Privatising the mail
Posted by Andrew Adams on January 16, 2009
Filed Under Politics, Society | Leave a Comment
So Peter Mandelson has pledged to proceed with the part-privatisation of the Royal Mail despite strong opposition from Labour MPs.
The main reason given in justification is that the Royal Mail needs a substantial cash injection in order to modernise. Leaving aside the point made in the linked article that it has already received a loan of £1.2bn of which £600m still remains unspent, does anyone else not think it odd that when the privately* owned banks need an injection of capital they have to run to the Government for it but when the Government owned Royal Mail needs the same thing it has to go to the private sector?
*Of course the banks are PLC’s, I use the term “privately” to distinguish them from the “publicly” owned Royal Mail.
Miliband “get’s it”
Posted by Andrew Adams on January 15, 2009
Filed Under Human rights, Politics | 2 Comments
Sometimes bashing the government can be a bit boring - however much the latest idiocies from the likes of Blears, Woollas and Purnell deserve a good kicking it’s nice to actually be able to praise a government minister for making a serious and thoughtful statement, and on a topic of real importance. Which brings me to David Milliband’s piece in the Guardian today where he renounces the tired and discredited “war on terror” rhetoric of the last few years.
The whole piece is worth a read but there are two paticular paragraphs that stand out, and which may herald a turning point in governmnet policy at home and abroad. Firstly,
The more we lump terrorist groups together and draw the battle lines as a simple binary struggle between moderates and extremists, or good and evil, the more we play into the hands of those seeking to unify groups with little in common. Terrorist groups need to be tackled at root, interdicting flows of weapons and finance, exposing the shallowness of their claims, channelling their followers into democratic politics.
Exactly - many of us do not accept the manichean outlook where it’s us, the “good guys” against “them”. Some people have scorned any attempt to understand the background and motivations of those who want to do us harm, or differentiate between them, which they see as appeasement. This attitude has been translated into foreign policy over the last few years and has achieved little other than stir up even more resentment for the West, and the US in particular. With Obama soon to enter the White House many of us are hopeful that we will see a more thoughtful foreign policy pursued by the US, and Milliband’s remarks give me hope that we may follow suit.
Then there is this
We must respond to terrorism by championing the rule of law, not subordinating it, for it is the cornerstone of the democratic society. We must uphold our commitments to human rights and civil liberties at home and abroad. That is surely the lesson of Guantánamo and it is why we welcome President-elect Obama’s commitment to close it.
Again, this is a vitally important point. There are too many people who have been willing to sacrifice their own and others’ liberties in the name of fighting “terror” - the John Reid tendency who claim that those of us who claim that the worst possible way to react to attacks on our way of life is to undermine it ourselves by abandoning our liberal values and principles “just don’t get it”. Well, Milliband “get’s it” - let’s just hope that his colleagues in the government do as well and that we see an end to silly, illiberal laws which do little to prevent terrorism but undermine our own freedoms.
UPDATE:Justin at Chicken Yoghurt and Aaaron at Liberal Conspiracy are less impressed with Milliband. They make the not unreasonable point that he has been at the heart of the government for the last few years and could have come out with this before. That’s fair enough, but IMHO better the sinner that repenteth etc. (assuming he is speaking honestly and in good faith). On the other hand Mad Mel is distinctly miffed for different reasons.
A couple of farewells…
Posted by Andrew Adams on January 12, 2009
Filed Under Culture, Music | Leave a Comment
First of all I would like to wish all Mutantblog readers a Happy New Year. Sorry for the lack of posts recently, this was due to a combination of home and work commitments and laziness, but mostly laziness.
Anyway, I have been stirred out of my stupor by a couple of sad pieces of news for us music lovers. Firstly, this week will see the closing of The Astoria, one of London’s best venues for gigs.
It has always been a favourie venue of mine - big enough to attract decent acts whilst still small enough to retain a good atmosphere, and easy (for me) to get to, being smack in the middle of the West End. I can’t possible remember every band I’ve seen there but off the top of my head I can recall great gigs by The Scissor Sisters, The Sleepy Jackson, The Cramps, Sparks, Alice Cooper, My Life Story, Flesh For Lulu, Robyn Hitchcock & The Egyptians, All About Eve, John Cale, Catatonia and many more. It will be sadly missed.
As will Ron Asheton, guitarist with The Stooges, who died last week. The first two Stooges albums were way ahead of their time, probably the first real “punk” records and very few others can match them for their sheer raw excitement, which this was down to a comination of Iggy Pop’s manic energy and Asheton’s raw and brutal guitar work. There is a good obituary here and below is a clip of the Stooges performing TV Eye on their comeback tour a couple of years ago - probably my favourite guitar riff of all time.
The thin blue line
Posted by Andrew Adams on December 17, 2008
Filed Under Crime, Politics | Leave a Comment
Once again Britain’s finest have come under attack after it was revealed that claims that 70 police officers were injured in clashes with climate change protesters at Kingsnorth power station were not quite accurate
Only four of the 12 reportable injuries involved any contact with protesters at all and all were at the lowest level of seriousness with no further action taken.
