Massive changes to the BBC set-up are pronounced and led by John Whittingdale, the culture secretary.

Working for BBC radio as production secretary was my first job in Britain. It was hugely under-paid, as women usually were in those days and I could not live on my earnings.

But, I worked at Bush House and Bush House hosted the World Service radio stations, which also included a German Service, now dissolved.

I read through this article citing reasons to curtail the BBC but if anything, I think the BBC indirectly helped the Conservatives win the election because they made so much negative propaganda about them, that the constant mentions attracted more people to vote for them than not.

Obviously the BBC broadcasts did not stop the Conservatives from winning the elections with a landslide. Programs like Daily Politics, a discussion forum at lunchtime invited two right-wing bloggers on a regular basis, people like Iain Dale and Guido Fawkes.

I do agree that the world service should be the main focus of the BBC, to broadcast about cultural matters and political freedom. That was always the main cause of the BBC.

The programs shown now are cheap productions, which are educational but for example the re-make of the Pale Horse in two instalments is unneccsary. Constant antique sales are on throughout the day.

We are now forced to subscribe to TV channels just to get a fairly balanced viewing experience. I could not manage on the BBC alone.

And its because the cost of TV viewing is pushed up by the subscription services, the BBC license fee seems more expensive now. We now have to pay for SKY, Amazon TV, Netflix, Disney and other channels. The BBC fee is just on top of that.

It’s just another expression of ridding the nation of government run services. Another privatisation.

But what free viewing will be made available for pensioners once the BBC license fee has been dismantled? So the whole discussion about the BBC being responsible for free licenses to pensioners was a waste of time?

What this dilemma also shows is that if a government has the power to dismantle services without an independent scrutiny available to object, we are forced into ‘say as you are told or close’ situation. It’s an assault on democratic principles.

Whilst Victoria Derbyshire is already closing and the BBC says, she will be deployed across other programs, how feasable is that when the whole license fee will be scrapped?

Will we be able to see any critial programs that deal with shoddy services, faulty legislation and general problems people have?

I’ve never earned much money from the BBC but found it really important that people gotten an outlet to voice their concerns and that the publishing power of the BBC actually made service providers scrutinise and force changes on care homes for example.

What’s also worrying is that changes to the BBC website will mean that probably many documentaries will no longer be life to view on the website.

BBC Actionline also provides an important social service though it could be argued that such a service could well be run via the NHS online services as it is a public health service.



Right-wing extremism

the development of which is a real danger for Britain today. The Big Society is the breeding ground for extremists of all sorts.

We cannot categorise a person as left- or right-wing whether they are white or not, we have to categorise them by religion and/or traditional behaviour towards their religious doctrine.

We need to re-evaluate the systemic fascist bevaviour that may or may not be religious because the orientation towards a god-like persona, whether living or dead is the main attraction in those movements. Domestic abuse is an indicator of wide-spread day-to-day facism.

Boaz’s book of ‘The politics of Freedom’ are a symphony’ to praise venture Capitalism and with it comes the religion of exploitation of the moment to help the venture individual become rich and successful.

With the Big Society, the Conservatives developed the red herring of Brexit, a concept that runs right through their tenure of government. Whenever they needed something to talk about, it was/is Brexit.

Newsnight’s data – obtained under the Freedom of Information Act – revealed there were 322,250 RUI cases between April 2017 to October this year. Of these, 93,098 related to violence against a person and sexual offences cases.

All pressing current issues were ignored. Right-wing extremists are not necessarily white these days, they can come from all backgrounds and Usman Khan, the recent London Bridge terrorist is the dead proof of it. He got a ‘get out of jail’ card without proper scrutiny but it would have been apparent to specialists that he is definately a terrorist risk. Yet there was no money available to properly assess or monitor him as the government spent millions on Brexit preparations instead, putting all our security at risk.

_rui_offences-ncIn fact 93.000 suspectd violent criminals and sex offenders – were released since 2017 into society without restrictions. The government changed the rules on pre-charge bail in 2017. People suspected of offences including rape and murder have been among those “Released Under Investigation” (RUI). Such persons could have an immense effect on society because they may have a different attitude towards democracy and freedom of the individual among other things.

This means suspected offenders who could be part of a certain ideology could be released without jail back into society and severely affect the fabric of society.

Politics is evolving very fast and we cannot keep getting stuck to old and no longer reliable concepts. Multi-nationalism and international movement puts a stop to that.

