Slave Labour For Her Majesty's Jubilee? Heads Must Roll

I don't think I need to remind you that I'm a royalist, and I absolutely adore the Jubilee. Driving through the villages of west Kent yesterday I was thrilled to see all the bunting and village parties. Flags were flying and children were having fun, nothing better for a Bank Holiday weekend national celebration.

But perhaps what you may not know is just how despicable I find "Workfare". As someone with libertarian sympathies I find the concept of the Government forcing people to work quite appalling. It is nothing but slave labour, in my opinion.  

So I was somewhat aghast this morning to see this story in the Guardian.

Firstly, and most importantly, is the way in which we are treating unemployed people as slave labour. It's bad enough making them go to work for no pay, but forcing them to camp out? I had never even considered that as an option. Who thought that making people do work they probably don't want to do AND camp out in the cold was a reasonable thing to do in 21st century Britain?

Secondly, and with quite worrying in its indications of the stupidity of those who arranged these workfare workers, who signed off on this? Her Majesty and Her Household have been VERY careful to avoid controversy. They have avoided using public money to pay for the Jubilee as much as possible. I am quite convinced nobody in a position of responsibility in the Royal Household would have signed off on this, due to the bad PR this would lead to. Because this is AWFUL PR. Someone has brought Her Majesty into disrepute here by tying her Diamond Jubilee celebrations with the extremely controversial Workfare scheme. This shows a level of idiocy I never could have imagined.

Someone is responsible for this. Someone must be held accountable because abusing the unemployed in this way and at the same time bringing our monarch into murky political waters is perhaps the most intolerable thing I've seen in the UK in a long time.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

The Announcement

So, today we got the announcement that we'd all been expecting. Religious civil partnerships will be allowed to go ahead following last year's consultation. And another consultation was announced regarding the future of marriage and civil partnership equality.

Nothing to get excited about there then. I know, people are gushing about how great this is. But seriously... we're limping towards the finishing line here. However, to keep us amused I assume, we have had a few "hilarious" moments this week.

In position three... we have Ed Miliband calling for further progress on marriage equality. Not only is he from the party that so singularly failed to introduce any moves towards it but he's not always been so positive.

In second position... oh how the might have fallen. My respect for Michael White has plummeted after he suggested only those able to procreate should marry. That is a terribly out of date argument that's been defeated time and again. What was he thinking???

And in first place... Ben Summerskill. I'll leave you with this headline from the King of BS, please do not laugh too hard:

Government is ‘painfully slow’ on gay marriage

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Opposing The Death Penalty

Am I the only person who is scared by the fact that we must convince people that the death penalty is wrong? Are people so willing to trust those "in power" as to allow them the ability to murder citizens?

Why mention it? Well, this CiF piece in the Guardian wants us to look again at the arguments against it so we are prepared against those calling for it's return.

I have often been taken aback at the fact people are even willing to allow for miscarriages of justice and "wrongful" executions as "collateral damage". The bloodlust among many people seems almost insatiable.

Let's stop calling it the death penalty. Stop calling it capital punishment. These are euphemisms. What it is is STATE MURDER. And we MUST defend against that, for giving the state that much power over citizens would be utter folly.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

It's Not Just Murdoch and The Daily Fail Who Spin

Last week saw a feeble flurry of attacks on the Liberal Democrats, and specifically our leader Nick Clegg, by the "right wing press". The Torygraph, the Daily Express, the Daily Fail and the Sun pounced and then drew back (no doubt in wait for another opportunity to attack again shortly).

That is unsurprising. As someone who is in a centre-left party, a homosexual, a sceptic, and a Europhile it is hardly shocking to me to see them launching these sort of attacks. Par for the course, as they say.

I've been a Guardian reader since, at least, the year 2000, I'm under no illusions as to what sort of paper that is and, knowing the editorial slant, can usually read between the lines to the kernel of truth at the heart of any story (or even comment). I assume (no... pray!) that those who read the right wing tabloids do the same.

However even taking into account the Labour bias of the paper, I was disgusted to see today's headline story. What they implied was that Nick Clegg would not form a coalition with Labour if they came third in terms of popular vote. This is not what he said.

"It seems to me that it's just preposterous, the idea that if a party comes third in terms of the number of votes, it still has the right to carry on squatting in No 10 and continue to lay claim to having the prime minister of the country," he said.

"What I'm saying here is pointing at a very, very irrational possible outcome of our potty electoral system, which is that a party that has spectacularly lost the election … could nonetheless according to constitutional tradition and convention still lay claim to providing the prime minister of the country.""

He's said here, in a nutshell, "If the election throws up a rogue result of Labour losing popular vote and coming third but winning most number of seats, they shouldn't get Number 10". Therefore, implying, they don't get their guy (Brown or whoever) to be Prime Minister (a job Mr Clegg will certainly want for himself, he is a politician after all!).

Simples. But the Guardian chose to spin it, and for very transparent reasons; they are terrified Labour is about to collapse. This was no less a smear on Nick Clegg than calling him a Nazi, and in smearing him by suggesting he'd only consider the Tories suitable partners the Guardian was trying to terrify wavering Labour supporters into sticking with the tired old, authoritarian party that Labour has become out of fear of a Tory victory.

I know, it's ridiculous, but I felt almost personally affronted by the article. It's sheer CHEEK in suggesting what it was suggesting in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary was infuriating. I expect more of the paper I read, and have thus made the sad decision to give up on the Guardian. I'm turning to the Independent, whose editorial line I've always found confusing and whose website truly sucks but at least I know my money won't be going to support some backward, regressive paper who is willing to spin a story to prop up a war-mongering, civil liberties destroying, half-heartedly reforming mess of a party.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Comment Is Vile

I have just read one of the most vile blog posts I've ever seen on the Guardian's "Comment Is Free" site. Wanna read it?

Basically Neil Clark thinks some Iraqi interpreters for the British Armed Forces should be left in Iraq to face a higher than average chance of death (which in Iraq is thus pretty much certain death!), because they foolishly agreed to assist the British Army by interpreting for them (for the princely sum of 16 quid a day).

I suggest we send Neil to Iraq to report on events there and pay him 16 quid a day (he says it's a decent wage over there). Oh and don't provide him any security, after all I'm sure he thinks that is too much to ask for doing an honest days work for this country.

I'm against the occupation of Iraq. But I don't think you can equate our troops in Iraq to the Nazis so I don't think you can equate the Iraqi interpreters to Quisling. They have worked for us and as such deserve our protection and thanks. It's called human decency. Whatever the crimes committed by Bush and Blair we cannot abandon a small group of people who we at least have the chance to save.

Bring them here and give them a chance to live.

P.S. I think I might stop buying the Guardian while Neil Clark writes for them. What a nasty man he is.