In August 1939 the British signed a defensive agreement with Poland to try to stave off an imminent invasion of our ally. In September Nazi German and the Soviet Union invaded Poland and divided up the spoils. What followed is well recorded and millions of Poles suffered at the hands of the Germans and Soviets - millions died and there was a pogrom against the Jews.
Britain and France declared war on Germany as a result of the invasion of Poland but neither nation had the military power to save Poland.
Many Polish people fled Poland and thousands of Polish servicemen fought alongside the British Army to rid Europe of the scourge of Hitler. Many brave Polish pilots flew alongside the RAF to win the Battle of Britain and save our nation from Nazi tyranny.
At the end of the Second World War the three great powers: the US,GB and the USSR divided up Europe. Poland was to fall under the sphere of influence of the USSR and Stalin's tyranny. The British no longer felt that Poland was worth fighting for and we let them down.
The nation which Britain originally went to war for was left to its own devices.
In 1990 East Germany was absorbed by the West German Federal Republic and millions of East Germans found themselves becoming "citizens" of the European Union. There was no vote and East Germany did not have to make any application. East Germans were free to travel anywhere in the EU including the UK. No-one cared.
In 1990 Poland more or less became a state which was independent of the USSR and of course Polish citizens expressed the desire for their country to join the EU. The Poles had to wait until 2004 to join. It was my view at the time that Poland had as much right to join the EU as East Germany, and that Poland should have been admitted to the EU too, without question. Britain could easily have insisted upon this as a quid pro quo for East German incorporation but failed to do so. Britain was later, however, one of Poland's greatest supporters in its quest to join the EU.
Since 2004 Poland has been a model state within the EU. Many of its citizens have come to Britain to improve not just their lives but the life of Britain as well. Britain has a moral obligation and a duty to welcome our Polish friends as many of their fore fathers gave their lives to help Britain in its hour of need.
There is no excuse for the xenophobia and prejudice which some people in Britain are now showing towards Polish and other European citizens who have settled in Britain. They are entitled to be treated the same as any British citizen. Poland, Romania and Bulgaria expected to be treated as equals when they were invited to join the EU and they were entitled to be. Britain cannot change the rules because of the attitude of xenophobes.
If we did not want Poles, Romanians and Bulgarians to have the right of freedom of movement throughout the EU then we, in Britain, should have vetoed their application to join. We did not do this at the time as we wanted to expand our markets and make money. What sort of country would Britain turn out to be if it only welcomed people's money rather than the people themselves?
The Poles would be right not to trust us as if we let them down again.
Wednesday, 23 December 2015
Wednesday, 16 December 2015
UK Astronaut Tim Peake
Good luck to Tim Peake:I watched him take off for the International Space Station but why was there all the flag waving and hype about his journey in the British press and media? Tim Peake was not making history as over 300 astronauts have already made it to the ISS. He was just making British history.
The UK is no longer a world power in the military or economic sense and it ranks well down the pecking order when it comes to space endeavour. Britain was one of the first countries to launch a satellite into space with a made made rocket but it now lags behind France, India, The US, Russia and China.
Tim Peake's bravery, intelligence and demeanour makes up for the lack of commitment of the UK to make a full contribution to the International space effort. The British government has only committed to one trip for a British astronaut but hopefully it can find the money for more.
It was great to see Tim Peake enter the ISS from the Russian made Soyuz space capsule and no doubt his friends and family were rightly proud of him. Tim is proud of his country and proud to wear the Union Jack. However, was all the flag waving by the British press and media necessary? Tim got there by courtesy of the Russians, the Americans and, dare I say it, our European partners.
If our astronaut had got to the ISS by way of a British rocket and spaceship then our nation would be doing something for which we could be really proud and we could could all wave the flag.
Britain has some great aeronautical engineers and they need our support to get us back into space with our own kit.
Skylon is one such project - the British government is supporting this and hopefully it will be as successful as Tim Peake.
http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/johnpreece/2013/09/06/sabre-skylon-and-the-british-aerospace
http://rocketeers.co.uk/taxonomy/term/42
The UK is no longer a world power in the military or economic sense and it ranks well down the pecking order when it comes to space endeavour. Britain was one of the first countries to launch a satellite into space with a made made rocket but it now lags behind France, India, The US, Russia and China.
Tim Peake's bravery, intelligence and demeanour makes up for the lack of commitment of the UK to make a full contribution to the International space effort. The British government has only committed to one trip for a British astronaut but hopefully it can find the money for more.
It was great to see Tim Peake enter the ISS from the Russian made Soyuz space capsule and no doubt his friends and family were rightly proud of him. Tim is proud of his country and proud to wear the Union Jack. However, was all the flag waving by the British press and media necessary? Tim got there by courtesy of the Russians, the Americans and, dare I say it, our European partners.
If our astronaut had got to the ISS by way of a British rocket and spaceship then our nation would be doing something for which we could be really proud and we could could all wave the flag.
Britain has some great aeronautical engineers and they need our support to get us back into space with our own kit.
Skylon is one such project - the British government is supporting this and hopefully it will be as successful as Tim Peake.
http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/johnpreece/2013/09/06/sabre-skylon-and-the-british-aerospace
http://rocketeers.co.uk/taxonomy/term/42
Tuesday, 8 December 2015
BBC Sports Personality of The Year
We now have another controversy where megaphone protesters are demanding that Tyson Fury is removed from the candidates to become BBC Sports Personality Of The Year.
Tyson Fury is entitled to his opinion and provided he does not try to incite others to commit violent acts or indulge in hate crime then he can say what he likes as far as I am concerned. The same opinions can be heard in pubs and religious establishments all over the country.
It is no use the BBC, however, saying that he is just a sportsman who has won a sporting event. The BBC has turned sport into a pageant and a carnival with its sports review of the year. This annual event is now more of a celebrity forum rather than a celebration of sporting prowess. It is bound to attract criticism when it invites controversial figures to take part in this mawkish nonsense.
Most of the sports people who appear on the programme hardly have strong personalities and every year they mumble the same old platitudes of how they could not have done this or that without the support of their family or a trainer. They do not utter any opinion of real value or controversy.
Why do they appear on this programme where mutual back slapping is the order of the day? They have been well rewarded already with their medals, belts and cups and plenty of money if they are professionals. Why do they need public acclamation and a silver television camera as well?
The programme has got a hackneyed format where sporting professional "luvvies" pat themselves on the back to the sound of schmaltzy music.
Amateur sportsmen and women,who really keep the sporting life of the nation going, never get any real recognition and their opinions do not matter in the age of celebrity culture.
Why doesn't the BBC do us all a favour and stop broadcasting this awful programme every year. No one will really miss anything; as sports fans will have already recorded their favourite sporting event and all that they will be missing is the cheesiness of it all.
The BBC could invite Tyson Fury to defend his opinions on BBC Question Time to see if he can go a few rounds with the real people in the audience. I think that the audience might win on points.
The BBC should replace Sports Personality Of The Year with a re-run of the 2015 Last Night Of The Proms. Marin Alsop's conducting, performance and opinions are worthy of any forum.
http://www.marinalsop.com/news/marin-alsop-returns-to-conduct-the-last-night-of-the-bbc-proms-2015/
Tyson Fury is entitled to his opinion and provided he does not try to incite others to commit violent acts or indulge in hate crime then he can say what he likes as far as I am concerned. The same opinions can be heard in pubs and religious establishments all over the country.
It is no use the BBC, however, saying that he is just a sportsman who has won a sporting event. The BBC has turned sport into a pageant and a carnival with its sports review of the year. This annual event is now more of a celebrity forum rather than a celebration of sporting prowess. It is bound to attract criticism when it invites controversial figures to take part in this mawkish nonsense.
Most of the sports people who appear on the programme hardly have strong personalities and every year they mumble the same old platitudes of how they could not have done this or that without the support of their family or a trainer. They do not utter any opinion of real value or controversy.
Why do they appear on this programme where mutual back slapping is the order of the day? They have been well rewarded already with their medals, belts and cups and plenty of money if they are professionals. Why do they need public acclamation and a silver television camera as well?
The programme has got a hackneyed format where sporting professional "luvvies" pat themselves on the back to the sound of schmaltzy music.
Amateur sportsmen and women,who really keep the sporting life of the nation going, never get any real recognition and their opinions do not matter in the age of celebrity culture.
Why doesn't the BBC do us all a favour and stop broadcasting this awful programme every year. No one will really miss anything; as sports fans will have already recorded their favourite sporting event and all that they will be missing is the cheesiness of it all.
The BBC could invite Tyson Fury to defend his opinions on BBC Question Time to see if he can go a few rounds with the real people in the audience. I think that the audience might win on points.
The BBC should replace Sports Personality Of The Year with a re-run of the 2015 Last Night Of The Proms. Marin Alsop's conducting, performance and opinions are worthy of any forum.
http://www.marinalsop.com/news/marin-alsop-returns-to-conduct-the-last-night-of-the-bbc-proms-2015/
Wednesday, 2 December 2015
Bombing Syria again
Tonight the UK parliament will vote whether to bomb ISIS in Syria or not. I have no doubt that parliament will vote to approve the proposed military action. This will be a mistake. I can think of only one case where a country or military force has capitulated as a result of bombing and that is Japan at the end of the second world war. The use of nuclear weapons changed the course of the war and Japan's eventual surrender. Even after the the first nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima the military leaders were reluctant to surrender; it was only after a second nuclear bomb was dropped on Nagasaki that the Emperor of Japan insisted that the war was over.
The US lost the Vietnam war even they they had dropped more conventional bombs on North Vietnam than bombs dropped in the second world war.
The Iraq war was "won" only with the aid of troops on the ground and the peace was lost.
Likewise the bombing of Libya by Britain and France gained a hollow victory which eventually left a power vacuum, some of which has been filled by ISIS. Our enemy is growing stronger by feeding off the chaos caused by bombing. They are after all a guerilla army which is perfectly capable of digging itself in and fighting amongst the destruction. The bombing campaigns of Assad, Russia and the West have failed and will continue to do so until a force of troops is organised to defeat ISIS. Even if ISIS is defeated, in a conventional war sense, they will still be able to survive by fighting guerilla actions in Syria, Iraq and North Africa. ISIS will still be able to attack Europe using "fifth columnists" who have been inspired by a false cause. A bombing campaign alone will not achieve military or political results or any sort of victory.
The best method of achieving peace in both Iraq and Syria and Libya is by using diplomacy and political expediency which is under the guidance of the UN. The nations involved in the conflict will have to put aside their national interests and organise a ceasefire. Assad and the official Syrian regime should be prevailed upon to stop bombing civilians. Unofficial guerillas should be ordered to disarm and if they do not then a UN peacemaking force should do the job. After the ceasefire, a UN peacekeeping force should then protect the country until there are new elections. The international community might have to prepare for Syria being split up into new nations or being governed as a federation or confederation of states. Even if the UN is involved and is given the power to organise a settlement then peace will only come after many years.
There is really no alternative. The status quo has no hope of succeeding whilst all of the protagonists disagree about their objectives and the future for Syria. Britain's plan is to be part of a factional coalition that has no plan.Of course we should consider helping one of best friends and firmest allies - France. However, the French president has failed to obtain agreement for a grand coalition supported by both the US and Russia; whilst this situation persists there will be more innocent civilians killed and more brave airmen shot down. There will be more refugees and years more of tragic war.
Bombing and war should only ever be used as a last resort to resolve conflicts. I can think of only one war that I would have willing fought in and that is the war against Hitler who was determined to use violence despite the terrible consequences for his nation and him personally. Most other wars since the second world war could have been avoided or prevented by UN action. Bombing without purpose is simply futile and counter productive. We should not be so naive to believe that our enemy will not attack us back so more bloodshed should be expected - on European and US soil as well.
We need politicians who can lead us with sufficient imagination and rationality to recognise that bombing alone will not work. We need leaders who can organise a sensible coalition and act in concert with the UN. Sadly, this is not the case and I can only think that the horrors will continue for many more years to come. There is not much hope.
The US lost the Vietnam war even they they had dropped more conventional bombs on North Vietnam than bombs dropped in the second world war.
The Iraq war was "won" only with the aid of troops on the ground and the peace was lost.
Likewise the bombing of Libya by Britain and France gained a hollow victory which eventually left a power vacuum, some of which has been filled by ISIS. Our enemy is growing stronger by feeding off the chaos caused by bombing. They are after all a guerilla army which is perfectly capable of digging itself in and fighting amongst the destruction. The bombing campaigns of Assad, Russia and the West have failed and will continue to do so until a force of troops is organised to defeat ISIS. Even if ISIS is defeated, in a conventional war sense, they will still be able to survive by fighting guerilla actions in Syria, Iraq and North Africa. ISIS will still be able to attack Europe using "fifth columnists" who have been inspired by a false cause. A bombing campaign alone will not achieve military or political results or any sort of victory.
The best method of achieving peace in both Iraq and Syria and Libya is by using diplomacy and political expediency which is under the guidance of the UN. The nations involved in the conflict will have to put aside their national interests and organise a ceasefire. Assad and the official Syrian regime should be prevailed upon to stop bombing civilians. Unofficial guerillas should be ordered to disarm and if they do not then a UN peacemaking force should do the job. After the ceasefire, a UN peacekeeping force should then protect the country until there are new elections. The international community might have to prepare for Syria being split up into new nations or being governed as a federation or confederation of states. Even if the UN is involved and is given the power to organise a settlement then peace will only come after many years.
There is really no alternative. The status quo has no hope of succeeding whilst all of the protagonists disagree about their objectives and the future for Syria. Britain's plan is to be part of a factional coalition that has no plan.Of course we should consider helping one of best friends and firmest allies - France. However, the French president has failed to obtain agreement for a grand coalition supported by both the US and Russia; whilst this situation persists there will be more innocent civilians killed and more brave airmen shot down. There will be more refugees and years more of tragic war.
Bombing and war should only ever be used as a last resort to resolve conflicts. I can think of only one war that I would have willing fought in and that is the war against Hitler who was determined to use violence despite the terrible consequences for his nation and him personally. Most other wars since the second world war could have been avoided or prevented by UN action. Bombing without purpose is simply futile and counter productive. We should not be so naive to believe that our enemy will not attack us back so more bloodshed should be expected - on European and US soil as well.
We need politicians who can lead us with sufficient imagination and rationality to recognise that bombing alone will not work. We need leaders who can organise a sensible coalition and act in concert with the UN. Sadly, this is not the case and I can only think that the horrors will continue for many more years to come. There is not much hope.
Thursday, 5 November 2015
Sharm El-Sheik Flights
The British government has advised national airlines to stop flying in and out of Sharm El-Sheik as a result of suspicions surrounding the crash of the Russian Airline over the Sinai desert last Saturday. There is a suspicion that a bomb was planted on the plane.
The British government is right to exercise caution even though an air accident report has not been finished or concluded that the flight came down as a result of a bomb on board.
Some of the holidaymakers who are now stranded believe that the government should not have intervened and that individuals are responsible for their own safety. Many will disagree with this opinion. I support the British government's action as it is duty bound to protect the public as best it can. I feel that I am responsible for my own safety but I am more cautious than the government.
I am careful not to fly over a war zone just to go on holiday. In the past I have travelled a lot for business and often I felt very uncomfortable flying over the Middle East but I took a calculated risk. For a holiday in the sun, where I could go for a walk on a beach or a swim and then enjoy a glass of wine afterwards without disapproving looks or upsetting the locals I preferred Spain.
With regard to airport safety, security is often only tightened up after there has been an incident which means that if an airliner is victim of air piracy, a bombing or a ground to air missile, then there has been a fault in security. Travellers should be aware that governments and travel corporations may neglect security because of incompetence or a lack of will or both.
If the Russian airliner was downed by a ground to air missile fired by guerilla fighters then it may be dangerous to fly over the Sinai desert even if, officially, it remains open for air companies to use it. The area could now be unsafe to travel home from by air; but hopefully not.
