Way outside of my comfort zone but it strikes me that this current pre-occupation with extremist radicalising our youth is yet another twist on the old familiar gang culture. Teenage boys, boys with low self-esteem, boys with a disconnect from their local culture, boys without hope seem to seek out other like minded youth. It just takes some alpha male to offer identity, some, just any purpose, some bonding ritual, something that makes them special to stand out (as a group) to be taken account of. Within this special elitist (in their minds eye) group they achieve status, recognition and respect of their piers. Back turned to the society that nurtures and supports them. Their own secret group rules now are all that matter, nothing else is of any account. Whether it is a Jhad, fighting the next door gang, doing the Mod's in Clacton, it is just what Gangs do.
Once the answer was conscription, put them in the Army, let the Army act as a quasi Alpha Male Gang leader. At least there they were given identity, fellowship and some degree of security, depending on how warmongering the times were, until they grew up enough to put silly boy gangs behind them and join the real adult world and look after their family. But we don't have the Army anymore. We do have an awful lot of disaffected youth with time, no aspirations in the their hands and no hopes of a better future. How do we go about giving these youths a sense of purpose, how do we connect with them on their terms in their language using their blinked view of the world?
No answers to offer except that without hope, without any sense of being able to better themselves, never losing this over-arching sense of unfairness, nothing will change. So our increasingly unequal society is just going to have to change instead. Stop the rot of only boys of rich families, who go to very good schools are the only ones to succeed, to get a job and a nice home and do all those things that nice people do. All boys should have that hope and chance to succeed. Without it I am very much afraid even more gangs, even more radicalised youth. Not even if every other adult was recruited into a snooper service are you going to be able to it stop. Simple. Give boys, and girls, hope.
Monday, 21 July 2014
Saturday, 19 July 2014
Who is in charge?
You are put in charge. Someone has selected you above other contenders, seen some quality and has placed their faith in you, you are in charge. Keen to justify that faith you want to show leadership, you want to be seen to make a difference, you want those under you to now raise their game to match your own performance. You are in charge so you direct, you issue instruction, you resolve conflict, you are in control. Those under you begin to appear to have lost all initiative, they no longer make their own sound judgement calls, everything is queried or requires your confirmation. You begin to suffocate under all the calls on your decisions as you bewail the lack of initiative of those working under you. Sounds all too familiar?
We are social animals, we perform at our best within the herd and with the herd's approval. That is who we are. We are also lazy, prone to just follow the next person rather than take the risk extra work or failure by going our own way. The worst performing societies, knee-jerk respond to the first skitter of reaction. The whole herd dashing off to follow that first change of direction. Like lemmings dashing off without forethought, panicking in response to some ill-define threat until they all leap off the cliff edge, following blindly that frightened first alarm call. The best performing societies the herd balances it responses with a measured view drawn across all the whole range of reactions, from the flighty, skittish, to the philosophical, the thinking out of the box, to the been there done that, to the plain weary to the stubborn not changing until it has to change. Choosing a course out of that gamut of reaction may at times be ponderous but with the wealth of experiences that range of reaction brings, may more often make a sensible lasting judgement call than the knee jerking at the first signs of a hiccup.
As individuals we bring our own unique style, experience and judgements to the task at hand. Not one of us will set about skinning the cat the exact same way as another. The variation in technique matters not. What matters is that the cat is skinned. Management may want to raise targets of time or quality or cat welfare. How those in charge of the task set about achieving a better output is vital. If they issue orders and instructions, then those doing the work switch off and submissively follow the order or instruction. More expansive orders and instruction then have to follow because those doing the work have not read the mind or seen the work the same way as those issuing the orders. The alternative is to empower those in charge to do the task their way whilst encouraging and supporting them to raise their standards to those targets. Those in charge offering gentle suggestions or meaningful comparisons along the way. Those doing the work, in the absence of direction will share experiences amongst themselves, support each other and will find a collective way to achieve the required result. Those in charge being left free to attend to other matters with just the occasional light touch to adjust output. This is collective societies working at its best, working collaboratively but accepting accountability for your own input.
In the scale of things, just tosh. Except of course that governments act and work like simplified people. Our Political Leaders exhibit that need to show they are in control and are seen to be acting divisively. Government rush in to be seen to respond to the latest emotive outburst. Control, followed by ever more detailed prescription of what is permitted and which sanctions will be applied to what defaults. We teeter, with the best of intentions, remorselessly to Totalitarianism. The citizens slowly surrender their will to think for themselves, to question, to challenge and sink into despair of just doing what is required, no matter how illogical, just for a quiet life. We lose all round. No one wins.
