One of the miracles of modern medicine is the ability of skilled surgeons to replace non-functioning human organs with donated human organs.
This is a wonderful thing; the tragic loss of one person saves the life of another, or in many cases, the lives of more than one person. Those condemned to long term disability, those who are blind, those suffering from terminal illness, etc., can be saved and go on to live fulfilled lives.
The current mode of participation is that a healthy person makes a decision to become an organ donor, so that in the event of their death, others, strangers most likely, will benefit. It is possibly the most personal act of charity one can make. And this is the crux of the matter; that it is indeed a personal decision, that one makes a positive choice at some point in their life to become an organ donor.
However, there is now a shortage of voluntary donated organs, and this has led to a radical proposal; that it should no longer be left to the individual to decide whether to donate their organs, but it shall be asummed that everyone's organs will be available for harvesting unless a person 'opts out'. This sounds very logical, very humanitarian. It would solve, overnight, the shortage of organs. Many more lives would be saved. How can this possibly be a bad thing?
Let me name the ways!
It makes the assumption that a person's body parts are not, in fact, their property, but the property of the state/NHS/medical establishment (i.e. nominated organisation) to do with as they will. That the nominated organisation owns the rights to those organs unless the person whose organs they are specifically states that they do not want their organs harvested after death.
It is worth asking whether the harvesting of human organs, without consent, has happened already in the UK. The appalling answer is, yes it has.
In 1998, the news broke that organs and tissue, from babies who had died in two British hospitals, had been harvested without the permission of the parents, sold to pharmaceutical companies for monetary gain, or used for research within the hospitals. The two hospitals involved were Birmingham's Diana Princess of Wales Children's Hospital and the Alder Hey Children's Hospital, in Liverpool. Indeed, the practise was so established as to have been going on for decades.
Lets pause for a moment to contemplate this: That the medical establishment we trusted to look after us and our children in times of illness were routinely cannibalising dead humans for, in some instances, monetary gain.
You can read the full story here.
The proposal by various branches of the medical establishment, that organ donation should be an 'opt out' scheme, has been around for a number of years, and in 2009 the debate became more official when the NHS Blood and Transplant put on their website, that The British Medical Association (BMA), many transplant surgeons, and some patients' groups and politicians are keen to see Britain adopt a system of "presumed consent", where it is assumed that an individual wishes to be a donor unless he or she has 'opted out' by registering their objection to donation after their death. Full article here
Thus does the NHS make the presumption that a designated organisation should have rights over your bodily organs by default, unless you say no, i.e. unless you 'opt out'.
If anything is a breach of human rights, it is this. Once it is presumed that the state has a right over your bodily parts, how soon before it becomes law that the state owns the rights to your bodily parts, and organ cannibalisation becomes legal?
For those who say that this is not an important issue, that once you are dead it really doesn't matter what happens to your body (and putting aside the centuries of traditional respect for the dead) imagine this scenario. You are lying in hospital, near to death, but not dead yet, and along the corridor in a private room is a millionaire/member of the government/important individual also near to death and requiring an organ donation. By happy chance, you are a perfect match, and for a large donation to the hospital, the hospital administration are sad to announce your death, but that happily the aforementioned individual was able to live thanks to the 'opt out' scheme.
The harvesting of human organs for monetary gain in a hospital? Outrageous and could never happen? Sadly, of course, it already has.
Thursday, 26 November 2009
Saturday, 14 November 2009
Over 50 Is Not Over The Hill!
Do you fancy some extreme knitting, or a leisurely cruise without any loud music, or fancy being patronised by Valerie Singleton teaching you how to use a computer by speaking v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y so you'll u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d.
No? Well then, why is it that so many organisations, both commercial and non-commercial, treat over 50s as though they are not fit for the 21st century, and need to be patronised by those who are severely misinformed about their target demographic.
So let's put the story straight. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin?
Over 50s do not suddenly turn into BOFs (Boring Old Farts) when they blow out the candles on their 50th cake. If it appears that way, there's every chance that they were BOFs when they blew out 30 candles.
Over 50s enjoy rock music, making it and listening to it and going to concerts.
Over 50s are tuned in to modern technology; they have mobile phones, use SatNav, can text, own computers, can google, can surf the web, own MP3 players, know YouTube isn't toothpaste, socialise on FaceBook and MySpace, use digital cameras.
Over 50s do not want to ramble gentle along leafy lanes hoping for a warm sandwich and weak cup of tea at some point, but own motorbikes and know how to ride them.
Over 50s don't look forward to a fortnight at sea on a floating hotel, where the most exciting prospect is dropping your Bingo card, but like to go surfing instead.