If your government advises you not to travel to an area our country then you are probably better off heeding their advice; they might know something that you do not.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34730104
The British government is right to exercise caution even though an air accident report has not been finished or concluded that the flight came down as a result of a bomb on board.
Some of the holidaymakers who are now stranded believe that the government should not have intervened and that individuals are responsible for their own safety. Many will disagree with this opinion. I support the British government's action as it is duty bound to protect the public as best it can. I feel that I am responsible for my own safety but I am more cautious than the government.
I am careful not to fly over a war zone just to go on holiday. In the past I have travelled a lot for business and often I felt very uncomfortable flying over the Middle East but I took a calculated risk. For a holiday in the sun, where I could go for a walk on a beach or a swim and then enjoy a glass of wine afterwards without disapproving looks or upsetting the locals I preferred Spain.
With regard to airport safety, security is often only tightened up after there has been an incident which means that if an airliner is victim of air piracy, a bombing or a ground to air missile, then there has been a fault in security. Travellers should be aware that governments and travel corporations may neglect security because of incompetence or a lack of will or both.
If the Russian airliner was downed by a ground to air missile fired by guerilla fighters then it may be dangerous to fly over the Sinai desert even if, officially, it remains open for air companies to use it. The area could now be unsafe to travel home from by air; but hopefully not.
If your government advises you not to travel to an area our country then you are probably better off heeding their advice; they might know something that you do not.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34730104
Thursday, 8 October 2015
Syria
Russia has now decided to enter the fray and I suppose that this was predictable but I did not think this would happen. If it is wrong for the Western Powers to drop bombs on Syria and the Middle East then it is equally wrong for Russia to do the same.
All sides are also engaged in a propaganda war: "our bombs are better aimed than your bombs; your bombs are killing the good guys and only ours are killing the bad". It sounds like playground bullies lashing out at each other.
With Russia entering the conflict the dangers of an East -West hot war are only increased.
There is now also the possibility of Saudi Arabia and Iran entering the conflict directly but on different sides.
While the politicians are playing this dangerous game the ordinary Syrian citizen is set to suffer more. There will be more and more "collateral damage" and "accidental" killing of the innocent, more torture and more refugees.
More bombing will not solve the problem. Only, the United Nations can and it can only succeed when security council members set aside their national interests and act together to secure the peace. The ordinary Syrian citizen is not interested in war or religious conflict: he just wants peace.
If the UN cannot find a diplomatic solution then there is a case for a peace making military intervention which is preceded by an ultimatum for the local protagonists to disarm. Anyone who has committed torture or war crimes should then be sent to the Hague for trial. All this is possible if the super powers set aside their national interests.
What are the chances of this happening? None I fear. What is the chance of humanity surviving into the next millennium? Does it have to be none?
All sides are also engaged in a propaganda war: "our bombs are better aimed than your bombs; your bombs are killing the good guys and only ours are killing the bad". It sounds like playground bullies lashing out at each other.
With Russia entering the conflict the dangers of an East -West hot war are only increased.
There is now also the possibility of Saudi Arabia and Iran entering the conflict directly but on different sides.
While the politicians are playing this dangerous game the ordinary Syrian citizen is set to suffer more. There will be more and more "collateral damage" and "accidental" killing of the innocent, more torture and more refugees.
More bombing will not solve the problem. Only, the United Nations can and it can only succeed when security council members set aside their national interests and act together to secure the peace. The ordinary Syrian citizen is not interested in war or religious conflict: he just wants peace.
If the UN cannot find a diplomatic solution then there is a case for a peace making military intervention which is preceded by an ultimatum for the local protagonists to disarm. Anyone who has committed torture or war crimes should then be sent to the Hague for trial. All this is possible if the super powers set aside their national interests.
What are the chances of this happening? None I fear. What is the chance of humanity surviving into the next millennium? Does it have to be none?
Wednesday, 30 September 2015
Water on Mars
Recently, NASA has confirmed that during the Martian summer melt water runs on the planet. The presence of running water means that life could have developed on Mars and may still exist there today. We need to find out.
So far Space agencies have made considerable efforts to ensure that Mars and other planets and satellites have not been contaminated by microbes or other life forms from Earth. They need to redouble their efforts.
If a base is established on Mars, which exploits Martian resources, then the spacefarers will need to be ultra careful not introduce alien species. Mars should be protected for scientific research at all costs.
If life is discovered on Mars it must not be contaminated as it will be the most important discovery ever made: we will know that we are not "alone" in the Universe. It will be essential to know what are the differences between life on Earth and life on Mars. This knowledge will help us to survive and prosper on Earth.
There will be no excuses to develop Mars industrially or to exploit its resources. The human species has done so much damage to the Earth's environment because we have been unable to control or regulate ourselves. We need to suppress the desire to exploit our neighbour.
There are many who express the opinion that Mars should be populated by humans as part of a "Noah's Ark" project to ensure the survival of the human species against the threat of environmental collapse of even asteroid strikes. These opinions are disingenuous and I aver that they are an attempt to scare the the human population into taking unneeded action.
If we look after our planet we can ensure our survival for the foreseeable future and we could even survive long enough to evolve into a different species. The chances of the Earth being hit by a completely destructive meteorite or asteroid are low and we are unlikely to be hit in the near future. There is probably much more chance of our environment being seriously damaged by man-made climate change or war or both. Man-made threats could quite easily be regulated or even eliminated if we learn how control ourselves. Scientific research of the Martian environment will help show us how to preserve our own planet; but only if we are certain that our neighbouring planet has not been artificially contaminated.
There is little that we can do about the threat of a massive asteroid hitting us and we just have to learn to live with this fact. It is after all part of the natural evolution of the solar system.
Our future could be assured without he need to populate Mars just to create man-made climate change and environmental damage there.
An asteroid threat exists no matter which planet we live on and Mars is closer to the asteroid belt than the Earth, so we might be better off staying where we are.
So far Space agencies have made considerable efforts to ensure that Mars and other planets and satellites have not been contaminated by microbes or other life forms from Earth. They need to redouble their efforts.
If a base is established on Mars, which exploits Martian resources, then the spacefarers will need to be ultra careful not introduce alien species. Mars should be protected for scientific research at all costs.
If life is discovered on Mars it must not be contaminated as it will be the most important discovery ever made: we will know that we are not "alone" in the Universe. It will be essential to know what are the differences between life on Earth and life on Mars. This knowledge will help us to survive and prosper on Earth.
There will be no excuses to develop Mars industrially or to exploit its resources. The human species has done so much damage to the Earth's environment because we have been unable to control or regulate ourselves. We need to suppress the desire to exploit our neighbour.
There are many who express the opinion that Mars should be populated by humans as part of a "Noah's Ark" project to ensure the survival of the human species against the threat of environmental collapse of even asteroid strikes. These opinions are disingenuous and I aver that they are an attempt to scare the the human population into taking unneeded action.
If we look after our planet we can ensure our survival for the foreseeable future and we could even survive long enough to evolve into a different species. The chances of the Earth being hit by a completely destructive meteorite or asteroid are low and we are unlikely to be hit in the near future. There is probably much more chance of our environment being seriously damaged by man-made climate change or war or both. Man-made threats could quite easily be regulated or even eliminated if we learn how control ourselves. Scientific research of the Martian environment will help show us how to preserve our own planet; but only if we are certain that our neighbouring planet has not been artificially contaminated.
There is little that we can do about the threat of a massive asteroid hitting us and we just have to learn to live with this fact. It is after all part of the natural evolution of the solar system.
Our future could be assured without he need to populate Mars just to create man-made climate change and environmental damage there.
An asteroid threat exists no matter which planet we live on and Mars is closer to the asteroid belt than the Earth, so we might be better off staying where we are.
Tuesday, 25 August 2015
The refugee crisis
A substantial proportion of people migrating to Europe are refugees. Europe has a duty to help them. Many of these refugees are escaping from regimes which arguably are the most cruel in history.
The Western powers have mistakenly intervened by force in the Middle East but the armed forces of the Western powers have not indulged in deliberate cruelty and barbarity and they have acted in general within the confines of the Geneva convention. It was never the intention of the USA, Britain or France that irregular forces should take over in Iraq, Syria or Libya but this is what has happened as a result of military and political intervention and the failure to make provision for the peace. The civilian populations of these countries are now being exposed to the most dreadful cruelty inflicted by guerilla forces and their political supporters in the power vacuum left by the Western Powers. withdrawn.
To alleviate the suffering of the civilians in Syria and Iraq, Western powers have been forced to act with more military force. President Obama probably would not have got involved in the Iraq war to unseat Saddam Hussein but his hand is now being forced to contemplate further military action rather than achieve a diplomatic solution which now seems almost impossible. Interfering in Syria to unseat President Assad has been another costly mistake.
Whilst there is no peace in the Middle East, the Levant and North Africa there will be refugees. The USA, Britain and France have played a substantial role in creating the chaos of war, albeit unintentionally, but without forethought the peace was not provided for. This is why the USA, Britain and France must take responsibility for the victims of war. We did this in the Second World War - a conflict which we did not start. In this era we had real leaders namely, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle - perhaps we need them back.
The Western powers have mistakenly intervened by force in the Middle East but the armed forces of the Western powers have not indulged in deliberate cruelty and barbarity and they have acted in general within the confines of the Geneva convention. It was never the intention of the USA, Britain or France that irregular forces should take over in Iraq, Syria or Libya but this is what has happened as a result of military and political intervention and the failure to make provision for the peace. The civilian populations of these countries are now being exposed to the most dreadful cruelty inflicted by guerilla forces and their political supporters in the power vacuum left by the Western Powers. withdrawn.
To alleviate the suffering of the civilians in Syria and Iraq, Western powers have been forced to act with more military force. President Obama probably would not have got involved in the Iraq war to unseat Saddam Hussein but his hand is now being forced to contemplate further military action rather than achieve a diplomatic solution which now seems almost impossible. Interfering in Syria to unseat President Assad has been another costly mistake.
Whilst there is no peace in the Middle East, the Levant and North Africa there will be refugees. The USA, Britain and France have played a substantial role in creating the chaos of war, albeit unintentionally, but without forethought the peace was not provided for. This is why the USA, Britain and France must take responsibility for the victims of war. We did this in the Second World War - a conflict which we did not start. In this era we had real leaders namely, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle - perhaps we need them back.
Wednesday, 12 August 2015
Jeremy Corbyn and The Labour Leadership Election
I am not a member of a political party and never intend to be. I also have no intention of paying £3 to vote for a Labour leadership candidate. This does not mean that I am not interested in politics or the outcome of the election.
There are some disturbing aspects to the commentary surrounding the contest. Most of this commentary is rather personal and directed at Jeremy Corbyn. It does not consist of critical examination of Mr Corbyn's policies which are being dismissed out of hand by most of the press and many Labour MPs and party supporters. Mr Corbyn is being subjected to some rather unfair criticism based on his personality and the exaggerated view that his policies are of the hard left and are unpalatable to the majority of the electorate.
Mr Corbyn does not look "telegenic" and for this reason alone he will probably never get elected as Prime Minister if he becomes leader of the Labour party. Why should looking good on television be a qualifying factor for being Prime Minister? Would it be impossible for a Winston Churchill or Clement Atlee to be elected in the modern era? These great former leaders would, sadly, stand no chance today. Such is the fickleness of the modern electorate.
Let's examine some of the criticism of his policies from within his own party. Mr Corbyn has proposed that quantitative easing should used to fund the building of hospitals and roads etc. The Shadow Chancellor described this as a hard left economic policy. This is humbug. The policy of using public funds to stimulate the economy by financing public works was proposed by John Maynard Keynes in the 1920's and 1930's to help revive the UK economy because of the The Great Depression. This policy is in no way related to Marxist economic theory. The policy proposes that economic growth is used to pay off government debt. John Maynard Keynes was a highly respected economist and he was a life long Liberal. Franklin D Roosevelt used similar policies to regenerate the American economy - he was no Marxist and he was not even left wing.
Today on the television a former adviser to Tony Blair averred that Mr Corbyn was not a suitable candidate for the Labour leadership because he advocated printing money- quantitative easing by another name - perhaps he forgot that the Gordon Brown and David Cameron governments have already printed £320 billion but they gave it to the Banking sector who invested it property and stocks and shares and quite possibly another asset bubble has been created. Most of this money was not invested in the real economy. Mr Corbyn is proposing that the £320 billion of public money might have been better spent on public works just as John Maynard Keynes proposed all those years ago.
Critics have suggested that Mr Corbyn's economic policies are rooted in the past: well so what? The neoclassical economic policies of the last 30 years or so are firmly rooted in the past. The 2008 economic crisis had all the hallmarks of the 1720 South Sea bubble.
My biggest criticism of Mr Corbyn is the fact that he has no policy to deal with the massive amount of private debt which could easily drag our economy back into depression. Private Individuals, Corporations and Banks have succeeded in building up debt to the same levels as before the 2008 crisis. I have written about this before; Britain has private debts of around 400% of GDP and this is more of a burden to our economy than government debt as it could lead us into another economic crisis. Mr Corbyn does not have a policy to alleviate private debt but unfortunately no other politician is proposing a solution either, so we are living in hope that interest rates are not forced up.
Mr Corbyn's political opponents in the Labour party do not have any policies as far as I can see that are different to the Conservative party. So what happens if the neoclassical economic policies of the Tories and New Labour fail again? What is the alternative proposal? Without Corbyn there will be no alternative. We need him to shave off his beard and make himself look 20 years younger and go around waving copies of "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money". He is not of the hard left; he is a hard Liberal and that is why his policies are not really that dangerous.
A good dose of Keynesian medicine might repair the economic damage caused by 30 years of monetarism and private debt excess. Corbyn has never espoused Marxist economics and this is why the attacks upon him have to be personal to succeed. Corbyn's policies are needed to demonstrate that there is an alternative path, even if the man himself will never be elected to lead the way.
There are some disturbing aspects to the commentary surrounding the contest. Most of this commentary is rather personal and directed at Jeremy Corbyn. It does not consist of critical examination of Mr Corbyn's policies which are being dismissed out of hand by most of the press and many Labour MPs and party supporters. Mr Corbyn is being subjected to some rather unfair criticism based on his personality and the exaggerated view that his policies are of the hard left and are unpalatable to the majority of the electorate.
Mr Corbyn does not look "telegenic" and for this reason alone he will probably never get elected as Prime Minister if he becomes leader of the Labour party. Why should looking good on television be a qualifying factor for being Prime Minister? Would it be impossible for a Winston Churchill or Clement Atlee to be elected in the modern era? These great former leaders would, sadly, stand no chance today. Such is the fickleness of the modern electorate.
Let's examine some of the criticism of his policies from within his own party. Mr Corbyn has proposed that quantitative easing should used to fund the building of hospitals and roads etc. The Shadow Chancellor described this as a hard left economic policy. This is humbug. The policy of using public funds to stimulate the economy by financing public works was proposed by John Maynard Keynes in the 1920's and 1930's to help revive the UK economy because of the The Great Depression. This policy is in no way related to Marxist economic theory. The policy proposes that economic growth is used to pay off government debt. John Maynard Keynes was a highly respected economist and he was a life long Liberal. Franklin D Roosevelt used similar policies to regenerate the American economy - he was no Marxist and he was not even left wing.
Today on the television a former adviser to Tony Blair averred that Mr Corbyn was not a suitable candidate for the Labour leadership because he advocated printing money- quantitative easing by another name - perhaps he forgot that the Gordon Brown and David Cameron governments have already printed £320 billion but they gave it to the Banking sector who invested it property and stocks and shares and quite possibly another asset bubble has been created. Most of this money was not invested in the real economy. Mr Corbyn is proposing that the £320 billion of public money might have been better spent on public works just as John Maynard Keynes proposed all those years ago.
Critics have suggested that Mr Corbyn's economic policies are rooted in the past: well so what? The neoclassical economic policies of the last 30 years or so are firmly rooted in the past. The 2008 economic crisis had all the hallmarks of the 1720 South Sea bubble.
