Life of Pejar

Labour's Last Hope (Sketch)

2010-01-07T22:27:00.000Z

Scene: Gordon Brown's Office, 10 Downing Street.

[Brown is sitting behind his desk. Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt enter, nervously.]

Brown: Well well, if it isn't my old friends. Looks like all that plotting and scheming was for nothing, doesn't it?

Hoon: But, but Prime Minister, please understand!

Hewitt: It was nothing personal. We're great admirers of your work!

Hoon: It's just that...well...you'll never win an election. Unless we get a new leader soon, we'll be utterly obliterated!

Hewitt: We just thought that the Party needs someone else, someone charismatic, someone who might give us a chance at a fourth term...

Brown: [Incredulous] What, one of you two?? Oh, I can really see the electorate turning out in droves for that.

Hoon: Well, uh, no, we did discuss that, and you're completely right.

Hewitt: We need someone else in charge, and we do have a possible solution...

Brown: Oh, and who is it? No, don't tell me. I can just imagine. Johnson! Miliband! Balls!

Hoon: [Affronted] No need to be rude, Prime Minister.

Hewitt: No no, we have found someone who would really appeal to the electorate, and we even persuaded him to leave behind a very promising career to go into politics. He's young, dynamic and almost universally loved.

Brown: [Perplexed] Who could you possibly mean??

[Enter David Tennant, grinning.]

Tennant: Hello!

Brown: What? Wait, I recognise you! You're...Captain Kirk, or something.

Tennant: Eh...close enough.

Hoon: Don't you see, Prime Minister? With Mr. Tennant as Labour Party leader, we would absolutely thrash the Tories at the polls!

Hewitt: With his departure from Doctor Who, his popularity ratings are through the roof! He's more popular than Jesus!

Hoon: It's true; my research shows that a higher percentage of the electorate identify him with Christmas than Christ himself...

Tennant: [Looking around the room] This place is a bit fancy, isn't it? [Looking out the window, suddenly alert] Look out! The Daleks are attacking!

Hoon: What??

Hewitt: Where??

Brown: Is it time for me to save the world again?

Tennant: [Cheeky smile] Nah, just kidding! [To himself] No Daleks until next Tuesday.

Brown: But you can't run the country! You have no experience! You aren't even a politician!

Hoon: Exactly! People hate politicians at the moment; Mr. Tennant is free from the taint of the expenses scandal!

Tennant: Plus, I still have my sonic screwdriver!

[He points his sonic screwdriver at Brown's desk and activates it, causing a high tech control panel and screen to rise out from it.]

Brown: [Shocked] What?? I've never got it to do that before!

Hewitt: Do you see, Prime Minister? He's perfect for the job! We've even persuaded him to keep putting on his English accent while doing the job. Research suggests that his native Scottish accent would remind people too much of, well, you.

Hoon: And I've already got the electoral broadcast planned out! It's like the opening to Doctor Who, see, which is brilliant because it's already mostly in red. Then we have the logo fly towards the screen, but rather than Doctor Who it will just say 'Labour'. And then once it flies off we show your face, Prime Minister, and then we'll have a voice over say "The leader of the Labour Party is regenerating again..." And then your face will morph into Mr. Tennant's! The public will lap it up!

Brown: Well, um, I suppose it makes some sense. But I'll still have to run it past Peter Mandelson.

Hewitt: [Groaning] Oh no, not Mandelson...

[Enter Peter Mandelson.]

Mandelson: You called?

Brown: I was just saying that-

[Tennant notices Mandelson.]

Tennant: [Shocked] It can't be... It is! [Angry] Davros!! I knew it was you!! I won't let you drag this wonderful country down with your manipulations!

Mandelson: [Horrified] No! My cunning schemes have been revealed!

[He runs away.]

Brown: [To Tennant] Wait, did you just chase away Peter Mandelson? That's it, you're hired! You'll be the best Prime Minister the United Kingdom has ever seen!

Hewitt: Oh, raptures! But what will you do, Mr. Brown?

Brown: [Airily] Oh, you know, go on the lecture circuit, try to bring peace to the Middle East... Hey, if it worked for Tony, it's got to work for me, right?

Hewitt: Um, yes, of course. I'm...sure it will.

Brown: Right, we'll just have to announce the news to the party. I'm sure there will be no need for a leadership election; we'll just have another coronation like last time.

[Hoon has been looking at the monitor on the desk.]

Hoon: Um, sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it looks like the Tories have pipped us to the post again. They've just announced that they've also got a new leader to take them into the election.

Brown: [Outraged] What??

Tennant: [Concerned] Who is it? Geoff, who is it? This is very important, Geoff, I need to know who it is!

Geoff: It's...John Simm.

Tennant: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

[We hear the drumbeat of four as it gets louder and louder...]

END

In Which I Agree With David Cameron

2009-09-13T22:21:00.000+01:00

David Cameron has announced that he wants to cut the salaries and perks of MPs, and David Mitchell here attacks this as a crowd-pleasing but ultimately hollow and counter-productive measure.

Now I don't particularly like either David, but Mitchell makes some good points here so I am tempted to go along with him. But, regrettably, I feel that I have to stand up for Cameron on this one, albeit that I agree that his reasons are entirely crowd-pleasing rather than well thought through.

Mitchell brings out the old truism about better salaries and perks leading to better of MPs. But this assumes that 'better MPs' is synonymous with 'MPs with the best prospects in big business and other high-salary jobs'. It assumes that it is crucial to compete for such high flyers against the investment banks, law firms and PR companies. But is this actually true?

Of course the salary for MPs should be set at a reasonable level. But last time I looked, wanting a high salary was not a good reason to go into politics. There was once this quaint idea that MPs were public servants, and that you went into politics because you wanted to make things better, not because it paid nearly as well as the corporate world and had better hours. Honestly, if your primary objective is to get rich, I simply do not want you as an MP.

'But the best and the brightest!' I hear my friends cry. 'They go for well-paid jobs, and we will lose them from political life!' Nonsense, says I. Nonsense stemming from the idea that everyone cares only about money. Even looking only at the graduate world, plenty of us do not go into jobs destined to make us fabulously wealthy. Does anyone genuinely believe that the teachers, nurses, social workers, scientists and writers are doing those jobs only because they couldn't get higher paid ones?

Cutting the salaries and perks of MPs may discourage those earning mega-bucks, but if it does then it will only leave the way open for those who care more about public service than their wallets. There is no lack of clever, motivated and well-educated people out there who do not need the lure of wealth to get them into politics. And if we end up with a class of politicians who actually care more about improving the state of the nation and the world, then that can only be a good thing, right?

Wanted: A (Rather) Critical Review

2009-01-20T23:16:00.000Z

WARNING: Loads of spoilers for the film 'Wanted'.

I saw Wanted for the second time over Christmas, and I was able to piece together just what had bothered me the first time round. That time, my view of it was rather overshadowed by disappointment at what it wasn't: It clearly wanted to be the Matrix, and thoroughly failed. However the second time, expecting somewhat less of it, I realised just how pernicious and destructive the film's core message is: Modern society turns men into pussies (women). Real men (and real heroes) are those who refuse to bow to this and instead live their lives in an orgy of violence, vengeance and hedonism.

Bear with me, I'm going to try to justify all of my comments above.

So, I said that Wanted fails to be the Matrix. This is despite the fact that it follows closely to the structure of the Matrix, at least for the first half: We start with an action packed opening involving incredible physical feats. Then we meet our protagonist, a schmuck stuck in a dead end white collar job. This all changes when he meets a mysterious and beautiful woman who takes him to meet her boss, a mysterious and knowing black man who opens his eyes to the abilities he has inside himself, and trains him to use them. Once this is done the protagonist goes out into the world to fulfil his true potential.

After this, the plots diverge somewhat, and credit is due to Wanted for this. However the whole time Wanted attempts to maintain the same mystical feeling of wonderment that the Matrix pulled off with style. That it can't do so is largely due to the story: In the Matrix, the big secret is world-shaking, and Neo's power is curious and exciting - is he The One? In Wanted, the secret will have little effect on the world as a whole - there's a secret order of assassins who apparently take their orders from Fate, and Wesley has heightened - but mostly human, and quickly explained - abilities. Okay, so bending bullets is odd, but it comes off as more ridiculous than miraculous. The result is that no matter how well it was done, Wanted could never have been the Matrix, and really shouldn't have tried. It just isn't deep enough.

But hey, not everything can be the Matrix. And despite that, the visual and sound effects, the direction and the pacing were all excellent. So if that was my only complaint, there would be no need for this review. What's more interesting, and disturbing, are some of the ways in which it differs not only from the Matrix but from almost every heroic action film.

As mentioned, Wanted goes down the somewhat standard route of setting out how modern life can be soul crushing and depressing. So far so good - it's a rich seam to mine: The suppression of imagination and individuality is widely identified, and may be a large part of the popularity of 'escape from reality' stories like this. But most other such stories, at least the relatively straightforward ones, will have the protagonist end up fighting the good fight, so to speak. Perhaps saving the world, or some section of it, or at least unambiguously helping people. Think of any superhero film, or most films where people end up in another world, as well as any number of more mundane stories. Here however, Wesley's new vocation has only a tenuous connection to helping anyone, and he doesn't care anyway.

Sure, the Fraternity apparently get their killing orders from Fate. But Wesley doesn't seem to find this out until he has gone through the whole grueling training ordeal, and is deeply enmeshed in it. All he appears to know when he giddily signs up is that they are a group of elite, highly skilled assassins. Wesley doesn't join to save the world or fight the good fight (even if he implies this at the end of the film). He joins because he gets a taste of power over other people (telling off his boss and smashing in his friend's face) and loves it. He wants to be better than others, to hurt people and to revel in it.

Doubtless, he also wants to avenge his father. But it's quite clear that this is only in the back of his mind until he is first given targets, when he wants to settle his score quickly. After his initial doubts Wesley seems to love his new job: The evil smile on his face as he shoots the man in the limo is meant to contrast favourably with his 'cowardice' in an earlier scene, showing that he has become 'a man'. The implication of the film is quite clear: Wesley never feels as alive as when he is involved in the hunt and the kill.

Even once he knows about the Loom of Fate (or, as I prefer, the Loom of Doom), he doesn't seem to care much: He never seems worried about the possibility that his name might indeed have come up. In fact, there is only one glimmer of Wesley's ethical side in the entire film: His hesitation before shooting his first target. How does he know that it's right, he wonders. He is, however, very easy to convince. Fox relates the story of how she was tortured as a child by a man whose name had come up and yet hadn't been killed. It's clear how this experience would lead to Fox's devotion to the Code (about which, more later). However, to anyone more objective, it would have to give pause for thought. That one piece of data is supposed to make it not only acceptable but desirable to kill every name that comes out of a dusty piece of weaving equipment? It's certainly enough for Wesley, however, who just wants an excuse to shut off his conscience and revel in his new lifestyle. No good fight for him: His new purpose is hedonistic and destructive.

Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing in a film. Wesley appears at best morally grey, and this could have been very effectively dealt with. The whole idea of assassins acting on the whims of an apparent instrument of fate, and furthermore escaping their humdrum lives to engage their inner bloodlust, could lead to a brilliant anti-hero picture. Wesley is the ultimate anti-hero: His actions may inadvertently save people's lives (although quite often they do the exact opposite - note the train sequence), but he is so damaged an individual that what he cares about are the monstrous methods he uses. Like in Dexter, the TV show where the man with murder in his soul diverts it to the purpose of killing murderers and so inadvertently saving lives. Dexter is an anti-hero, and a very effective one.

The problem is that Wesley is never recognised by the film as an anti-hero. It paints him as a white knight, blowing away the rot at the heart of the Fraternity (which he claims at the end was an act of saving the world). His single, rather frail conscience pang is set up to confirm this image, suggesting that he does fit the protagonist mould, but everything else about his character suggests otherwise. And, critically, the last lines of the film confirms his view: The most important thing that he has done has been taking back his life for himself through his indiscriminate killing spree and by cutting himself free of his old life. Then he turns to the camera: "What the fuck have you done lately?" His challenge to the viewer is not to better themselves in the usual sense of doing something to make the world a better place, but to break free of society and become like him, ruthless, violent and virtually amoral. There's more than a hint of Nietzsche about the whole thing: Morality and society constrain us - our destiny is to exert power over others and bend the world to our will.

I also claimed in the opening paragraph that there was a gender element to all of this. This may be a controversial reading, but I think it was made quite clear in the film. As far as I can tell, there were a total of three female characters in the film: The first was Wesley's bullying and oppressive boss Janice. Well, there's nothing wrong with playing with the gender of the standard oppressive boss stereotype. The second was Wesley's girlfriend Cathy, who managed simultaneously to be the epitome of the whining girlfriend stereotype - emotionally blackmailing him to try to force him to change his life, talking when he was trying to get well-earned sleep, constantly emasculating him, and ignoring his own numerous problems - and to cheat on him with his best friend in their house, further emasculating him. The third was Fox.

It's very noticeable that almost the entirety of the way that modern society is presented as oppressive and mind numbing is through two women. Janice symbolised the rigid vertical oppression of the workplace, while Cathy symbolised the horizontal oppression of societal and personal expectations. The only other character to throw in is his best friend Barry, who indirectly partakes in the oppression. Notably, after Wesley's transformation, Barry enthusiastically shows his admiration, stating 'He's a man!' This is after Wesley smacks him in the face twice, and kisses Fox in front of him. Sex, violence and escape from office life are what impress Barry, who implicitly admits that he too is a victim of the oppression, and just too cowardly to escape it like Wesley. Cathy by contrast is sickened by Wesley, and expressly states it. The whole way through, the oppressive societal order is associated with women, and it is clearly implied that the great evil of this oppression is not so much conformity as feminisation.

During his training, Wesley is repeatedly chided as a 'pussy,' suggesting that that is what modern life has made him. A pussy: Not only does it literally evoke the very definition of femaleness, but it is a word inextricably linked with womanliness. No-one would call a woman a pussy, because it just wouldn't make sense (compare with 'cunt', which signifies instead a disagreeable personality and is gender-neutral). This womanliness has to be literally beaten out of him before he can become a member of the Fraternity, a society which in name and in fact is very much about being a man.

Ah, but what about Fox? Not only is she a woman, but she is a member of the Fraternity and a badass to boot. Does this not undermine my point? Well, not really. Unless I've missed something, Fox is literally the only woman in a massive secret society. And indeed, if there was no female presence, the rather closeted all-male world might give the wrong impression to modern sensibilities, somewhat: All that...weaving... And we can't have that, that would be even less manly! Moreover, Fox is quite clearly presented as psychologically damaged by the events of her childhood. She is an honorary man because her femininity has been irreparably damaged - this is the only way she could possibly break free of her gender and end up in the Fraternity. Because the Fraternity, and the entire film, is about men breaking free of the oppressive feminising influence of modern society and engaging in a masculinity characterised by violence and hedonism. Almost the only outward-looking value entertained by the film is vengeance, which is labelled as the only ethical concern to count as manly and acceptable.

I say almost, because the character of Fox reveals another value in a way which leaves me with just a glimmer of hope for whoever wrote this film. Fox is, to me, the only even vaguely principled character in the film (Cross might also be, but it is hard to tell). Sloan is hopelessly corrupt and Wesley is basically amoral. Fox however truly believes in the rightness of what she does. She believes that killing those whose names come up is for the greater good and indeed a moral duty. To that end, when their names come up not only does she kill a large number of (presumably) her friends in the Fraternity, but also herself. As mentioned above, such a course of action would never have occurred to Wesley, nor probably to any of the others (they were on the verge of throwing aside the Code). Fox showed a devotion to her beliefs notable in so amoral a film, and I give the writer credit for not taking the easy way out on that score.

Outside of her story arc, which is mostly played out in only two scenes (where she explains her past and where she kills herself), I find almost everything about this film grim. I haven't mentioned the gratuitous cruelty to animals (shooting the wings off flies, using huge numbers of rats as moving bombs) - after all, giving a damn about animals is distinctly unmanly. I also haven't mentioned the curious exclusion of Wesley's mum from the film, which is odd given the role of his father - perhaps she would have provided too much of a sympathetic, identifiable female figure? Finally, I do wonder why such an unashamedly hedonistic and adult film, - full of swearing, violence and some nudity - shies away from its protagonist actually having any sex. The only sex in the film is between Cathy and Barry, and may well be a way to spite Wesley, and the only kiss (between Wesley and Fox) is to evoke a reaction from Cathy and Barry. I wonder whether Wesley and Fox having sex would have reminded us too clearly that women are people to be respected, and that tenderness is not such a bad thing.

The film is misogynistic, hedonistic and heartlessly amoral, and wraps it all up in the trappings of a heroic fantasy adventure filled with "Fuck yeah!" moments. It's hardly a new idea that modern society is feminising and that men need to revolt and re-assert dominance, but I was surprised and rather horrified to see it propounded so vigorously in mainstream fare like this.

Fuck you, Wesley Gibson.

George W Bush: Not Exactly The Best President Ever

2009-01-19T15:04:00.004Z

Why would anyone try to defend George W Bush at this point? There's nothing in it for liberals, and conservatives have overwhelmingly realised that the way to retain any credibility in the wake of his disastrous reign is to distance themselves from him as thoroughly as possible. So I found this article in the Independent rather baffling.

In it, Bruce Anderson accused Bush's critics of having a tenuous grip on reality. However he spends most of the article conceding massive errors on the part of his hero: Failure to plan for Iraq, failure to handle the situation after the invasion, willingness to undermine fair trial rights through the use of Guantanamo. It seems that he picked up on the rule of essay writing which requires you to set out the other side's case, but not the one that requires you then to knock it down with you own case.

He does try, however. He gives a triumphant anecdote about how a friend went to a cabinet meeting and Dick Cheney didn't say a thing. He seems to think that this means Mr. Cheney wasn't secretly the power behind the throne, because of course powers behind the throne always exercise their influence in the company of the entire cabinet.

Next, he comes up with something of an insight about Islamic terrorism: "Why do these people hate us? The Bush team came up with their answer: because they live in failed states, which offer their young no hope in this world and thus leave them open to the temptations of fanaticism and a better deal in another world." That's certainly part of the story, although he glosses over the extent to which the US has had a hand in damaging many of these states, leading to this resentment. The thing is, this is more analysis than Bush ever offered. In his speeches he would just go on and on about ideologies of hatred without even suggesting why they were popular. It was his opponents who tried to dig a bit deeper and understand the social causes of the problem - something which is anathema to 'personal responsibility' conservatives.

"Saddam had been trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. We could not be certain that his quest had failed. So should we wait until the certainty of a mushroom cloud?" It makes you wonder whether he realises how excitedly he is rewriting history. Does no-one remember the weapons inspectors who were forced to withdraw because the US was impatient when they didn't find anything? Saddam did not have WMDs, and if Bush had really cared, he could have made sure of it.

"Largely because of the malign influence of that fraud and tautology, international law, we have grown squeamish about regime change." Tautology? What, is law by its nature international? That word - I do not think it means what you think it means. Anyway, of course he hates international law. And hell, there's plenty to criticise about it. But usually, the fact that it attempts to restrain countries from invading other countries just because they don't like them is seen as a good thing...

"After 2001, in both Washington and London, there was a split between those who knew Iraq, who were generally hostile to the War, and those who wanted war but usually knew nothing about Iraq." And what lesson are you going to draw from this fact??

"Instead, the direction of events was left to the neo-conservatives, most of whom were dangerous idealists who believed that democracy was an infallible political antibiotic." Yes, including the man you are trying to lionise here. Keep up!

"There was one unfortunate side effect of the war on terror: Guantanamo. At the time, it seemed a good idea: a cunning means of preventing American lawyers from undermining America's security." One?? One unfortunate side effect?? And notice how he effectively rewrites "A cunning means of preventing the rights guaranteed by the Constitution from getting in the way of protecting America's security" in order to get a dig in at lawyers. Because that's why people hate lawyers - they protect people's right to a fair trial. Bastards!

