Author Archive

I know its been a while since I posted ? a mixture of having a very busy life (?) and not keeping up with what?s going on in the world. However, one thing that I can not help but notice is the DAMNED postal strike. It is the most irritating and selfish thing for the postal workers to strike and not consider the damage they are doing.

?I agree with the basis and logic behind Unions completely and think that workers must be protected and Unions are a perfect way of ensuring this. I think Unions are there for a reason and this is why illegal strikes are so abhorrent to me. Are these people not thinking about the damage they are doing? What if the hospital / doctors had sent you or a family member a letter telling you about urgent treatment that you needed ? what if you or they did not get that letter and subsequently fell ill or worse, died? Would this illegal and altogether strange and vague strike seem justifiable to you? What if a car crashed into you and you latter found out that the car driver?s insurance was up for renewal but due to the strike he/she did not know that it had expired and was therefore uninsured? Would you think its OK because the postal workers were striking, that?s life?

These are just a few of the examples of the damage they are doing, never mind the monetary damage to small businesses in terms of lost revenue and damaged reputation. In addition, I am not altogether sure why the strike is even happening ? I have heard so many stories but the common thread running through all of them is bullying by management. If this is the case then industrial action is more than justified but illegal action is not. The word on the grapevine is that the strike is nearing an end ? its about time, lets just hope most of the damage done is not irreparable.

Thursday, February 16th, 2006 // General

For once Parliament has done the job it was established to do, it has acted as a check on the executive. The British legal system was created with inbuilt checks and balances to, among other things, prevent the arbitrary exercise of power by the executive. In reality with the party whip system, if a government has a strong majority they can ordinarily get their laws passed, but not this time. This is the beginning of the end for Mr Blair in my opinion.

It is refreshing to see MPs voting according to their own beliefs and defying populist opinion. The readers of the Sun do not always know best, and fortunately we are part of a system that does not always revere mob rule.

The proposed new terrorist measures are abhorrent to anyone who values their freedom and can look at the facts in a measured way. All of the people detained under the current legislation for the extended period of 14 days have been successfully charged, so why increase the detention period? Terrorism is an emotive subject but laws should not be passed in the heat of the moment to satisfy a section of the public who are baying for blood and need a quick fix to make them feel secure, particularly when they do not seem to work.

I heard it said this morning that if these 90 day detention powers prevented one death they would be worth it, this is a fallacy. Introducing and intensifying draconian anti-terrorism measures which marginalise a section of the community will, in the long-term, increase the number of deaths. Imagine it you were detained for 3 months when you are innocent, what about your job, would you still have it when you were released? What about your family, how would they feel? Would you forgive the authorities easily? Probably not and if you were already disillusioned with the world you would become even more susceptible to extremism.

Severe anti-terrorist laws are breeding a new generation of terrorists and thank God for Parliamentary supremacy. It was famously said that parliament can do anything that is not naturally impossible; protecting democracy, freedom and rights in times of challenge is not only possible, it is essential.

Thursday, November 10th, 2005 // News & Media

The Home Office has recently suggested that prisoners be released early in order to alleviate record prison overcrowding. What this means is that many prisoners could be released under curfew and with an electronic tag, as well as the release which happens automatically half way through all sentences of four years or less.

Is it not ironic then that while the Home Office are taking such drastic measures to combat prison overcrowding, the government has released proposals in the new Terrorism Bill which recommend that suspects can be held for up to 90 days with no charge? In essence this means that criminals who have had the case against them proven in a court of law by a jury (if in the Crown Court or above) will be released early despite the presence of evidence against them while terrorist suspects by the nature of the crime they are SUSPECTED of committing, can be held for up to 90 days with no evidence existing against them. How can this be justified?

I will repeat a point I often make, arresting, detaining and charging suspects is fraught with difficulties, it is a legal minefield and when dealing with foreign suspects or those usually associated with Islamic militant terrorist groups there are the added pressures of finding interpreters, respecting religious practices, etc. However these problems existed at the time of the original Terrorist Act, the only thing that has changed is that since there has been an attack on British soil the British people will accept more stringent measures that before. In addition, could someone tell me why these problems, along with the problems the police have been complaining about surrounding investigations, the difficulty gathering intelligence and the intimidation of witnesses are only being legislated against with such vigour in reference to terrorism? Most of these problems are present with organised criminal gangs and it is arguable that in reality these gangs have more of a detrimental effect on society than terrorism.

