Thursday, 19 April 2012

It’s déjà vu all over again – Grays Riverside election running commentary part 2

I suppose I should not have been so surprised by the lack of candidates knocking at my door to convince me to vote for them.  There was a decidedly visible lack of any candidates last year, apart from the singular appearance of the Labour candidate.  I would have voted for her, if it had not been for my promise to weigh up all the candidates and vote for who I thought was the best…and I keep my promises.
What gets me is the unashamed arrogance of this year’s candidates.  If you wish to stand for office, it is your duty to go out and meet your potential constituents, not just put your name forward and arrogantly assume that everyone knows who you are, what you stand for and what you are going to do for your constituents.  Yes, the party you belong to does, in some way, give people some idea of your views but that is not enough.  Why should people vote for you?
I have said it before and I suppose I will have to say it again – democracy is not served when candidates refuse to make their case for being elected and, therefore, leave the electorate with no way to make an informed decision on who they should vote for.
It really is that simple.  Convince us with your passion, your determination, your views and your ambition or do not put yourself forward for office because all you are doing is wasting the electorate’s time.
Until next time…

Wednesday, 18 April 2012

Yet another letter to Jackie Doyle-Price

To
Jackie Doyle-Price MP
Subject
Government snooping plans
Message
I am worried about the government's snooping plans. They are a huge invasion of our privacy and are unnecessary for the security services to catch criminals. Please write to David Cameron and ask him not to force the plans through without proper consultation and not to announce the plans in the Queen's speech to parliament.

I look forward to hearing your views on this.


Above is the text of an e-mail to my MP, Jackie Doyle-Price.  I will post any reply she decides to make here on this blog.
If you want to join the campaign to stop Big Brother, both in the UK and in the US, just follow the links below:

Big Brother is here and his name is David Cameron!

The Orwellian world of Big Brother is already here
It crept up on us whilst we were watching
Blinded by matters inconsequential
Fed to us by men insubstantial
New Speak re-branded as political correctness
To cover Big Brother’s encroachment.

You are just a number in this dark new world
Not a free person as once was the case
You are nothing but a unit, an insignificant cog
In the dark menacing colossus of the Big Brother machine
No freedom
No rights.

Rights given with one hand
Are taken away by the other when you become re-branded
And set adrift on an ocean of obscurity
Visible yet invisible
Heard yet unheard
At one with the homogenous herd.

Our world is dark and colourless
Menace fills the shadows
Under the gaze of the all-seeing eye of Big Brother
Who put the menace there
And drained all the colour from our lives
Robbing us of our individuality, our hopes, our dreams.

We did not heed the warning
Of Big Brother’s approach
Given to us by the prophet Orwell
Too late to deny it
Too late to regret our folly
Too late to stop the damned infernal Big Brother machine.


