the Bogeyman cometh

The recent serious loss of service experienced by many social network site, I include Google in this, could simply be due to the paranoia of nations states as they try to syphon off the ever increasing chatter, within their own country and equally that of friendly or foe states. The secret state surveillances that we know are taking place may be failing top keep up with the traffic growth. It is possible that their collective snooping has crashed the very sites they are so desperately keen to snoop on.

All for our own good and safety of course. If it was not for their constant vigilant monitoring we would be overwhelmed by all those terrorists out there for ever creating ever more sophisticated plots to overthrow us. On the scale of probabilities I am most likely to die in a car accident than encounter anything even peripheral to terrorist action. Set aside the probables in life and let us look at more extreme scenarios. I am much more likely to be raped or knifed in a street brawl than suffer even a minor graze resulting from a terrorist action. The collective paranoia and the accumulative hype about terrorism far exceeds the capacity of the terrorists to action. They do not have any super-powers, they do not have laboratories with highly skilled technicians dreaming up ever more complex devices, they do not have a highly organised and covert secret organisations able to baffle and confuse, no. They are relative simpletons, bumbling along making it up as they go along, limited to a few devotees and preying on the disaffected, disillusioned and despairing youth who are willing to commit suicide by strapping bombs to themselves. This is the true cost of the social inequality that is being so vigorously promoted, disaffected youth beyond hope.

We live with the awareness of unimaginable horrors, large numbers of people dying unexpectedly in dreadful circumstances, but we get on with life, we dont freeze up and cancel life. Not just natural disasters either, but man disasters. Planes do fall out of the sky, from time to time, we carry on flying, learn the lessons, but life carries on as normal. A few extreme acts of terrorism have been carried out, no one can forget the shock of 9/11, shocking but isolated, yes and in the scale of daily events exceptional. Sometimes through our own inefficiencies they get in their view, lucky. But terrorist acts are not the norm, they are not a constant in daily life. Despite what our security services would have us believe. This motley incompetent collection of the disaffected, that talk big, boast about their 'elaborate' plans but seldom have the nonce to succeed, are talked up by the security services. They promote them to arch enemy status and invest in them all the skills needed to justify the ever more elaborate defensive screens the security services think would be nice to employ. The Government, being the government, have to be seen to act, so can only support the only advice they can turn to, and up the security screen to the next level. There by confering on the bumbling terrorist the prize of being taken seriously and more credible than they are in reality.

The collective fear that has been talked up is just a later day version of the witch hunt. The Inquisition were on the hunt for witches, our Security Services are on the hunt for terrorists. The Inquisition were on the look out for covens, our Security surveillance seeks out terrorists cells. The Inquisition duck boarded witches to prove their innocence, we water-board our suspects to prove they are not terrorists. The Inquisition had to protect society from the evil spells cast by witches, the Security Services have to protect us from being radicalised. The Inquisition required everyman to denounce his neighbour, the Security Service listen in to all our gossip and speculations. The Inquisition looked for trademark features of witches, the Security Services check suspects against their radicalised muslim profile. The Inquisition and our Security Services justify their actions for the safety and peace of the State. We are degraded by their actions in our name. We are intimidated into giving up precious freedoms and rights for fear of the dire consequences that otherwise will arise, or so we are told. The terrorist wins the long game when we close down every day actions in anticipation, when we abandon cherished high ideals because of what they might do. When fear enters the mind and displaces rational thought, the terrorists have won.

Drawing a line

Eddie Shah's plea of foul sounds hollow, just because he was caught doing what a lot of others were doing at the time does not absolve him for being responsible for his own action. He is right of course there is a distinction to be made between the actual act of violating another person against their wishes and a technical definition of a act against a minor.

An adult of course has an overiding duty and a responsibility to protect the innocence of youth, to understand their immaturity, their gush of unchannelled surging hormone and rising desires with their lack of perception of the realities against the fantasises in their so vivid minds. That is why we have the technical definition of rape with a minor, consummated or not, to protect our not yet adult and mature young. Fine.


