Welcome to 1984

Ok, if you had to choose between, let’s say, Egypt or the United Kingdom, and predict which country you think is more likely to detain someone for nine hours without cause, I’m willing to bet that most of you would say Egypt. The UK after all doesn’t do stuff like that.

However, it turns out, of course, that we apparently do.

Now I can understand why our government – and the American government come to that – would not want some of the information leaked by Edward Snowden to come to light. It is, after all, information regarding the activities of two of the world’s biggest security services, and there is bound to be stuff in there that is better off not being printed, not to prevent embarrassment, but for reasons of national security.

But the point remains that if the Government is keen to prevent information being published, for whatever reason, there are legal avenues which it can pursue. The government can issue the newspapers with a little thing called a DA-Notice which means that a newspaper cannot legally print the information that is covered by the notice. It’s like an injunction, only with the Official Secrets Act behind it. What they can’t do is send a senior civil servant down to a newspaper to strong arm them. And they most certainly cannot drag someone out of the line at Heathrow and detain them under some obscure section of the Terrorism Act.

David Miranda had done nothing wrong, nor was he a suspected terrorist – though apparently under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act that doesn’t matter. What he is, is the partner of Glenn Greenwald, a journalist working on the Snowden story, and what he was doing was carrying information that Greenwald needed for his work on that story. Again, if the Government was worried about what that information contained there were perfectly legal ways for them to get hold of it. Detaining Mr Miranda was unnecessary and comes across as a blatant attempt to scare people into not reporting on the Snowden material.

It’s not just the Government’s decision to go all Orwellian on the Fourth Estate that has me angry though, though that does terrify me. It’s the hypocrisy of it that really gets to me. On the one hand, you have a news report about the Government ordering the detention of a journalist for no reason other than that they can, and on the other, you have them condemning Egypt and Syria for their acts of oppression. You can’t have it both ways.

If this country is really committed to standing up for those who cannot help themselves and to  being a bastion of free speech, free ideas and free thought, then we have to act like it. Sometimes that means letting people do stuff that we don’t like or that we don’t necessarily want them to do. But if the Government is going to use strong arm tactics to get its way, then it needs to keep its nose out of international affairs. After all, nobody has any reason to listen to a hypocrite

 

Frack Off Indeed

It’s understandable why the people of Balcombe are unhappy. Not to mention the people of the “desolate” North West and North East. I don’t think I would want a fracking operation on my doorstep either.

Now please don’t misunderstand me. I am as much in favour of using sustainable energy sources as the next twenty one year old, not least because, very soon, we are going to be faced with a situation where a group of miners are going to emerge from the coal face, shake their heads grimly and report that there ain’t no more down there. As a world and a civilisation we desperately need to move away from fossil fuels.

And on many levels I can understand the appeal of fracking. There are enough untapped pockets of natural gas to last us for a decade or more, it creates jobs – very important right now – and it isn’t too complicated. Essentially, you insert water and extract gas. The pluses are there for all to see.

But unfortunately so are the minuses. Fracking involves shooting a mixture of pressurised water and sand down a well shaft at very high speeds and essentially “fracturing” the rock underneath (hence fracking’s full name of “hydraulic fracturing”) thus releasing the gas. Unfortunately, doing this comes with all sorts of side effects that no community would want to deal with. For one thing, natural gas isn’t the only thing released during the fracking process and the various harmful chemicals that are also released tend to find their way into the local water table. There are also concerns about the side effects of the chemicals used during fracking process itself, including such things as benzene, uranium and hydrochloric acid. All this before we get into what repeated fracking does to the geological stability of the local area.

I am all in favour of the government looking into alternative energy resources, but at the moment it seems as if they are looking for the quick solution, the quick fix. That’s not what the energy crisis needs. We don’t need to put something in place that will fix problems now only to create bigger ones in future. We still have time to invest in ways that we know work, such as wind power, and work out all the kinks involved with them. After all, for all its flaws, at least a wind turbine doesn’t dump radium into the local drinking water.

As I have said, on the surface fracking seems like the perfect solution. But once you dig a bit deeper you discover that this is just another example of the Coalition looking for the easiest and flashiest solution so that they can claim they have done something without actually having to put in any of the hard work involved in coming up with a properly thought out answer to the problems we are facing.

The government needs to listen to the people of Balcombe and look at the data again. If after that, fracking is still the best solution, then they can go right ahead and start, with my blessing. But until then, can they please just frack right off.

                                                                                                

Maybe we should be toning things down

As an unashamed supporter of the British Monarchy, I was of course very excited about the birth of Prince George of Cambridge, and I wish both him and his parents every happiness. However, that’s not what I’m going to write about today, because, let’s be honest, it’s been overdone.

I was in the John Lewis food hall in Bluewater yesterday, and in the process of wandering around aimlessly stumbled across THE NEBUCHADNEZZAR, a bottle of champagne 2′6″ tall, 15 litres in volume, and costing a mere £1400. The scary thing is that a brief session on Google showed me that this isn’t the biggest size of champagne bottle available (that, incidentally, is the Melchizedek, 30 litres in volume, roughly 4′ tall and probably costing a live unicorn).