The other injuries reported included “stung on finger by possible wasp”; “officer injured sitting in car”; and “officer succumbed to sun and heat”. One officer cut his arm on a fence when climbing over it, another cut his finger while mending a car, and one “used leg to open door and next day had pain in lower back”.
A separate breakdown of the 33 patients treated by the police tactical medicine unit at the climate camp shows that three officers had succumbed to heat exhaustion, three had toothache, six were bitten by insects, and others had diarrhoea, had cut their finger or had headaches.
Personally, I think that people are far too hasty to criticise the police, and those that do so should put themselves in the place of our brave upholders of law and order and ask whether they would be so quick to put their own safety at risk by sitting in cars, climbing over fences, braving the threat of sunstroke, toothache and “possible wasps”, shooting innocent Brazilian electricians in the head, opening doors with their legs and other such dangerous activities.
Two of our finest show no fear by sitting in their car
Human Rights and responsibilities
Posted by Andrew Adams on December 10, 2008
Filed Under Human rights, Politics, Society | Leave a Comment
Today sees the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and it’s good to see that Justice Secretary Jack Straw is commemorating the event by, er, planning to water down our own human rights laws. In an interview with the Daily Mail he has vented his frustration with the Human Rights Act
The Justice Secretary’s admission that he is ‘frustrated’ by the way the Act has sometimes been interpreted by the courts alarmed campaigners.
He told the Mail there were genuine public concerns about the way it is being exploited by criminals and extremists to hide from the law. [...]
The Justice Secretary sympathises with those who complain that the act has become used by prisoners to avoid punishment or by Islamic extremists to avoid deportation.
He tells the Mail that he wants to ‘rebalance’ the rights set out in the Human Rights Act by adding explicit ‘responsibilities’, specifically to obey the law and to be loyal to the country. […]
He said: ‘I fully understand that Mail readers have concerns about the Human Rights Act. There is a sense that it’s a villains charter or that it stops terrorists being deported or criminals being properly given publicity. I am greatly frustrated by this, not by the concerns, but by some very few judgments that have thrown up these problems.’
There are three main planks to his argument. Firstly he buys in to the Mail’s “villain’s charter” line by complaining that the act is often used by criminals. Well that’s the thing about human rights - we possess them by virtue of being human, not by being law-abiding and they apply to the worst of us as well as the best. In fact an essential part of any charter or bill of rights is how we are treated when suspected of a crime (guilty or not) and if we are subsequently convicted. Furthermore, given the squalid state of our prison system it is hardly surprising that the government is found to be in breach of the HRA in the way some prisoners are treated. Of course there may be individual rulings which seem perverse (although it’s important to separate these from myths such as rioting prisoners being given KFC meals because of the HRA) but I see no evidence that there is any widespread abuse of the HRA which would require it to be amended. Read more
A tribute to Oliver Postgate
Posted by Andrew Adams on December 9, 2008
Filed Under Media, TV | Leave a Comment
Oliver Postgate, creator of some of our best loved children’s TV shows, has died aged 83.
For those of us who were growing up in the sixties and seventies his programmes (created with collaborator Peter Firmin) are an integral part of or childhood memories and I have fond recollections of watching the Pogles, Noggin the Nog, Clangers and, of course, Bagpuss. In fact I have already have DVDs of the latter two series ready for my 6 month old son to watch when he is old enough (well that’s my excuse).
Anyone who has read his autobiography “Seeing Things” will know he was a great character and a true British eccentric.
So RIP Oliver Postgate, you will be sadly missed by children of all ages, especially those in their forties.
Pot, kettle (or possibly…fish, barrel)
Posted by Andrew Adams on December 2, 2008
Filed Under Media, Politics | Leave a Comment
One aspect of the Damian green saga which seems to have upset some people is the suggestion that he was “grooming” his mole, the objection being that this phrase is often associated with predatory paedophiles and was therefore inappropriate in this case.
One person who has particularly taken offence is Richard Littlejohn
In her [Jacqui Smith's] stubborn dissembling, she is aided and abetted by her allies in the police force, who brief menacingly that there are disturbing aspects of this case which have still to emerge, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
Offensively, they claim that Green was ‘grooming’ a young civil servant to leak information - a scandalous slur normally used in relation to child sex offences.
Of course Littlejohn would never stoop so low himself as to make snide insinuations about someone’s sexuality, would he?
P.S. The title of his piece is “If I’m not here on Friday, you’ll know I’ve been nicked”. Surely it should read “If I’m not here on Friday, it’s because I live in Florida.”
A “soft touch”?
Posted by Andrew Adams on November 27, 2008
Filed Under Immigration, Politics | Leave a Comment
In his recent tirade against asylum-seekers and their advocates Phil Woolas was keen to point out that the primary purpose of the government’s immigration policy was to “reassure the public that the government is in control of immigration”. As I pointed out at the time this would indicate to me that its priorities are rather skewed and are being driven by tabloid headines. After all, surely the primary purpose should be to have a system which is efficient, fair and humane - if you have that then in theory public confidence should follow.