The government should be improving their intelligence gathering facilities, although perhaps by MI6 going online, they have gone some way in achieving this. Gaps in intelligence can not be plugged with legislation; we can not legislate our way of terrorism and don?t forget, although the numbers of those held for 90 days may initially be small, it is the presence on the statute books that is the worrying part. Internment was on the statute books since the early 1920?s but it wasn?t until 1971 that it caused so much controversy.

Only in Britain would you see two news stories in the same week which appear to be diametrically opposed, one reports the overcrowding in prisons leading to early release for convicted criminals, the other a new bill proposing to hold suspects for 3 months with no evidence against them which will consequently increase the prison population. Oh the irony.

Friday, October 14th, 2005 // News & Media

Carrying on from Mr Levee?s discussion in Armchair Experts & Keyboard Critics, we need to ask whether Nationalism and Unionism can ever live in harmony. This is not a simple question and will not have an obvious answer. Protestants are akin to white Afrikaners in South Africa who, when forced to relinquish control to blacks at the end of apartheid, felt marginalised and forsaken. Protestants perceive favouritism towards Catholics in Northern Ireland; they can not comprehend why the British are now indulging Republicans while being tough on them, despite their loyalty over many years.

Protestants feel that the British government is being hoodwinked and they are angry at this apparent naivety. In their eyes the IRA can?t be trusted to legitimately have abandoned its military campaign; they remember many IRA atrocities, pointing to their duplicity and deceitfulness and are cynical and suspicious of this new development. In the eyes of many Northern Irish Protestants, any compromise is a concession. At one point in time Nationalists felt marginalised, abandoned and discriminated against and this frustration was played out in rioting, now the disillusionment is felt by ?the other side?.

How do we resolve this while trying not to alienate either community?

I am a Catholic although I do not feel that I am Nationalist, for example, I do not want a United Ireland and a United Ireland forms the very foundation of Nationalism in Northern Ireland. On the other hand in some ways I feel that my views may be perceived as Nationalist, for example I utterly condemn the blatant discrimination and abuse of civil rights of Catholics in Northern Ireland in the last century. However, I feel that the occurrence of this discrimination is fact; it is not based on partisan anecdotal evidence but on reality and therefore does not mark me out as Nationalist. Thus, I feel that I can question whether the current Protestant dissatisfaction with the system in Northern Ireland is justifiable without being accused of being a typical Nationalist indulging in Protestant bashing. It must be difficult to give up positions of power and security to people you have viewed so often as terrorists and the enemy (by this I mean not just the IRA but all Catholics) but it has to be done, there is no logical way to deny equality.

Most people in Northern Ireland want peace; they want their children to grow up in a safe world, devoid of the bitterness felt by many in Northern Ireland. The only way to ensure this is to promote equality; the only way to promote equality is to compromise. It may seem that the Protestant community are compromising more that the Catholic community but that is that nature of the beast, the community that had more must sacrifice more. In my opinion there is no way to unite Unionism and Nationalism, the very premise upon which both are based are incompatible, but we can unite Catholics and Protestants, the actual people in Northern Ireland, in order to achieve what we all want, a society in which we are all equal and of which we can be proud. Only then can any durable peace settlement be attained.

Friday, October 7th, 2005 // News & Media, Northern Ireland: Politics

I watched Dispatches last night on the Northern Bank Robbery in Belfast in December 2004. The programme was not great, it did not shed any light on the crime, did not reveal any additional facts and I felt it was pretty weak.

It is one thing for the police to have an idea of who carried out the crime but it is pointless if they have no evidence to back it up. The British criminal justice system is based upon well established rules that have developed over many years. One rule is that there must be enough evidence upon which to base a case. Ideal speculation and common threads among crimes would never stand up in court and I feel that expecting us to accept such flimsy evidence is a little patronising.

Until there is enough evidence to prove who is responsible for the crime, there is little point in speculating. I think that the IRA probably were responsible for the heist but the lack of prosecutions and the lack of action from the Criminal Assets Bureau show an alarming gap in intelligence.

