Of Course It Isn't!

Having been made redundant three times in the last 22 years, and had fairly long periods out of work as a result, I have a reasonable knowledge of the disagreeable experience that is known as 'signing on'.

However, I don't want to dwell on the debilitating and humiliating nature of this experience. I want to look at one aspect of the mechanism which kicks in to action once you do sign on; the mechanism of re-training.

The subject came up whilst talking to a friend who is currently out of work and being processed through this re-training mechanism, and we both thought it would be a useful insight into the current policies of dealing with the unemployed, through the eyes of someone who is immersed in it. So here, in his own words, is his experience.

...............................

I have found most government courses a complete waste of time. Each time I have to attend one I think to myself "Is this going to be another one of those useless government schemes" and then I think, "Be positive, this one could be a good one and hopefully I will get permanent employment through it". But no surprise it ends up the same as the majority.

One thing that annoys me is when you first register with these schemes you are told that there will be work placements available and the possibility of employment at the end of the course. But in reality they don’t have enough work placements for everyone and the employers who use these schemes very rarely offer employment as it suits them financially to take on another placement. This inevitably leads to the majority of the unemployed having to spend several months going to the organisations offices where they have to spend the day from 9 am till 4 pm Monday to Friday job searching. This consists of searching through the internet and the local freebies. Occasionally they buy the Liverpool Echo on Thursdays.

Now with the unemployment situation the way it is, there are very few vacancies and sometimes they are repeated on more than one occasion so as to make the job situation look better than it is. This occurs mostly on job centre sites.

As this to me is a complete waste of time as I already job search on my own initiative I do not see the point of going to a special building to do the same but to also spend the rest of the day bored stiff as there is nothing more to do. The atmosphere in these government scheme offices is very depressing and it is obvious that a portion of these people are not interested in finding work as it suits them to be supported by the government and to spend the day doing whatever they please.

The government thinks up these schemes so they look as if they are doing something positive to reduce unemployment by keeping the numbers down as when one is on one of these schemes they are not classed as unemployed. But in reality these schemes are a sham as they are run by incompetents who are only interested in getting sufficient numbers to fill their quotas and keep themselves in a job.

Of the several courses I have been on I have only been on two good ones. One was working in a council library helping customers with any problems they may have while using the computers. At the end of the course there was no vacancy as the local council decided to use another government scheme and as that particular scheme did not have enough people to supply this service throughout the borough I volunteered to carry on for over a year till the council sorted itself out but it had no intentions of offering employment as it was financially better for them to keep using the government schemes I enjoyed the work and only offered to work on a voluntary basis because the staff in the library were really nice people.

The other good course I was on was working for the NHS as a clinic clerk. They were very happy with my work and the Section Head suggested I apply for a vacancy that had arisen. I did so and the interview went very well but unfortunately I was in competition with two very qualified applicants. My section head told me that for all they were more qualified the interviewers preferred me but the management would question their choice.

...............................

There really isn't much to add. That training courses are used to remove people from the unemployment figures is well known. It is also true that these training courses do sometimes lead to people gaining useful employment. However, over-riding this all, it would seem that in many situations, it is more about massaging figures and ticking target boxes rather than any real attempts to get people back to work.

But, of course, training courses don't create jobs. Ticking boxes doesn't create jobs. Only a growing economy creates jobs, and that isn't happening at the moment, nor does it look likely to happen in the near future.

The Government would like to apologise but 1984 is running a little late.

In the UK, we now live in the most comprehensively surveilled society ever. It is something even George Orwell didn't fully foresee. In his book, The Road To Southend Pier, Ross Clark sets himself the challenge to travel from his home in East Anglia to the end of the eponymous pier, avoiding, if possible, the all-seeing cameras which now pervade our lives; a journey of about 50 miles.

He fails, quite comprehensively. And he fails because it is now almost impossible to go about out daily lives, our innocent daily lives, with being caught on CCTV many times.