"On the economy, and like Gordon Brown, George Bush could be accused of failing to fix the roof while the sun was shining. But two years' ago, it all seemed to be working...George Bush did not foresee the crisis. Who did?" How about plenty of people who had a clue how this whole economy thing works? Good god, are they really prepared to claim ignorance this extent in order to get off the hook?

The whole article is almost self-parodying, and is taken to shreds in the comments. I suppose there will always be someone who will support the unsupportable. I just hadn't imagined that they would be this bad at it!

Time to Jump Ship

2008-06-12T19:09:00.000+01:00

42 days. Hmm. Six weeks. Try to remember where you were six weeks ago, and all the time between then and now. Then imagine being imprisoned without for that length of time without any evidence being presented against you, nor any official accusations made. Quite a thought experiment.

But really, I'm not interested in the moral-political argument over 42 days, at least not here. I'm more interested in what to do about the fact that the Commons vote went in favour of it. The figures stand at 315 to 306, the former made up of Labour minus 36 rebels, the DUP and Anne Widdecombe. Seriously, does it not make the Labour government slightly uneasy when the only Tory willing to support their plan is Anne fucking Widdecombe??

Ahem. The Labour Party (or the bit with any power) has abandoned any real notion of civil liberties. We all know this. And in fact, we didn't need 42 days to show us this. But this has got to provide some kind of a watershed, if just because it shows how far Labour can successfully push these things. Emboldened by this, what is next for Brown? 90 days? Or perhaps something more imaginative? Why not ride the wave by getting through all that ID Card legislation he's been itching for? Why not plant microchips in everyone so the government knows where they are at all times? Why not make it illegal to be offensive (with some exceptions for MPs, of course)? Clearly enough of the Parliamentary Labour Party are happy to be cowed by such demands, and Brown feels that he's got nothing to lose and everything to gain by actually making a stand on something.

Apparently Brown and his followers believe both that they could never be corrupted by such power, and also that it could never be abused by any of their successors. Because it's certainly going to be a lot harder to get rid of these civil rights abuses once they have settled into the background of history (the exception being if the Tories actually promise to repeal them in their next manifesto). I'm not convinced that they have any care for civil liberties as such, only in terms of how far their actions could lose them votes. So, it's time to start hurting them.

So: Labourites, leave the god damned Party. If by some miracle it turns around then you can rejoin, but don't let them string you along by the name alone. I know that they've got the trade unions, but the only way that they are going to finally dislodge themselves from the rotting Party structure is if the membership disintegrates. Leave the Party and campaign to get the unions to do the same. Holding on and hoping that something's going to happen is not enough. Stop funding this nonesense with your subscription fee.

Members of other political parties, start asking yourselves whether your party represents you in anything other than name. If you're a Lib Dem, ask yourself if you would support a 'Conservative Party' with the principles your party puts into action, and vice versa. If you find your party wanting, fucking leave it.

*This is not to say don't vote*. I'm not at all advocating apathy. But nuance your vote a bit. If you still think that Labour is better than the Tories (and that's a reasonable viewpoint) then by all means, stop the Tory getting into your seat. But if it's between Labour and Lib Dem / Green, stop thinking about party loyalty and start thinking about what Labour have actually done. For anyone who cares about civil liberties, the Labour Party should now be *toxic*. Unless you've got one of the good ones (probably among the 36) then you should require a damn good reason (or awful opposition in the area) in order to vote for them. For me, in a hypothetical match up between Jacqui Smith and David Davies, I can't even say how I would vote now.

Vote your convictions, not your party! Show Labour (and the other parties) that they don't get your vote by name alone, and certainly not your membership. I can only hope that either the parties will eventually turn themselves around or alternatives will arise, and in either case there needs to be a critical mass of politically aware, frustrated voters refusing to align themselves with any particular party. Once those voters are crying out for a party with some principles which they can support, one (or more) will arise one way or another. The form it will take is far from clear: Does it make sense for the welfarist left and the communist left to remain in a single party? Does it make sense for libertarians and reactionary conservatives to remain in a single party? The fault lines already mean that the current party set up is hilariously inadequate. Changes are needed, and they are just not going to happen unless we reject the situation as it now appears.

If this post reflects my frustration, I make no apologies. I'm a left liberal and proud of it, and I'm not going to let any party which does not serve my values manipulate me into voting for or supporting them any more.

Vaccination, Parents and Cynicism

2008-05-11T18:17:00.000+01:00

I see that vaccination is back in the news, and for all the wrong reasons. To summarise, there was a suggestion made in the Fabian Society magazine that failure to vaccinate one's child could be punished by refusing to allow them to start school, and cutting off child benefits. Cue great outrage, mostly from parents.

(As an aside, I had to shake my head at the following comment from Sir Sandy Macara, ex-chairman of the British Medical Association: "One ought to recognise that mothers have a responsibility for ensuring their children are protected." Mothers? What world is he living in?)

As we now know, the autism scare over the MMR vaccine was completely unsupported by evidence: It is unclear how far Dr. Wakefield's controversial report was merely mistaken, and how far it was downright dishonest. In any case though, I have sympathy with any parent who chose to go for single jabs instead, given the dangerous uncertainty Wakefield caused, and I think the Government should have responded by ensuring that the single jabs were available to all parents with concerns. I also understand that as a result of the government's failures in this area, the difficulties of getting single jabs may have made it implausible for many parents, leading to them not having their children vaccinated at all.

What I do not understand is parents who still insist on refusing vaccinations for their children. The remaining hysteria surrounding the MMR, which seems to have leaked through to the very concept of vaccination itself, seems to be based on nothing more than crude anti-government cynicism: Somehow the overwhelming evidence that MMR is safe is actually some form of cover up. Why would the government perpetrate such a cover up, given that it would inevitably backfire in a major way? I don't know, but I doubt most opponents have thought about this particularly rationally.

Of course, this is not to say that a degree of scepticism is not justified. The effects of thalidomide showed that medical advances can have a dark side missed in clinical trials. For this reason, I say again that I sympathised with refusals to have MMR at the time. But the time has passed, and parents need to look past the cynicism to the best interests of their children.

But how should the government respond to this? Should the suggestion of compulsion be put into effect? To be honest, in a near-perfect world I would support sanctions for parents who refused, although I would balk at taking it out on the children (especially since logically the only ones who would be put in danger by their presence in school would be others who had not had the vaccination). Fines or worse for parents would not necessarily be inappropriate for failing to properly care for one's child.

(There is mention in the article of refusal to vaccinate for 'medical or religious reasons'. It seems wholly inappropriate to lump the two together. Medical reasons essentially mean that it would be worse for the child if they have the vaccine. Religious reasons essentially mean that the parents have values incompatible with the health and well being of their child, which should be treated exactly the same as Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse to allow their children to have blood transfusions.)

But this world is far from perfect. There is a widespread culture of giving parents near-ultimate control over their children (which I will call parential-prerogative), which can be dangerous. Certainly, it is exceptionally beneficial for each child to have one or two people looking out for their well being (as parents overwhelmingly do). But when their actions are in fact provably harmful, there is no reason for their wishes to be respected. Were it just a small minority who took such a parental-prerogative view, I would say that the problem could be solved through punitive measures. However, where there is as widespread support for the paradigm as now, such stark action would be counter-productive. I imagine that were the government to take this line, support for parental-prerogative would grow to embrace even more far-out views like the JWs on blood transfusion, cowing governments into doing less to protect children from bad parenting. On the flipside, it also may unfortunately further embolden the government to use more paternalistic mechanisms for enforcing standards on people against *their own* preferences (which is a very different issue that parents speaking for their children).

As a result, my feeling is that as a pragmatic matter, the government would be wrong to go down this line. It is too much of a leap from its current programme for protecting children, which mostly respects the wishes of parents. Maybe one day such measures would be seen as simple common sense, and that day is to be welcomed, but it is some way off. For now, the government needs to continue to send out the message that MMR is safe and that the medical profession is near-unanimous on this, along with the evidence. If necessary, it should ensure that single jabs are available as an alternative. But it cannot go much further without being counter-productive.

Maybe I am taking the whole thing too seriously. Many commentators on BBC Have Your Say are convinced that it's better to just let children have the diseases (recalling measles parties in past decades), claiming that they are not actually that serious. I am extremely sceptical of this claim, but I will leave it to my more knowledgable readers to respond more adequately.

Reasons for Believing

2008-03-18T16:58:00.001Z

On his blog, Simon Barrow points to an intriguing post (by Kim Fabricius) about how Easter should be for Christians an opportunity to break free from the false comforts of religion - not Christianity, but *religion*. As he quotes from the piece:

"Lose your faith in the god that the cross exposes as a no-god, a sham god. Lose your faith in the god who is but the product of your projections, fantasies, wishes, and needs, a security blanket or good-luck charm god. Lose your faith in the god who is there to hold your hand, solve your problems, rescue you from your trials and tribulations, the deus ex machina, literally the “machine god”, wheeled out onto the stage in ancient Greek drama, introduced to the plot artificially to resolve its complications and secure a happy ending. Lose your faith in the god who confers upon you a privileged status that is safe and secure. Lose your faith in the god who promises you health, wealth, fulfilment, and success, who pulls rabbits out of hats. Lose your faith in the god with whom your conscience can be at ease with itself. Lose your faith in the god who, in Dennis Potter’s words, is the bandage, not the wound. Lose your faith in the god who always answers when you pray and comes when you call. Lose your faith in the god who is never hidden, absent, dead, entombed. For the “Father who art in heaven” – this week he is to be found in hell..."

This both fascinates and confuses me. It seems to me that it is exhorting Christians to give up on the idea of God as comforting or helpful in any way. That rather than rely on God's presence watching over you, hearing your prayers and guaranteeing a happy ending when you die, one should "manage our lives without him."

From an atheistic perspective, there is certainly something refreshing about a preacher urging people to give up the many parts of religion often described as a crutch. But it presents a mystery which, I think, dooms such efforts to failure: Why believe?

There are at least two types of reason for believing in a certain proposition. One is the truth-finding type of reason: It seems likely that it is true, based on the evidence we have. The other is the beneficial type of reason: It seems beneficial to us to believe that it is true. The two often coincide, perhaps more often than people realise. Although a particular truth (about the evils of which humanity is capable, for example) may well be depressing and so appear non-beneficial, in the long run having that greater understanding is likely to aid us in our interactions with other people and the world at large, (perhaps even allowing us to make up for some of that evil - it is rarely the naive that make great changes in the world for the better). It is possible that one of the two types dissolves into the other: Perhaps beneficial reasons tend to be a useful way of discovering the truth (although it seems unlikely in general) or perhaps truth-finding tends overwhelmingly to be beneficial (which seems more likely). In any case, I cannot think of reasons for belief which do not amount to one of these (although I welcome suggestions).

What of religious claims? I think (and here is where I must be tentative) the majority of religious people would accept that the normal truth-finding reasons for belief are rather weak in this field. Occam's Razor is usually accepted as a fundamentally useful principle of truth finding, yet it seems to go out of the window when it comes to belief in gods. Even though there are mysteries which such belief could solve, it always raises more, even trickier questions.

Most of the classical truth-finding reasons for believing in God look rather thin: The ontological argument (proving God through wordplay) is generally ridiculed. The arguments from miracles and religious experiences are embarrassed by the increasing (although far from complete) ability of science to explain such occurrences without reference to the metaphysical. The argument from design was once triumphant, but again scientific principles - especially evolution - have shown how it is unnecessary to solve some enduring mysteries, and it seems unwise to pin one's belief to the ever-shrinking remainder. The first cause argument is intriguing, but shows far less than it purports - at most that there was something that came first, not that it was self-aware let alone a person, or even a good person.

The Catholic Church maintains that rational evidence will lead to God, but tends to point to these same tired old arguments. The Protestant response, however, varies between this and the idea of faith. Many will say that in fact it is right and proper for there to be no clear rational evidence, since only this allows for faith in God, a quality to be praised. This is often a particularly frustrating argument for atheists, who tend to confront it from a truth-finding perspective. If we are not using truth-finding evidence, then why would one have faith, and in what?

The answer has always seemed to me to be clear. One has faith in one's religion, rather than in any other religion, or in new age beliefs, or in no supernatural entities at all, because of beneficial reasons. Religions tend to provide effective carrots and sticks: The latter is provided by the catch all of Hell (or lonely separation from God) while the former is myriad - not only Heaven, but a comforting presence at all times, someone to watch over you, "Someone to hear your prayers / Someone who cares." I could go on for a while about how these are manipulated to make people fit in with particular moral and political agendas, but the point is that it can make good beneficial sense to believe such things.

If I am reading Kim Fabricius correctly, Christians should let go of all of the beneficial elements of faith. Certainly the afterlife is not mentioned, but it would seem within the scope of what is written. After all, what could be more comforting than thinking that one is not only escaping Hell, but gaining access to Heaven? If I am correct, then the question is why one should retain belief at all. Without beneficial reasons, one has only truth-finding reasons. It may be possible to construct a truth-finding case for God, but it seems highly unlikely. It seems likely that most believers use truth-finding reasons to bring God within the realm of possibility, and then rely on beneficial reasons to bridge the gap to actually believe - the process often termed faith. It seems that a religion without such beneficial reasons, such carrots and sticks, is unlikely to attract many believers, since the rational gap is too far to leap without at least some incentive.

It may well be that I have misread Kim. Perhaps beliefs in the afterlife are excepted from what one should exclude from consideration (although I don't see why). Perhaps the point is to exclude these only during Holy Week, to suffer something of the aloneness of Christ and to fully appreciate one's relationship with God thereafter (although many things in the article seem to tell against that). But if I am right, I think there is a good reason why many people apparently found the sermon hard to swallow. I can't help but sympathise with the hypothetical parishoner who took the message to heart and now thinks "So what's the point in believing, and coming to Church every week, if it helps me none?" In no way am I condemning people for such thinking; nor am I advocating a fully self-interested view. But given the difficulty of relying on truth-finding reasons for believing, I cannot blame religion for emphasising the beneficial aspects of belief, not the religious for relying on them.

I am interested in anyone else's view of what the post is trying to say, and whether there are other reasons to believe once the beneficial is excluded. I'm interested in why people believe, so if you can help educate me then please go ahead!

Update:

Thinking about it, I'd like to clarify something. When I talked about beneficial reasons, I drew the boundary too narrowly at self-interest. I am quite happy to include within it other-regarding reasons; perhaps 'pragmatic reasons' would have been a better descriptor. If we continue to read Kim as excluding only self-interested reasons, then perhaps other-regarding interests could be enough to explain / justify a leap of faith.

I am doubtful about this though. No doubt there are people who think like this, although I don't imagine this is a major consideration for most people. Perhaps some people feel that they need to believe in order to be good to others, but this shows an odd (although not impossible) set of desires: If they wish to be good to others, why do they not just do so? Alternatively, perhaps they believe that their example will make others believe, which will be good for them (or for society as a whole). But here, pretence would be equally valid. Perhaps actual belief would be easier than pretence, however.

Therefore, it seems at least possible that one could exclude self-interested reasons and still have enough reasons for the leap of faith. However, I remain doubtful that this actually does have much of an impact on people, given the problems I've noted.

Incitement to Hatred - Here We Go Again...

2008-01-07T19:54:00.000Z

Somehow this has passed me by until now. The Government plans to introduce the new offence of incitement to hatred on grounds of sexual orientation, with the support of the Lib Dems and some Tories. And, with tragic predictability, many of those who admirably fought the planned offence of incitement to religious hatred have switched sides - including my local MP Evan Harris. I'd like to set out what the proposal does and doesn't mean, and why it and all incitement to hatred laws are a bad idea.

Here is a copy of the amendments which would be made to the Public Order Act 1986 (I'm not wildly enthusiastic about the source, but the Christian Institute does have a reasonable collection of materials relating to the issue here). In most ways, sexual orientation would simply be added on to religion as a ground for which incitement to hatred would be prohibited, with the same provisions. These provisions are of course in their amended form, which the Government fought against tooth and nail at the time.

The Story So Far

Here's a quick history lesson on incitement to hatred. The Public Order Act 1986 included the offence of incitement to racial hatred worded as such:

"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if (a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."

The Blair Government was convinced that this should be extended to religion and so they attempted again and again essentially to amend the above simply to change "racial hatred" to "racial and religious hatred" in the (slightly misleadingly named) Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. Cue outrage from civil libertarians, secularists and religious groups (by no means exclusive categories!). Eventually they succeeded in passing an amendment creating instead a differently worded offence for religious hatred:

"A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred."

Crucial to notice here is that abusive or insulting material will not suffice - it must be threatening. Moveover, it must be intended, and not just likely, to stir up hatred. Both are crucial concessions which the Government bitterly opposed, and which only succeeded because Blair famously left the chamber (believing the battle already lost) only to have the amendment pass by one vote. The third concession was a 'protection of freedom of expression' which I will consider below.

Now the Government has continued with its valiant efforts to police who and what we hate. Essentially the measure would amend the above offence, adding the following at the end: "...or hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation."

A Step Forwards?

Stonewall called for such homophobic hatred to be included with racial hatred, without the above concessions. Their rationale is that while religion is a choice, sexual orientation, like race, is not. For me, this is a powerful argument. There may be a choice element to sexual orientation in some people, but the evidence is quite clear that for most people, it is innate. A lot of people disagree with me on this, and I can see it being a nightmare were it to come into political debate.
However, despite the fact that this logic would suggest putting sexuality in with race, I prefer the Government's tactic of unifying it with religious belief. The reason for this is that if there are going to be incitement to hatred laws, they should have all the safeguards put in place in the religious hatred offence. And, to spell it out, that goes for racial hatred as well.

Considering the two formulations, the term "threatening" may suggest the possibility of violence, something with which the criminal law should be concerned. "Abusive" may also have this connotation, but it is less clear here, and adds nothing to "threatening" that should be the law's concern. "Insulting" is most worrying of all. No one should be legally protected from mere insult - unpopular and challenging views are often insulting by necessity. To denounce slavery would once have been insulting to slave traders, etc. Coupled with the fact that intention is not required in the racial hatred offence, it becomes worryingly easy to target people for expressing unpopular opinions on race when it stirs hatred - which as will explain later, pretty much means encouraging other people to hold the same views.

The 'protection of freedom of expression' amended into the religious hatred offence is complicated, so I will cut it down to its essentials: "[The offences shall not] prohibit[] or restrict[] discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of [religions or beliefs]." Given the width of power given to the police by incitement to hatred laws, such a protection is extremely valuable. It is interesting and worrying, therefore, that no such similar guarantee has been given in the sexual orientation proposals. Surely free expression demands that people be allowed to discuss, criticise, ridicule and insult?

I can imagine two possible reasons for the omission. The first is that it might be thought that religion itself and adherents of religions can be separated in a way that sexual orientation itself and people of a certain sexual orientation cannot. This is extremely dubious. Both can be discussed and criticised in the abstract, and such discussions and criticism implicate individuals in very similar ways.

The other reason again unifies sexuality with race and suggests that while there may be good reasons to criticise on grounds of religion, there will never be good reasons to do so on grounds of sexual orientation. While I would agree with the sentiment, it completely fails to comprehend free expression. It does not matter whether we can see any good reason for criticising on a certain ground. It must be protected in the name of democracy and public deliberation. Most of us see no merit in racist arguments, no matter how calmly put. Nevertheless, these must be protected from legal interference. To do otherwise is to use the law to set the majoritarian opinion (anti-racism) as dogma - something which is abhorrent in a free society. Bigots must be allowed to make their arguments, just like critics of religion.

