2010 in Dicks

2011 has started and seems disappointingly familiar, but it gives us all a chance to look back at the year just gone. And I felt that I'd look back at all the dicks who have made the world slightly worse. And where better to start than...

THE CONSERVATIVE-LEAD GOVERNMENT: We all knew it was coming. There was no way that New Labour could hold on any longer, but the popularity of the Liberal Democrats (a phrase that is as laughable now as it was last January) just kept the Tories from a majority. And then gave them the MPs they needed anyway. Much of the anger has been (rightly) directed at Nick Clegg for backtracking on virtually every promise that made him so popular in the first place, but let's not forget that to bend to the every whim of the Conservative Party, there needs to be Conservative policies to begin with. So whilst Cameron and Osborne are happily pissing on everyone, let's not take out all of our anger on the guy pointing and laughing.

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: This was the year when Paul Chambers was convicted for an illegal use of irony, but at least he was fortunate enough not to end up in hospital at the hands of the police (allegedly, of course). Surely the worst injustice of the year is of the rape victim jailed for eight months for retracting her genuine allegations. Though she has since been released, she still has to fight for her children. The husband had all the charges against him dropped, begging the question: How can they convict someone of falsely retracting allegations of sexual assault, and yet not convict the (therefore genuine) rapist? It saddens me that the organisations that are suppose to protect me -- the police and the CPS -- have shown themselves to be thuggish and shockingly misguided.

JULIAN ASSANGE: Not for his work with WikiLeaks, an organisation which I support and I believe has done a remarkable amount of good work in revealing what it has, but for his entirely dick-ish remarks following the recent allegations against him. Sunny Hundal has compiled a brilliant piece on whether the accusations of conspiracy stand up, but regardless of his guilt or innocence (neither of which have yet been proven in court, and I would not like to speculate on it), he has recently said some phenomenally unpleasant things, such as claiming he fell into a "hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism", that Switzerland is the "Saudi Arabia of feminism", and that these women had got into a "tizzy" about something as trivial about the very serious subject of STDs. WikiLeaks would do very well without him.

KAY BURLEY, ADAM BOULTON AND BEN BROWN: 3 journalists, two working for Sky and one for the BBC. Boulton and Burley provided us with such shoddy journalism that people were compelled to shout at them in the street, but then at least you would expect that of Sky "News". Ben Brown's treatment of Jody McIntyre was a different matter, with the supposedly "impartial" BBC doing all they can to pin blame on a victim of a violent and horrific incident. The official statement from the editors completely misses the point. Would they really interview anyone in the same way? Is Crimewatch an interrogation of the victims, ascertaining whether they were "rolling towards" the criminals, perhaps? It was not a balanced view, but a disgusting display of victim-blaming.

NADINE DORRIES: I have tried several times to write a post about Dorries, about her 70% fictitious blog that she uses to make personal attacks on her constituents, but every time I begin I realise that Tim Ireland has said it earlier and better than I ever will (and been the victim of some vicious and nasty smearing as the result), so I'll just point you in his direction.

DANNY DYER AND ZOO MAGAZINE: Oh how we laughed back in May when Danny Dyer joked about cutting women's faces. Except we didn't, because it was deeply unpleasant. Dyer initially claimed to have been misquoted, but has since offered this apology, in which it becomes clear that the problem was that he was quoted, albeit an off-record aside. He has since resigned, and released the film Pimp to huge box-office takings of £205. Zoo magazine, however, which approved and printed the column, continues to be published to a wide readership.

THE POPE: An inevitable inclusion on this list, the Pope currently feels more like the head of SPECTRE than the Catholic Church. Accusation after accusation after accusation of child abuse and subsequent cover-ups have been leveled at Catholic Priests (too many to link to, but the length of this Wikipedia article is startling in itself), and yet all Ernst Stavro Blofeld and his lot have done is attack homosexuals, secularists, and women. I said back in September that

I will never be able to put into words the horror and sadness that I feel, knowing that there are millions of people who hold this hateful, bigoted, misogynistic homophobe in the highest regard possible.

