Hate campaigns against individuals, some of which disturbingly includes targeting tribute pages to the deceased, have become an unwelcome by-product of the growth of Internet social networking. The pure violence behind the words and actions of these so-called "trolls" is clearly something to be addressed. Legal powers exist to convict offenders, as with the case of the student who posted racist comments about the critically ill footballer Fabrice Muamba. I also believe that people need to be educated about appropriate behaviour on the Internet.
Public figures have started to speak up about some of the language and threatening behaviour they are subjected to online. There is some excellent writing emerging on the subject. One individual used a social networking site to threaten a Member of Parliament, Louise Mensch, with killing her children - above and beyond what you would imagine the very worst trolls could be capable of.
I urge caution at this point: the Internet phrase "trolling" has a broad definition and is used expansively. Many web forum and social network users will describe others as trolls, purely because they disagree with them. Anyone who has used forums over the years will already be aware of debating against the 'tyranny of the majority', and being classed as a "troll" - itself surely an act of trolling! Some may be described as trolls for constantly repeating the same points, which in fairness may become tiresome. Others may be described as trolls for repeatedly seeking out the same person on a social network in order to hassle them, something which can be more accurately described as stalking.
Trolling is also often described as someone writing with the distinct purpose of gaining a reaction. Using that definition, it could be argued that Mensch herself is a troll. That might be stretching things a little far. At the very worst, I would argue that the time Mensch spends on Twitter could be better spent working for her constituents. Yet however offensive you find Mensch's celebrity politics, there is no excuse for some of the material she has been subjected to. The word "troll" does not begin to capture the significance of it. The poison pen letters are criminal. It is not just celebrities being subjected to it either - a Brighton resident won a court battle to order Facebook to release the names of those who waged an online hate campaign against her.
While those who write the nastiest of material should be dealt with, there is also a risk of misunderstanding the behaviour of those who are yet to realise the Internet is no different to the outside world. Perhaps the most unforgivable fact about Mensch's tormentor is his age. At 60, he should be aware of what is acceptable and what is not.
I recommend a structured plan to improve conduct on the Internet without criminalising the immature, who simply need bringing into line. There should be a simple set of rules, which are brief and are displayed when someone logs on to the Internet for the first time. One one hand, the young person currently sitting in prison over a nasty racist tweet can only reflect on the big mistake he made. On the other hand, there is no way the ranting of a 60 year old man can be dismissed as life inexperience. These are challenges we must overcome.
Wednesday 13 June 2012
Sunday 10 June 2012
Time for a Dangerous Dog "Owners" Act
A spate of bad headlines about dangerous dogs and dangerous owners has exposed the need for a new law regarding the ownership of potentially dangerous dogs. The present law is no longer fit for purpose. To be precise, the new act should be called the Dangerous Dog Owners Act, reflecting the idiocy of many dog owners in Britain.
This week alone there have been reports of at least two dog attacks on children, one just two years old. Both were seriously injured by Staffordshire Bull Terrier dogs, the current choice of breed. Closely related to these occurrences is an emerging trend of cruelty to these dogs.
Two Staffordshire Bull Terriers were recently murdered by those owners they thought they could trust. In the first dog-murdering incident, the individual drowned his dog because he could no longer afford to keep the dog. He chose the cruel option, rather than one of the many alternatives. The dog was called Tyson.
In the other incident, the individual murdered his dog, also called Tyson, because the dog urinated on his bed.
A revised Act of Parliament reflecting these post-millennium attitudes is desperately needed. The Dangerous Dogs Act often punishes dogs rather than the owners. Within any new act, an effective licensing system is needed, which prohibits those with criminal records from being allowed to keep dogs. The system should also prohibit those with records of cruelty to pets or failure to control pets from keeping dogs.
Licences should not be mere formality, where a prospective dog owner simply has to fill out a form and pay a nominal sum. They should be a means of monitoring how dogs are cared for, and the lack of any such licence should result in a financial penalty and confiscation of the pet.
It is sad that it has come to a point where a string of reports of dog attacks (perpetrated by and towards dogs) is no longer seen as a moral panic, but an unfortunate backdrop to modern British life. The sooner a Dangerous Dog Owners Act is passed into law, the better.
This week alone there have been reports of at least two dog attacks on children, one just two years old. Both were seriously injured by Staffordshire Bull Terrier dogs, the current choice of breed. Closely related to these occurrences is an emerging trend of cruelty to these dogs.
