Planning Law Changes Set to Ruin Countryside

Last year we visited Ireland and toured the Ring of Kerry, the Dingle peninsular, and then up to Galway and Connemara. In so many beautiful places one thing that stuck me was that so often the skyline was littered with houses. The Irish love to paint their houses, indeed it seems almost obligatory. But this does mean that when ill positioned they so easily spoil beautiful countryside. And so many are ill positioned.

Ireland’s planning regulations are much less stringent that those in the UK and this ruin of beautiful areas of countryside is the consequence. Once housing has been established, it will never be removed.

The government’s proposed new framework on planning regulations streamlines more than 1,000 pages of policy into just 52. One important change is to put decisions into the hands of new local groups. But a YouGov poll, commissioned by the National Trust, found that few people were aware of the government’s proposals to dilute the planning laws radically, and even fewer had the inclination to address planning issues in their local area.  Developers will, for sure, find it easier to pressure these new local groups to approve their plans. The well practiced planning departments in local government already know how developers will pester until they get what they want.

Please support the National Trust campaign to get the current government to re-think the changes they are making to UK planning regulations by signing up to their petition.

I'm afraid I did

This is that moment: when David Cameron admits to Nick Clegg that he did say "Nick Clegg" in reply to the question "What is your favourite joke?" Need I say more?

Gillian Duffy

It's very easy to criticise Gordon Brown's gaff captured by Sky News when he drove off with one of their microphones, but more respectable reporting would not spy on someone's private conversation in this way. I'm quite sure that any politician will have said equally damning things in private. In fact we all have. The real question for me is what did Gillian Duffy actually say. Here is a transcript:

"But there's too many people now who aren't vulnerable but they can claim and people who are vulnerable can't claim, can't get it.....You can't say anything about the immigrants because you're saying that you are ... But all these Eastern Europeans what are've comin in, where are they flocking from... And what are you going to do about students that are coming in now...."

Is this bigoted? Or to put it another way, do you think she would be a suitable recruit into our immigration department?

Secrecy for Success

War has always been as much about propaganda as it has about fighting. In the end, success is only achieved when you have won the hearts and minds of the vast majority on both sides. We are continuing to engage in a war in Afghanistan, a country that has been in continuous civil war since the late 1970s. This war started with Operation Enduring Freedom, a campaign to destroy the Al-Qaeda terrorist training camps inside Afghanistan, following the September 11^th US attacks in 2001. The Taliban government refused George W Bush's demand to turn over all resident Al-Qaeda members to the US and close all the terrorist training camps. Let us remember that the Taliban were overthrown in 2001 and a democratic government led by Hamid Karzi put in place. The freely elected National Assembly of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan includes women as voters, candidates and elected members. We have come a long way.

Afghanistan is a poor country, plagued with landmines, a massive illegal poppy cultivation and opium trade and new to the concept of democracy. The Western troops are now faced with an increasing Taliban presence, fighting back at the changes we have brought about. They continue to see a threat from the few remaining elements of Al-Qaeda. Recently, attacks on our troops have seen many casualties from road side bombs. This is very regrettable, but there is still a job to be done. If Western support was withdrawn at this stage, it would have only one consequence. All the bloodshed and sacrifice needed to achieve the toehold of democracy established in Afghanistan would be in vain.

Frank Skinner writes (in the Times): "It's not just about helicopters and the right kind of armoured car, is it? The problem is that we, as a nation, can't really do war any more." Our democratically elected government acting on our behalf embarked on this war. The least we can do is support them in the propaganda war that surrounds the whole affair. What I find almost unbelievable is why senior military personnel express publically any view on the adequacy of our helicopters and armoured cars. To question our capability is to question our ability to continue in Afghanistan, when popular opinion has withdrawal on the agenda. Whatever happened to secrecy and any awareness of the propaganda war involved here. Sitting in my Al-Qaeda bunker at the edge of my Taliban supported terrorist training camp, I am greatly encouraged to browse the internet via my satellite link and learn that Sir Jock Stirrup and Sir Richard Dannatt both find our helicopter fleet inadequate. Why do we even see reports on the success of the roadside bombs – surely that information itself should be kept secret.