My biggest criticism of Mr Corbyn is the fact that he has no policy to deal with the massive amount of private debt which could easily drag our economy back into depression. Private Individuals, Corporations and Banks have succeeded in building up debt to the same levels as before the 2008 crisis. I have written about this before; Britain has private debts of around 400% of GDP and this is more of a burden to our economy than government debt as it could lead us into another economic crisis. Mr Corbyn does not have a policy to alleviate private debt but unfortunately no other politician is proposing a solution either, so we are living in hope that interest rates are not forced up.
Mr Corbyn's political opponents in the Labour party do not have any policies as far as I can see that are different to the Conservative party. So what happens if the neoclassical economic policies of the Tories and New Labour fail again? What is the alternative proposal? Without Corbyn there will be no alternative. We need him to shave off his beard and make himself look 20 years younger and go around waving copies of "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money". He is not of the hard left; he is a hard Liberal and that is why his policies are not really that dangerous.
A good dose of Keynesian medicine might repair the economic damage caused by 30 years of monetarism and private debt excess. Corbyn has never espoused Marxist economics and this is why the attacks upon him have to be personal to succeed. Corbyn's policies are needed to demonstrate that there is an alternative path, even if the man himself will never be elected to lead the way.
Thursday, 30 July 2015
Migrants at Calais and Racism
When I see the disturbing scenes at Calais of hundreds of migrants from Africa, Afghanistan and the Levant trying to avoid the police to jump on trains heading for Britain, I think of racism. If all of these desperate people were white skinned they would stand much more of a chance of being accommodated in both Britain and France. The migrants have been forced to live in appalling conditions in "jungle city". This is much to the chagrin of local residents. Everyone wants to escape this situation resolved and none more so than the refugees and residents of Calais.
Most of the migrants are genuine refugees from violence , torture, false imprisonment and starvation. They are desperate to find a new home. Some of them will be miscreants who are using violence to gain access to lorries and the channel tunnel system but the miscreants are few in number and they can be dealt with by the justice system.
The British and French governments are reluctant to take positive action to accommodate these poor people because of public opinion. I am ashamed to say that not many people in Britain or France have got much sympathy for the plight of these people - and it is probably because they are seen as being from a different "race" by some of our compatriots. Some politicians are also stirring up political trouble with their populist opinions and simplistic solutions to a complex problem.
The leader of UKIP is being disingenuous when he makes public statements that all France has to do is give the 3,000 migrants at Calais French passports and then they can all come to Britain legally - so let's leave the EU to prevent this happening: Balderdash. The French government cannot and will not grant any of these migrants French citizenship. There are already thousands and thousands of immigrants in France who have not been given passports; they are the "sans papiers" and they work in the under cover economy. These migrants have been staying in France illegally for years and they are going nowhere else.
The French government is coming in for much criticism from the British tabloid press and right wing MPs. The same people who object to the EU from doing anything which impinges on British freedom of action are telling the French what to do. Hypocrisy - hardly a British value is it? Maybe the French find this objectionable.
Of course, the British Home Secretary recognises the need for co-operation with the French government which has been generous enough to allow British border posts and fences on the French side of the channel or La Manche. If the border posts had to be moved back to Dover and Folkestone then the migrants would establish "jungle city" in Britain and in short order. We are lucky that the French are prepared to secure our border for us. We are also lucky that the French police are prepared to go along with this.
Many of the migrants have travelled a long time and across dangerous terrain and countries to get here. Many would have risked their lives to cross the Mediterranean sea in flimsy boats to land in Europe. The people at Calais are resourceful risk takers and have not given up on their objective. Many of these migrants would be hard working people who have no need to sponge off the state as they can survive on their own resources. They would probably be happy to work hard for Britain if we let them in.
Successive British governments have done nothing to make provision for traffic to be managed when the channel tunnel is closed for whatever reason. If there is just a storm in the channel then the tunnel cannot cope with the diverted traffic from the ferries. Lorries, therefore, are parked on the M20 motorway. This is a ludicrous solution. With migrants blocking the tunnel on a nightly basis the M20 stacking system in Kent has now reached crisis point. Complacency is no longer an option.
The French and British governments must find a solution which helps everyone including the migrants, lorry drivers, the residents of Kent and Calais and the police from both nations.
The French and British governments have a moral duty to resolve this crisis as they have brought war to Africa, The Levant and Afghanistan and this is the major reason why the migrants are coming. We really have no right to treat any of these unfortunate people so badly. The answer can be found if we use a sense of compassion on both sides of the channel rather than xenophobia. The voters of France and Britain should give their governments more room for manoeuvre.
Most of the migrants are genuine refugees from violence , torture, false imprisonment and starvation. They are desperate to find a new home. Some of them will be miscreants who are using violence to gain access to lorries and the channel tunnel system but the miscreants are few in number and they can be dealt with by the justice system.
The British and French governments are reluctant to take positive action to accommodate these poor people because of public opinion. I am ashamed to say that not many people in Britain or France have got much sympathy for the plight of these people - and it is probably because they are seen as being from a different "race" by some of our compatriots. Some politicians are also stirring up political trouble with their populist opinions and simplistic solutions to a complex problem.
The leader of UKIP is being disingenuous when he makes public statements that all France has to do is give the 3,000 migrants at Calais French passports and then they can all come to Britain legally - so let's leave the EU to prevent this happening: Balderdash. The French government cannot and will not grant any of these migrants French citizenship. There are already thousands and thousands of immigrants in France who have not been given passports; they are the "sans papiers" and they work in the under cover economy. These migrants have been staying in France illegally for years and they are going nowhere else.
The French government is coming in for much criticism from the British tabloid press and right wing MPs. The same people who object to the EU from doing anything which impinges on British freedom of action are telling the French what to do. Hypocrisy - hardly a British value is it? Maybe the French find this objectionable.
Of course, the British Home Secretary recognises the need for co-operation with the French government which has been generous enough to allow British border posts and fences on the French side of the channel or La Manche. If the border posts had to be moved back to Dover and Folkestone then the migrants would establish "jungle city" in Britain and in short order. We are lucky that the French are prepared to secure our border for us. We are also lucky that the French police are prepared to go along with this.
Many of the migrants have travelled a long time and across dangerous terrain and countries to get here. Many would have risked their lives to cross the Mediterranean sea in flimsy boats to land in Europe. The people at Calais are resourceful risk takers and have not given up on their objective. Many of these migrants would be hard working people who have no need to sponge off the state as they can survive on their own resources. They would probably be happy to work hard for Britain if we let them in.
Successive British governments have done nothing to make provision for traffic to be managed when the channel tunnel is closed for whatever reason. If there is just a storm in the channel then the tunnel cannot cope with the diverted traffic from the ferries. Lorries, therefore, are parked on the M20 motorway. This is a ludicrous solution. With migrants blocking the tunnel on a nightly basis the M20 stacking system in Kent has now reached crisis point. Complacency is no longer an option.
The French and British governments must find a solution which helps everyone including the migrants, lorry drivers, the residents of Kent and Calais and the police from both nations.
The French and British governments have a moral duty to resolve this crisis as they have brought war to Africa, The Levant and Afghanistan and this is the major reason why the migrants are coming. We really have no right to treat any of these unfortunate people so badly. The answer can be found if we use a sense of compassion on both sides of the channel rather than xenophobia. The voters of France and Britain should give their governments more room for manoeuvre.
Friday, 24 July 2015
Breakthrough Listen and the Fermi Paradox
Professor Stephen Hawking recently launched the Breakthrough Listen project which will be conducted to find intelligent alien life on another planet in our Galaxy, the Milky Way, or even in another Galaxy altogether.
http://www.space.com/29990-stephen-hawking-intelligent-alien-life-initiative.html
In my view this is a fantastic project. At the moment we have absolutely no evidence that any form of life exists in the Universe other than on Earth or its near environment.
The project involves scanning the skies to detect electro-magnetic radiation in the form of radio signals or laser beams which would have been transmitted by an alien and intelligent living being or a robot of such a being.
It is quite possible that the ten year project will pick up such a signal and be able to decode it. Picking up an alien radio signal may be our best chance to confirm that life exists elsewhere in the Milky Way. It is unlikely that a telescope such as Kepler will be able to resolve the signs of life on planets many light years away. It is equally unlikely that a satellite probe will find life on another planet or moon of our solar system within 10 years. However, Mars could be a candidate for such a discovery.
Yuri Milner who is financing the project has rightly pointed out that even if we do not discover alien life with the Breakthrough project then it does not mean that life does not exist elsewhere.
I am hoping that the project will be successful but I have my doubts that intelligent life is abundant in the Galaxy.
The renowned physicist Enrico Fermi surmised "our galaxy should be teeming with civilizations, but where are they? Why are they not here visiting us already? Why can't we see them? The Galaxy has been been in existence for billions of years surely we cannot be the only form of life that is intelligent? This is the Fermi paradox.
http://www.space.com/25325-fermi-paradox.html
So far we can only speculate that life exists in the rest of the Galaxy. It is quite possible, however, that some planets are teeming with life - just like the Earth. There are about 400 billion stars in our Galaxy so millions of them could support life on a planet or moon within their alien "solar system".
However, what are the chances of a life form on another planet evolving both the intelligence and the dexterity to make tools which can communicate across interstellar space and make space probes. Out of the millions of species that have ever survived on Earth only a small number would qualify as tool makers intelligent enough to make a radio set if they had survived. Homo Erectus and Homo Heidelbergensis are two but they went extinct. Neanderthal Man also had the potential but he could be part of our own species. Only one surviving species has been thrown up on Earth which has the intelligence and physical ability to design and build a radio set. Dolphins, Whales and other non-human primates display some form of intelligence but they do not have the manual dexterity to create complex tools. The chance of an intelligent species such as man evolving are probably millions to one against. Intelligence does not confer a particular ability to survive as a species. Cockroaches have survived for millions of years without any form of intelligence. The human genus has only existed for a couple of million or so years.
Planets which support life elsewhere in the Galaxy could face the same evolutionary predicament. Thousands or millions of species survive on a planet but none of them have both the intelligence and the dexterity to create tools. There may be billions of planets which can support life but only thousands which support intelligent life that can communicate across the Galaxy.
It will be interesting to note how human beings fare when they travel to Mars. Whilst it may be physically possible to survive a trip it might be mentally very difficult. We cannot know how humans will deal with the isolation of both time and distance. Experiments have been done by isolating humans in submarines and laboratories for months on end and humans can survive on the international space station for similar periods. All of these humans have had an escape route and know that their isolation can be ended if it becomes too much of an ordeal. A trip to Mars is of a different order of isolation of even a trip to the Moon. Inter-planetary and inter-stellar space travel may not be possible for humans because of the isolation factor. The same could apply to intelligent aliens. Some of the stars which harbour intelligent life could be hundreds if not thousands of light years away; the magnitude of the isolation is daunting and a more advanced species than ours may have already given up the idea of travelling to another star and may have resigned itself to just listening out for other forms of intelligent life. This does not mean that we should not try to find a distant radio signal across inter-stellar space even if we cannot visit the source.
The difficulty of communicating with other being is also a daunting task. The latest extra solar planet discovery, Kepler 452b, is 1,400 light years away. This planet is similar in size to Earth and it revolves around a star similar to our own in the "habitable zone". If there are intelligent beings on this planet and they are listening out for us then they will have to wait a long time to pick up the BBC news - more than a 1,000 years. If they send us a message back then they would have to wait 2,800 years for an answer, and that would be if we were confident enough and feel safe enough to reply. Communication with even a near stellar neighbour may be almost impossible because of the time difference, isolation and social difference.
This could be the resolution of the Fermi Paradox. There are too few fellow intelligent beings out there and they are too far away in terms of time and distance to maintain contact.
This does not mean that we should not satisfy our curiosity; it would be good to know that we are not alone and that life is not a single event limited to our own planet and star. If we do pick up a radio or laser signal from an alien civilisation it would probably mean that our Galaxy has millions of planets and moons that support life and that we should redouble our efforts to find it on Mars or a moon of Jupiter or Saturn.
Let's hope Stephen Hawkings and Yuri Milner meet with success.
http://www.space.com/29990-stephen-hawking-intelligent-alien-life-initiative.html
In my view this is a fantastic project. At the moment we have absolutely no evidence that any form of life exists in the Universe other than on Earth or its near environment.
The project involves scanning the skies to detect electro-magnetic radiation in the form of radio signals or laser beams which would have been transmitted by an alien and intelligent living being or a robot of such a being.
It is quite possible that the ten year project will pick up such a signal and be able to decode it. Picking up an alien radio signal may be our best chance to confirm that life exists elsewhere in the Milky Way. It is unlikely that a telescope such as Kepler will be able to resolve the signs of life on planets many light years away. It is equally unlikely that a satellite probe will find life on another planet or moon of our solar system within 10 years. However, Mars could be a candidate for such a discovery.
Yuri Milner who is financing the project has rightly pointed out that even if we do not discover alien life with the Breakthrough project then it does not mean that life does not exist elsewhere.
I am hoping that the project will be successful but I have my doubts that intelligent life is abundant in the Galaxy.
The renowned physicist Enrico Fermi surmised "our galaxy should be teeming with civilizations, but where are they? Why are they not here visiting us already? Why can't we see them? The Galaxy has been been in existence for billions of years surely we cannot be the only form of life that is intelligent? This is the Fermi paradox.
http://www.space.com/25325-fermi-paradox.html
So far we can only speculate that life exists in the rest of the Galaxy. It is quite possible, however, that some planets are teeming with life - just like the Earth. There are about 400 billion stars in our Galaxy so millions of them could support life on a planet or moon within their alien "solar system".
However, what are the chances of a life form on another planet evolving both the intelligence and the dexterity to make tools which can communicate across interstellar space and make space probes. Out of the millions of species that have ever survived on Earth only a small number would qualify as tool makers intelligent enough to make a radio set if they had survived. Homo Erectus and Homo Heidelbergensis are two but they went extinct. Neanderthal Man also had the potential but he could be part of our own species. Only one surviving species has been thrown up on Earth which has the intelligence and physical ability to design and build a radio set. Dolphins, Whales and other non-human primates display some form of intelligence but they do not have the manual dexterity to create complex tools. The chance of an intelligent species such as man evolving are probably millions to one against. Intelligence does not confer a particular ability to survive as a species. Cockroaches have survived for millions of years without any form of intelligence. The human genus has only existed for a couple of million or so years.
Planets which support life elsewhere in the Galaxy could face the same evolutionary predicament. Thousands or millions of species survive on a planet but none of them have both the intelligence and the dexterity to create tools. There may be billions of planets which can support life but only thousands which support intelligent life that can communicate across the Galaxy.
It will be interesting to note how human beings fare when they travel to Mars. Whilst it may be physically possible to survive a trip it might be mentally very difficult. We cannot know how humans will deal with the isolation of both time and distance. Experiments have been done by isolating humans in submarines and laboratories for months on end and humans can survive on the international space station for similar periods. All of these humans have had an escape route and know that their isolation can be ended if it becomes too much of an ordeal. A trip to Mars is of a different order of isolation of even a trip to the Moon. Inter-planetary and inter-stellar space travel may not be possible for humans because of the isolation factor. The same could apply to intelligent aliens. Some of the stars which harbour intelligent life could be hundreds if not thousands of light years away; the magnitude of the isolation is daunting and a more advanced species than ours may have already given up the idea of travelling to another star and may have resigned itself to just listening out for other forms of intelligent life. This does not mean that we should not try to find a distant radio signal across inter-stellar space even if we cannot visit the source.
The difficulty of communicating with other being is also a daunting task. The latest extra solar planet discovery, Kepler 452b, is 1,400 light years away. This planet is similar in size to Earth and it revolves around a star similar to our own in the "habitable zone". If there are intelligent beings on this planet and they are listening out for us then they will have to wait a long time to pick up the BBC news - more than a 1,000 years. If they send us a message back then they would have to wait 2,800 years for an answer, and that would be if we were confident enough and feel safe enough to reply. Communication with even a near stellar neighbour may be almost impossible because of the time difference, isolation and social difference.