Of course, we are told that crime is being prevented, and criminals are being caught as a result of this increased intrusion into our private lives. Whenever questions are raised as to the efficacy of the burgoning CCTV culture, the grainy, low quality footage of Jamie Bulger's kidnap is rolled out and paraded as a trophy to assure us all. But unfortunately, it is not reassuring. If the only piece of evidence of the effectiveness of increased CCTV is video footage from February 1993, then we are in deep trouble.

The very fact the whole TV programs are now being produced, for our delight and delectation, from CCTV footage, is proof, surely, that CCTV is not reducing crime. Rather it has made thugs, vandals, and the anti-social into TV stars, albeit anonymous ones because they are rarely caught.

So, what then is the point of all this expensive hi-tech equipment? Well, it is proving its worth, but not in catching thugs and criminals, but in reaping large financial rewards for local councils who are using it to catch motorists parking illegally. Yes, you will be pleased to know that while many of our city centres have become virtual no-go zones at certain times, the forces of law and order and catching errant car parkers. It makes it all worth while! Doesn't it? Well, no it doesn't.

Why doesn't it? As a society we are being routinely spied upon by our government, and its various agencies. Those who were traditionally there to protect us, are now those who are watching our every move, not for our good, but because we are all now regarded as potential criminals, and worse, as potential and possible terrorists.

Section 44 of the Anti-Terrorism Act is now, routinely and on a daily basis being evoked against the innocent citizens of the UK for all manner of minor things. For instance, point a camera at a building in London, and there is a very good chance that you will be approached by the forces of law and order and challenged under Section 44. This is happening regularly. Watch this video from the BBC and wonder what is happening to this country. You will note in the video that the Police Officer states that they had stopped lots of people.

So, next time you are snapping a few photos for the family album, be aware that your government, and the forces of law and order, will now be regarding you as a possible terrorist.

The final irony in all this is that anyone planning a terrorist attack has no need to wander the streets with a camera. They have only to go online and all the major cities can be viewed in excellent detail, with photo-quality images and in some cases, stunning 3D, on the internet.

Expect the government to announce very soon that, because anyone using the Internet could be a potential terrorist, it will be monitoring Internet usage on a daily basis.

Oh, wait a minute, they already do that.

Victims of Consensus

Question: What is the purpose of national government?
Answer: To know how to best serve the people for whom they are their elected representatives, and to then serve them.

At least that is probably what the answer should be..... if only!

Are you aware that those who govern us are in a continual struggle for our hearts and minds? The answer you would probably give is, 'yes of course I am. Every political statement I hear or read is a mix of truth, lie, misdirection and propaganda', and of course this is true. However, despite the fact that those who govern us, our elected representatives, are supposed to be our 'humble servants', the truth of the matter is that they are engaged in a constant war of attrition which seeks to continually persuade us that everything they do, propose, suggest, think, is right and that we must be persuaded to fall in line with it; whether higher taxes, lower wages, military action, etc. To do this they must ensure that their citizens should not think too deeply about such matters, should not engage too deeply in the debate, should not oppose the leaderships' rationale. In other words, we should not think for ourselves.

But do we want to be concerned with such matters? It is extremely important that we are.

Modern history offers us a prime example of what can happen when a population, apparently unable or unwilling, to think for itself and engage in the political processes of its Government, allows it's Government to carry out atrocities that, many decades later, still fill people with horror.

I am of course talking about the German Nazi party's extermination of millions of Jews, Poles and Gypsies during the course of the Second World War. Although there were many factors involved; severe financial breakdown and national racism being just two, the result was that the German population stood aside while its own citizens were first persecuted, scapegoated, ghettoised and then systematically exterminated. Shamefully, whilst this was going on, even the German Church turned the other cheek; the one body of people whom you would hope would stand against such evil, did not do so.

There were or two exceptions, and history records their bravery, and in some situations, their executions.

How did this happen? It happened because a consensus was reached within the population that what their Government was doing was right and in the best interests of its citizens.