We have to empower people to think and act for themselves. We have reform our society so people take responsibility for their own actions. Government has to restrain itself, guiding on the long term objections but easing up on the desire to control the now.
Surely when the person in the street is baffled by the logic of the bedroom tax, penalising of the destitute, requiring access to everyone's electronic communication, official encouragement of zero-hour contracts, commercialisation of core state functions, to name but a few, then it is past time for a sea change.
We are social animals, we perform at our best within the herd and with the herd's approval. That is who we are. We are also lazy, prone to just follow the next person rather than take the risk extra work or failure by going our own way. The worst performing societies, knee-jerk respond to the first skitter of reaction. The whole herd dashing off to follow that first change of direction. Like lemmings dashing off without forethought, panicking in response to some ill-define threat until they all leap off the cliff edge, following blindly that frightened first alarm call. The best performing societies the herd balances it responses with a measured view drawn across all the whole range of reactions, from the flighty, skittish, to the philosophical, the thinking out of the box, to the been there done that, to the plain weary to the stubborn not changing until it has to change. Choosing a course out of that gamut of reaction may at times be ponderous but with the wealth of experiences that range of reaction brings, may more often make a sensible lasting judgement call than the knee jerking at the first signs of a hiccup.
As individuals we bring our own unique style, experience and judgements to the task at hand. Not one of us will set about skinning the cat the exact same way as another. The variation in technique matters not. What matters is that the cat is skinned. Management may want to raise targets of time or quality or cat welfare. How those in charge of the task set about achieving a better output is vital. If they issue orders and instructions, then those doing the work switch off and submissively follow the order or instruction. More expansive orders and instruction then have to follow because those doing the work have not read the mind or seen the work the same way as those issuing the orders. The alternative is to empower those in charge to do the task their way whilst encouraging and supporting them to raise their standards to those targets. Those in charge offering gentle suggestions or meaningful comparisons along the way. Those doing the work, in the absence of direction will share experiences amongst themselves, support each other and will find a collective way to achieve the required result. Those in charge being left free to attend to other matters with just the occasional light touch to adjust output. This is collective societies working at its best, working collaboratively but accepting accountability for your own input.
In the scale of things, just tosh. Except of course that governments act and work like simplified people. Our Political Leaders exhibit that need to show they are in control and are seen to be acting divisively. Government rush in to be seen to respond to the latest emotive outburst. Control, followed by ever more detailed prescription of what is permitted and which sanctions will be applied to what defaults. We teeter, with the best of intentions, remorselessly to Totalitarianism. The citizens slowly surrender their will to think for themselves, to question, to challenge and sink into despair of just doing what is required, no matter how illogical, just for a quiet life. We lose all round. No one wins.
We have to empower people to think and act for themselves. We have reform our society so people take responsibility for their own actions. Government has to restrain itself, guiding on the long term objections but easing up on the desire to control the now.
Surely when the person in the street is baffled by the logic of the bedroom tax, penalising of the destitute, requiring access to everyone's electronic communication, official encouragement of zero-hour contracts, commercialisation of core state functions, to name but a few, then it is past time for a sea change.
Tuesday, 15 July 2014
Soccer Madness
The superlatives are in full flood about the greatest ever World Cup games. I am no football lover and scarcely can bring myself to watch a game through, at the most I peep at the highlights. So no football analysis here then. However two images do stand out starkly. These two images will remain as my recollection of the World Cup Brazil 2014. One image is of a 'player' lunging forward to bite into the shoulder of an opponent, the other is of a 'player' holding an opponent by his shoulders as he bring his full weight into his knee that he then jabs into the small of the back of the held opponent.
This later incident, to my knowledge received no reprimand nor was any penalty card issued. Yes the first instance did have some sanctions applied but far too lenient. What is the message that the controlling authorities; the media that reaps rewards by beaming out the content; the advertisers hoping for sales by association and all our young players watching eagerly shaping their hopes on the role models on display? It is perfectly okay to deliberately 'take out' an opponent, cripple him so he is not game fit, even at the very possible risk is that he will be wheelchair crippled as a result!
Soccer is a physical sport, with body contact an essential part of it, but lets not pussy foot around, neither of these two incidents were anything like an accidental, over eager, clumsy, miscalculated tackle. They were cold blooded and deliberate. Their clear unambiguous intention was to do harm. How can any sport condone this. These two players should be immediately disqualified from ever playing soccer for the rest of their lives. It is simply unacceptable behaviour. It should not be condoned. Except of course they represent millions of pounds of investment, receive enormous cash and life style incentives to achieve the required outcomes and success set them apart. Such disproportionate rewards that being left crippled by 'the game' is insignificant against the tangible rewards readily available. So that makes it alright?