This could be the resolution of the Fermi Paradox. There are too few fellow intelligent beings out there and they are too far away in terms of time and distance to maintain contact.
This does not mean that we should not satisfy our curiosity; it would be good to know that we are not alone and that life is not a single event limited to our own planet and star. If we do pick up a radio or laser signal from an alien civilisation it would probably mean that our Galaxy has millions of planets and moons that support life and that we should redouble our efforts to find it on Mars or a moon of Jupiter or Saturn.
Let's hope Stephen Hawkings and Yuri Milner meet with success.
Monday, 20 July 2015
Countering Extremist Ideologies
Naturally, I agree with the British Prime Minister that the government and the public in general must do all they can to counter extremism and terrorism. However, I do not agree that " historic injustices and grievances" and " recent wars" should not be included as part of the solution.
We only have to look to the United Kingdom to look at the effect of "historic injustices and grievances" and "recent wars" to see graphically and tragically their effect.
The "troubles" in Northern Ireland from 1968 to 1998 involved the deaths of 3,600 people. They were the result of hatred between the IRA and the UVF and UDA. Combatants from both sides of the Roman Catholic and Protestant divide were responsible for most of the deaths and casualties. The conflict was only resolved by negotiation.
Some of the animosity in Northern Ireland remained from the 1690 Battle of The Boyne. The Protestant victory is still celebrated today by Protestant extremists, even though some of this extremism no longer expresses itself through terrorism and violence.
There has been animosity between Irish Catholics and Protestants for centuries and this culminated in the War for Irish independence between 1919 and 1921 and the subsequent civil war after the formation of the Irish Free State. The civilian population of Ireland and the UK has got plenty of blood on its hands. Irish and UK governments have also got blood on their hands with relation to Ireland.
Thousands of citizens of Northern Ireland do not want to be British and do not want to adhere to British values, whatever they are, and they would vote to join the Republic of Ireland if there were a plebiscite tomorrow. Luckily there is no longer any terrorism to achieve this but the whole of our society needs to be careful. The situation could easily slide back into violence if the politicians from both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland do not remain watchful.
British politicians should therefore have a full understanding of how historical injustices can play on the mind of potential terrorists; and they ignore this aspect of why people become violent to achieve political means at their peril and at the peril of the British community at large.
We do not have to look to Northern Ireland to find the causes of why young people choose violence to achieve political aims. During the Spanish Civil War hundreds of Britons went to fight in the International Brigade against fascism. Some of them were members of the British establishment and were fully imbued in British values.
To persuade British people not to join guerrilla groups such as Daesh or ISIL we must start a dialogue with all of our young people and encourage them to think for themselves rather than blindly follow an extremist or violent ideology.
We could begin this dialogue by becoming a secular state which defends the rights of all of our citizens to become believers or non-believers. We should also withdraw state funds from faith schools including Church of England ones. If parents want to give their children a religious education then they should send them to private schools. State funded schools should teach our children to think rationally about all aspects of our society including religion and our history and to face the truth.
Why not let our children mix and why not do our best to integrate the sons and daughters of immigrants into British society rather than condemn them for having "Un-British" ideas?
We should not traduce immigrants or their children; we should welcome them to play a full part in our community and nation.
To ignore history or to have a prejudiced view of it invites trouble. Equally, we have to tackle the grievances caused by injustice and war: these are other sources of animosity that we ignore to the detriment of harmony within our nation.
We only have to look to the United Kingdom to look at the effect of "historic injustices and grievances" and "recent wars" to see graphically and tragically their effect.
The "troubles" in Northern Ireland from 1968 to 1998 involved the deaths of 3,600 people. They were the result of hatred between the IRA and the UVF and UDA. Combatants from both sides of the Roman Catholic and Protestant divide were responsible for most of the deaths and casualties. The conflict was only resolved by negotiation.
Some of the animosity in Northern Ireland remained from the 1690 Battle of The Boyne. The Protestant victory is still celebrated today by Protestant extremists, even though some of this extremism no longer expresses itself through terrorism and violence.
There has been animosity between Irish Catholics and Protestants for centuries and this culminated in the War for Irish independence between 1919 and 1921 and the subsequent civil war after the formation of the Irish Free State. The civilian population of Ireland and the UK has got plenty of blood on its hands. Irish and UK governments have also got blood on their hands with relation to Ireland.
Thousands of citizens of Northern Ireland do not want to be British and do not want to adhere to British values, whatever they are, and they would vote to join the Republic of Ireland if there were a plebiscite tomorrow. Luckily there is no longer any terrorism to achieve this but the whole of our society needs to be careful. The situation could easily slide back into violence if the politicians from both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland do not remain watchful.
British politicians should therefore have a full understanding of how historical injustices can play on the mind of potential terrorists; and they ignore this aspect of why people become violent to achieve political means at their peril and at the peril of the British community at large.
We do not have to look to Northern Ireland to find the causes of why young people choose violence to achieve political aims. During the Spanish Civil War hundreds of Britons went to fight in the International Brigade against fascism. Some of them were members of the British establishment and were fully imbued in British values.
To persuade British people not to join guerrilla groups such as Daesh or ISIL we must start a dialogue with all of our young people and encourage them to think for themselves rather than blindly follow an extremist or violent ideology.
We could begin this dialogue by becoming a secular state which defends the rights of all of our citizens to become believers or non-believers. We should also withdraw state funds from faith schools including Church of England ones. If parents want to give their children a religious education then they should send them to private schools. State funded schools should teach our children to think rationally about all aspects of our society including religion and our history and to face the truth.
Why not let our children mix and why not do our best to integrate the sons and daughters of immigrants into British society rather than condemn them for having "Un-British" ideas?
We should not traduce immigrants or their children; we should welcome them to play a full part in our community and nation.
To ignore history or to have a prejudiced view of it invites trouble. Equally, we have to tackle the grievances caused by injustice and war: these are other sources of animosity that we ignore to the detriment of harmony within our nation.
Wednesday, 1 July 2015
Citizen's Duty
The British government has described non-violent extremism thus: "vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs". On this basis schools, universities, NHS trusts, local authorities and prisons will be placed under a statutory duty to prevent extremist radicalisation taking place within their walls. In the current climate of our society, you are what you say as well as what you do.
On the face of it I agree with the opinion that citizens should not indulge in extremism and that secular values should be encouraged. However, will it not be counterproductive to censor or "blacklist" individuals who express opinions which fall within the definition? We all have a duty to promote non-violent political activity and those who deliberately provoke others to behave violently towards political or religious opponents or commit treason should be sanctioned. However, we cannot challenge "extremist" ideas if such ideas are only held or expressed in private. Those who are potentially violent will simply keep their mouths shut with the aim of not arousing suspicion.
Some proponents of religious or political change could feel resentment that they cannot express their views in public and may turn to violent organisations to vent their anger.
We live in a free society and open debate is necessary to defend our values of liberty, openness and free thinking.
Of course there is a fine line between expressing "extremist" views and inciting others to violence or even being violent but we must be careful not to sanction those who have not crossed that line.
We really should be able to recognise the difference between the expression of an opinion and taking violent action or inciting violence.
I find the extreme views of some of our fellow citizens abhorrent especially with regard to proposing violence. There is, however, a difference between actually taking action or inciting someone rather than just talking and being offensive.
Some politicians have proposed taking military action without consent from the United Nations should their views be considered as extremist? Should they be put on a blacklist?
You have the right to openly propose changes to the law that go against the grain of British values , if you so wish. You have this right but you do not have the right to impose extra-judicial punishments on those who do not agree with your moral or ethical standards.
You have the right to oppose a secular democracy and the right to express the view that Britain should become a theocracy or a republic. However, you do not have the right to impose any of this without the democratic consent of the majority of the British people.
We would live in a better society if everyone recognised democracy and secular values and we were allowed to express non-violent opinions freely.
On the face of it I agree with the opinion that citizens should not indulge in extremism and that secular values should be encouraged. However, will it not be counterproductive to censor or "blacklist" individuals who express opinions which fall within the definition? We all have a duty to promote non-violent political activity and those who deliberately provoke others to behave violently towards political or religious opponents or commit treason should be sanctioned. However, we cannot challenge "extremist" ideas if such ideas are only held or expressed in private. Those who are potentially violent will simply keep their mouths shut with the aim of not arousing suspicion.
Some proponents of religious or political change could feel resentment that they cannot express their views in public and may turn to violent organisations to vent their anger.
We live in a free society and open debate is necessary to defend our values of liberty, openness and free thinking.
Of course there is a fine line between expressing "extremist" views and inciting others to violence or even being violent but we must be careful not to sanction those who have not crossed that line.
We really should be able to recognise the difference between the expression of an opinion and taking violent action or inciting violence.
I find the extreme views of some of our fellow citizens abhorrent especially with regard to proposing violence. There is, however, a difference between actually taking action or inciting someone rather than just talking and being offensive.
Some politicians have proposed taking military action without consent from the United Nations should their views be considered as extremist? Should they be put on a blacklist?
You have the right to openly propose changes to the law that go against the grain of British values , if you so wish. You have this right but you do not have the right to impose extra-judicial punishments on those who do not agree with your moral or ethical standards.
You have the right to oppose a secular democracy and the right to express the view that Britain should become a theocracy or a republic. However, you do not have the right to impose any of this without the democratic consent of the majority of the British people.
We would live in a better society if everyone recognised democracy and secular values and we were allowed to express non-violent opinions freely.
Thursday, 25 June 2015
Migration to the EU
Everyone has seen the disturbing scenes of the "boat people" crossing the Mediterranean to try to find a new life in Europe. Hundreds of thousands have crossed from Africa and the Middle East and hundreds of thousands more are on the way.
I agree with Matteo Renzi that Europe must respond in a united way and that all countries of the EU should play their part by accepting a fair share of asylum speakers. He has also proposed that economic migrants should be repatriated and unfortunately for those who are not regarded as candidates for asylum this is a harsh reality. The world is organised by nation states and all states regulate who is allowed to settle and who is not. A nation state also must also regulate the activities of people who have not entered the state "legally". The scenes at Calais yesterday were disturbing.
The situation regarding the boat people will only get worse. The UN estimates that there are sixty million displaced people in the world as the result of wars, famine and poverty. Western Europe has a responsibility to help these people and treat them humanely. For centuries, Western European nations including the UK, France, Germany, Belgium and Spain have colonised Africa and the Middle East. Our nations have destabilised and in some cases enslaved the local population. We have organised the mass movement of people as economic migrants.
We have imposed ourselves upon the indigenous people of Africa and the Middle East as economic migrants ourselves. We have also imposed wars upon the people that we have colonised. The First and Second World Wars were classic examples from the twentieth century. In the twenty first century we have invaded Iraq and Libya without thinking what would happen in the future.
We have quite possibly organised adverse climate change by pouring industrial quantities of carbon di-oxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The consequences of climate change could be worse for the people of Africa and the Middle East than war.
Western Europe has a responsibility to help and it is little wonder that millions of people are on the move towards Europe. The migrants believe that they should be helped and they also believe that we have a moral duty to help them; their case is strong.
We are rich enough as a European society to allow a good number of economic migrants settle. We must be realistic about this however. Eventually the number could become so great that it threatens the economic viability of Europe itself; but this will not happen for a long time. A seriously weakened and disorganised Europe will not be able to provide the aid necessary to help potential migrants stay in their own country. Europe will not be able to meet its moral obligation to offset the effects of climate change and war.
Britain must play its full part to assist the EU to solve the problems of mass migration. We are not being forced to do anything by the European Commission and we are exercising our right not to accept the migrants despite the pleas of the European Commission. This is a rather ironic position as many "euro sceptics " aver that the European Commission tells us what to do - they don't. Britain should act because it has a moral obligation to do so. All Europeans have an obligation because we have benefited, most certainly, from the past subjugation of African and Middle Eastern states.
It is not good enough to say that it is someone else's problem.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/23/mediterranean-migrant-crisis-not-italy-but-europe
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/15/we-will-hurt-eu-if-migrant-crisis-is-not-fixed-says-italian-pm-matteo-renzi
I agree with Matteo Renzi that Europe must respond in a united way and that all countries of the EU should play their part by accepting a fair share of asylum speakers. He has also proposed that economic migrants should be repatriated and unfortunately for those who are not regarded as candidates for asylum this is a harsh reality. The world is organised by nation states and all states regulate who is allowed to settle and who is not. A nation state also must also regulate the activities of people who have not entered the state "legally". The scenes at Calais yesterday were disturbing.
The situation regarding the boat people will only get worse. The UN estimates that there are sixty million displaced people in the world as the result of wars, famine and poverty. Western Europe has a responsibility to help these people and treat them humanely. For centuries, Western European nations including the UK, France, Germany, Belgium and Spain have colonised Africa and the Middle East. Our nations have destabilised and in some cases enslaved the local population. We have organised the mass movement of people as economic migrants.
We have imposed ourselves upon the indigenous people of Africa and the Middle East as economic migrants ourselves. We have also imposed wars upon the people that we have colonised. The First and Second World Wars were classic examples from the twentieth century. In the twenty first century we have invaded Iraq and Libya without thinking what would happen in the future.
We have quite possibly organised adverse climate change by pouring industrial quantities of carbon di-oxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The consequences of climate change could be worse for the people of Africa and the Middle East than war.
Western Europe has a responsibility to help and it is little wonder that millions of people are on the move towards Europe. The migrants believe that they should be helped and they also believe that we have a moral duty to help them; their case is strong.
We are rich enough as a European society to allow a good number of economic migrants settle. We must be realistic about this however. Eventually the number could become so great that it threatens the economic viability of Europe itself; but this will not happen for a long time. A seriously weakened and disorganised Europe will not be able to provide the aid necessary to help potential migrants stay in their own country. Europe will not be able to meet its moral obligation to offset the effects of climate change and war.
Britain must play its full part to assist the EU to solve the problems of mass migration. We are not being forced to do anything by the European Commission and we are exercising our right not to accept the migrants despite the pleas of the European Commission. This is a rather ironic position as many "euro sceptics " aver that the European Commission tells us what to do - they don't. Britain should act because it has a moral obligation to do so. All Europeans have an obligation because we have benefited, most certainly, from the past subjugation of African and Middle Eastern states.
It is not good enough to say that it is someone else's problem.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/23/mediterranean-migrant-crisis-not-italy-but-europe
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/15/we-will-hurt-eu-if-migrant-crisis-is-not-fixed-says-italian-pm-matteo-renzi
Monday, 15 June 2015
Mount Kinabalu and Rationality
Sholto Byrnes wrote a brilliant article about the Mount Kinabalu tourists who stripped off on reaching the summit of the mountain in a fit of exuberance and then filmed themselves doing it and transmitted the scene across the world in a fit of exhibitionism. They were warned not to do this by their local guide. They were arrogant to ignore him. He could have saved them from time in jail if they had had the brains to listen to him.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/malaysia-tourist-arrests-ive-witnessed-the-method-in-the-countrys-superstitious-madness-10316229.html
Many would claim that it is irrational to believe in god and animists beliefs or a mixture of the two. I am one of them. However, who I am to criticise those that do. Like Sholto Byrnes I too have travelled to Malaysia and Indonesia. My wife and I have friends there. One of our Indonesian friends leads Muslims groups to Mecca for the Hajj pilgrimage, she also believes in ghosts. She holds on to her beliefs with good grace and humour even when I tease her that apparitions should show their appearance without clothes on, because clothes have no soul and they cannot survive a trip to the after world. I wonder what happened to the souls of the Mountain's Western tourists?
Malaysian and Indonesian animists do not have a monopoly on irrationalism as it is rife across the world. Westerners may live in a "post- Christian rational society" but despite the efforts of Newton, Darwin, Einstein and Heisenberg most of western thinking is dominated by irrationalism; most of our beliefs and decisions are not based on reason or evidence.