© Myles Cook, 8/12/08

In yet another move towards a State in which individual freedom is a distant memory, the ConDem Empire is about to push through plans to literally spy on everyone in the UK – their e-mails, their internet history and their text messages.  The ConDem plans will make it extremely difficult for individuals to exercise their freedom of expression, something the UK is supposed to pride itself of having.  Where will this dark road take us, I wonder? 
Cameron’s idea is that the ability to read individual’s internet activity and text messages will enable the security forces to catch terrorists and the police to catch sex offenders who prey on children.  This may well be a possibility but the UK has the highest concentration of CCTV cameras in the world with it impossible to walk down the street without being caught on camera three or four times at the very least.  Did the cameras stop the 7/7 bombings in London?  Of course not.  And snooping on the internet indiscriminately will have no less affect.  Take, for example, someone who decides to look up Adolf Hitler’s grand opus, “Mein Kampf” as I just have; this individual may be an extreme right-wing, Nazi sympathiser or, like me, someone who wants to read the book out of a simple interest in aberrant psychological thought processes.  It may even be a student who is writing a dissertation on Adolf Hitler’s prose style or his life.  If the ConDems have their way, the mere fact that I even mentioned “Mein Kampf” in this blog will have alarm bells ringing at GCHQ who will, no doubt, flag me as an extreme right-wing activist and will now follow my every move on the internet.  Well, to GCHQ I say this – I have done nothing wrong and do not intend to ever do anything wrong so fuck off and leave me alone and could you pass along the same message to Cameron?
Yes, there is a case for targeting certain websites – religious extremist websites who preach hatred for the West and encourage violence as part of a Holy Jihad, websites that are hangouts for paedophiles and sex offenders and the Conservative Party’s website (LOL) – these are websites that are begging for stronger control; there is also a case for targeting the e-mails and text messages of terrorist suspects, extremists, paedophiles and other sex offenders but there is no case whatsoever for the indiscriminate monitoring of all internet and text message communication.
If we do not draw a line in the sand - right here, right now – who knows where it will end?  Will we see a future in which there are jack-booted storm troopers marching down every street?  A future, perhaps, in which the very thoughts we think are subject to the most draconian measures if we dare to utter them?  Sounds a lot like Germany in the 1930s and 1940s.
If the ConDems get their way, we are one step closer to a dark future of Thought Police and the completely homogenous mass-mindedness that crushes individuality, destroys freedom of speech and expression; a future that our forefathers gave their lives to save us from.
I am gladdened that telepaths are a thing of science-fiction so that, at least for now, there is one place that is free.  That said, I’m sure Cameron has a large number of scientists working to create telepaths as we speak, LOL.  Keep thinking your own wonderful thoughts because you never know when you will not have that option.
Until next time…

Saturday, 14 April 2012

Grays Riverside local election running commentary

The first shots have been fired in the campaign to become one of the representatives for Grays Riverside Ward and the winner of the title of number one is the British National Party.  It is rather a weak attempt by the BNP candidate though.  It was not a personal conversation but a couple of leaflets shoved unceremoniously through my letterbox.  That is, however, not even the weakest part of the attempt.  That has to go to the fact that the leaflets did not say anything about the candidate’s intentions regarding local issues.  They were filled with what can only be considered national policy issues, which is hardly a fitting or appropriate set of literature for a local council election.  What residents need to know is what a candidate is going to do for the Ward they are standing for and the whole of Thurrock should they be elected, not what the party they belong to wants to do nationally.  This is exactly the kind of campaigning that I detest as it shows that the candidate is not thinking in a non-partisan way, the way that local politicians should.  It is the way it should work at national level too but I am a realist and know that is never going to happen.
So, all in all, a very weak start to an election race that looks like it will not get any better and there is not much time left to campaign either.
Until next time…