Contrast this with another age: The Enigma code-breakers of Bletchley Park are finally to be honoured with commemorative badges. Crucial to our success in World War II and the continued establishment of democracy in Europe, this was an operation which depended on absolute secrecy. Indeed the identities of those involved have been kept secret for all this time. There is a lesson to learn there, it seems to me.

Information is New World Energy Threat

Jonathan Koomey of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Stanford University has estimated that 1.6% of the US electricity consumption is now being used to power servers in data centres. This includes the necessary cooling systems and associated data-networking equipment. The figure has doubled in the past five years giving an annual growth of about 14%. This represents the output of five 1000 MW power plants. For the whole world, the figure is 14 such plants, and the total cost of this electricity $7.2B per year.

If growth continues at this rate, information could become the dominant use of energy. The calculations above do not account for the domestic use of energy for information purposes. Consumption by TVs is a comparable level (1.5%) and the consumption from domestic and office computers similarly is significant.

So even if we stop burning up fuel to fly around the world, eventually, energy needed to sustain our data bases and provide the video conference in place of flying will be our next energy problem.

The solution: maybe a shortage of energy will itself bring about a population reduction. The human race is subject to the laws of nature just as much as any other species on the planet, but the implications of this may be harsher than we would wish (see Paul Chefurka, 2007)

So what is bin Laden's problem?

At http://www.acommonword.com/, 138 Muslim scholars, clerics and intellectuals have come together to declare the common ground between Christianity and Islam. Since October 10th, 2007, 3560 visitors have endorsed the site. Today, this same group of Muslims responded with a half page advert in the Sunday Times, to deliver a “Muslim Message of Thanks and of Christmas and New Year Greetings.” This is a very positive gesture in a mad world where differing points of view are normally so polarised.

In 1947, the United Nations approved the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine (originally 1920) into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. The Arab League rejected the plan, but on May 14, 1948, Israel declared its independence. We should all remember what US and UK (supported by Australian and Polish) action was taken starting on March 18^th 2003, to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. The resulting war has resulted in over 4000 coalition casualties and more than 600,000 Iraqi deaths.

Meanwhile, reported on Xinhua, a Chinese news site: “A year after former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was executed, his influence is still strongly palpable at his hometown as the country remains polarized in sectarian hatred.” Abdullah Jbara, governor of Salahudin province in northern Iraq, told Xinhua that the role Saddam had played should be viewed in an impartial manner just like any other political figures in the history. "The man had good acts as well as bad ones. So we need to look at his good deeds and make use of them, and at the same time we need to fix the wrongdoing he had committed," said Jabara, who gained reputation and respect in the province for insisting that Saddam should be buried at his birth place instead of a secret location. This comes after a report in Reuters on 6^th December: “Iraq will have to cut food rations in 2008 because of insufficient funds,” Trade Minister Abdul Falah al-Sudany said. So after all that has happened, and using a ration system developed by Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi people now face harsher rationing than was needed when the West imposed trade embargoes on Hussein. Are we proud of the progress we have made?

Also, in a statement posted on the Internet on 29-12-07, Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden accused the United States of having a plot to take control of Iraq's oil (is this news?). In the statement, bin Laden also accused Washington of seeking to build military bases in Iraq and dominate the region. The United States is making efforts to rebuild a pro-Washington national unity government in Iraq, which is meant "to give the Americans all they wish of Iraq's oil", said the statement, urging Iraqis to reject it. bin Laden also made very clear in this statement that a primary concern was the fate of the Palestinian people, and his intention of giving them back their territory between the river Jordan and the Sea.

So, whilst a small group of Muslims make strenuous efforts to bring peace and understanding between Islam and Christian groups, there is a miserable response from the Christian community. Instead, Al-Qaida will continue to gain sympathisers because of historical US and UK action in Palestine and Iraq.