The Limits of Free Speech

Such protections must come to an end where violence is incited. Almost no-one disagrees with this. But there are already incitement offences which deal with this, and there have been for many years. Incitement to hatred is something different. Hatred is a tricky concept. Some people have suggested that it involves a desire to do violence, but I find this unrealistic. Hatred is a commonly used phrase which easily encompasses situations with no violent desires. It suggests a passionate dislike, such as people may quite innocently have for injustices as well as disfavoured individuals. Quite clearly many political opinions may, and indeed will, fall within its bounds. Incitement to hatred therefore appears to be incitement to hold certain opinions, many of which will have political elements. This is the kind of thing which free expression simply demands be permitted. If some bigot wants to argue that homosexuality or inter-racial marriage is wrong, they must be allowed to do so, and then roundly criticised for their views.

What about the concessions made in the amendment to the religious hatred offence? The restriction to intention may help, but since people must be allowed to incite non-violent hatred in others, it is not sufficient. The restriction to "threatening" words or behaviour is much more reassuring. But again, what does it mean? Remember that incitement to violence is already criminal. "Threatening" must catch things beyond this therefore. Threatening changes in the law, perhaps? Threatening position in society? These are political threats, and must be protected. Perhaps threatening will be read more narrowly, but it is so far impossible to tell.

The 'protection of freedom of expression' should alleviate some of these fears, but it further confuses. If discussion, criticism, ridicule and insult are protected, then just what is the offence going to cover, beyond violence already covered? Perhaps the effect is that no behaviour is covered that was not already. Perhaps it really is just symbolic. But if so, it will lead to a dangerous degree of confusion with a chilling effect on free speech, due to the uncertainty in the words and concepts. Furthermore the exclusion of the protection from the latest offence suggests that religious figures who vociferously denounce homosexuality may get in legal trouble. That should worry any civil libertarian.

Conclusion

The offence now discussed is not close to the menace to free speech that incitement to religious hatred once was. Accepting the restrictions to intention and threatening words may rob both laws of much of their damaging capacity. However the remaining discrepancy between them may cause us to ask how far free expression really will be safeguarded.

Ideally, incitement to hatred laws would all be scrapped as a pernicious threat to free speech, including political speech. Unfortunately, that seems unlikely. As a second best, all three offences should be brought together with the most safeguards possible - restriction to intention, restriction to threatening words and behaviour, and restriction via the 'protection of freedom of expression'. Perhaps (and hopefully) the combined effect of these will be to ensure that only incitement to violence is covered. If so, then all the better. Nevertheless, the uncertainty introduced into the law of expression is damaging, further evidence of a worrying lack of concern on the part of the Government for crucial liberal values.

Branson and the Broken Justice System

2007-09-18T17:44:00.000+01:00

I imagine that most people have heard by now of Richard Branson's intention to create a £100,000 account to fund the defence of the parents of Madeleine McCann. If not the linked article is worth checking out, because it really throws into relief some of the issues I am going to try to deal with. I am not interested in Mr. Branson's motives - I will assume that they are altruistic and not merely publicity-seeking, but it is irrelevent. I also have no desire to second-guess the guilt or innocence of the McCanns. I feel that such public guesswork tends to do more harm than good, at least where there is no compelling evidence (like a confession).

What concerns me is just how starkly the criminal justice system is shown for what it is here: The creation of the fund is a tacit admission that to get decent representation against criminal charges, you need money. Lots of it. The McCanns were planning to sell their house to raise the money. Many people either cannot do that, because they do not own a house, or will not because it will leave them with nothing. They will instead take the free representation guaranteed to them.

Ah, the free representation. The modern society's nod towards equality before the law. I would never denegrate those solicitors and barristers who do legal aid work, but many of them are unexperienced in the areas in which they take such cases, and their ability and experience varies. Pay for legal aid work is low and so it tends to attract less experienced and skilled lawyers and to sit at the bottom of long priority lists. All of this is known: It is common knowledge, and unquestioned, that if you are able to pay you will get better representation, and the more you pay the better you will get. Better lawyers are able to charge more - that's the way of the free market.

But like it or not, the quality of representation has a massive impact on your chances of winning a case. Of course, the bare facts and the law are very important, but having a lawyer capable of making the right arguments and putting in the time to do the research can often be crucial. Where there is an inequlity of financial resources available on different sides, the richer gains a distinct advantage. This turns justice into a free market commodity - something to be bought according to the income at your disposal. To some people this might seem acceptable, but such people frighten me. Unless we are equal before the law, with justice blind to money and social circumstance, then really you cannot have the kind of liberal democracy in which we claim to believe. The 'justice' system unwittingly becomes a tool for keeping the poor permanently in danger of having their liberty stripped away.

It is imperative to end the correlation between ability to pay and success in defending one's case. (In fact, the point extends to all kinds of areas of law, but here I am just dealing with criminal, where it is most acute.) Again, some will argue that this can never happen because lawyers need pay incentives to do a better job. To them I say that you can have your cake and eat it. You can still have a career structure with pay increasing as lawyers are assigned to more difficult levels of cases (the simplest structure would be magistrates court, Crown court, appeal court, House of Lords), and bad lawyers will still be weeded out because people will no longer go to them. The crucial difference would be that at each level of the case, you would have lawyers at the same grade and paid the same on each side, levelling the playing field. The state would stump up the cost originally, and recoup it from the accused party after a conviction, as far as they are able to pay.

Of course, key to all of this is pay setting, and that will outrage some. It will cap the possible wages of criminal lawyers, although the cap should of course be generous to retain lawyers in the area. It might smack of socialism to some, but surely if there is one area to be socialised and made equally available to all, it is justice? The McCanns are lucky to to have found (through the publicity the case has generated) a backer willing to give them a fighting chance. Many others do not have that fortune. Let's stop leaving justice to luck and class.

Oxford Uni: Getting Exam Results

2007-07-05T23:07:00.001+01:00

Sometimes Oxford University just completely baffles me. Two examples come to mind, both concerning exams. Firstly Oxford, pretty much uniquely in the country, strives to deny students access to exam feedback, including their exam scripts. According to the article, Data Protection law requires that comments on exam scripts be made available on request, but to get around this Oxford ensures that all scripts are shredded as soon as the results are officially announced. No-one else does this, and it seems to be a ridiculous practice. Perhaps there is little real point to demanding feedback for your last exams, but there certainly is for prior exams, allowing one to prepare better in future. Oxford claims that since examiners do not always write comments, allowing access would give "uneven levels of feedback to individuals." Well, read the article and decide for yourselves what you think of the policy.

More clear cut, I feel, is the next example. Oxford appears anxious to prevent exam results going up on the internet. As you can see, the Online Exam Results website, which has in previous years put up photos of the exam result listings, now has a disclaimer stating "For a variety of reasons, including threats of a legal challenge from the university, we are unable to publish results for 2007..."

Why? If there was actually any concern about maintaining the privacy of students, I might be sympathetic. But not only are the lists published in the Exam Schools, they are also up in college lodges across Oxford, most of which are often open to the public anyway! It would seem that if someone were to write down what is on the lists (or alternatively get them from the university site) then type them up on the internet this behaviour would be unchallengable. But the university has threatened legal action for putting photos of these publically available lists up. Absurd!

As for the university site, the apparently preferred method for students to get hold of results, this is only available from within Oxford, and so is completely useless for the vast majority of students who will already have left. If it also available for those few who have set up a Virtual Private Network which, as far as I know, can only be set up within Oxford. So why deny the useful service provided by Online Exam Results? What possible good can it serve? Honestly, I sometimes wonder what goes through the heads of those who run this ancient and revered university.

The Smoking Ban: Hopes and Fears

2007-07-02T02:32:00.000+01:00

Well in one way, a big hooray for the ban on smoking in enclosed public places, which came into force today. For all the misinformation and twittering going around, it should be re-stated that the purpose of the ban is to protect workers who would otherwise have to work in smoky environments. Even if secondary smoke does not adversely affect health (a proposition which appears increasingly absurd), it makes breathing more difficult and disgusting, causes clothes and body to smell and leads to general discomfort. To anyone who suggests that an employee can simply choose not to work in a place where people smoke, I point to the similar situation of workers who are assaulted and maltreated by customers, but told that they could seek employment elsewhere. It should be the legal duty of employers to prevent workers from being subjected to such behaviour, and that applies equally in the smoking case.

So I am in favour of the ban on that ground, and I also must admit much joy on the grounds of not having to endure smoky atmospheres when out in pubs, clubs and restaurants. Nevertheless, the ban also leaves me with deep worries which only intensify when I read things like this, arguing for further and further restrictions of tobacco. In short, I'm worried that the intentions underlying the ban are not limited by the harm principle.

Consider the following from the article:

"Ministers are believed to be considering a range of options to reduce the number of smokers. These include testing pregnant women for carbon monoxide levels and referring smokers for treatment..."

"Action on Smoking and Health (Ash) wants a ban on tobacco products being displayed in shops or sold in vending machines. It also wants an end to brand names, logos and colours so that all cigarettes are sold in the same kind of packaging - an idea that the tobacco industry, predictably, opposes fiercely.

The Department of Health is, however, finalising proposals for the introduction of graphic picture warnings on tobacco packs, which are expected to come into force next year... Officials are looking into a ban on the display of tobacco products behind shop counters. The age at which cigarettes can be bought legally will rise from 16 to 18 this autumn. The move will be accompanied by a nationwide advertising campaign that will target teenagers."

Okay. As a liberal, I'm starting to sweat here: What kind of movement have I been supporting?

Firstly, let's consider the measures on parents with children. I wholeheartedly agree with attempting to reduce the number of children (particularly young children) exposed to tobacco smoke, which when done in knowledge of the risks I can agree is a kind of child abuse. But you have to be careful about this kind of thing. Where you have mandatory tests on pregnant women which may lead to their punishment, you discourage them from coming in for any tests at all, a retrograde step.

Secondly, moving the age for buying cigarettes from 16 to 18 makes sense given that it is the age for buying alcohol and other things. I still think it absurd that compulsory education ends at 16, leaving many teenagers to get careers, pay tax and possibly get married, without allowing them access to 'grown up' substances and the right to vote. But maybe this is an argument for another time.

What really, really worries me is the rest. A ban on display behind counters, and graphic warnings on packets potentially followed, if ASH gets its way by bans on sale from vending machines and on 'brand names, logos and colours.' This is getting insane. Of course a crucial function of government is to give information to allow consumers to make better decisions, even forcing manufacturers to give that information if necessary. But cigarette packets already include massive warnings. These measures do not inform. They are purely to make it more and more difficult for the tobacco industry - without even taking money from it which can be plowed back into healthcare, as taxation does - forcing them to drive up prices to limit people's options to buy cigarettes.

I will say again, driving up prices to pay for the extra healthcare required by smokers or to inform smokers of the risks is fine and already done. Simply trying to have cigarettes priced out of the means of smokers is paternalistic, suggesting that it is only one step along the line to a full ban, with tobacco lining up with all the other illegal drugs. Once again free choice will be sacrificed in the name of the government knowing best.

I hate having any agreement with those miserable souls who seem to insist on an absolute right to poison whoever is around them with second hand smoke, but here I will stand with them. It is not for the government to take choices from us 'for our own good,' where it is not harming others. Loathsome as cigarettes are, private abuse of our own health must remain a matter for the self.

I still support the current ban, because it protects workers and others from second hand smoke. But I think we need to be very careful where we go from here. We need to curb paternalistic urges and draw a line in sand, reaffirming the rights of people privately, when it is *not* harming other people, to be absolute idiots.

I'll Have My Say

2007-06-30T19:14:00.000+01:00

Rant time.

I'm beginning to loathe the BBC News 'Have Your Say' page, not because there is anything wrong with the concept but because of the kind of commentators it attracts. It's rather ironic that despite the supposed and much-touted left-liberal bias of the BBC, the majority of commentators and recommenders appear to be anything but. Time and time again they whine about anti-Americanism (when anyone is critical of the US for, you know, the absolutely awful things it tends to do). And they will seize on any point to tout their conservatism in the most condescending and spiteful way possible.

So on the issue of immigration in the US (arranged for popularity), you have to go a long way to find anyone dissenting from the anti-immigration chorus, and yet they still go on about how anti-US Have Your Say is!

On US v socialised healthcare (likewise), the board is dominated by Americans mocking the idea of healthcare for those who can't afford it, with one stating "I have full medical, dental, and vision coverage; I even get legal coverage as a perk too. This is a reward for my hard work and education I paid for. I know this offends socialists but in America you have to EARN YOUR WAY." Apparently the poor deserve to die in the street from wholly treatable illnesses, because they aren't trying hard enough.

These are the prime examples at the moment, but long experience shows that it is not just domination by American conservatives which causes this. Although specifically UK debates tend to be less one-sided (see the smoking debate), I know from long experience that it still tends to be the most self-righteous and self-indulgent conservatives who manage to get recommended to the top of the pile.

But wait... It's not quite a simple as that, because I also know from experience that HYS commentators on the whole hate religion, and will use absolutely any excuse to bash it. Now I'm none too keen on religion in general myself, but these pronouncements are generally rude, unnecessary and simplistic. More importantly however, they are not really in the general conservative mould, since conservatism generally trusts old established power structures. Taking this into account, it looks less like the commentators are simply conservative, more like they are simply jaded and cynical, unwilling to think anything but the worst of anyone. To a large extent this supports the conservative agenda, but without the established structures bit, leading to a particularly dire view of humanity and an 'every man for himself' mentality which no longer seems to give a damn about anything we might call justice, only our right to be left alone.

Right, rant over. Any comments?

Tearfund Learn To Spin

2007-04-03T16:20:00.001+01:00

I have nothing against Tearfund, I really don't. But it is disheartening and distasteful to see them behaving like Comical Ali in drawing insanely positive conclusions from what is to them a rather dire situation.

Here is its report on its survey of church attendance in the UK, its press release and the (slightly more informative) BBC News article about it.

Some analysis:

Firstly, and most strikingly, despite the way the 53% Christian figure is put forward positively in the press release, the BBC point out that this is massively down from the "almost three-quarters" suggested by the 2001 census. My experience may be far from representative, but it suggests the Tearfund figure is probably more accurate. It could of course be that with the rise of religious extremism and the religious right in America, more people are disassociating themselves from religion, although I would be surprised if this accounted for the whole of the drop.

The figure makes it extremely disingeuous for Tearfund representatives to say things like "What is clear from this survey is that the UK is holding firmly to the Christian faith" and "This statistic alone has major implications not only for the churches but for public debate and public policy." No doubt the latter quote is suggesting that Christianity should have more influence over public policy, which is an astounding conclusion to draw from a drop of around 25%! Completely ignoring the official census turns this press release from laughable to borderline dishonest, especially given that the report itself acknowledges it and gives (possibly quite intelligent) reasons for it (page 4 of the main report).

Secondly, the much vaunted 3 million who "would attend church if only they were asked" translates to only 6 percent of the population, as admitted much later in the report. Despite this being heralded as a great thing for the church showing some kind of revival of interest, let us consider this. The 'unchurched' and 'dechurched' together come to 66%, of which 6% are still open to 'churching'. That's 1 in 11. Perhaps more strikingly, of the 53% Christian, only 25 % are 'churched', which means that the 6% will (mostly) be out of the remaining 28%. This means that just over only 1 out of 5 (21.5%) of non-churchgoing Christians (who themselves are over half of Christians) are open to the possibility of churchgoing! This still sets the absolute churchgoing limit at about 31%, which is still less than a third of the population.

Thirdly, 6% of the population are of other religions, leaving just over 40% non-religious. I am personally stunned (if pleased) that it is this high. Unfortunately there is no breakdown of Christian into denominations, but I would be willing to hazard a bet that the largest single denominations will be C of E and Roman Catholic, both of which will be significantly lower than 40%. Of course, it is ridiculous to think of the 40% as in any way a denomination, but this is something to think about.

Some random observations:

"London is not the heartless capital is it sometimes portrayed as being. It has the highest proportion of regular churchgoers (22%) of any English province." Thanks for labelling me heartless, Tearfund, along with the vast majority of other non-churchgoers. Really classy.

It will surprise no-one to learn that the young (especially under 34) are much less churched, while the old (especially over 55) are much more. Perhaps less obviously, the English tend to go to church less often and remain stubbornly unchurched, while the Welsh and Scottish are increasingly becoming dechurched, ie. stopping going. Scotland has just above average attendance, while Northern Ireland has above the average attendance (surprise surprise).

The National Secular Society of course have something to say, and I'm left wondering whether they're also being disingenuous. They claim this shows that we live in an overwhelmingly secular society. Now given that for me, secular is about the separation of religion from politics, I don't think the survey gives us that kind of information. But given that the NSS is thinking in terms of personal non-religion, I struggle to see how 40% can be overwhelming. I would usually require much more than 50% for a society to be 'overwhelmingly' one way or another. Perhaps the spokesman means that the statistic is overwhelming given previous surveys. I agree with this, but I don't think it's the natural meaning of the words. Still, at least he mentioned the actual statistic in the context to let other people make up their minds.

So Tearfund have displayed some wonderful spinning. Not only is 53% (down from 73%) a 'positive' thing with clear implications for public policy (in favour of religious influence), but the church should celebrate 25% attendance (15% at least once a month) with the possibility of an extra 6% if they threw all their effort into it. The unchurched are of course 'heartless', bowing down to the 'modern-day gods' of 'individual choice and secular consumerism'. It's unfortunate, because a little bit of humbleness and soul-searching might actually have improved people's view of such organisations. Instead, anyone subjecting the statement to the least bit of critical thinking will probably dismiss Tearfund (despite all its good work) as a propaganda body.

Post-Grad and Forms

2007-03-22T16:03:00.000Z

I've received a conditional offer for my post-graduate course! Woooo! Now I just need to meet the offer and get a First...

As soon as I'd settled down after getting the letter, I decided that I really needed to apply for funding. Therefore I dutifully went to the appropriate website and downloaded the form. After scanning through it and checking the advice at the bottom, I discovered that they expected the form to be word processed, rather than printed out and filled out manually. No big deal, I thought. Then I tried to do so...

Along with most other people, I hate long forms at the best of times. This form, however, has been put together by a muppet. A total muppet. Let me illustrate this claim with examples:

1. The instructions told me that inputting my initials and surname in the boxes provided in the header of one page would automatically copy it to all pages. That's how headers work, right? Wrong. It resolutely refuses to copy it out. Furthermore, the first of three boxes for initials refuses to let me write anything in it.

2. Although the font stays constant, the size seems to vary box to box, making the finished product look like the product of a slightly deranged mind.

3. They give tick boxes, then no way to tick them. Seriously. I presume that I am meant to print it out and then tick them, but they could have mentioned this somewhere. I've been putting capital Xs in them instead. Of course, they could just have learned how to insert tick boxes if they's wanted. Bizarrely, they manage to take this latter suggestion, *but only in the Equal Opportunities Form*!

4. No effort has been made to line up answers with the middle of the box provided, meaning that they often hug the top or bottom. Again, this looks stupid.

Would it be too much to ask that they hire someone who is either competent at writing forms in Word, or can at least be bothered to learn? Really?

On another note, I can't believe I have to write *another* personal statement...

Western Values and Catholicism

2006-12-29T04:05:00.000Z

I like to read the writings and opinions of those I disagree with because I think that it gives an excellent insight into why such people believe what they do. For this reason some time ago I developed the habit of reading some US conservative Catholic blogs, which tended to be more articulate and reflective that their US conservative Protestant equivalents - for example, they are much less happy about the administration's views on torture.

Nevertheless sometimes I am reminded of just how true it is that what is extreme over here can become mainstream over there. This article is one such example.

It is written by one of the bloggers I visit, who seems very popular with the conservative Catholic audience. Indeed his views are extremely common among what is known over the pond as the right wing. So it is worth taking a moment to observe quite how wrong he is.