Have you got the message?
So stop thinking of over 50s as some semi-decrepit, near senile, cranky, rusty and crusty group who enjoy being patronised by idiots. Stop doing that and you may start getting their attention.
No? Well then, why is it that so many organisations, both commercial and non-commercial, treat over 50s as though they are not fit for the 21st century, and need to be patronised by those who are severely misinformed about their target demographic.
So let's put the story straight. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin?
Over 50s do not suddenly turn into BOFs (Boring Old Farts) when they blow out the candles on their 50th cake. If it appears that way, there's every chance that they were BOFs when they blew out 30 candles.
Over 50s enjoy rock music, making it and listening to it and going to concerts.
Over 50s are tuned in to modern technology; they have mobile phones, use SatNav, can text, own computers, can google, can surf the web, own MP3 players, know YouTube isn't toothpaste, socialise on FaceBook and MySpace, use digital cameras.
Over 50s do not want to ramble gentle along leafy lanes hoping for a warm sandwich and weak cup of tea at some point, but own motorbikes and know how to ride them.
Over 50s don't look forward to a fortnight at sea on a floating hotel, where the most exciting prospect is dropping your Bingo card, but like to go surfing instead.
Have you got the message?
So stop thinking of over 50s as some semi-decrepit, near senile, cranky, rusty and crusty group who enjoy being patronised by idiots. Stop doing that and you may start getting their attention.
Thursday, 5 November 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, 29 October 2009
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!
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!
Is Being a Biker More Than Just Riding a Motorcycle?
Here's something a little more light-hearted than previous posts.
I was watching a regional news TV programme some weeks ago, that featured a reporter who is well known for going after rogue traders (there's a hint!) on the back of a black sports bike. He is a motorcycle rider in his own right, but in the course of the particular report had cause to say the following, 'I ride a bike but am not a Biker'.
I found this remark quite interesting and it caused me to wonder, 'what exactly makes a Biker?
Now, you may think this to be of little import. However, it does raise the issue of how people see motorcyclist in general and 'Bikers' (if there is actually a difference) in particular; and does this affect their attitudes upon the road towards them?
Clearly a Motorcyclist is someone who rides a Motorcycle (Scooters not included - sorry). All Motorcycles are Motorbikes, therefore are all Motorcyclists, motorbikists i.e. Bikers? I think not. In that reporter's mind there is clearly a difference, and I tend to agree. I would suggest that whilst 'Motorcyclist' means one who rides a motorcycle, 'Biker', means someone who embraces a certain ideology, a certain philosophy, a certain, perhaps, Zen? i.e. A person whose relationship with the, 'Bike, goes deeper in some way or another, than merely riding a Motorbike. That involvement might be a fascination with the mechanics, the membership of a local Motorbike club or owners' group, an appreciation for the 'art' of the Motorbike, someone who uses the Bike for 'weekend warrioring', or someone whose lifestyle embraces 'The Bike' whole-heartedly to the exclusion of all else; an obsession maybe.
But is there something more? Is there not in the very term, 'Biker' a sense of rebellion, of one who is outside the boundaries of normal polite society, one who is, whilst astride their 'Bike, making an explicit statement of intent and purpose, of rebellion, of dissatisfaction with the everyday boredom of the grey-suited world, and with sanitised modes of travel?
Biker, Greaser, Outlaw, Hells Angel, are all, in some minds, interchangeable, and I wonder if this misconception, for they are slightly different things, leads to a certain animosity towards Motorcyclists generally, from other road users (i.e. car, van, bus and truck drivers, as well as certain police forces) and members of the general public?
I would call myself a Biker, yet not a Hells Angel, nor a Greaser, but I do feel there is a certain 'Zen' when you are travelling astride a throbbing motor, on two wheels (or perhaps four if you are a, 'Quader') with the wind tearing at you, the elements assailing you, the sense of freedom inspiring you and the open road calling to you. There is also a sense of danger, and this is not imaginary. Whilst Motorcyclists represent 2% of road users, they tally up a score of 20% of the road accidents, yet for some, the bite of danger, the adrenaline rush, the crack, is what they seek and is why they ride.
So, to answer the question, 'Is Being a Biker More Than Just Riding a Motorcycle?', I would say the answer is an unequivocal, 'YES'!
Finally, can I recommend, most highly, the BikeSafe Scheme which has courses running all over the country. Well worth the weekend it will take, and it will make you a safer Biker!
Ride Safe, Home Safe!!
I was watching a regional news TV programme some weeks ago, that featured a reporter who is well known for going after rogue traders (there's a hint!) on the back of a black sports bike. He is a motorcycle rider in his own right, but in the course of the particular report had cause to say the following, 'I ride a bike but am not a Biker'.
