Some thoughts on Terrorism.

Why would anyone deliberately target children?

It is a particularly despicable act to detonate a bomb where you know people will be harmed but it’s even worse when the majority of those in the area are children.

But the act of terror committed in Manchester Arena was meant to cause the maximum horror and outrage amongst ordinary people, that was the whole point of it.  It was meant to provoke a reaction.

There is a vicious circle here which must be broken if we are to have peace, but I can see no way to break it.

It goes like this.

Acts of terror are meant to provoke a reaction.  When some idiot in Syria makes the demand that America should cease all hostilities in the Middle East or they are going to behead an aid worker or journalist they do not expect their demands to be met, in fact it would be very disruptive for them if America did meet their demands.  They don’t want their demands met.  The demand is just there to give them an excuse to commit a horrific act.

The reaction to these horrific acts is the whole point, that is why they do them, to provoke a reaction.

The purpose of the acts is to provoke a military response so they can portray themselves as being in a legitimate military struggle with the forces of western democracy (or Christianity depending on which set of propaganda you read).

When western political leaders say that they are at war with IS or Daesh they give them legitimacy, when they carry out air strikes against Daesh (IS, ISIS, ISIL or whatever) in Syria or Iraq they give them legitimacy, which is what Daesh want.  Daesh want the Jihadi cause to be seen as legitimate by Muslim communities both in the Middle East and here in Europe and Great Britain.  Donald Trump with his stupid ill thought out verbal attacks and his travel ban has been great for Daesh recruitment.

Western political leaders are playing to the crowd, their response is meant for their home audience, with one eye on the next election they feel that they must be seen to be doing something, but this is exactly what the Daesh terrorists want.

Daesh recruit young men (almost always young men) to blow themselves up or drive a truck along a crowded pavement to further the cause of global Jihad, but what does it achieve ?  Nothing except a lot of pain and misery.  The young men they recruit are as much the victims as the people they slaughter.  They have been tricked into killing themselves by perfidious promises of rewards in heaven after they die.  Living in paradise with a number of virgins at their disposal (the number varies), but this is not what is written in the Quran which promises a reward beyond man’s comprehension without actually saying what it is.  The virgins are just Daesh’s misogynistic interpretation of these ambiguous verses.

The acts of random terror in Europe or Great Britain are designed to cause alienation of the Islamic communities.  To drive wedges between people and between communities, to cause suspicion and doubt.  From their point of view it would be even better if there is a backlash against Muslims after the atrocity in Manchester.

Alienation leads to radicalisation, not of the many but of a few vulnerable individuals who are susceptible to the message of the radicals, people who are seeking certainty in their lives.  People who feel that they have no future, people who have lost hope, these are the ones who are most vulnerable to the brain washing of radical Islam.  The radical message promises them that a certainty but it is a specious message.

Global Jihad uses the Internet as the main method for communication and ideological advancement. Western media feeds on the events terrorists create.  Daesh understands this and have become more sophisticated in the way they carry out their recruiting activities and targeting.

And so there are more recruits to the cause and they commit acts of terror both here in the west and in the Middle East and this provokes a reaction and so the whole bloody cycle repeats over and over again.

Sigh.

 

 

Advertisements

More bullets for ISIS

There are a lot of problems in Syria and Iraq at the moment mainly caused by despotic dictators trying to impose their political views on everyone in their country and religious fanatics brandishing their worn out collections of old fairy tales and wanting to impose their religious views on everyone in the world.

It seems to me that any government which has the capability to manufacture it’s own ammunition would be able to cause problems for terrorist organisations like ISIS.

They could produce ammunition which looked exactly like normal ammunition but had a little something extra.

I’m sure it would be possible for them to infiltrate a batch of this ‘special’ ammunition into the supply chain and eventually ‘let them’ accidentally fall into the hands of ISIS or whichever bunch of idiots are causing the problems.

A cartridge (colloquially called a bullet) consists of the actual metal bullet attached to a shell casing full of gunpowder or cordite.  There isn’t a lot of difference between modern powder and the gunpowder which was used a hundred years ago.

This charge of low explosive burns very quickly but doesn’t actually explode, it creates a high pressure gas behind the bullet which propels it down the barrel and out of the gun.

If one were to replace this low explosive with high explosive but kept the look and weight of the cartridge the same then it would explode with much more force and damage the gun and possibly injure the person firing it.

But that would be too extreme. the person firing the gun would realise very quickly that their ammunition had been tampered with as would the group they were in.  They would probably stop using that particular batch of ammunition very quickly once they had identified the problem.

But if one were to put only a small amount of high explosive in just one in ten or one in a hundred of the cartridges then it could damage the chamber without being immediately obvious.  The terrorists who got the batch of altered ammo would have their guns wear out very quickly and they would start to misfire and jam.