Two Staffordshire Bull Terriers were recently murdered by those owners they thought they could trust. In the first dog-murdering incident, the individual drowned his dog because he could no longer afford to keep the dog. He chose the cruel option, rather than one of the many alternatives. The dog was called Tyson.
In the other incident, the individual murdered his dog, also called Tyson, because the dog urinated on his bed.
A revised Act of Parliament reflecting these post-millennium attitudes is desperately needed. The Dangerous Dogs Act often punishes dogs rather than the owners. Within any new act, an effective licensing system is needed, which prohibits those with criminal records from being allowed to keep dogs. The system should also prohibit those with records of cruelty to pets or failure to control pets from keeping dogs.
Licences should not be mere formality, where a prospective dog owner simply has to fill out a form and pay a nominal sum. They should be a means of monitoring how dogs are cared for, and the lack of any such licence should result in a financial penalty and confiscation of the pet.
It is sad that it has come to a point where a string of reports of dog attacks (perpetrated by and towards dogs) is no longer seen as a moral panic, but an unfortunate backdrop to modern British life. The sooner a Dangerous Dog Owners Act is passed into law, the better.
Wednesday 6 June 2012
Government workfare policy almost wrecks Queen's jubilee celebrations
The Queen's jubilee celebrations provided much joy for members of the British public of all classes. They defied the rain and the cold temperatures to pay tribute to her lengthy service. However, the sceptre of spiteful Tory policy is never far away. Their workfare policy, which encourages young people to work for nothing to gain 'experience', provided an uncomfortable backdrop which threatened to tarnish the memory of the Bank Holiday weekend festivities.
In this outstanding piece of research by Shiv Malik, it was revealed that young people were bussed in to London from other areas of the country with pockets of deprivation, including Bristol and Plymouth, to provide security for the jubilee pageant. Their coaches arrived too early, at 3am, and they were left camp under London Bridge. Yes - in 2012, the young poor found themselves in a situation that could have been straight out of the history books of Victorian Britain. They were unpaid slaves. Having spent hours cold and wet under a bridge, they worked for nothing, as royalty flowed down the river in a golden boat and hoards of royalists watched on, expressing their pride in being British by waving flags.
This is a completely unacceptable state of affairs. Instead of forcing young servants to work for nothing, the long British summer should be used as a means to provide economic opportunities for these people. The Olympics, the jubilee celebrations, and the prospect of perhaps a warm summer, should be opportunities to provide paid employment - not another means for the wealthiest to exploit the poorest. It is another example how those holding currency in this country do not want to share any of it with the nation's poorest. Unemployment will not go down while the so-called wealth creators know they can employ people for nothing.
There are a few counter-arguments to this position, largely surrounding the idea that the jubilee events were a privilege to be involved in and young people agreed to participate to get experience. So let us consider some of these arguments.
1. "They agreed to it"
One of the counter-claims is the young people agreed to the unpaid work. Whether they have agreed to it or not is a moot point - nobody should be made to feel they should work for nothing for a chance in life. Some knew they were not being paid, but felt they had to go along with it or maybe lose their welfare benefits. Others were allegedly bribed with the promise of work at the Olympics. None of them expected to be treated like peasants, dumped under a soggy bridge and left to sample Cardboard City life from the Thatcherite 1980s.
2. "They are paid state benefit, so in theory had been paid"
Anyone who has been on state benefit knows the income it provides does little more than buy food and pay the bills. It is not a means to live an active and sociable life. The conditions of state benefit include actively seeking work and demonstrating a willingness to do this, so it is not a payment without conditions in its first instance. The purpose of benefits is to help counter the effects of poverty. Welfare payments should not be a means to justify blackmail. This kind of blackmail potentially affects millions of people out of work at present. Despite the void of millions of jobs needed, this blame culture continues, with the poor being ordered to get on their bikes to find work - or in this case, a coach.
3. "Others were camping out just to get a good position to enjoy the event"
Well good for them. How very deferential. If anyone was camping out to be there, I hope they had taken the necessary safety precautions, and I hope they enjoyed their day. The slaves were never going to enjoy the day in quite the same way. They were on duty. They had to work. They had to deal with any problems that arose. They had to deal with colleagues, and take instructions. And they should have been able to do this without the stress of having arrived at 3am and left to fend for themselves. As a side note, it is also worth mentioning that if it was a mere "logistics error" (as the manager of the private firm responsible for the security colourfully described it), what else was not done properly? Were those unemployed people plucked to provide security (of all things) sufficiently security-checked themselves? Would we have known if they were terrorists?
