Home » Archive

Articles in the Personal Blog Category

Personal Blog »

[3 Sep 2009 | 2 Comments | ]

Just got back from the best holiday I have ever had in Tenerife. Everything from the weather to the beautiful villa was perfect. If you want the perfect location for your holiday check out www.villagolfdelsur.com which is an amazing place for a large family or a group of friends to visit.

I know this is a smartphone site, but I couldn’t resist posting some photos from the trip. Question- what on earth is that sea creature in the fourth photo? It is real and we saw it moving at Loro Parque, but it looks like a glove puppet…

ten1

ten2

ten33

ten4

ten5

Personal Blog »

[12 Jul 2009 | 7 Comments | ]

onoffI have had some quality time with the MacBook tonight and made some progress with regards to getting it to work how I want. It is difficult to shake off the shackles of Windows and I have made some allowances for this by copying some classic Windows techniques.

First up was to use CMD-L to create shortcuts of my most used applications on the desktop. The dock is quite nice, but I’m not a fan… yet.

I then used a hack to move the ‘x’ button etc. and make them work the way Windows does. I don’t believe that the Mac setup for minimising etc. is as natural as Windows.

Setting up my MS Exchange email account has been a real chore, but Entourage eventually came to the rescue (after ,much messing around) and I am starting to really like it. Very like Outlook, but with a style that offers more than a nod to Mac OS.

The hardware is a bit of a puzzle as well; I love the quality components and the keyboard, but the trackpad needs time to get used to. Two finger scrolling is excellently implemented, but I keep zooming in and out accidentally- I don’t want to turn any of the functions off so will persevere until I master it.

iPhoto is a revelation to me- so simple and so intuitive. I also like iCal, but had to give it up for Entourage due to the MS Exchange problem.

Finding a replacement for the wonderful Paint.net has not been easy, but Gimp appears to be the favourite at the moment.

OpenOffice is cleanly laid out and quite easy to use, but Bean offers some extra features and a clean layout which is perfect for my freelance work.

After only 2 days I am starting to ‘feel’ the Mac and can understand why Windows feels so lifeless to long time Mac users. I’m still no fan, but am expecting to be one soon…

Personal Blog »

[12 Jul 2009 | 6 Comments | ]

appleI thought I would spend some time detailing my transition from Windows to Mac OS and over the next few weeks expect to detail my experiences in as much detail as possible. First up is a look at my initial feelings when opening up the new MacBook- everything from the laptop itself through to the documentation and contents are consistent in the way they are designed and the way they work. Apple seems to take this philosophy through all of its products and for someone who has been using an iPhone for many months, there is a concerted effort to bring the iPhone experience to new Mac users. That’s how it feels to me, but Apple has obviously tried to make the iPhone experience feel familiar to seasoned Mac users.

The attention to detail in the packaging is absurdly good and really does make you feel like you are buying a high-end product in which great care has been taken to offer a user experience like no other. In the past I have turned my nose up at the pricing of Apple products and by specification alone a new MacBook does not represent good value for money. However, my decision to buy was based on the fact that I have gone through 4 PCs in the past 5 years and most people I know with Macs are still using the same ones they were all those years ago. Besides battery replacements, it does appear to offer financial prudence in the long term and I hope to be using it for a few years to come.

I still prefer Windows, but this is because I am new to the Mac OS and I hope that my opinion will change over time. The hardware, user experience and the emotions I experience when using the Mac mean that I will be learning to live with what I don’t know and giving it my very best shot. My first experiences have been great though and I will detail what happened next sometime this week.

Personal Blog »

[20 Apr 2007 | No Comment | ]

When the Constitution kills

Gun_2 “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The right to bear arms in the USA is one held dear by millions of people and it is such a precious right that politicians dare not speak out against such a ridiculous theory. It has been proven that legalising guns will cause more gun deaths and in the US in particular it is a staggering amount.

American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)

The statistic above is frightening to say the least and is clear proof that the idea of protecting oneself with a firearm can only lead to more violence. In the UK carrying a gun is illegal except under very exceptional circumstances and it shows in the amount of gun related crime which is so low as to barely register a blip on the crime statistics. The idea of owning a gun or having one in the house is absurd to most British people and I genuinely cannot see a day in which it will every become law.

There is an oddity in the statistic above in that Canadian gun crime is relatively low in comparison to the number of guns owned and in stark contrast to the statistics that come out of the US every year. Some of you reading this will have very strong views that are pro gun ownership and I for one would love to hear them. Without doubt many gun deaths are caused by firearms that are owned illegally but this is a cultural problem, not a legal one. Because gun ownership is so widespread it becomes part of life and thus more access equals more deaths whether they be by violence, suicide or accident.