I found this remark quite interesting and it caused me to wonder, 'what exactly makes a Biker?
Now, you may think this to be of little import. However, it does raise the issue of how people see motorcyclist in general and 'Bikers' (if there is actually a difference) in particular; and does this affect their attitudes upon the road towards them?
Clearly a Motorcyclist is someone who rides a Motorcycle (Scooters not included - sorry). All Motorcycles are Motorbikes, therefore are all Motorcyclists, motorbikists i.e. Bikers? I think not. In that reporter's mind there is clearly a difference, and I tend to agree. I would suggest that whilst 'Motorcyclist' means one who rides a motorcycle, 'Biker', means someone who embraces a certain ideology, a certain philosophy, a certain, perhaps, Zen? i.e. A person whose relationship with the, 'Bike, goes deeper in some way or another, than merely riding a Motorbike. That involvement might be a fascination with the mechanics, the membership of a local Motorbike club or owners' group, an appreciation for the 'art' of the Motorbike, someone who uses the Bike for 'weekend warrioring', or someone whose lifestyle embraces 'The Bike' whole-heartedly to the exclusion of all else; an obsession maybe.
But is there something more? Is there not in the very term, 'Biker' a sense of rebellion, of one who is outside the boundaries of normal polite society, one who is, whilst astride their 'Bike, making an explicit statement of intent and purpose, of rebellion, of dissatisfaction with the everyday boredom of the grey-suited world, and with sanitised modes of travel?
Biker, Greaser, Outlaw, Hells Angel, are all, in some minds, interchangeable, and I wonder if this misconception, for they are slightly different things, leads to a certain animosity towards Motorcyclists generally, from other road users (i.e. car, van, bus and truck drivers, as well as certain police forces) and members of the general public?
I would call myself a Biker, yet not a Hells Angel, nor a Greaser, but I do feel there is a certain 'Zen' when you are travelling astride a throbbing motor, on two wheels (or perhaps four if you are a, 'Quader') with the wind tearing at you, the elements assailing you, the sense of freedom inspiring you and the open road calling to you. There is also a sense of danger, and this is not imaginary. Whilst Motorcyclists represent 2% of road users, they tally up a score of 20% of the road accidents, yet for some, the bite of danger, the adrenaline rush, the crack, is what they seek and is why they ride.
So, to answer the question, 'Is Being a Biker More Than Just Riding a Motorcycle?', I would say the answer is an unequivocal, 'YES'!
Finally, can I recommend, most highly, the BikeSafe Scheme which has courses running all over the country. Well worth the weekend it will take, and it will make you a safer Biker!
Ride Safe, Home Safe!!
My Life Is Your Responsibility
Let me ask you a simple (possibly hypothetical) question. If you go out drinking one evening, and you drink so much that you have difficulty walking, and in you attempts to stagger home you trip up the roadside kerb, fall over, and injure yourself. Is your first thought to sue the council? If you answer, 'yes', then you are like a significant number of people in today's society who believe that their actions, and the repercussions of those actions, are not their own, but someone else's responsibility.
Another question. You are a 15 year old girl. You go out one evening, drink alcohol, get a bit merry, have casual sex, get pregnant and have a baby. Is your first thought going to be: what council house would I like and, what office do I go to for benefits? If you think this is an acceptable line of thought, then you may well be someone who has difficulty accepting responsibility for your own actions.
Personal responsibility is the acceptance that my actions, and the consequences of my actions, are my responsibility. This simple premise forms the very bedrock of our justice system, and as such is a cornerstone of our society.
However, over the last 30-40 years a serious faultline has opened up under this crucial foundation. This faultline has been created through a number of socially seismic disturbances. The removal of discipline in the raising of children is one. The creation of the monster known as the 'Nanny State' is another.
Let's look at the former for a moment. It is a cliché to say this, but 30 years a go, if a policeman told you off for riding your bike on the pavement, and you took no notice, you may well have got a clip round the ear. If you were rude or disruptive at school, you might get the slipper (this writer got several slipperings during his secondary years).
In other words, there were repercussions for bad behaviour. In our 21st century society, discipline has been removed, and with it the vital learning experience that if I do something wrong, there will be repercussions, and sometimes, unpleasant and possibly painfully so. Please don't think that the threat of exclusion is a punishment. It is not, it is a gift. Neither are ASBOs punishments. They are rather badges of honour among a certain social class.