If we were all to think rationally racism, sexism, nuclear bombs, chemical weapons, the divine right to rule, fashion houses and cosmetics and hi-fi shops etc. would not exist. If we thought rationally we would take action on climate change.
Perhaps the worst form of irrationality is racism. It has been proven by science that there is only one race of Human Beings - homo sapiens sapiens - The Neanderthals and the Denisovans who were fellow members of our species, and who could be claimed to be separate races, died out thousands of years ago. However, we still persist in defining humans by race in defiance of all the evidence. Westerners cannot claim to be the rational "race" as it is condescending and arrogant to think that we are better than the animists.
The Kinabalu tourists cannot be condemned for acting emotionally as emotions drive the human race to survive, multiply, love, create art, architecture and engineering works. Without emotion our species could not exist. Emotion dominates our character. However, if the emotional side of our character uses rational thinking to make weapons of war, pollute the planet and deny other people their right to have alternative opinions then we get ourselves into trouble.
Tourists would do well to recognise and follow the wisdom of the locals; you could avoid doing a stretch in jail or worse - being lynched. You could be saved from drowning by swimming in the wrong river or against the wrong tide. Whenever there is rational advice offered in goodwill please take it.
Why not read another brilliant article.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/12/kinabalu-naked-backpacker-las-vegas-rome-malaysia-tourists
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/malaysia-tourist-arrests-ive-witnessed-the-method-in-the-countrys-superstitious-madness-10316229.html
Many would claim that it is irrational to believe in god and animists beliefs or a mixture of the two. I am one of them. However, who I am to criticise those that do. Like Sholto Byrnes I too have travelled to Malaysia and Indonesia. My wife and I have friends there. One of our Indonesian friends leads Muslims groups to Mecca for the Hajj pilgrimage, she also believes in ghosts. She holds on to her beliefs with good grace and humour even when I tease her that apparitions should show their appearance without clothes on, because clothes have no soul and they cannot survive a trip to the after world. I wonder what happened to the souls of the Mountain's Western tourists?
Malaysian and Indonesian animists do not have a monopoly on irrationalism as it is rife across the world. Westerners may live in a "post- Christian rational society" but despite the efforts of Newton, Darwin, Einstein and Heisenberg most of western thinking is dominated by irrationalism; most of our beliefs and decisions are not based on reason or evidence.
If we were all to think rationally racism, sexism, nuclear bombs, chemical weapons, the divine right to rule, fashion houses and cosmetics and hi-fi shops etc. would not exist. If we thought rationally we would take action on climate change.
Perhaps the worst form of irrationality is racism. It has been proven by science that there is only one race of Human Beings - homo sapiens sapiens - The Neanderthals and the Denisovans who were fellow members of our species, and who could be claimed to be separate races, died out thousands of years ago. However, we still persist in defining humans by race in defiance of all the evidence. Westerners cannot claim to be the rational "race" as it is condescending and arrogant to think that we are better than the animists.
The Kinabalu tourists cannot be condemned for acting emotionally as emotions drive the human race to survive, multiply, love, create art, architecture and engineering works. Without emotion our species could not exist. Emotion dominates our character. However, if the emotional side of our character uses rational thinking to make weapons of war, pollute the planet and deny other people their right to have alternative opinions then we get ourselves into trouble.
Tourists would do well to recognise and follow the wisdom of the locals; you could avoid doing a stretch in jail or worse - being lynched. You could be saved from drowning by swimming in the wrong river or against the wrong tide. Whenever there is rational advice offered in goodwill please take it.
Why not read another brilliant article.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/12/kinabalu-naked-backpacker-las-vegas-rome-malaysia-tourists
Friday, 12 June 2015
Sir Tim Hunt the Nobel Laureate
Sir Tim Hunt should be asked to rescind his resignation from the Royal Society forthwith; he has apologised for his remarks which were a bit crass. I expect you have already read about it but just in case.
http://www.inquisitr.com/2162909/tim-hunt-resigns-nobel-laureate-steps-down-as-honorary-professor-after-sexist-remarks-cause-backlash/
Recently a French satirical magazine , Charlie Hebo, deliberately set out to provoke Muslims and to offend their prophet; and when the magazine was attacked Western Liberals quite rightly turned out to show their solidarity with the magazine and promote free speech. Tim Hunt's silly remarks pale into insignificance in the offensive stakes. So leave him alone. A serious scientist has the right to make mistakes does he not?
Similarly young people have the right to express themselves by stripping off their clothes, if they want to, in the liberal West but surely not on a sacred Malaysian mountain. The young people concerned were lucky that they were released from gaol by a reasonable judge after 3 days in detention under remand. It is a pity that the people shouting abuse at Tim Hunt cannot show the same tolerance as the judge.
http://www.castanet.net/news/Canada/142058/Naked-mountaineers-freed
I am all in favour of women's rights including their right to call me a wimp when I sneeze with "Man 'Flu" ; I don't shout out that they are being sexist and offensive. I show some tolerance for their stupidity and it is a pity that the same tolerance is not shown in the other direction.
The Royal Society will not have the courage to ask Tim Hunt to rethink his resignation. The world his now full of cowards who are afraid of shrieking voices. You are now what you say not what you do and the world is a worse place because of this.
http://www.inquisitr.com/2162909/tim-hunt-resigns-nobel-laureate-steps-down-as-honorary-professor-after-sexist-remarks-cause-backlash/
Recently a French satirical magazine , Charlie Hebo, deliberately set out to provoke Muslims and to offend their prophet; and when the magazine was attacked Western Liberals quite rightly turned out to show their solidarity with the magazine and promote free speech. Tim Hunt's silly remarks pale into insignificance in the offensive stakes. So leave him alone. A serious scientist has the right to make mistakes does he not?
Similarly young people have the right to express themselves by stripping off their clothes, if they want to, in the liberal West but surely not on a sacred Malaysian mountain. The young people concerned were lucky that they were released from gaol by a reasonable judge after 3 days in detention under remand. It is a pity that the people shouting abuse at Tim Hunt cannot show the same tolerance as the judge.
http://www.castanet.net/news/Canada/142058/Naked-mountaineers-freed
I am all in favour of women's rights including their right to call me a wimp when I sneeze with "Man 'Flu" ; I don't shout out that they are being sexist and offensive. I show some tolerance for their stupidity and it is a pity that the same tolerance is not shown in the other direction.
The Royal Society will not have the courage to ask Tim Hunt to rethink his resignation. The world his now full of cowards who are afraid of shrieking voices. You are now what you say not what you do and the world is a worse place because of this.
Tuesday, 19 May 2015
UK Deflation
In the year to April 2015 Britain entered into a period of deflation. Over the last year retail prices have fallen by 0.1%. This is not such a bad thing provided the deflation is not deep and long lasting. You may well ask why £385 billion of quantitative easing or money printing did not create inflation. Well it did; it inflated the price of houses, commercial property and stocks and shares. Of course, when the price of baked beans goes up it is a bad thing as far as economists are concerned but when house prices go up it is a good thing.
House prices going up is a good thing if you already own a house but it is not so good if you are a young couple paying £1,000 a month for a grotty flat because you can't afford to get on the bottom rung of the housing ladder.
House prices going up can also be a bad thing if they create a property bubble which when it bursts causes distress selling and repossessions. A property bubble could also bring on another financial crisis. Private borrowing to fund housing stands at almost £2 trillion. This level of debt is becoming unsupportable. We could be heading for trouble.
The causes of retail price deflation are a reduced oil prices, supermarket competition and the high level of the pound which reduces the price of imports. If deflation gets out of hand it will be difficult for the Bank of England to use the traditional policy of reducing interest rates to create inflation as rates are at an all time low. Perhaps some more money printing will do the trick but this time the money should be given to the non-banking sector. The non-banking sector will spend the money on investment and purchases rather than property. Prices will then go up in the retail sector.
We need a bit of deflation in the property market and a little inflation in the retail market. The financial authorities should act now to achieve this. Inflation at 2% will help to relieve the debt burden for all of us.
House prices going up is a good thing if you already own a house but it is not so good if you are a young couple paying £1,000 a month for a grotty flat because you can't afford to get on the bottom rung of the housing ladder.
House prices going up can also be a bad thing if they create a property bubble which when it bursts causes distress selling and repossessions. A property bubble could also bring on another financial crisis. Private borrowing to fund housing stands at almost £2 trillion. This level of debt is becoming unsupportable. We could be heading for trouble.
The causes of retail price deflation are a reduced oil prices, supermarket competition and the high level of the pound which reduces the price of imports. If deflation gets out of hand it will be difficult for the Bank of England to use the traditional policy of reducing interest rates to create inflation as rates are at an all time low. Perhaps some more money printing will do the trick but this time the money should be given to the non-banking sector. The non-banking sector will spend the money on investment and purchases rather than property. Prices will then go up in the retail sector.
We need a bit of deflation in the property market and a little inflation in the retail market. The financial authorities should act now to achieve this. Inflation at 2% will help to relieve the debt burden for all of us.
Thursday, 7 May 2015
UK 2015 General Election - 35% won't vote but who can blame them?
This has been the most dreadful and arid general election campaign that I have ever experienced. The only thing that the politicians want to talk about are unrealistic promises and the budget deficit.
With regards to the budget they seem to be acting like amateur bookkeepers. None of the politicians have talked about using national funds to improve the economy to help the incomes of the majority of our citizens.
Any economy must be a mixture of both capitalist and social enterprise. We need capitalism to generate wealth and we need social enterprise to provide the best infrastructure of transport, health and education to support wealth generation. There seems to have been no debate whatsoever on how this can be achieved.
There has been no debate on the best methods of distributing the national income or the economics of how to do this. It is apparent that in the last 30 years income has trickled up from the poor and the middle classes to the very rich in a form of reverse economic communism. There has been no real attempt to regulate this. Neo-classical economic thinking has become entrenched within the thinking of all political parties. This form of economics of "laissez-faire" thinking has failed us completely. The efficient markets hypothesis has almost led us into economic oblivion just as surely as it did in 1929. Our politicians have nothing to offer us as an alternative. There has been no public debate.
The British economy is progressing towards another property asset bubble. UK individual private debt is approaching 2 trillion pounds this sum is greater than government debt. Add to this another 2 trillion of corporate debt and the economy looks weaker. The UK banks are exposed to about 6 trillion pounds of above the line debt with possibly another few trillion pounds of below the line debt. All this adds up to the possibility of the UK economy crashing again if there is another financial crisis.
The 2008 financial crisis was not caused by government debt it was caused by Banks being unable to fund their debts because their counter balancing assets were mostly junk. Since 2008 the situation for Britain has hardly improved. The public are blissfully unaware of this and the politicians have buried their heads in the sand and are living in hope. They have no plan to improve the private balance sheet of UK incorporated. They can only talk about a couple of billion here or there on the government accounts.
The 350 billion pounds of quantitative easing spending which was not voted for by anybody has been used by the Banks to invest in property and the stock market and this is creating new asset bubbles in both markets.
In the 1960s the two major parties boasted about their house building programmes and vied with each other to build more houses. They actually achieved this.
In the 1960s the balance of payments was a key issue in the election. No party would have dreamt of allowing the means of industrial production to be relocated overseas; both parties would have seen the danger of this but of course neo-classical economics was not so prominent.
In the lead up to the UK joining the Common Market we saw discussion of the pros and cons in every election campaign. When we joined the EU no one worried about free movement of labour or immigration. We were a much more generous minded society then even though we were not as rich.
In the elections during the 60s and 70s foreign policy was high on the agenda; we thought carefully about going to war or bombing another country to achieve a diplomatic aim. Both the Conservative party and the Labour party kept us out of the Vietnam war and our country was the better for it.
In the 1960s and 1970s our country would not have supported an extreme right wing government in the Ukraine without full discussion and the approval of the British people. The memory of the second world war was still too painful.
The newspapers , media and the political parties seem to be frightened to talk about foreign policy and Britain's future relations with the World and Europe. All they want to talk about is their obsession with budget deficits.
Large swathes of our youth live in a country which cannot provide them with any sort of decent home or a steady job. They face living with their parents for extended periods or flat sharing in poor quality and expensive private housing. Their future looks bleak but where is the plan to get them out of this predicament? There isn't one and no one is talking about it.
Millions of people are relying on food banks or loans (gifts) from their family and friends to help them get by - what sort of future do they have? This is not up for discussion in the election.
Not even the Green party has talked about climate change and if this issue is not tackled by all of us then any talk of the economy and bookkeeping is academic. There will not be an economy.
35% of people won't vote in the 2015 election can you blame them? The politicians have failed us but worse of all we have failed ourselves.
With regards to the budget they seem to be acting like amateur bookkeepers. None of the politicians have talked about using national funds to improve the economy to help the incomes of the majority of our citizens.
Any economy must be a mixture of both capitalist and social enterprise. We need capitalism to generate wealth and we need social enterprise to provide the best infrastructure of transport, health and education to support wealth generation. There seems to have been no debate whatsoever on how this can be achieved.
There has been no debate on the best methods of distributing the national income or the economics of how to do this. It is apparent that in the last 30 years income has trickled up from the poor and the middle classes to the very rich in a form of reverse economic communism. There has been no real attempt to regulate this. Neo-classical economic thinking has become entrenched within the thinking of all political parties. This form of economics of "laissez-faire" thinking has failed us completely. The efficient markets hypothesis has almost led us into economic oblivion just as surely as it did in 1929. Our politicians have nothing to offer us as an alternative. There has been no public debate.
The British economy is progressing towards another property asset bubble. UK individual private debt is approaching 2 trillion pounds this sum is greater than government debt. Add to this another 2 trillion of corporate debt and the economy looks weaker. The UK banks are exposed to about 6 trillion pounds of above the line debt with possibly another few trillion pounds of below the line debt. All this adds up to the possibility of the UK economy crashing again if there is another financial crisis.
The 2008 financial crisis was not caused by government debt it was caused by Banks being unable to fund their debts because their counter balancing assets were mostly junk. Since 2008 the situation for Britain has hardly improved. The public are blissfully unaware of this and the politicians have buried their heads in the sand and are living in hope. They have no plan to improve the private balance sheet of UK incorporated. They can only talk about a couple of billion here or there on the government accounts.
The 350 billion pounds of quantitative easing spending which was not voted for by anybody has been used by the Banks to invest in property and the stock market and this is creating new asset bubbles in both markets.
In the 1960s the two major parties boasted about their house building programmes and vied with each other to build more houses. They actually achieved this.
In the 1960s the balance of payments was a key issue in the election. No party would have dreamt of allowing the means of industrial production to be relocated overseas; both parties would have seen the danger of this but of course neo-classical economics was not so prominent.
In the lead up to the UK joining the Common Market we saw discussion of the pros and cons in every election campaign. When we joined the EU no one worried about free movement of labour or immigration. We were a much more generous minded society then even though we were not as rich.
In the elections during the 60s and 70s foreign policy was high on the agenda; we thought carefully about going to war or bombing another country to achieve a diplomatic aim. Both the Conservative party and the Labour party kept us out of the Vietnam war and our country was the better for it.
In the 1960s and 1970s our country would not have supported an extreme right wing government in the Ukraine without full discussion and the approval of the British people. The memory of the second world war was still too painful.
The newspapers , media and the political parties seem to be frightened to talk about foreign policy and Britain's future relations with the World and Europe. All they want to talk about is their obsession with budget deficits.
Large swathes of our youth live in a country which cannot provide them with any sort of decent home or a steady job. They face living with their parents for extended periods or flat sharing in poor quality and expensive private housing. Their future looks bleak but where is the plan to get them out of this predicament? There isn't one and no one is talking about it.
Millions of people are relying on food banks or loans (gifts) from their family and friends to help them get by - what sort of future do they have? This is not up for discussion in the election.
Not even the Green party has talked about climate change and if this issue is not tackled by all of us then any talk of the economy and bookkeeping is academic. There will not be an economy.
