I'm in Australia

Dear Reader,

Sorry for the lack of posts but I am currently on a fact-finding trip in Australia and have very limited internet access. Back soonish for more insight!

Best wishes

Joe

The Divine Comedy

What is Hell? No, I'm not talking about being forced to watch five hours of Comic Relief. I ask, because despite being a devout lapsed Catholic, I believe I have visited it's latest incarnation. On Sunday, I descended into that fiery pit of despair and like Dante in the Divine Comedy, I witnessed the three realms of the inferno. We all have a little voice that we can listen to or choose to ignore. Unfortunately, I have three other little voices, age ten, nine and four and I allowed myself to be swayed by seemingly innocent cries of 'it'll be fun'. I know from experience that these things are never fun. So unlike Dante, who was guided through the wasteland by the benign ancient poet, Virgil; the horror of my experience was heightened because it was instigated by my 'how bad can it be' wife and three children, 'the miserable pleaders'*.

In the Christian tradition, hell, of course, is home to that most charismatic of figures, Satan. It is the terrible place where our soul pays for our sins. A place of punishment for those not found worthy of entering the Kingdom of Heaven. In hell, our immortal souls are separated for eternity from God and live in perpetual torment. Whether we believe or not, Hell is a subject that has fascinated some of our greatest thinkers over the centuries, had the power to restrain some of the most powerful and ruthless figures in history and inspired some of mankind's greatest works of art and philosophy. In many ways, the Enlightenment was man's attempt to escape the fires of hell.

Have we succeeded? If the the Enlightenment was an attempt to emancipate mankind from the arbitrary chains of faith, then Western Europe has been freed. Despite the lingering influence of religion, our lives are largely governed by the principles of political and economic liberalism developed during what became known as the age of Age of Reason. Yet sometimes, I can't help feeling that the great thinkers like Locke, Rousseau or Kant would be horrified by what our self-determination has created. If they had foreseen where man's emancipation would lead would they have put down their quills, backed out of the room and vowed to lead more frivolous less useful lives? But, to be fair, not even Adam Smith, the founder of modern economic theory and the most prescient of it's critics could have foreseen the horrors of Jimmy Spices.

Jimmy Spices is a restaurant chain that started in the West Midlands in 2003. So successfully has it led people into temptation that it's dark powers are now spreading through the South of England. The website claims that:

'Jimmy Spice's is the ultimate destination for food lovers keen to sample some of the world's finest cuisines. Our renowned restaurants are pioneering Multi Cuisine dining, with a sumptuous range of Indian, Thai, Italian and Chinese dishes served up freshly every day. As it's Multi Cuisine, you can go back and try a different cuisine! It's a revolutionary concept that will dazzle the intrepid diner. Enjoy a vast array of authentic cuisine from India, Thailand, China and Italy all served in a massive open plan restaurant. As it's a Multi Cuisine offering, you can eat as much as you like! Simply choose from the dishes on display and the chefs will immediately cook your meal in front of you.' 

If the concept sounds appalling then the experience is much worse. They reassure you with a relatively calm and spacious bar area, but as I was led into the main restaurant I immediately sensed an unnatural sterility. This place had no soul. Perhaps it was the photos from around the world, as if the UN had gone into interior design using pictures found in disaster zones. It was a true democracy, irrespective of the food on offer every nation was represented. Lacking context, the photos had lost any quality they once  had. The people in the images, stripped of their dignity, stared back at me, like refugees behind the the bars of the frames, waiting to be processed...but, it wasn't them being processed, it was me.

When is The Who's 'My Generation' ever appropriate for a relaxing lunch? The thumping bass driving inexorably into the classic refrain of 'hope I die before I get old' made me consider whether Pete Townsend had been an early customer? But the incessant beat was really a necessary device to get you into the appropriate state of mind to 'tolerate' the restaurant. The sound and energy of The Who was a perfect way to synchronise expectations with the reality of the restaurant. It was like setting my sensibilities to 'fraught.' Which was just as well for what awaited me.

'Food lovers', 'finest cuisines', 'dishes served up freshly', 'authentic cuisine' 'chefs will immediately cook your meal for you'. As we sat down, I absorbed the scene around me. More reminiscent of Hieronymus Bosch's triptych 'Garden of Earthly Delights' than anything I have ever experienced, including a Stooges gig in New York that had been a mixture of orgy and riot, I felt like Edward Woodward at the end of the 'Whicker Man' as all the pieces fall into place - 'pioneering', 'can go back and try a different cuisine!',  'intrepid diner', 'a vast array of authentic cuisine', ' massive open plan,' 'eat as much as you like!'...'eat as much as you like!'...'eat as much as you like!' EAT AS MUCH AS YOU LIKE!'. 

Something I have noticed in rich countries is the more that is on offer, the worse the behaviour. Buffets, in my experience, seem to bring out some particularly unattractive qualities. What I saw was a scrum of three hundred or so people battling over a selection of pre-cooked items. There is freshly cooked food available, but frankly if everyone had wanted that food we would still be waiting. Barely anyone, in fact, could be bothered to wait and instead there was a lot of barging, pushing and grabbing. Greedy and desperate not to miss out on anything quickly available, people from around the world, loaded the smallish plates, carefully judged to limit the amount each customer could carry, with as much food as possible.

Hell? Is that too strong a description? Gluttony, avarice, greed, sloth, envy, wrath and even lust were in evidence. And the food? It is now accepted that there are really only five types of taste: bitter, salty, sour, sweet, and umami (mono sodium glutamate). Jimmy Spices has the sort of food that appealed to these primal urges in such a basic way that it removed any pleasure from the experience of eating. It was culinary titillation. I was informed that the chef's had worked in five star restaurants in their countries of origin, but that doesn't make the food 'authentic'. The freshly cooked food was only marginally better than the rest of the fodder. Good food, no matter what the cost, is about good ingredients, attention to detail and someone giving a damn. I hope the chefs are earning enough to make this experience worthwhile.

I realise it is unfashionable to quote Marx these days, but occasionally, his foresight is still quite remarkable: 

'In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.'

Jimmy Spices is an expression of Marx's cultural homogenisation. In one hit of 'umami' it expresses much of what is wrong with the path our 'self-determination' has taken. What is sold as choice, is really just exploiting some pretty basic and rather unpleasant human traits. It often seems that the ultimate expression of 'reason' has not been the values which those early philosophers struggled to express but rather a process by which we can be persuaded to buy anything.