There are a number of varied and complicated psychological and sociological processes involved for this to happen within a population. Malcolm Gladwell, author of, The Tipping Point, has shown that when something new appears on the horizon, be it philosophical, ideological or socialogical, there is a period of time when this new idea germinates. A period of time when, albeit slowly, the new idea gains a foothold, perhaps through active promotion, i.e. media advertising, televised propaganda, TV, Radio, Internet, Film, public promotion, debate, etc. But eventually the 'tipping point' is reached when the acceptance of this new idea cascades into the public consciousness, and almost overnight, or so it seems, a majority of the population find themselves agreeing with the new idea for no other reason than the common belief that, 'everyone believes that....', and thus it becomes, in sort, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once this tipping point is reached, the promoters of the new idea can push ahead because it has reached consensus.

Take, for example, the global warming debate. Despite enormous scientific evidence in opposition to the basic premise, a consensus seems to have been reached that human produced CO2 is the prime cause of global warming.

Once consensus has been reached, it becomes more and more difficult for anyone to stand opposed to that consensus. They will find that their voice is increasingly isolated, their opinion increasingly marginalised, and that the consensus is less and less willing to bear with such opposition.

So how does a Government effectively persuade its citizens towards this tipping point? Of course, different Governments use different methods; terror, oppression, fear, reasoned argument, debate, democratic process, etc. The danger is that, within a democratic process, there is always the possibility that the population might be swayed to an opposing, undesired opinion. One way to deal with this would be to remove the opposition. That raises the question as to whether the democratic process is also removed at the same time. One other way to limit the rise of opposing argument is to reduced the ability of the population to engage in reasoned debate; to remove the populations' ability to reason out the arguments, to reach a decision based on intellectual effort; in other words, to think for itself. But how does a Government thus reduce a population's ability?

One way would be to, over a period, 'dumb down' the population, reducing the ability of that population to think for themselves; to form opinions based on reasoned argument, philosophical or religious ethical ideology. This could lead to a situation where the Government of a country can more easily persuade a population, or the majority of a population, along a course of its own choosing, to consensus, without the danger of that population raising serious objection.

So, is the British population being dumbed down? It's a question which merits consideration. Universities report that increasingly, entrants display the lack of adequate literacy and numeracy skills. Our school system has been systematically pulled apart since the introduction of the comprehensive education system, and certain governments have all but destroyed Grammar schools. Add to that the apparent goal of our state owned broadcasting system to rot our brains with a diet of 'reality TV' and 'celebrity' led opinion. All of which, despite the apparent increase in 'A' Level results, may be leading to a generation less able to truly think for itself.

It is vital that we retain the ability to think for ourselves. If we do not, we are in danger of becoming victims of consensus, victims of a non-intellectual mob-rule that may see some of us swimming against the stream of majority opinion.

Remember, what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular.

Makes you think, doesn't it?

Freedom of Speech R.I.P.?

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Not a quote, as many believe, from Voltaire, but by Beatrice Hall, in her 1907 book, Friends of Voltaire, writing under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre. Of course, it matters little who actually said it because those eighteen words, in a very real sense, form the founding principle of freedom of speech as we, in Britain, have understood it. However, over the last few years, the right to express opinion, no matter how controversial, has been severely eroded against a backdrop of intolerance and hate crime and anti-terrorist legislation.

But let's back-track for a moment. Our perception of our freedom of speech derives very much from our 'Britishness', our sense of fair play, our tradition of debate in the hallowed halls of our higher citadels of learning. It is a tradition which goes back many, many years; that we all had the right to express an opinion, but to also allow someone with a contrary opinion to disagree with us. Indeed, our very form of democratic government is based upon this very tradition within the 'Mother of Parliaments' at Westminster, where the democratic machinery demands that our Members of Parliament represent the views of the electorate in, often, heated debate, until a consensus is reached. This tradition has protected us from totalitarianistic government, or outright dictatorship, for centuries.