In a civilised society there is absolutely no need for legal gun ownership and in my mind it is an indicator of an overly violent society. America is in fact not overly violent but the guns remain and the politicians are still too scared to tackle the issue. I’m not saying that guns would disappear overnight if made illegal but someone needs to take a stand on this issue and shout down the people who feel they have a ‘right to bear arms’- it may have been relevant when the Constitution was written but it most certainly is not today.

The tragic consequences of this policy were made all too obvious in Virginia yesterday and it is far from the first time something like this has happened. These people were just starting their lives and there is no excuse for what happened…

“There are approximately 192 million privately owned firearms in the U.S. –65 million of which are handguns. Police Foundations, 1996”

“In 1997, 32,436 Americans were killed with firearms-in homicides, suicides and accidents. In comparison, 33,651 Americans were killed in the Korean War and 58,148 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War. National Center for Health Statistics, 1997”

“More than 1.2 million elementary-aged, latch-key children have access to guns in their homes. Lee, Journal of the American Medical Association, 1990”

Comments

I found your website by chance. I was looking for the author of the phrase “life is always somewhere else”. I will not refer to your political views since I doný live in the UK. But your article about looking jocular outside, and sad and purposeless inside stroke a deep chord within me. As for violence in the USA I don´t blame it on gun ownership, I blame it on the media glorification of violence. But that is not a new issue in the world. Look at the statues all around the world. They mostly depict mass butchers.Alexander,Caesar and thousand others. Please continue writing. But statiscally speaking deaths in wars far outnumber murder all around the world. It seems to me that violence is a human disease.

“we’re kidding ourselves if we think that some kind of unconstitutional ban on firearms is going to turn our statistics into anything like those you have in Western Europe.”

I can see your point but am not sure about the theory that consistency and education are more likely to solve the issue. If someone is intent on crime they will end up doing it and the chances are guns will be involved if there are a lot of them available. Having safeguards such as proper checks is good but when millions of guns exist in a country people ‘will’ get hold of them.

No one is saying that banning them will solve the issue overnight but ultimately it must be the best solution. You will never educate criminals to stop breaking the law so reducing their access to weapons may help a little. Also the number of accidental deaths is very high and no amount of education would have a big affect on this stat. If people are stupid enough to leave a gun where a small child can get hold of it they are most likely beyond education.

Thanks for your comment James. It’s great to see reasoned and well thought out commentary here:)

Gun violence is a real problem in the US. However, we’re kidding ourselves if we think that some kind of unconstitutional ban on firearms is going to turn our statistics into anything like those you have in Western Europe. We’ve already seen states and municipalities enact very strict regulations, to little effect.

As you noted WRT Canada, there are nearly as many firearms per capita, but far less gun violence. The problem is largely cultural. The culture of fear. Fear of serial killers. Fear of terrorists. Fear of wild animals. Fear of being ridiculed. Fear of crime. Fear of your spouse cheating on you.

To all too many people, guns are viewed as the answer to these fears (except those that fear guns even more). They see it in the movies, on TV and in video games, so it must be.

I basically believe in the Second Amendment, and have been around firearms most of my life. I have a permit to carry a concealed handgun in my state. However, although it’s “nice to know” that if I ever “had to” carry one without fear of arrest, I have never actually done so. Why? Because I know that the odds of me getting into some stupid road-rage type incident with it is much greater than the odds of me using it to defend myself or family.

So what’s the answer? Consistency and education. Background checks and registration on a federal level, including mental history. Educate people on the pros and cons of gun possession and most importantly, their RESPONSIBILITIES thereof. It’s not going to completely “solve” the problem, but neither would a total ban.

I understand what you guys are saying and the main theme is that in the UK everyone I know thinks the US gun laws are daft. In the US there is a completely different view.

You have to understand that very few of us in the UK have ever even seen a gun and thus we find the thought of carrying one really dangerous. I am not having a go at people who carry guns- I just do not understand the need for it.

As someone at work said yesterday- “it was relevant when they had grizzly bears in their gardens and were playing cowboys and indians but I’m not sure it applies now…”

Personally I have no heard one good argument for keeping guns so far (in my opinion). No point shouting at me just because I come from a world where guns are only seen on TV and I am expressing that. Admittedly if I was born and raised in the US no doubt my view would be completely opposite.

Stop blaming America.
Why cant you just blame the nut job?
I guess your one of those who take a tragedy and “make it their political hobby horse to ride.”
-Gov. Tim Kaine
Thanks for politicizing the death of students, so you can make a pitch for gun control.

Stupidity kills, how are you going to control that?

Blaming guns for recent events in the news is like blaming box knives for 911.

If you really want to save lives, ban the wheel.

Shaun,

Here are a few points that we as Americans have known & also have learned. Things that are forefathers and the framers of our Constitution buit into it. Having learned the gun control lesson at the hands of YOUR form of government. On a personal note, I think that your parliament should bring back the Monarchy. She/he could’nt screw up the your country any wose than what has already been done to it. That said, consider;

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Colt: The original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it’s about control.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. “Free” men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you don’t know your rights you don’t have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.