Not in my book. What book are you reading from? So my lasting image of the 2014 World Cup games will be of a 'sport' where it is permissible reward savage brutal behaviour.
This later incident, to my knowledge received no reprimand nor was any penalty card issued. Yes the first instance did have some sanctions applied but far too lenient. What is the message that the controlling authorities; the media that reaps rewards by beaming out the content; the advertisers hoping for sales by association and all our young players watching eagerly shaping their hopes on the role models on display? It is perfectly okay to deliberately 'take out' an opponent, cripple him so he is not game fit, even at the very possible risk is that he will be wheelchair crippled as a result!
Soccer is a physical sport, with body contact an essential part of it, but lets not pussy foot around, neither of these two incidents were anything like an accidental, over eager, clumsy, miscalculated tackle. They were cold blooded and deliberate. Their clear unambiguous intention was to do harm. How can any sport condone this. These two players should be immediately disqualified from ever playing soccer for the rest of their lives. It is simply unacceptable behaviour. It should not be condoned. Except of course they represent millions of pounds of investment, receive enormous cash and life style incentives to achieve the required outcomes and success set them apart. Such disproportionate rewards that being left crippled by 'the game' is insignificant against the tangible rewards readily available. So that makes it alright?
Not in my book. What book are you reading from? So my lasting image of the 2014 World Cup games will be of a 'sport' where it is permissible reward savage brutal behaviour.
Thursday, 5 June 2014
Speed Kills
Speed kills, we nod sagely to each other as we chant the mantra, speed kills. Utter tosh. If I walk at twice the speed of everyone else I do not kill. If I drive at 38mph on a 30mph restricted modern dry road designed for 40mph, in daylight with no parked cars, only occasional traffic and no pedestrians on the paths well set off to the side, I do not kill. If I am a Formula One racing driver, pushing my car to the limits, in excess of 185mph, I do not kill. If I am a Policeman on normal patrol duty, without any member of the public close to my tail, then bat along in a residential area at 40+mph I do not kill.
Walking at 3.5mph along a crowded train platform concentrating on the incoming train and getting to the usual door opening spot before it comes to a halt, brushing against a fellow passenger standing at the edge of the platform, then I could easily kill at 3.5mph. Driving at the permitted speed of 30mph on a dark night with wet roads in a congested city and thick traffic, vehicles parked either side on a narrow street with heavy pedestrian movement on the paths jostling to make headway, I might well end up killing someone at the permitted speed of 30mph. Speed does not kill, it is inattention to the road that kills.
When driving at the permitted speed limit of 30mph I do not suddenly slam straight into a sold wall that appears out of nowhere without some prior indicator, coming to an instant stop. No, the road ahead is read, avoiding action is taken, and as an experienced driver I can anticipate a sequences of events before encountering this sudden wall looming out of nowhere. That is the driving reality. Accidents, and fatal accidents are caused by drivers failing to pay sufficient attention to the road ahead. Failing to take avoiding actions earlier enough, asserting their right of passage contrary to the indications of any aggressive on-coming vehicle. That moments glance to check the next song on the playlist, to change radio channels, to adjust the air-conditioning setting, to read that automatic engine condition warning, to take that hands-free telephone call, to pay attention to the punchline of the passengers narrative, that glance to see the junction layout to make sense of the next junction turn, that glance at the speedometer to check on speed drift, these are the moments of inattention when, in that micro-second, something occurs on the road ahead that requires an immediate response. Then we are in the danger zone, with eyes off the road and concentration on anything other than the road ahead.
Being seen to do something in response to the emotional hysteria following a 'loved ones' death on the road is an easy vote winning political option. Play the mantra card, speed kills, then turn the screws yet again. A WinWin. In cash strapped times, cranking up the hit rate on the 'Safety Camera' cash cow bolsters the coffers whilst at the same times playing to the chorus of stop all these speeding motorists causing carnage on our roads. Never mind that the 'loved 'one' was that idiot who walked out, without any check, on to the road expecting the cars to instantly part leaving their passage clear, only to be overcome. More difficult if they are the innocent victim of that driver displaying a wanton disregard for other road users. So bring on all the latest technology, because we can, catch more and more drivers exceeding the speed limit, because no one will blames us if we do, for, as we all know, speed kills.