Since then, the Pope has claimed that paedophilia wasn't a big deal in the '70s, and that child pornography is increasingly seen as "normal". Am I really expected to moral advice from a man who opposes the use of condoms more than child pornography?

So, that's why he's my Dick of 2010. Until the end of Monday you can vote for five dicks here (Cameron, Osborne, Dorries and Dyer were my other choices, by the way).

Happy New Year!

Our Side of the Occupation

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: All opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of other members of the Exeter University Open Occupation.

Anyone who has been following me on Twitter recently will probably be aware that I have been taking part in the Open Occupation of the largest lecture theatre in Exeter University. The harsh, ideological governments cuts must be fought, and so hundreds of us joined together to make a stand.

It all began on Wednesday, 8 December 2010. After a march organised by the Students' Guild, over a hundred of us continued back to the Newman A lecture theatre, taking over the room during a maths lecture, that, as with all lectures, we sat through and allowed to take place. Within an hour after this, we had a Facebook page, a Twitter feed, and a blog. It's been impossible to overstate the importance of social media and the blogosphere to publicise the occupation. Every decision, and every significant moment has been available for anyone to see, and the amount of support that came through via Twitter, Facebook and e-mail was a constant inspiration (not least the email of solidarity from Billy Bragg. BILLY BRAGG!).

The support we received from the University, and specifically the security and porters, was also incredibly heartening. We allowed all lectures that could not be moved to take place, albeit after reading out a notice at the beginning of each explaining that our aims and that we would remain silently sitting through the lecture with them. Sadly, we did not receive the support of the Guild, who claimed that they needed to act in the interests of all students. I find this confusing, given their support for the marches with the same aim. The occupation was peaceful, legal and did not disrupt lectures (some were cancelled on the first Thursday due to the University assuming we would not allow lectures in).

Friday saw a debate between Vice-Chancellor of Exeter University, and president of Universities UK, Steve Smith debate the future of HE funding with president of the NUS Aaron Porter. Since this debate was open only to University students, not students from the college, I live tweeted through it. We were not allowed signs or banners due to an alleged "health and safety risk" (a shorthand, it seems, for anything that's been banned, and I wonder where these ridiculous myths come from!) -- though, to be fair, the Guild president did apologise for this overzealous reaction (and his treatment by some was undeniably unfair). After the debate, Aaron Porter came around to support the occupation and answer questions.

Getting Steve Smith to recognise the Occupation was always going to be a priority, and so when he came round on the second Wednesday, wearing a name badge and in the circle as anyone else would be, it was a major coup. Again I tweeted through it, this time on the official Occupation feed, so you can see what he had to say here. Our research was thorough, and I at least was shocked to hear such an influential supporter of the fees rise describe the HE cuts as "ideological".

The unity and creativity in the occupation was incredible. We were all there for political reasons, but though the sleeping arrangements were tough, people seemed genuinely engaged. When we could schedule them, we had free lectures, and we were all proud to be a space on the campus where you could receive free education. We had music, storytelling, and dancing. At times, I almost felt guilty for having so much fun.

But we did get a message across. Yes, the Tuition Fee rise made it through both the Commons and the Lords, and yes, Phillip Green still isn't paying the taxes that he should be. But we have shown the government that we will not stand for its cuts, that put the burden on the poorest whilst the richest go free. When I tell my MP that I will never vote for him again, he'll know that this is no idle threat, and that I damned well mean it. We have created a tradition of peaceful protest in Exeter, one which will live on long after the end of the Occupation, and shown that the "apathetic generation", so addicted to Fecebook and Twitter, can turn those tools against those who try to remove our rights.

The occupation may be over, but the movement lives on!

Policing the Police

Recently, I wrote about my displeasure at certain judicial decisions made in this country. But if we have learnt anything from the introduction to Law and Order: UK, in analysing justice,we should also look at the police force.