What is so depressing, in this context, is that food can be such a joyful experience. When done well, it's a chance to learn about our own or different cultures, for talented chefs to show off their skills and produce something unique and create something genuinely joyful. Jimmy Spices, may only be a cheap restaurant chain, but the whole 'concept' is an expression of a greater malaise in our society. It's as if the high salt content in the food sucks all the the humanity out of the room. We don't need a religious hell, we are more than capable of creating our own secular hell on earth.

By the way, the kids loved it.

(*I quote the great Kenneth Williams in Carry On Cleo)

The Wootton Bassett effect

The Prime Minister has announced that Wootton Bassett is to be given the title 'Royal' in recognition of their honouring of the UK's war dead. The residents of the town have lined the streets to show their respect for the victims as they are driven between RAF Lyneham to John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford. Mr Cameron told the Commons, "Their deeply moving and dignified demonstrations of respect and mourning have shown the deep bond between the public and our armed forces." He reported that the Queen had agreed to the tribute as "an enduring symbol of the nation's admiration and our gratitude to the people of that town."

 

The ceremonies began shortly after the military complained the UK did not have a similar reverence for war dead as demonstrated in the USA. What started as a simple tribute by the local British Legion, from one generation of the armed forces to another, grew into a widely observed and slightly more formal event: the lowering of Legion banners, a minute's silence and the tolling of the bells at St Bartholomew’s and All Saints Church.

The most surprising aspect of the proceedings were that they should happen at all in this quintessential Cotswold town. After all this is 'Middle England' and adopting public rituals for what was traditionally a private affair would be more in-keeping with the 'remember the Alamo' patriotism of Texas than Wiltshire. However, there is little doubt that the proceedings came from a sense of respect and sadness for the loss of the servicemen. Indeed, uppermost in the minds of the community was the question of how to maintain the dignity of the occasions as media coverage brought more attention and people to the events. 

Following the repatriation of eight servicemen in July 2009 and the huge crowds that attended, many local people voiced their concern that the tone had changed. In the Times an ex-paratrooper explained, "Local people are staying away, not out of disrespect, but because it’s becoming something else.” It was an opinion echoed by another local who said, “I thought it was a three-ring circus,” she said. “It started as a spontaneous thing, but it’s grown like Topsy, and we’ve lost something . . . it’s become an event, trailed in the news ... almost as if it was advertised. Personally I think some people came just to see it, like grief tourists.”

Adrian Beeby, a local resident and blogger questioned the motives behind the extensive reporting. He noted that the media attention on Wootton Bassett coincided with reporters being given greater freedom to observe how the bodies were dealt with in the war zones:

'the military is allowing reporters greater access to some of its most emotive and solemn moments and suggests that growth in coverage of the repatriation ceremony may well be at the instigation of the military. The question one is forced to ponder is: why? Are the prospects of military budget cuts or possible problems in the Middle East influencing their thinking? Are we seeing the results of a campaign to increase public sympathy for our fighters? Or have the media discovered that demonstrating support for our troops goes down well with their readers and viewers?'  

Meanwhile, amidst the disquiet, local people did their best to maintain the dignity of the original aims. 'Red Fridays', the brainchild of local businessman Brian Pickering, a campaign to encourage shops and people to be dressed in red to draw support for all military personnel was resisted, as a typical response to a local paper illustrated,

"Everybody wants to up the stakes of Wootton Bassett. The present repatriation vigils are for the fallen not active service personnel. Why can't these people leave things as they are. I certainly would not want to see the neutrality of the people of Wootton Bassett compromised." 

Neutrality is a very interesting word and gets to the heart of my concerns. The fact is that amongst the millions of people who campaigned against the recent conflicts, only a few extremists would welcome British deaths. However, the focus on dead 'heroes' by the media and military PR created an atmosphere where criticism of the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq became identified with criticism of the soldiers. This is clearly nonsense and it is to the credit of Wootten Bassett that the debate, locally, recognised the thin line they were walking between being used as military propaganda and maintaining a dignified focus on the dead servicemen.

Cameron told the Commons that Wootten Bassett "did not ask for any recognition, they did not ask for any form of preferment." This is not true. The truth is that the townsfolk went further than that and actively said that they did not want to be officially recognised. Wootton Bassett's Mayor, Steve Bucknell, told the press, it was 'not what local people would want, preferring to just honour the dead with no expectation of thanks.' So, ignoring the express wishes of the people of the town - the government and Royal family have pressed ahead with the 'honour'.

Why impose an 'honour'? I think the reason can be seen in the response to Islam4UK's proposed march through Wootten Bassett. Islam4UK, a Muslim anti-war campaign group, proposed to parade empty coffins through the town. Their controversial spokesman, Anjem Choudary, openly accepted that Wootten Bassett was chosen to generate the maximum level of publicity. He pointed out,

"the sad reality of the situation is that if I were to hold it somewhere else it would not have the media attention that it has now. If I am to balance between the sensitivity of having it in Wootton Bassett and the possibility of continuing the quagmire and cycle of death in Afghanistan, then quite honestly I'm going to balance in favour of the latter."

The proposal, the police never received an application to march, generated massive levels of 'outraged' press coverage. All the party leaders condemned Islam4UK. Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary at the time, said he was prepared to ban the march. He told the BBC, "The idea that anyone would stage this kind of demonstration in Wootton Bassett fills me with revulsion. I find it particularly offensive that the town, which has acted in such a moving and dignified way in paying tribute to our troops who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country, should be targeted in this manner."

How often do you get a political consensus? The far-right were rubbing their hands with glee. All the parties agreed that freedom of speech for British Muslims was less important than the sensitivities of 'Middle England'. Of course, there are a lot more votes from 'Middle England' than Afghan dead and 'Middle England', 'Worcester Man', 'Mondeo Man' or whatever you want to call him, is the key to electoral success. All the parties recognise this and hence the consensus.

This courting of 'Middle England' inevitably ends with populist moves like 'Royal' Wootton Bassett. Such a contrived vote winner would be laughable if it was not related to the deaths of British troops. Can the Tories and Royal Family sink any lower? Clearly they are both at a low ebb but not since 'Royal' It's A Knockout in 1987, has a PR stunt been so tacky and distasteful.

The 'honour' cheapens and politicises what the ceremonies were about. This was the reason Wootton Bassett residents resisted such a step. But then the reward is not for the town. It's a rather cynical attempt to arrest the flagging support for the the Tories and Royal Family. But, this time, the PR machine has got them playing with fire. At a time when nationalist parties are once again rising in influence, aren't Victorian calls to the flag, the army and dead 'heroes' legitimising other political parties that use those images extensively?

