political process by the electoral system, and given also that the BBC steadfastly refuse to grant us an amount of political airtime proportional to our share of the vote in the last general election?
The thing about spies is that they carry a double whammy. Apart from their role in leaking information from the targeted organisation, and holding back reasonable policy development, they also generate paranoia. Remember that poor PM Harold Wilson was regarded as mad for believing that South African secret agents were on his case? After he left office, it turned out he was right.
Accurate information about how to recognise spies is hard to come by. Word has it that infiltrators bear certain stigmata to enable them to be identified and spared a beating in the event of a police raid. Infiltrators of environmentalist movements are called "beardies" for obvious reasons. They also tend to wear hats, often with a badge placed front centre (I have been heckled at an Aldermaston demonstration by a pair answering to that description).
Blunkett and the Civil Service
Splendid. Ex-home Secretary David Blunkett has taken a pop at the Civil Service.
In this he is catching up with the Green Party, which wants Government Officials to bear responsibility for their actions where they are in error, and not to be allowed to hide behind the Minister. As things stand, it is possible for civil servants to escape responsibility for their actions, and if the department fouls up, they are rewarded with the resignation of the present, seasoned Minister, and the advent of a callow new Minister, whom they can bend to their will. A clear example of Moral Hazard.
The political neutrality of the Civil Service is a well-established modern myth. They wield enormous political power, and it is a naive politician or journalist who supposes otherwise.
There is a persistent worry that there is a coterie of pro-nuclear civil servants who are holding back the development of renewable energy in the UK.
In this he is catching up with the Green Party, which wants Government Officials to bear responsibility for their actions where they are in error, and not to be allowed to hide behind the Minister. As things stand, it is possible for civil servants to escape responsibility for their actions, and if the department fouls up, they are rewarded with the resignation of the present, seasoned Minister, and the advent of a callow new Minister, whom they can bend to their will. A clear example of Moral Hazard.
The political neutrality of the Civil Service is a well-established modern myth. They wield enormous political power, and it is a naive politician or journalist who supposes otherwise.
There is a persistent worry that there is a coterie of pro-nuclear civil servants who are holding back the development of renewable energy in the UK.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Civil Service "not fit for purpose"
BBC reports on the think-tank Reform's report on the Civil Service.
At the last Green Party conference, we passed this motion (in the teeth of opposition from the Handbrake Tendency):
This policy aims to help the Civil Service to become responsible for its actions. As things stand, they can and do make recommendations that evade or distort the truth, and often their errors are paid for by Ministerial resignations, which insulates the civil service from responsibility. It also enshrines the principle of non-cooperation with undemocratic governments, in order to make coups and invasions less appealing as an option to anti-democratic actors.
So there we have it. Green Party is ahead of the game. Click on the Civil Service label below for more grumbles about the Civil Service.
Giving ministers power to personally appoint senior civil servants would make officials more accountable and effective, a think tank has argued.
Reform said the civil service was "not fit for purpose" at the moment and its deficiencies harmed delivery of policy.
Reform themselves say:
The systemic weaknesses in Whitehall have built up over the years and are now of critical proportions. The Government’s own Capability Reviews into the performance of individual departments have revealed in the phrase that John Reid applied to the Home Office in 2006, that the Whitehall machine is not “fit for purpose”. The Home Office’s accounts have not been qualified for the last two years.
The reasons for this are entrenched – the culture and structure of Whitehall rewards risk avoidance and punishes innovation. One public sector consultant interviewed for this report said that the motto of the Civil Service should be “consent and evade”; others spoke of an absence of “moral courage”. Whitehall is not accountable – success or failure seems to have little or no consequence for departments. It displays inadequate performance management. It is weak at implementation.
At the last Green Party conference, we passed this motion (in the teeth of opposition from the Handbrake Tendency):
This policy aims to help the Civil Service to become responsible for its actions. As things stand, they can and do make recommendations that evade or distort the truth, and often their errors are paid for by Ministerial resignations, which insulates the civil service from responsibility. It also enshrines the principle of non-cooperation with undemocratic governments, in order to make coups and invasions less appealing as an option to anti-democratic actors.
add the following to the end of the Civil Service section of MfSS Public Administration and Government
PA803
Civil servants will be responsible for their actions. If an error arises due to actions a government officer, that officer will be professionally accountable, according to guidelines laid down to match the magnitude of the error, up to and including dismissal. A code of ethics will be made available to every government officer, which will include guidelines for when the officer has a duty to act as a whistleblower.
Civil servants will be responsible for their actions. If an error arises due to actions a government officer, that officer will be professionally accountable, according to guidelines laid down to match the magnitude of the error, up to and including dismissal. A code of ethics will be made available to every government officer, which will include guidelines for when the officer has a duty to act as a whistleblower.