11. What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.

15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no
safety.

16. You don’t shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911 – government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control — it makes their jobs safer.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

23. Enforce the “gun control laws” we ALREADY have, don’t make more.

24. When you remove the people’s right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

26. “A government of the people, by the people, for the people…”

In the interests of lighting a candle instead of cursing the darkness, you might be enlighted by reviewing some of the statistics at http://www.guncite.com/index.html, particularly under the “gun violence” header. As Mark Twain noted, there are lies, damn lies and statistics!

Upshot, so to speak, is that the US is a violent place to live, particularly for an industrialized nation; our gun ownership rights, however, seem to contribute marginally to this condition.

Guess you can be glad you don’t have to live with us here.

Feel free to enlighten me Mike (not sure about the knucklehead bit though).

My main point is about the cultural difference from a country without guns to one where it is legal. Do you honestly feel that a country with legalised firearms is a safer place?

Shaun, you’re brilliant on PDA stuff but you’re a knucklehead when it comes to guns and crime issues.

Look at violent crimes in the UK before and after the ban went into effect. Look at violent crimes in Australia before and after the ban went into effect. Look at violent crimes in the US States before and after they enacted “shall issue” concealed-carry permit laws. Thirty States have passed such laws in the last twenty years, so there’s plenty of data to look at.

I will find the figures but the difference is huge- if I remember rightly one year was 33,000 gun deaths to about 200 (UK)- most may not have been criminal though

I’d be curious to know how many gun crimes per head of population there is in places like the US, versus for example, the UK where it’s much more heavily controlled.

Personal Blog »

[20 May 2006 | No Comment | ]

A Brit abroad

Mickey It’s been a while since I wrote an Outspoken article and even longer since I last went to America. Previous excursions have been to Los Angeles, Boston and New York and I was not impressed with any of those places. Orlando was different to the above for so many reasons and that was mainly because of its infrastructure which is amazing compared to what we see here in the UK.

On a Disney bus trip to one of their parks automatic sprinklers are spraying the grass by the roads for most of the journey, over in the UK we are facing a drought order because out water companies have never bothered to give us the infrastructure needed to cope with our population and the government continues to allow the building of houses in areas where the current energy and water supplies are already not adequate for their needs. Our water companies lose 30% of water by leakage alone.

No new water is ever created on earth and we wash in and drink the exact same water we did thousands of years ago (learnt that at Epcot:)).

The entire Disney set up is phenomenal- buses flow between each park and Disney hotel every 20 minutes and you never have to worry about getting from A to B. The staff are very polite (almost annoyingly so) and they do everything they can to help if you have a problem. Every person we met was polite and great to talk to apart from the occasional example such as the lady in one of the designated smoking areas who upon realising I was British asked me “If every one in the UK hates their President.” My affirmative response caused her to throw her cigarette down and stomp off (well, waddle actually) cursing and swearing…

The designated smoking areas are very annoying indeed. It’s quite hypocritical for the largest polluting nation in the world to make such a big deal about protecting people’s health when 4 and 5 litre cars are trundling down the roads, at about 10 miles an hour from what I could see, and causing many more times the damage that someone happening to walk past some cigarette smoke could ever do. I understand that people do not like other people’s smoke but it seems to be going too far now with regards to the anit-smoking brigade. Of course it kills but it is not illegal- make it illegal and every one would be happy, even us smokers.

America (well, Orlando at least) seems to be heading down a slippery slope with regards to health. I found it offensive when a HUGE person demands to get on a bus first because they are so fat they cannot walk and then claims to have a handicap. We saw a girl of about 13 years old who was extremely overweight with her parents who were both confined to those motorised vehicles Disney hires out by the dozen. What chance does she have? Children of 5 and 6 years old are put in hired strollers and walked around the parks- make them walk for Gods sake! They are children and it is teaching the exact wrong lesson at a very early age. I would guess that 1 in 5 people we saw was pretty overweight with about 1 in 10 deserved their own border patrol…

I know this sounds like I am mocking these people but they have to take some responsibility for this and so do the authorities- a BIG meal of burger and fries in Disney cost $5.00, a healthy small sandwich cost $8.99, a small tub of grapes and water melon was $4.49- not exactly encouraging healthy eating is it? We struggled to find healthy food in the hotel or the parks and carbonated drinks seemed to be the order of the day for everyone- buy a cup for $11 and you can kill yourself with Coke all week long for no extra money.

I can only see this problem growing unless something is done about it very quickly. On another note the TV channels are great- lots of superb entertainment from the likes of Fox and hilarious news coverage. The religious channels out numbered all of the other genres on offer. One phone in made me laugh-

Caller: “My husband has left and I don’t know what to do?” Followed by a few sobs over the phone line.

Presenter: “Just think what Jesus went through for you and you will realise it’s all OK. Take Jesus to your heart and everything will be OK for you.” Followed by false concerned look.