Those who think the centre-left, led by Lord Prescott, are being typically difficult about workers' rights and blowing this issue up out of all proportion, here is some food for thought. It is just as well that the debate is "merely" about the employment rights of young people. If someone had been seriously injured or killed as a result of negligence, the debate would have been far more critical, and the jubilee weekend would have been wrecked thanks to this inept government and their rotten employment policies.
This incident is typical of the problems we face in 2012 under a callous government. Although our society's problems cannot be compared to those in Syria, it is difficult to wonder how we can consider setting anyone else free when sections of our society are not free. A minimum wage should mean a minimum wage for all. That means no more unpaid internships, and a termination of the workfare policy.
Would it really cause great hardship to companies to pay all workers who wish to learn their trade with them? There are enough mechanisms for employers to rid themselves of staff who struggle to grasp the work thanks to our lightweight employment laws. They could take a chance on these young people and pay them what they deserve. Their own lack of economic consciousness mean that many companies are unaware of the fact that they also need paid staff for the economy they rely on to function, An economy that provides liquidity to the poorest is in the interests of all but the very wealthiest of companies. Staff who are unpaid for their labour cannot be consumers. Until the consumers are given the resources to participate in economic life, the economy will continue to stagnate. Sadly nothing will change unless this government changes course, or a sensible government is elected to replace it.
In this outstanding piece of research by Shiv Malik, it was revealed that young people were bussed in to London from other areas of the country with pockets of deprivation, including Bristol and Plymouth, to provide security for the jubilee pageant. Their coaches arrived too early, at 3am, and they were left camp under London Bridge. Yes - in 2012, the young poor found themselves in a situation that could have been straight out of the history books of Victorian Britain. They were unpaid slaves. Having spent hours cold and wet under a bridge, they worked for nothing, as royalty flowed down the river in a golden boat and hoards of royalists watched on, expressing their pride in being British by waving flags.
This is a completely unacceptable state of affairs. Instead of forcing young servants to work for nothing, the long British summer should be used as a means to provide economic opportunities for these people. The Olympics, the jubilee celebrations, and the prospect of perhaps a warm summer, should be opportunities to provide paid employment - not another means for the wealthiest to exploit the poorest. It is another example how those holding currency in this country do not want to share any of it with the nation's poorest. Unemployment will not go down while the so-called wealth creators know they can employ people for nothing.
There are a few counter-arguments to this position, largely surrounding the idea that the jubilee events were a privilege to be involved in and young people agreed to participate to get experience. So let us consider some of these arguments.
1. "They agreed to it"
One of the counter-claims is the young people agreed to the unpaid work. Whether they have agreed to it or not is a moot point - nobody should be made to feel they should work for nothing for a chance in life. Some knew they were not being paid, but felt they had to go along with it or maybe lose their welfare benefits. Others were allegedly bribed with the promise of work at the Olympics. None of them expected to be treated like peasants, dumped under a soggy bridge and left to sample Cardboard City life from the Thatcherite 1980s.
2. "They are paid state benefit, so in theory had been paid"
Anyone who has been on state benefit knows the income it provides does little more than buy food and pay the bills. It is not a means to live an active and sociable life. The conditions of state benefit include actively seeking work and demonstrating a willingness to do this, so it is not a payment without conditions in its first instance. The purpose of benefits is to help counter the effects of poverty. Welfare payments should not be a means to justify blackmail. This kind of blackmail potentially affects millions of people out of work at present. Despite the void of millions of jobs needed, this blame culture continues, with the poor being ordered to get on their bikes to find work - or in this case, a coach.
3. "Others were camping out just to get a good position to enjoy the event"
Well good for them. How very deferential. If anyone was camping out to be there, I hope they had taken the necessary safety precautions, and I hope they enjoyed their day. The slaves were never going to enjoy the day in quite the same way. They were on duty. They had to work. They had to deal with any problems that arose. They had to deal with colleagues, and take instructions. And they should have been able to do this without the stress of having arrived at 3am and left to fend for themselves. As a side note, it is also worth mentioning that if it was a mere "logistics error" (as the manager of the private firm responsible for the security colourfully described it), what else was not done properly? Were those unemployed people plucked to provide security (of all things) sufficiently security-checked themselves? Would we have known if they were terrorists?
Those who think the centre-left, led by Lord Prescott, are being typically difficult about workers' rights and blowing this issue up out of all proportion, here is some food for thought. It is just as well that the debate is "merely" about the employment rights of young people. If someone had been seriously injured or killed as a result of negligence, the debate would have been far more critical, and the jubilee weekend would have been wrecked thanks to this inept government and their rotten employment policies.