Now at the best of times  I have a problem with the type of decadent posturing that such items are a symptom of, just as I have a problem with people who drive  4 x 4s in central London, as if to say, “Well, I could drive a Fiat Punto, but I can afford to run this and you can’t, so I’m going to buy it.” But I especially have a problem with it now. We are still – despite the Treasury pulling out the bunting over 0.6% growth – in a time of recession and, according to the government, we are supposed to be “all in this together.” But the existence of the Nebuchadnezzar proves that in fact there are still those who are less in this than the rest of us.

The fact that it was even on sale proves that, while people all around the country are struggling to feed their families and earn a decent living, there are still those who look up from their game of croquet, or kick the peasant, signal their manservant and say “Jeeves, I’m a little parched. Fetch the Nebuchadnezzar will you.  And, while you’re at it, the swan stuffed with duck, stuffed with quail. I fancy a sandwich.” There are still those who have no idea what it means to be hungry, or unemployed, or homeless. They couldn’t even imagine what that would be like.

Now I’m sure some will argue that the production of luxury items like the Nebuchadnezzar and the Melchizedek provides jobs, which people can ill afford to lose in a time of austerity. But let’s be honest. Pop into any wine merchants – or, to be fair, any supermarket- and there is clearly enough work going in the wine industry without the need to produce something that costs roughly £100 a glass.

 I’m not saying that we can’t enjoy ourselves. We all need something to cheer ourselves up from time to time, especially in a time of austerity when everything can seem so grim. Yet surely there has to be some better, cheaper, less in your face, way of doing it than by buying a bottle of Champagne you’d have a hard time picking up without the help of your faithful manservant.

 

Maybe it's time we just went Federal

It’s not often that a sitting government’s attempt to massively change the way the UK’s political system works just passes everybody by without so much as ruffling a few feathers, especially when it’s a change that will only benefit the party proposing it.

This week the Coalition introduced a proposal designed to solve once and for all the curious issue of the West Lothian Question – that strange quirk of British politics that allows Scottish, Welsh  and Northern Irish MPs to vote on issues that only concern England whereas English MPs cannot vote on issues that only concern Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Coalition’s solution? Ban Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs from voting on issues on English bills. Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs, otherwise known as half the parliamentary Labour Party.

Now I’m not saying that the West Lothian Question doesn’t need solving – though we have managed to get along without solving it for a very long time – but this isn’t so much a solution as a partisan attempt by the Conservative party to behead the Labour party and prevent it from being able to form an effective government ever again. Under this bill, a Scottish Labour Prime Minister would have been unable to vote on half the legislation of his own government, as would half his party, basically rendering his government powerless. You can see who this benefits can’t you?

If the Conservatives are serious about dealing with the problem of the West Lothian Question, then there is a solution that would not only solve it, but benefit them in perpetuity. Set up a devolved English Parliament. This is an idea that has been floated before, but dismissed on the grounds that we have already have a parliament at Westminster and have no need for two. But the success of the devolved parliament in Scotland and the devolved  assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland have proved that individual national assemblies or parliaments can work within the wider Westminster framework.

In fact, I would go one step further and suggest that we need to follow Germany’s example. Maybe the time has come for the United Kingdom to become the Federated Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Germany, much like the US, is made up of sixteen federal states, each with their own leader and their government, overseen by the Federal Government in Berlin. Maybe this is what we should do. Strip Westminster of everything bar foreign policy, tax raising powers and the ability to create legislative guidelines for the federal assemblies to operate. Everything else relating to the day to day running of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland would be handed over to the federal assemblies. This would solve the West Lothian Question once and for all, and would also serve to pull the need for independence out from under Scotland’s feet. If they already have all the powers they need to run themselves, why become an independent country? It would also potentially allow us to reduce the number of MPs sent to Westminster; though that is something we’d have to look at in more detail.

Westminster would never go for it, being overly keen on keeping as much power for itself as possible. But in the face of an overtly partisan attempt by the Tories to keep themselves in power, maybe this is an idea that needs to be seriously considered.

We Need Local Papers

I have just finished a very enjoyable and interesting week with my local newspaper, the News Shopper. As this was my second time with them, this year I was given a bit more responsibility, in terms of going out and finding stories.

But this blog is not about my experiences at the News Shopper. This blog is about the importance of local journalism. One of the first things you are taught when you start studying journalism is that local journalism and local papers aren’t what they used to be. The money isn’t there for local papers to employ as many journalists as they used to and because of this local journalism has become less about actual reporting and more about recycling press releases. This isn’t because the new breed of local journalist doesn’t care about proper reporting. It’s just that when you are being told by the higher ups that you have to produce x amount of stories in a very short time then some things slip. That’s just economics. Twenty people trying to do the job of thirty are always going to have a harder time.

This is a shame, I think, because it deprives a community of one of its greatest assets. A proper local paper will know the area it covers back to front. It will know all the shortcuts, all the people worth talking to, and its reach and contacts will be limitless. For example the News Shopper’s patch also includes Woolwich. When Drummer Lee Rigby was murdered, they were among the first on the scene, and were able to cover the story in a way that has earned them congratulations from a lot of people. Other more famous news outlets were asking them for quotes, as they knew that they would know the details better than anyone else on the ground, bar the police.