Friday, September 23rd, 2005 // News & Media

It amazes me how a country that is so used to conflict can be so bad at it, yet the British have managed it. There were reports yesterday about two British soldiers in Iraq shooting an Iraqi policeman while undercover. The soldiers were duly arrested by Iraqi authorities. Now here comes the strange bit. Did the British authorities co-operate with their counterparts in Iraq and negotiate with that traditional and revered British diplomacy? Indeed they did not; they took SIX armoured tanks and knocked down the wall of the prison! The soldiers were not even there but in another building (another example of failing British intelligence). This was hardly a proportionate response; it will marginalise the already insecure, angry Iraqi people who will think that the only way to achieve their aims is by using force, the result of this action, and its combined result with other heavy handed British approaches, will be the birth of terrorists.

It appears that internally the British handle threats by a disproportionate and unjustifiable increase in power through legislation while externally they use excessive force to manage perceived threats, usually against weaker states. I call that bullying; whether it is a manipulative intimidation of the electorate or outright intimidation of weak states it is morally reprehensible. The difficulty is that history is written by the victors and the powerful, contrary to myth and fairytale, are usually victorious.

Tuesday, September 20th, 2005 // News & Media

I have just watched the Politics Show (a Sunday morning show that does what it says on the tin). Basically it was about the recent situation in Northern Ireland, the rioting etc. A journalist spoke to people on the Shankill Road asking them why they thought the violence had occured. The replies can be summed up as follows “they have everything, we have nothing”. It is little surprise that people on the Shankill are angry, they live in an area where deprivation is rife and as we know deprivation goes hand in hand with bitterness, they are blaming anyone and everyone for the fact that they do not like their lives. In this case it is the Catholics. One interviewee went as far as to say that Catholics lived in Palaces. David Ford put it eloquently by saying that they are adopting the traditionally Provo mantra, we are the MOST oppressed peoples and we are therefore justified in any action.

The journalist went on to say that these views were all urban myths, Catholics in Northern Ireland are still more likely to be unemployed, leave school with no qualifications and be on the poverty line. People need to learn that if they do not like their lives the only people who can change it is them. It is logical that if one section of the population has more than the other, this section have to loose some things in an attempt to make things equal.

There were 2 politicians on the show, David Ford (Alliance Party Leader) and a member of the DUP, Nelson McCausland. Mr McCausland went on to blame the release of Sean Kelly, the positive response of the British government to the IRA statement, 50/50 recrutiment in the PSNI, the Parades Commission, the police, the media and anyone except the Protestant people, his Party and Orange Order for the violence. He said that the 3 men (3?!!!) in the Orange Order shown by cameras to be violent should be dealt with not by the PSNI but by the Orange Order internally. David Ford rightly pointed out that internal disciplinary methods were unacceptable with the Republican movement against the McCartney murders and they are unacceptable now. McCausland made it obvious that he was another DUP politician who abdicated all responsibility for the behaviour of their electorate on the one hand while at the same time proclaiming to anyone who would listen that the DUP had the support of 85% of Protestants within North and West Belfast. If they have so much support they must take responsibilty for a failure of leadership.

The Parades Commission by the nature of their work must ban some Orange marches. Orange marches through Catholic areas are like Klu Klux Klan marches through a predominantly black area, they are bound to offend and indeed intended to offend. The ‘tradition’ argument is a fallacy, civil order and long-term social stability are more important than tradition, Northern Ireland has changed, the Orange Order, the Protestant people and their representatives must move with the times. They had it all for a long time, it is going to be difficult to adapt but they must take responsibility for their own lives and futures and stop balming everyone else, the foundation of peace in Northern Ireland is compromise.

Sunday, September 18th, 2005 // News & Media, Northern Ireland: Politics

Charles Clarke has just announced a new offence of glorifying terrorist acts. This power is so wide that the government essentially have the right to decide which historical figures were terrorists. Since only this week the UN were unable to decide on a definition of terrorism, this is a difficult task. This power carries dangers reminiscent of Nazi Germany, of France during the Revolution, not liberal democratic Britain.