Just as interesting during the Islam4UK debate was the absence of a wider discussion about what the servicemen had died for? It was as if Al Murray's character, the 'Pub Landlord', was suddenly setting the editorial policy for the British media. I wonder what the response to empty coffins carried by 'white' Britons would have been? The 'Wootten Bassett' effect had successfully deflected any talk of why so many British soldiers were and still are dying.

Did those young people make the 'ultimate sacrifice for their country' or were they sacrificed by their country?

The wings of a butterfly

2012 - A Roland Emmerich film

It sounds like the script for a Roland Emmerich disaster movie. An earthquake, followed by a tsunami and now an unprecedented nuclear crisis. Japan now has four reactors in serious trouble, three threatening to meltdown, one on fire and radiation at 20 times normal levels in Tokyo. After a third explosion at the Fukushima nuclear plant workers battling the meltdown have had to be temporarily withdrawn.

Even the elements appear to have turned against the emergency operation. The wind, which had been blowing out to sea, changed direction and is now blowing the radiation towards Tokyo, a city of 28 million people. The strength of the wind is also stopping the authorities using helicopters to cool the reactors by dumping water from the air. Despite the continuing assurances you know how bad things have got when a Japanese 'John Kettley' has to play a crucial role.

The crisis in Japan, however, has put a stop to another nuclear explosion. Around the world governments had persuaded their populations that nuclear fuel was 'clean' energy and the best fix to address energy requirements in the context of falling oil reserves and climate change. New reactors have been given the go ahead around the world. Even Sweden, who had enforced a ban on building nuclear reactors for the last 30 years, had given the go ahead for new plants.

However, the footage coming out of Japan appears to have caused a rapid change of heart. A number of governments have acted swiftly to reassure their public. Germany has closed its seven oldest reactors and is discussing becoming nuclear free by 2020, Switzerland has suspended plans to build three more reactors and the Austrian Environment Minister, Nikolaus Berlakovich, has called for stress tests on all of Europe's 143 nuclear power stations to ensure they can withstand earthquakes.

Huhne

In Britain, Chris Huhne, the Energy Secretary, said the Government will not rush into making any judgements. He has asked Chief Nuclear Inspector Dr Mike Weightman to review the safety of UK plants and will wait for his findings before making any further decisions. In the meantime, Mr Huhne said that the Government would not be "complacent" and assured everyone that, "I believe we are running a very robust safety regime."

Huhne claimed safety was a "very high" priority for the industry and existing procedures were "extremely effective". He went on to stress "there are major differences between our situation and the Japanese situation, both in terms of luckily not being in an earthquake zone and not suffering the secondary consequences of the tsunami, there may be parallels in how robust our back-up systems can be - for example when it comes to the diesel generating electricity powering our cooling systems."

Tory MP Tim Yeo, Chair of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, dismissed the discussions about safety as "hysteria". He has called for officials to do more to remind the public of the UK's "incredibly safe" nuclear record. Yeo's constituency, South Suffolk, is the site for the Sizewell B nuclear power station and he has a record of opposing wind turbines. He is Chairman of a company developing alkaline fuel cells.

Windscale was renamed Sellafield

Incredibly safe? As recently as December 2009 managers at Sellafield, don't mention Windscale, in Cumbria were fined for exposing staff to radioactive contamination. This followed a fine of £500,000 after 20 tonnes of radioactive material leaked from a broken pipe just three years before. In fact, since 2001, the Health and Safety Executive have reported 1343 incidents at UK power stations. Dungeness B, taken over by French nuclear giant EDF, was singled out for "non-compliance or inadequacy" in its safety arrangements.

While Germany has decided to close its oldest power stations, in the UK, EDF, yes the same one criticised for safety, announced they intend to extend the lives of two power stations by five years. The two reactors, in Hartlepool and Heysham have been running at a reduced capacity since safety issues were discovered with the boilers attached to the reactors back in 2007. Reassured?

Back in 2006 Alastair Darling, then Industry Secretary, announced the go ahead for eight new nuclear power stations to be operating by 2018. At the time the Conservatives argued that nuclear power should only be used as a 'last resort', while the Liberal Democrats, including Huhne, accused Labour of "surrendering" to the nuclear lobby. How things have changed. By August 2010, Chris Huhne, the Lib Dem MP and now cabinet minister, was assuring the House of Commons that the eight power stations were on schedule.

However, Huhne's statement was primarily concerned with funding not safety. According to the Independent, Mr Huhne said it was "clear" that MPs would vote in favour of new nuclear power stations providing there was no public subsidy involved. "I don't think you can determine whether a government is serious about energy policy merely in terms of whether it is prepared to write very large cheques. It has always been clear that our next generation of electricity power stations are going to be built by private investors with a framework put in place."

Chernobyl

The framework translates to 'inducements' to encourage investment - including a 'carbon floor price' - essentially taxing carbon fuels to make alternatives competitive. The inducements are necessary because there has been no private investment in building nuclear power stations since the Three Mile Island disaster in the USA back in 1979. What sort of return would investors be looking for on such a risky project? Hate to think what corners will be cut if profits decline.

The BBC reported that 'the nuclear industry insists existing plants are built to withstand "credible seismic scenarios". What are 'credible seismic scenarios'? According to the Wall Street Journal, Tokyo Electric who operate the nuclear plants currently threatened with meltdown, said in safety documents that 7.9 was the highest magnitude for which they tested in Fukushima. 7.9 was calculated to be the worst case scenario for 'simultaneous seismic activity along the three tectonic plates in the sea east of the plants' - the epicentre of the latest quake. The Sendai earthquake on 11 March measured 9. This is the fifth largest earthquake ever measured, but since 1923 their have been five earthquakes in Japan above 7.9. Worrying definition of "credible" isn't it?

Meanwhile, in the UK, the nuclear lobby are fighting back. Huhne is arguing, correctly, that the UK has completely different geological conditions to Japan. Engineering experts have told the BBC that the new British reactors will be 'designed using more advanced technology - specifically not requiring power sources such as generators to cool them after a emergency shutdown - making them "inherently safer".' I am sure they are also correct and I don't doubt that the Japanese engineers made similar claims about their own technology. But we should not be deceived into thinking the argument is about whether we can address the lessons of this latest disaster.

Steve Campbell, from Greenpeace, got to the heart of the matter when he said, "Japan's nuclear plants were built with the latest technology, specifically to withstand natural disasters, yet we still face potential meltdown," Why? The Japanese were confident they had considered all the risks but a series of events led to unpredictable and extreme outcomes. The earthquakes, tsunami, no doubt 'human error' and eventually even the wind changing direction are all playing a part in this story.