Local newspapers can do more to inform a community about what’s going on in their local area than possibly any other form of communication. And bigger news groups can also find a use for them. Sometimes – as in the case of the guy who escaped from Southend Crown Court – the local press, by benefit of being on the scene, is able to break stories before the big boys get there. They can be an unending source of useful and interesting stories.

Of course they have their flaws as well. In an attempt to cover their costs, they can often come off looking like they contain more adverts than news. But that’s a minor disadvantage when compared to all of the major advantages that local papers have.

Lastly, by not buying local papers or reading them, or paying them any attention, we are depriving ourselves of not only a very useful source of information, but also a very, very, important part of our media heritage.

Local newspapers were where it all began, before the nationals arrived. Without them, we would not have the news as we know it today. And a world like that is unthinkable.

Pomp and Glory

Those of you who read my weekly musings regularly will know that I am no fan of the style of knee jerk, jingoistic, patriotism espoused by the likes of the BNP and the EDL. However that does not mean that I am not proud of my country, quite the opposite.

There are many things I love about being British. For example, I love our overall commitment to fair play and decency, the central role of tea in our daily lives, and the fact that we regularly take the mick out of ourselves (mostly so no one else can). But one of the things I love above all is our sense of tradition and ceremony.

I was reminded of this while I was watching the Trooping of the Colour this morning, part of the Queen’s Official Birthday celebrations. What other country in the world could pull off something as amazing as that? Not only does it look amazing, and almost perfectly choreographed, but it is insanely well rehearsed for months in advance. It is hard to picture any other country having the reason, or the time, to pull off something like this. And yet we pull it off again, time and time again, year after year.

We demonstrated it last year with the celebrations for the Jubilee as well. I dare those of you who watched it to say that the river pageant wasn’t inspiring, amazing and downright beautiful at times as well. The same was true of the Olympics’ Opening Ceremony. When we as a country want to show off, when we pull out all of the stops, then prepare to be amazed.

There are lots of things wrong with the country at the moment, not least the fact that we have a government beset with infighting, which seems to be making an extra special effort not to make people’s lives better, but to make them much, much worse. Our economy is still not great and not showing any signs of getting better, and it can seem at times as if we have lost everything that once made us a great nation. It is this feeling that groups like the BNP and UKIP feed upon and use to gain positions of influence and power.

The thing is they are wrong. All the things that used to make us a great country still do. The recession hasn’t dented them, nor has it destroyed them. The things that make us great were never physical things, like industrial prowess, or an empire. They were things I mentioned earlier, our shared sense of history, our shared culture and traditions. They still exist. They are not physical things, but things that exist in the very fabric of our island, that are bound into the very souls of the people who live here. They are eternal, unaffected by the stresses of daily life. All we have to do is look at the Trooping of the Colour, or the Changing of the Guard at Buckingham Palace, or take a walk up to a building older than some countries, to discover that we are still, and always shall be, great.

Survivor is Exactly the Right Word

I’m a cancer survivor.

I don’t talk about it very often, but I am. In December 2010, just a few weeks shy of Christmas, I was told that I had testicular cancer, and would be beginning a nine week course of chemotherapy early in the New Year. Those few weeks changed my life, both for the better and for the worse.

So reading that by 2020, a scant seven years from now, almost half of the people living in this country will suffer from cancer at some point in their lifetime unsettled and upset me. I wouldn’t wish that experience on anyone, not even my worst enemy, and the fact that most of those people will survive isn’t much of a comfort.

But what really caught my eye about the article was the fact that it used the word “survive”. They won’t recover from cancer. They will survive it. I know that it was meant in the sense that they won’t die from it, but it struck me in a completely different way. From my perspective you don’t recover from cancer. You simply survive it if you are lucky.

To pull out an exhausted military metaphor, having cancer is like fighting a war. It takes all your energy, all your time, all your focus. It takes everything you have and offers nothing in return. It wounds you and leaves you with scars, some physical and obvious, some not so much. And if you are lucky, if you are very, very lucky, sometimes you get to walk away at the end and say that you have survived it. You come through the other side, but you are not, and never will be, the same person you were before. And cancer will never leave you, it will always be there in the background, haunting everything you are and everything you do.

I know it has affected me. I still dread my regular outpatients appointments, even though I know I have nothing to fear now, and I still wince every time I hear mention of someone else getting cancer, both because I know how it feels and because I know that but for the grace of God it could be me again. Cancer is something that, once you have it, stays with you, silent but always present.

To borrow a quote from the TV show Firefly, “No one leaves Serenity Valley. They just learn to live there.” Similarly you only ever recover from cancer physically. But the other than that, you just have to learn to live with it. You don’t just wake up the day after you final chemo and think “I am now done with cancer.” You wake up the day after you final chemo session and think “This is day one PC. Post cancer.” It changes your life forever, and the best you can do is not let it overwhelm you or take over your life.

My name is William Davie. And I am a cancer survivor.