I was in tears… through laughter.

A friend (American) emailed me the following comment- “Never liked the place–too fake and way too sugary. Probably an influence from my mom, she’s not a Disney fan. It just reeks of commercialism, as Disney does in general. You have to wonder how the influence of media and entertainment affects the whole of our culture

I loved the falseness of it- I’m not comfortable in the real world and prefer a place like Orlando.

Everything else about Orlando was wonderful- beautiful weather, beautiful design (if a little man-made) and very friendly people who made the holiday worth every penny. As a general standard of living somewhere like Orlando provides a LOT to a young family and whilst my thoughts will be clouded by the fact I have just returned, the past week made me fall in love with America all over again… If I could get a Green Card I would seriousy consider living there, let’s just hope no one in Immigration reads this site:)

Comments

Hi Shaun, come visit San Francisco. We’re friendly and our city is fantastic (:. I agree with you about the obesity problem in the US. My children are the *only* kids we know who have never been to the fast food places. Most of their little pals eat at McDonalds at least twice a week. Yech.

I never thought of the whole tourist angle in this. I agree about Boston- I found most of the shop assistants out there very rude but I guess it was more a stern manner than anything else.

Rightly or wrongly I still love the whole Disney thing:)

One consistent aspect of all the places you visited were that they all have quite a few tourists, both domestic and international. understandable of course, since you went as a tourist.

That’s why when I travel to the Europe, I like to spend as much time as possible in places with somewhat fewer tourists.

One common thread, both here in the US and most places I’ve been in Europe, including the UK, Ireland, France, Italy, Austria and the Czech Republic, is the differences of people in the North and those in the South; then again in cities and more rural areas.

In the US, people in the South are generally more amiable and laid back. They are also fat and George W. Bush’s main base.

In bustling cities, especially New York and to a lesser extent Boston, you’ll find people are busier, pushier and are less interested in engaging you. They are also in better physical shape and better looking. Not unlike London, Paris, Rome or any other big city, I suppose.

I find Florida generally very depressing, having lived there as a kid for a couple of years, and watched older generations move there after retirement, presumably to die.

eh hem – someone from immigration just read your blog notes.

This was a great review of your trip, even though it wandered a little.

As an American, I can’t agree more that fat people are not diseased. But, I must say this:

One thing I’ve learned recently is that each one of us does what we’re taught. We are taught by our parents. In other words, HOW you are raised by your parents is what you know and what you will do. If your parents were fat, chances are high you will be too.

For this reason its important for the government to at least recommend what we should eat and not eat.

The beauty of the Brits is they aren’t afraid to speak their minds. We here in America aren’t allowed to do that any more.

Personal Blog »

[20 Jul 2005 | No Comment | ]

The war on terror?

Police The past few weeks have been terrifying for most Londoners and anyone travelling to our capital city. I have to go there on Wednesday and really do not want to- I feel like most Brits in that we should just carry on as normal but it’s easier said than done with so many incidents occuring at this time.

The shooting of an innocent man last week has kept the news going for the terrorists and they must be loving every minute. It’s impossible to know at this time how justified the police were but these two comments on BBCi are both valid-

“The police had no option, the man could have been a suicide bomber. They could not afford to take chances with the lives of innocent people at stake. He should have obeyed the police when challenged.”

“What if this man did not understand English, and all he saw was 3 normally dressed large built men screaming, looking aggressive and running after him in a tube station? Put yourself in his position.”

It’s quite awful that the Police in the UK are having to use guns but understandable at the same time- to me there appears to be no way to stop these attacks happening. Relatively easy to plan, easy to execute and more and more people appear to be joining up to carry them out…

At the same time I feel that we are playing into the hands of the terrorists who find it all too easy to recruit young people and brainwash them into believing that the West is evil. Many of us think the West is evil at times so what chance do we have in the Middle East and Africa? It has been argued that they will find any excuse for the attacks and whilst that is true when you consider how many countries have been attacked we have done a lot of things to help breed this recruitment process.

Obviously Iraq is the big one and will continue to be. No matter how we justify it over 25,000 dead civilians will always be a good persuasive argument to use against young people. You know my views on the Iraq war but whatever side of the argument you are on you have to recognise that for extremists it is the oxygen they need.

Where we go from here is anyone’s guess- basically we are f*cked whatever we do. Too many people hate us even if the majority of our populations are not responsible for any wrong doing and they will continue to recruit and will continue to kill innocents.

In the UK we have been used to terrorism for many years and that side has died down somewhat- just imagine this telephone conversation-

“Hi Tony, it’s George. You have a domestic problem with the IRA- how about I speak to some people and sort that for you if you join us in Iraq?”

A colleague at work mentioned that to me the other day and it made me think- probably total rubbish but conspriacy theories are always good fun…

It’s all very depressing and will not be solved for many years to come. Any one have any better ideas of how to solve this mess?