We have drifted from advisory speed zones to absolute speed limits. We have drifted from clarity with speed limit zones for set circumstances to a bewildering array of ever chopping and changing multitude of speed limits that no longer relate to their locations. We have left the discretionary waving down with a cautionary admonition to an automatic punishment from devices set up to trap any motorist whose speed should stray. But we do have choices. We can choose to regard all motorists as zombies and therefore encourage them to behave as mindless zombies. It will be so popular with the hysterical masses. That zombie drivers are more likely to be bored drivers, failing to react sufficiently quickly to any changes ahead, of course is not a problem because they are driving at a 'safe' speed. Or we can take a more difficult route, but with a better outcome, of treating motorist as responsible and attentive drivers., educating them on their failings, the common reoccurring judgement errors and employ discretion before penalising them. Encouragement to become a better driver is going to produce a better driver outcome than treating them all as the mindless zombie. We can all choose to be responsible attentive road users mindful of other users needs.
Next time you are out driving, who would you rather have in that car behind you or that oncoming driver, a driver concentrating on not exceeding the speed limit or a driver paying attention to the road ahead. It is a no brainer, unless you are a politician.
p.s. I now drive distracted, looking suspiciously at every parked van, or conspicuous car, looking at all road poles and mast trying to spot the latest technology camera's or checking every tree just incase that policeman with his speed laser is lurking there. My attention definitely is not on the road and I am not concentrating as I used to on the changing conditions, I am a worse drive now, but that is ok for as we all know 'speed kills'.
Walking at 3.5mph along a crowded train platform concentrating on the incoming train and getting to the usual door opening spot before it comes to a halt, brushing against a fellow passenger standing at the edge of the platform, then I could easily kill at 3.5mph. Driving at the permitted speed of 30mph on a dark night with wet roads in a congested city and thick traffic, vehicles parked either side on a narrow street with heavy pedestrian movement on the paths jostling to make headway, I might well end up killing someone at the permitted speed of 30mph. Speed does not kill, it is inattention to the road that kills.
When driving at the permitted speed limit of 30mph I do not suddenly slam straight into a sold wall that appears out of nowhere without some prior indicator, coming to an instant stop. No, the road ahead is read, avoiding action is taken, and as an experienced driver I can anticipate a sequences of events before encountering this sudden wall looming out of nowhere. That is the driving reality. Accidents, and fatal accidents are caused by drivers failing to pay sufficient attention to the road ahead. Failing to take avoiding actions earlier enough, asserting their right of passage contrary to the indications of any aggressive on-coming vehicle. That moments glance to check the next song on the playlist, to change radio channels, to adjust the air-conditioning setting, to read that automatic engine condition warning, to take that hands-free telephone call, to pay attention to the punchline of the passengers narrative, that glance to see the junction layout to make sense of the next junction turn, that glance at the speedometer to check on speed drift, these are the moments of inattention when, in that micro-second, something occurs on the road ahead that requires an immediate response. Then we are in the danger zone, with eyes off the road and concentration on anything other than the road ahead.
Being seen to do something in response to the emotional hysteria following a 'loved ones' death on the road is an easy vote winning political option. Play the mantra card, speed kills, then turn the screws yet again. A WinWin. In cash strapped times, cranking up the hit rate on the 'Safety Camera' cash cow bolsters the coffers whilst at the same times playing to the chorus of stop all these speeding motorists causing carnage on our roads. Never mind that the 'loved 'one' was that idiot who walked out, without any check, on to the road expecting the cars to instantly part leaving their passage clear, only to be overcome. More difficult if they are the innocent victim of that driver displaying a wanton disregard for other road users. So bring on all the latest technology, because we can, catch more and more drivers exceeding the speed limit, because no one will blames us if we do, for, as we all know, speed kills.
We have drifted from advisory speed zones to absolute speed limits. We have drifted from clarity with speed limit zones for set circumstances to a bewildering array of ever chopping and changing multitude of speed limits that no longer relate to their locations. We have left the discretionary waving down with a cautionary admonition to an automatic punishment from devices set up to trap any motorist whose speed should stray. But we do have choices. We can choose to regard all motorists as zombies and therefore encourage them to behave as mindless zombies. It will be so popular with the hysterical masses. That zombie drivers are more likely to be bored drivers, failing to react sufficiently quickly to any changes ahead, of course is not a problem because they are driving at a 'safe' speed. Or we can take a more difficult route, but with a better outcome, of treating motorist as responsible and attentive drivers., educating them on their failings, the common reoccurring judgement errors and employ discretion before penalising them. Encouragement to become a better driver is going to produce a better driver outcome than treating them all as the mindless zombie. We can all choose to be responsible attentive road users mindful of other users needs.