Mr. Shea begins his attack on Western values by lamenting the lack of a proper name for 9/11. It is an incredibly weak opening gambit, and just shows how desperate he is to prove his pre-formed biases. You can interpret the lack of name in a number of ways. For me, it has always spoken of the darkness Americans connect to that day. It is something which must not be named, because to name it would be to tame it. By keeping it a date it remains a real part of our time and forces us to think about why it is important every time it is mentioned. Of course, it could just be that there is no suibtable name for it. "Twin Towers Day" sounds too twee, and "World Trade Centre Day" too long winded. Notably, Mr. Shea does not even make suggestions. It is a non-argument.

His point about the difference in attitudes towards mockery of Islam and mockery of Christianity is well-taken, yet he gives no idea as to his solution. Somehow I doubt his is the answer of Tony Blair and others, who increasingly seek to prohibit speech offensive to all religions. I also fear it would be asking too much for him to endorse the most sensible solution and allow all such mockery, responding with biting civility. After all, the Catholic Church has long promoted the view that "error has no rights"...

Then we have this wonderful titbit: "If babies are God's way of saying he thinks the world should continue, then contraception is man's way of saying it should end." Of course as a Catholic, Mr. Shea is likely to despise contraception. However to link it to a dislike of children is so stupidly simplistic one can barely help but laugh. For most it is a way of putting off children until a better time - not only a better time for ourselves (for Mr. Shea detests such selfish preferences) but a time when we are better able to care for such offspring. Some indeed do prefer not to have children, and Mr. Shea would clearly wish for them to have no choice. This is of course very interesting given that celebacy is required among Catholic priests (unless they have converted from being Protestant priests). Clearly it is okay for some to forego children, but not others.

There is not the space nor the resolve to go into his simplistic points on euthanasia and abortion in great detail. It need only be pointed out that Mr. Shea is almost incapable of imagining that anyone would support euthanasia other than "to relieve the comfortable of the burden of the most helpless". On this issue he is spectacularly uncharitable and uninformed.

He then goes on about the secularisation of Veggie Tales on TV. I agree that it is a shame that such censoring goes on, but Mr. Shea is a fool if he believes that it is politicking rather than a cynical attempt to get the most viewers interested. All this shows is a decline in interest for religious programming, at least among NBC watchers. Mixed in with this is another gem: "...the deathless secular faith in democratic capitalism's power to heal and redeem that has served us so well in Iraq". Given the fact that Bush seems to believe the Iraq invasion to have been ordered by God, a more ironic statement would be difficult to find.

And then we come to the FOX newsman who, to save his own life, converted or pretended to convert to Islam, something Mr. Shea decries as gutless (while being charitable enough to accept how difficult it would be to make the other decision). Now this is a matter of personal faith, but I think that Mr. Shea aptly shows the ugliness which lies at the heart of his beliefs. Through his actions, the man saved a father for his children and a husband for his wife. I believe that most sane people would have done the same. Instead, what Mr. Shea would have is a martyr. He cares less about life than about faith, and decries the fact that 'Western values' disagree. My apologies, Mr. Shea, for belonging to a culture which supports people staying alive. He was not forced to kill people or even harm them, only to profess a different faith (probably with his fingers crossed behind his back). By damning his for his decision, Mr. Shea shows that his stance has more in common with "the core beliefs of our mortal enemies" (charitably hoping that he means extremists and not just all Muslims) that he might be comfortable to admit.

So what are the Western Values which Mr. Shea dismisses as "a tepid commitment to My Personal Truth of the Moment"? They are primarily something he seems completely unable to comprehend - a protection of our ability to come to our own conclusions. A commitment to self-determination and freedom to think and believe what we want. A determination to prevent the self-righteous from imposing their beliefs on others. Mr. Shea seems to implicitly have a grudging admiration for the absolute beliefs of 'the other side' and thinks that anything else (like free thought) cannot possibly survive such an assault. I think history has proven, slowly and painfully but surely, that this is not true. The power of the human spirit to assert itself and its understandings is more powerful than the ability of others to suppress it. Mr. Shea may believe that error has no rights, but I rejoice in the fact that our flawed but admirable society gives rights to his errors and protects us from the narrow-mindedness he espouses.

The Dems Have Won

2006-11-09T20:47:00.000Z

Now that the last Senate race has been decided I can allow a satisfied smile across my face. Ahhhh...

It really was a beautiful result to the US midterms. It was pretty clear in the run-up that the Democrats would take the House but even the liberals doubted that they could take the Senate as well. This leaves the Repubicans with pretty much no legislative power, although of course given how much power has been given to the executive I'm sure Bush will still be able to influence the course of the country until 2008.

Still, the things new House speaker Pelosi is talking about are music to the ears. A decent level minimum wage! Stronger corruption rules!

However there are certain elements which rather dampen this marvelous event:

1. While the House is won by some way, the Senate is technically 49-49-2, the 2 being Independents. The majority status is based on Lieberman's promise to vote with the Democrats. He was going to be the Democratic contender in Conneticut but was beaten in the Primary by Lamont. Rather than bowing out gracefully he stood as an Independent against Lamont and won. His allegiances are slippery, appealing as he does to both 'moderate' Democrats and some Republicans, who he often courts. He's not the person you would wish to have the deciding vote. Happily the other Independent is a Socialist, who is hardly going to vote with the Republicans on most issues. So while Lieberman could prevent legislation, he cannot give the Republicans enough power to pass legislation without some Democrat or Socialist support.

2. Bush retains a veto over any legislation, subject to a two-thirds majority which the Dems don't have in either chamber. In theory he could prevent any legislation. Luckily, this is not going to happen. Use of the veto overrides the legislature which creates a risk of losing popular support, especially if used frequently in an obstructionist way. So far Bush has used the veto incredibly rarely - only once, to prevent a Bill giving public funding to stem cell research from passing. Of course that was with a Republican legislature, but it is unlikely that he will suddenly leap to throwing vetoes around. Bush has promised not to block the minimum wage or similar measures, suggesting he will limit himself to blocking tax increases and socially liberal issues. The first is damaging as it will mean any spending increase will need to be matched by a cutback. The second is disappointing as while stem cells are a given, it could also destroy hopes of new gay rights legislation.

Nevertheless despite these issues, this could be the beginning of an exciting new era of progress in the self-titled land of the free. The message for Democrats from all who are sympathetic should be "Well done, now don't screw it up!".

New Blogger, New Term, Same Pejar!

2006-10-08T19:24:00.000+01:00

My 50th post! And as a present I've been allowed to upgrade to Beta - thank you Blogger!

You see, for ages I have had to word verify to post here. Thanks to Abi, I eventually realised that the reason was because this blog was marked as potential spam (no comments about incomprehensible content please! :-p). I clicked the link to inform Blogger that this was not the case, and I got an email back saying it had checked out fine. Then about a week ago I looked and it turned out that it was marked as spam again (or had always been)! So I clicked the link again and sent an email as well, and this time it worked. Not only was I off the spam list, but I was invited to upgrade to Beta! (This pretty much confirms Abi's idea that I was being denied because of the spam thing.)

So I had a fun break from revision categorising my posts on both blogs and tweaking the templates (although in truth, we are talking minor tweakage here). It made me happy, in the midst of learning about covenants and mortgages in Land Law again. The reason this post wasn't earlier was because of my frantic attempts to look through last term's work and try to understand what it all means. Now that the collections are over though, I can relax and post about my summer. Some highlights (and a lowlight!):

* Abi's birthday. We went bowling with friends from both uni and her school and then we stayed up late watching DVDs on an OHP screen in her living room. If I remember rightly at least one person stayed awake all night, but I was certainly having none of that! Possibly most memorable moment was Gam introducing himself to one of Abi's school friends with the line "Justify your existence!" Sadly, I'm not sure it endeared him to her...

* The Northern and Southern Tours! The Northern Tour embraced Durham and Newcastle, as we stayed with Rich and his mate Dave. We saw Durham then had a night out at the (in)famous BAJA Beach Club in Newcastle, where we were...entertained by Em and Sarah. A fun (if very quick) trip. The Southern Tour was first to Abi's place in London then Em's place near Birmingham. We got guided tours through parts of both cities and tried some local cuisine (okay, Chinese from London and Pizza Hut from Burmingham, but still).

* Youth Hostelling with Andy and Gwen. We headed to Welsh Bicknor to stay for a few nights. The first was in a teepee and the other two were in a room. During the days we did activities like go round a castle, Forest of Dean's Sculpture Trail, Clearwell Caves and a cool maze. We mostly made our own food in the Youth Hostel kitchens, and it was all in all a pleasant time. It was a nice way to remember Andy and Gwen as a couple, since they have now split up :-( (hopefully not due to being driven crazy by us on holiday!).

* Centre Parcs with my family and Abi. We did the same this year as last summer, only at a different CP site. However this time we had the sense to book activities earlier, and as a result we have been able to do both high ropes and crossbow shooting! Both were on the same day and it was raining, which made walking along slippery beams with a harness seem all the more daunting. Also as part of high ropes we had to individually climb up a high wooden pole and leap to a trapeze, which was actually pretty daunting once you were up there... I'm quite proud that I managed it, although I still have no recollection of the moment of truth! Crossbows was excellent. Abi was much more accurate than me although at least I could load them without the instructor's help! :-p. Yet another wonderful holiday this summer.

* Dav's party. Although not to the extent of the massive event last year (his 21st), this one was still memorable. We went go-karting in Aylesbury, and although Abi didn't enjoy it and quietly retired quite quickly, and one of Dav's friends also pulled out to prevent the reoccurance of an old hip injury, the rest of us had fun. In Ian's words, I was "pottering along at 6 miles per hour" and I came last, but it was still fun! That evening it ended up being only me, Abi, Andy and Dav out in Park End for clubbing. Still, it was an excellent night and we all had a good laugh at the expense of Dav's t-shirt which, well, follow the link. Needless to say it brought him far more positive responses from males than females!

* Group filming. A tough one to explain to the unitiated, but I'll have a go! As I have mentioned before, I like writing satirical scripts involving people I know (I have been told by Daniel that I should really call them parody because they have no purpose other than to entertain, but I will probably still use the words interchangeably). After previous endeavours with Southman (starring teachers from my school) and The Matriculatrix (starring some students from Hertford) this summer's effort was Back To The Forum!, a Back To The Future parody involving the remaining regular posters on my school forum. Here is the original script and here is the second draft (with an extra introduction for filming purposes and more on Jimmy which I really should have thought of for the first version!). Anyway it went down well on the forum and Dav and Grum were quick to decide that we needed to get together to film it. So, to cut a long story short, we have started to do so. Dav is the director, Andy the lead photographer, Grum the sound guy and me the writer. Various among us count as producers. We have filmed most of the introduction including a scene with all nine of the principle characters except Ming (whose house we were supposed to arrive at, for which we actually used Dav's). The film may or may not ever come about, given various constraints. But it was still great fun to get all of us together for filming. Thanks guys.

* Talking of writing, I managed to write a short story I had planned for a long time. It is called The Goldens and it in the fantasy genre, like all of my serious stuff. I commenced work on my third book (in a series of five) but only got half to two-thirds of the way through it, possibly due to other projects. I finished the first entirely in a summer and the second took longer, so my feelings are mixed about my progress on it. Never mind though, I will get the series finished one day...

* As for the lowlight of the holiday, that would inevitably be the temp work I performed once again. I've written before about it, and now I can add more jobs to my wonderful temping CV:

I unloaded traffic cones from a lorry and put reflector strips on them.
I loaded leaflets into a machine for packing them in plastic.
At the place where I did labelling last year I put warning labels in safety guards and put studs in each corner.
At the same place I put filters into gas masks.
I did more work at the computer game packing factory as I had two years ago, stripping Game Boy boxes.

The last of these was the same job that I had previously decided was the worst I had ever done, and boy did I feel it. On the second day I had to do the exact same thing the entire day, in the same place, standing up and still. Seven hours, of which a total of two 15 minute breaks. It was bad, very bad. Still, I chose it over the egg packing place and I don't regret that. At least I didn't get sticky this way.

I really, desperately don't want to do this again next summer. I am going to try to make sure I find something better than that without signing away my whole summer, dammit! I just hope that this time I actually remember how bad it is...

Anyway, that's my summer summed up. Now for some fun, go see Ming's new blog entry and the whole of his blog if you haven't before (because he is the king of hilarious blogging). Also check out Weird Al's latest song, because he is as ever brilliant. Now to prepare for a whole new term of law (Labour and EC), and being Secretary of the Oxford Secular Society. The fun never stops!

Where Is Blogger Beta??

2006-08-27T19:19:00.000+01:00

It's probably quite sad, but I am desperately waiting to be allowed to move my blogs to Blogger Beta. No, that's not the sad bit. The sad bit is that I am waiting so impatiently not because of all the snazzy upgrades that it will undoubtedly offer, but because it will allow me to do something that every other blogging service seems to already allow: Categorise my posts.

It probably won't make much difference to this blog, since it is a bit random and scatty. Maybe I'll sort it into Diary and Humour aspects or something, but I can't see it being major. On the other hand, I crave the ability to label my Unified View posts, as much for myself as for readers. I will probably have labels along the lines of Abortion, Animal Rights, Nature of Ethics etc, since those seem to be the main issues I deal with at the moment.

I realise that caring enough to post about this may seem odd. Still, this is after all a place for random thoughts.

Update:

Abi has been allowed to upgrade to Beta. I am quite jealous! :-p

On Gender Speech Patterns

2006-08-17T23:50:00.000+01:00

Richard at Philosophy et cetera has a very thoughtful and accessible while good humoured consideration of how to deal with the patriarchal elements of surnames traditionally passing from father to family and masculine pronouns being used to identify generic people:

Gender, Family Names and Pronouns

I agree with most of it, but I think that merged surnames look lame more often than they do, and I tend to alternate the gender of my generics.

Well worth a quick read!

More Temp Work

2006-08-15T17:30:00.000+01:00

Yesterday I spent 8 out of 9 hours either sliding leaflets into plastic sheets or using a machine to put studs in said plastic sheets. It wasn't too bad actually. I can happily live with mindless work as long as A) I get to sit down while I do it, B) there are no bloody conveyor belts and C) it doesn't involve dangerous equipment. This job almost satisfied all three.

I say almost because the studding machine did seem slightly menacing, although with a little care there were no hairy moments. There was this classic conversation when I was being shown how it worked though:

Pete: Um, how dangerous is the machine? How careful should I be?

Boss: Don't worry, if the guard won't go down all the way, the mechanism won't work. See?

[Puts pen in and pushes foot pedal. End of pen is smashed, shattering.]

Boss: [Pause.] Ah.

[Does it again. Same result.]

Boss: Hmm, that's not supposed to happen. [Pause.] Well, I'm sure you won't make any mistakes.

And I bloody didn't after that!

Probably the most annoying part of the day was that after the boss showed me where to put the leaflets, the old guy next to me came up and told me to put them in a bit further. Thinking I had misunderstood the instructions, I did as he said. Later, the boss came back and told me that was wrong, I should be putting them more out to the edge like he originally told me. Annoyed, I shot a glance at the old guy, who was watching. The boss must have noticed as later he asked me if that guy had told me otherwise, and when I confirmed it he told me that I shouldn't pay attention to him. So what, was it some kind of practical joke at the expense of the temp? If so, it was a bit rubbish. They've just now got a stack of them done wrongly. Doesn't hugley bother me. Maybe it was an honest mistake, although given how long the guy assured me he had been working there, that would be odd.

The experience wasn't bad really, and apparently I'll be going back there for a the rest of the week. Hi ho, hi ho. And all the rest.

The Hoff

2006-08-10T14:09:00.000+01:00

What can I really say about this, other than that it's awful and yet addictive?

Jump In My Car - David Hasselhoff

The Making of 'Jump In My Car'

Now that is cheese, pure and simple.

I wonder if it will be playing in clubs soon?

Popular Music

2006-07-22T22:53:00.000+01:00

As most people who know me are aware, I have what is generally considered to be a pretty poor taste in music. I like a range from really cheesy pop to hardcore rock and metal, which means that to anyone who takes a firmer stand somewhere on this scale, some of my choices are going to be odd. Case in point, my first two albums (which I got at the same time) were by Avril Lavigne and Rammstein. Go figure.

On the metal side of things some of my favourites are Rammstein, Placebo and InMe. On the pop side some of my favourites are Girls Aloud, Busted and Brian McFadden. For some inexplicable reason I get more embarrassed about this side. :-p

So I appreciate that I have a rather eclectic taste. Still, the current chart hits which I'm into are a little baffling:

Muse - Supermassive Black Hole
Infernal - From Paris to Berlin
Rihanna - Unfaithful
Nelly Furtado - Maneater

Okay, Muse is no shock as I loved their last album. Infernal more so but then dance tunes have occasionally really appealed to me. The real shock with Nelly Furtado is that it's her doing the song! I mean come on, she did "I'm like a bird"! Still, it's in the category of Latin sexed up R'n'B derivate which I tend to be completely turned off (think Britney songs like "Slave to You" and pretty much any Christina Aguilera). Perhaps most shocking is Rihanna, whose song is the kind of slush which normally makes me roll my eyes and switch off. Yet despite that and the fact that it is, as my brother puts it, a drama queen anthem (no love you're not a murderer - it's called adulterer), I still find myself sucked into it. What gives?

Still, I can say with some confidence that the only album of these I will buy is the Muse one. Maybe a single or two of the others, but it's very rare that I buy singles (I bought three Girls Aloud singles before realising that I had paid more than I would for the album...).

So, anyone else want to put down what embarrassing songs they enjoy, or what popular songs, or anything? I'm now on the look out for anyone who enjoys all four of the above songs, to prove myself not completely bizarre.

Edit:

I have just remembered that another current song I like is Smile by Lily Allen, although frankly she scares the hell out of me in the video. Just found out it's UK Number 1!

Start of the Summer

2006-07-11T19:14:00.000+01:00

As a commentator pointed out, it has indeed been quite a while.

I did finally get my floor prizes from the Union: A haircut from Matthew Clulee, a meal at La Tasca and a pair of tickets for The Phoenix Picturehouse. I've only used up the first of these, which was an experience. I had my head massaged, then my hair cut, then my head massaged again, then my hair styled. It looked cool, but unfortunately it wasn't cut very short. I did pick up a new way to style my hair, however. It would have cost £43 (£38 with student discount) which, compared to the normal £10 I spend elsewhere, means that I won't be returning now that I have no more vouchers!

We Simpkins lads produced an edition of the magazine which seems to have gone down well, despite the ban on us putting any gossip in. I wrote 12 of the 20 pages, which I think certainly justifies my involvement. Alex did nothing, apparently in protest at the limitations they put on us. I was quite proud of it until my dad saw it and pointed out that when he'd been at Hertford, when Simpkins was started, its raison d'etre had been gossip. It's true, the PTB are killing it slowly. We're just trying to keep it alive as a beacon of humour in an overly sanitised world.

The Stuart Anderson Society dinner went fine, despite some hiccups. We overbooked, counting on more people saying yes after the booking date that in fact did. We just about salvaged it by allowing partners to come along, so my Abi was with me to enjoy the hilarious drunkeness which was to ensue... Rachel went across to some first year Medics who were revising for their exams, and proceeded to come up with comedy answers to their questions (like 'periods' for no apparent reason!), and demanded chocolate sauce on her syrup waffle, because she was in the mood for chocolate. Eloise took the prize though, as she flirted with one of the Slaughter & May (our sponsor) guys and told our poor tutor Alan a filthy story about Beast! I was just glad Alison wasn't there...

I've watched all the films I mentioned in my last post, the best probably being The Da Vinci Code despite it having, as Dav had warned me, a bit of a cop out ending. The DJ himself took me with him to see Mission Impossible 3, which was fun but nothing unexpected at all. All in all, plenty of film fun.

Having been involved with the Oxford Secular Society all term, having failed to get the position of Press & Publicity officer last term I was going to try again but was persuaded to go for Secretary, and got it! That makes me responsible for the newsletter, The Secular Student. For those who don't know yet, secularism in this sense means separation of Church and State, something I am quite passionate about. The website is www.oxsecsoc.com (although it needs updating).