This incident is typical of the problems we face in 2012 under a callous government. Although our society's problems cannot be compared to those in Syria, it is difficult to wonder how we can consider setting anyone else free when sections of our society are not free. A minimum wage should mean a minimum wage for all. That means no more unpaid internships, and a termination of the workfare policy.
Would it really cause great hardship to companies to pay all workers who wish to learn their trade with them? There are enough mechanisms for employers to rid themselves of staff who struggle to grasp the work thanks to our lightweight employment laws. They could take a chance on these young people and pay them what they deserve. Their own lack of economic consciousness mean that many companies are unaware of the fact that they also need paid staff for the economy they rely on to function, An economy that provides liquidity to the poorest is in the interests of all but the very wealthiest of companies. Staff who are unpaid for their labour cannot be consumers. Until the consumers are given the resources to participate in economic life, the economy will continue to stagnate. Sadly nothing will change unless this government changes course, or a sensible government is elected to replace it.
Warsi or Hunt?
I have pledged not to write much more about BSkyB, the Murdochs, the Leveson Inquiry and those Tories who have damaged their own personal reputations with their own roles in the grubby affair (and I include the Prime Minister in that). The reason is that the evidence is now so public that those involved must simply await their fate. However, the contrast is clear between the way the Prime Minister has treated the transgressions of Jeremy Hunt, the Murdochs' cheerleader, and Baroness Warsi, who he has ordered an investigation into for allowing a business partner to accompany her on an official trip to Pakistan.
The error-prone Prime Minister described Jeremy Hunt as handling the BSkyB bid 'wisely and fairly'. Despite some very ambiguous evidence, we will have to give him the benefit of the doubt that he was handling the bid fairly. There is no justifying any suggestion that Hunt handled the bid 'wisely' though. There is nothing wise in accepting the role overseeing the BSkyB bid, when you have previously sent messages to Murdoch HQ congratulating them on having their bid cleared by those democrats in Brussels. There is nothing wise in most of the messages he sent them.
The difference between Hunt and Warsi though is that Hunt is a great human shield for David Cameron, who has seen most of his inner-circle arrested because of their involvement with News International. Warsi, on the other hand, has always been a performer promoted way above her level in a cynical Tory attempt to pretend they are inclusive and transcend class and race. She has repeatedly been sent out as the public face of the Conservative Party, and repeatedly given performances that are more likely to lose votes rather than gain them. It is speculated that this is why it was easy for Cameron to refer Warsi to be investigated for breaking ministerial rules but not Hunt. It would seem Warsi is more disposable than Hunt, but surely neither can last much longer.
The error-prone Prime Minister described Jeremy Hunt as handling the BSkyB bid 'wisely and fairly'. Despite some very ambiguous evidence, we will have to give him the benefit of the doubt that he was handling the bid fairly. There is no justifying any suggestion that Hunt handled the bid 'wisely' though. There is nothing wise in accepting the role overseeing the BSkyB bid, when you have previously sent messages to Murdoch HQ congratulating them on having their bid cleared by those democrats in Brussels. There is nothing wise in most of the messages he sent them.
The difference between Hunt and Warsi though is that Hunt is a great human shield for David Cameron, who has seen most of his inner-circle arrested because of their involvement with News International. Warsi, on the other hand, has always been a performer promoted way above her level in a cynical Tory attempt to pretend they are inclusive and transcend class and race. She has repeatedly been sent out as the public face of the Conservative Party, and repeatedly given performances that are more likely to lose votes rather than gain them. It is speculated that this is why it was easy for Cameron to refer Warsi to be investigated for breaking ministerial rules but not Hunt. It would seem Warsi is more disposable than Hunt, but surely neither can last much longer.
The Olympics - what could possibly go wrong?
Hopefully London 2012 will pass without incident, but anyone who has had the (mis)fortune of living in London at any time of their life will know the place is generally quite crowded and full of little traps. These days, my only experiences of London are typically as a commuter. To put it another way, my experiences of London are not particularly pleasurable ones. So what could possibly go wrong at the forthcoming Olympics? Here are some ratings of potential incidents that could ruin the big event.