Next time you are out driving, who would you rather have in that car behind you or that oncoming driver, a driver concentrating on not exceeding the speed limit or a driver paying attention to the road ahead. It is a no brainer, unless you are a politician.
p.s. I now drive distracted, looking suspiciously at every parked van, or conspicuous car, looking at all road poles and mast trying to spot the latest technology camera's or checking every tree just incase that policeman with his speed laser is lurking there. My attention definitely is not on the road and I am not concentrating as I used to on the changing conditions, I am a worse drive now, but that is ok for as we all know 'speed kills'.
Thursday, 22 May 2014
The Political Wilderness
There are two crisis issues staring at us. First the obscenely absurd wealth ratio between the poorest and the richest standing at 1 to 300 and ever rising. Secondly an economy based on ever increasing consumerism but founded on a World now showing that it has very finite resources and capacity to regenerate those resources. The two issues are of course inter-related but necessarily linked. Both issues need to be tackled, urgently. That takes courage, vision and political muscle. Courage because any solution is going to generate upset as toys are taken away. Vision to see through the mires of preconceptions, adherence to comfortable past practice, to look beyond to how a good Society might be solidly founded. Political muscle simply because there are some big heavyweight opinions or organisations who have a vested interest to maintaining the status quo and can call on inter-global support.
We simply do not have a single political leader with the balls and charisma to sell a solution. I do not care particularly which solution, which view of outcome success. The issues are so big it may well be impossible to define one comprehensive approach. I personally doubt that a single strategy is possible, but nibbling away multi-directionally, but always consistently in the 'right' direction, is not only possible but essential if we are to ever stop this slumber walk into the abyss.
Instead all the Political Parties are pre-occupied with throwing sweeties to the voters. Hoping to come up with the 'best' colour wrapper and flavour combinations that will win voter support and give them their majority. Sweeties like 'immigration', 'EU', 'welfare', 'cost of living' in fact such an array of sweeties that are known to have mass appeal. In the absence of any vision of a just and equitable society it is no wonder the voters will hoover up the sweeties on offer, something, even a sweetie, is better than nothing.
With the Election hype escalating around us, all the Parties on offer are digging deep into their sweeties reserves hoping against hope they can differentiate themselves enough to win out. That their nuance's of colour and flavour will standout sufficient to get that crucial vote that puts them in power. The voters will no doubt be bewildered by the sameness Me To sweeties on offer. For me, there is only one possible vote, "None of the Above". I just hope enough of us can make that one sane choice so that the small voice of reason can be heard over the clamour of sweetie distribution. We all need to hear the voice that talks to these big issues facing us. Put sweeties behind you, time for the big boys to come out.
We simply do not have a single political leader with the balls and charisma to sell a solution. I do not care particularly which solution, which view of outcome success. The issues are so big it may well be impossible to define one comprehensive approach. I personally doubt that a single strategy is possible, but nibbling away multi-directionally, but always consistently in the 'right' direction, is not only possible but essential if we are to ever stop this slumber walk into the abyss.
Instead all the Political Parties are pre-occupied with throwing sweeties to the voters. Hoping to come up with the 'best' colour wrapper and flavour combinations that will win voter support and give them their majority. Sweeties like 'immigration', 'EU', 'welfare', 'cost of living' in fact such an array of sweeties that are known to have mass appeal. In the absence of any vision of a just and equitable society it is no wonder the voters will hoover up the sweeties on offer, something, even a sweetie, is better than nothing.
With the Election hype escalating around us, all the Parties on offer are digging deep into their sweeties reserves hoping against hope they can differentiate themselves enough to win out. That their nuance's of colour and flavour will standout sufficient to get that crucial vote that puts them in power. The voters will no doubt be bewildered by the sameness Me To sweeties on offer. For me, there is only one possible vote, "None of the Above". I just hope enough of us can make that one sane choice so that the small voice of reason can be heard over the clamour of sweetie distribution. We all need to hear the voice that talks to these big issues facing us. Put sweeties behind you, time for the big boys to come out.
Wednesday, 14 May 2014
When bullying is OK
We all agree it is clear cut, if you are told do what I say, do it now or else. If that else is a clear an unambiguous something far worse that is going make you endure emotional stress and or financial hard ship, you have unequivocally been subjected to bullying. Right? Wrong, not if it is carried out by the State. Now the State has to pursue ten of thousands of miscreants who are trying to evade the law of the land. It is only right and proper that they can stop these miscreant in their unlawful tracks swiftly and efficiently. We don't want to be wasting our time and resources on these repeat offenders. Swift efficient restitution and compliance with the law of the land is what we all want. Particularly if those miscreants are the unemployed. It has entered into our unquestioning social psyche, as our political leaders have told us often enough, all unemployed are shirkers, time waster only in it for easy money living off the State. It is therefore entirely reasonable that they should be subjected to coercion, real and implied threats and official harassment. Got to make them work irrespective. Entirely reasonable that they should be made to forego searching for a real job and be made, under duress, to commit to a job that offers nothing other than promises. Harassment from over-stretched officials, who have heard it all before so many, many times and in anycase have their own performance targets to meet else they too might receive an unfavourable report. Apply the department instructions to the letter, no deviation, no pause for thought, no scope for discretion, just the tick box, onto the next. Yours is not to reason why or to feel any compassion.