I enjoyed this term, although was a shame to see Abi worrying over exams. :-( Still, holidays for everyone now. Holidays are when I suddenly become all creative and do interesting things which are not law-related. For instance, I have been writing articles for Simpkins, another edition of which will hopefully come out at the beginning of next term. I have also written an article for The Secular Student. I finally write up a short story I have had planned for a while, and when I get enough feedback will hopefully submit it to a few short story magazines. I have also polished the first draft of my second novel, which was pretty much completed near the start of this last term. Onto the third one now.

Meanwhile I have to find a job so that I can fund my way through the post-grad course I want to do (the BCL) and the training course for barristers (the BVC). If maybe I could get my novels published, that could be a lot easier! :-P I'll update again, possibly even recounting a night which has left a terrible scar - Dav, Smo and I at Park End (they know what I mean...)

It's Been A While

2006-05-20T16:55:00.000+01:00

I realise that I haven't posted anything for a while. It's been a busy term and this kind of thing often happens. Another reason though was that I knew that if I logged on, I would have to put up my work timetable again, and it's not so easy to motivate myself to do that. That's one reason why I've decided to stop putting my timetables on the blog, along with the feeling that it's a tad self-indulgent - no-one else cares, and some might think I'm boasting about how much work I do. I still find it very useful to record my hours, but will do so on my computer from now on. I think I'll still do a summary of each term on here, but that's all, leaving it free for more enjoyable posts.

It's been an interesting few weeks. At the Oxford Union I volunteered and made a floor speech in opposition to animal testing, as masterfully captured in Abi's detailed account of the debate here. I'm not sure that the audience was impressed with my philosophical contribution, but I was awarded runner up prize (although the Union still hasn't got around to distributing the prizes).

I, along with three others, have been voted in by the JCR to edit college gossip magazine Simpkins. We are going to have to tread carefully as the last set of editors were threatened with rustication and forced to resign for being offensive. Luckily, one of them is now a Welfare Officer charged with censoring it to prevent that happening again, so that makes me feel a bit safer. Our tutor even told him to protect me on this one! I trust him to be as harsh as necessary, especially given that some of the editors aren't as keen to stick to the rules as I am.

I'm also co-president of the Stuart Anderson Society, which organises Hertford lawyers' social events. We're trying to organise a meal for 8th week.

We had this year's Hertford Ball in 2nd week, which was fun. Last year I asked Abi out just after the ball, so it felt like the start of our first anniversary, even though it was a day earlier this year. On our actual anniversary we saw Tristin and Isolde, which was a good film, even if a bit cliched. The day after, we went for a meal. It was a good way to celebrate a very happy year.

Along with that I've been doing Jurisprudence, which is fun but a lot of reading, mostly in the Bodleian Law Library, as well as the tail end of Land Law, which is less interesting but probably a bit easier. It's shaping up as a good term, all in all. With fun films like The Da Vinci Code, X-Men 3 and Pirates of the Carribbean 2 coming up, there should be enough amusement, too. Tonight Abi and Rich have their 'official birthday,' a celebration of birthdays which actually fall in the summer holidays, for the benefit of uni friends. I'm looking forward to it, especially since it's been a fortnight since I've had a day off! I'll post again when I next feel like it. :-)

Crazy Quotes

2006-04-06T03:16:00.000+01:00

Looking back over my school forum's quotes page, I found a load of quotes which I had put up there and completely forgotten about. I thought I'd just share some of the best of my submissions to it...

Rich: Narcissistic...Isn't that where you have sex with dead people?

Abi having a self confessed blonde moment:
Abi: What date is it today?
Pete: [Looks at watch] Twenty-fifth.
Abi: Right. And what date was it yesterday?

Abi: Oh, mathematicians don't do maths. Doesn't mean it's not maths.
(She meant arithmetic in the middle, BTW)
Abi: You see, a-rith-MA-tic...oh no wait, that doesn't have maths in it.

Abi: What's that film, um...
Pete: Give us a clue?
Abi: Well it's about that maths genius who's insane...
Steve: Countdown?

Gam: I went to an all boy's school so I know how to castrate people.
Abi: I went to an all girl's school, and I don't!

Overheard between my mum and brother:
Mum: Dave, do you want chicken and mushroom or cheese and onion pie for dinner?
Dave: Um, does the cheese and onion one have meat in it?
Mum: No.
Dave: Then I'll have the one with meat in it.

Work Timetable - Weeks 7 and 8

2006-03-25T23:17:00.000Z

Week 7

Day - Subject - Type - Time

Sun - Admin - Articles - 2h 45mins
Sun Total - 2h 45mins

Mon - Trusts - Lecture - 1h
- Admin - Lecture - 1h
- Admin - Articles - 5h 15mins
Mon Total - 7h 15mins

Tue - Juris - Lecture - 1h
- Admin - Articles - 4h 10mins
Tue Total - 5h 10mins

Wed - Admin - Articles - 4h 50mins
- Admin - Cases - 1h
Wed Total - 5h 50mins

Thur - Juris - Lecture - 1h
- Land - Lecture - 1h
- Trusts - Lecture - 1h
- Admin - Articles - 2h
- Admin - Cases - 1h 20mins
- Admin - Essay - 2h 25mins
Thur Total - 8h 45mins

Fri - Admin - Class - 2h
- Admin - Lecture - 1h
- Land - Textbook - 6h
Fri Total - 9h

Sat - Land - Textbook - 50mins
- Land - Cases - 6h 45mins
Sat Total - 7h 35mins

Week 8

Day - Subject - Type - Time

Sun - Land - Cases - 2h 45mins
- Land - Articles - 1h 35mins
Sun Total - 4h 20mins

Mon - Trusts - Lecture - 2h
- Admin - Lecture - 1h
- Land - Articles - 3h 10mins
- Land - Revision - 1h
- Admin - Textbook - 1h 35mins
Mon Total - 8h 45mins

Tue - Juris - Lecture - 1h
- Land - Revision - 30mins
- Admin - Textbook - 4h 50mins
Tue Total - 6h 20mins

Wed - Land - Class - 1h 30mins
- Admin - Textbook - 3h
Wed Total - 4h 30mins

Thur - Land - Lecture - 1h
- Trusts - Lecture - 1h
- Admin - Textbook - 1h 55mins
- Admin - Cases - 8h
Thur Total - 11h 55mins

Fri - Admin - Tutorial - 1h
- Admin - Lecture - 1h
- Essay - 30mins
Fri Total - 2h 30mins

Sat - Admin - Essay - 45mins
Sat Total - 45mins

Totals:

Admin Week 7 - 20h 15mins (+2h 25mins Essay)
Land Week 4 - 22h 35mins
Admin Week 8 - Pending
Week 7 Total - 46h 20mins
Week 8 Total - 39h 5mins

Last Day Errors

2006-03-14T23:00:00.000Z

I'm back home now, ready for a holiday. However, I managed to make two somewhat foolish errors today which bear repeating:

Error 1: The Laundry

An error of almost Ming-esque proportions. Going somewhat against the trend of students, I always wash my clothes at the laundry in my halls of residence, rather than lugging it back for my mum to wash (seriously, the number of students who send a big load of washing home with their parents after a mid-term visit and take another with them at the end is quite high). So I fished out the mass of used clothes from under my bed and sorted them into white and colours. Finding out that I had three plastic bags' worth of colours and a total of two items white, I decided just to do the former. So I hefted them to the laundry and continued packing. 40 minutes later I returned to transfer them to the dryer. 30 minutes later I returned but, screwing up my plans, it had not been long enough to get them dried. I set them to 30 more minutes, and my parents arrived soon after that.

After getting all packed up into my mum's car and heading home, I was sitting on the couch with my feet up watching TV when...

Mum: So Pete, how much dirty laundry have you got for me?

[Pause, then Pete's eyes widen massively]

Pete: Oh crap!

This was followed by a dash upstairs and a hurried phonecall to Abi. Yes, I had left all that laundry back at college in the tumble dryer. Now it may not be a long way off but I had handed over my key, and did not fancy my chances getting it back. Luckily Abi was still there packing up, and she mercifully collected together all of the laundry for me. I suggested she put it behind the Lodge at college for me to collect but she preferred to take it home with her to bring when she visits. However, not too long later she and her mum showed up at my front door with all three bags, so I am not without clothes after all! Many many thanks Abi and Eleanor for saving me from that particular idiocy...

Error 2: The Curry

That evening we had a take away curry to celebrate my return. Now I am quite used to the 'medium hot' curry, but always tempted to try one step up. So when the curry place we used didn't have a medium veggie curry, I was not too put out to go to the 'fairly hot' vegetable madras. Mistake. I wolfed down perhaps a tenth of it before my mouth managed to scream at me to stop. It was just a little bit like swilling acid around my mouth, except without the relief of being able to spit it out. My tongue was bad but my lips were worse and my throat felt absolutely on fire, contracting and leaving me desperate for air. I managed to sort out that problem by gargling water - a lot. My dad took a couple of bites and then his eyes almost popped out of his sockets, so at least it wasn't just me! He wasn't quite able to enjoy his curry after that, and the rest of mine had to go. I also had a stomach ache for most of the night, so I think I've learned a lesson here - from now on in, it's mediums all the way.

Still, it's nice to be home!

Work Timetable - Weeks 5 and 6

2006-03-05T13:02:00.000Z

You know, going through and changing the last timetable I could see just how similar this was to the one before... It's almost depressing. Still, I had my birthday at the end of this one, with a decent evening to go with it. Went to Freud's (restaurant) with a number of mates and then to G Bar, shedding friends on the way due to illness and tiredness. G Bar was very lame. And Gam kissed me. Egads. Still, somewhat better than last year...

Week 5

Day - Subject - Type - Time

Sun - Admin - Textbook - 2h 30mins
Sun Total - 2h 30mins

Mon - Trusts - Lecture - 1h
- Admin - Lecture - 1h
- Land - Lecture - 1h
- Admin - Textbook - 4h 5mins
Mon Total - 7h 5mins

Tue - Juris - Lecture - 1h
- Admin - Cases / Articles - 2h 25mins
Tue Total - 3h 25mins

Wed - Admin - Cases - 6h 45mins
- Admin - Article - 45mins
Wed Total - 7h 30mins

Thur - Juris - Lecture - 1h
- Land - Lecture - 1h
- Trusts - Lecture - 1h
- Admin - Revision - 1h
- Admin - Article - 1h 35mins
- Land - Textbook - 1h 50mins
- Admin - Essay - 2h 35mins
Thur Total - 10h

Fri - Admin - Tutorial - 1h
- Land - Lecture - 1h
- Admin - Lecture - 1h
- Land - Textbook - 4h 30mins
Fri Total - 7h 30mins

Sat - Land - Textbook - 55mins
- Land - Cases - 1h 5mins
Sat Total - 2h

Week 6

Day - Subject - Type - Time

Sun - Land - Cases - 5h 40mins
Sun Total - 5h 40mins

Mon - Trusts - Lecture - 1h
- Admin - Lecture - 1h
- Land - Lecture - 1h
- Land - Articles - 2h 20mins
- Land - Revision - 45mins
- Land - Essay - 2h 10mins
- Admin - Cases - 2h 20mins
Mon Total - 10h 35mins

Tue - Juris - Lecture - 1h
- Admin - Article - 2h
- Admin - Cases - 4h 35mins
Tue Total - 7h 35mins

Wed - Admin - Cases - 1h 40mins
Wed Total - 1h 40mins

Thur - Land - Lecture - 1h
- Trusts - Lecture - 1h
- Admin - Cases - 7h 25mins
- Admin - Articles - 1h 35mins
Thur Total - 11h

Fri - Admin - Article - 1h
- Admin - Essay - 2h
- Admin - Tutorial - 1h
- Admin - Lecture - 1h
Fri Total - 5h

Totals:

Admin Week 5 - 19h 5mins (+2h 35mins Essay)
Land Week 3 - 17h 5mins (+2h 10mins Essay)
Admin Week 6 - 20h 35mins (+2h Essay)
Week 5 Total - 40h
Week 6 Total - 38h 20mins

Aborted Pancakes

2006-02-28T21:13:00.000Z

A Pancake Day recipe (which we successfully made the first couple of attempts to make actual pancakes):

Requires:
Pancake stuff
Students

1. Attempt to make pancakes.
2. Fail.
3. Keep moving the pancakey mess that should have been a pancake around until it all looks vaguely cooked.
4. Drench in syrup (or jam for authenticity) and eat.

I will leave it to your imagination why they are called aborted pancakes...

Work Timetable - Weeks 3 and 4

2006-02-28T02:16:00.000Z

Ah, weeks 3 and 4. At the end of these I mooted in a university-wide competition...and did not make it past the group stage, alas. Still, we were beaten by third years and it was good experience.

Week 3

Day - Subject - Type - Time

Sun - Admin - Textbook - 3h 40mins
Sun Total - 3h 40mins

Mon - Trusts - Lecture - 1h
- Admin - Lecture - 1h
- Land - Lecture - 1h
- Admin - Textbook - 4h
Mon Total - 7h

Tue - Juris - Lecture - 1h
- Admin - Textbook - 1h
- Admin - Cases - 2h 30mins
Tue Total - 4h 30mins

Wed - Admin - Lecture - 1h
- Admin - Cases - 5h 15mins
- Admin - Article - 1h 35mins
Wed Total - 7h 50mins

Thur - Juris - Lecture - 1h
- Land - Lecture - 1h
- Trusts - Lecture - 1h
- Admin - Class - 1h
- Land - Textbook - 2h 45mins
Thur Total - 6h 45mins

Fri - Admin - Tutorial - 1h
- Admin - Essay - 2h 30mins
- Land - Textbook - 3h 20mins
Fri Total - 6h 50mins

Sat - Land - Textbook - 4h
Sat Total - 4h

Week 4

Day - Subject - Type - Time

Sun - Land - Textbook - 4h 10mins
- Land - Cases - 2h
Sun Total - 6h 10mins

Mon - Admin - Lecture - 1h
- Land - Lecture - 1h
- Land - Cases - 4h 55mins
- Land - Essay - 1h 55mins
Mon Total - 8h 50mins

Tue - Juris - Lecture - 1h
- Admin - Cases - 4h 55mins
Tue Total - 5h 55mins

Wed - Land - Tutorial - 1h
- Admin - Article - 25mins
- Admin - Cases - 4h 5mins
Wed Total - 5h 30mins

Thur - Juris - Lecture - 1h
- Land - Lecture - 1h
- Trusts - Lecture - 1h
- Admin - Articles - 5h 30mins
- Admin - Cases - 2h 50mins
- Admin - Essay - 2h 5mins
Thur Total - 13h 25mins

Fri - Admin - Tutorial - 1h
Fri Total - 1h

Totals:

Admin Week 3 - 18h (+2h 30mins Essay)
Land Week 2 - 21h 10mins (+1h 55mins Essay)
Admin Week 4 - 17h 45mins (+2h 5mins Essay)
Week 3 Total - 40h 35mins
Week 4 Total - 40h 50mins

You Know You're a Law Student When...

2006-02-18T03:04:00.000Z

Just a few. More when I think of them.

You know you're a law student when...

* You start pronouncing 'v' as 'and' in normal life. (This has happened perhaps irreperably to me. I saw a poster for Alien v Predator in a friend's room and mentioned it, unconsciously making the substitution. Luckily no-one was paying attention!)

* You start saying 'per' as a shorthand for 'as said by' or 'as evidenced by.' (A friend and I were discussing an essay and he made a point 'per our last tutorial.' I constantly back up arguments with 'per [insert academic / lecturer's name].') 'Per Lord Denning' becomes synonymous with 'this is a dodgy point of law.'

* On the subject of his lordship, your heart sinks automatically when you start reading a judgement which should be able to clarify a tricky point of law, only to find it prefaced by 'Lord Denning MR:' By the end of the estimed Master of the Rolls' summary of the facts, you have worked out who is going to win by who is presented in the positive light.

* More generally, your face lights up or sinks depending on which lawlord is making the leading judgement. (For me it's a beaming smile for Lord Millett, a slightly uncertain frown for Lord Browne-Wilkinson, an indulgent glance for Lord Diplock and an angry scowl for Lord Hoffmann).

* You start analysing events in terms of the interesting legal questions they bring up.

* You enjoy saying things like 'I am the law!' A lot.

Um...maybe it's just me.

Work Timetable - Weeks 1 and 2

2006-02-16T01:53:00.000Z

It's a long time overdue, but that's the way it is at the moment. My other collection, in Tort, earned me a 67 mark so no problem there. I just have to work on memorising cases, as I seem to have the theory sorted. From below, I'm sure you can see just what my Thursdays are like!

Week 1

Day - Subject - Type - Time

Mon - Trusts - Lecture - 1h
- Admin - Lecture - 1h
- Land - Lecture - 1h
- Admin - Articles - 6h
Mon Total - 9h

Tue - Juris - Lecture - 1h
- Admin - Article - 2h 20mins
Tue Total - 3h 20mins

Wed - Admin - Lecture - 1h
- Admin - Article - 3h 55mins
- Admin - Textbook - 1h 35mins
Wed Total - 6h 30mins

Thur - Juris - Lecture - 1h
- Admin - Lecture - 1h
- Land - Lecture - 1h
- Trusts - Lecture - 1h
- Admin - Class - 1h
- Admin - Articles - 3h 25mins
- Admin - Textbook - 2h 45mins
- Admin - Cases - 1h 15mins
- Admin - Essay - 2h 10mins
Thur Total - 14h 35mins

Fri - Admin - Tutorial - 1h
- Land - Lecture - 1h
- Land - Textbook - 2h 20mins
Fri Total - 4h 20mins

Sat - Land - Textbook - 1h 30mins
Sat Total - 1h 30mins

Week 2

Day - Subject - Type - Time

Sun - Land - Textbook - 3h 10mins
Sun Total - 3h 10mins

Mon - Trusts - Lecture - 1h
- Admin - Lecture - 1h
- Land - Lecture - 1h
- Land - Textbook - 4h 15mins
- Land - Cases - 3h 30mins
- Land - Articles - 1h 20mins
- Land - Essay - 1h 40mins
Mon Total - 13h 45mins

Tue - Land - Cases - 3h 5mins
- Admin - Articles - 3h 15mins
Tue Total - 6h 20mins

Wed - Admin - Lecture - 1h
- Land - Tutorial - 1h
- Admin - Articles - 2h 55mins
- Admin - Textbook - 4h 45mins
Wed Total - 9h 40mins

Thur - Juris - Lecture - 1h
- Land - Lecture - 1h
- Trusts - Lecture - 1h
- Admin - Class - 1h
- Admin - Textbook - 2h 50mins
- Admin - Cases - 4h 30mins
- Admin - Article - 1h
- Admin - Essay - 2h 20mins
Thur Total - 14h 40mins

Fri - Admin - Class - 1h
Fri Total - 1h

Totals:

Admin Week 1 - 21h 15mins (+2h 10mins Essay)
Land Week 1 - 19h 10mins (+1h 40mins Essay)
Admin Week 2 - 19h 15mins (+2h 20mins Essay)
Week 1 Total - 39h 15mins
Week 2 Total - 48h 35mins

The Cartoons

2006-02-08T19:46:00.000Z

It has to be done. I'll post more on the whole Mohammed cartoons controversy later but for now, they must be posted. Not because I necessarily agree with the messages conveyed. But people have died because of these images, and a political crisis has dominated. I believe people should know what the images in question are, at the very least. I had hoped the mainstream media would print them, as it would and should with other images causing this kind of controversy (whether aimed at muslims, christians, jews, atheists, whatever). As this has not happened however, here they are:

Image removed at the request of my parents. They were scared for my safety upon posting it.

Individual images are available here. Scroll down past the first set for clearer ones.