Lost Kitty

Comments

NUKE IRAQ. THATLL TEACH’EM

How does the police shooting an unarmed, random man in the Tube protect you? Ferreting out terrorist cells, like the ones caught last Friday, is the job of the police. Intelligence, investigation, and appropriate force when they have the right target are their job. Shooting the wrong person threatens us 1: by targeting random people for killing (obviously); 2: by destroying our trust in the police; 3: by reinforcing the image of unaccountable violence against civilians by the government.

Terrorism is not just killing civilians. If terrorists could spread fear by jumping off bridges, they’d be recruiting as many fools to do that as possible. When fighting terrorism, we have to both protect from the attack itself, and refrain from fanning the flames of fear. Terrorists are attacking a society by using its weaknesses against it. Our greatest weakness is our media’s unchecked echo chambers, which send billions chattering in fear within minutes of hearing a scary news report. When we cooperate with the fear, when we increase the fear by our response, we are working for the terrorists. So it is even more important that we not serve their asymmetric attack advantage than it even is to protect those people who might be killed. And the only way to react without fear is to react with intelligence, information and a sense of proportion. Otherwise, we’re helpless vassals of those pulling the terror strings.

Personal Blog »

[20 Jun 2005 | No Comment | ]

Too young to murder?

CryingA disturbing crime happened in the UK this week when a 5 year old boy was seriously injured in a woods whilst walking home. I have to point out that no proof exists yet but the police are concentrating their enquiries on a group of children around the age of 12. The 5 year old boy ended up with injuries to his neck which suggested that something very tight had been tied around it and bruises all over his body- fortunately he has been discharged from hospital but how long will the event stay with him?

Personally I can’t imagine letting my 5 year old son walk home on his own but that’s a separate issue. The question is just how responsible are these children for the crime if it is proven to have been committed by them? For many of us the incident described above brings back memories of one of the most horrid crimes ever to take place on British Soil- the murder of Jamie Bulger. I can’t remember the facts exactly but he was around two and a half years old and was escorted out of a shopping centre by 2 ten year old boys who had a plan of what they wanted to do to him.

He ended up dead on a railway track after they had, amongst other things, twisted his testicles until they bled and it appears that they had coaxed (or bullied) him into running onto the track. I did not write the previous sentence for effect but to highlight what these ‘10′ year old boys did to him… I repeat- 10 years old.


Because they were only 10 they are now free from jail (due to the fact they were tried in an adult court- error!) and can live a comfortable life free from their previous troubles. They have new identities, probably paying jobs and a much better life than they could have expected had they remained in the environment that they were brought up in which was basically a very poor area with huge amounts of crime and little chance of a future the rest of us are blessed with and work hard for. Compare this to the life Jamie’s parents have had to live following the death of their son- the one thing parent’s wish for above all else if that their children outlive them but tragedy strikes when you least expect it and they have had to deal with what happened to their son every day since.


Are the killers less guilty because they were only 10 years old? Is it all the fault of their parents? Do they understand the difference between pulling the legs off a spider and killing a child?


Answers; No, yes to a point and of course they do.


I have spoken to a few people about this subject and opinions seem to be very much divided, ranging in extremes from “they have no idea to what they are doing” to “they should be hung!” The case of Jamie Bulger was unique and thankfully incredibly rare but I personally do not feel that they should have been let out so early- obviously there is a point where innocence ends and putting an age on that is impossible to do. Having said that the crime itself must be a good indicator of the person’s state of mind.


What do you think? Where do we draw the line at punishing children for terrible crimes? Is 10 years old too early to be prosecuted for murder?


Tell me there’s a heaven by Chris Rea

The little girl she said to me
What are these things that I can see
Each night when I come home from school
And mama calls me in for tea
Oh every night a baby dies
And every night a mama cries
What makes those men do what they do
To make that person black and blue

Grandpa says their happy now
They sit with God in paradise
With angels wings and still somehow
It makes me feel like ice

Tell me theres a heaven
Tell me that its true
Tell me theres a reason
Why Im seeing what I do

Tell me theres a heaven
Where all those people go
Tell me theyre all happy now
Papa tell me that its so

So do I tell her that its true
That theres a place for me and you
Where hungry children smile and say
We wouldnt have no other way
That every painful crack of bones
Is a step along the way
Every wrong done is a game plan
To that great and joyful day

And Im looking at the father and the son
And Im looking at the mother and the daughter
And Im watching them in tears of pain
And Im watching them suffer
Dont tell that little girl
Tell me


Tell me theres a heaven
Tell me that its true
Tell me theres a reason
Why Im seeing what I do

Tell me theres a heaven
Where all those people go
Tell me theyre all happy now
Papa tell me that its so

Personal Blog »

[20 Apr 2005 | No Comment | ]

The child catcher, the fibber or the gingerbread man?