It may be stating the obvious, we can reduce but never remove risk entirely. Isn't it ironic that in a society that is wrapping its population in health and safety legislation our politicians can accept the risks of nuclear power so easily? Yet the consequences for getting it wrong, as we see in the footage from Japan, threatens millions. 25 years after the disaster in Chernobyl - it is still the most polluted place on the earth.

What is the appropriate risk when so much is at stake?  In such an unpredictable world, the only predictable thing is that this won't be the last disaster. Can we afford to keep gambling?

Ah, don't you just love Spring, look at that beautiful butterfly flapping its wings...

BMA - It's time to toughen up!

"World-class health care for all, publicly funded, free, centred on patients, not profit. So yes to health reforms. But no – always no – to the privatisation of health." Following Clegg's declaration at the Liberal Democrat conference - it sounds like the battle to 'save the NHS' is over. He promised not to let the "profit motive drive a coach and horses through the NHS."

Despite holding the conference in Clegg's constituency hometown of Sheffield, a £2 million police operation was required to keep 5000 protesters at bay, so the Deputy Prime Minister may have considered that such statements were conducive to self-preservation. However, rather than concerns for personal safety, his assertion came as a result of opposition to the reforms from the conference floor. This action might offer a faint glimmer of hope for the NHS and the future health of the Liberal Democrat party.

Congratulations must go to Lib Dem membership for, in effect, throwing out a motion supporting the NHS reforms and voting instead for amendments that were very critical of the Tory proposals. The amendments stated that the Lib Dems did not support the 'damaging and unjustified market-based approach that is proposed.' It also noted, 'Conference regrets that some of the proposed reforms have never been Liberal Democrat policy, did not feature in our manifesto or in the agreed Coalition Programme'.

Although the amendments were supported by Baroness Shirley Williams and ex MP Evan Harris, this was a grass roots rebellion and received almost unanimous support from the floor. However, faced with certain defeat, Clegg had already agreed to 'accept' the amendments at a breakfast meeting with Williams. The reversal exposes a growing divide between local activists and senior parliamentary members. Despite the possible repercussions for Tory health reforms I think it was interesting to see how gleefully the Daily Mail reported the 'bloody nose' for Clegg. As the newspaper of the Conservative Party foot soldiers it sounds like Lib Dem activists are not the only ones uncomfortable with the coalition arrangement. 

So is it all falling apart? Can we stop panicking and call off the marches? The Guardian reported that Clegg promised Baroness Williams to take 'critical messages' back to the PM. Clegg will hold talks Cameron this week. One Lib Dem cabinet member, refusing to be named, told the Guardian: "I thought we had committed ourselves to give the NHS more money and to leave it alone. I like Lansley, but I do not know why we are doing this." Even Cameron has admitted that the Tories are not getting their message across. 

Clegg told his party "All of us in government are listening and we take these concerns seriously" but it must be difficult to hear anything for all the noise. On Friday the Daily Mail argued, 'what worries this paper is that his revolutionary reforms, barely mentioned during the election, are being rammed through Parliament with only minimal consultation' while even the Telegraph has expressed concern that the reforms risk lowering standards of patient care. The general view of the Tory press seems to be reform rather than transform.

With criticism coming from all sides and commentators beginning to suggest that NHS reform might be Cameron's 'Poll Tax', it might be time for some rethinking. One Tory minister told the Daily Mail: 'We are digging a man trap for ourselves for no good reason. Some of us can see it and are determined to avoid it at all costs.'  

Lansley opens first GP off-licence

Speaking on BBC1's Politics Show yesterday, Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, suggested that the Tories might be ready for a tactical retreat." As you put a Bill through Parliament you look carefully at how the legislation delivers in the context of the reforms that we have set out. We have already made changes, we are not sitting there going: 'Oh, we know the answers and nothing must change'." Lansley said that if the Government could "clarify and amend in order to reassure people" then it would do so.

"Amend to reassure" doesn't sound like much of retreat. Although Lansley, himself, must be under a lot of pressure. Cameron is already complaining that the arguments for reform are not being made effectively and Lansley is now under even more pressure with the BMA's call for him to withdraw the Health Bill. However, the vote may be embarrassing to Lansley but what pressure are the BMA willing to exert upon the Government?

Strike action would inevitably affect patient care and lead to a loss of public support. A refusal to comply with the reforms? As we have seen, the GP consortia are being formed despite their opposition because there really isn't any choice. It would be utterly irresponsible for the structures not to be put in place. Finally, and probably most importantly, the respect that people have for doctors is also the reason for their political weakness. These are professionals committed to their work, thus, essentially conservative. It is a sign of how much the profession has been provoked that they have taken this public action but a frontal assault on the Government is highly unlikely. Unfortunately strong words will not be enough.

So what is the chance of a retreat? For all the efforts of the Lib Dem activists, the power still lies in the hands of the parliamentary party. The grassroots clearly hope to see their MPs vote against the NHS reforms unless their are some radical changes to the proposals but how likely is that? Clegg vowed to look at the amendments "in detail" and told the party that he was "Yes to reform of the NHS - but no to the privatisation of the NHS."

What does that mean? I suspect not much, perhaps a few cosmetic changes. Despite unease amongst the Tories, Clegg still holds the key. During the recent meeting I attended with Clegg, there were a couple of occasions where the veneer of charm slipped and what was revealed was a pretty uncompromising man and rather a bully. For all his pleas of "I'm a human being too", here was someone quite happy to play dirty and that was in a Q&A. Clegg said nothing to suggest he has any doubts about the NHS reforms. Unlike student fees - NHS reform was not a price of the Coalition.

Clegg wants these reforms and has the will to see them through. Without a Lib Dem rebellion the reforms will be passed and, despite the wishes of the party, Clegg seems, at the moment, to have the majority of his MPs under control. Who will rock the boat before the referendum? Anybody wishing to challenge Clegg's authority would be best served by the NHS reforms becoming law and losing the referendum. That would leave the path clear for a leadership challenge.

Perhaps the best insight into his plans came during the speech to conference. He argued that the Lib Dems had to forget the idea of winning over disenchanted Labour voters, a traditionally fertile ground, and focus instead on attracting votes from Middle England. The message was pretty stark. The ship is changing course. Like a drill sergeant, he also warned the party activists to "toughen up". 'Or ship out' may have been left unsaid, but for many in the hall, I think that was the message.


So what is the most likely outcome? Unless the BMA heed Clegg's advice and "toughen up" it looks like the mostly likely outcome will be a challenge to Clegg's leadership. Unfortunately, the privatisation of the NHS and losing the voting reform referendum will be a very high price to pay.



 Thank goodness that's done, time for a 'responsible' pint of wine.  