Let's look at the 'Nanny State' for a moment. The 'Nanny State' really came into being on the 5th July 1948, with the creation of the NHS (National Health System). It is not unreasonable to say it was possibly one of the most momentous social changes for the population of the UK. For the first time UK citizens could look to the State for provision of vital health care regardless of their social or economic standing, and let's not deny that this was a very good thing.
But it fundamentally shifted, within society, the fulcrum of responsibility. No longer was the individual responsible for their health care - if they had the means to pay for it - but now the responsibility fell to the state. Of course, every working adult contributed to the NHS in the form of National Insurance and general taxes, but nonetheless, we now looked to the state to look after us.
Nationalisation (euphemistically referred to as, Public Ownership') of industry was a central policy of the Labour government in 1945 and very quickly became more and more of a creeping menace which saw the nationalisation of the Bank of England, and the coal, aviation, telecommunications, Transport, electricity, gas, iron and steel industries, and has continued through to the part-nationalisation, in 2008, of the Royal Bank of Scotland and the newly merged HBOS-Lloyds TSB.
What this has meant is the de-empowering of the individual in favour of an all encompassing enrolment of the state as protector, benefactor..... Nanny.
Thus has our individuality, as citizens of a democratic country, become eroded, and left behind the overwhelming misconception, in the minds of many people, that it doesn't matter what I do, the state (or someone else) will 'pick up the tab'.
So now, children are growing up in a social climate which tells them either explicitly or implicitly, that it doesn't matter what they do, how they behave, who they hurt, who they disrespect, who they rob (and even, increasingly, who they kill) that it's not their responsibility and there will be little, if any, punishment or repercussions.
That is totally unacceptable and is leading us to complete social breakdown.
Another question. You are a 15 year old girl. You go out one evening, drink alcohol, get a bit merry, have casual sex, get pregnant and have a baby. Is your first thought going to be: what council house would I like and, what office do I go to for benefits? If you think this is an acceptable line of thought, then you may well be someone who has difficulty accepting responsibility for your own actions.
Personal responsibility is the acceptance that my actions, and the consequences of my actions, are my responsibility. This simple premise forms the very bedrock of our justice system, and as such is a cornerstone of our society.
However, over the last 30-40 years a serious faultline has opened up under this crucial foundation. This faultline has been created through a number of socially seismic disturbances. The removal of discipline in the raising of children is one. The creation of the monster known as the 'Nanny State' is another.
Let's look at the former for a moment. It is a cliché to say this, but 30 years a go, if a policeman told you off for riding your bike on the pavement, and you took no notice, you may well have got a clip round the ear. If you were rude or disruptive at school, you might get the slipper (this writer got several slipperings during his secondary years).
In other words, there were repercussions for bad behaviour. In our 21st century society, discipline has been removed, and with it the vital learning experience that if I do something wrong, there will be repercussions, and sometimes, unpleasant and possibly painfully so. Please don't think that the threat of exclusion is a punishment. It is not, it is a gift. Neither are ASBOs punishments. They are rather badges of honour among a certain social class.
Let's look at the 'Nanny State' for a moment. The 'Nanny State' really came into being on the 5th July 1948, with the creation of the NHS (National Health System). It is not unreasonable to say it was possibly one of the most momentous social changes for the population of the UK. For the first time UK citizens could look to the State for provision of vital health care regardless of their social or economic standing, and let's not deny that this was a very good thing.
But it fundamentally shifted, within society, the fulcrum of responsibility. No longer was the individual responsible for their health care - if they had the means to pay for it - but now the responsibility fell to the state. Of course, every working adult contributed to the NHS in the form of National Insurance and general taxes, but nonetheless, we now looked to the state to look after us.
Nationalisation (euphemistically referred to as, Public Ownership') of industry was a central policy of the Labour government in 1945 and very quickly became more and more of a creeping menace which saw the nationalisation of the Bank of England, and the coal, aviation, telecommunications, Transport, electricity, gas, iron and steel industries, and has continued through to the part-nationalisation, in 2008, of the Royal Bank of Scotland and the newly merged HBOS-Lloyds TSB.
What this has meant is the de-empowering of the individual in favour of an all encompassing enrolment of the state as protector, benefactor..... Nanny.
Thus has our individuality, as citizens of a democratic country, become eroded, and left behind the overwhelming misconception, in the minds of many people, that it doesn't matter what I do, the state (or someone else) will 'pick up the tab'.
So now, children are growing up in a social climate which tells them either explicitly or implicitly, that it doesn't matter what they do, how they behave, who they hurt, who they disrespect, who they rob (and even, increasingly, who they kill) that it's not their responsibility and there will be little, if any, punishment or repercussions.
That is totally unacceptable and is leading us to complete social breakdown.
Friday, 23 October 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)