I would have thought the MSM's (Mainstream Media's) bias supporting the police force, rather than condemning it, was fairly apparent. Anton Vowl's piece here seems to sum up why that would be the case - that the authority of the police force would initially outweigh statements from the general public. Throughout Thursday's protests the only figures being relayed from Sky and BBC News were the number of police officers injured and protesters arrested -- no mention until much later of the number of protesters injured. The lack of relevance the MSM places on the wellbeing of protesters, many of whom were caught in the middle (if that is an important factor anyway), is highly troubling.

However, there is a lot of condemnation from the blogosphere, because time and time again police have been shown to be using needlessly brutal and thuggish tactics. But these are not groundless accusations. The case of Ian Tomlinson seems almost too obvious to mention, but the video footage shows clearly that he was walking away with his hands in his pockets when pushed, and regardless of whether or not this did cause his death (and it is my opinion that it probably did), this footage alone raises questions. More sickeningly, Lance Corporal Mark Aspinall was savagely beaten in a case of mistaken identity, yet only one of the three was successfully prosecuted.

These incidents are all at least few months old, but there have been so many during the recent protests. Take the case of Officer U1202, shown punching repeatedly into a crowd of students in a clearly unnecessary display of brutality. I doubt very much that the students suffering brain injuries as a result of being hit over the head with truncheons, or being pulled out of their wheelchairs would argue that they are more of a service than a force. The intimidating tactics, such as kettling or those deployed in Cambridge, only serve to make situations worse.

And charging with horses is wrong. These animals are large, fast and impossible to control entirely. The footage at London really is not as critical as it deserves, and the claims that this is the first time that this tactic has been used since the eighties are demonstrably false (despite what the Metropolitan Police would have you believe, with the official statements to the contrary).

The fact that the Metropolitan Police are happy to cover this up proves that it is not the purely the individual loose cannons that are the problem, but the organisation itself has questions to answer. Misrepresentation is everywhere, with very little being done to put it right. Were police officers "dragged off horses and beaten", as Cameron claims? No. Here the protesters are the "bad guys", and any incident must therefore been of their doing, whether it can be substantiated or not.

On the Today programme, the Met Commissioner praised the "restraint" of the firearms officers, suggesting that the shooting of protesters was an option, and only the moral judgements of individual officers saved bloodshed. This statement seems entirely contrary to the argument that it is the individuals who go wrong, whilst the force (or service) maintains the peace.

Time and again the police have shown these brutish tactics. The citations in this post are the most concrete evidence I could find of problems with the police, but the twitter feeds and live blogs from within kettles, or on the streets, go further still. I am glad that blind faith in the police is down, and if they really want our trust, then, like anybody or anything else, they must earn it.

This blog has been adapted from a comment left in response to this post. This comment is currently awaiting modification

The Tuition Fees Post

Oh, this one has been building for a while...

I've been a Liberal Democrat for pretty much all of my political life. I live in a Lib Dem constituency, and my local MP is Jeremy Browne. Since he's a Lib Dem, he signed the pledge saying he vote against any rise in Tuition Fees. Here he is, number 145 on the spreadsheet. Good for him.

Except he'll be voting in favour of raising the cap to £9,000 on Thursday. Here's his Facebook note on it, and if you can't click through, here's what he says:

This government is having to take dramatic steps to avoid a budget crisis.

The British government is already borrowing an extra £425 million every single day. We will soon be spending £1,000 million a week just on the interest on our debt – way more than the total education budget.

If we run away from this crisis it will make matters even worse. The budget for the NHS is being increased and the overall spending on schools is being protected. But other budgets are being reduced because Britain has to live within its means.

I wish the new government had inherited a budget surplus, but instead we are tackling a disastrous deficit.

The fact is that the Liberal Democrats did not win the election. Our manifesto contained the policy to end tuition fees over a six-year period, however that was not a policy we could deliver as the junior partners in a coalition with just 8% of the MPs in the House of Commons.

Instead, within very difficult budget constraints, we are making the new system of higher education funding as fair as possible. It would have been easy to stand on the sidelines and not get involved, but the right thing to do is to play a strong part in coming up with the best possible solution.