PA804
Civil servants will be given a code setting out circumstances where they are not to obey orders. This will include conditions of invasion, or of military or other coup. The effect of this will be to help to make the country ungovernable in the event of invasion or coup.
Civil servants will be given a code setting out circumstances where they are not to obey orders. This will include conditions of invasion, or of military or other coup. The effect of this will be to help to make the country ungovernable in the event of invasion or coup.
So there we have it. Green Party is ahead of the game. Click on the Civil Service label below for more grumbles about the Civil Service.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Benyam Mohammed, torture, responsibility, reform
Welcome home, Benyam Mohammed. Well, as much of a home country as you have ever had in your three decades of life. I hope that you make a good recovery from your traumatic years of captivity, abuse and torture. You came to the UK from Ethiopia, asked for asylum, got addicted to drugs, went to Afghanistan to "see a Muslim country with my own eyes". The US claims you visited an Al-Qaeda camp. You got arrested in Pakistan with a false passport, and were tortured and abused in various countries for seven long years.
Did you see Al-Qaeda? Maybe, maybe not. Young travellers go to all sorts of places. What evidence do the US authorities have? If it is based on confession, it is valueless evidence, not worth the paper it is written on. If there is independent evidence, then you have been punished more than enough for a young man's lack of judgment. In the end, all charges against you were dropped.
It looks as if the UK "Intelligence" Services are accomplices in your abuse and torture. This presents David Miliband and Gordon Brown with a serious problem. Both have said that Britain does not to support torture or to condone torture. If this is the case, then the "Intelligence" officers who colluded in Binyam's torture must face trial and prison. If, on the other hand, they both knew about the MI5/6 torture policy, they are lying and should resign.
Clearly, an inquiry is necessary.
Torture is the worst form of chimpanzee behaviour. The confessions extracted under torture are valueless as evidence. Despite this, the Authoritarian Right tries to make a case for torture. They argue:
"What if you knew a bomb was going to go off in one hour, killing hundreds of your people, and you were holding the bomber? Would it not be right to torture him to find the location of the bomb?"
This is a hypothetical scenario, and no other piece of policy would ever be rested on such a flimsy piece of fiction, especially not a policy with such serious humanitarian and reflexive implications. Thousands are being tortured in real life every day, and the Right wants this to continue under the pretext of an imaginary scenario?
But if we take the scenario at face value, it does not work, because a terrorist can hold out for an hour. He can buy respite by giving a false location for the bomb.
Third, there is the reflexive aspect of condoning torture on the basis of this fairy tale. If Britain tortures people, Britons will get tortured, period. So in condoning torture, the British Government, under NuLabour, will cause British citizens to be tortured in the future. In doing this, they have failed in their Responsibility to Protect, and have in theory and in principle become an illegitimate government.
We need a change of Government, but not just a change to a Tory Government, because everything that NuLabour have done, every mistake they have made, the Tories also would have done and made, quite possibly with bells and whistles. We need radical reform of government, a fresh start, with a new approach to economics, civil liberty, and representation.
Welcome home, Benyamin. You have suffered horribly, but your suffering may be one of the factors that triggers a radical reform of the country that gave you asylum.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Obesity, Euphemisms, civil service.
I see that Sir Liam Donaldson has bumped into objections over the term obesity. It is thought to be unacceptably and inappropriately value laden.
Etymology of Obese:
Latin obesus, past participle of assumed obedere "eat until overweight".
Declension: Oboe, Obese, Obit, Obama, O'Bartis, Obunt.
Fer goodness' sake! This is a diversion of effort from a real health problem. It is euphemisationism: changing the word in an attempt to make a problem go away by magic.
Look at how many changes have happened to the humble bog: toilet, lavatory, little boy's room, cloakroom, house of easement, call it what you will, it is still a bog, and it is still a smelly place if you go in too soon after someone else has used it. That's life: food smells nice, poo doesn't. Get used to it.
The real problem of obesity has to be addressed in all its aspects: not just the quality and quantity of food, but also through exercise, which takes us right through to transport policies. If a reasonable fraction were to be taken from the road building programme and channeled to footways and cycle paths, with more cycle training programmes, we could become a happier, healthier nation. Now is the ideal time to do this, as people cannot afford to drive cars anyway.
But will they?
The trouble with committees is that they always seem to arrive at the lowest and "safest" level of intervention. Someone said that the highest ambition in life for a Civil Servant is to have a quiet flop. I do not mean a flop in a sun-lounger, because they are hard working people, but they are constitutionally averse to anything radical. They are also unduly affected by business interests. So their interest is business as usual. Any Minister who comes along will have her plans and ideas listened to, then characterised as "brave", which kills them. If the Civil Service cocks up, their Minister resigns, and they get a fresh new one to mould to their way of thinking.