Work Timetable - Holiday and Week 0

2006-01-29T22:49:00.000Z

Apologies to those who would prefer I desist with these posts. At least from now on I'll be doing two weeks in one, which should reduce the clutter somewhat. I have now received back my Trusts collection with a healthy 68 mark. Very pleasing indeed! Where a number is used after a subject it refers to the reading list week in which that topic appeared.

Holiday

Week - Subject - Type - Time

Week 2 - Contract 5 - Textbook - 1h 50mins
- Contract 8 - Textbook - 3h 45mins
Week 2 Total - 5h 35mins

Week 3 - Land Intro - Textbook - 2h 15mins
Week 3 Total - 2h 15mins

Week 4 - Land Intro - Textbook - 5h 35mins
Week 4 Total - 5h 35mins

Week 5 - Land Intro - Textbook - 1h 50mins
- Land Intro - Cases - 45mins
- Contract 8 - Textbook - 30mins
- Tort 1 - Revision - 2h 30mins
- Tort 2 - Revision - 3h 50mins
Week 5 Total - 9h 25mins

Week 0

Day - Subject - Type - Time

Mon - Tort 3 - Revision - 2h 30mins
- Tort 4 - Revision - 2h 15mins
Mon Total - 4h 45mins

Tue - Tort 4 - Revision - 15mins
- Tort 5 - Revision - 3h 30mins
- Tort 8 - Revision - 2h 30mins
- Trusts 1 - Revision - 1h 10mins
Tue Total - 7h 25mins

Wed - Trusts 2 - Revision - 2h 30mins
- Trusts 3 - Revision - 3h 5mins
Wed Total - 5h 35mins

Thur - Trusts 4 - Revision - 2h 30mins
- Trusts 6 - Revision - 1h 30mins
- Trusts 7 - Revision - 1h 5mins
- Tort - Revision - 30mins
Thur Total - 5h 35mins

Fri - Tort - Exam - 3h
- Trusts - Revision - 1h
- Trusts - Exam - 3h
Fri Total - 7h

Totals:

Land Intro - 10h 25mins
Tort Revision - 17h 50mins (+3h Exam)
Trusts Revision - 12h 50mins (+3h Exam)
Holiday Total - 22h 50mins
Week 0 Total - 30h 20mins

Kennedy's End

2006-01-07T15:47:00.000Z

And so Charles Kennedy resigns as Lib Dem leader. I am very relieved, as I was worried that he would be unopposed in the leadership contest, and now someone will have to stand. I just hope for the sake of the party that the next person is someone with the drive to take them further.

I have been disillusioned with Kennedy for many months now. The General Election campaign showed a terrible lethargy on his part convincing me that he had to go. To be blunt, up against the appalling alternatives of Tony's Blair's Labour and Michael Howard's Conservatives, we should have done better than we did.

To give credit where it is due, this shake up is, I feel, mostly down to a very unlikely source - David Cameron, the new Tory leader. I've been reasonably familiar with the guy for years, as he is my home MP. I favoured him as Tory leader, even though I always knew that his election would make a Tory victory much more likely. He has an energy to him and policies which have made me feel quite jealous - if only we had someone like that leading the Lib Dems!

the repercussions have been clear. Spurred on by this new, dynamic opposition leader, Blair's probable successor Gordon Brown has been desperately signalling that he will be different from Blair, offering real checks on Government policy rather than Blair's "divine right" style. Whether that will be enough to make the public forget his disastrous misplanning of the economy remains to be seen. Meanwhile, the Lib Dem MPs have realised that Kennedy needed to walk, lest the party lose all credibility whatsoever. And so we have movement and intrigue in all three parties.

What we need is a strong voice, certainly. However, we also need something more. The biggest criticism of the Lib Dems is that we do not have any steadfast policy goals. It is time for that to end. We need to know what we stand for, and to put that forward at every opportunity. We need to stop making naive pronouncements and show the country that we have grown up. We need to make the United Kingdom proud to be a liberal democracy, and we need to earn our way back into mainstream politics.

We have the potential to be the party of the future. I just hope we take it.

Christmas and Culture Wars

2005-12-15T23:54:00.000Z

An issue which has been coming up in a major way in the USA but much less over here is the "Happy Holidays" question, and I'd like to explain my thoughts on the matter. The question is, to oversimplify wildly, whether it is better to wish "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays." It may sound like a very small matter, but it is a raging debate across the pond.

The problem in America is that a number of big retail chains have put up posters with the latter on rather than the former. A section of the public there, mainly the religious right, have taken this as the latest assault in the "War on Christmas" (I seriously get the impression that Americans simply love to call campaigns wars).

The reason that the stores are doing this is because not only Christmas is celebrated at this time of year. Hannukah and the Winter Solstice are also celebrated in what is known as the holiday season, often instead of the Christian Christmas. "Happy Holidays" is seen as more inclusive, including all of these as well as non-believers and others (like Jehovah's Witnesses) who do not celebrate Christmas. It is seen as extending the message out to as many people as possible.

The religious right, predictably, sees this as an assault on Christmas, watering down the Christian-ness of the season. It is part of an intense dissatisfaction with the way that the season has become more popular and less religious. I am going to explain why I think the controversy has not spread to the UK, and why the secularisation of the season is a good thing.

As an atheist, it is hardly surprising to find me on this side. Nevertheless, it is worth me explaining something. I have no problem with religious people of whatever persuasion celebrating their holy days (within legal and ethical limits of course - no blood soaked sacrifices if can be avoided!). I do however see a certain spoilt attitude in the way certain people want to have their cake and eat it - enjoying the season in their own way while preventing others from doing so in their own. Unsurprisingly, I'm in the "live and let live" category.

Why is the controversy miniscule here? The first answer may be that we simply seem less enthusiastic about religion-based culture wars here. People are more likely to face controversies like abortion based on facts and realities, rather than resorting to holy edicts. Perhaps that is because despite the historic ties between the state and the Church of England, far more people here (religious or non) prefer the law to be secular. Therefore, even when it comes to non-legal issues like this, there is much less enthusiasm for turning an issue into a religious conflict.

Secondly though, I believe that we think of Christmas in a different way here too. In the USA, Christmas generally seems to refer to the Christian holiday. Here, I think people are much more inclined to think of it as the season as a whole. "Merry Christmas" evokes warm feelings of family, togetherness, decorations and presents. (On a side note, people often criticise the last of these as materialistic, but I think this misses the social role that giving presents has. It bonds people together. I certainly feel that even a worthless or uninteresting present from a friend can be worth a lot more than no present at all.)

What do I mean by this different way of seeing Christmas? Well, in one US report I read, one non-Christian said that while not in any way being offended by a sign saying "Merry Christmas," it felt somewhat like being wished "Happy Birthday" when it was the wisher's, and not the listener's, birthday. While the listener appreciates that there is a celebration, they do not see its relevance to them. This makes a lot of sense, but I do not think it applies here. More likely, someone here will just see the phrasing as a generic expression of goodwill.

The thing is that *both* sides in the US see it as refering to the specifically Christian holiday. Clearly those who prefer "Happy Holidays" see it as more inclusive (and let's get real, the retail chains in question are going to want no part in any "War on Christmas" - they just want to appeal to more people). Those against it also must feel that "Merry Christmas" refers specifically to the Christian holiday, otherwise they would not bother fighting the new wording. They are determined to keep the general greeting refering to the Christian tradition, and that just shows that their motivation is to keep that as the primary (perhaps only) message heard over the holiday season. Refusing to accept "Happy Holidays" is, in a way, trying to hide the existence of other traditions which might want to celebrate.

In the UK on the other hand, I think people are perfectly aware that Christmas time is far more than the celebration of a Christian holiday.

And I think it is perfectly right that it should be. Christmas essentially originated as a Christian holiday pasted on top of the pagan holiday of Saturnalia, from which we get such traditions as present giving. I can honestly say that I have never heard a pagan (and I have known one or two) angrily demanding that the season be kept pagan. Since aspects like present giving were not even Christian in origin, it would be absurd to restrict them to Christians only. The season was special long before Christmas arose.

Even if this had not been true, other religious holidays take place at the same time (and non-religious holidays like Kwanzaa). There is no reason Christmas should hold the season captive beyond the fact that there are more Christians than members of other religions.

And what of us non-religious folk? One might argue that even if Christians get their Christmas, Jews their Hannukah etc, then there is no place for celebration for those without a religion. I think this is misguided. Even within one religion, there might be a thousand different ways to celebrate the season, including taking the best elements from other traditions (like the present-giving, all those centuries ago). There is no reason why the non-religious should not be allowed to celebrate the season as they see fit, equally borrowing those bits of other traditions as they see fit. I see no reason why every family and community should not have a time of the year to celebrate, in whatever way they see fit. It is the very best of multiculturalism, and it is a celebration of being human.

So let those who desire celebrate Christmas time religiously, others celebrate it secularly, and let's not squabble about who 'owns' the season. And if retailers in the USA wish to encompass all these diverse celebrations, then that is good sense. Over here, I think we may already have gone a step further. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays folks, and have a jolly good New Year.

Term Timetable Summary

2005-12-05T03:49:00.000Z

Because I haven't beaten this to death already...

Trusts Week 1 - 20h
Tort Week 5 - 22h 5mins (+1h 10mins Essay)
Trusts Week 2 - 20h 55mins (+2h 30mins Essay)
Trusts Week 3 - 20h 15mins (+2h 40mins Essay)
Tort Week 6 - 21h 35mins (+1h 5mins Presentation)
Trusts Week 4 - 18h 40mins (+3h Essay)
Trusts Week 5 - 20h 40mins (+1h 30mins Presentation)
Tort Week 7 - 16h 40mins (+5 to 10h over Summer)
Trusts Week 6 - 16h (+2h 20mins Essay)
Trusts Week 7 - 15h 5mins (+2h 20mins Essay)
Tort Week 8 - 18h 45mins (+1h 25mins Essay)
Trusts Week 8 - 25h 20mins

Week 1 Total - 34h 55mins
Week 2 Total - 41h 20mins
Week 3 Total - 47h 15mins
Week 4 Total - 46h 45mins
Week 5 Total - 35h 15mins
Week 6 Total - 40h 55mins
Week 7 Total - 39h 50mins
Week 8 Total - 36h 10mins

Term Total - 322h 25mins

Work Timetable - Week 8

2005-12-05T03:30:00.000Z

Term is over, and I am somewhat exhausted. Twelve reading lists and many, many lectures. I feel I've done well this term, but I will be using the holiday to very much consolidate what I know and fill in gaps!

Week 8

Day - Subject - Type - Time

Sun - Tort - Cases / Articles - 1h 25mins
- Tort - Essay - 1h 25mins
Sun Total - 2h 50mins

Mon - Tort - Lecture - 1h
- Tort - Class - 2h
- Trusts - Introductory Textbook - 1h 10mins
- Trusts - Textbook - 2h
Mon Total - 6h 10mins

Tue - Trusts - Textbook - 6h 10mins
Tue Total - 6h 10mins

Wed - Trusts - Textbook - 7h
- Trusts - Cases - 1h
Wed Total - 8h

Thur - Contract - Lecture - 1h
- Tort - Lecture - 1h
- Trusts - Cases - 7h 30mins
- Trusts - Revision - 30mins
Thur Total - 10h

Fri - Land - Lecture - 1h
- Trusts - Tutorial - 1h
- Trusts - Lecture - 1h
Fri Total - 3h

Sat - Finished

Totals:

Tort Week 8 - 18h 45mins (+1h 25mins Essay)
Trusts Week 8 - 25h 20mins
Week Total - 36h 10mins

Work Timetable - Week 7

2005-12-02T04:50:00.000Z

A bit late.

Week 7

Day - Subject - Type - Time

Sun - Trusts - Cases / Articles - 4h 20mins
Sun Total - 4h 20mins

Mon - Tort - Lecture - 1h
- Trusts - Articles - 6h 20mins
Mon Total - 7h 20mins

Tue - Trusts - Article - 1h 50mins
- Trusts - Essay - 2h 20mins
Tue Total - 4h 10mins

Wed - Tort - Textbook - 3h
Wed Total - 3h

Thur - Contract - Lecture - 1h
- Tort - Lecture - 1h 15mins
- Tort - Textbook - 2h 45mins
- Tort - Cases - 2h 5mins
- Trusts - Revision - 25mins
Thur Total - 7h 30mins

Fri - Contract - Lecture - 1h
- Land - Lecture - 1h
- Trusts - Tutorial - 1h
- Trusts - Lecture - 1h
Fri Total - 4h

Sat - Tort - Cases / Articles - 9h 30mins
Sat Total - 9h 30mins

Totals:

Trusts Week 7 - 15h 5mins (+2h 20mins Essay)
Week Total - 39h 50mins

Journalistic Exposure

2005-11-21T01:35:00.000Z

As part of the ongoing saga of the OUSU referendum campaign, I was asked to give a comment to the Oxford Student, one of the student newspapers. The picture (one of Abi's favourites) hasn't turned out badly, but the editor did somewhat hack away at the piece I originally wrote ("It took five motions..." doesn't even make sense in the context! It was supposed to be "I took five motions..."). Still, slight annoyance at that aside it is my first real piece of journalistic exposure for something I've said, so here's a link for all to see:

OUSU Under Fire

Don't worry, I will try to give some idea of the context later (hopefully without boring readers to tears).

Work Timetable - Week 6

2005-11-21T01:23:00.000Z

Week 6

Day - Subject - Type - Time

Sun - Tort - Cases / Articles - 5h
Sun Total - 5h

Mon - Tort - Lecture - 1h
- Tort - Cases - 4h 30mins
- Trusts - Introductory Textbook - 35mins
Mon Total - 6h 5mins

Tue - Trusts - Introductory Textbook - 1h
- Tort - Revision - 1h 10mins
- Tort - Class - 1h 45mins
- Trusts - Cases / Articles - 5h 35mins
Tue Total - 9h 30mins

Wed - Trusts - Cases / Articles - 7h 40mins
- Trusts - Essay - 2h 20mins
Wed Total - 10h

Thur - Contract - Lecture - 1h
- Tort - Lecture - 1h
- Juris - Lecture - 1h
- Trusts - Textbook - 1h 10mins
Thur Total - 4h 10mins

Fri - Contract - Lecture - 1h
- Land - Lecture - 1h
- Trusts - Tutorial - 1h
- Trusts - Lecture - 1h
Fri Total - 4h

Sat - Trusts - Cases - 2h 10mins

Totals:

Tort Week 7 - 16h 40mins (+5 to 10h over Summer)
Trusts Week 6 - 16h (+2h 20mins Essay)
Week Total - 40h 55mins

Work Timetable - Week 5

2005-11-15T03:47:00.000Z

I got less done this week. Basically after a stressful time I took most of the weekend off, going to fireworks with Abi Sat evening and staying over my house before coming back on Sun. Then there was a JCR meeting that night...
The other main reason is the massive campaign to change OUSU which I became a member of (and which I will detail here in a few days time when I have met deadlines). It has taken up a lot of my time this past week in particular. OUSU Council on Friday for example lasted 4h 30mins, and so meant that when I got back to Ab I was far beyond any work. So I watched Minority Report with Abi instead. :-)

Week 5

Day - Subject - Type - Time

Sun - Trusts - Introductory Textbook - 50mins
- Trusts - Textbook - 50mins
Sun Total - 1h 40mins

Mon - Tort - Lecture - 1h
- Trusts - Textbook - 3h 15mins
Mon Total - 4h 15mins

Tue - Trusts - Textbook - 2h
- Trusts - Cases / Articles - 4h 5mins
Tue Total - 6h 5mins

Wed - Trusts - Cases / Articles - 2h 40mins
Wed Total - 2h 40mins

Thur - Contract - Lecture - 1h
- Tort - Lectures - 2h
- Juris - Lecture - 1h
- Trusts - Cases / Articles - 4h 35mins
- Trusts - Presentation - 1h 30mins
Thur Total - 10h 5mins

Fri - Contract - Lecture - 1h
- Trusts - Class - 2h 30mins
- Trusts - Lecture - 1h
Fri Total - 4h 30mins

Sat - Tort - Cases / Articles - 6h
Sat Total - 6h

Totals:

Trusts Week 5 - 20h 40mins (+1h 30mins Presentation)
Week Total - 35h 15mins

Tory Rich

2005-11-08T13:26:00.000Z

I submitted this to Hertford's gossip magazine, Simpkins (www.freewebs.com/simpkinsmagazine). They put it on the back cover. Hee hee!

It's an actual quote, or close enough!

Work Timetable - Week 4

2005-11-06T23:01:00.000Z

Yeah, I know I haven't posted since the last timetable. Again, I'm working too many hours. Will update soon.

Week 4

Day - Subject - Type - Time

Sun - Tort - Textbook - 6h
Sun Total - 6h

Mon - Tort - Cases - 5h 50mins
- Trusts - Introductory Textbook - 45mins
- Trusts - Textbook - 1h 15mins
Mon Total - 7h 50mins

Tue - Tort - Presentation - 1h 5mins
- Tort - Textbook - 1h 15mins
- Tort - Tutorial - 1h 30mins
- Trusts - Textbook - 5h 35mins
Tue Total - 9h 25mins

Wed - Trusts - Cases - 5h 20mins
- Trusts - Essay - 3h
Wed Total - 8h 20mins

Thur - Contract - Lecture - 1h
- Tort - Lectures - 2h
- Trusts - Articles - 4h 45mins
Thur Total - 7h 45mins

Fri - Contract - Lecture - 1h
- Land - Lecture - 1h
- Trusts - Tutorial - 1h
- Trusts - Lecture - 1h
- Tort - Lecture - 1h
- Trusts - Textbook - 2h 10mins
Fri Total - 7h 10mins

Sat - Trusts - Introductory Textbook - 15mins

Totals:

Tort Week 6 - 21h 35mins (+1h 5mins Presentation)
Trusts Week 4 - 18h 40mins (+3h Essay)
Week Total - 46h 45mins

Work Timetable - Week 3

2005-10-31T01:04:00.000Z

This might help to explain the lack of posts this week...

Week 3

Day - Subject - Type - Time

Sun - Trusts - Articles - 2h 40mins
- Trusts - Essay - 2h 30mins
- Trusts - Introductory Textbook - 30mins
- Trusts - Textbook - 2h 20mins
Sun Total - 8h

Mon - Trusts - Textbook - 5h 40mins
Mon Total - 5h 40mins

Tue - Trusts - Revision - 30mins
- Trusts - Tutorial - 1h 10mins
- Trusts - Textbook - 3h 20mins
- Trusts - Cases / Articles - 3h 40mins
Tue Total - 8h 40mins

Wed - Trusts - Cases / Articles - 4h 25mins
- Trusts - Essay - 2h 40mins
Wed Total - 7h 5mins

Thur - Contract - Lecture - 1h
- Tort - Lectures - 2h
- Trusts - Article - 2h
- Tort - Textbook - 2h 30mins
Thur Total - 7h 30mins

Fri - Contract - Lecture - 1h
- Land - Lecture - 1h
- Trusts - Revision - 20mins
- Trusts - Tutorial - 1h
- Trusts - Lecture - 1h
- Tort - Textbook - 15mins
Fri Total - 4h 35mins

Sat - Tort - Textbook - 2h 15mins
- Tort - Cases - 1h 40mins
- Tort - Textbook - 1h 50mins
Sat Total - 5h 45mins

Totals:

Trusts Reading List 2 - 20h 55mins (+2h 30mins Essay)
Trusts Reading List 3 - 20h 15mins (+2h 40mins Essay)
Week Total - 47h 15mins

Intellectual Honesty: Lord Denning

2005-10-24T13:18:00.000+01:00

(With apologies to my non-lawyer friends)

If Lord Denning had any intellectual honesty:

Scene: The Court of Appeal

Judge: ...And for those reasons this action must fail. I dismiss the appeal of Lord Denning.

Denning's Lawyer: What?! You can't be serious!