Noam Chomsky, Billionaires and Lord Hutton



J K Rowling

It has been a good year for billionaires. Amidst the economic gloom, the annual list by Forbes Magazine shows that the wealth of the world's billionaires jumped 25% to $4.5 trillion and an average net worth of $3.5 billion. With 1210 people listed, Forbes described it as a 'record year for numbers, money and impact.' The UK has 32 billionaires on the list including the Queen and JK Rowling. Remarkably, that is three more than last year. The property empire of the Cavendish and Grosvenor family continues to top the domestic league with a value of $13 billion - some way short of the $74 billion of Carlos Slim Helu, the Mexican telecom magnate, who topped the list for the second year.

The Forbes list, however, was not the main story in the UK. At home, millions of public sector workers have been warned that they will have to work for longer, pay higher contributions and receive lower pensions. Lord Hutton's independent review concluded that by 2015 pensions should be related to average salaries over a career rather than final salaries. Hutton's recommendations will affect millions of people in the civil service, the NHS, teaching, local government,  the police, armed forces and the fire service already dealing with large job cuts, reorganisations and a pay freeze. Lord Hutton described the changes as a "comprehensive reform" that would "strike a balanced deal between public service workers and the taxpayer." 

The BBC news website led with the pension announcement while the Forbes list was relegated to a far less prominent position. Yet, both stories are equally significant. Last night, Noam Chomsky, an 82 year old Professor of Linguistics at MIT, was in town to deliver a speech at UCL. Academic speeches are rarely sell-outs, yet, not only was this the hottest ticket in town but it was broadcast live to thousands. Why? Chomsky is not only the foremost academic in his field but, whilst largely working outside the usual channels of political debate, he has become known as 'America's leading dissident' and has been dubbed by the New York Times as 'the world's greatest thinker'. For five decades he has been a highly influential critic of the US government and more recently global neo-liberalism. He is a profound thinker, a public intellectual - unafraid to confront controversial issues - and a beacon for change across the world. 

I first read Chomsky during my History BA. After Thatcherism and the fall of communism he was regarded as a marginal figure by many commentators and not in-tune with the 'new world order.' Capitalism, after all, had won. However, even at the high water mark of US authority, his fierce logic  and presentation of evidence was extremely influential on me. His work provided an analytical framework with which to view political events. It is heartening to see his ideas have, once again, found a broad audience. This visit, in the context of our current political upheaval, seems particularly timely and the clamour for tickets reflects the widespread disenchantment that many people feel with the political mainstream.

Why the disenchantment? Why the sense of unease? In our lifetime we have seen a move from a relatively even distribution of wealth to a country with an increasing divergence in wealth. The rich are getting much richer, while there is less opportunity for everyone else. This outcome has been achieved through free-market reforms, introduced by all parties, that have been sold to us by a promise of choice, efficiency, greater opportunity and greater affluence. In a properly regulated economy it is possible that all these things could be true, but the latest economic crisis has cracked the veneer of credibility of the present system and we are all confronted with the stark facts. Banker's bonuses and high student fees are the obvious symbols of the injustice laid bare. Billionaires 25% richer and public servants losing pension entitlements. Are we all feeling the 'pain' equally?

Chomsky

Sounds like 'commie' talk, I can hear you cry. Try and rein in that impulse and consider who is providing us with the messages? Where have our basic assumptions come from? Much has been made of Murdoch's control over the media but as I pointed out yesterday - how much freedom of maneuver does the BBC really have? Manufacturing Consent is one of Chomsky's most important works and demonstrates how our media actually limits the scope of political debate. As with any worthwhile intellectual work, Chomsky, does not lend himself particularly well to soundbites. His books are fully researched and tightly argued. Read them or catch his film Manufacturing Consent on YouTube (http://bit.ly/FeHLG).

As Chomsky notes in his book, New World Orders, Adam Smith the 18th Century philosopher and pioneer of economic theory argued in his influential book The Wealth of Nations that the rich follow, 'the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. All for ourselves, and nothing for the people.' Smith warned that merchants not governments 'were the principal architects' of policies designed to advance their own interests, however 'grievous the impact on their own populations'. It is perhaps evidence of the 'market's' control of the debate that Adam Smith is generally regarded as a founding figure of unrestrained capitalism rather than someone cautioning against its excesses.

What has brought Chomsky to such a wide audience? The cataclysmic failure of our financial system and the political and economic choices being made by our politicians make his central assumptions seem self-evident. Nowadays, it is much easier to conceive a situation in which: rich men rule the world, competing among themselves for a greater share of the wealth and power, using governments as agents of their policy and suppressing dissent either through violence (in poorer states) or through media control (in countries like the UK). The idea is not so outlandish as it once may have seemed? If you are not from a 'left-wing' political background it may sound like a grand conspiracy, but if you consider our present situation, the assumptions underpinning political action are clear. 'Follow the money' is a good rule when it comes to finding who pulls the strings. It will probably lead to those billionaires.

Well, perhaps not J K Rowling...but then again....

Good news from the BBC

Good news, at last! We can all breathe a little easier. According to the BBC website, February saw the 'fastest rise in permanent staff placements in ten months' and the 'sharpest increase in temporary positions since May 2007.' Despite my constant talk of a 'double dip' recession, faltering growth and the need for a 'Plan B', perhaps we have turned a corner? I hate to admit it but it would appear that the Chancellor has backed the right horse. Thank good...oh hang on a minute. What's this?

Only last week, as the media spotlight fell upon Rupert Murdoch's News Corp takeover of BSkyB, a little story emerged that I thought was just as significant. While the new and old media outside the control of Murdoch were predicting the end of press freedoms in the UK, I was distracted by a report from the Liberal Conspiracy website that revealed, 

'BBC journalists have been instructed by senior editorial staff to use ‘savings’ instead of ‘cuts’ in their news coverage, Liberal Conspiracy has learnt, in order to offer a “rosy” picture of government announcements.' 

Liberal Conspiracy reported that senior BBC management told journalists at BBC London that 'cuts' made the news appear too negative. The pressure on the BBC has grown after David Cameron publicly 'blasted' the 'British Broadcasting Cuts Corporation' in an interview in February for reporting every reduction in spending. The Daily Mail said that Downing Street was 'increasingly frustrated with the way the corporation is reporting the Government’s austerity programme.'

A BBC spokesman issued the following response to the suggestion that they were bowing to pressure, 

'We are reporting impartially on reductions in council and government spending and no instructions have been issued about terminology to be used in our coverage.'