Not just the unemployed, naturally, anyone who has the misfortune to depend on the State can be a prime target for State bullying. These are the unwashed masses beneath contempt so it is perfectly alright. Brought up a family now living in a home too big for you, out on the streets or pay a rent increase way beyond your already stretched finances. Do not bleed broken here to us, the smug comfortable, about lack of alternate choice, having to move away from a work/family support network to a distant strange town or your pathetic special caring needs. Get over it. Greater needs must. The greater need is that untouchable Ministry, the Treasury, beyond any reason or argument. When they say 20% budget reduction. Jump to it, comply. When they say reduce welfare costs, cut, slash, importune what the hell it is only the unwashed masses that no one cares a fig about. When they say increase income, turf out lifelong sitting tenants so the now vacant property can be sold at a premium prices to ex-yuppies. Never mind that these same properties were bequeathed to the Nation for the Nation's custodianship of its cultural heritage. Nope, Treasury says raise money, compliance is the only acceptable response.
Just keep in mind that the Government's tactic for the past decade or more is it to defuse blame to some lower level quango's, pseudo government offices or other administrative functions whilst retaining the moral high ground of making decision for the good of the people. Look at us see what we have decided, then failing to make money available to properly implement that decision. Then they can look down at those diffused lower administrations, tut, and say what failure, how under resourced, making such bad judgements calls, a disgrace. It is called a Government WinWin. What ever results comes out of their short sighted policies, they are Teflon coated, nothing sticks on them!
Of course if manner by the Government conducts its affairs is right and proper for them, so it is also for those large conglomerates set up to provide us with essential services. They too have huge numbers of users all out to defraud them, they too need to use fast effective methods to maintain their income stream, irrespective of consequence. Good enough for the Government, good enough for them to. No doubt you will have received those peremptory notices warning you have breached some terms of supply, that requires immediate compliance within some short timescale else some variant threat of bailiffs to seize goods, your life essentials, or of a court appearance where there will be a fine added to any amount owing together with their court costs estimated at some ridiculous eye watering number. It is just state endorsed bullying, no matter what way you look at it. The usual expectations of fairness and justice are unilaterally set aside by a superior organisation who consider that they are above such niceties. The simple niceties such as no prior presumption of guilt, of a right to offer a defence against an alleged offence and an impartial body, representing those twelve decent men on Clapham Bus, to adjudicate an outcome when disputed and on the appropriate retribution, cash or kind. That is our birth right.
Next time a political leader stands before you pontificating on the horrors of child bullying demand they ensure that all legislation they endorse enshrines the principle of fairness to all with no bullying no matter what age, creed, race or social status.
Not just the unemployed, naturally, anyone who has the misfortune to depend on the State can be a prime target for State bullying. These are the unwashed masses beneath contempt so it is perfectly alright. Brought up a family now living in a home too big for you, out on the streets or pay a rent increase way beyond your already stretched finances. Do not bleed broken here to us, the smug comfortable, about lack of alternate choice, having to move away from a work/family support network to a distant strange town or your pathetic special caring needs. Get over it. Greater needs must. The greater need is that untouchable Ministry, the Treasury, beyond any reason or argument. When they say 20% budget reduction. Jump to it, comply. When they say reduce welfare costs, cut, slash, importune what the hell it is only the unwashed masses that no one cares a fig about. When they say increase income, turf out lifelong sitting tenants so the now vacant property can be sold at a premium prices to ex-yuppies. Never mind that these same properties were bequeathed to the Nation for the Nation's custodianship of its cultural heritage. Nope, Treasury says raise money, compliance is the only acceptable response.
Just keep in mind that the Government's tactic for the past decade or more is it to defuse blame to some lower level quango's, pseudo government offices or other administrative functions whilst retaining the moral high ground of making decision for the good of the people. Look at us see what we have decided, then failing to make money available to properly implement that decision. Then they can look down at those diffused lower administrations, tut, and say what failure, how under resourced, making such bad judgements calls, a disgrace. It is called a Government WinWin. What ever results comes out of their short sighted policies, they are Teflon coated, nothing sticks on them!