Which is a case of Moral Hazard.
Clive Ponting, the Civil Servant who was sacked over leaking material relating to the Belgrano scandal, said we are very badly governed. I wonder what Clive is up to these days? I see he has retired, and is only 61. We need more Clive Pontings in the Civil Service. He wasn't obese.
Etymology of Obese:
Latin obesus, past participle of assumed obedere "eat until overweight".
Declension: Oboe, Obese, Obit, Obama, O'Bartis, Obunt.
Fer goodness' sake! This is a diversion of effort from a real health problem. It is euphemisationism: changing the word in an attempt to make a problem go away by magic.
Look at how many changes have happened to the humble bog: toilet, lavatory, little boy's room, cloakroom, house of easement, call it what you will, it is still a bog, and it is still a smelly place if you go in too soon after someone else has used it. That's life: food smells nice, poo doesn't. Get used to it.
The real problem of obesity has to be addressed in all its aspects: not just the quality and quantity of food, but also through exercise, which takes us right through to transport policies. If a reasonable fraction were to be taken from the road building programme and channeled to footways and cycle paths, with more cycle training programmes, we could become a happier, healthier nation. Now is the ideal time to do this, as people cannot afford to drive cars anyway.
But will they?
The trouble with committees is that they always seem to arrive at the lowest and "safest" level of intervention. Someone said that the highest ambition in life for a Civil Servant is to have a quiet flop. I do not mean a flop in a sun-lounger, because they are hard working people, but they are constitutionally averse to anything radical. They are also unduly affected by business interests. So their interest is business as usual. Any Minister who comes along will have her plans and ideas listened to, then characterised as "brave", which kills them. If the Civil Service cocks up, their Minister resigns, and they get a fresh new one to mould to their way of thinking.
Which is a case of Moral Hazard.
Clive Ponting, the Civil Servant who was sacked over leaking material relating to the Belgrano scandal, said we are very badly governed. I wonder what Clive is up to these days? I see he has retired, and is only 61. We need more Clive Pontings in the Civil Service. He wasn't obese.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Baby P: Controlling the control freaks
Ten percent of children abused? Could be.
I knew a social worker in child abuse prevention. He or she was committed and dedicated to his/her work, but gave it up abruptly out of frustration, because he/she was sitting at some traffic lights, glanced at the car alongside, and recognised a male abuser sitting there with a car full of children. My friend had worked for months to get this man out of one family, and he had simply moved into another relationship with a new set of step-children in his sphere of influence.
How do we address this problem? Convicted paedophiles can be required to notify police of their whereabouts; does this need to be extended to in-family abusers? There is a grey area between out-and-out predatory paedophiles and the more common control freaks who bring a family into a state of subjection with a combination of emotional, physical and sexual dominance.
If we are to affect this problem, we are going to have to invest much more generously in social work departments. More important is resources to support women in the sphere of influence of these control freaks. I know from experience that it is an incredibly frustrating job trying to help these people, who suffer intensely, yet find it difficult to separate because they believe they "love" the guy, and at the same time they believe he will kill them, the children or himself if they do leave.
My impression is that it is a disorder of will: the passive partner's will has been subjugated by the will of the controller. Peer group support from womens' refuges is vital: are they funded adequately? Finally, the power of community and neighbourhood bonds can be strengthened by provision of community spaces and community workers.
Would it do any good to teach 14-year olds the basics of relationship forming, giving them information of the early charm and later controlling characteristics of a potential abuser?
Is it worth while putting these suggestions forward? I doubt it very much. There is an institutional inflexibility in the health and social service hierarchy. They have their own special language, their own hidden assumptions, and like many institutions they are impervious to suggestions, especially radical suggestions, from outside. In a way, they are control freaks, imposing their will on those who they perceive to be under them.
I do not feel good, leaving it like this. Is there any enthusiasm out there to get us to write to our MPs advocating reform of child abuse prevention services?
I knew a social worker in child abuse prevention. He or she was committed and dedicated to his/her work, but gave it up abruptly out of frustration, because he/she was sitting at some traffic lights, glanced at the car alongside, and recognised a male abuser sitting there with a car full of children. My friend had worked for months to get this man out of one family, and he had simply moved into another relationship with a new set of step-children in his sphere of influence.
How do we address this problem? Convicted paedophiles can be required to notify police of their whereabouts; does this need to be extended to in-family abusers? There is a grey area between out-and-out predatory paedophiles and the more common control freaks who bring a family into a state of subjection with a combination of emotional, physical and sexual dominance.