35% of people won't vote in the 2015 election can you blame them? The politicians have failed us but worse of all we have failed ourselves.
Monday, 20 April 2015
The plight of the migrants
Once again we are seeing the plight of migrants to Europe who are refugees escaping war and famine in the Middle East and Africa. The people attempting to cross the Mediterranean from Libya to Italy are desperate. No one risks their life to board a flimsy boat at the behest of people traffickers unless they are desperate.
The reaction of European governments to this humanitarian disaster has been shameful. Also I am ashamed of the reaction of some of my fellow countrymen to this issue. The people trying to come to Europe are not economic migrants who want to sponge off our society; they are desperate to survive. If they are allowed to remain in Europe then they will be more than glad to work and make a contribution to the societies that welcome them.
Western governments have contributed to the malaise in Africa and the Middle East by indulging in wars to try to contain conflicts and problems that they do not understand. This is exemplified by the bombing of Libya. Britain and France did not have a plan for restoring stable government in Libya after Colonel Gaddafi was deposed. Our governments did not understand the politics and the intervention led to disaster.
We do not understand Syria either; western governments have armed the opposition to President Assad without any understanding of the politics and have allowed Isis to obtain huge quantities of western arms , probably, for free. Before the Syrian crisis millions of refugees were not fleeing Syria despite the despotic nature of the regime. Everyone knew the risks of opposing the regime but those who kept their heads down were relatively safe. Most despotic states fail and self-implode and then the time becomes right to obtain genuine political change but imposed from within the state.
The resources which western governments expend on war would be better deployed by promoting peace and useful economic activity. The world must also tackle over population and climate change. The rich and powerful nations of the world have the ability to improve the economic lot of the poor nations and this will help to reduce over population and famine.
The rich nations also have it within their power to mitigate the effects of climate change to reduce pressure on food and water supplies and alleviate famine.
If we all thought rationally then we could find solutions to the problems of migration by promoting peace, economic development and an equable climate for all.
If we persist with the policy of only promoting self interest we are going to head for disaster. We will not solve the problems of Africa and the Middle East by allowing a situation where millions and millions of people are forced to migrate. Everyone would rather stay at home so lets make all homes comfortable enough so that no one needs to run away. Migration should an option for the adventurous rather than a necessity for the desperate.
The reaction of European governments to this humanitarian disaster has been shameful. Also I am ashamed of the reaction of some of my fellow countrymen to this issue. The people trying to come to Europe are not economic migrants who want to sponge off our society; they are desperate to survive. If they are allowed to remain in Europe then they will be more than glad to work and make a contribution to the societies that welcome them.
Western governments have contributed to the malaise in Africa and the Middle East by indulging in wars to try to contain conflicts and problems that they do not understand. This is exemplified by the bombing of Libya. Britain and France did not have a plan for restoring stable government in Libya after Colonel Gaddafi was deposed. Our governments did not understand the politics and the intervention led to disaster.
We do not understand Syria either; western governments have armed the opposition to President Assad without any understanding of the politics and have allowed Isis to obtain huge quantities of western arms , probably, for free. Before the Syrian crisis millions of refugees were not fleeing Syria despite the despotic nature of the regime. Everyone knew the risks of opposing the regime but those who kept their heads down were relatively safe. Most despotic states fail and self-implode and then the time becomes right to obtain genuine political change but imposed from within the state.
The resources which western governments expend on war would be better deployed by promoting peace and useful economic activity. The world must also tackle over population and climate change. The rich and powerful nations of the world have the ability to improve the economic lot of the poor nations and this will help to reduce over population and famine.
The rich nations also have it within their power to mitigate the effects of climate change to reduce pressure on food and water supplies and alleviate famine.
If we all thought rationally then we could find solutions to the problems of migration by promoting peace, economic development and an equable climate for all.
If we persist with the policy of only promoting self interest we are going to head for disaster. We will not solve the problems of Africa and the Middle East by allowing a situation where millions and millions of people are forced to migrate. Everyone would rather stay at home so lets make all homes comfortable enough so that no one needs to run away. Migration should an option for the adventurous rather than a necessity for the desperate.
Thursday, 16 April 2015
UK Economics 2015
All of the opponents in the UK general election have ignored some disturbing facts about the UK economy: productivity is down and the trade deficit or balance of payments deficit is up. They have few or no real policies to improve either.
Productivity was down by 0.2% for the last quarter of 2104 and overall our productivity as a nation is insufficient to get the economy moving and reduce our budget deficit and national debt.
To improve productivity we must invest in skills, manufacturing equipment, infrastructure, house building, new products and the means to bring new products to the export and domestic markets. An improvement in productivity will enable our nation to compete more effectively in international and domestic markets. It will also allow us to reduce the debt burden.
It is apparent that very little of the £375 billion of quantitative easing (QE) generated by the Bank of England has been directed at investment in the real economy. Such a large input of liquidity into the economy should have generated some inflation in the real economy - so far it has not. Inflation helps to reduce the burden of debt. The billions spent on QE have been used by the banks to support their balance sheets by investing this money in the stock and property markets. The effects of QE are to artificially inflate asset prices in the property and stock markets. This form of inflation is not included in the inflation statistics therefore there is no real pressure on the Bank of England to control it. We are in danger of creating new asset bubbles just like we did prior to 2007.
QE is benefiting property speculators and financiers rather than industries in the real economy who produce goods for sale or build roads, railways and hospitals etc..
When it is more productive, the real economy generates more higher valued jobs and this means that the government needs to spend less on social benefits.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/04/01/uk-britain-employment-productivity-idUKKBN0MS48J20150401
Linked to productivity is the balance of trade deficit. For the month of February 2015 Britain's overall balance of trade deficit was £2.859 billion up from £1.536 billion in January. Our exports to the US fell in February 2015. Every year Britain records enormous balance of trade deficits and this means that we are not paying our way as a nation and we have to live on credit. Poor productivity along with the higher value of the pound contributes to the balance of trade deficit.
Huge amounts of hot money are continuing to come into Britain to fuel financial speculation; this increases the value of the pound and makes our goods more expensive in export markets. Our pound is not increasing in value because we are running a trade account surplus. Hot money is not being used to fund the real economy therefore productivity suffers and the balance of trade suffers too.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/balance-of-trade
We need a new economic model of capitalism which generates wealth in the real economy. Our governments have almost left the running of the economy to the Bank of England who are using interest rate policy and QE to try to regulate financial matters only. We need the Treasury and the Department of Business to get more involved in running the economy. Monetary policy alone will not solve the structural problems of the British economy: we need to become more productive. A central bank cannot be expected to direct monetary policy towards this end. Fiscal policy must become more involved again. It was a mistake to allow the central bank to determine economic policy as it is more concerned with protecting finance rather than industrial investment.
The next government of the UK must rescue fiscal policy and industrial investment as part of a completely coherent economic and monetary policy to control supply and demand and investment in the real economy and its workers.
None of the political parties in this election have mentioned the trade deficit or the failure of Britain to improve its productivity. It almost seems as if the political establishment has given up promoting sound and stable economic development. Our politicians seem only interested in arguing about book keeping rather than using the money of the nation to create real wealth. They are thinking more like sales ledger clerks than management accountants. If they continue in this vein there is not much hope for a real economic recovery. Long term stagnation,lost opportunity and continuing poverty for a substantial proportion of the population could be the unfortunate result.
It is time for the politicians to have the courage and nous to wrest back economic power from financial speculators and grant it to the wealth creators in the real economy of entrepreneurs and workers alike.
Productivity was down by 0.2% for the last quarter of 2104 and overall our productivity as a nation is insufficient to get the economy moving and reduce our budget deficit and national debt.
To improve productivity we must invest in skills, manufacturing equipment, infrastructure, house building, new products and the means to bring new products to the export and domestic markets. An improvement in productivity will enable our nation to compete more effectively in international and domestic markets. It will also allow us to reduce the debt burden.
It is apparent that very little of the £375 billion of quantitative easing (QE) generated by the Bank of England has been directed at investment in the real economy. Such a large input of liquidity into the economy should have generated some inflation in the real economy - so far it has not. Inflation helps to reduce the burden of debt. The billions spent on QE have been used by the banks to support their balance sheets by investing this money in the stock and property markets. The effects of QE are to artificially inflate asset prices in the property and stock markets. This form of inflation is not included in the inflation statistics therefore there is no real pressure on the Bank of England to control it. We are in danger of creating new asset bubbles just like we did prior to 2007.
QE is benefiting property speculators and financiers rather than industries in the real economy who produce goods for sale or build roads, railways and hospitals etc..
When it is more productive, the real economy generates more higher valued jobs and this means that the government needs to spend less on social benefits.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/04/01/uk-britain-employment-productivity-idUKKBN0MS48J20150401
Linked to productivity is the balance of trade deficit. For the month of February 2015 Britain's overall balance of trade deficit was £2.859 billion up from £1.536 billion in January. Our exports to the US fell in February 2015. Every year Britain records enormous balance of trade deficits and this means that we are not paying our way as a nation and we have to live on credit. Poor productivity along with the higher value of the pound contributes to the balance of trade deficit.
Huge amounts of hot money are continuing to come into Britain to fuel financial speculation; this increases the value of the pound and makes our goods more expensive in export markets. Our pound is not increasing in value because we are running a trade account surplus. Hot money is not being used to fund the real economy therefore productivity suffers and the balance of trade suffers too.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/balance-of-trade
We need a new economic model of capitalism which generates wealth in the real economy. Our governments have almost left the running of the economy to the Bank of England who are using interest rate policy and QE to try to regulate financial matters only. We need the Treasury and the Department of Business to get more involved in running the economy. Monetary policy alone will not solve the structural problems of the British economy: we need to become more productive. A central bank cannot be expected to direct monetary policy towards this end. Fiscal policy must become more involved again. It was a mistake to allow the central bank to determine economic policy as it is more concerned with protecting finance rather than industrial investment.
The next government of the UK must rescue fiscal policy and industrial investment as part of a completely coherent economic and monetary policy to control supply and demand and investment in the real economy and its workers.
None of the political parties in this election have mentioned the trade deficit or the failure of Britain to improve its productivity. It almost seems as if the political establishment has given up promoting sound and stable economic development. Our politicians seem only interested in arguing about book keeping rather than using the money of the nation to create real wealth. They are thinking more like sales ledger clerks than management accountants. If they continue in this vein there is not much hope for a real economic recovery. Long term stagnation,lost opportunity and continuing poverty for a substantial proportion of the population could be the unfortunate result.
It is time for the politicians to have the courage and nous to wrest back economic power from financial speculators and grant it to the wealth creators in the real economy of entrepreneurs and workers alike.
Monday, 13 April 2015
UK General Election 2015
The UK general election is not tackling the real issue which Britain faces, which is the problem of private debt. It is only concentrating on government debt. We are being treated to arguments about minor differences about how much the government should spend and tax over the course of the next parliament or 5 years, if the next parliament lasts that long even though there is a legal obligation for a government not to resign.
At present the whole of the British economy generates about £1.6 trillion in one year. Our public national debt is some 80% of GDP which is around £1.3 trillion. £1.3 trillion is a colossal sum of money which results in interest payments of around £48 billion per year which the government must finance before it spends any money on welfare, the national health service, education and etc.
The UK's total annual spending is about £714 billion pounds. The budget deficit is around £100 billion as the government raises just over £600 billion pounds in taxes.
The difference between the political parties' spending and tax plans is around £12 billion per year. They are arguing about a tiny proportion of the national debt and the public sector borrowing requirement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/breakdown_2014UKbt_14bc5n
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/23/uk-deficit-lowest-financial-crisis-osborne-budget
The national public debt of £1.3 trillion is dwarfed by private debt, which stands at over £5 trillion; this is almost unimaginable. Price Waterhouse predict that for the fiscal year 2105 total UK debt will rise to about £10.2 trillion. £1.4 trillion will be the national public debt and the rest will be private debt.
Households will owe £1.9 trillion mostly in the form of mortgages. These debts are secured but if another housing market bubble burst many of these debts will become un-secured or will have their collateral severely reduced.
Financial sector debt is predicted to be £4.2 trillion and although much of this debt is balanced by assets but a lot of those assets are at risk.
Non-financial companies owe £2.2 trillion and around half of this debt is secured against property.
Britain's total private and public debt has not reduced substantially since 2009 when the financial crisis was in full swing. In 2009 it stood at 543% of GDP and PWC predict that for 2015
it will be 536%. The balance sheet of Britain is still just as precarious as 2009.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/nov/09/economicgrowth-debt-relief#data
The high level of private debt is crippling our economy by reducing the amount of credit that the Bank's can grant to small and mid sized companies.
The Bank's are in so much difficulty that the government of the UK has bought £375 billion pounds of gilts and mortgage backed securities from them. This £375 billion which has been spent by the Bank of England as part of its quantitative easing programme has shored up the Banks' balance sheets to protect the UK Banking sector from collapsing. Little of this money has found its way into the real economy to support businesses. If a substantial amount of this money had found its way into the real economy then we would have had inflation.
None of this £375 billion bonanza has been spent on a hospital, a care home, a library or a road.
This money was spent by both the Labour and Conservative governments between 2009 and 2012 without any real discussion and no-one voted for it. Why therefore are the politicians arguing about £12 billion?
One day we shall have to pay back the £375 billion of quantitative easing which the governments have borrowed on our behalf. To spend £8 billion on the NHS is chicken feed in comparison.
The level of private debt could create another dangerous asset bubble which if it bursts will create
such havoc that it could break our economy. We cannot afford to bail the Banks out again. None of our politicians want to talk about this . They are just living in hope that a little pruning of the budgets here and a little additional taxation here will somehow pay off all our debts.
In the future, we don't know when, interest rates will have to rise and when they do the whole economy will suffer again. Unfortunately this is an unavoidable consequence of too much private debt rather than public debt. No political party has an answer. In 2005 most politicians, economists and members of the public though the garden was rosy. In 2015 we would all be fools to think the same thing again. The trouble is there is no-one to vote for who has got any idea how we are going to balance the books of UK PLC. We need a new economic model of capitalism and quickly.
At present the whole of the British economy generates about £1.6 trillion in one year. Our public national debt is some 80% of GDP which is around £1.3 trillion. £1.3 trillion is a colossal sum of money which results in interest payments of around £48 billion per year which the government must finance before it spends any money on welfare, the national health service, education and etc.
The UK's total annual spending is about £714 billion pounds. The budget deficit is around £100 billion as the government raises just over £600 billion pounds in taxes.
The difference between the political parties' spending and tax plans is around £12 billion per year. They are arguing about a tiny proportion of the national debt and the public sector borrowing requirement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/breakdown_2014UKbt_14bc5n
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/23/uk-deficit-lowest-financial-crisis-osborne-budget
The national public debt of £1.3 trillion is dwarfed by private debt, which stands at over £5 trillion; this is almost unimaginable. Price Waterhouse predict that for the fiscal year 2105 total UK debt will rise to about £10.2 trillion. £1.4 trillion will be the national public debt and the rest will be private debt.
Households will owe £1.9 trillion mostly in the form of mortgages. These debts are secured but if another housing market bubble burst many of these debts will become un-secured or will have their collateral severely reduced.
Financial sector debt is predicted to be £4.2 trillion and although much of this debt is balanced by assets but a lot of those assets are at risk.
Non-financial companies owe £2.2 trillion and around half of this debt is secured against property.
Britain's total private and public debt has not reduced substantially since 2009 when the financial crisis was in full swing. In 2009 it stood at 543% of GDP and PWC predict that for 2015
it will be 536%. The balance sheet of Britain is still just as precarious as 2009.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/nov/09/economicgrowth-debt-relief#data
The high level of private debt is crippling our economy by reducing the amount of credit that the Bank's can grant to small and mid sized companies.
The Bank's are in so much difficulty that the government of the UK has bought £375 billion pounds of gilts and mortgage backed securities from them. This £375 billion which has been spent by the Bank of England as part of its quantitative easing programme has shored up the Banks' balance sheets to protect the UK Banking sector from collapsing. Little of this money has found its way into the real economy to support businesses. If a substantial amount of this money had found its way into the real economy then we would have had inflation.