Whenever I write to a government department, the answer that the minister is just changing prevents a meaningful dialogue. Many voluntary organisations are primarily staffed with those who can afford to spend the time and energy to do those roles. That in itself indicates, the persons are well off and from a middle to upper class background. There are a few organisations who meet through need like those around Grenfell Tower and victims of crime of some sort, who meet whenever they can.

The ability to organise these days is severely restricted through changing working patterns. The change in working patterns was orchestrated on purpose so the so-called working classes could no longer meet and organise themselves on a regular basis.

Only those who are established and well off can find the resources to dedicate themselves to the Big Society, they are also the least likely wanting to rebell.

Wealth concentration is spiralling towards a smaller elite whilst the masses are kept in some poverty and ever bigger dependance on the charity donations that fewer people are able to give.

The Labour policies currently pushed by the Labour Party are there to counter this development and it is necessary to re-establish some level of playing field for society to flourish.


Be yourself

photo of a sign and eyeglasses on table

Photo by Binti Malu on Pexels.com

Paying to belong is one way of not feeling lonely. Indeed when you express any kind of affiliation, you can bet on it, that somebody sends you an email asking to donate money for one cause of another.

Just living doesn’t seem good enough any longer.

It’s no wonder that young people congregate in gangs because they learn it from us.

Adults are the worst offenders when it comes to gang affiliation. We just don’t name it gangs. We call it

  • religion
  • political party
  • pressure group
  • club
  • association
  • union

Whatever you belief in, there is always somebody who claims to have invented the thought and that you need to donate money to them now, as soon as you affiliate somehow with a thought.

No wonder that they want to develop equipment now to read your mind because once they read your thoughts, they want to charge you for belonging to a thought group.



Nothing compares

A lot of things are trying to compare something to Malala Yousafzai. Yet Malala is completely unique. She is unique in her quest to establish better girls education because she comes from a country that is notorious trying to prevent girls from getting to grip with any kind of academic concept. Malala has become a world-wide ambassador for better girls education.

Malala was almost killed by Taleban fighters, shot in the head, but luckily survived to be a great role model for girls around the world.

That fact, that girls need education is true for every culture in the world. However, since people’s mix and move and mingle in other geographical locations, secular principles are a good idea. I support it that countries forbid their civil servants, including teachers to wear religious symbols at work. Every person, girl or boy has the right to a great education and if everybody gets the same treatment, we all have the same chances.

That should not stop churches or relgions to run schools, anybody with the correct qualifications can run a school and educate pupils. We are attending a local Church of England school and we love that the school is not too pragmatic and doesn’t enforce stereo-typical relgious practises. Some churches, have too much dogma and cannot successfully run their schools in a multi-cultural environment.

Of course most countries, have developed certain holidays around relgious beliefs that had been held over centuries but even that  phases out gradually, the more pople mix. Many people still are accustomed to practises they were taught as children and carry on through families, and it will take a long time to ease out of this.

Most schools now educate on a variety of religions, during religious education classes, which could be further enriched with Humanist content.

We are more tolerant generally in western countries and allow people time to neutralise their relgious belief; the Chinese however actively re-educate and tear people away from their familar surroundings in tailor-made camps. The tactic to take children away from families now becomes more popular and is even practised in the USA to deal with immigrants. Yet the Chinese seem to treat the children better than the US.

The Chinese have the space and resources to build such huge camps, we in smaller countries would never have the space to do so. We slowly integrate. We develop methods like having to speak the host country language and making people work in jobs their religion would normally forbid. We establish laws that contradict some relgions and enforce them on the whole population.

We out-lawed forced marriage, domestic violence, genital mutilation and our laws force all children into education.






No beginning, no end

There is no end to the liberal thinking these days. In certain aspects we have strict laws.

When it comes to class A, B, C drugs; they have an obvious and immediate addictive detrimental health effect and so they are banned.

Alcohol has a slowly deteriorating effect and it is allowed to be sold widely, though certain by-laws now restrict the anti-social effects of it.

Eating is widely discussed and how over-eating causes a slow deterioration of a person’s health in that obesity sets in.

The overall tendency is to be tolerant and legalize as much as possible as it is thought that tolerance and freedom to choose is the sign of a free society.

It is interesting to see whether we are healthier in a tolerant society or in a restricted one. the answer is easy, as there is no comparison to older societies, which did not have the vast amount of vaccines that we have today. And even in current, more primitive societies with stricter moral codes, use of modern medicines seems to be restricted.

These days we try to solve all problems by vaccinating away the diseases that our modern lifestyles cause.