Judge: [Annoyed] And for that display of bad faith, I order him to pay costs to the court.

Denning's Lawyer: But what you said doesn't bear any relation to the established law!

Denning: [Impressed] No no, fair's fair. After all, he mentioned equity a bunch of times *and* he told a nicely obscure story to go with it!

Denning's Lawyer: [Shaking his head] Oh well, at least there's always the House of Lords...

Denning: [Baffled] The Lords? Why would we want to pay any heed to them?

Work Timetable - Week 2

2005-10-23T22:54:00.000+01:00

Week 2

Day - Subject - Type - Time

Sun - Tort - Textbook - 4h 30mins
- Tort - Cases - 3h 30mins
Sun Total - 8h

Mon - Tort - Cases - 1h 15mins
- Tort - Essay - 1h 10mins
- Tort - Cases / Articles - 1h 10mins
Mon Total - 3h 35mins

Tue - Tort - Articles - 3h 45mins
- Tort - Tutorial - 1h 15mins
Tue Total - 5h

Wed - Trusts - Introductory Textbook - 45mins
- Trusts - Textbook - 1h
- Trusts - Cases - 2h 45mins
Wed Total - 4h 30mins

Thur - Contract - Lecture - 1h
- Tort - Lectures - 2h
- Trusts - Textbook - 2h
Thur Total - 5h

Fri - Contract - Lecture - 1h
- Land - Lecture - 1h
- Trusts - Lecture - 1h
- Tort - Lecture - 1h
- Trusts - Textbook - 3h 20mins
- Trusts - Cases - 45mins
Fri Total - 8h 5mins

Sat - Trusts - Cases / Articles - 7h 10mins
Sat Total - 7h 10mins

Totals:

Tort Reading List 5 - 22h 5mins (+1h 10mins Essay)
Week Total - 41h 20mins

Smo Tells It Like It Is

2005-10-23T21:58:00.000+01:00

This took place in Rich's room Thursday night, when a number of us randomly met up:

[Introducing friends]

Abi: Smo, this is Neil. Neil, Smo. [Explaining] Smo is Sarah's boyfriend, and Pete's old friend from school.

Neil: Oh, really? Small world, huh?

Abi: Not really, she met him through Pete.

Neil: Oh, right.

Abi: It's quite sweet, really.

Smo: Sweet? I stole Pete's girlfriend from him on his birthday, and it was sweet?

Abi: Well I'm rather glad you did...

[Neil looks on, baffled]

Sick Days

2005-10-20T17:02:00.000+01:00

Bah. I'm ill. I've had this damn cold for a week now and although it has got better, it has seemed to level off into a perpetual state. This is annoying.

I first remember feeling it over a week ago, on Wednesday 12th. Its peak was Thursday, when I woke feeling dead. I still managed to drag my way through a respectable amount of work though, and attended the (surprisingly poor this year) "No Confidence in Her Majesty's Government" debate at the Union. The motion failed, so apparently the Union favours the Government now... I didn't get nearly enough sleep, so felt bad the next day. Events did not help. I ended up looking through my notes for my first week of Trusts in Burger King (Mmm...) and fighting against the wooziness in my head when trying to argue against my new tutor. Was Hunter v Moss correctly decided? I thought yes, but my tutor has come close to persuading me otherwise. I realise this probably means nothing to anyone likely to read my blog. Oh well.

Unfortunately, despite my request that I leave a bit early to get to the lecture (Trusts, no less - the very one she had strongly recommended we attend!) it didn't happen, so I had to dash across town. And feel ill once in said lecture. Bugger. Once I got home it was soon time to go out to the Socrates Society drinks with Abi. It's a philosophy society, and we have both now joined. There is a SocSoc meal on Sunday discussing ethics and hedonism, so I'm looking forward to that... We had to stay beyond the end waiting for Michelle (from Exeter college) because as Treasurer of the Society she had to stay to clear away.

The three of us then headed back down Abingdon Road, but beyond Ab House to Edith Road, home of the Exeter Massive, including Steve and Blath who were having a joint par-tay. Woo! It was a fun one as well. There had already been quite a bit of revelry before we arrived, evidence by people complaining about food having been smeared in strange places, and the fact that Sarah was drunk. She of course denied this at the time. But the fact that she was going around trying to trick people into drinking her vodka and orange (mixed in a 1:1 ratio, no less,) did give it away slightly.

Rich and Steve were also getting there drink-wise. Steve kept apologising for spiking my drink the previous weekend, appearing quite guilty about it. Rich still found it amusing of course, and I found out that Sarah had had a hand in it too! In any case a number of us ended up in Steve's room, drinking and chatting. Sarah had a beer, even though she still said it was horrible. At one point Steve and I hugged and Sarah decided to join in but managed to unbalance us onto the floor! Steve and Rich seemed...very close. Some of Abi's pictures towards the end of this post on her blog are the best evidence available.

It was a fun night indeed. As well as having a great time with a number of friends from both Hertford and Exeter, I got to play Twister (which, with so many drunk people, is hilarious!). Sarah 'won'. She also was sitting on it almost the whole time. Eventually Rich and Em took her home and Rich returned. I chatted to fellow lawyers Neil and Hannah. Hertford lawyers are often quite reluctant to talk about Law, so it was good to swap a few opinions. Eg. I like Tort but hate Contract with a passion, but most other people have it the other way around. Odd. At the end of the night it looked like Rich might just lay down and refuse to come with us, but he was as good as gold in the end. :-)

As for me, a good night's sleep was well needed, and came as blessed relief. It also was one reason that I didn't show up to the Freshers' post-matriculation drinks the next day, like I was supposed to. The other reason was that I had been confused, thinking I was needed for the Ball in the evening. To make up for the slip I helped set up the Hall from 2:30pm until about 3:15pm, and then from 6:00pm until the Ball started at 8:00pm. As an Exec member I was one of the few non-first years invited, and I got to have Abi along too. It was a lot of fun - the food was excellent, including ice cream, cookies and chocolate cake! Grand.

Once it finished, it was time for tidying away. That took from about 12:00am to 1:30am, with a load of us (including Abi) joining in. She was very amused by me following instructions to push a tablecover across the recently mopped floor with my feet, sliding along. A job well done. Unfortunately with all that, I had done almost no work that day, and it was imperative that I do so. Therefore once I got back, at about 2:00am, I started working. And I went on until about 6:00am. Ouch. Abi had fallen asleep in my room for most of that time. I managed to keep my concentration, but once I stopped I just had to crash into bed.

The next day I basically did as much work as was reasonably possible while still making it to the JCR meeting in the evening. And on Monday morning I was impressed with my ability to do a 1300 word essay in 70 minutes. Having met the deadline I felt okay about going with Abi to the "This House would design a baby" debate at the Union and seeing our local MP, Dr. Evan Harris, speak in proposition. Despite a good speech and the fact that I have a lot of respect for him, I voted against.

The next night Abi, Neil and I (in a very ad hoc arrangement) went to the cinema to see Serenity. It's a rather crazy film to get your head around if you haven't seen the preceding series, Firefly, but I just about managed. It haunted me for the rest fo the evening. Then on Tuesday we went to see Wallace & Gromit which was slightly more straightforward! Funny, but perhaps my sense of humour has moved on somewhat in 10 years...

And so the sick days continue as I hope to get better while (despite all the distractions mentioned above) doing a rather respectable amount of work. I believe I have tonight to properly stick at my work while tomorrow evening is Steve's bithday meal...

Intellectual Honesty: Tony Blair

2005-10-16T23:21:00.000+01:00

If Tony Blair had any intellectual honesty:

Scene: Downing Street

[Blair is walking up to the door to Number 10 when the police walk up to him]

Police Officer: I'm sorry sir, if you'd like to come with us...

Blair: There must be some kind of terrible mistake. I'm the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom!

[Author's note: That does indeed prove that there has been a terrible mistake, but not like he is thinking!]

P.O.: No sir, I have a warrant here to detain you under the Terrorism Act.

Blair: Detain me? Why? For how long?

P.O.: Um sir, you should well know that I am not required to give any explanation for your detention. [Looks at warrant] And according to this, I am to hold you for the full three months if possible.

Blair: The full three months! [Sighs] Well, I suppose it is for the security of the nation. [Holds up hands for handcuffs] Alright, let's get going.

P.O.: Very good, sir.

Blair: Will I be allowed to see my wife?

P.O.: Probably not, I'm afraid.

Blair: But what about in her capacity as a lawyer?

P.O.: [Laughs] Mr Blair, you did help draft the Act, remember! Now come on...

Blair: Oh well, I suppose. Oh dear, I wonder who will run the country while I'm away... [A moment's pause, then his eyes widen] Wait a minute, who signed that warrant?!

Scene: Press Conference at Number 10

Reporter: Mr Brown, while you seem to be settling into your new role comfortably, the public is still desperate to know - just where is Mr Blair?

Brown: [Pause, then a hint of a smile] Oh, I couldn't possibly say...

Work Timetable - Week 1

2005-10-16T19:57:00.000+01:00

Don't feel that any of you have to take an interest in this - I'm putting this up mostly for my benefit (in case I lose the piece of paper):

Week 1

Day - Subject - Type - Time

Sun - Tort - Textbook - 40mins
Sun Total - 40mins

Mon - Tort - Textbook - 2h 45mins
- Trusts - Introductory Textbook - 1h
- Trusts - Textbook - 3h 45mins
Mon Total - 7h 30mins

Tue - Trusts - Cases / Articles - 6h 30mins
Tue Total - 6h 30mins

Wed - Trusts - Cases / Articles - 4h
Wed Total - 4h

Thur - Contract - Lecture - 1h
- Tort - Lectures - 2h
- Trusts - Articles - 4h 15mins
Thur Total - 7h 15mins

Fri - Contract - Lecture - 1h
- Land - Lecture - 1h
- Trusts - Revision - 30mins
- Trusts - Tutorial - 1h
- Trusts - Lecture - 1h
Fri Total - 4h 30mins

Sat - Tort - Cases / Articles - 4h 30mins
Sat Total - 4h 30mins

Totals:

Trusts Reading List 1 - 20h
Week Total - 34h 55mins

Intellectual Honesty: George W. Bush

2005-10-12T20:21:00.000+01:00

If George W. Bush had any intellectual honesty:

Scene: The Oval Office

[Bush watches the statue of Saddam topple on TV]

Bush: Yeah! Take that Saddam! How's that for regime change?

Aide: Well done, Mr. President.

Bush: Now, who's next on the Axis of Evil? [Takes out crumpled piece of paper and squints at it] Uh, Zimbooble? Zimbawibble?

Aide: I think that's Zimbabwe, sir.

Bush: Excellent! Says here they have a repressive regime and sham elections. [Picks up phone] Rummy, now it's time to invade Zimba- Uh, that African place. [Puts down phone] Take that, President Moogabooga! [Takes out piece of paper]. Now, who's next?

Aide: Uh sir, shouldn't you concentrate on one country at a time? We don't have infinite resources...

Bush: Phooey! We're America, and we're here to bring freedom wherever it's not! [Looks at paper] Next, we'll go for...Saudi Arabia! Says here the regime is always abuserizing human rights.

Aide: But sir, the USA gains much from good relations with the Saudi Government...

Bush: That doesn't matter! We get into these wars in the name of freedom, not for our own benefit! There's no 'I' in America!

Aide: Uh...

Bush: Well, not the way I pronounce it.

Aide: Right. But, but, Saudi Arabia provides us with lots of oil.

Bush: Well, sucks to their oil! It's a nasty colour and, and it smells funny. [Looks proud of self. Picks up phone] Rummy, bomb Saudi Arabia!

Aide: Oh dear, dear me...

Bush: [Looks at paper] Next, we'll go for...The United Kingdom! Says here they're languishing under an unelected monarchy! [Picks up phone] Rummy, prepare to attack the UK- Oh, hehehe! Silly me, I like the UK! My Blair-bear lives there. [Looks around] Okay, which one of you pranksters put the UK on the Axis of Evil? Hehehe.

Aide: Oh dear... Uh, maybe that's enough for one day.

Bush: Maybe you're right.

[Phone rings, Bush picks it up]

Bush: Hello? NASA? Ooh, you're the space guys! What's that? Oh, really? Right... [Puts down phone]

Aide: What was that?

Bush: [Picks up helmet and starts pushing it onto his head] NASA have discovered life on another planet! A whole civilisation of beings we can't hope to understanderize!

Aide: Well that's wonderful news...

Bush: [Finishes putting on helmet. It's an astronaut's helmet] Yeah, they're apparently controlled by some kind of space dictator! And you know what that means...

Aide: Oh God no.

Bush: Yeah! [Picks up a light sabre which hums into life] It's time to use...the forces! The armed forces, that is. Hehehe.

Down The Bop

2005-10-09T19:56:00.000+01:00

For Saturday night, I planned what we should do. We were to meet in my room at 9:00pm, head to college and to the bar (which I had not yet visited this term), then when it closed, to the bop which was to take place also in Hertford. Basically, the plan succeeded. It was a fun night.

The group ended up as me, Abi, Rich, Steve, Emma, Dan (Emma's boyfriend), Sarah and Dave. We got to the bar about 10 and set up camp at one of the tables with our drinks. I had a coke and Steve had a vodka and coke, which presented Rich with his opportunity. As soon as I was distracted he swapped them round, but I easily caught him in the act. The problem was telling which was which. I sniffed them but of course vodka is odourless, so it was up to Steve to work it out. He took a sip of one and told me it was his, so I happily took a gulp of the other one. Bastard. Should have known he and Rich would have been in cahoots somehow! Man, vodka burns the throat. It also makes the coke taste like it's gone off...

I decided right then to get back at Rich. I don't think Steve had realised that I really don't drink, and anyway he was just following Rich in it. Rich is the brains of the couple, affectionately known as 'Dickie' by his other half. My revenge was quick and simple: I pennied him. For those who have not come across this concept, it is where one puts a penny in the other's drink, thus forcing said person to down it. Rich had a good three quarters of a pint left when I pennied him. And just to give it a sweet taste of irony, the reason he had left his pint unguarded was to get a penny from his wallet to do the same to Dave!

I assume that it must have been downing the pint which got Rich pretty trashed last night, as he didn't seem to drink much else. However, he was drunk enough that when we arm wrestled not long afterwards, and I was blatently winning, he quickly resorted to digging his finger nails in! For shame, Rich. Abi has photographic proof of the result, as well. And I still won :-P.

Soon afterwards the bar closed and we went outside ready to enter the Bop Cellar (yes, it's really called that). Dave, Em and Dan headed off, and I found I had a missed call from Smo. I rang him back and he explained that he was trying to get hold of Sarah (there's no reception down the bar). I told him I'd tell her to ring him, but he asked why I couldn't just hand the phone to her. Uh, because I'm paying for the phonecall, Smo.

So the (not unexpected) result of their chat was that we hung around outside waiting for him to arrive. We met the (I think only) Computer Scientist of the new freshers and chatted to him. He had clearly earned Beast's respect, as the big man himself had given him a beer. We had all seen Beast down the bar earlier as he, Dickie Oldroyd and others are still in Oxford and see the Hertford bar as home (and the cheapest pint available in the city, no doubt).

So Smo arrived and we entered the Bop Cellar. It was not so grand at first, as the music was not the ordinary cheese that Hertfordians (particularly drunk ones) know and love, and it kept stopping at random times. Smo and Sarah soon left, and didn't come back. There's a shocker. The remaining four of us (me, Abi, Rich and Steve) stuck it out to the end and were rewarded with some proper tunes like 'The One and Only' and 'Scatman'. We headed out at the end and to Hassan's for our first kebabs of the term. As a veggie, I of course got lovely cheesy chips, and Abi as usual helped herself to a few. We got to the Exeter college (Steve's college) JCR to eat and drink. Finally with an incredible effort we got a very tired Abi and Rich (tired for different reasons!) to get up and come back to Ab House.

And after talking to Gwen on MSN late at night, I fell soundly asleep.

BTW, I have no idea what happened to Rich and Steve after they staggered back to the former's room. However, I was assured by Blath over MSN that Steve did get back eventually, which is something. As to the rest, we can but specualate... Don't worry Rich, I still love you. Just not as much as Steve, it seems... :-0

The Collection And Beyond

2005-10-08T16:20:00.000+01:00

Well, the Collection was a 'mare. I hate Contract Law with a passion. It was the cause of much stress last term, and now I had to sit a three hour paper on it. I had got down to revision about a week and a half before coming up, but rather than focussing on Contract I had gone through Tort instead, partly because the tutor had suggested starting the work on Pure Economic Loss (which I did), partly because we will still be studying it this term (unlike Contract, thankfully!) and partly because I vastly prefer Tort. It was only a few days before coming up that I started revising Contract, and realised just how much I had forgotten about it. Once I got back I revised as much as was possible, but none of it was really going in. Worse, with one day to go I had a full half of the syllabus to revise.

So, in between meetings on Thursday (one with my new Trusts tutor at Merton College, one with my Hertford tutors, lawyers' drinks where we met the freshers and a pseudo-Exec meeting with four of us), I desperately studied Misrepresentation to a decent degree, and attempted to understand Mistake. The last two weeks on Remedies were skimmed through at high speed. Late into the night I tried to remember cases until my brain automatically switched off at 1:15am, and I collapsed, defeated.

The Collection went about as well as it could have. I found myself unable to remember any but the most important and best-named cases, but most of the principles were still floating around in my head. I took the unusual step of doing one essay and three problem questions, rather than two of each, because it was hard to find essays on subjects I knew sufficient about! Still I just about managed to get through it.

Now I'm on tenterhooks for the results. If I get less than 50% (baring in mind that the practical maximum is 70%) then I have to retake, and if less than 40% I get put on probation, which is far closer to the possibility of being sent down (chucked out) than I want to consider. My fellow lawyers were all panicked up to the exam, but responses to the paper have been varied. In all honesty I'm really hoping not to be much below the other lawyers...

That night we went to Dave's place at Warnock House (the rest of us live nearby at Abingdon House) to watch my Team America DVD and finish off the chocolate cake my grandma generously made. Tonight we are going DTB (down the bar) and to the '007' themed bop. Should make for a good weekend before the inevitable hard work from Monday...

The Last Night at Home

2005-10-04T19:01:00.000+01:00

Well, I'm back at university now. It was a good summer while it lasted. I haven't finished the second book yet, but I got a good way through it at least. I did finish the Matriculatrix though (as previously mentioned) which was gratifying. I also saw plenty of Abi, including a trip to Centre Parcs and the sailing trip. I worked enough to get some money, and went from my first ever driving lesson to reasonable competence. Finally, I also got to see most of my friends from home, some many times (sorry to those I didn't see, I will try at Christmas!).

So it came down to the last night before returning to my alma mater, good old Oxford U. I had take-away Indian food with my parents, which was satisfying but a challenge to my stomach! Then I went out with Claire, to meet Dav in The Eagle Vaults in town for a last night out.

During the night out, I managed to spend a grand total of 50p. This is how:

As Claire and I entered I went up to get us drinks and met Matt at the bar. I stood behind him talking to him, ready to take his place when he moved. While he was being served another man slipped in next to him, looking to order. I took Matt's position and tried to catch the eye of the barman. However, the man now behind me, realising that I was looking to get served, started mouthing off at me, accusing me of pushing into the queue when he had been there '10 minutes'. I tried to ignore it but the guy was large and threatening, even when someone behind the bar told him to calm down. To prevent trouble I let him order first, thinking perhaps he had done it just to make sure he got his drinks in first.

Then something strange happened. Once he had ordered he apologised to me, apparently genuinely sorry for his behaviour. I told him it was alright but once he got his drinks, before moving off he handed me a £5, telling me that it was his apology. I cautiously accepted it and he went off. Bizarre. So, I got the round with the note, which came to £3.50 for the two of us. Claire reckoned he must have been on something. I don't know. If anything, I reckon he was just on alcohol and had a short fuse.