#1 Airport check-in chaos: The government, whose policies threatened organised chaos at the Queen's jubilee celebrations, threaten the Olympics massively. Government cuts have led to a much-publicised shortage of border staff at airports. I hope the vast amount of people expected to fly over for the event are preparing themselves with sleeping equipment for the long wait at check-in. Likelihood of chaos: 9/10
#2 Train meltdown: I am hopeful that first and foremost, Britain's train drivers will be good sports and put any industrial action on hold until after the event. Public support is essential to the success of a good strike, so I am sure this would be the case. More of an immediate concern is specific to the London Underground and its incapability to handle the number of passengers the Olympics will generate. Anyone who has used the London Underground will be aware of the incessant line closures and miserable overcrowding. Anyone unfortunate enough to use the Piccadilly Line to Heathrow Airport may have experienced the frustration of having to unship all their luggage on to the platform of Northfields station, as an airport-bound train is unexpectedly terminated there. Transport for London will surely not close lines and clip services at times of such high demand. More alarming is the London Underground's tendency to break down. The grim reality is the system is bound to grind down at some stage of the event. Likelihood of chaos: 8/10
#3 Britain's athletes disappoint: In comparison to the other concerns listed here, this may seem a trivial point, but there is a serious aspect to it. The home nation's success at the Olympics would be great for national morale. The potential problem here is that our medal haul will be measured against the success of our last Olympics campaign in Beijing, where results exceeded expectations. Home advantage should keep the medals ticking over as long as we maintain realistic expectations. Likelihood of chaos: 4/10
#4 Terrorist atrocity: Relax, the government has got this! The military will be on hand to make sure that anyone wishing to mastermind an attack during the Olympics will not get an easy ride. Perhaps less encouraging are the private contracts given to security inside the arenas, therefore we will have to keep our fingers crossed that safety is not compromised over cost. It is a good thing that despite the permanence of fear generated by terror (which is the idea of terrorism, of course), actual attacks are rare. Such is the fear of terrorism though, the feeling that something could happen will not go away. Likelihood of chaos: 3/10
So there is my pessimistic outlook for the forthcoming Olympic Games in London. On a more positive note, win or lose, I am sure Jessica Ennis will brighten up the games with her presence. Good luck to all taking part.
#1 Airport check-in chaos: The government, whose policies threatened organised chaos at the Queen's jubilee celebrations, threaten the Olympics massively. Government cuts have led to a much-publicised shortage of border staff at airports. I hope the vast amount of people expected to fly over for the event are preparing themselves with sleeping equipment for the long wait at check-in. Likelihood of chaos: 9/10
#2 Train meltdown: I am hopeful that first and foremost, Britain's train drivers will be good sports and put any industrial action on hold until after the event. Public support is essential to the success of a good strike, so I am sure this would be the case. More of an immediate concern is specific to the London Underground and its incapability to handle the number of passengers the Olympics will generate. Anyone who has used the London Underground will be aware of the incessant line closures and miserable overcrowding. Anyone unfortunate enough to use the Piccadilly Line to Heathrow Airport may have experienced the frustration of having to unship all their luggage on to the platform of Northfields station, as an airport-bound train is unexpectedly terminated there. Transport for London will surely not close lines and clip services at times of such high demand. More alarming is the London Underground's tendency to break down. The grim reality is the system is bound to grind down at some stage of the event. Likelihood of chaos: 8/10
#3 Britain's athletes disappoint: In comparison to the other concerns listed here, this may seem a trivial point, but there is a serious aspect to it. The home nation's success at the Olympics would be great for national morale. The potential problem here is that our medal haul will be measured against the success of our last Olympics campaign in Beijing, where results exceeded expectations. Home advantage should keep the medals ticking over as long as we maintain realistic expectations. Likelihood of chaos: 4/10
#4 Terrorist atrocity: Relax, the government has got this! The military will be on hand to make sure that anyone wishing to mastermind an attack during the Olympics will not get an easy ride. Perhaps less encouraging are the private contracts given to security inside the arenas, therefore we will have to keep our fingers crossed that safety is not compromised over cost. It is a good thing that despite the permanence of fear generated by terror (which is the idea of terrorism, of course), actual attacks are rare. Such is the fear of terrorism though, the feeling that something could happen will not go away. Likelihood of chaos: 3/10
So there is my pessimistic outlook for the forthcoming Olympic Games in London. On a more positive note, win or lose, I am sure Jessica Ennis will brighten up the games with her presence. Good luck to all taking part.
Forgive, but not forget? Try again!
It is great to forgive and forget, but sometimes the feeling of personal injustice does not allow for that. It puzzles me though how often people wrongly say "I forgive, but I won't forget" when often what they actually mean is "I can't forgive, but I will try my best to forget and put it at the back of my mind". In other words, when someone says "forgive, but not forget", you just know you have not been forgiven!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)