All negative transgressions of nature that cause us to have any type of noticeable illness; doctors want to find a vaccine against it. Prolonging life is the most important cause society has whilst at the same time lifestyles help people to shorten their lifespans prematurely, just for many to cry out for new solutions to their problems.

I just wonder whether there is any point in having an opinion because politicians are running away with the agenda and make law after law that dictate what we can and cannot do. In the end we just have to ensure that individuals have the right to make a free choice and are not forced into lifestyles because economic circumstances force them to.



Freedom = paying by cash

If you think about it real freedom only exists if you can do things that are not controlled or monitored by someone other than you or when your movements are not held on any type of database.

The other day I walked along the canal and found several police officers patrolling the area where I walked. I approached them to chat them up and show my delight of their presence, whereby one of them asked me whether I lived in the area, so as to establish whether I had a right to be there.  I was just waiting to be asked to provide a piece of paper with walking entitlements on them. Even then when I tried to get into the Olympic enclosure in Victoria Park I was asked to tolerate a body-search and empty out my bottle of water.

I quickly felt a sudden loss of freedom coming on and that took away my desire to even get into the enclosure.

But when we travel today in London paying by Oyster is much cheaper than paying by cash. So travelling unmonitored is 4 times as expensive as getting reduced travel on benefit cards. But anything that happens on a card is monitored, may that be Oyster, debit or credit card; any other card stores information of the user also on a database, which proves your movements.

Even going on the Internet provides a traceable activity, which can be checked upon via the service provider.

We should really get to a state where freedom of movement unmonitored manifests itself in equally cheap prices for cash as for card payment.

Nowadays you make yourself suspicious purely through paying by cash when card would be cheaper and that is a sad state of affairs. But in some cases electronic records may be the only form of alibi a person can produce if necessary when everything else fails. It is the malicious nature of humanity that brings some people to falsely accuse others and make false statements about other people’s activity that makes us welcome electronic tagging in one form or another.

I agree with Assange in one aspect

The rule of law is breaking down because English lawyers use the law to make political decisions. It is woefully inadequate how the publication laws are unable to stop secret material to be published because the Freedom of Expression gives everybody a right to spill the beans on government secrets.

I think Assange must answer claims of the sexual nature that he has been accused of but the law should never use another reason to enforce those Swedish claims.

I noticed it during my own case that there is a disturbing mix of sexual harassment and political agitation going on and that always needs victims, unfortunately I may add. Yet the English courts are terribly indecisive and do not want to upset freedom of expression at any cost, which is too expensive really.

I have experienced myself how high-court judges put a political goal before the stark reality of the evidence in the case before them. In fact I think of trying a complaint in that nationalist emotions have lead a judge to make a ruling that is not supported by the actual evidence and that evidence has been bent to fit the case as desired. That is a crime.

But has it not always been like that with show-cases and show-trials. It doesn’t matter what you say or put before the court, they are determined to find one party guilty and that is set outcome. Are we any better? No!

Is there ever a chance to get justice from a justice system that is bent?

A cat and mouse game

With every announcement and report about the Conservative party we get worst news. If its not reduction of the 50p tax rate its reducing the pension. Now the government wants to put back pension even further but do so earlier. Yet the pension contributions whilst working are supposed to be rising when we work longer and get pensions for a shorter period of time.

This government seems to want to give us the stick and carrot treatment with a tactic that forces us to agree to their proposals or we are going to get some more kickbacks on our benefits and feel-good subsidies.

There seems little sense in what they are doing other than to bring us into submission into agreement to them. With every announcement they make us feel that little bit worst.

At the same time we get notifications of truly horrible events like a British couple being abducted, the male killed and the female kidnapped by Somali terrorists. I think that radical Muslims truly have a sexual obsession with white western women, that was a strong part of Osama Bin Laden’s personality when he was once rejected by a white woman when he was a student in the UK. It is most likely that these Somali terrorists want to collect intelligence from the women when she is most vulnerable when her partner had been shot in front of her.

But this latest kidnapping reflects on the fact that for example here in Tower Hamlets the council falls over themselves to give people of Somali origin all the best treatment and they get special community services, they have a high-ranking councillor who is now deputy mayor. The more we promote foreign cultures here in the UK, the more do the native countries reject us or build anti-cultures against the western influences.

In areas like Tower Hamlets we see a concentration of Muslim immigrants who often have important links back to their communities at home. Recently a teaching assistant from North London was appointed Deputy Prime Minister in Somalia. Otherwise we read frequently London based political activists or voted in councillors are in the press for connections to radical eastern organisations.