If you live outside of the UK you may be unaware that we have a General Election next week and have to decide who will govern our land for at least the next 4 years.

It’s been a campaign of bitching, mud slinging and general avoidance of real issues from some parties, complete incompetance from others and odd behaviour from others.

Before we look at the parties let’s take a quick look at their leaders-

Blair Tony Blair- actually has a very good record in charge of the country. He has done many positive things and slipped up on only a few. He has a natural style which I suspect a lot of people can identify with and is easily the best communicator of the three. Has a tendancy to get angry when questioned bluntly but at times that comes across as passionate and works in his favour.

His major error was Iraq and this is currently dominating the campaign. The release of the Attorney General’s legal advice today has added more credance to the case that he lied when taking us to war. Personally I believe he misled us rather than lied and that outside pressures had a big part to play in this (that pressure lives to the left of us and has been discussed many times in this blog:))

Without Iraq he would be laughing now but the way the population feels about the war still hurt him politically to this day. I don’t believe it is enough to do him real damage but you never know.

Catcher Michael Howard- a man who is about as endeering as the child catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang bang. He has one policy and that is immigration, immigration, immigration. Surprisingly this is working for him- everywhere I go I hear comments like “We are letting too many in”, “No more” etc. etc. The launguage Michael Howard uses is carefully constructed as you would expect from a good barrister but panders to our most basict instincts and if this trend continues we will have a real race issue in this country.

He has a new policy every day which are often ill thought out and you have to ask where the money will come from for lower stamp duty, no tax rises, lower council tax for pensioners, better schools, hospitals etc. His economic policies are bodering on post-it note politics and do not convince me for one minute.

Add this to his manner and you have a man you would never invite for dinner. He is slimy in the extreme, takes too long to get his sentences out and is unconvincing at every turn.

Gbm Charles Kennedy- if he worked in my company I would presume he did the filing. A nice man who has some good convictions but he is not the kind of person you could ever see running the country.

He was the only leader to oppose the war in Iraq and this is helping him in the polls but it’s simply not enough. Local income tax kills off his hopes in one go as many people will be paying an extra £1,000 per household per year.

He wears his ties far too long, has a drink problem (so rumor has it) and is just not quite there as an effective leader. Not sure why but he reminds me of the gingerbread man.

OK, lets take a quick look at the parties-

Labour- have been in power since 1997. Schools are better, hospitals are better, the economy is stable, fox hunting is gone and I for one have only seen imporvement under them.

Obviously we can only rely on stats for schools and hospitals but we have had no real issues with either apart from Christmas but that’s another story. I cannot see them losing this election because they have done little wrong, questionable human rights laws and Iraq aside.

They are also pro Europe which I for one love to hear. Those that cry “keep the pound” and “let’s stay British” are hoping for a time gone by and need to move onwards and upwards.

Conservative- clueless. When you look at the shadow cabinet the lack of talent in it is quite astounding. Michael Howard is a very clever man but does not have the communication skills required to get the general public on his side.

Letwin One example is Oliver Letwin (Shadow Secretary of State for Economic Affairs & Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer) who has the most slappable face in the world. Born with a silver spoon up his backside he is even more hateable than Michael Howard (so I guess we should at least give him credit for that:))

The Conservative campaign has been one of ‘attacking Blair’ with little focus on their own policies or ideas for the countries future. I pray that they do not get in- a party who pander to the right wing do not deserve such a place. Everyone I know who is going to vote for them is over 40 years old and has swallowed the xenophobic vitriol that has fallen out of Howard’s mouth.

Liberal- um… Nice bunch of people. um… quite old party members. um… that’s all I can think to sayabout them.

I musn’t forget the other main parties-

BNP- terrible bunch of people, really terrible.

UKIP- not much different to the above lot.

Veritas- ditto.

Green- some excellent policies and quite clever thinking but never a chance of power.

Brown Well, you can probably guess who I am voting for. I have weighed this decision up over many hours and can see no other choice but Labour. I do not like Blair one bit but like many others am expecting (and hoping) he will make way for Gordon Brown soon- that’s the kind of man we need leading this country.

Personal Blog »

[18 Feb 2005 | No Comment | ]

The hunt is over…

Hunt So, the ban on hunting foxes with dogs has now come into force in England and Wales. There has been many demonstrations by the ‘hunting set’ over the past few months and many of these have been violent affairs.

These people are supposed to be the elite, or at least they think they are. They have shown themselves to be little more than a bunch of thugs in recent months who deserve little sympathy from people who have a genuine interest in stopping animal cruelty.

Personally I think fox hunting is a disgusting pastime and I have not heard one good argument for it since the debate began. The arguments will continue and the legal challenges will get more expensive but at least a few foxes will not die a horrible death in the meantime and hopefully a few of these people will lose the home comforts they don’t appreciate anyway.

Any views on fox hunting, or hunting in general?