Of course if manner by the Government conducts its affairs is right and proper for them, so it is also for those large conglomerates set up to provide us with essential services. They too have huge numbers of users all out to defraud them, they too need to use fast effective methods to maintain their income stream, irrespective of consequence. Good enough for the Government, good enough for them to. No doubt you will have received those peremptory notices warning you have breached some terms of supply, that requires immediate compliance within some short timescale else some variant threat of bailiffs to seize goods, your life essentials, or of a court appearance where there will be a fine added to any amount owing together with their court costs estimated at some ridiculous eye watering number. It is just state endorsed bullying, no matter what way you look at it. The usual expectations of fairness and justice are unilaterally set aside by a superior organisation who consider that they are above such niceties. The simple niceties such as no prior presumption of guilt, of a right to offer a defence against an alleged offence and an impartial body, representing those twelve decent men on Clapham Bus, to adjudicate an outcome when disputed and on the appropriate retribution, cash or kind. That is our birth right.
Next time a political leader stands before you pontificating on the horrors of child bullying demand they ensure that all legislation they endorse enshrines the principle of fairness to all with no bullying no matter what age, creed, race or social status.
Thursday, 1 May 2014
All the World is a lie
Should I be the cause of a car accident I am required to lie and not admit to being the cause of the accident otherwise my car insurance will be repudiated. I know I caused the accident but cannot say so. The injured party/ies may protest and may clearly elucidate the sequence of events but I am not allowed to agree with them. Obviously I understand that in all the pent up emotions at that moment of an accident my perspective on the events may be distorted. Clearly unscrupulous 'victims' may seek to take advantage of that vulnerability and push events to demonstrate their 'innocence' to their insurance companies advantage. So yes there are grey areas and we need to be on guard against free admissions where there might be elements of doubt. But not to the point of requiring me to institutionally lie against the plain evidence. When the sequence of events, the facts of the case, are clear to all and witnesses, when does a no comment become a lie. It is a lie if you know the true cause but choose, or are required, not to admit it.
We see time after time, exemplary investigations into corporate failings of one ilk or another, be it meat not as described, irresponsible lending to clearly insolvent clients, to plain manufacturing defects or flawed materials or staff failing to provide the level of care required, and the institution at the centre, twist and turns, shifts focus, counter claims against another party, anything other than admit they failed to act in a timely fashion. In this litigious world we now live in any slight admission will be the staring pistol for a host of damage claims, real, exaggerated to the pure fanciful. All of which would have to be defended at considerable cost even should not guilty as charged be the final outcome. Any admission, no matter how slight, inflames the counter case, hinders the assembly of a not guilty argument. No wonder companies are loath to admit. The end result, the victims, those who suffered as a consequence of bad decision made by others, are left without restitution, with the stigma of blame left in their laps, unable to overcome the mountainous costs of initiating actions against well-heeled corporates. Corporates who can afford to weather the storm of claims, knowing few can succeed against them and that time with eventually erase any suspicion's, so long as they do not concede to any failings. Despite all the clear unambiguous contrary evidence. Dissemble, misdirect, be economical with the truth, even bare faced lie rather than agree to the truth. Company policy.
Our elected representatives, appointed to promote our well-being are now schooled in the craft of avoiding answering direct questions. Anything that might give rise to concerns, or might put in doubt past decisions, that may give an opponent a free scoring point, might upset an important voting or funding cadre, anything that does not have a positive upbeat outturn is to be side-stepped. Far better to answer your own question you are comfortable in answering than answer the actual question posed that might lead you into troubled waters. Of course the baying pack of hyena media is there snapping at your heels just waiting for that gaff. Any gaff, ill at ease posture or unfortunate turn of phrase, waiting to maximise and ridicule to their waiting audience. Never admit to any mistake, no matter how small as it will be turned into defacto incompetence of government, leadership, policy flaw, loss of voter confidence, anything that may help mud stick. When you speak as an MP the credulity of your party is on the line, so keep to safe issues which will have a favourable reception. Never mind what you actually think, did or did not do. Keeping voters loyal is far more important than esoteric concerns such as honesty or truth.