That is not neccessarily the case though, because public perceptions do not always match the reality. For example, one of the most common clichés we hear is that this country is a “soft touch” for asylum seekers, a notion that anyone with a cursory knowledge of New Labour’s treatment of asylum seekers over the last ten years would know is risible. There is a very good example here
Twins: Ziyad and Bahabga Zighem aged 6 years 3 months, Rahima 4 years and 4 months, Hani 3 years and 6 months, and Zinedine 2 years and 3 months, have spent the last 29 days in Immigration detention at Yarl’s Wood IRC and are still there today.
These five children are not seeking asylum nor are they migrants, they were all born in the UK, denied the parentage of the country they were born in, by deliberate, discriminatory legislation in the ‘British Nationality Act 1981′ (came into force 1982).
As Justin at Chicken Yoghurt points out, this story is particularly apposite in the light of the shocked reaction of the country as a whole to recent high profile child abuse cases. Our concern for children’s welfare seems to end when they are the offspring of people whose immigration status may be in doubt. So next time you see a New Labour minister congratulating themselves on the government’s “tough” stance on asylum and immigration just remember that it is very easy to be tough when the people on the other end are weak and vulnerable, and especially when they are three year old children.
An open letter to Barack Obama
Posted by Andrew Adams on November 24, 2008
Filed Under Afghanistan, Politics, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Over at Liberal Conspiracy, Conor Foley has posted the following letter from Orzala Ashraf Nemat, an Afghan friend. I would recommend to anyone that they read the full text.
I witnessed a historical moment in Washington when I first learnt of Obama’s victory. I joined the crowed of victorious young and old on the streets of America’s capital that night, somehow with confusing feelings. I say confused because I felt so proud to be in America when it happened, but I was unsure whether I should also be happy with what he would do in Afghanistan. I had just – that same day – seen the shocking pictures of women and children injured by a US coalition-forces bombardment in Shah Wali Kot district of Kandahar province.
Would Obama be able to stop such atrocities? Would he be able to fight the war against terrorism with the social and economic means to oppose the military means?
These were the questions in my mind which caused my confusion and made me doubt whether or not to celebrate the moment. I joined the crowd because I saw, for the first time in the history of this land, that an African-American was elected as president; I did so because I had heard him speaking over the past three months about the working class, the middle class and I saw that he was their voice. Such words sounded very unfamiliar to me in the context of a capitalist country, so I thought at least that he is not trying to ‘rescue’ the rich, but that rather he was there also to help the poor and so on. So I joined the crowed. I saw him speaking: “If there is any one out there who still doubts that everything is possible, today is my answer. For those who want to tear this world up, we will defeat you. For those who are looking for peace and security, we will support you…”
Click here to read the letter in full
Watching “Dog Borstal” is good for you
Posted by Andrew Adams on November 20, 2008
Filed Under Media, TV | Leave a Comment
I have to say that the current furore about John Sergeant leaving Strictly Come Dancing has rather gone over my head. Not being particularly interested in dancing or minor celebrities I have no great desire to watch minor celebrities dancing but hey, it may be populist tat but there’s nothing neccessarily wrong with that if it’s done well and I’m happy to get my kicks from the X-Factor (although it’s not as much fun as American Idol).
I did rather raise my eyebrows reading the following comment from the Indie’s Media Editor Ian Burrell though
The problem with Strictly Come Dancing, according to David Wood, of Broadcast magazine, [whom I guess should know about these things] is that the BBC was determined it would be a bona fide talent contest, awarding genuine dancing merit and – most importantly – fulfilling the corporation’s public service broadcasting credentials and thus justifying the licence fee.
Yes, that’s right, Strictly Come Dancing is not just a harmless bit of fun, it is public service broadcasting. Which I suppose makes a kind of sense given that in recent years we have seen the virtual disappearance of current affairs and arts programming from BBC1 (and the dumbing down of what’s left), the shunting of the news to 10pm, a glut of reality and lifestyle programming, historical dramas that are no more than Eastenders in funny costumes with only a faint nod to any notion of verisimilitude (hence the huge steaming pile of shite which is “The Tudors”) and its atrocious US election-night coverage, demonstrating the low opinion the BBC has of its viewers’ intelligence (at least those who watch BBC1). Not only is it desperate to find a “public service” angle to the output on its flagship channel in order to justify the licence fee but it probably does think that anything more cerebral than SCD will have its viewers reaching for the ITV button on the remote.
This isn’t just mindless BBC bashing either, I totally support the principle of public service broadcasting and there is still some genuinely great stuff on the BBC, see Picture Book for example (buried on BBC4 of course) but I can’t help thinking that the BBC should lose one of its digital channels, use the money saved to make better quality programming for its terrestrial channels, stop chasing ratings and trust the intelligence of its viewers.
Do you agree or disagree? Text your vote to 83635 or call 0890 53468273
Calls cost 50p per second, text messages cost £5.00 from all networks and the result will be whatever I say it is.