Archive | Current Affairs RSS feed for this section
Link

Jason Baldwin: WM3 Anti-Death Penalty Campaign

5 Jun

Jason Baldwin: WM3 Anti-Death Penalty Campaign

Advertisements

By Luck Of Birth

3 Jun

By luck of birth

I live in a place

Where guns are not thrust in my face.

Don’t see the homeless on the streets

They’re probably  there,

Just never meet

The neighbours are quite well-to-do,

Obliged to ask me

‘How are you?’

I’ve never even seen a fight

Or been scared to walk alone at night,

Faced the fear of violence or rape

Play dead or run? To contemplate.

Over here we don’t go hungry

Veggies, fish, meat and fungi

Adorn our plates and fill our tummies

For paper with Queens head called money.

I don’t want to paint an incomplete picture

Racism, unemployment – permanent fixtures,

We’ve been burgled twice in our house

Hood-rats, neither man nor mouse.

This place i live is far from perfect

All sorts here;

Some wasters, some worth-it.

For the most part it is safe

People worry about their clothes, their weight

Not if this day they’ll survive

Lucky enough to get home alive.

By luck of birth

I live here

Not somewhere for my life I’d fear.

By luck of birth

Think again

By luck of birth

You, not them.

If My Nan Could See This Post, She’d Be So Happy!

31 May

One See’s One

You have an opinion. You express it. Your mate has a differing opinion, they express it. Something they say, or maybe something completely unrelated that you discover later, gets you thinking: maybe there’s more to this issue? You look into it, maybe on-line, read a book or 2, speak to a couple of other friends. Your opinion changes. When you tell your friend, they are at best smug, at worst they say something along the lines of  “…but you said you thought jaffa cakes were a biscuit, not a cake!”

Isn’t the point of having these conversations with people to evolve, to widen your perception?  So why is it such a crime when you admit you were wrong, or misinformed, and change your opinion? You’re a dude, damnit! You have an open mind, and the more you learn, the more you change. You incorporate new information into your world view.

I am quite anti-establishment. I think generally, money and power lead to corruption, and i don’t trust 80% of politicians. I don’t respect people just because they are a policeman or a soldier. You’ve gotta earn it.

But i do love the queen.

My friend does not understand this. She says it opposes everything else i believe in.

It wasn’t always this way, when i was an opinionated, passionate teenager, i was an anti-royalist. But then i did some research.

The royal family generates a ton of cash monies for Britain every year. Tourists love that shit. Buckingham Palace, The Crown Jewels and The Tower of London are just a few of numerous real royal earners. The argument that the Royal Family cost too much really is redundant. It’s hard for us in the UK to understand why people from all over the world, particularly The USA and Australia are so in love with our Royal Family. When did you last see thousands of people lining the street to catch a glimpse of the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel (who is she?)? The royal family bring the crowds in, and the crowds spend their money on our hotels, our historical landmarks, shops, taxis, restaurants etc. The royal family costs each person in the UK 69 pence per year, if you consider it a tax on tourism revenue, it’s a bloody bargain, mate.

What would be one of the most compelling argument against the monarchy is the fact that they are not elected, and this is supposed to be a democratic society. Except, the monarchy has no real power anymore. Yes, technically every act passed by parliament must be signed by The Queen, and technically she does have the power to veto them. BUT (see those capital letters? that means  i really mean it!) it would NEVER happen, because the power is only a courtesy, the Queen would never use it. For the sake of argument, lets imagine she does go mental one day (dons a Nike tracksuit, eats only jelly-babies and begins every public address with “yo, my biatches!”), and decides she does want to veto an act. I imagine parliament would dissolve the monarchy, or revoke the power of veto. Either way, it all adds up to the same fact: the monarchy have no real political power. It’s all pomp and ceremony, and us Brits love a bit of that.

The Queen is amazing for diplomatic relations. When Queenie visits abroad, everyone takes notice, there is a real sense of occasion and it does a lot of good keeping things ticking over nicely in terms of the delicate semi-peace balance we’ve got in this world. It saves the politicians time, which (theoretically) is better spent doing stuff like…erm, running the country?

The Queen is 86 years old. But she is no ordinary pensioner. Her official titles include Head of State, Head of the Commonwealth, Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Head of the British Armed Forces, and she is the patron of over 600 charities. Last year, the Queens average working week was about 54 hours. At 86 years old, ffs! What The Queen actually does is so vast and varied, i won’t bore you with it here, but if you’re interested, go here . Safe to say, girlfriend be earnin’ her 69p a year fee!

The Queen offers something presidents can’t, because of the nature of the role, and that is contingency. Our current Queen has reigned for nearly 60 years. She’s seen the comings and goings of 12 US presidents, and 12 British Prime Ministers (one that got re-elected again!). She’s seen good times, recessions, the birth of the internet, the rise and fall of various property markets, financial scandals and natural disasters. She offers us security and consistency that elected folk don’t. She also doesn’t need to lie to get our votes. She just kinda is.