Yet the government has policies that are based on local choice and if that locality is full of radicals then they accept that. In Tower Hamlets we see a unique approach to do away with nationally proven and good strategies and some obscure local solutions are being put in place, which are hyped up to be good. The most recent EDL problems in Tower Hamlets showed that the East End Life paper completely forgot to report that local Muslims actually came out of their estate and attacked a bus full of EDL supporters whilst it broke down on the way out of London. But East End Life felt fit to quote all types of organisations from the Conservatives to Telco and Respect as saying that East London proved a great community.

The only national strategy this Conservative government seems to have is political isolation from the EU and strict perseverance of austerity measures within the UK, which is not working. We get more and more punishment every day we open up the papers. I think this government truly shows the inability of Conservative leaders to appreciate the working classes.

There is so much subordination in the field of older people, that as soon as you turn 55 you are entitled to the old-peoples subsidised lunches whilst you are supposed to be working till 62. As soon as you turn 50 you can join over 50’s sports teams. Companies fall over themselves to sell wills and death insurances to over 55s. And employers all treat over 55s as scrap and they do not want to invest in them when there are so many young people unemployed and a ready army of foreign immigrants are channeled straight into UK jobs.

The unions are hopping made and call for more civil disobedience but this government wants to make any type of civil disobedience impossible by imposing immediate financial punishments if you do not do what you are supposed to be doing to be a good citizens. If you kid doesn’t go to school lose benefits. They target families with children and force them to keep kids in line by punishing them the most if the kids stray from the path of righteous. If you do not pay your parking fines immediately you get a higher fee charged. If you are 5 days late with your rent you immediately get threatening letters. If you borough on the credit card you are charged high interest. Fares constantly go up, so does post, this means that travel and communications are less active and people don’t communicate that much.

In the 60s the young generation turned into hippies and did what they wanted, they worked or didn’t work as they pleased and that produced  a very productive music industry and also helped other industries a lot because the wealth it created was good for the whole of society but today there is nothing but strict education and institutionalised supervision for young people, which does not allow for any type of creativity to develop in young people’s lives. Its school all day, then college, then uni, then work.

It is no wonder that young people want to break out and that then shows in sudden outbursts of violence. But that is only because there is such a strict institutionalised amount of supervision for young people these days that produces such behaviour. This type of disciplinarian approach is otherwise only practised by Muslims who force their kids into the strict religious discipline from baby-hood. But now it seems the western world wants to adopt that approach and that is something most of us reject.

In our lands it is less religious but institutionalised discipline that is forced upon all of us. At least in America individual citizens can still make a choice of carrying a weapon or not but in the UK, we are not allowed to have anything on us that could be used in such a way and we are systematically trained into a very strict type of mental slavery to the state from childhood nowadays. When Gordon Brown extended school days, David Cameron now puts more young people into prisons if they misbehave.

There is little hope that the economy will take off on a program that sees no investment and people are put off from investing.

But what the UK needs is a strong national strategy to invest in environmentally adequate business ideas instead of promoting isolated pockets of ideological advancement.  The whole Free School policy does not promote a national strategy but local Anarchy instead.

On one  hand the government really wants to repress too much immigration and on the other it is unable to devise a national strategy to deal with it. We see it here in Tower Hamlets how the police and local government are completely unable to bring all residents together around one table. With the recent EDL demonstration we saw a contingent of certain community groups and churches attending to show a barrage of strength against right-wing intrusion but that is not manifesting itself in continuing working together of all community groups. All political parties just showed up to get the votes of the Muslims at the next election.

Unless there is a clear national business strategy that prefers UK investment instead of getting foreign capital into the UK and UK capital out of the UK controlled we will see continued domination of UK interests by foreign investors who slowly but surely choke this country into submission. The Conservative government just shakes us into place to obey to whatever is given to us to mull us into submission.

The announced trip of David Cameron to Russia seems to be a begging mission rather than anything else, its just that the media conceals his visit to Moscow as some kind of show of strength, when it clearly can’t be.

It’s the thought that counts

I am disturbed by the fact that people got prison for suggesting rioting over social media. It is a basic Freedom of Speech that people can organise revolts. Whether they succeed or not is another matter. Over the ages, we all learned in history how many times people revolted against despotic rulers and sometimes they succeeded, and we all nod our heads in approval that people managed to rid themselves of despots and bad rulers.

I am certain those ancient rulers also did not like it when people congregated or communicated to organise such riots and revolts.

But if enough people want to topple a government, they can, I am sure of it.