Human Rights - Not for Al-Jedda

Do we take the law on human rights seriously? It seems that the British legal system is prepared to indulge in petty argument about jurisdiction rather than deliver justice. An Iraqi citizen, who subsequently claimed asylum in the UK in the 1990s returned to Iraq in October 2004, was arrested and has been detained in Basra ever since. He may well be a terrorist, but no charges have been brought against him. In this country, of course, he could be detained for no longer than 28 days under such circumstances. However, in Iraq, it seems, detention can be indefinite. Meanwhile, this case attracts very limited coverage in the press, or even by Amnesty International. Why? Have all you journalists and campaigners gone to sleep for Christmas?

Hilal Abdul-Razzaq Ali Al-Jedda, 50 year old father of 6 and holder of dual British and Iraqi nationality has been held prisoner in Iraq since being arrested on October 10^th 2004 by US forces and handed over to the British forces. He complains that his detention infringes his rights under article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. These claims were rejected by the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court and also by the Court of Appeal; both courts “delivered lengthy and careful judgments, commensurate with the importance and difficulty of the issues then raised”

From 29^th to 31st October the House of Lords had a hearing of his case based on a new question: “the attributability in international law of the conduct of which the appellant complains.” (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ ldjudgmt/jd071212/jedda-1.htm). So is Al-Jedda subject to UN or British law? The judgement was made by the House of Lords on 12^th December. After thirty nine paragraphs, covering the history of who had jurisdiction over whom during both the course of the Iraq war and the period following it, we finally hear: “There is in my opinion only one way in which they can be reconciled: by ruling that the UK may lawfully, where it is necessary for imperative reasons of security, exercise the power to detain authorised by UNSCR 1546 and successive resolutions, but must ensure that the detainee’s rights under article 5 are not infringed to any greater extent than is inherent in such detention. I would resolve the second issue in this sense.

Furthermore, a third issue arises: “whether English common law or Iraqi law applies to the appellant’s detention.” Apparently, after further deliberation “The appellant’s claim in tort is governed by the law of Iraq”

In other words, the British acting in Iraq can make up their own laws, not the same as those exercised within Britain, and when it is convenient, they can claim that it is nothing to do with them, in any case, since Iraq is now in charge of their own country.

I made you deaf

Jackie Ballard, Chief Executive of Royal National Institute of Deaf and Hard of Hearing People (RNID) is advocating allowing deaf parents to screen their embryos to select a deaf child over those with normal hearing. Genetic screening for “designer babies” is an area evoking considerable controversy, but this concept turns the debate on its head. Until now, the debate has been on the ethics of selecting good characteristics for your child, reminiscent of creating a master race, eugenics and Nazism. Ballard was formerly director general of RSPCA for 3 years, a Liberal Democrat MP and originally a social worker, is advocating deliberately designing a baby with a disability.

This has arisen from the debate on a clause in the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill, which is passing through the House of Lords, and would make it illegal for parents undergoing embryo screening to choose an embryo with an abnormality if healthy embryos exist. Prof. Ulrike Zeshan of UCLan, Preston has said “If the intent of the bill is to prevent human suffering, then deafness does not fall under its remit. Deafness constitutes a linguistic/cultural minority and adds to our diversity. Our society chooses to say that deaf people are disabled, but left-handed people are not. Why? This is an arbitrary choice. Research has shown that there are societies where deafness is regarded as an equally viable option, not a disability.”

A spokesman said: “While the RNID believes in the individual’s right to choose, we would not actively encourage the selection of deaf embryos over hearing ones for implantation when both are available.”

So how exactly are you going to explain to your child that they are deaf because you selected them over an embryo that most likely would have normal hearing? To me this clarifies the rights of parents over choosing the genetic make-up of their children. They should not have such rights. Parents do not own their childern, who are in any case in their care for less than 20 years. The more difficult question is “should anyone have the right to design a baby?”