However, Liberal Conspiracy reported that the official BBC statement had been contradicted by people working at BBC London and two separate journalists confirmed that the 'editorial decision at BBC London had been challenged several times this week in evening meetings.' Elsewhere, across the Corporation, a number of staff confirmed that discussions had taken place on the 'biased' reporting. 

So I arrive at today's BBC story, under the headline,  

Job market growth 'increased in February'

The article goes on to support the headline with some positive economic news. However, if you read beyond the first few paragraphs it quickly becomes apparent that the sums don't add up. In fact, the article actually says that unemployment increased,

'the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said unemployment had increased by 44,000 to almost 2.5 million in the three months to the end of December.'

The ONS also highlighted that the vast majority of the reported 40,000 new job vacancies were temporary jobs related to the 2011 census. Excluding these posts made the total vacancies, only 8,000. So much for a recovery driven by the private sector. 

Unemployment rose. That is the bottom line. Is this a good news story? I don't think I'll start cracking open the champagne or even ordering a take-away just yet. All the organisations mentioned in the BBC article, the ONS, REC and KPMG who carried out much of the research, report prospects for the economy are bleak. So why the spin? Does the information in the body of the article justify the positive headline? After all, how many people don't get beyond the first few lines of an article? If that is the case, what sort of impression would they have taken from the story? I hope they're not celebrating with a chicken madras.  

​I've always been aware that Murdoch's media empire has strong political bias, perhaps we need to worry more about who is influencing BBC editorial policy.

Of course, I can assure you that my posts will continue to be as impartial as ever. 

"We are not amused."

Is Prince Andrew about to get the chop? The pressure is certainly mounting. Yesterday the Sunday Times published an article entitled 'The Lowlife World of His Royal Highness', while in Prime Minister's Questions last week, Chris Bryant, the former minister for Europe, demanded that Andrew be stripped of his role as a UK trade ambassador. He later described him to BBC Breakfast as a "national embarrassment". On the BBC news website, Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, has indicated that there will have to be "conversations" about Prince Andrew and 'Downing Street sources' have indicated that 'one more serious story could make the prince's role untenable'. 

A number of recent stories have brought Prince Andrew's judgement into question. In a 2009 court case, Paul Page, a royal bodyguard documented how the prince repeatedly broke Buckingham Palace security protocols in order to entertain late night female visitors. Page also recorded that when challenged on one breach of the rules, the prince, who was regarded as one of the rudest royals - any bets on who the rudest royal is - told Page, 'This is my f***ing house, I can go where I want. Now f*** off!' Nothing quite like the Queen's English is there?

According to the Sunday Times, a number of former diplomats have criticised his 'rude' manner and poor judgement. This was illustrated over the weekend by the revelation that he hosted a business lunch for Sakeher el-Materi, the son-in-law of Tunisia's President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali,  just three months before he was deposed. Such unsavoury associations, however, would seem to be in keeping with the prince's general tastes. The Sunday Times article discussed a number of unlikely friendships and speculated about 'Andrew's penchant for being around people who have access to pretty women.' 

On the whole, most of the story seems a bit thin. A rude royal. A man with a taste for pretty women. A member of an extremely wealthy family with a few dodgy social connections. Not particularly shocking is it? The business lunch? Certainly, it is embarrassing, especially, as the Daily Mail has discovered the meeting was not an official engagement but initiated by the prince. But whether public or private, the meeting was attended by dozens of British executives all looking to get their share of the same distasteful pie. Are the papers going to call for them to be sacked? Difficult to criticise the prince for having the same degree of foresight as the British intelligence services. They didn't see Tunisia coming either. Observe Mr Cameron - it is much easier to try and do the right thing after the event. 

Epstein

Most damaging of all are the photos published in the New York Post, showing Prince Andrew walking through Central Park with convicted paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, the man who paid off the Duchess of York's personal debts. 'Prince and the Perv' ran the headline. He was convicted for soliciting a minor for prostitution and received an 18 month prison sentence but only after a plea bargain. There were allegedly many more victims and according to FBI documents, a witness claimed on one occasion Epstein had three 12 year old girls flown over from France. 

According to the Sunday Times, Epstein has been a guest at Windsor and Sandringham, while Prince Andrew has stayed with Epstein at his homes in New York and Florida. However, that is not all the two men have shared. Both have been romantically linked with Robert Maxwell's daughter, Ghislaine Maxwell, although court papers indicated that she had developed a business relationship with Epstein. 

The article noted that one girl, Virginia Roberts, who was 'recruited' to work for Epstein and abused by him when she was 15 years old, was also introduced to Prince Andrew by Ghislaine. Roberts has not made any claims about Prince Andrew's conduct, however, Ghislaine is considering what action to take in relation to accusations about her role in the Epstein case made by two other women. 

It may be a collection of gossip and innuendo at the moment but what a terribly sordid world is emerging. Andrew's lifestyle is certainly a story. Dictators, prostitutes, paedophiles and our dear royal family all in the mix. After the news of of Kate and Will's wedding and the success of The King's Speech at the Oscars, "cor blimey gov'nor, don't yer just love Colin Firth", I-I-I am sure the palace was hoping for a run of more sympathetic coverage. Just why is it that a family that has risen to power through a history of violence, interbreeding, loveless marriages, luck and deceit, can't seem to stay out of trouble? Happily, for the Windsors, they are still very well protected and so far I find this aspect of the story just as disturbing. 

Roy Greenslade asked in his Guardian blog today, 'Why are so few newspapers carrying the Prince Andrew Story?'. He notes the majority of the mainstream newspapers have 'overlooked' it so far, including the Guardian. Isn't paedophilia and public figures meat and drink to papers, he asks? Only the Mail and Sunday Times have pursued the story. Why is it being ignored? Is it the same reason that the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, stated during Prime Minister's Questions, that all future references to royals were to be 'very rare, very sparing and very respectful'? I didn't realise that the Speaker had a constitutional role to define the breadth of a debate in the Commons?

Why the special treatment? Are papers worried about not getting good seats for the wedding? Surely the royal family's position requires the House of Commons and our newspapers to hold them, and their staff, to the very highest levels of scrutiny and standards of public behaviour. Yet, as the has reported today the prince's representatives gave the impression that the meeting with Sakher el-Materi had been organised by by the Government's Trade and Investment Bureau and the prince's press secretary, Ed Perkins, tried to patch up a deal with UKTI, ‘Am deploying the line that he (Materi) was vice chairman of the Chamber of Commerce. Will UKTI stand behind him? We need some govt backing here . . .’ 