A Tory Storm in an Eggcup – Addendum

I know I wasn’t going to give my detractor any extra publicity but a couple of extra points came to me as I was checking to see if my last comment had been published on their blog (it hadn’t, typical hypocrisy from a Tory).  So here goes…
·         The tagline to the blog is “Unmissable political commentary from Thurrock and talk of the Civic Offices” to which I make three observations:
1.    The word “unmissable” is a subjective judgement from the author, something (s)he tried to have a go for making.  Hypocrisy, my dear detractor, blatant hypocrisy.
2.    “Unmissable” doesn’t really apply as before my detractor publically attacked me on their blog, I hadn’t even heard of their blog.
3.    The assertion of the author of the blog that it is “talk of the Civic Offices” doesn’t really make much sense as lots of things are the talk of the Civic Offices – EastEnders, who’s bonking whom and chlamydia to name just three.  Your Thurrock strikes fear into the hearts of the council and is regularly “the talk of the Civic Offices”.  Get some proper perspective, my dear detractor.
·         My detractor says that the column that (s)he had an issue with had an extreme Left nature.  Attacking my column when their blog has a Right-wing Tory bias is hypocrisy again, my dear detractor, clear hypocrisy.
Another reply I got from my detractor read (in full but with the name of the blog redacted to prevent undue publicity)
“Well to ______________ your piece comes across as extremely leftwing and therefore in our eyes, a dark philosophy.
We could play semantics all day, but we have more pressing things to do then soothe damaged egos.
You put your comments out in the public domain, expect the criticism.  We do.”
To which I replied
“3 points: 1) Philosophy, like knowledge, in neither light or dark but a reflection of one’s own beliefs.  Your beliefs are the dark ones. 2) The only damaged ego here is YOURS.  I couldn’t care what you think.  3) In this whole affair, the only person who has acted honourably is ME as I have not personally attacked you merely set you straight on a few things.  You have branded me an extreme Left blogger with a dark philosophy; perhaps you should read some of my other blogs before you make judgements.”
This exchange throws up the following points:
1.    My detractor’s opening line is a subjective judgement.  Even more hypocrisy.
2.    I wonder what “more pressing matters” the author could have.  All (s)he seems to be good at is openly and publically attacking someone with alternative views from them and then running away and hiding when the person (s)he attacks both outclasses and outguns them.  Hiding in anonymity with a blank profile page with no personal information or contact details.  The height of cowardice, my dear detractor.
3.    “You put your comments out in the public domain, expect the criticism.  We do.”  Yes, I expect criticism.  I applaud criticism as it the opening of a dialogue between opposing views.  My detractor, however, attacked me, personally.  And does (s)he expect criticism?  Does (s)he really?  I think not.  (S)he moderates in-coming comments when (s)he is clearly losing the argument.  My last comment has still to be shown and it is a criticism.
I believe that I am a better person than my detractor for my openness to criticism and unwillingness to personally attack him/her.  I hold the moral high ground here.
Until next time…