However, that very British tradition is being seriously undermined by other incoming cultures. It seems that one of the worst things you can do now is to express an opinion which someone else finds offensive. To offend someone who may have a differing opinion to yourself, by voicing that opinion in public, is now virtually forbidden. In particular, voicing something against a perceived ethnic minority, or minority religion, is now likely to result in possible prosecution. So the question is; Where did our freedom of speech go? The answer actually may surprise you. It has not gone anywhere because we never had that right; at least not in any legally accepted form because The United Kingdom, unlike, for instance, the USA, has no written constitution. Nowhere in law is our right to freedom of speech upheld. That is until the EU came along with the much despised and maligned Human Rights Act (HRA).

Ironically, it wasn't until the HRA came along that there was a legal definition of freedom of speech, termed in the HRA as 'Freedom of Expression'.

Human Rights Act: Article 10: Freedom of Expression

(1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

That sounds quite good doesn't it. By there is, of course, a caveat:

(2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

At the very time when it looks as though, at last, our British tradition of Freedom of Speech had been enshrined in written law, it was actually undermined in that same law which made it subject to a raft of other legislation and interpretation.

For further reading, take a look at Philip Johnston's, whatever happened to free speech?

So we find our much cherish tradition of freedom of speech is not so free after all.

Are we being Chemically Coshed?

Brave New World is a classic book, in every sense of the word. In Huxley's tale of a "negative utopia", society was encouraged towards the mass consumption of a drug called, Soma. The use of this drug kept the majority of the population compliant, happy and generally non-aggressive.

Interestingly, it may have been a visit to the newly opened Brunner and Mond plant, part of Imperial Chemical Industries, or ICI, Billingham, which inspired him to write the classic novel.

Some of what we read about in BNW has come to pass in one form or another, particularly the ability to engineer embryos for artificial insemination or for the specific purposes such as genetically matched organs, reflects Huxley's vision of factory produced children. However, it is the aspect of Soma production and use which is where we will focus.

The World Government of Huxley's novel encouraged the widespread use of Soma, and in the UK today, our Government is increasingly encouraging a state of affairs where the population is being pharmaceuticalised beyond anything that can reasonably be termed, necessary.

For instance. There is currently a debate raging concerning whether all (repeat, all) over 50s should take Statins While the drug is effective at reducing Cholesterol and thus reducing the possibility of heart attack or stroke, it also has severe side-effects in many people. This writer was prescribed the lowest dose of Statins some time ago, and within 4 months was having quite severe muscle pain in one leg which occasionally prevented walking. All the symptoms vanished within 7 days of ceasing the medication.

During the recent near pandemic of Swine 'Flu, the anti-viral drug, Tamiflu, was mass prescribed. Many people thought this was a cure, it was certainly presented implicitly as such in the media, but at best it only reduced the effect of the virus by about 24 hours, by slowing down the rate at which viruses infect cells in the body and, therefore, how fast they spread and make you ill.

Despite this, and despite the acknowledged side-effects (nausea, vomiting, retching and diarrhoea), which often were more severe than the disease they were supposed to be 'curing', the Government went all out to enforce a mass-vaccination programme.

The fact that Swine Flu was not the feared pandemic we were all told it would be, and that the majority of people only suffered mild symptoms, the fear of the disease was greatly exaggerated. Why? Was this to encourage a certain compliancy within the population to allow themselves to be unnecessarily pharmaceuticalised?

You might find this Mail Online article interesting.

and this one!

Of course, for the aged or those with long-term illness, vaccination is nearly always beneficial.

We've looked at Statins and Tamiflu. Let's examine the increased use of Warfarin with the elderly as a routine procedure. Warfarin (known more commonly to most of us as rat poison) acts upon the blood as an anticoagulant thinning it out. Of course, although it is a poison, in lower doses it does not kill. The reason it is used is to prevent heart attacks and especially strokes in the elderly. By elderly we are talking about the over 70s. Such prevention is a good thing only if it is being used as a necessity and not as an age determined generality. For the assumption is that everyone over a certain age will benefit from Warfarin medication, and this is simply not true.