The Liberal Democrats have helped produce a genuinely fair and progressive system that will help people from poorer backgrounds go on to higher education. No one has to pay upfront fees. Graduates will make monthly payments based on their earnings and only after they are earning £21,000 (up from £15,000 today). These monthly payments will be lower than they are today in every case.

So for example, a care worker with a starting salary of £21,000 increasing to £27,000 in real terms over 20 years would pay an average of £7 a month over 30 years. Under the current system, they would be paying back at least £45 a month immediately.

Universities which have higher charges will have conditions placed on them to ensure that they reach out to children and families on low incomes. And we have created a much fairer deal for part-time students who have previously been discriminated against. Our reforms will actively encourage social mobility.

Everyone in Britain will need to contribute to reducing the ruinous budget deficit so we can get our country back on its feet. That is being done whilst protecting the excellence of out universities and ensuring fair access for all potential students.

Disappointed is not the word.

The Liberal Democrats have shown just how little they value their promises to constituents. It wasn't just a manifesto pledge, it was a signed pledge to the NUS, and a key identifying feature of Liberal Democrat policy, along with Proportional Representation and the abolition of Trident (how are those going by the way?). Instead, they place the coalition agreement and the promise of power over the voters who put them into government in the first place.

And it is the voters who have given the Lib Dems the chance to be in government. That 8% figure that Browne quotes (which, to be specific, is nearer 9% at 8.8%) looks tiny, but the other 92% is not all Conservative. In fact, it's less than 50% (47.2%), and that's why we have a coalition government, rather than a majority -- a coalition which the Liberal Democrats are part of. Take into account number of votes cast, rather than just MPs, and almost a quarter of the country voted Lib Dem (23%), giving them about 2/5 the popular vote in government.

And yet, they seem oblivious to this fact. They make it seem as if they're just making up the numbers of a Conservative government, and providing the convenient fall guys for the harsh reactions to the cuts -- ideological ones, rather than essential. I feel like it's a cliche to mention the banks at this point, but only because the countless cries to punish them for their mistakes, rather than the students who have done nothing towards this crisis (how can they? They're under 18!), seem to be falling on deaf ears.

I haven't even directly mentioned the proposal themselves yet. I feel I have little to add after Aaron Porter's 10 points comparing the government's scheme to that proposed by the NUS, other than to agree with him when he says that "It is ridiculous to assume that students won’t take the price of a course into account when choosing it". Simply the threat of £9,000 a year is enough to scare people out of Higher Education, because it looks like a gamble, and a lack of state support makes University Education appear an individual luxury, rather than the right, or the essential part of our society, that it is.

Jeremy Browne's constituency is marginal, and if recent polls are anything to go by, he will probably lose his seat, along with many other Lib Dems, in the next election. Why? Well, I voted Lib Dem expecting a difference should they get to power. I voted Lib Dem because of their stance on Tuition Fees, on Trident, on immigration. I voted Lib Dem because they weren't the Conservatives. Enough people felt like me to create a Hung Parliament, and I supported the ConDem coalition because the calming influence of the Liberal Democrats would take the sting out of the Tories. I was wrong. If the AV vote goes against them, there will be almost nothing to show for them except to expose them as spineless turncoats. How can I vote for a party I no longer trust?

A Secular Society is a Better Society

I was recently asked to speak at a debate with this blog's title as its motion. I have reproduced my argument in full below, and must point out that throughout I was indebted to Evan Harris's excellent Secularist manifesto:

A secular society is not only a better society, it is the only fair society. It is a society that does not judge a person by their religion, nor does it make decisions based on religious privilege. It is a society that treats everyone equally, regardless of faith, but does not let their faith impact on others. Essentially, it is an ability to express any and all religious beliefs openly, limited only by, as Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights puts it, “the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others". This separation of Church from State also allows for decisions to be made based on what is fairest to the society at that time, rather than being held to the unswaying doctrines of other eras; doctrines that we would mostly now consider to be outdated. Finally, it offers a greater accountability of politicians and decision-makers, who must justify their actions beyond matters of faith.