Our past choices make the Society we now live in. Nothing is immutable, we can change what we have chosen, we can choose to go in different directions from now on. Language is so clear, yet so fickle. The words I speak, or write, will resonate differently to each one of you. You will each form your own unique interpretation of my words. The words are the same, but being unique individuals with our past we bring our own different levels in meaning, experience and judgements to the self same words. What each of us does have to do is seek to choose those words which are as close to the truth, the essence, of what you want to say as you can. The more serious the subject area the more rigorous we have to be. We cannot afford the dashed off but instantly regretted Text or EMail. The recipients reaction to a careless choice of phrase cannot be brushed aside with an oophs, the damage can be lasting, tainting the relationship well into the future. We owe it to each other to be as truthful as we possibly can with each other. I don't buy the white lie, (see also my It is not important) the truth will out, eventually, meanwhile you live in a sham, concealing, obscuring your true thoughts, (see also News Propaganda). No one will ever know? Do you believe that you too are so inept at reading people that you could be fooled?
We live in a matrix society, having to deal with a wide range of peoples from all sort of alien, to us, backgrounds. If you can no longer trust anyone to speak the truth, to be honest, just how are you going to negotiate your way in this Society? Truth is the core trust that binds our Society together. Trust in the truth is what empowers us to make contracts with all those strangers we daily encounter. The next time you witness a Politician, a Company Executive evading giving a direct answer or you are required to agree to lie, pause and ask yourself, "Is this the Society I want to live in?"
Answer truthfully.
We see time after time, exemplary investigations into corporate failings of one ilk or another, be it meat not as described, irresponsible lending to clearly insolvent clients, to plain manufacturing defects or flawed materials or staff failing to provide the level of care required, and the institution at the centre, twist and turns, shifts focus, counter claims against another party, anything other than admit they failed to act in a timely fashion. In this litigious world we now live in any slight admission will be the staring pistol for a host of damage claims, real, exaggerated to the pure fanciful. All of which would have to be defended at considerable cost even should not guilty as charged be the final outcome. Any admission, no matter how slight, inflames the counter case, hinders the assembly of a not guilty argument. No wonder companies are loath to admit. The end result, the victims, those who suffered as a consequence of bad decision made by others, are left without restitution, with the stigma of blame left in their laps, unable to overcome the mountainous costs of initiating actions against well-heeled corporates. Corporates who can afford to weather the storm of claims, knowing few can succeed against them and that time with eventually erase any suspicion's, so long as they do not concede to any failings. Despite all the clear unambiguous contrary evidence. Dissemble, misdirect, be economical with the truth, even bare faced lie rather than agree to the truth. Company policy.
Our elected representatives, appointed to promote our well-being are now schooled in the craft of avoiding answering direct questions. Anything that might give rise to concerns, or might put in doubt past decisions, that may give an opponent a free scoring point, might upset an important voting or funding cadre, anything that does not have a positive upbeat outturn is to be side-stepped. Far better to answer your own question you are comfortable in answering than answer the actual question posed that might lead you into troubled waters. Of course the baying pack of hyena media is there snapping at your heels just waiting for that gaff. Any gaff, ill at ease posture or unfortunate turn of phrase, waiting to maximise and ridicule to their waiting audience. Never admit to any mistake, no matter how small as it will be turned into defacto incompetence of government, leadership, policy flaw, loss of voter confidence, anything that may help mud stick. When you speak as an MP the credulity of your party is on the line, so keep to safe issues which will have a favourable reception. Never mind what you actually think, did or did not do. Keeping voters loyal is far more important than esoteric concerns such as honesty or truth.
Our past choices make the Society we now live in. Nothing is immutable, we can change what we have chosen, we can choose to go in different directions from now on. Language is so clear, yet so fickle. The words I speak, or write, will resonate differently to each one of you. You will each form your own unique interpretation of my words. The words are the same, but being unique individuals with our past we bring our own different levels in meaning, experience and judgements to the self same words. What each of us does have to do is seek to choose those words which are as close to the truth, the essence, of what you want to say as you can. The more serious the subject area the more rigorous we have to be. We cannot afford the dashed off but instantly regretted Text or EMail. The recipients reaction to a careless choice of phrase cannot be brushed aside with an oophs, the damage can be lasting, tainting the relationship well into the future. We owe it to each other to be as truthful as we possibly can with each other. I don't buy the white lie, (see also my It is not important) the truth will out, eventually, meanwhile you live in a sham, concealing, obscuring your true thoughts, (see also News Propaganda). No one will ever know? Do you believe that you too are so inept at reading people that you could be fooled?
We live in a matrix society, having to deal with a wide range of peoples from all sort of alien, to us, backgrounds. If you can no longer trust anyone to speak the truth, to be honest, just how are you going to negotiate your way in this Society? Truth is the core trust that binds our Society together. Trust in the truth is what empowers us to make contracts with all those strangers we daily encounter. The next time you witness a Politician, a Company Executive evading giving a direct answer or you are required to agree to lie, pause and ask yourself, "Is this the Society I want to live in?"
Answer truthfully.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)