Case in point: A gentleman I know personally, and have know for over 40 years, was put on Warfarin about 3 years ago. At that time he was a very active 80 year old, used to do lots of outdoor physical activity (gardening especially) never bothered about any chilly weather and had a very good quality of life. Now he wears his outdoor clothing inside because he is always cold; holding his hand is like clutching the palm of a dead man. His quality of life is greatly reduced. Prior to being pharmaceuticalised, he had barely suffered a day's illness, presented no symptoms indicating any potential heart problems, and yet he was still prescribed Warfarin simply because he had reached 'that' age.

In all these instances, we have to ask a question: who is really benefiting from the wide-spread, and possibly completely unnecessary pharmaceuticalisation of the population? One answer may be whichever political party is currently trying to convince the public that it really cares. Another, much more likely answer would be an economic one. Money, industrial fiscal profit, is a huge motivator. The pharmaceutical industry is in business, not as a charity, but to make profit selling product. This product is pharmaceuticals; pills, potions and vaccinations.

Finally, let's mention the Government's current obsession with vaccinating underage girls against cervical cancer with Cervarix. It is not a bad thing that women, or in this case, underage girls, are protected against a serious disease. The anomaly is that while 70% of cervical cancer is caused a sexually transmitted virus, the approach is vaccination rather than the more obvious solution of encouraging sexual abstinence. But then, no Government has dared approach this, or any other sexual problem, for instance, the ever increasing rate of teenage pregnancies, with a moral solution rather then a pharmaceutical one.

And, of course, a moral solution would not produce share-holder profit for Roche (Tamiflu) nor for Bristol-Myers Squibb (Warfarin) nor for GlaxoSmithKline (Cervarix) nor the manufacturers of the varied range of Statins.

More general drug info can be found on this excellent medical site

So when a Government is looking for serious solutions for serious problems, who might be whispering in their collective ears, who might have a huge vested interest in persuading that Government that the pharmaceutical route is the one to choose?

Think about it - it's not rocket science!

ID Cards And The Database State

There is a prevailing thought amongst some people that there is nothing wrong with the idea of ID cards for all, and the inevitable 'database state' that goes with it. The argument usually runs along the lines of, 'if you done nothing wrong there's nothing to worry about.' This does sound seductively logical. After all, that argument can also be used concerning the burgeoning surveillance society, and the Government's plans to monitor all (repeat, all) of our Internet traffic including emails, and snoop on all out web surfing.

Of course, we have every faith in our Government don't we, and know that they have our best interests at heart? We know this because that is what they tell us.

Pause for a moment to think of Germany in the 1930s. No-one imagined then, the horrors that were to be unleashed by the Nazis upon their own population. But horror did descend upon them, and none more horrific than the 'ID' that Jewish people were made to carry; the yellow stars marked, 'Jude', and the highly involved administration of the suppression that went with it. As we know, this led to one of the greatest human tragedies in history.

Now, imagine that in the not to distant future, our own Governmental system were to suffer a similar radical change for reasons, at present, hidden from us.

Suddenly, because we are all compelled to carry ID cards, our movements are severely restricted; where we are allowed to travel is limited, who we associate with is proscribed.

If you think that this is far-fetched, it isn't. There are already sufficient laws on the statute books to usher in such a regime. If you want to know what this might be like, try to get hold of the BBC series, 'The Last Enemy' on DVD, and then remember how the recent G20 demonstration was Policed. We may not be as far from a Police State as we would perhaps like to think we are.

On 21st October 2009, it was reported that an extra £200,000,000, every year, will be used to monitor all internet activity of UK citizens. This is on top of the current annual expenditure of £11,000,000 used to monitor emails and telephone communications.