If it were done very subtly then they might not even realise that anything was wrong.  They would just think that their guns were wearing out.  But if they did realise and retaliated against some of the scumbag arms dealers who are willing to sell ammunition to these idiots then that’s OK as far as I’m concerned.

I don’t know … maybe governments are already doing something like this.

Would we ever know?

 

Grammar Schools and Public Schools

Grammar Schools

So, the government has decided to bring back grammar schools.

The question which should be asked here and isn’t being asked as far as I can tell is ‘How will this be funded?’ are taxes going to be raised, no I don’t think so.

What is most likely to happen is that other local schools will have their budgets cut.

Who benefits from grammar schools?

The wealthy benefit to a much greater extent than those who are not so well off.  It is promoted by the government as a meritocracy where talented children can be helped to flourish whatever their background, but that is not what happens in practice.

What happens around existing grammar schools is that more well off parents get private tutors for their children to give them an advantage in the tests. So the intake is skewed in favour of the rich with a small proportion of children from less well off families who got in because they were exceptionally talented.

But this benefits the grammar school because these children are very easy to teach because of their innate talent and the school can point to them ans say yes we do take in children from poorer families.

Grammar schools are divisive for society, they will not benefit working class people, instead they will benefit middle class families who have enough money to afford private tutors for their children.

Grammar schools will not raise the oveall standards, they will polarise the education system by raising their own standards at the expense of other schools in the area.

The way to raise overall standards is to have a diverse mix of children from all backgrounds in a school.

Public Schools

It seems ridiculous to me that public schools get charitable status.  They are a bastion of elitism in British society offering very expensive courses to educate the children of rich families. There is no way that these institutions should qualify for charitable status!

The very flimsy justification for them getting charitable status is that they occasionally take in exceptionally talented children from poorer backgrounds and give them a free education.

Firstly they don’t do this for very many children, secondly they also benefit in the same way that grammar schools do.  The children have to be very talented to get in and this raises the overall standards for the school.

But the main reason is that it gives them the excuse to get charitable status and this is the main reason they do it, charitable status gives them huge financial advantages.

In my opinion public schools should have their charitable status removed (all of them) because it is not justified.

But nothing will be done.

A great many people with power in the government and in the civil service were educated in public schools and so nothing will be done about this.

As long as the establishment is full of public school alumni it will continue to be a bastion of privilige and elitism in British society.

 

Is the NHS safe in Conservative hands?

It seems to me that the Conservatives are trying to break the NHS by driving it into debt and reducing the workforce whilst privatising it gradually by the back door with as little publicity as possible.

Of course they don’t want to be seen to be destroying the health service because that would be politically unpopular.  But it is difficult to break the NHS without people realising what you’re doing.

The first thing they did was to decimate community health care and council services.  The people served by these services didn’t go away or stop requiring treatment therefore the burden of treating these people was dumped on the NHS causing already overstretched services to be swamped and budgets to become overspent.

Now Mr Hunt is trying to impose a contract on the junior doctors which will designate weekends as normal working days.  The modest pay increase included in the new contract will be more than offset by the reduction in overtime payments under the new contract, so it’s actually a pay cut.

But for the junior doctors it is not about pay, it is about the drive to fully staffed operation of NHS hospitals seven days a week with no extra staff and no extra funding.  And Mr Hunt says that he isn’t trying to make doctors work longer hours, errr ….  something doesn’t seem to add up there.

The drive to implement a seven day NHS is based on flawed statistics which misrepresent the real situation.  The NHS already works seven days a week.  Routine clinics and services are only run during the week but all the departments and services which are needed are staffed during the weekend.

The much quoted statistic about you being more likely to die if admitted at the weekend than if admitted during the week is deliberately misleading.  Many people are admitted during the week for a variety of reasons, most of which are the result of routine hospital visits.  However the routine services are not run at weekends so if you are admitted at the weekend it is more likely to be the result of an emergency.

People who are admitted as the result of an emergency visit are likely to have more serious problems than those admitted as a result of a routine visit and I would suggest that this is more likely to be the cause of the difference in outcome rather than any deficiency in the care at the weekend.

So why are the Conservatives and in particular Mr Hunt trying to break the NHS?

Is there perhaps some hidden agenda at work here?

Well in 2005 Jeremy Hunt co-authored a book, ‘Direct Democracy: An Agenda for a New Model Party‘.  If we look at the chapter on health we see that the author said on page 78 – “Our ambition should be to break down the barriers between private and public provision, in effect denationalising the provision of health care in Britain”.

I have read a copy of the book although I cannot post any more than a brief excerpt here due to copyright concerns.  It used to be widely available on the web but is disappearing fast as copies available on websites are mysteriously vanishing.  However it is still available in some places.

This book which was co-authored by Jeremy Hunt advocates the de-nationalisation of the NHS and the introduction of an American style insurance scheme were patients pay into their individual pots and decide how to spend it.  This gives grave cause for concern given that Jeremy Hunt is now in charge of the NHS.

