Lethal propaganda

Israel ran a brilliant PR campaign on their Gaza invasion. Not only were their minions pumping out plausible lines on the world media, there was micro propaganda produced on an individual basis.

I had a letter from a named constituent. She informed me that I was wrong to complain about phosphorus bombs in the first few days of the campaign in January. She wrote:

“Israel does not use phosphorus antipersonnel munitions. However, certain smoke munitions used in the recent operation in Gaza do contain small amounts of phosphorus. The method of Israel 's use of these munitions is fully in keeping with international law. They are directed against military targets, and used for their designed purpose of signaling and screening.”

Amnesty confirmed their report of horrific civilian casualties including 300 children.
They say "disturbing questions" remain about why high-precision weapons like tank shells and air-delivered bombs and missiles "killed so many children and other civilians".

The group also deplored Israel's use of less-precise artillery shells and highly incendiary white phosphorous in densely populated areas and accused Israeli forces of using Palestinians as "human shields" and frequently blocking civilians from receiving medical care and humanitarian aid.

On the world propaganda war, Israel out guns all other nations. Shame that so many children die in their firing lines.

George dragoned

There will be delight in some political circles that a complaint against George Osborne’s expenses is being investigated. They sound ‘iffy’ – claiming on two properties for a sum greater than the total of the mortgages. Who knows, there may be a plausible explanation.

It’s a 'Labour' complaint all media tell us. I do not remember anyone pointing out that many of the trivial accusations from the Telegraph were 'Tory' complaints. But it is not only Labour that will be pleased with an accusation at millionaire smiling boy Osborne.

Backbench Tories have been seething for weeks that David Cameron was protecting his rich shadow cabinet chums and hanging his lowly backbenchers out to dry. We hear the bitter complaints daily in the Commons.

There will be relief that the focus has moved away from the comical petty claims to the scandal of the big spenders. They have got away with the use of all, or almost all, of their housing allowance on interest only. The houses involved were all vast and expensive millionaire dwellings.

Why is this the expenses story the one the  papers do not reveal?

Sinking feeling

While we are on the subject, one deranged bigot rang my local paper to complain that I had claimed for work to underpin the foundations of my Newport home.

I listened fascinated. I have repeatedly pointed out that I have never flipped or made any housing claim except for a second home in London. Nor have the foundations for any of my homes ever been underpinned – thank goodness.

A company in which all the flat dwellers have a share run  many London flats. As any well run company they have a reserve fund for contingencies. In my case it is properly called a ‘Sinking fund.’  From this the Argus’ anonymous caller concluded that my house had been sinking. I told the Argus the name of their moronic informant and suggested that next time they put the phone down on him.

Why waste their and my time?

Blog power

Did this blog shame Rogerstone Council?

I believe it did. When I first posted, two correspondents defended the Council decision to evict Mrs Avery from her allotment. One said I should be ashamed for raising it. He knew the circumstances suspiciously well.

When the storm of angry messages arrived on this blog the defenders of the council ran to earth. Passing my story and pictures on to the local and national press produced hundreds of complaints. The Argus and Facebook publicity attracted instant support.

Without that enormous response, this dim council would have dug in. I believe the two correspondents above expressed the council’s view. Their petty defence was steam-rollered by a wave of common sense.

 It’s blogging that won.

MPs for hire

The Scottish newspaper the Herald published this brief article from me today,

The commonest excuse deployed by part-time MPs with a second job is that it gives them a more rounded experience of life that can be brought to bear on their work for constituents in the Commons. If MPs decide that they need experience to enrich their parliamentary work by all means do it but the money they earn should be deducted from their parliamentary salaries.

There is an Industry in Parliament Trust which encourages MPs to go and get experience in industry and the military but they are not paid for it.

The trouble is that predatory companies seek MPs for hire to act as their advocates in parliament. A couple of years ago, when there was a rush to clean up Sellafield, we found two MPs being paid tens of  thousands of pounds by the nuclear industry to put across their point of view.

They cannot be giving 100 per cent of their time serving their constituents if they are spending a considerable amount of time working for Mega-greed plc.

The worst part of it is the potential corruption of ministers who, if they are sacked or step down, are often seen to be hawking around their experience to companies who have an interest in the expertise they have built up. We’re seeing these top jobs - civil servants, generals, even the office of Prime Minister - becoming a stepping stone to far more lucrative jobs. There should be an absolute ban on working in these areas where they once had influence.

Experience outside parliament enriches parliament but people should not be paid for it, they cannot serve two masters . Even with the best rules human nature, being what it is, means that if you are getting two or three times your salary elsewhere that is where your prime attention will be.

Total number of British dead in Afghanistan = 171

Comments

[Paul Flynn]

There is a great deal of truth in what you say John. There are a growing vested interest in the Anti-Drugs establishment. They include corrupted prison officers, an army of drugs advisers, educators, and experts who would be unemployable if prohibition came to an end.