The upshot was that I spent much of the night in possession of an extra £1.50. Dav arrived and got himself a whisky. Later Claire drove home and Dav and I went to the Palace, Witney's temple to all that is cheesy. When there I met Emma Pilchard, who I hadn't seen since Year 11 Latin! Anyway, I ended up getting another ridiculously cheap round for me and Dav which cost £2, and we went home not long after. Therefore overall I was only down 50p, a good way to end a reasonably expensive holiday.

Now I'm back at uni, and I really need to study if I want to get a half-decent mark on my Collection (mock exam)...

Smotographs

2005-10-01T17:53:00.000+01:00

Well the Henry Box Forum's second photo competition has finished, and it is time to vote. So everyone who's registered, please do! The subject was lovable rogue Smo, and here is the thread with all the entries: Smo Photo Competition. Here is the voting page: Smo Photo Poll. Here are my entries to it:

The Passion of the Smo

Jon Bon Smovi

ConSMOvative

Also, for those interested, here is the previous photo competition, with me as the subject: Peter Photo Competition. 'Rock Your Body' by Dav won most creative, and 'Hedgehog Pete' by Gwen won most visually impressive.

Dav's Party

2005-09-26T18:33:00.000+01:00

Well Thursday was quite a day...

Firstly there was the punting where Dav managed to climb over a bridge as the punt went under. The first time it was fine, but the second time there were...complications.
(I hope to link to the video if it goes up!)

Then there was the par-tay, billed as the event of the Summer (which was probably true!). It was Dav's 21st, and he had mates from my year and the year above at school, from the leisure centre where he sometimes works, from Nottingham University and from other sources no doubt. He had booked out Baby Love Bar at Oxford (nice place, but somewhat 'spensive, people!) from 7:00pm to 2:00am, on the condition that £1000 cross the bar that night. Now come on, do they really get close to that on a normal night?? Anyway, to get us started Dav had put £200 on a tab for us to take advantage of. Personally I would have put it as the *last* £200, not the first, so people had to pay in order to get to the free stuff. But whatever.

Well not all the events which took place that night are reportable, like admissions of illegality which might get people in trouble (and no Grum, for once I'm not talking about you :-P ). Still, there was more than enough to comment on:

* Shafter (Andy) had his hair in a pony tail. OMG. The Art Student side of him is taking over. I worry terribly for what will happen to him at university, without the relative normality of people here like me, Abi, Ming, Dav, Smo, Matt... Uh, relative normality? Actually forget it, if the pony tail is the strangest thing that happens to him, he will have got out lightly!

* The pole dancing. This started quite early, and for a long time was sadly male-only. Even your resident blogger himself had a turn. Dav certainly did, as did Ming, Matt, and plenty of others. Dav and Matt did male-male pole dancing, as did Dav and his mate Rich, apparently. Oh, and as the night went on and the alcohol flowed, more women took to the pole. What that says about the genders, I don't quite know...

* Dav got drunk. Not really a shocker, but definitely one to be mentioned. It was kind of the theme of the evening, especially as he told us going in that he fully aimed to end up smashed. Oh, did he succeed... I reckon he was properly gone by 11. He managed to get outside to throw up, and then was kept upright by a number of us, and prevented (for at least some time) from re-entering. That was how the following dialogue arose:

Dav: Let me back in to my club!

Ian: It's not your club, Dav. You just hired it.

Dav: I...paid for it! I even paid for...the bouncers!

Ian: There's only one bouncer, Dav.

Pete: It probably looks to him like there's two by now.

Ian: He can probably see eight, I'll bet.

Dav: Yeah, I've got an army of bouncers! (Weakly attempts to sing the Imperial March from Star Wars)

He needed two people to carry him about most of the time. I bet he wished his mum and gran weren't there, although his mum at least told me that she was going to turn a blind eye to his antics of that night - definitely a good thing. He still managed to get back into the bar occasionally, apparently on the promise that he would not drink more. Yes, because that will happen. Anyway, at least Vish made sure he had water, and I got him an orange juice which I allowed him to assume had alcohol in.

* Matt blew two party blowers with his nostrils. Word.

* Smo arrived and got them doing tequila stuntmen. This is where you snort up some salt, take a shot of tequila then squeeze a lemon into your eye. He did two, and Dav and others did one. The only really worrying thing about this was that Smo then drove people home at the end. To be fair it was about three hours later and to his credit they were all fine. Still, it did get me slightly worried.

*Foxy smoked. I know Abi's sick of hearing this, but it really was a shocker. He apparently smokes when drunk. Well, I knew that Smo smokes when he wants to get drunk as it thins the blood and so makes it quicker and cheaper. Still, this was something quite different. He also offered it around. Jimmy took a few puffs, but it was refused by me, Ming, Andy and Matt.

* The dancing was wonderfully cheesy after 10, when the DJ arrived. All the classics were pumped out, and I was happy to join Dav and others in appreciating them. When Ghostbusters came on, Dav, Jimmy and I celebrated, (recalling how the three of us came into school on the last day dressed as Ghostbusters, in Dav's mum's car which had been fitted out as the Ghostbustermobile). Dav and Andy attempted to remember the Men In Black dance routine Dav had created for the school variety show (and Dav still did better, despite being significantly drunker). The Macarena made an appearance, along with the approriate dance, as did The Timewarp. Classic.

* A rather drunken Jimmy talked to Abi. After mistaking her for Sarah (my ex-girlfriend) he then randomly started telling her about Shelley and other things. On the positive side, he seems to like Abi, although there may have been more drink talking than Jim!

* I only heard about this later, thanks to the school forum, but we did get this gem from Smo, talking to Grum about sex (what else?):

Smo: Does she take it up the wrong-un?

Grum: It's not something I would wanna do; it seems a bit gay.

Smo: No her putting on a strap-on and giving YOU one up the gary would be too gay.

For added effect, the music cut out for just the last few words of Smo's line, leaving people staring at him, confused and a little worried.

* Andy and I managed to get into a mock fight about something. It had something to do with him jabbing Abi for something (probably camera-related). I jumped on his back and he swung me about quite a bit.

* By the end, the only ones I noticed as really drunk were Dav (getting the prize for drunkest, by far), Jimmy (who had trouble with words) and Foxy (who by contrast turned into Mr. Suave). Grum and Ming were surprisingly sober, given the amount they had drunk. Smo was sober by necessity. All the girls managed to stay pretty sensible (although given the male : female ratio, this was less surprising!).

* When I changed from punting, I left my casual shirt, shoes and fleece in a plastic bag which ended up in Dav's mum's car. Unfortunately the food was then packed into it at the end of the night so I couldn't get to it when it was time to go home. Result: I went to Abi's house in London from Fri - Sun wearing for the most part an old pair of white trainers!

* And as far as I can tell, we were still £300 short by the end of the night...

Well, it was quite a party. If there's anything I have forgotten, please remind me and I will probably add it in at an appropriate point. Cheers all!

Crazy Pete

2005-09-18T01:04:00.000+01:00

When preparing to go to uni, the Freshers' Week team asked for unusual photos of us, to stick in the freshers' booklet. I sent in this, taken in a photo booth, but sadly they must not have received them as none ever showed up in the booklet. Indeed, the set seemed to have been lost...until now.

By the way, I'm pretty sure it was Smo trying and failing to do bunny ears on me in the third pic.

Me, me, me, me.

One For Dav, Perhaps?

2005-09-17T15:46:00.000+01:00

In Defense of Ewoks

So true. So true.

My Thoughts On Abortion

2005-09-16T22:05:00.000+01:00

Over the past few days I have made three posts on my other, essay-based, blog giving some of my thoughts on abortion. If anyone is interested I would love to have feedback on them in their comments sections, particularly on the second one.

[Click 'Show Original Post' after clicking the link if necessary]

Abortion And Sex
Abortion And Autonomy
Abortion And Rape

Thanks.

Yaaaargh! Ahoy Mateys!

2005-09-13T19:45:00.000+01:00

Yes, I've been sailing for the past few days with Abi, Andy, Gwen and Gwen's grandad. And yes, I did on occasion utter somewhat piratical phrases. That was me getting into the spirit. Ahem.

Of course, we were not engaged in actual piracy. Nor, for the most part, actual sailing. Due to an unfortunate lack of wind we only really managed to use the sails once, and on that day the weather was so extreme that we only stayed out for a relatively short while before heading back to our berth.

While we didn't *crash* the boat per se, there was an incident with a lock. We entered while there was still a great deal of turbulence and ended up at the mercy of the swirling waters. That meant that the back of the boat smashed (see, not crashed...) into the side of the lock, snapping a wooden board holding a motor (for the dinghy) in place. Nothing too drastic, although it was rather embarrassing hopelessly swirling around with the lock master shouting at us to get tied up!

So I'm back, and ready to start updating again. Yaaaargh!

Bloggers On Katrina

2005-09-05T01:45:00.000+01:00

Okay, I have to note this down, having found the outrageous symmetry too much to pass by (note that liberal and conservative are used purely in their US contexts):

1. A liberal blog entry.

2. A conservative blog entry.

I am pretty much equally disgusted by both of these, and rather surprised at the dark side of human nature which has been revealed in these two blogs.

Let's have a look at 1.

"So why was I thinking of starting a movement against giving aid to the stricken areas?

Because these are red states. They voted for Bush. These ninnies obviously wanted these policies, and they deserve to live with the consequences of their votes."

So, his first reaction would have been to deny aid to victims of the hurricane, because they voted for Bush? He is very clear about this. For the record, I don't really dispute his attack on Bush's policies. What I oppose completely is the conclusion.

Even if we imagine that all the people affected were Bush supporters, and even if we were to conclude that they knew what they were letting themselves in for when they gave him their votes, that would still be absolutely no excuse to deny them aid! Come on, one of the key points of liberalism is compassion - leave the judgementalism to the conservatives. It is completely unforgivable to say that because of such poor choices, these people should be left to die horribly. If you can't see that, I don't think that much hope is left really.

His final conclusion to reject this does not excuse him because he does it only because he worries that Democrats will also be killed. This whole thing is, to me, completely immoral and disgusting. As a liberal myself, I feel sick that such a piece could come on a liberal blog.

On to 2.

"It's nice, it's charitable to help people out in either situation, but in neither case does the fact that a person is hungry give them the right to just take whatever they want."

The above is applied to essentials like food and clean water just as anything else. More arguments are given for this position than in the above, but the conclusion is equally vile. He is defending the starving and dehydrating people of New Orleans being denied the chance to retrieve essential supplies from deserted property.

There are four arguments here. The first is that the people to whom the property belongs would not feel it right to allow their property to be taken. To which I reply: You must balance interests. The right to property is important, but surely superceded by a genuine and desperate need for such things to survive. Surely this is common sense? It is like the old stealing bread to feed starving family problem, in its purest form. There really is no alternative.

Secondly, and most horribly, it is argued that these people deserve no better:

"Besides, what's the difference between: "Gee, I decided to stay in town after I was told to evacuate and I'm hungry," and "Gee, I didn't want to get a job and I'm hungry?" In either case, it's hunger caused by your own irresponsibility."

I will not go into socio-economics about how ignorant it is to assume that all people in poverty are their due to there own choices / laziness. Most sane people already know this. But even if we assumed he was right, just as in link 1, that does not justify depriving these people of their lives in horrible ways, for having made mistakes in the past. If nothing else, what about all the children suffering for their parents' 'fault' of poverty?

Thirdly, it is argued that accepting essential looting opens the door to non-essential looting. And fourthly, he argues that the distinction is impractical. Both of these are reasonable points, but do nothing to suggest that preventing all looting, even for essentials, is the answer. Most likely he is the type to desperately need black and white rules of what is right and wrong. Sorry mate, welcome to the real world.

Both of these are despicable conclusions based, I would argue, on a complete lack of empathy and compassion. I for one find them detestable and would hope that I am not alone.

NOTES: I would like to stress that neither of these opinions represent the mainstream of thought on hurricane relief / looting in either school of politics. Neither are, as far as I can tell, particularly prominent. However, I would argue that 2 is more closely based on US conservatism (neo-conservatism) than 1 is on US liberalism. This is because 2 relies on some good old mainstays of neo-conservatism: Blaming poverty on the poor, rough justice, and valuing property above lives (or, in a more class-war sense, the propertied above the lower classes).

I would also like to note the irony that I found 1 on a link from 2's blog. He had the gall to criticise it! Pot, meet kettle.

Also, scroll down from 2 to see more posts on the issue.

Temporary Work

2005-09-03T09:02:00.000+01:00

Well, I didn't guarantee the satire would be brilliant, did I? Meh, if people liked it, feel free to comment. In fact, always feel free to comment.

Just wanted to put down my thoughts about the jobs I have done so far. It is not an incredible list. I have been unable to find proper jobs, and prefer flexibility anyway. Therefore, I do temp work. I've just finished it for this Summer, so here is my CV so far:

Last Summer:
Helped a cartographer map out levels in an old car park - 1 day.
Making / sorting packaging for computer games - 1 day.
Washed up and served in a company canteen - 4 days.

This Summer:
Picked out bad eggs and packed boxes at egg factory - 3 days.
Removed labels from plastic safety devices - 4 days.

So what's to learn from this? Well, firstly, that manual labour can be the pits. The absolute worst was the packaging computer games. Like a fool, I heard "You will be working with computer games" and thought "Ooh, I like them! It'll be fun!" Rookie mistake. After that, it was the egg factory. The stress of preventing the conveyor belts from building up a backlog, spewing eggs all over the floor was actually pretty acute.

But do you know the big difference which made these bad and made the de-labelling reasonably pleasant? In the latter I got a chair. I got to sit down rather than stand up all day. That's definitely worth something. Sitting down to work is wonderful. It gives me another reason to get my degree and get lawyering. Yes I'll be standing up in court, but for a lot of the time I'll be *sitting at my desk*! Excellent!

The other thing that caught my imagination was the job title I got for this latest job. Labelling Assistant. Hmm. Got me wondering whether it would look good on my actual CV. I mean, think about it. I get to put on my CV "Temporary Work:" and then describe the jobs I did. Nice titles like that aren't such a bad way to go. So, let's think about the others, shall we?

Temporary Work:
Cartographer's Assistant [Nice and simple.]
Packing Assistant
Kitchen Assistant
Quality Control Assistant [Bling! Just for removing bad eggs...]
Labelling Assistant

You see? Of course I'm an assistant in each, since it's temp work, but it looks much better than the original list I made, doesn't it? That's using your head...

Somewhat Random Satire

2005-09-03T07:35:00.000+01:00

How Charlie Joined Fightstar

Fightstar: Well your resume is certainly impressive given the number of Top 10 hits your first band had in a rather short space of time. However, we’re just not sure you’re right for Fightstar. You see, we’re proper metal, and you were…well practically a boyband.

Charlie: Uh, that’s just not true! We spoke from the heart.

Fightstar: About attractive air hostesses and time travel?

Charlie: Don’t forget the Thunderbirds.

Fightstar: We’re really not sure this is a good idea… After all, why would you want to leave a band with such international success as Busted?

Charlie: Funny you should ask, cause I’ve prepared a song that should explain all that and persuade you to let me join!

Fighstar: Did you write it?

Charlie: Uh, I co-wrote it, like most of Busted’s songs…

Fightstar: Figures. Fine, go ahead.

Charlie: Ahem.

[To the same tune as the hit from ‘Grease’]

We’ve had hits, they're multiplyin', but my future’s looking bleak
Cause I’ve been to the year 3000, and Busted’s looking kinda weak.

You better shape up, cause I need a band,
and my heart is set on you
You better shape up, you better understand,
to my roots I must be true
Cause I’m a rocker through and through!

You're the one that I want (you are the one I want),
ooh ooh ooh, money!
The one that I want (you are the one I want),
ooh ooh ooh, money!
The one that I want (you are the one I want),
ooh ooh ooh,
I won’t settle
Until I’m singing Nu Metal!

If you're faced with dejection,
Not enough fame comes your way
Bag a singer from a pop group, get more pay.

I better shape up, cause you need a singer
To keep the fans satisfied
I better shape up, prove I’m not a minger
In my dulcet tones you should take pride
Hiring me’s not suicide!

You're the one that I want (you are the one I want),
ooh ooh ooh, money!
The one that I want (you are the one I want),
ooh ooh ooh, money!
The one that I want (you are the one I want),
ooh ooh ooh,
We’ll go far
If I can join Fightstar!

You're the one that I want (you are the one I want),
ooh ooh ooh, money!
The one that I want (you are the one I want),
ooh ooh ooh, money!
The one that I want (you are the one I want),
ooh ooh ooh,
With my looks and voice
Do you have a choice?

[End]

Fightstar: Wow. You’re so right. With you in the band we’ll have no trouble making it into the mainstream. How can we lose?

Charlie: Excellent! So I’ll be lead singer?

Fightstar: No, I think you’d be better suited to backing vocals.

Charlie: Okay. Buy I’ll get to write lyrics, right?

Fightstar: Um, we’ll get back to you on that one.

And so the next stage of Charlie’s epic music journey began…

A Little About Me

2005-09-03T07:30:00.000+01:00

So here's about me, which is pretty pointless since I doubt many people will come here who don't know me already...

Okay, so my profile says I am a cynical idealist. I swing between cynical and naive. I belive that no matter an action, if at all possible someone somewhere would do it, for the right price. Or because they enjoy it. That's cynical. On the other hand I tend to be quite trusting of my friends, and I often defend the actions of public figures, putting the best possible light on it. Go figure.

I'm idealistic in that I believe that there is hope, and that while I might not be the one to make a difference in this flawed world, if enough people try then someone will manage.

I'm also an atheist, a secularist, a liberal, a Liberal Democrat, a republican (anti-monarchist, not in any way a fan of Bush) and a Law student. I could go on about any of them, and I probably will at some point. Suffice to say that that's a reasonable textbook summary of me.

I don't have many hobbies. At the moment writing is my primary hobby. I am busy writing my second novel, the second in a series of fantasy books. I wrote the first one last summer. That means that my mind has been working over the world of the stories for over a year now. I love stories. That's why I make them up. I can participate in them more wholly than when reading them or even watching them on TV or at the cinema. I can craft them and make them mine...while trying to make them interesting for others. I love it.

Another hobby I enjoy is writing satire. This was first really engaged about a year and a half ago. I was in my last year of Sixth Form, heading for my A Levels. I was taught History by the Head of History, Mr. South. He was a very unique character, and we had a strange relationship. He could irritate me incredibly, yet often kept me incredibly amused with his bizarre stories and way of being.

I was sitting around chatting with my chums when I came up with a rather random yet humorous idea - that Mr. South, or 'Southy', could secretly be a superhero saving the world from the forces of evil. And so Southman was born. My style was soon set: Scripts written as if for a play, satirising numerous and sometimes random targets. I ended up writing seven episodes of Southman, warmly received by the friends to whom I showed them.

The next big project after that took many many months. Having started university that summer, I began to work on a satire of my college, Hertford, and some of the legendary characters in its ranks. I made it as a parody of The Matrix, using a script of the film to get the dialogue right. It was called...The Matriculatrix. However, due somewhat to laziness and other factors, I didn't finish it at Christmas, nor at Easter. Nope, it was only this Summer that I finished it, and I'm awaiting more feedback...

Yeah, it's not particularly interesting to read about the satire I've done. So just for you, I'm going to put one of my smaller (and more random) works in the next post. You lucky things...

First Post

2005-09-03T06:46:00.000+01:00

So, I started off blogging in an enthusiasm to get down all my exciting philosophical ideas. I managed to bemuse some people and completely failed to keep it going. But I like having some kind of public forum to say random things. Hence starting a new blog. Rather than attempting to be profound, its purpose will just change with what I want to say. Sometimes I want to be funny. Humour me. Other times I will want to be random or just reflective.

Ah well, let's go with it and see if this blog fades into the background like my last one!