Comments

Hunting is a way of living and anyone who thinks different is mental because if no one ever hunted then the animals would over populate the area and they would eat all the food then they would all die of starvation so hunting isnt only a way of life but wildlife itself benifits from it

I agree with you the way you view the issue. I remember Jack London once said everything positive has a negative side; everything negative has positive side. It is also interesting to see different viewpoints & learn useful things in the discussion.

For one to hunt, one must have a missing link. Males do not need to hunt because of natural history of testosterone. Hunting should not be a sport. Killing in all senses, revenge, punishment, sport, should be illegal. Killing is immoral and unethical. Why murder a defenseless being? A being with a family and feelings.

This smells like hunting, this looks like hunting…WAHEY THIS IS HUNTING! Whats changed?! Tony Blair and his sadistic anti followers can’t stop large numbers of people doing what they have done even before there was such a thing as a inbred, dirty and vile anti or hunt sab! Tally Ho Blair & bum up antis!

I am neither pro- nor anti- hunting but I agree this is bad law. It is a law based on emotion rather than reason, much like the rationale for invading Iraq.

Some points to consider: if it was designed to help foxes it is unlikely to succeed as evidence in Scotland (which banned it 2 years ago) shows fox deaths by legal hunting double what they were prior to legislation.

It is largely unenforceable (no prosecutions in Scotland so far) which makes it a ridiculous law which is why cannabis smoking has to all intents and purposes been de-criminalised.

Nobody denies that most find it distasteful when the manner of death is to be chased and torn apart but the fox had approx 10% chance of ever encountering a hunt in its life. The manner of death (and life for that matter) for the chicken that many of you eat for dinner is equally distasteful. The murder rate is incidentally 100%.

700 hours of parliamentary time devoted to this unenforceable law designed to kill more not less foxes is absolutely obscene. (Iraq debate prior to war was single digit hours – deathtoll approx. 100,000 innocent people, by some accounts. That’s three years worth of foxes hunted to death – if you feel inclined to equate fox and human deaths). China which represents the single biggest threat to the UK economy has had two questions in parliament in the life of this government since 1997. One was about the importation of products using cat fur and total parliamentary time was half an hour.

Want to save fox lives? Make them a protected species it could be done with regulation (i.e doesn’t need an act of parliament)

Whilst the level of public debate on important issues remains slightly above moronic we will continue to have new laws made that make more people criminals. Ergo crime statistics continue to grow and we need more police. Logical conclusion is society eventually is made up of only police and criminals. Orwellian or what?

To all of you who get hot under the collar about foxes, pro- or anti- for goodness sake get a life!

“Our political masters should have more important things on their minds than to introduce legislation that will be impossible to enforce and was motivated by class hatred.”

That’s not a good point really- just because something else could be seen as more important does not mean that other things should be ignored. It’s not class hatred, it’s not liking animals being killed that way.

“I’m not sure that many (most?) hunters and hunt supporters would specifically claim to be ‘the elite’ (although what is wrong with elitism, better than this dumbed-down quagmire that the UK seems to be rolling in at the moment – although that’s another rant). Most (many?) hunter and hunt supporters are ‘normal’ people who happen to live in the countryside.”

Very good point and one I had not thought about.

“What we have is a (generally) wealthy group who understand and protect the land being punished. I’m not a supporter of hunting but i see them as a bit of an ‘enemy of your enemy is your friend’.”

Another great point- nice to see this post generating good discussion.

I’m a great lover of wildlife and the British countryside but am unconvinced about the ban. Although I support a ban against cruelty to animals in principle, this ban seems hypocritical and targeted at the higher classes.

If the government was truely concerned about wildlife and our countryside we would see far more protection of habitate and species. Instead our native species are losing their habitate, land is being lost to new housing developments and not enough is being done to create and protect national parks.

Then there’s the matter of cruelty to farmed animals, over production and not enough support given to farmers who produce organically.

What we have is a (generally) wealthy group who understand and protect the land being punished. I’m not a supporter of hunting but i see them as a bit of an ‘enemy of your enemy is your friend’.

Extraordinary comments, above.

Fox hunting is wrong. It’s really simple. Wrong.

Who in their right mind will claim that terrorising a desperate animal over miles of countryside woodland until cornering it and ripping it to shreds does not constitute abnormal cruelty?

Only the most blinkered individuals. Although there is no conclusive research to prove beyond absolute doubt that foxes feel fear (unlike with stags), the fact that they piss themsleves and run like hell is a pretty good indication that they’re not entirely chilled out by the process.

And, of course, fox hunting happens for no good reason – it does not control the fox population! There is plenty of evidence that foxes are self-regulating; during the Foot and Mouth outbreak, hunting was banned. The fox population didn’t grow. What’s more, almost 9 out of 10 foxes which are killed are run over by cars. By mistake.