Having a seven day NHS is not possible without adequate resources and staff, but if the real reason you’re doing it is in order to break the NHS so you can introduce privatisation as a remedy then it makes perfect sense!

 

The American Presidential Election 2016

2016 is election year and what a horrible choice the American people have before them, they can choose between an egotistical, narcissistic, racist demagogue whose politics seem to change to mould themselves to public sentiment or they could choose a corporate shill who will do what her corporate sponsors want because the money for her election campaign didn’t just have strings attached, it had bloody great chains attached and they will want their moneys worth.

Clinton’s corporate paymasters include media/entertainment companies whose stated aims include an end to net neutrality.

Neither of the candidates is fit to be president in my opinion.

The only one who was worth voting for was Bernie Sanders and his campaign was sabotaged by the Democratic National Committee, a body which was supposed to be neutral but which was in-fact well and truly in the pocket of the Clinton establishment.

Looked at this way perhaps Donald Trump isn’t that bad after all, it’s not that he is a candidate worth voting for it’s just that he isn’t quite as bad as Hilary Clinton.

But I don’t think he even wants to win the election, I think he just started this campaign to boost brand Trump without any intention of winning.

What a choice, heads you loose, tails you loose.

Brexit, what a stupid decision!

“Ever feel like you’ve been cheated?”

John Lydon

As far as I can tell the referendum started out as an internal spat in the upper echelons of the Conservative Party.

Why did the country collectively make such a monumentally stupid decision in the EU referendum?

And now that we have made such a stupid decision, the people who were encouraging us to vote to leave and making such grand promises, 350 million pound per week to spend on the NHS, control over our own borders, control on immigration, etc, etc, these people are just turning away and dropping out.  Even David Cameron has resigned.

The leaders from the leave campaign are all leaving, they don’t want to take responsibility for the mess they have created, they don’t want anything to do with the aftermath because they know that the lies they told us will be exposed as lies.

“Well actually we won’t have 350 million a week to spend on anything, it was a fictitious figure.”

“Well actually we won’t be able to control immigration after all sorry, bit of an over-exaggeration there.”

I think one of the problems was that both sides were running such negative campaigns. Both were claiming disastrous things would happen if you don’t vote the way we want you to vote. The Remain campaign should have focused more on the positive aspects of EU membership and what we were getting for our money.

Things like the Advanced Manufacturing park in Sheffield, that was funded with EU money.  Would it have been funded without EU money?  Well it might have been but only if it was in London!  and therein lies the problem.  There is a metropolitan elite in London which marginalises the rest of the country, if it’s outside London it dosen’t matter.

There are a lot of people outside London who feel marginalised, there are many people who wanted to show the London elite that they can’t ride roughshod over the rest of the country, they wanted to make a difference.

The EU vote wasn’t just a vote to leave the EU it was a big two fingers up at austerity and immigration and at the cozy clique of public school toffs who are running things.  And yes they made their voice heard but what a mess they have created in the process.  Leaving the EU won’t significantly reduce immigration, not if we want to remain part of the single market and if we do leave the single market then we are screwed financially.  Leaving the EU won’t mean an end to austerity, it will actually generate a lot more austerity, you thought you had it bad brother, you ain’t seen nothing yet!

The 350 million pounds a week was a fictitious figure, yes as a top line figure we gave 350 million pounds a week but we were getting most of that back in a rebate so the actual figure was much smaller, and on top of the rebate we also got money for projects like the Sheffield Advanced Manufacturing Park, grants for scientific research, subsidies for farmers, etc, etc.

So if you were expecting an increase in funding for the NHS after this vote then think again, the money isn’t there, it never was.  Funding will probably be cut drastically when the value of the pound falls through the floor and we suffer the worst recession in living memory, but at least we got our county back yippee!

Political Manipulation

I feel disenfranchised at this election, I live in a ‘Safe’ Labour constituency. Whatever candidate the Labour party put up, however bad, will get in with an overwhelming majority.

Rupert Murdoch’s vote counts a lot more than mine and he doesn’t even have a vote in this country.

The Sun newspaper is controlled by Rupert Murdoch and its editorial content will broadly reflect his views. If it does not the the puppetmaster gets a new puppet rather quickly.

In Scotland the Sun is telling people to vote SNP but in the rest of the UK the Sun is telling people to vote Tory.

This is because the puppetmaster knows that the Conservatives have no chance of getting many seats in Scotland and he doesn’t want those votes to go to Labour.

I don’t particularly like Labour since they dumped their socialist principles and turned into ‘New Labour’ but given a choice between a Labour government and a Tory government I think a Labour government is less bad.

If we get another Conservative government then over the next five years they will eviscerate the NHS, they will continue to erode (or circumvent) workers rights and to erode tenants rights.