If an innocent and naive pubescent youth decides to strip off their clothes and gyrate infront of a adult male to draw their attention to them and that that adult male decides to consumate their sexual arousal, it is not an unexpected consequence. Maybe the youth had no comprehension of what consequences might follow but they had put themselves in a very vulnerable and highly sexually charged position, not the best spot for cool dispassionate reflection. Still not right. The adult being the adult should control their desires even when provoked by a 'willing' minor clearly lacking in modesty or inhibition. Not right , not defensible but understandable perhaps in the circumstances.


What we, our society, has to ask are the harder questions. Why is a minor so free of all restaint or guardianship as to be alone with a unknown adult, so free as to be able to shed their clothes? How come our minors consumption of sexually provocative images and behaviours are so common place that they think it right or natural for them too to act that way? Why do our youth reject the counsel of older and closer family members and instead become fixated with illusions of celebrity razzmatazz. Why are our teens so resentful of authority and so willing to flout any self-control, getting so blinded out of their minds as to be incapable of making any judgement of their exposure to risk. We have a youth mentoring problem. This cult of the youth, this rapacious selling to the youth market, this capitulation to a youth driven agenda has supplanted the norms of restraint and caution. 

So clearly Eddie Shah was wrong to take advantage of a minor, offering what a minor should never ever have been in a position to offer, but we too are to blame for allowing our minor's to get so beyond our reach that they feel no constraints on their actions. Our duty is to protect them in a safe enough environment until they have matured enough to make their own mistakes when they have some skills in realising the consequences. We, not just Eddie Shah, have failed them all.

Got a pram?

Not so long ago, maybe as little as ten years back, when a major significant government plan was announced, we gasped when the number of millions it would involve were revealed. Nowadays millions are ten a penny, still large but no longer significant or a rarity. How many home owners in the home counties now have a pad worth a million plus, can you still buy a property in London for less than a million? Today's currency is now billions, but large corporation toss around their billions will a devil may care attitude, a billion is coming to be small change for governments and our multinationals. The trillion is beginning to creep into our every day vocabulary.  

Look in your pocket, do you any longer bother to count the pennies? No. Their value has become worth so little they are just a nuisance loose change. It will not be long before the penny drops out of our currency and a ten pound coin is introduced. So what is going on. Quantitative easing, that is what is going on. Sounds so technical, so solid and so reassuring no need to inquire further what is quantitative easing. Just a fancy name for printing more money or as we used to call it, inflation. Lots of quasi professors of economics theories are strutting around telling the world about these wonder clothes that solve all the world problems, clothes called 'quantitative easing', invisible to all but those who cling on to hope that they are real. How they oooh and aaah about the beauty of these invisible clothes and how they smooth out all their problems. Just fantasy.

Cast your mind back to the Deutsch Mark pre-WWII, remember how we laughed at the germans having to wheel their pram loads of money to buy a loaf of bread only to find they now needed two prams of money for the same loaf when they got there. That is called inflation. That is the 'rescue' path we are now on. Print more money, keep on spending and the pains of excessive loans will just disappear. Fine if you are locked into the gravy train that shovels more money into your account for every new shed load of money printed. For the likes of you and I where our income is frozen, or more likely reducing, the ever escalating prices of all those goods we need to survive put our very survival into jeopardy. Got a pram anyone, I need to buy a loaf of bread?

Salaried MP's

I have no axe to grind whether MP's get a salary increase or not. What really worries me is the idea that an MP is in salaried employment. A career MP! Old fashioned as I maybe I thought politics was all about being driven by some principal, some sense of social well being, the desire to serve the Nation and to its citizens. I cannot square these two views. If you are salaried, your career depends on you hanging on in there, going with the flow, keeping hold of your job by finding the middle non-contentious ground so you are always in employment. Surely this is the exact opposite of what our MP's should be doing?

The vary last comparison I would want to make with an MP is a Bank employer or even a Doctor or Teacher. A career requires you to compromise, to fit-in with the aims of your current employer, to subsume your own aspirations and get behind what ever is the current corporate objective, no matter what your personal views. I really do expect an MP to have ideals, to believe in and standby those ideals, to argue and fight for those ideals and to be prepared to stand-down if those ideals fail to win majority support.