None of this £375 billion bonanza has been spent on a hospital, a care home, a library or a road.
This money was spent by both the Labour and Conservative governments between 2009 and 2012 without any real discussion and no-one voted for it. Why therefore are the politicians arguing about £12 billion?
One day we shall have to pay back the £375 billion of quantitative easing which the governments have borrowed on our behalf. To spend £8 billion on the NHS is chicken feed in comparison.
The level of private debt could create another dangerous asset bubble which if it bursts will create
such havoc that it could break our economy. We cannot afford to bail the Banks out again. None of our politicians want to talk about this . They are just living in hope that a little pruning of the budgets here and a little additional taxation here will somehow pay off all our debts.
In the future, we don't know when, interest rates will have to rise and when they do the whole economy will suffer again. Unfortunately this is an unavoidable consequence of too much private debt rather than public debt. No political party has an answer. In 2005 most politicians, economists and members of the public though the garden was rosy. In 2015 we would all be fools to think the same thing again. The trouble is there is no-one to vote for who has got any idea how we are going to balance the books of UK PLC. We need a new economic model of capitalism and quickly.
Tuesday, 24 March 2015
Intolerance to opinions
Lord Carey the ex-Archbishop of Canterbury is at the centre of a censorship controversy concerning his views on homosexual marriage. London's Kings College is considering to remove his photograph from an array of Alumni because student activists have opined that his views on gay marriage are offensive.
I am not a Christian and I am not opposed to homosexuals being married. I also believe that the church's views on this matter are wrong. However, it is not my church and church members should be allowed to express their opinion. In fact I believe that their opinions should be welcomed; the Church of England is not advocating that homosexuals should be imprisoned or sanctioned and it has not opposed the laws allowing secular homosexual marriage. I am prepared to debate the liberal and secular view with church members; there is no need to try to brow beat them into acquiescence.
Expressing an opinion about social values should not be condemned. There are no doubt some people who believe that 16 should not be the age of consent to marriage and that it should be raised to the age of 18 or whatever. Should they be condemned for expressing such and opinion? Some people believe that any sort of sex outside of marriage is sinful - should they be condemned too?
We have become an intolerant society which has been become too quick to condemn un-conventional opinions and too quick to stifle free speech. It seems that none of this is government inspired but it comes from a general shift of social mores. This is dangerous. Free speech is important and there is no need to stifle it by insulting someone or organising demonstrations against it. It is the job of a University to encourage free debate about social values.
Doctor Carey has been accused of being a hypocrite because he condemns racism but does not support homosexual marriage as if the two stances are equivalent. Well they are not. Racism stems from ignorance. There is no such thing as race when applied to human beings as all of us are members of the same sub-species. A University is perfectly entitled and in fact has a duty not to promote ignorance, therefore "racists" should be allowed a platform. Opinion about social behaviour and social values is a completely different matter; Christians and Muslims are perfectly entitled to their views as long as they do not try to impose their values on a secular society by force or sanction.
In my opinion there few forms of censorship which are justified excepting child pornography and incitement to hatred and violence. Where national security is at stake then censorship could also be justified but subject to judicial review. In most other cases censorship is not justified not matter how offensive the views are.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11434880/Kings-College-London-facing-censorship-claims-amid-Lord-Carey-gay-marriage-row.html
Lord Carey or the present Archbishop of Canterbury cannot be accused of this below. It is preposterous to think that the Church of England is still a part of the middle ages.
http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/2000.htm.
This week we have seen the leader, Nigel Farage, of the UKIP party, being harassed when taking lunch with his family at a local pub.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32009961
Once again this reflects intolerance that has gone too far. I do not support Mr Farage's views about most things and I have no intention of ever voting for him. I support his right to express his opinions, however. He is not supporting the use of violence or inciting hatred and his party is a legitimate one which commands the support of a substantial minority of the electorate.
Mr Farage is entitled to eat his lunch in a pub in peace without being harassed by a mob. He is just as entitled to this as the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition.
I regularly go to this pub for a Sunday lunch; the bar staff and the clientele are all reasonable and friendly people and country ramblers are welcome. Why should they have to put up with mob rule as well? If Mr Farage comes into the pub while I am there I will gladly leave him in peace to get on with family business or political business for that matter.
The best way to oppose his opinions is to vote for a party that does not share his views and there are plenty to choose from.
I am not a Christian and I am not opposed to homosexuals being married. I also believe that the church's views on this matter are wrong. However, it is not my church and church members should be allowed to express their opinion. In fact I believe that their opinions should be welcomed; the Church of England is not advocating that homosexuals should be imprisoned or sanctioned and it has not opposed the laws allowing secular homosexual marriage. I am prepared to debate the liberal and secular view with church members; there is no need to try to brow beat them into acquiescence.
Expressing an opinion about social values should not be condemned. There are no doubt some people who believe that 16 should not be the age of consent to marriage and that it should be raised to the age of 18 or whatever. Should they be condemned for expressing such and opinion? Some people believe that any sort of sex outside of marriage is sinful - should they be condemned too?
We have become an intolerant society which has been become too quick to condemn un-conventional opinions and too quick to stifle free speech. It seems that none of this is government inspired but it comes from a general shift of social mores. This is dangerous. Free speech is important and there is no need to stifle it by insulting someone or organising demonstrations against it. It is the job of a University to encourage free debate about social values.
Doctor Carey has been accused of being a hypocrite because he condemns racism but does not support homosexual marriage as if the two stances are equivalent. Well they are not. Racism stems from ignorance. There is no such thing as race when applied to human beings as all of us are members of the same sub-species. A University is perfectly entitled and in fact has a duty not to promote ignorance, therefore "racists" should be allowed a platform. Opinion about social behaviour and social values is a completely different matter; Christians and Muslims are perfectly entitled to their views as long as they do not try to impose their values on a secular society by force or sanction.
In my opinion there few forms of censorship which are justified excepting child pornography and incitement to hatred and violence. Where national security is at stake then censorship could also be justified but subject to judicial review. In most other cases censorship is not justified not matter how offensive the views are.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11434880/Kings-College-London-facing-censorship-claims-amid-Lord-Carey-gay-marriage-row.html
Lord Carey or the present Archbishop of Canterbury cannot be accused of this below. It is preposterous to think that the Church of England is still a part of the middle ages.
http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/2000.htm.
This week we have seen the leader, Nigel Farage, of the UKIP party, being harassed when taking lunch with his family at a local pub.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32009961
Once again this reflects intolerance that has gone too far. I do not support Mr Farage's views about most things and I have no intention of ever voting for him. I support his right to express his opinions, however. He is not supporting the use of violence or inciting hatred and his party is a legitimate one which commands the support of a substantial minority of the electorate.
Mr Farage is entitled to eat his lunch in a pub in peace without being harassed by a mob. He is just as entitled to this as the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition.
I regularly go to this pub for a Sunday lunch; the bar staff and the clientele are all reasonable and friendly people and country ramblers are welcome. Why should they have to put up with mob rule as well? If Mr Farage comes into the pub while I am there I will gladly leave him in peace to get on with family business or political business for that matter.
The best way to oppose his opinions is to vote for a party that does not share his views and there are plenty to choose from.
Partial Eclipse of The Sun
Last Friday I saw the partial eclipse of the Sun in Northern France. My special eye protection was completely useless. When I looked at the Sun through them I saw nothing. It was cloudy and the clouds were sufficiently dense to obscure the Sun so that I could view the eclipse safely without the use of special equipment. At times the clouds obscured the Sun completely. Towards the end of the eclipse the clouds thinned out and even a direct glance would probably have been dangerous. My instincts kicked in, in any case, and I averted my eyes without even thinking about it.
At one point 80% of the Sun was covered by the Moon. I could swear that I perceived the Moon as a sphere rather than a flat object. The Sun appeared three dimensional too; a little bit like an ice cream scoop. I cannot for the life of me understand why ancient man, and indeed some modern humans, could have ever believed that the Earth, Sun and Moon were flat.
To those Head Teachers, in the UK, who prevented their pupils from observing the eclipse, either directly through specially approved glasses or indirectly via a pin hole projection onto a white card, I say shame on you.
From where I was it was perfectly safe to look at the Sun with the naked eye but assisted by quite thick clouds. Had my young son or daughter been with me then I would gladly have allowed them to see this wonderful sight in this way too.
It is far better to educate our children how to observe the Sun safely rather than deny them the opportunity because of misguided and silly views on safety. An ill educated child could quite easily and mistakenly look at the Sun through binoculars because they are not aware dangers through the actions of over protective teachers and parents.
At one point 80% of the Sun was covered by the Moon. I could swear that I perceived the Moon as a sphere rather than a flat object. The Sun appeared three dimensional too; a little bit like an ice cream scoop. I cannot for the life of me understand why ancient man, and indeed some modern humans, could have ever believed that the Earth, Sun and Moon were flat.
To those Head Teachers, in the UK, who prevented their pupils from observing the eclipse, either directly through specially approved glasses or indirectly via a pin hole projection onto a white card, I say shame on you.
From where I was it was perfectly safe to look at the Sun with the naked eye but assisted by quite thick clouds. Had my young son or daughter been with me then I would gladly have allowed them to see this wonderful sight in this way too.
It is far better to educate our children how to observe the Sun safely rather than deny them the opportunity because of misguided and silly views on safety. An ill educated child could quite easily and mistakenly look at the Sun through binoculars because they are not aware dangers through the actions of over protective teachers and parents.
Wednesday, 18 March 2015
Eclipse of the Sun madness
Two schools in the UK are going to prevent their pupils form going out to see the partial eclipse of the sun this coming Friday morning for fear of eye damage. This is quite silly. Young children should not be denied seeing a rare astronomical phenomenon of learning from it.
There are plenty of ways of observing a partial eclipse safely. But, first let it be said that you should not gaze at the sun in its partial or annular eclipse phase. You will damage your eyes even if you look for just a second or so. You must use protection. It is also risky to look at the full phase of a solar eclipse when the moon completely obscures the sun as a full eclipse can quickly become a partial eclipse.
Here are some ways to look at a partial or full eclipse of the sun.
Use a mirror to reflect the sun onto a white card.
Put the mirror a white envelop with a 1 mm hole in it . The hole will make the image of the sun appear in better focus.
Use a pin hole in a piece of white card to project an image of the sun and the moon onto a piece of white card or a white wall.
Look at the shadow of the sun through some tree leaves as the leaves can act as a form of pin-hole.
Use "Mylar" film which is a form of Aluminumised polyester. You must check , however, that there are no holes whatsoever in the film.
Use special black polymer film. I shall be using this.
Never look at the sun through binoculars or a telescope without a professional filter even when there is a full eclipse. You are almost certain to damage your eyes. Always be careful when scanning the sky with binoculars not to look at the sun.
If you take the right precautions it should be perfectly safe to view the eclipse.
When I was a kid in the early sixties we used a glass plate held over a candle, which smoked up the plate to make it very dark or black. We did this at school; no-one's eyes were damaged. I do not recommend this and you do so as an adult at your own risk. Children should not be encouraged to do this.
When I have not had professional equipment available, at my own risk I have used photographic black and white film which has been exposed to the light to go almost completely black. Medium format film is best and you should use several layers to make sure any hole is covered up by an alternative layer. This worked for me but I did not look at the sun for more than a couple of seconds; I did not damage my eyes. Once again you do so at your own risk as an adult; this is not recommended for children.
In London the sun will be obscured by 84% at its maximum. You will not notice much diminution of the light. Do not look directly at the sun at anytime during the partial eclipse. I do not expect many accidents to be caused in London despite all the scaremongering. You are obliged to keep your eyes on the road at all times when driving. In the North of Scotland the sun will be obscured more but there will not be a total eclipse but motorists will probably need to put their lights on as they would for a thunderstorm.
http://www.solareclipse2015.org.uk/london/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131102-solar-eclipse-safe-viewing-science-sun-space/
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/safety2.html
Happy viewing and stay safe and commiserations for the young children who are denied to opportunity to see this event. When you are older you will be free to make your own mind up about your safety.
There are plenty of ways of observing a partial eclipse safely. But, first let it be said that you should not gaze at the sun in its partial or annular eclipse phase. You will damage your eyes even if you look for just a second or so. You must use protection. It is also risky to look at the full phase of a solar eclipse when the moon completely obscures the sun as a full eclipse can quickly become a partial eclipse.
Here are some ways to look at a partial or full eclipse of the sun.
Use a mirror to reflect the sun onto a white card.
Put the mirror a white envelop with a 1 mm hole in it . The hole will make the image of the sun appear in better focus.
Use a pin hole in a piece of white card to project an image of the sun and the moon onto a piece of white card or a white wall.
Look at the shadow of the sun through some tree leaves as the leaves can act as a form of pin-hole.
Use "Mylar" film which is a form of Aluminumised polyester. You must check , however, that there are no holes whatsoever in the film.
Use special black polymer film. I shall be using this.
Never look at the sun through binoculars or a telescope without a professional filter even when there is a full eclipse. You are almost certain to damage your eyes. Always be careful when scanning the sky with binoculars not to look at the sun.
If you take the right precautions it should be perfectly safe to view the eclipse.
When I was a kid in the early sixties we used a glass plate held over a candle, which smoked up the plate to make it very dark or black. We did this at school; no-one's eyes were damaged. I do not recommend this and you do so as an adult at your own risk. Children should not be encouraged to do this.
When I have not had professional equipment available, at my own risk I have used photographic black and white film which has been exposed to the light to go almost completely black. Medium format film is best and you should use several layers to make sure any hole is covered up by an alternative layer. This worked for me but I did not look at the sun for more than a couple of seconds; I did not damage my eyes. Once again you do so at your own risk as an adult; this is not recommended for children.
In London the sun will be obscured by 84% at its maximum. You will not notice much diminution of the light. Do not look directly at the sun at anytime during the partial eclipse. I do not expect many accidents to be caused in London despite all the scaremongering. You are obliged to keep your eyes on the road at all times when driving. In the North of Scotland the sun will be obscured more but there will not be a total eclipse but motorists will probably need to put their lights on as they would for a thunderstorm.
http://www.solareclipse2015.org.uk/london/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131102-solar-eclipse-safe-viewing-science-sun-space/
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/safety2.html
Happy viewing and stay safe and commiserations for the young children who are denied to opportunity to see this event. When you are older you will be free to make your own mind up about your safety.
Western Irregulars fight on both sides of the conflict with Isis
British irregular soldiers are now fighting against Isis in Syria with Kurdish fighters. We now have the possibility of British fighters shooting at one another because of the war against Isis.
It would be better if irregular soldiers kept out of the conflict. There is no guarantee that guerrillas from either side will not torture or kill non-combatants or prisoners of war. There is no guarantee that the Geneva convention will be respected. The Geneva convention is the only means of controlling misdeeds resulting from war. Irregular soldiers could easily find themselves being tried at the Hague for war crimes.
We cannot allow a proxy "civil war" between supporters and opponents of Isis to be fought out in Syria. The backlash from this could spill over to Britain.
It seems to me that the fighters joining the Kurds have not been radicalised but are motivated by a sense of injustice when they read that Isis is performing misdeeds against civilians. We should also consider that Isis supporters may not have been radicalised by propaganda but were also motivated by what they see as injustice towards Muslims as a result of the wars in Iraq, North Africa and Gaza.
A sense of injustice is difficult to oppose especially when that injustice is in fact a reality.
I appeal to all British citizens not to get involved in violence in the Middle East as part of irregular forces as our State is not under direct or existential threat. The best way to fight injustice is via the ballot box. There is also another way and that is by passive resistance which was proven to be most successful by one of the World's greatest and peaceful political leaders - Gandhi.