The full extent of the powers becomes clear when you consider that if the powers existed in South Africa for example, Nelson Mandela would fall foul of them. Giving government the power to decide on who is a terrorist is one thing, giving them such sweeping powers leaves the possibility that they could be used to get rid of political opponents or people that raise questions the government can’t answer. People may trust this government (maybe?) but bear in mind that other governments will come and the presence of such powers in our legal system is only ever the first step. The strength of Britain and other liberal democracies and the reason that they are so despised by the likes of Al Qaeda is the freedom they give to their citizens, freedom of thought and speech being two essential components of this. By taking away these essential freedoms the British government is undermining the very values they try to espouse, thereby giving the ‘terrorists’ their biggest victory. If the government say that they will respect human rights and adhere to their traditional liberal values only when it is safe to do so, but abandon them when any challenge arises, they are admitting that their system does not work.

Clarke also announced a new power to hold terrorist suspects for up to 90 days. They are attempting to sneak a discredited power of internment in through the back door. Their argument is that these extended powers are needed to deal with the difficulty in gathering evidence and communication difficulties with foreign suspects. In addition they cite the seriousness of the threat as an excuse. However, these problems all existed in 2000 when they passed the original Terrorism Act but only now will the British people accept these powers because they are so terrified, terror whipped up by the government. In addition the same problems exist when dealing with suspects accused of drug offences, the police often have to deal with foreign suspects in such cases and have difficulties gathering evidence and Class A drugs have had a more detrimental effect on society than terrorism.

Keep your eye on these powers, question everything, you may wake up one day and find you live in Nazi Germany and the Gestapo are at your door.

Friday, September 16th, 2005 // News & Media

Well the Levees have just booked a holiday to Rome, Mr and Mrs Levee will be going along with myself and my other half DJ. This is on the condition that Mr Levee doesn’t ruin my holiday by commenting on everything I say and turning me into a grumpy mad women! He has promised to be nice (whatever?!!!!)

On a lighter note, we are going for an unbelievably cheap price, around ?67 each for 3 nights accomodation and flights!! The internet is a fantastic creation!! Can’t wait to get away from this mad place.

Thursday, September 15th, 2005 // Family Life, General, News & Media

I hate the Northern Ireland ‘thing’. To be honest, I don’t care if there is a United Ireland, econmically it is probably better that there isn’t. I am a Catholic but not a Nationalist or Republican and I do not differentiate between people according to religion. I just don’t care, I know about politics, I have a degree in law and politics so it is not that I am unaware of all the problems that Nationalists have suffered, I just think it is time to move on.

So, this is how I knew things were bad in Belfast today. I was around North Queen Street and wasn’t sure if it was ‘green’ or ‘orange’, then I saw a few blokes with Celtic tops and I relaxed palpably. I felt so much tension in the air that the traditional symbols of division comforted me. I know logically that the guys I saw in these tops, at other times would be a threat, but I felt relieved.

The Orange Order is a disgrace, they have caused all this tension and public unrest for no reason. How can they proclaim to be a Christian organisation while calling people onto the street to fight and indeed fighting themselves? It baffles me that the things people can justify for their own side will be absolutely unjustifiable when the ‘other side’ do the same thing next year.

The Order have the cheek to say that the police were heavy handed, so would I be with a petrol bomb being thrown at me, and what do they think the police did to Nationalists for many years, ask politely “can we intern you without trial and without any real evidence that you have comitted a crime, please sir?” Did they accept heavy handed police methods as excuses for Republican violence? Don’t make me laugh. And the police and army used methods latter classified as torture on Nationalists, slightly more serious than what happened in Belfast on Saturday 10th September.

The worst thing is, as in most riots in NI, the people that really suffer are those in the rioting community. I saw a woman today who must have been about 80, at 8 o’clock this morning on the Crumlin Road clearing up debris from her front garden, while those who were rioting the night before were no doubt sleeping off their hangovers.

They may feel marginalised but things were so discriminatory for so long that they have to give things up to make things equal, this is expected and only fair. They should have a bit of compassion and common sense, they are harming no one but themselves fighting over a petty insignificant little walk, they are pathetic and the international community is seeing them for what they are, thugs.

Monday, September 12th, 2005 // News & Media, Northern Ireland: Politics