Everyone should be eligible to stand as an MP, irrespective of background and certainly not restricted only to those of independent means. Therefore so that those in the lowest paid sectors of  society too have the real option I can agree that a non-discriminatory income needs to go with being elected. Clearly the cost of representing a northern seat is of a different order to the cost of that in one of the Home Counties. The incurred costs of representing your seat should be funded by the Nation. Why does a healthcare worker on or near the minimum wage need to put on a salary scale on par with a Doctor, Bank Manger or Teacher just to serve as an MP? If you are not on the minimum wage you can afford the gamble, if your passion to serve is strong enough, to resume your career if the gamble fails. You are sufficiently well cushioned that you do not need any state intervention to be able to stand, if chosen.

Being an MP opens many doors of opportunities. It gives you an unparalleled access to a wide network of contacts that would never be possible without serving as an MP. Many perfectly legal opportunities open up, during and subsequent to your seat as are very many more totally unacceptable and highly dubious opportunities to cream off the top. That is why we want our MP's to be driven by principle and not by greed. So an income just above minimum wage, sufficient to ensure all can serve. The running costs actually incurred and verified to be reimbursed. If gifted person are thereby discouraged from offering themselves because they might lose out on the deal then the Nation does not need them and is far better off without their opportunism. So principled persons with a desire to serve, roll up roll up!

Postscript. Should MP's use First Class travel? No, no, no special privileges to set them apart. They must live the lives of all other citizens who have to cope with the rules they pass through parliament. If anything their lives should be made more onerous, be wide open to the full wrath of the state against the citizen. I would like to see MP's sign on weekly and then have to justify that they were working full time as an MP and did attend parliament session before they could claim their wage and expenses.

Smug to Judge

A scientific study has shown that the wealthy sic successful become desensitised to the real problems other 'unsuccessful' people face. They become harsher and more willing to be critical of failure to achieve without those benefits that their own success bestows on them. Quickly forgetting the past struggles they had to surmount those same problems that suddenly disappeared when they had the added clout of success. Success does indeed breed an attitude of success which then surmounts obstacles.

Vince Cable generally gives the impression of someone who has ideas and does test them before mouthing out. So I was taken aback when he took a neutral line with Zero Hour Contracts. How can you be neutral? This is abusive advantage taking of the vulnerable. It is disgraceful, how can any MP condone such practice.

The unemployed are pressurised and intimidated by the real possibility of benefit withdrawal unless they can weekly demonstrate they are seeking work and are willing to take work any offered. There are no middle grounds. They are subjected to weekly scrutiny by uncivil servants to see to just that. Uncivil servants that are no doubt themselves performance monitored to ensure they wrinkle out the target margins.

Potential Employers can hang out the bait of work and can then haul in a rich harvest of unemployed desperate to keep their benefits alive. All without cost or commitment from them, just hang this out on the line of hope and expectation. Zero hours means they contract nothing but the lure of a promise, yet require the applicant to to commit to making themselves available at a moments notice. To be plucked, at their leisure, if and when they have a passing moment off work increase. Outrageous. Totally an unfair terms contract.

The most evil act one person can play on another is to falsely raise hope and expectations. All the more so when that other person is vulnerable, threatened and in need of hope. A hope that is going to based on the shallow insubstantial offer of a possible something in the wind. Wake up Ed Balls there are no positives, this is an evil manifest.

Nothing Changes

Just watched ITV Secrets from the Workhouse. You make up your own mind about the worth of the show. What struck me so forcibly was the Victorian attitude to the sick lame and the poor. Demonised and publicly judged to be malingers, the shiftless workshy who had to be punished and humiliated back into a proper wish for work.These same Victorians that I had always assumed had such proud high moral standards and lived within such very straight-laced ethics. These Victorians from the security of their mansions, surrounded by a bevy of servants with access to all the riches from across the world felt able to judge those that failed to succeed.