Forbidding people to organise a riot over Facebook, is similar to not allowing them to speak about this at all to others.

Of course it keeps the police more busy and makes our lives that little more difficult but in the end, if only a tiny minority always comes together to cause damage, there is certainty that things are good for most of us. During the most recent riots in the UK some very ridiculous sentences have been passed down to show how much the government disapproves with the fact that some made a point and showed dissatisfaction with our current order. Fair enough, the rioters didn’t succeed, the majority was not on their side, but they could have joined in and toppled the government. Lets be realistic about this.

I agree that anybody should have the freedom of speech to organise a putsch and if they are in the minority, they have to take the consequences and in the case of immigrants be banned from our shores. If people protest more often it would force the government to invest more in people to avoid discontent. What we see now is more control over freedom of speech to avoid any grumbling about living conditions, which makes no happiness at all but just quenches the protest before it arises but it will simmer under the bonnets, in people’s thoughts just to break out more forceful later on.

I think the UK has to be a people’s investor and do more to teach people skills, invest in public schemes, improve live in general instead of telling people they are not allowed to voice their frustration if there is no other democratic way for them to make desired change. Maybe the processes currently in place are not user-friendly enough but our government just doesn’t want to look into this and thinks arresting their way out of this problem solves it.

It is the thought that counts and it always tarts with a thought and the more have the same thought, the less satisfaction is all around. I think Cameron has not shown any compassion for young people in Britain today.

The government simply tries to silence protest but that does not mean that the dissent has disappeared. Just because Abu Hamza has been stopped from preaching hate does not mean that this hate does not exist. It would be much more useful to look the hate in the eye and deal with it rather than driving it underground, which is what this government and current laws does.

It must be obvious that if protest stays open that it is much easier to keep track of the protesters. It must be easy for the law enforcers to follow open made protests and keep them in check but if that communication is no longer accessible easily then it is much easier for protest to stay unnoticed until it is too late.

The government thinks that people just stay quiet and eat their crumbs and sleep under bridges and die quietly without voicing protest because it is against the law.  The only difference between the UK and Syria is the fact that rioters here in the UK don’t get shot.  We however have increasing incidences where individuals get shot by armed police. But the excuse that the police can feel under threat and therefore have the right to shoot people would be valid in Syria as well as in the UK and there is little qualitative difference.

A paradox crime, whom to blame for it?

I always get myself engaged when such horrid incidents happen but feel calmed by the sober words of President Obama who hailed the brave bystanders and their reaction to the events. He found that their behaviour prevented further damage and by taking Jared Loughner’s gun and ammunition away.

There is little point in the Right blaming the LEFT and vice versa. People with mental problems like Loughner are a result of our liberal society. They allow themselves to be driven from the path of righteousness and become vulnerable to doing the wrong thing. Loughner helped his own dilemma by abusing drugs and seeking little sobering of his crazed condition, not even realising anymore how crazy he had become.  In such a circumstance our liberal society has little to offer such a person by way of discipline other than imprisonment or death penalty after victims have been created. It is this point that I try to find a solution to, it is the fact that I do not want to see victims of such crazed persons like Loughner.

There always will be criminals but I think would our society take greater steps to control individuals we would see less victims.  I think it is a result of individuals’ lack of personal discipline so that they allow themselves to be driven into crime and disorder. In this case there seems to be nobody having been there to remind that man, how wrong he was, other than the college that tried to deal with his anti-social behaviour during classes.  He was reprimanded for drug abuse by the police but his political radicalism was never taken into consideration and he might well have had terrorist motives.  He could well have acted alone, stimulated by what he saw on the Internet.

As a society I think there is nothing that we can do other than lock those persons up. And such a severe case, to hand out the death sentence, which is the prescribed method of punishment in American law. I do appreciate that some individuals would fare much better in heir lives with early intervention but then how does one measure that discipline that would have to be handed out without breaching the personal freedom of individuals. I think that American society and legal specialists should look into measures that could be taken to control such obviously out of control individuals before they can commit such atrocities.  Maybe our Freedom of Speech/Expression is not controlled enough to take into account the harm some very provocative material can have on individuals. 

Not only in the USA but also in the UK it often becomes apparent that a certain type of people would be better off living in communal housing, that could be connected with some type of social care supervision. We should also look into better protection of parliamentary representatives and make  it a standard that they meet constituents in safer locations and could for example use court houses where visiting constituents could be screened for what they have on them before they enter. I don’t think we should risk the lives of democratically elected people’s representatives by not doing anything to make their positions safer.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 53,457 hits