Of course this is a huge subject, and you could do worse than go to NO2ID's own, stop the database state, website. You can subscribe to their newsletter on the website as well.

Sorry Seems To Be The Easiest Word

You will probably remember the Elton John song, 'Sorry seems to be the hardest word'. I would like to disagree with that, albeit, worthy sentiment.

The act of saying sorry, whilst it can still be a bit galling, and perhaps difficulty to come to the point of actually apologising; think Jacqui Smith, the real meaning of 'sorry' has been lost. It has been lost in the sense of loosing what 'sorry' was really all about originally.

To apologise, to say sorry, had the context of not simply words spoken, but of contrition, of reparation, of making things right again. This principle of reparation, of paying back, is an ancient one, and vital to any social group or society. "Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger when he is starving. Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold, though it costs him all the wealth of his house." (Holy Bible-Proverbs Chap. 6 verse 30-31). "The concept of reparations-payments made for damages inflicted by one individual upon another have long been regarded as appropriate social policy." (Apologies, Regrets, and Reparations - Stanley L. Engerman - Department of Economics, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY)

It wasn't enough to mouth the words, 'sorry', you were expected to do something to make things right again, or at least to attempt to make things right again. In other words, you had to take responsibility for the consequences of your own actions, or indeed, lack of action. Of course, depending upon what you might have done in the first place, making things right might actually be impossible. Then there would be other ways of making reparation; monetary compensation for instance.

But these principles have, to a great extent, been lost to our modern 21st century society.

Nowadays, a lawyer stands before a bouquet of microphones, reading a statement about how their client, '...deeply regrets what he has done' or '... is very remorseful over her actions' .... etc., and this is deemed to be sufficient. Well of course they are going to be remorseful, regretful; they were caught! But where is the reparation, the actions to back up the words, the repentance? And here we have the nub of the issue. Repentance. The meaning of the word is to, 'turn away/around from...'. In other words, a determined action of the will away from what you have done, to a new direction... an about face. And true repentance is always accompanied by action, by reparation.

Years ago, a Government Minister was caught out lying to Parliament concerning a serious breach of ethics and security (see this blog). He resigned and devoted his life to charitable works. Here was repentance and reparation in action; a true apology.

Even if a court determines that compensation is to be paid by the guilty party, there is no guarantee that the compensation will ever be forth-coming. Indeed, thugs and criminal just ignore such things, and often don't even get around to saying sorry either.

If we, as a society, paid more attention within our Criminal Justice System to the act of reparation by the criminal, to the victim, we might find that not only would the criminal learn something of value, but the victim might feel that their hurt/injury/damage/loss, has been better considered as well.

What Happened To Honour?

If I think far enough back, I can remember the Profumo Affair in 1963.  I was at secondary school, yet the scandal seemed to enthral, shock and appal the majority of people; even 14 year olds.

In a nutshell, John Profumo, the Secretary of State for War, had an illicit relationship with Christine Keeler, the alleged  mistress of a Russian spy.  He  then lied in the House of Commons when he was questioned about it.  However, caught out, he resigned and devoted the remainder of his life to charitable works.  He died in 2006, and it could be argued that with his death, so also died any vestige of honour within Government.

How different then the rich vein of lies, dishonour and deceit currently being mined by many of our Members of Parliament embroiled in the expenses scandle.  None more so than former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith who, via fraudulent second home claims, has robbed the tax-payer, i.e. you and I, of more than £100,000.  Has she resigned from the House?  Nope.  Has she offered to pay the money back?  Nope; at least not at the time of writing.  So what has she done?  She has reluctantly said sorry, but only after having to be forced to do so, and not from any sense of having done wrong, but from having to be ordered to do so.  She, of course, is not alone in this, as every day seems to expose new stones ready to be turned over to reveal the decay of British Politics lurking underneath.

In 1963, John Profumo did something wrong but had the grace and the honour to recognise this and resign from politics for ever.  Many members of the House of Commons would do well to emulate his example.