I have a few personal reasons for liking the royal family. Prince Phillip is one. He literally has me in stitches sometimes. I imagine him with a dry humour, i think he know’s what he’s saying (see here, if you’ve been living under a rock). He’s a funny, cantankerous old man! I like Charles sort of too, i imagine he’d be a proper hippy had he been born somewhere else. He grows lemon grass around the palace cos he likes the smell of it under his feet! 😉 He does tons for charity and i think he’s a bit of a closet new-age scientist! He’s well into sustainability and eco-stuffs. Harry’s turning into quite a character, and William and Kate, well….i’m sure they’re really aspirational to a certain type of young person. Plus, it was a pretty decent bash back in April, no? Good for the morale of the country, despite the cynics. The Brits: any excuse for Pimms and cake.

It irritates me when people go on about how good the Queen has it, when she never asked for it. She was born into it and she has trained for it her entire life. What about all the responsibility that goes with it? Tis as likely to be a hellish prison as it is to be an opulent dream.

I don’t mind people who are aware of these things, but still don’t appreciate the monarchy, or people who buy into all the shape-changing-lizzard-new-world-order conspiracy stuffs (which i might, by the way, i just reckon if it is real, it won’t be the ones you can see on your TV). That’s fair enough, it’s just a matter of opinion, after all. It’s the people who ignore these facts and hate the monarchy out of principle, that i don’t understand.

If you’re interested in the person-queen, go here. Enjoy!

Congratulations for your Diamond Jubilee, Ma’m. I salute you.

We Are Hurting Our Womenfolk, And Ourselves

28 May

Another week, another status on facebook. A joke at the expense of some severely overweight person who ‘should just stop eating all the pies’, or something similar. There is such hatred, judgement and contempt aimed at people with weight issues.

A clarification, for the purposes of this post. When i refer to overweight people here, i am talking about severely overweight people, people who are suffering serious health problems because of their weight. I am not talking about slightly overweight people or people who could use loosing a few pounds.

These days, when people starve themselves to death, we understand it is an emotional condition, a mental illness, a sickness. We call it Anorexia Nervosa or Bulimia Nervosa. We don’t fully understand it yet, because the research is still in its infancy, but we do recognise it is a mental health problem and we try to help these people.

When people eat themselves to death, we point and laugh at them. We stare at them in the street and judge them. We make facebook status’ to share the laugh with our friends. As a society, we have very little compassion for these people.

It is a completely outdated and unhelpful attitude. Eating yourself to death is disordered eating behaviour, just as starving yourself to death is. I’ve never heard someone say about an anorexic ‘she should just eat something!’. If anyone did, they would be viewed as ignorant, at best. Anyone who has suffered any kind of mental health problem will tell you, it is precisely this attitude and stigma that can sometimes prevent real advances in the treatment and prevention of it.

There is hope. 30 years ago, we didn’t fully recognise Anorexia or Bulima as mental health issues. Hopefully, 30 years from now, we’ll better understand people suffering from the other extreme, so that we can help them too.

I feel i am able to talk with some degree of understanding on these issues because i myself have always suffered with disorder eating behaviours. I have been dangerously thin (around eight stone, which is bad considering I’m quite tall for a woman at 5’7) and dangerously fat (at my heaviest I’m not sure exactly what i weighed, cos i wouldn’t weigh myself, but i was definitely in excess of 17 stone).

Now, i’m a bit heavier than what i’d like to be and should be, but i’m not overly concerned about it. I watch what i eat cos i don’t wanna put more weight on, and i have some vague ideas about going on a proper diet, but i  am trying to find a healthy balance; I must accept my curves and the things that make me a woman, i must not become a complacent unshapely blob, i must not become an obsessive skeleton woman.  Last time i weighed myself, i was about 11 stone. Not huge, but could do with a few cycle rides 😉

It’s difficult, considering the constant bombardment from the media, from everywhere, telling me that what i am is wrong, telling me i should be leaner, more toned, less curvy, my legs should be longer, more tanned, my bum firmer, my tits more pert, my skin more radiant, my feet smaller, my eyelashes longer, my eyebrows thinner, my cheekbones more defined, my hands more effeminate, my posture more confident, my movements more graceful…on and on forever.

It seems every advert, film, book, newspaper, shop, train, website, TV channel is overflowing with images of airbrushed fantasy beauty. It is all the time, everywhere and has been for so long that we now believe this is how women should look. Even us women believe it.

Look around you in the REAL world, at the shops, in the office, at school, on the bus, and count how many people look like the woman the media thrusts upon us, in reality? If you find one, please send me a picture.

It is indoctrinated from such a young age. For example, if Barbie was a real woman, she’d be so out of proportion with herself , that she’d be unable to support her own body weight. In short, she’d be crippled because her waist is too small, her tits too big, her legs too long and thin and she wouldn’t have enough space for her  skeleton and organs to develop and function correctly. She is the ultimate example of how a woman should not look, yet we give her to our daughters to idolize at a very vulnerable developmental stage.