Rather embarrassingly, Perkins sent the email out to the media rather than the UKTI so that particular lie couldn't be fed through. No matter, the waters are being muddied. His followers are closing ranks. David  Cameron has offered Prince Andrew his 'full support' and William Hague has said he has 'done a jolly good job.' Hugo Vickers, a royal historian, told the BBC there had been a 'rather irresponsible harassment of Andrew by the press.' Accusations of close connections to a paedophile and it is described as 'irresponsible harrassment'. Would that be the case for any other public figure outside the royal family? No, but instead the focus of this story seems to be drifting to the rather irrelevant question of whether the prince remains a trade envoy. 

Hurrah for George VI

Vince Cable told the BBC "I think we need to remember he is doing this as a volunteer, he is not a government appointee, he is not somebody who is appointed and sacked." What wonderful logic -  so does that mean the Government can't get rid of him even if they wanted to? Perhaps doctors and nurses should pull the same trick and just claim 'expenses'. The BBC political correspondent, Gary O' Donaghue believes "It's unlikely the government would actually sack Prince Andrew but may choose in the long run gradually to downgrade his activities, avoiding a damaging and embarrassing row between ministers and the Royal Family." 

Embarrassing for whom? Damaging for whom? I think Minette Marrin, in the Sunday Times, yes a Murdoch paper, got it half right when she said this is a story about a prince corrupted by deference. Yes, I agree, but I think deference has also corrupted our media and politicians. 

It doesn't particularly bother me if he keeps the trade envoy job. His official engagements look like a tour of the 'axis of evil' + Germany - not sure if they are included or not. Compared to his friends, letting him hang out with tyrants would be less embarrassing to the country.

Is this the beginning of the end?

Dan Jarvis

A terrible night for the Coalition at the Barnsley Central by-election. While Labour retained the seat with an increased majority, the Conservatives were comfortably beaten into third place by UKIP and the Lib Dems scraped sixth place, behind the BNP but just beating the Monster Raving Looney Party. The result is particularly humiliating for the Lib Dems who were second in the May election. Liberal candidate, Dominic Carman, summed the night up by telling the BBC that his party had been given "a kicking".

The victorious Labour candidate, Dan Jarvis, a former major in the paratroop regiment and who served in Afghanistan, said the result sent:

"the strongest possible message to David Cameron and Nick Clegg. Your reckless policies, your broken promises and your unfair cuts are letting our country down." 

The Lib Dem president Tim Farron played down the result saying that it was no surprise, while on Twitter, Verity Harding, senior policy manager was stating, "Barnsley result painful but not terminal. People aren't voting Lib Dem as a protest against Labour anymore - not a surprise!" Not terminal? Many commentators are suggesting it could be. Just how bad is the situation?

Johann Hari, the Guardian columnist, is today predicting Nick Clegg to lose his seat (if he runs again) while Mark Ferguson, editor of Labour List, suggested that the Lib Dems could see support recede to their historically peripheral regions of the South-west and North of Scotland. Why? Ferguson argues that the Lib Dems can no longer be seen as a credible alternative to Labour in many regions and the old line that they are positioned to the left of Labour has been shattered. Without the reservoir of support from disgruntled Labour supporters where will they turn for votes?

The apocalyptic visions of decline are lent a little credibility by the Lib Dem spokespersons themselves. Less than a year into the Coalition Government and a decline in vote from 17.2% to 4.1% is seen as 'no surprise'. Expectations must be pretty low at headquarters, after all, Barnsley is not a hotbed of student radicalism. Harding's analysis of "Painful but not terminal", is probably closer to the mark, but the fact that the comment is being made suggests that, in digesting the result, senior Lib Dems have considered the possibility. Harding's comment, 'People aren't voting Lib Dem as a protest against Labour anymore' recognises Ferguson's point that the Lib Dems position as the credible party of protest has been dealt a severe blow.

So what will Clegg do? Another skiing holiday? Probably not, no matter how appealing it might seem at the moment.The only thing he can do to rescue his party is to start defining some space between the Lib Dems and Tories. So far he has failed in his attempts. As I noted in a previous post (http://bit.ly/guD5Jq) he was tying himself in knots trying to square the circle of higher university fees with fairer access. The stream of universities announcing they will charge the maximum £9000 fees is a continual embarrassment to Clegg who has argued that the maximum fee will be charged only in exceptional cases. Also, his insistence on fair access to the top universities, which brought strong criticism from the Tories, was dealt a blow this week by Oxford and Cambridge indicating they would not 'lower' standards to increase admissions for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Only a month ago Cameron condemned multiculturalism as a failure and laid out his vision of a 'muscular liberalism' defeating extremism. Yesterday, saw yet another attempt by Clegg to separate himself from Cameron. Giving a speech in Luton, Clegg stressed the importance of multiculturalism in an 'open and confident society'. Shadow communities secretary Caroline Flint said: "Nick Clegg's speech has exposed a lack of clarity at the top of government over its view of multiculturalism."

Is this true? Despite the soundbite headline, in the body of the speech reported on the BBC, Clegg was at pains to identify common ground with the Tories, "we come at some of these issues from different directions". But he added: "We completely agree that if multiculturalism means communities living in silos - separately from each other, never communicating, with no shared sense of belonging then we are both completely against it." It sums up the Lib Dem dilemma. Does Clegg want to project his own 'muscular liberalism' or does he want to maintain the coalition? Doing both is proving very destructive to the party's prospects.

Terminal? Not yet. We have a lot more twists and turns to come. To quote someone who served in both Liberal and Conservative governments, Winston Churchill,

"this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

A cu?t by any other name...

 Rupert Murdoch has been given the go-ahead to takeover BSkyB. After months of speculation and discussion, Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt- I said Hunt- announced that News Corp has been given approval to buy the remaining 61% shares in a deal worth £9.1 billion. The news of the deal has inevitably brought criticism from the Labour Party and other media groups, but what does it actually mean to us?

From the moment that Vince Cable was caught in a Telegraph honey trap it was probably inevitable that an agreement would be reached. You may remember that Cable made a fool of himself by  bragging to young female reporters that he was "declaring war" on Murdoch. Cable was immediately replaced from the BSkyB decision-making process and authority was given to Jeremy Hunt and he was on record as stating that Murdoch had "probably done more to create variety and choice in British TV than any other single person." Hunt has also been a strong critic of the BBC.

In December, Ofcom, the communications industry regulator, concluded that the proposed takeover would operate against the public interest 'since there may not be a sufficient plurality of persons with control of media enterprises providing news and current affairs to UK-wide cross-media audiences.' In order to avoid the deal being referred to the Competition Commission, News Corp have offered to create a new company, Sky News, with an independent chairman and directors.