[John]

Well said Kay Tie re harm and banning things. The fundamental reason that drugs less harmful than tobacco and alcohol are criminalised is because of moral puritism. Were they get the idea that one drug alcohol that kills over 8,000 year is not evil yet cannabis which has killed noone is evil I have no idea.
The huge alcohol and tobacco lobbies would hate cannabis which can easily be grwon at home to be legalised. The huge number of jobs in the prison , justice and police service that would disappear overnight is also another reason that illegal drug users are disriminated against and demonised by the Chardonnay swigging moral majority.
Shame on them

[Paul W]

Thought you would want to read some interesting analysis at The Register on the ID Card story this week. As I said on a previous comment its all down to marketing now from the Home Office and getting business to start asking for it as a quick fix for identification. Problem is none of the businesses will have readers and it will be a visual check meaning the card will be as easy to forge as the current driving license.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/03/johnson_id_cards_uncompulsory/

[Kay Tie]

"We have a better politician now in charge of these decisions. I will write to him with this information."

Of course, all these "harm" arguments are a mere smokescreen for banning substances: there are plenty of harmful substances not banned (e.g. paracetamol, peanuts, alcohol) and plenty of harmless ones that are banned. The real reason for banning is an innate puritanism amongst Anglo-Saxon cultures (the US led the UN prohibition treaty). Let's not kid ourselves that any evidence of harmlessness is going to change the status quo.

We must face the truth: there are screeds of politicians out there who would ban any harmless activity that people enjoyed simply to appeal to the curmudgeonly nature of the electorate. Just look at the attempts to ban computer games ("addictive! violent!"). They seem to enjoy puritanism so much that I do wonder if they are addicted themselves..

[Paul Flynn]

This is an outrage Tony. Don't you need a new bank. I do not get get nonsense like this from the Co-op even though I occasionally drift into the red.

[Paul Flynn]

Thanks John. That is great. We have a better politician now in charge of these decisions. I will write to him with this information.

[John]

Hi Paul I would like to bring this latest report to your attention. It hsows that there is no observable link between cannabis use schizophrenia and psychosis. Jacqui Smiths justification for upgrading cannabis was that we must not gamble with the nations health. Now that the science proves that there is no such risk is she likley to reverse her decision. I doubt it we all know that the move was purely political and bsed on pandering to the media and hypocrisy

Assessing the impact of cannabis use on trends in diagnosed schizophrenia in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005.
Frisher M, Crome I, Martino O, Croft P.

Department of Medicines Management, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, United Kingdom.

A recent systematic review concluded that cannabis use increases risk of psychotic outcomes independently of confounding and transient intoxication effects. Furthermore, a model of the association between cannabis use and schizophrenia indicated that the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia would increase from 1990 onwards. The model is based on three factors: a) increased relative risk of psychotic outcomes for frequent cannabis users compared to those who have never used cannabis between 1.8 and 3.1, b) a substantial rise in UK cannabis use from the mid-1970s and c) elevated risk of 20 years from first use of cannabis. This paper investigates whether this has occurred in the UK by examining trends in the annual prevalence and incidence of schizophrenia and psychoses, as measured by diagnosed cases from 1996 to 2005. Retrospective analysis of the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) was conducted for 183 practices in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The study cohort comprised almost 600,000 patients each year, representing approximately 2.3% of the UK population aged 16 to 44. Between 1996 and 2005 the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia and psychoses were either stable or declining. Explanations other than a genuine stability or decline were considered, but appeared less plausible. In conclusion, this study did not find any evidence of increasing schizophrenia or psychoses in the general population from 1996 to 2005.

from here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19560900

[Tony]

I have just had a run in with the HALIFAX and their actions are a blind aherance to 'the rules'

I was overdrawn beyond my limit by £25 for 5 days and the bank charges are going to amount to £91

When you talk to them there is a fixed charge of
£35 for doing it
AND £28 x 2 for two months charging period because the overdraft crossed a month boundary

So whatever you say about the banks they have not changed and if anything are playing hard ball now on everything (they had been flxible in the past)

I'm not to accept this but I thought the HALIFAX might appreciate people knowing clearly what their policies are

Bankers eh?

[rosemary]

I know this sounds funny, but I am from California and read the story about adorable Mrs.. Avery. I was glad to read that the bureaucrats at the council had back-pedaled and decided that she could enjoy her golden years sitting outside her kitchen window enjoying the 'fruit' of her labor. I intended to write the council an email when I read about Mrs. Averys predicament the other day, but was unable to find an address for them. I intended to point out to them that at nearly 90 years old, the wait for her allotment would likely not even be as long as the 15-20 year waiting list they claim to have, chances are, that with as green a thumb as she has, the lord will have an allotment prepared for her when she is called. Anyhow, I suppose you are wondering why a woman from California would read Welsh news? My g-g-g-great grandfather was born in Wales he immigrated in the early 1800's. I also have ancestors from 8 other UK counties, paternal and maternal, I know because I am my families genealogist, that is why I read news from Wales....

Anyhow, I know you are busy,