Despite a brief interlude where the Welfare State put such judgemental views firmly behind us and set out to help all those that fell, back onto their feet to gave them support for another chance to make a go of it. We are back at square one.

On our behalf, our government sets out to demonise all those out of work or taking benefits of one kind or another, casting them as lazy, work-shy fraudulent abuses of the system. We have turned a full circle and are back with the Victorians attitudes condemning all those that have not yet leapt onto the gravy train was worthless. Sanctimonious hypocrisy.

If the government cannot learn and understand that we are all dragged down by the poor and deprived within our society. That all our lives are degraded by the consequences of having a sector of our society without hope, despair, loss of self-esteem. We shall have to teach them. We shall have to speak loud and clear to them and tell them that giving the rich even more access to even more riches can only be done by taking more from one sector, the least well off. This is not sustainable. You cannot blame the sick, lame or poor for failing. You have to help them, you have show compassion, not condemnation.

Entitlement

We all live with the presumption we are entitled to certain basics in life, be it shelter, food, education, employment, care, security, privacy or dignity. Should you live in a deprived part of our globe none of these can be taken for granted. That you are alive at this moment and might reasonably assume you will be alive for the next hour or perhaps the rest of the day is as far as you can presume anything. We however take our entitlements to the life we have for granted and are so casual to the point of indifference in seeking out and protecting what we have. After all it is our birthright.

We are entitled to nothing. Everything we do get comes only from the goodwill of society and that it is prepared to fund. It may well be in societies long term best interests to arrange everyone to have dry warm shelter, to have access to good nutritious food, to ensure children are educated. Without these basic steps the scale of consequential problems soar and scupper any societies attempts to hold the line. Does not turn it into a right, just a self-interest to do what is seen to be possible.

What is possible is all in the eye of the beholder, not the supplicants, not the egalitarian evangelist, not the pressure groups, just the one beholder who has the gift of deciding for that moment. Okay not entirely free choice as they too have to bow to media reactions, funding limitations,  public opinion, world expectations and their own sense of destiny. How our basic needs are catered for come down to whim and fancy. A far cry from any right and not even an entitlement.

Of course our one core entitlement is our privacy, that is sacrosanct. To have your privacy invaded is equal to being raped. Yet the State takes on itself to enter you anally, take you without notice and lock you up without any contact with the outside world, read all electronic communications, now and in the past, irrespective of subject or address, store your gene record to be read for whatever purpose its see fit and all in the name of some ill-defined Security of the State. Not just the State of course but any number of other bodies, even private commercial firms, are too granted the right to enter your property, with or without your consent, to take information or property it deems necessary. Your right to privacy is pretty shallow based. Just dont show your head above the parapet! Remember these things do happen to just ordinary people, just like you and me, not those evil twisted people, just ordinary guys caught up in some maelstrom they little know about or understand.

Never mind an englishmans home is his castle, so pull up the drawbridge. Not quite.  For example, the software you buy does not give you ownership, in many cases it just a licence to use with even restrictions on how you sell it on. Of course your music, video, DVD have restrictions on where or how you use it or make copies of it. Without touching on leases and ground rent, your house, the house that you own, may well have a charge on it. That charge might permit some other body to seize it and evict you from your own home. Extreme maybe but do not blithely assume just because you have bought something it is yours for ever and a day. It all depends on the sinuous threads of attachment other bodies have wrapped around your purchases.

We have no rights, we have no entitlements just many expectations, reasonable and wide spread expectations. The fundamental expectation that the you will be treated fairly and not significantly disadvantageously from any other person in your social milieu. Time for you to look around. In this rapidly increasing unequal society where those with take even more whilst those without, the least able to give anything, have to give up so they can have their more. Fairness and equity have gone out of the window. Your protectors of your rights, the MP's, have abandoned principle and sold out to personal betterment, financial clout or the mindless middle ground of dont rock the boat as we too might still climb aboard. Greed and self-interest abound. You are a drift at the mercy of whim and fancy without an entitlement to your name. Be afraid, be very afraid.