Thursday, 12 April 2012

A Tory storm in an eggcup


It is a well-known fact that if journalists and columnists do their job properly and with integrity, they will ruffle a few feathers.  I may not be a ‘professional’ columnist but I approach the job as if I am.  I am not afraid of ruffling feathers if what I write sparks a debate, highlights an injustice or is just getting the truth out in the open.
It is true that I sometimes use colourful language as a means of driving a point home but with my columns on Your Thurrock, I have always refrained from using expletives and have always checked my facts if I used any.  My column is, however, the expression of my opinion.  It was surprising, therefore, to find out that another blogger found it necessary to smear my good name for the most spurious of reasons – my use of the word “masturbating”.
Below is the text of the attacking piece in full (with the title removed so that I am not giving undue publicity to the blog of which it is a part and with all the errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling):
“Sounds like an odd posting doesn't it? But if your little kiddie wink wants to go on the Your Thurrock website to check Mr Casey's reporting of their school fetes, sports days or school proms make sure you know what they may find.
Mr Casey has long indulged the dark philosophy of extreme Left blogger and supporter of the hard Left 38 Degrees movement, Myles on his website. Recently the blogger was given wider publicity by Your Thurrock, who reproduced his pieces in full, slagging of the Government as a 'ConDem' disgrace which he compared to being slavemasters. In a poorly articulated rant he strangely anologises the acts of the Government with slavery, to the point he accused the Tories of 'masturbating' over the cuts that they were making.
Wholesome family publicity from Your Thurrock. But as ever, a totally family-orientated posting from our favourite blog pretending to be a newspaper. Just remember that when little Steven wants to see the pictures of sports day at Bonnygate and stumbles across Myles or any other blogger talking about sex acts.”
I left the following comment on the piece:
“Factual inaccuracy 1:  I’m not left wing.  I hold all politicians in contempt as self-serving.
Factual inaccuracy 2:  I don’t rant and if I did, it is always articulate.
Factual inaccuracy 3:  You wouldn’t be able to just stumble on my blogs.  Each entry has an introductory paragraph for it.
Fact check 1: ConDem is the acceptable shortening of CONservative/liberal DEMocrat.
Fact check 2:  YOU should check your facts before you criticise others.
BTW – you probably won’t like this month’s blog either.”
In an ape-like attempt to mimic my reply, I got this reply:
“Thanks Myle’s, we appreciate your contribution. However,
Factual inaccuracy 1: If you’re not leftwing, we wonder why you are involved/praise such a leftwing movement like 38 Degrees.  The term ConDem is also a perjorative term used by.. .leftwingers!
Factual inaccuracy 2:  You don’t rant and are always articulate?  That’s rather a subjective view.
Factual inaccuracy 3:  No stumbling onto your blog.  True but if you are a child and visit Your Thurrock and read posts out of curiosity, it isn’t very pleasant to read about ‘masturbation’.  Your Thurrock uses your material and you’d expect a so-called ‘newspaper’ to be more decent than repeat such material.
Fact check 1:  Agreed.  No one suggested any different.
Fact check 2:  Check our facts?  We think we have.  However, you may wish to encourage your sponsor blog Your Thurrock on that point.”
To which I replied:
“1. I don’t praise 38 Degrees.  I do, however, believe in some of their causes.  2. I’m certainly more articulate than you.  3. Kids wouldn’t be reading a blog about politics.
Fact:  Just because left-wingers use “ConDem” and support 38 Degrees causes doesn’t mean everyone’s a left-winger.
Fact:  My blog expresses my OPINION.
Fact:  This month’s blog is full of FACTS, supported by documentation.
Opinion: One Tree Hill must be a safe haven compared with the real world of Grays.  A Tory safe haven, presumably?”
Unable to really attack my arguments, the reply I got changed tactics:
“Myles, we think you’re missing sight of our posting.  Our concern is that Your Thurrock pretends to be a newspaper, a newspaper to all, and yet does not vet its material before publishing it.
By all means write what you will on your blog.  Carry on as usual, but Your Thurrock should at least redact words like masturbation from what it publishes.
Your Thurrock is NOT a political blog.  It has hundreds of articles containing reporting on matters relevant and of interest to children, Myles from school fetes, T-Fest and school awards.  No one wants their child reading articles with the word ‘masturbation’ in it, especially when the site claims to be a newspaper.”
I was using my mobile ‘phone to connect to the site and it only allows me about 500 characters to reply before it cuts me off so I had to send my response in two parts.  I was greeted, however, by a dialog box saying that my comment would be visible after moderation.  A sign, perhaps, that the author felt out-gunned by my good self?
I cannot quite remember the exact wording of that reply but the points covered are the same:
You called me an “extreme Left blogger” with a “dark philosophy”.  This is a libellous statement.
Mr Casey does not “indulge” me.  He respects my right to free speech and my writing talent.
None of my blogs have been cut so to say that the piece you referred to as being “reproduced” “in full” is inaccurate.
I’m not the only person to consider ‘workfare’ as modern-day slavery.  Many national shop chains agreed and pulled out of the scheme.
You also said in your reply that my assertion that my blogs are always articulate that “That’s a rather subjective view”.  Quite true, but so was your remark that my piece was a “poorly articulated rant”.
National newspapers also contain columns from people with their opinions using far more colourful language in them – even Tory papers.  Are they not newspapers?  Some national papers have pictures of topless women in them.  Should they be banned?  Children have free access to them every day.
I will, however, add a few final thoughts before I cut off the oxygen supply of publicity that my detractor is getting.
·         Your Thurrock is a newspaper, not a blog.  It utilises video and text articles of a newsworthy nature.  Surely the very definition of a newspaper.  Newspapers often publish columns with people’s opinions; Your Thurrock is no different.
·         My detractor says that I slagged off the current Government as “a 'ConDem' disgrace”.  To this I say:
1.    It would be pointless slagging off Labour because they are not in power.  I did, however, voice my dissatisfaction with the Labour administration when they were in power.
2.    I refer you to my answer on the acceptability of the contraction ‘ConDem’.
3.    The current Government is a disgrace, in my opinion.  And, as this month’s Your Thurrock blog shows, the Conservatives have acted illegally in pushing ahead with parts of their NHS reforms before the Bill became law.  All with the help or, at least, lack of resistance of their Liberal Democrat quislings.
·         The campaign to save the NHS from the ConDem plans to dismantle it is one that anyone with a conscience should support, not just supporters of 38 Degrees.
·         Children would not be poking around on the blog page of Your Thurrock when it is easy to navigate to the pieces they want to read on their school, etc.
·         In my detractor’s first reply (referencing my comment on the contraction of ‘ConDem’), the following statement was made “Fact check 1:  Agreed.  No one suggested any different.”  Actually, they did by saying that it was a “perjorative term used by.. .leftwingers”. This also means that “Fact check 2:  Check our facts?  We think we have” is also inaccurate.
·         My detractor suggests that the blog on their site was about the word ‘masturbating’ being used.  Why then did the author of the piece see fit to launch a personal attack on me personally?  Hardly a professional approach, is it?  Especially when, unlike me, the person’s profile lacks any personal information.  I am open about how to contact me if you wish to comment on my columns and people have access to my personal website and personal blog.
·         My detractor suggests that mention of “sex acts” is wrong.  Rape is a sex act – should the news not report on that?  Also, as Jimmy Carr puts it, masturbation isn’t something to be ashamed of but it’s not something to be proud of either!  At least, if a child did read the blog in question that I wrote, it might lead that child to ask their parents about it and it could be discussed in a proper manner as part of the larger discussion on sex and sexuality.
·         My detractor also shows that, having launched a personal attack, is unwilling to allow uncensored comments to be posted from the person they attacked in their blog.  I refer, of course, to my comments that were not shown until they were cleared by the individual running the blog.  I have not, in any way, personally attacked my detractor or used expletives in my comments so there is no earthly reason for not showing my comments.  My personal blog is open to all comments, regardless of content, as I believe in freedom of speech.  Can my detractor make the same claim with a straight face?  No.
·         Finally, I’d like to thank my detractor for 1) increasing my readership and 2) showing how scared the Tories are when confronted by someone who will not believe their propaganda and lies – your true colours shown in glorious Technicolor!