Hunt

How independent is the new company? News Corp will keep a 39% holding in Sky News and will not be allowed to increase its holding without the permission of the culture secretary for ten years. Sky has also agreed to provide a 'substantial revenue stream', in the shape of a ten year contract to buy Sky News services and to allow it use the 'Sky News' brand for the next seven years. So, News Corp will almost certainly remain the largest shareholder and it will also be the new company's biggest client. Not exactly a strong position from which to assert its editorial independence is it?

But independence and Murdoch are hardly synonymous. Andrew Neil, the former editor of the Sunday Times and founding chairman of Sky TV has spoken extensively about Murdoch's record for removing 'independent' directors and directing the editorial policy of his papers. In 2008 The Independent reported that Neil told a Lord's committee,

"If you want to know what Rupert Murdoch really thinks read the editorials in the Sun and the New York Post because he is editor-in-chief of these papers. There is no major geopolitical position that the Sun will take whether its attitude to the euro or to the current European treaty or to whom the paper will support in the upcoming general election. None of that can be decided without Rupert Murdoch's major input."

The BBC's Robert Peston stated that the deal meant "huge changes to the landscape of the British media industry." However, Peston noted that News Corp had been put under pressure to make greater concessions than they were originally willing to concede. All of the key documents have been published and Hunt's office should, I think, be applauded for that transparency. Both Ofcom and OFT agreed that referral to the Competition Commission was not necessary.

What is certainly worrying, however, as Peston points out, is the takeover will mean News Corp will have revenues that dwarf all of its competitors, even the BBC. Murdoch has not been averse to taking on his competitors in a series of price cutting wars strangling newspaper revenues. In 2002 the Murdoch controlled Sun saw its revenues fall by 50% in a price war with the Mirror, however, News Corp, owners of Fox TV and 20th Century Fox, in the USA, were able to cover those losses.

Meanwhile, a number of media groups, including the Guardian, Associated Newspapers and the Telegraph - who initially tried to cover up the Vince Cable gaffe - in a joint statement to the BBC said, "We shall be vigorously contesting this whitewash of a proposal during the consultation period, as well as examining all legal options."

What does it all mean? Firstly, the deal has yet to be completed. News Corp still have to buy BSky B and with the rising share price that is not a certainty. As a viewer, it won't make any difference. As someone concerned about the independence of news broadcasting, there are obvious concerns. However, given the concessions, Sky News is pretty much in the same position it always was, or, if there is any strength to the restrictions on News Corp, it will actually be in a much stronger position.

Of course, people tend to agree with political bias in reporting, if it agrees with their own views. The Telegraph, after all were only acting in a self-interested way by trying to hide the Cable gaff. The independence of our media can be over-stated. In the noise of the BSkyB announcement you may have missed a smaller but just as interesting story. After pressure from the Conservatives, BBC journalists have been told to stop referring to 'cuts' and instead use the word 'savings' to paint a more rosy picture of government announcements. Senior BBC management are reported to have said that 'cuts' made the news appear too negative. Even our cherished Auntie has to pay the piper.

Ultimately, the greatest threat will emerge from the financial muscle that News Corp has at its disposal and how it chooses to tackle its competition. How it will end is anyone's guess. One thing is for certain. Murdoch is nearly 80 and, although he increasingly resembles a Bond villain, I suspect that You only Live Twice, is still only true in spy fiction. 

Christian morality and a death in Pakistan

Eunice and Owen Johns

'Christian beliefs lose out to gay rights' exclaims the Daily Mail headline. 'All citizens of the UK are equal but some are more equal than others' says an angry Christian, paraphrasing Orwell. 'Once again the gay community does itself a disservice by showing only intolerance for others while demanding tolerance for themselves' writes Nick in Basingstoke. Finally, Tom Norton sums up the general tone of the 652 comments on the Daily Mail website when he says, 

'There is no moral basis for this ruling, and should be appealed. The law governing this area is wrong, and should be rewritten. The gays have no justification for arguing that their preference take precedence over traditional, Christian morality. The Gays are not in charge of this world. God is.'

What has provoked this storm? As you may have heard, an elderly Christian couple, Eunice and Owen Johns, 62 and 65, from Derby, have lost their battle to be allowed to foster children. In a landmark decision, Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that the law protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation 'should take precedence' over the right not to be discriminated against because of religious beliefs.

The couple had previously fostered 15 children before taking a break from fostering. They had applied to Derby Council in 2007 to restart fostering but despite having been described by social workers as 'kind and hospitable people', during their previous experience, felt that their application was doomed because of their belief that homosexuality is against God's laws and morals would conflict with the regulations introduced by the 2007 Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations.

In drafting the legislation the Government exempted organisations, that wished to 'practice, teach or advance' a religion. The rights of these groups were specifically protected by the legislation. Religious groups are allowed to organise their 'own affairs in accordance with the deeply held beliefs of their religion.' However, individuals alone and not acting under the auspices of a religious body were not exempt from the provisions.

In a just society individuals will be protected from the arbitrary expression of authority from governments or powerful groups in society. To a large extent an individual should be able to live their 'private' life as they wish as long as it does not compromise other peoples rights. The legislation attempts to balance the inalienable right of all people to be protected from discrimination due their race, religion or sexuality (among many things), guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights, with an individual's freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Reason protects faith. Of course, it's a compromise but the principle protects all of us.

Meanwhile, in Pakistan we can see what happens when a a religious morality gains power. Yesterday, yet another politician was killed. Shahbaz Bhatti, Pakistan's Minorities Minister and the only Christian Cabinet minister, was assassinated for urging reform of the country's blasphemy laws.The blasphemy laws in Pakistan carry a death sentence and are often used to attack minority groups, including let it be noted, Christians, who, as the lowest social class, generally have little political influence. 

As a previous post explained (bit.ly/eRQIHX), Pakistan's lower regional courts are often in the hands of powerful local interest groups and uphold the death sentences. However, despite operating within an Islamic State, Pakistan's higher Appeal Courts and its Supreme Court are still powerful enough to withstand the pressures of the extremists and provide justice by overturning the decisions of the lower courts.

There are many in Pakistan who do not want minority groups to have the same rights that they enjoy. They are not willing to compromise and are willing to use any means to impose their 'beliefs'. Defending the rights of Christians and other minorities has cost Governor Salman Taseer and now Shahbaz Bhatti their lives. In Pakistan, Christians are being sentenced to death and killed because the principles of justice and the rights of minorities are quickly being eroded. People like Tom Norton in the comfort of the UK, writing on the Daily Mail website might try and consider this before promoting the primacy of any religious morality.


I wonder what a Jedi would have to say?