You have heard the arguments in favour of Secular Schools*. A Secularist is not opposed to the teaching of religion in schools – even Richard Dawkins admits that without an understanding of Christianity, it would be difficult to understand the history of Britain, for instance. But it is essential that no one religion should be forced onto a person, and that they should be free to decide which, if any, religion is appropriate for them. It is not up to any state authority to push one set of beliefs onto children, even if the state were to fund many different Faith Schools. These choices should be made by well-informed, well-balanced individuals, who are in possession of all the facts.

This society should not be atheist, agnostic, or humanist in views, but impartial. Protecting the right of all religions to say whatever they want is essential to a secular government, but with that also comes the right for anyone to challenge any view or opinion. No-one should have the right not to be offended. This is why the English blasphemy laws were so vigorously campaigned against by secularists, as well as the fact that they were Christian-only, up until the point that they were abolished in 2008. These laws showed a clear bias towards both faith in general and Christianity in particular at the heart of government – a government that has been elected to represent the whole country, and not just those who believe in the Christian God.

A secular nation is also a free nation, in the sense that it is unchained from the past. I shall use the example of homosexuality, since this is something treated with the severest punishments in a huge number of religions, including, but not limited to, Christianity. Despite the religious imperative to criminalise it, we as a society realised the injustice of this law, and legalised it in 1967. This abolition has led to countless people being freed from the threat of legal action simply for being who they are, and has resulted in a better standard of life for them. Crucially, it also does not criminalise opposition to homosexuality. Religious organisations, such as the Catholic Church, are still free to condemn homosexuality in exactly the same way that organisations like Stonewall are able to criticise their statements.

This freedom of religious expression ends when it starts to impact on the lives of others. Anyone may say anything, provided that it does not incite violence, and provided that they do not engage in any activity that is detrimental to the welfare of that individual or group. Let’s take the example of the gay couple barred from the Christian run Bed and Breakfast this March. The views of the Christian couple running the B&B are protected by law, no matter what your personal opinions on that may be. However, their actions were not, as they directly affected the happiness and welfare of the gay couple specifically because of their homosexuality. A secular law should allow for no justification on religious grounds. Why should someone be mistreated simply because the person behind the actions believes in a deity of some kind? An impartial system should accept only a rational argument to something like this, and not accept a supernatural one. The same rules apply to any religious organisation delivering a public service, such as a charitable organisation. They are more than welcome to provide that service, provided that they do not withhold any part of it from users for religious reasons.

A Secular Nation is stronger because its reliance on a rational argument, which emphasises the consequences of actions. Whatever your opinions of the Iraq war, it was shocking to hear that Tony Blair – a well-known opponent of secularism – made the decision to go in feeling that “God will be [his] judge”**. This reliance on a God which a huge percentage of his country does not believe in can easily cause arguments to be cyclical (“Why?” “Because God says!” “Why?” etc...), leaving those who hold different or no beliefs to feel unrepresented. A secular society deals purely with what unites us, our common humanity.

To conclude, a Secular society is neither theocratic nor atheist, but a society which supports freedom of religious, or indeed any other belief. However, it does not permit religious belief to be a justification for actions that in some way adversely affect another person. It promotes each belief system without bias on one or the other, leading to a fairer society for all, whilst at the same time vetting religious privilege. It allows for reasonable debate, and the jettisoning of old-fashioned ideology. Simply, it is the most inclusive society possible.

Despite the support that the religious societies had rallied, we only narrowly lost the vote 57 to 70.

*I was the second speaker for the proposition, and education was a large part of the first, hence the rather cursory reference.

**This argument was challenged, as Blair's statement was a reflection, rather than a reason, on the decision to go to war. Whilst I would say that it's true that I oversimplified the point, I maintain its relevance to the argument: a decision on the scale of going to war should not be made on the basis of faith, and its airing clearly caused a lot of anguish to people who saw Blair as leading the invasion under false pretenses.