Until next time...

Thursday, 5 April 2012

Another letter to my MP

The following letter was sent to my local MP asking her to save Legal Aid for the disabled.  I'll post her reply when (or if) I get it.

Dear Ms Doyle-Price,
I am writing to you as my constituency MP to outline my concerns about the impact of the Government’s legal aid cuts on disabled people.

As you will be aware, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill seeks to remove social welfare cases from the scope of legal aid. The absence of this advice - delivered by local charities like Citizens Advice Bureaux - will have an adverse impact on thousands of disabled people who use legal aid to challenge decisions when they are let down by the system.

According to the Government’s own impact assessment, 58% of the total number of people affected will be disabled people.  At a time of dramatic upheaval in the welfare benefits system, access to legal aid advice will be needed more than ever to ensure that disabled people end up with the right support and not pushed further into poverty.

During the Report Stage of the Bill in the House of Lords, a cross party amendment was passed that sought to retain legal aid for people with complex welfare benefits issues. The amendment received vocal support from across the House:
• Lord Newton, former Conservative Secretary of State for Social Security:
"We need to bear in mind that this proposed change to legal aid does not take place in a vacuum. It takes place at a time of great actual or potential turbulence … in the benefits system."
• Lord Bach, Labour Shadow Justice Minister:
"[This amendment] is the most important amendment in the entire Bill." 
• Baroness Doocey, the Liberal Democrat Peer who moved the amendment:
"To make matters worse, the Bill is being considered at the same time that the Government is undertaking a dramatic overhaul of the welfare benefits system."
• Lord Pannick, the Crossbench Peer and eminent human rights lawyer:
"Cutting advice on welfare benefits is both economically unsound and removes an important check against mistakes by welfare benefits decision-makers."

The Bill is now expected to return to the House of Commons after Easter for consideration of this amendment amongst others that were passed in the House of Lords. 

In advance of this debate, I urge you to write to the Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke MP, as well as your own party leader to ensure that welfare benefits remain within the scope of legal aid – which is particularly important for disabled people at a time of a dramatic overhaul of disability benefits.

I look forward to receiving your response.