If we are to affect this problem, we are going to have to invest much more generously in social work departments. More important is resources to support women in the sphere of influence of these control freaks. I know from experience that it is an incredibly frustrating job trying to help these people, who suffer intensely, yet find it difficult to separate because they believe they "love" the guy, and at the same time they believe he will kill them, the children or himself if they do leave.
My impression is that it is a disorder of will: the passive partner's will has been subjugated by the will of the controller. Peer group support from womens' refuges is vital: are they funded adequately? Finally, the power of community and neighbourhood bonds can be strengthened by provision of community spaces and community workers.
Would it do any good to teach 14-year olds the basics of relationship forming, giving them information of the early charm and later controlling characteristics of a potential abuser?
Is it worth while putting these suggestions forward? I doubt it very much. There is an institutional inflexibility in the health and social service hierarchy. They have their own special language, their own hidden assumptions, and like many institutions they are impervious to suggestions, especially radical suggestions, from outside. In a way, they are control freaks, imposing their will on those who they perceive to be under them.
I do not feel good, leaving it like this. Is there any enthusiasm out there to get us to write to our MPs advocating reform of child abuse prevention services?
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Feeling sorry for Gordon (or, Electoral Reform NOW!!)
I keep finding myself feeling sorry for Gordon, until I remind myself of his policies on nuclear power, Trident, the failure of NuLabour to bring about a convergence between the income rates of poor and the rich, his all-mouth-no-trousers approach to AGW, war, Afghan Opium, the Index of Human Rights, Bees, forestry, and so on. The only good thing I can think of about NuLabour is that their ministers are marginally less irritating than the Tories. At least NuLabour don't keep braying at us on the airwaves about how good they are.
And I do not really care if Cameron gets in. Not that I expect him to deliver on his green promises.
No matter who you vote for the Government always gets in (so vote Green, they (almost) never get in. Except for Caroline (and Adrian and Darren, he added quickly, staying on-message)).
In this land of historic democracy, the new PM is influenced by:
1 The Corporations
2 The Civil Service
3 The media
4 Europe
5 ..last and least, the electorate.
And I do not really care if Cameron gets in. Not that I expect him to deliver on his green promises.
No matter who you vote for the Government always gets in (so vote Green, they (almost) never get in. Except for Caroline (and Adrian and Darren, he added quickly, staying on-message)).
In this land of historic democracy, the new PM is influenced by:
1 The Corporations
2 The Civil Service
3 The media
4 Europe
5 ..last and least, the electorate.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
DBERR official should be disciplined
The Guardian revealed on August 13th that a government official at the Dept for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (DBERR) has recommended that HMG fudges the figures on the UKs targets for renewables, because we are on course to fail the EU target of 20% for 2020.
We currently get 2% of our energy from renewables, the EU average is 7% and Germany gets 13%. Rather than pulling its finger out, the government officials' response is to obfuscate. And this while HMG is boasting that it leads the world in climate change matters. Inter alia the official recommended classifying nuclear as renewable – an outrageous falsehood, because nuclear power is most definitely finite.
This is clearly unacceptable.
This raises the question about civil service responsibility. Some of us feel that government officials should be held responsible for their actions. Others - I believe mainly ex-civil servants – wanted to conserve the current procedures, where elected Ministers are held responsible for the actions of government officials. The weakness of the current situation of course is that officials’ actions are divorced from responsibility, and therefore they have no motive to learn from their mistakes. Indeed they benefit from their mistakes, since they are rewarded (if the Minister resigns) with a fresh, new pliable minister.
In the present case I propose that Greens should call for the DBERR official who proposed these policies, particularly the lie about nuclear power, should be identified and disciplined, preferably by demotion and/or re-education.
We currently get 2% of our energy from renewables, the EU average is 7% and Germany gets 13%. Rather than pulling its finger out, the government officials' response is to obfuscate. And this while HMG is boasting that it leads the world in climate change matters. Inter alia the official recommended classifying nuclear as renewable – an outrageous falsehood, because nuclear power is most definitely finite.
This is clearly unacceptable.
This raises the question about civil service responsibility. Some of us feel that government officials should be held responsible for their actions. Others - I believe mainly ex-civil servants – wanted to conserve the current procedures, where elected Ministers are held responsible for the actions of government officials. The weakness of the current situation of course is that officials’ actions are divorced from responsibility, and therefore they have no motive to learn from their mistakes. Indeed they benefit from their mistakes, since they are rewarded (if the Minister resigns) with a fresh, new pliable minister.
In the present case I propose that Greens should call for the DBERR official who proposed these policies, particularly the lie about nuclear power, should be identified and disciplined, preferably by demotion and/or re-education.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