So that leaves us with pleasure. This activity takes place purely for the gratification of participants, not for some inherently useful purpose. It may be that we have to have a legitimate debate over animal testing in medical research, because the end-result may justify the means – but hunting has NO such moral justification.

Is it right for us to cause suffering to animals for our own sordid pleasures? Scenario time; you’re in the park one morning, walking your dog. I run up and kick your pet hard in the stomach. It screeches and collapses in pain. You’ll be upset, I guess, but why? Is it because I dared to touch your property, or because you feel sympathy for the distress which the poor animal feels?

If you answered the latter, then you must agree with me that hunting is an anachronim which we should have legislated out of existence decades ago. If you thought the former, then you’ve told me all I need to know about you.

This bill wouldn’t have taken so much parliamentry time were it not for the stalling tactics of the House of Lords and the Countryside Alliance. So, will it criminalise otherwise law-abiding citizens if they hunt? Yes. That’s the bloody point. I don’t care if they become criminals. They’re already morons.

1. Our political masters should have more important things on their minds than to introduce legislation that will be impossible to enforce and was motivated by class hatred (and some of them have even admitted that).

2. This law will be impossible to enforce and will make criminals out of people who would normally be considered ‘law abiding’. Do we really want our police forces to spend time and money buy quadbikes and chasing riders around the countryside?

3. I’m not sure that many (most?) hunters and hunt supporters would specifically claim to be ‘the elite’ (although what is wrong with elitism, better than this dumbed-down quagmire that the UK seems to be rolling in at the moment – although that’s another rant). Most (many?) hunter and hunt supporters are ‘normal’ people who happen to live in the countryside.

4. There has been many demonstrations by the ‘hunting set’ over the past few months and many of these have been violent affairs. Really? As poster ‘an unfair ban’ says, tempers seem to have mainly flared once police (or anti-hunt supporters) have stirred things up. Of course there are always those who will turn to violence to get their point of view across, but I suspect that those hunt sabs have been significantly more provocative and violent (including intimidation) to hunters than the other way around.

This is a bad, unenforceable, unfair, law and should never have been passed. Shaun, you yourself have complained about the health service, poverty, the war in Iraq and global warming over the last few months – do you honestly think that our politicians should be wasting time on such irrelevant things?

Once again we see the “triumph” of political busybodies to the detriment of people genuinely affected by the legislation. I do not live in the country, and thus do not feel that I have sufficient right to be able to dictate how others should live their lives. I am sad that country-born and bred Lembit Opik feels otherwise, whose biggest interation with a fox is probably little more than having a nuisance animal scrounging in his bin. Fox hunting is a blood sport, and so is to be banned for being “cruel”- however, the legislation had to be forced through Parliament using the Parliament Act because a fair vote did not produce the desired result for the Government, motivated by the desire for public affection.
As for violence, I draw your attention to the footage (now shown in an edited format, lest it be deemed prejudicial) of police attacking peaceful pro-hunting supporters outside the Houses of Parliament. Police, with powers to protect the public, beating trapped protesters with weapons- this is a true blood sport. The vast majority of pro-hunt supporters are peaceful and non-violent- however, with any passionate organisation, there is a militant element- just as there is with the anti-hunt supporters.
Two Chief Executives, a Chairman, a Chief Officer and an undercover investigator, all from the League Against Cruel Sports have left the League opposing a ban.
“How the fox is located is totally irrelevant to animal welfare considerations. It took me ten years to realise this irrefutable fact – others will never realise it because bigotry, prejudice, narrow mindedness, class animosity and ignorance, blind people to the truth.”
If a minority of hunts are behaving in a cruel manner, by failing to shoot the fox after it has been caught, then I can agree with their prosecution. Just as anyone found to be battery-farming chickens, fishing with barbed hooks or poisoning slugs for the sake of prettier flowers.
There is a positive side, though- I look forward to the footage on “You’ve Been Framed” of police, already saying that they do not have the resources to enforce this law, trying to fit not only one huntsman, but also 100 dogs and a horse in the back of a police car…

Personal Blog »

[3 Feb 2005 | No Comment | ]

Being

Cashh

My reason for being I will never understand

No point thinking about it

Better off with your head in the sand

——

You judge me by the size of my house, the looks of my spouse

My bank account, clothes and voice

Like I ever had a choice

——

The relentless and pointless accumulation of wealth

Get stressed, selfish and hurtful

Forget about your health

——

Take a walk and see the have nots and the haves

The classy and the chavs

Material purchases everywhere

Is there anyone left who truly cares?

Comments

I am stuck on material possessions and the like.
I love my car, I love my TV and my PC, my house, my movies, my clothes and the like.

But ever since I went travelling for a year, I no longer “need” them…. I am truly one of the lucky ones.

Every day, I feel fortunate for having clean air, a dry place to sleep and a wife whom I am still deeply in love with.

I will enjoy my life and my belongings, but never again be a slave to them.

Nice poetry by the way.