It would be better if irregular soldiers kept out of the conflict. There is no guarantee that guerrillas from either side will not torture or kill non-combatants or prisoners of war. There is no guarantee that the Geneva convention will be respected. The Geneva convention is the only means of controlling misdeeds resulting from war. Irregular soldiers could easily find themselves being tried at the Hague for war crimes.
We cannot allow a proxy "civil war" between supporters and opponents of Isis to be fought out in Syria. The backlash from this could spill over to Britain.
It seems to me that the fighters joining the Kurds have not been radicalised but are motivated by a sense of injustice when they read that Isis is performing misdeeds against civilians. We should also consider that Isis supporters may not have been radicalised by propaganda but were also motivated by what they see as injustice towards Muslims as a result of the wars in Iraq, North Africa and Gaza.
A sense of injustice is difficult to oppose especially when that injustice is in fact a reality.
I appeal to all British citizens not to get involved in violence in the Middle East as part of irregular forces as our State is not under direct or existential threat. The best way to fight injustice is via the ballot box. There is also another way and that is by passive resistance which was proven to be most successful by one of the World's greatest and peaceful political leaders - Gandhi.
Obama recognises Iraq war mistake
Yesterday, President Obama claimed that the rise in ISIS was an unexpected outcome of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
This seems to me to be a reasonable analysis. The power vacuum in Iraq is being filled by ISIS whether we like it or not. Similarly, the power vacuum in Syria is being filled by ISIS and the same can be said for Libya.
The time has come for a change in policy by the West, it seems that everything we touch in the Middle East and North Africa leads to disintegration. Our politicians have not learnt from history and we are faced with endless wars. Who knows which country will be affected next - Egypt ?
The west should allow the United Nations to broker solutions based on the needs of the countries which are in conflict rather than colonial dominance.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/iraq-isis-george-w-bush-obama/2015/03/17/id/630545/
This seems to me to be a reasonable analysis. The power vacuum in Iraq is being filled by ISIS whether we like it or not. Similarly, the power vacuum in Syria is being filled by ISIS and the same can be said for Libya.
The time has come for a change in policy by the West, it seems that everything we touch in the Middle East and North Africa leads to disintegration. Our politicians have not learnt from history and we are faced with endless wars. Who knows which country will be affected next - Egypt ?
The west should allow the United Nations to broker solutions based on the needs of the countries which are in conflict rather than colonial dominance.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/iraq-isis-george-w-bush-obama/2015/03/17/id/630545/
Thursday, 5 March 2015
A Suicide trip to Mars
The Mars One project is planning to send its first crew on a one way mission to Mars in 2024 with a landing in 2025. There is much work and fund raising to be done before the project gets off the ground.
http://www.mars-one.com/mission/roadmap
I am hoping that the project fails to raise the funds for a number of reasons:
It is unrealistic to plan a mission to go anywhere if the explorers have no chance of coming back to tell us in person about their experiences,
It is immoral to persuade young people to accept that they are going on a one way journey from which there is no return and no rescue if something goes wrong,
It is immoral to persuade someone to accept isolation which could lead to a lonely existence millions of miles from their home planet and their family, friends and fellow human beings,
It is immoral to bring children into being in a completely alien world,
The purpose of the colonisation of another planet is of debateable if not dubious benefit to humanity.
All astronauts and cosmonauts are brave people and they accept that their lives are at risk but all missions into space are based on the hope that the explorers will return home safely. When Yuri Gagarin first went into space he did so on the basis that he had a fair chance of returning even though rescue if something went wrong was not possible.
The same applied to Aldrin, Armstrong and Collins when they first travelled to the moon. The pioneers accepted that a rescue mission to the moon was not possible if they became stranded but they always maintained the hope that the mission would succeed and they would return to their families.
When Apollo 13 got into difficulties strenuous and ingenious efforts were made to bring back the pilots safely. It is part of our humanity not to give up hope and we owe it to our fellow humans to try to rescue them when they get into difficulty.
One of the justifications for the Mars One mission is that many people, in the past, have emigrated knowing that they will never see their relatives and friends again and survived. However, there was still hope that fortunes might change and a return would be possible or their friends and relatives could come and join the pioneers in their new country.
Many people in the past have been banished form their country and sent to new continents and survived but this was cruel punishment for what might have been petty crime.
Some explorers got into severe difficulties: the Shackleton Endurance expedition to the South Pole in 1914 saw the team of explorers being marooned in the Antarctic for over a year. In the end Shackleton made strenuous and brave efforts to rescue all his men. It was probably the most valiant rescue mission in history. Where there is life there is hope. Perhaps where there is no hope there can be no life. Read this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/shackleton_ernest.shtml
At its closest, when both planets are in opposition to the Sun, Mars is 54.6 million km from the Earth. This is a colossal distance. A radio signal would take 3 minutes to reach earth so a reply signal could not be received within 6 minutes. When the Earth and Mars are both at aphelion the distance from each other is 401 million km so a radio signal and its reply would take considerably longer than 6 minutes. No-one has been trained to experience such isolation in terms of distance; we have no knowledge how explorers would react to such a one way trip.
W e have no real knowledge of how anyone would react when they are prevented from seeing and touching their family and friends for such a long time when they are also living in a totally alien environment.
The gravity on Mars is 38% that of the Earth. We have no idea of the really long term effect of reduced gravity on the human anatomy and psychology.
The explorers will be living in a totally artificial environment: apart from the reduced gravity they will be forced to breathe recycled air, drink recycled water and eat recycled food for a very extended period. We have no idea how this will affect their morale and physical and mental well being.
The explorers will have to wear a spacesuit when they leave their habitation. The atmosphere is 95% carbon dioxide at 1% of the pressure of the Earth. Any accident or tear to the spacesuit will probably result in death. The average temperature of the planet is minus 60 degrees Celsius.
The planet's surface is like a desert and dust storms can last for months.
The Mars year is 687 Earth days but the length of day is just over 24 Earth hours - so there is some familiarity on a daily basis.
On Mars there will be no sound of a river or a breeze rustling the leaves of trees. There will be no smell of a wild flower. You will not be able to feel the sun on your skin. You will not be able to taste wild fruits. As Mars is much smaller than the Earth the horizon will be closer.
The outside light will be completely different. The sky will not be blue and there will be no clouds. There will be no rain to sense.
Could virtual reality make up for what you are missing?
In this completely alien world how long would your sanity last when you are completely isolated from your friends and family as well? You might become so homesick that your mental health would really suffer.
Your opportunity to find a lover might be really restricted; you could end up having very little physical contact with your fellow humans. If you do find a lover then what happens if you split up? There maybe nowhere to hide.
What right do you have to have a baby which will be forced to grow up in a totally alien environment? From an evolutionary point of view, a baby will be totally ill adapted to live in such an alien world. What would happen to its physical development when exposed to considerably reduced gravity?
On Mars there will be no enforceable laws so what happens if someone becomes violent or murders someone? Will there be rough justice?
Mental difficulties could easily arise because of the isolation, the alien environment and poor interpersonal relations. There is no hope of relief or even rescue. Is there provision for a mental hospital?
I can see such a mission quickly becoming a disaster when there is no hope of return. This coupled with the chance of something going wrong with the equipment could lead to a complete catastrophe.
I can see the point of a manned mission to Mars but only for a scientific purpose and only if the explorers have a fair chance of returning home. To persuade young persons to go on a one way trip which they might completely regret is simply immoral.
We do not need to colonise Mars; where are the long term benefits? It is best to make the best of the good Earth and cherish what it has to offer for as long as we are alive.
http://www.mars-one.com/mission/roadmap
I am hoping that the project fails to raise the funds for a number of reasons:
It is unrealistic to plan a mission to go anywhere if the explorers have no chance of coming back to tell us in person about their experiences,
It is immoral to persuade young people to accept that they are going on a one way journey from which there is no return and no rescue if something goes wrong,
It is immoral to persuade someone to accept isolation which could lead to a lonely existence millions of miles from their home planet and their family, friends and fellow human beings,
It is immoral to bring children into being in a completely alien world,
The purpose of the colonisation of another planet is of debateable if not dubious benefit to humanity.
All astronauts and cosmonauts are brave people and they accept that their lives are at risk but all missions into space are based on the hope that the explorers will return home safely. When Yuri Gagarin first went into space he did so on the basis that he had a fair chance of returning even though rescue if something went wrong was not possible.
The same applied to Aldrin, Armstrong and Collins when they first travelled to the moon. The pioneers accepted that a rescue mission to the moon was not possible if they became stranded but they always maintained the hope that the mission would succeed and they would return to their families.
When Apollo 13 got into difficulties strenuous and ingenious efforts were made to bring back the pilots safely. It is part of our humanity not to give up hope and we owe it to our fellow humans to try to rescue them when they get into difficulty.
One of the justifications for the Mars One mission is that many people, in the past, have emigrated knowing that they will never see their relatives and friends again and survived. However, there was still hope that fortunes might change and a return would be possible or their friends and relatives could come and join the pioneers in their new country.
Many people in the past have been banished form their country and sent to new continents and survived but this was cruel punishment for what might have been petty crime.
Some explorers got into severe difficulties: the Shackleton Endurance expedition to the South Pole in 1914 saw the team of explorers being marooned in the Antarctic for over a year. In the end Shackleton made strenuous and brave efforts to rescue all his men. It was probably the most valiant rescue mission in history. Where there is life there is hope. Perhaps where there is no hope there can be no life. Read this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/shackleton_ernest.shtml
At its closest, when both planets are in opposition to the Sun, Mars is 54.6 million km from the Earth. This is a colossal distance. A radio signal would take 3 minutes to reach earth so a reply signal could not be received within 6 minutes. When the Earth and Mars are both at aphelion the distance from each other is 401 million km so a radio signal and its reply would take considerably longer than 6 minutes. No-one has been trained to experience such isolation in terms of distance; we have no knowledge how explorers would react to such a one way trip.
W e have no real knowledge of how anyone would react when they are prevented from seeing and touching their family and friends for such a long time when they are also living in a totally alien environment.
The gravity on Mars is 38% that of the Earth. We have no idea of the really long term effect of reduced gravity on the human anatomy and psychology.
The explorers will be living in a totally artificial environment: apart from the reduced gravity they will be forced to breathe recycled air, drink recycled water and eat recycled food for a very extended period. We have no idea how this will affect their morale and physical and mental well being.
The explorers will have to wear a spacesuit when they leave their habitation. The atmosphere is 95% carbon dioxide at 1% of the pressure of the Earth. Any accident or tear to the spacesuit will probably result in death. The average temperature of the planet is minus 60 degrees Celsius.
The planet's surface is like a desert and dust storms can last for months.
The Mars year is 687 Earth days but the length of day is just over 24 Earth hours - so there is some familiarity on a daily basis.
On Mars there will be no sound of a river or a breeze rustling the leaves of trees. There will be no smell of a wild flower. You will not be able to feel the sun on your skin. You will not be able to taste wild fruits. As Mars is much smaller than the Earth the horizon will be closer.
The outside light will be completely different. The sky will not be blue and there will be no clouds. There will be no rain to sense.
Could virtual reality make up for what you are missing?
In this completely alien world how long would your sanity last when you are completely isolated from your friends and family as well? You might become so homesick that your mental health would really suffer.
Your opportunity to find a lover might be really restricted; you could end up having very little physical contact with your fellow humans. If you do find a lover then what happens if you split up? There maybe nowhere to hide.
What right do you have to have a baby which will be forced to grow up in a totally alien environment? From an evolutionary point of view, a baby will be totally ill adapted to live in such an alien world. What would happen to its physical development when exposed to considerably reduced gravity?
On Mars there will be no enforceable laws so what happens if someone becomes violent or murders someone? Will there be rough justice?
Mental difficulties could easily arise because of the isolation, the alien environment and poor interpersonal relations. There is no hope of relief or even rescue. Is there provision for a mental hospital?
I can see such a mission quickly becoming a disaster when there is no hope of return. This coupled with the chance of something going wrong with the equipment could lead to a complete catastrophe.
I can see the point of a manned mission to Mars but only for a scientific purpose and only if the explorers have a fair chance of returning home. To persuade young persons to go on a one way trip which they might completely regret is simply immoral.
We do not need to colonise Mars; where are the long term benefits? It is best to make the best of the good Earth and cherish what it has to offer for as long as we are alive.
Friday, 23 January 2015
Islam does not accept criticism by tradition - really?
Anyone who thinks that the religion of Islam does not accept criticism by tradition should read this article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/islamic-history-is-full-of-free-thinkers--but-recent-attempts-to-suppress-critical-thought-are-verging-on-the-absurd-9993777.html
I have met lots of Muslims in the the course of my work and my family have Muslim friends. All of them are horrified at what happened to the French journalists and Jewish people who were killed in the recent attacks in Paris.
Some of my Muslim friends are not Muslims at all as they are atheists or agnostics but they are reluctant to admit this to their families. I have worked with apostate Muslim colleagues who ignore Ramadan: in the UK and Western Europe they have the perfect right to do so. This right must be defended. Equally the right to worship and to hold the belief in a faith must be defended too.
Only a secular society can defend everyone's right to have freedom of conscience. The opponents of a secular society would do well to consider this. There has been terrible religious repression in Western Europe throughout history; even Christians have been at each others throats. Western European society has had a terrible history and bigots of all kinds have murdered Jews, Muslims and non-believers with equal vigour. Nazism was a kind of religious fervour - Adolf Hitler was impressed by mysticism.
To achieve peace there is a trade off: the religious must accept the rights of the non-religious to criticise belief in a God and religious worship. Murdering people who do not have the same beliefs as you is totally unacceptable and the secular society must be defended at all costs to protect the rights of everyone.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/islamic-history-is-full-of-free-thinkers--but-recent-attempts-to-suppress-critical-thought-are-verging-on-the-absurd-9993777.html
I have met lots of Muslims in the the course of my work and my family have Muslim friends. All of them are horrified at what happened to the French journalists and Jewish people who were killed in the recent attacks in Paris.
Some of my Muslim friends are not Muslims at all as they are atheists or agnostics but they are reluctant to admit this to their families. I have worked with apostate Muslim colleagues who ignore Ramadan: in the UK and Western Europe they have the perfect right to do so. This right must be defended. Equally the right to worship and to hold the belief in a faith must be defended too.
Only a secular society can defend everyone's right to have freedom of conscience. The opponents of a secular society would do well to consider this. There has been terrible religious repression in Western Europe throughout history; even Christians have been at each others throats. Western European society has had a terrible history and bigots of all kinds have murdered Jews, Muslims and non-believers with equal vigour. Nazism was a kind of religious fervour - Adolf Hitler was impressed by mysticism.
To achieve peace there is a trade off: the religious must accept the rights of the non-religious to criticise belief in a God and religious worship. Murdering people who do not have the same beliefs as you is totally unacceptable and the secular society must be defended at all costs to protect the rights of everyone.
Wednesday, 21 January 2015
Richest 1% to own more than rest of world by 2016
According to a report by Oxfam the richest 1 % of the world's population will own 50% of the world's wealth by 2016. This figure is probably not totally accurate but I am willing to bet that it is close to the mark.
A good proportion of the world's population live in a democracy. I wonder if anyone read in the manifesto of a political party that it was policy to allow such a small proportion of people to possess so much of the world's wealth. Would anyone have voted for such a policy?
I wonder if the economists, businessmen and politicians at the 2015 Davos conference believe that it is economically sustainable for so few people to possess so much of the world's wealth and income.
Perhaps there will come a time when almost no-one can afford to buy the goods and services being produced by the global economy. If that happens we would all be in trouble both rich and poor.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30875633
A good proportion of the world's population live in a democracy. I wonder if anyone read in the manifesto of a political party that it was policy to allow such a small proportion of people to possess so much of the world's wealth. Would anyone have voted for such a policy?
I wonder if the economists, businessmen and politicians at the 2015 Davos conference believe that it is economically sustainable for so few people to possess so much of the world's wealth and income.
Perhaps there will come a time when almost no-one can afford to buy the goods and services being produced by the global economy. If that happens we would all be in trouble both rich and poor.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30875633
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