Reclaiming Hunt

It's often nice when people admit that they've made a mistake, such as Bjorn Lomborg's views on climate change. Sadly, Tony Blair's regrets seem not to focus on the disaster of Iraq (which they really should), but on the Hunting Ban.

Now, I am undeniably biased on the subject of fox hunting, since, as a vegetarian, I am never happy about anything to do with death. However, I do appreciate that foxes can be a problem, and so need to be controlled.

This does not mean that hunting is the best way to go about it. In fact, I can't see how it can help in the long term at all. It seems common knowledge that the hunters only catch the weaker foxes, and so the stronger foxes survive. Surely, therefore, this is only going to breed stronger, better, faster foxes. During a discussion on this topic on Twitter with Dr Evan Harris (with whom I disagree on this issue, if few others) and others, I put this point to him, and he offered an appropriate parallel, likening it to the more resilient bacteria that have formed because of anti-biotics.

I'm not proposing that fox hunting is breeding super-foxes, but I would argue that it therefore does not qualify as an effective form of pest control. If it does not, then what other excuse is there for it? All that remains is a large group cheerfully enjoying the slaughter of an animal.

Tony Blair's regret, however, seems shallow and misplaced, whatever your views on hunting. None of his regret seems to centre around his actions, but around other people's reactions. His remorse seems to lie with the fact that he got into "trouble for it". I find it incredibly depressing that, rather than have any conviction on a subject that means a great deal to both sides, he seems to care more about how he comes out of this than with the issues.

The Agony of Choice

This blog is in response to this Early Day Motion, which essentially is in support of homeopathy in the NHS, and specifically to Caroline Lucas's signature, a politician whom I otherwise greatly respect.

I am more disappointed by her signature than any other, since, as a campaigner for Green issues, she must surely have come into contact with bad science before. You don't need me to tell you that there are thousands of people out there who provide misinformation to muddy the waters, others who claim that it's too late too act, and millions more who believe it, and are willing to argue that point. Ms Lucas must have seen through that, to the important facts of man-made climate change, and so I fail to see why it is that she can support the homeopathic cause.

Of course, there is always the argument of choice; that we should always offer people all the options, and allow them to make up their own minds. "Choice" seems like the friendly thing to do -- after all, who would want to go into a restaurant with one item on the menu? But choice is only a good thing if there are benefits on both sides ("I might like the pasta, but I also might like the rice"). If I were to offer you many options as viable alternatives to each other, but with positives only coming from one, it makes the situation needlessly complicated, and potentially dangerous ("I might like the pasta, but I also might like whatever ricin is").

You might think that that last image is a little excessive for the choice between conventional medicine and homeopathy, but the placebo effect (and I'm sure I don't need to point out that homeopathy offers NOTHING beyond the placebo effect) can only go so far. If an NHS doctor legitimises it by prescribing it, and this later makes one person consider homeopathy above conventional medicine for a life-threatening but treatable disease, then this is a life lost needlessly (and, I might add, painfully). The homeopathic industry makes enough money to publicise their sugar-pills themselves. They do not need the support of the NHS.

Andy Lewis put it well on Twitter when he described taking homeopathic medicine as "an act after being misled". In order to work as a placebo, it has to be presented as effective. In other words, doctors need to lie to patients about the effect the drugs have in order for them to have any effect at all, which would surely erode confidence in their profession. And of course, returning to the earlier issue, this actually presents patients with a false choice, as they would not be able to make their choice based on all of the relevant evidence.

Caroline Lucas tweeted her response here, saying:

EDM is about lack of BMA's consultation & argues that local NHS better placed to know patient needs, based on objective clinical assessment

But how can any "objective clinical assessment" support the use of placebo? Quite clearly, you should prescribe something that has an effect beyond placebo. Homeopathy is also as much a placebo at local level as at national, as is witchcraft (not on the NHS, but what the BMA likened to homeopathy, kicking off this row), so in taking action against homeopathy, the BMA were acting entirely within their remit.