The message is: if you do not fulfil or match up (to a completely unrealistic and unobtainable ideal, if i haven’t been clear!) then you are less than inadequate, you are worthless, invalid, you are not a female. You are a ridiculous parody of what you are trying to be. You are unsexy and unworthy of attention from anyone.

Work hard, kill yourself working in a soulless job you despise, so that you can afford to buy the right makeup, the right clothes, the right hairstyle, fake tan, shoes, lacy underwear, botox, false eyelashes, boob implants, liposuction, teeth veneers, moisturizer, anti-aging cream, colonic fucking irrigation. Then you’ll be beautiful, valid, worthwhile.

No, wait. You won’t because it’s NOT REAL. You’ll feel like a tranny, a man masquerading as a woman.  Better get back to work, earn some more monies, buy some more shit…

We are damaging our daughters with this crap from before they are old enough to walk. There is no escaping it; it is insiduous to society.

Everywhere you look you can see these broken women, scrambbling for love, attention, for something to cling onto, because they believed the lies, they believed that they were worthless, they believed that if they brought the right bullshit, then they would be worthwhile. They believed that the solution to their feelings of worthlessness were avaliable somewhere outside of themselves, for a price. But with every new anti-aging cream, every new life threatening operation to make their tits bigger or their skin smoother, they lost some of themselves, some of their strength, a little bit more of their shattered self-esteem. Cos it didn’t work…they still aren’t good enough. Women like Jordan or that cat woman lady from America. Train-wreck women.

Don’t listen to it. Don’t pass it on to your babies.

They don’t want you to wake up, to realise the truth, to stop buying their bollocks. Don’t let them win. Don’t let them get you believing you’re anything less than a beautiful enchantress, who contains within her all the questions and all the answers to life and love and the universe. Because you do, and you are.

Why I believe There Should Be A Public Inquiry Into Child Protection At Harringey Following The Death Of Baby P.

20 May

Information regarding Peters’ terrible story can be found here. Please do not read if you are sensitive to stories related to child abuse. This one is particularly harrowing.

The frightning truth is, it will happen again in the not too distant future, as it has done over and over again in the past, until we are brave enough to reform our child protection procedures here in the UK.

A public inquiry into Peter’s death would be a good place to start.

What we DO know:

  • Peter was seen by representatives from various authorities, including Social Services, The Police and the NHS, on average twice a week (or 60 times), and visited hospital 3 times in the 8 months leading up to his y death. We know they all failed him repeatedly, and some have paid with their jobs. It is easy, in the face of public outcry, to sack social workers and to hope that appeases people. But the real and lasting change the child protection system is so desperately in need of requires true, introspective analysis and transparent reflection of mistakes made across the board and their root causes, so that the government can the provide the APPROPRIATE training, resources and policies across the country to better protect vulnerable children who are today suffering as Peter suffered.
  • We know that 12 crucial chances to save Victoria Climbie were missed 9 years ago. We were promised ‘Lessons learnt, never again’, after changes were apparently made following Lord Lamings’ Inquiry, and the government introduced the ‘Every Child Matters’ initiative and a new IT system with it.
  • We know that Peters’ death, only a few streets away from where Victoria died, exposed the crisis that modern day social work is facing today. Social workers feel unable to speak their minds; they feel that they are not listened to and that managers overrule decisions sometimes based on a financial deficit. We know that it is not unusual for social workers to be forced to struggle with double the caseload recommendation (10-12). We know that they feel they have to spend too much time filling in forms when they should be spending time with families in order to make sound, fair and rational decisions in a child’s’ best interests. We know that morale is incredibly low, they feel disrespected, pressured, blamed for problems beyond their control, voiceless and powerless to do their jobs effectively. Some working on the front line are inexperienced, and training for new therapies, such as the one being piloted with baby Peters’ family is sometimes brief inadequate, with vulnerable children paying the highest price.
  • We have heard the ‘rule of optimism’ and ‘too parent focused’ theories, the fact that there was a lack of urgency or healthy scepticism from the officials dealing with Peters mother, and that there was conflict between front line senior social workers like Sylvia Henry and social work managers like Clive Preece over the decision to take Peter into care or leave him with his mother. We have heard there was conflict with the social services and the police relating to the same issue and we know that for a brief time, Peter was in the care of a family friend who failed to tell authorities about the boyfriend. Haringey claim to have been unaware of the boyfriends existence and he was never questioned by police in relation to child cruelty charges before Peters death. At the time of Peters 2nd visit to hospital with bruising, despite ongoing investigation, police were not informed of his new injuries and social services did not investigate them, claiming the hospital did not flag up child protection concerns. The hospital maintains it did. Since then, even Great Ormond Street has been accused of trying to cover up its failings in Peters case. The fist Serious Case Review into this case was deemed invalid, due to it not being at all independent and because vital information (ie about the pilot scheme etc) was left out. We know both the police and social investigation into Peters safety were allowed to drift, ultimately paying a part in his death.

The government claims to be fully committed to addressing these problems:

What has happened since?

The second SCR, Lord Lamings Report and the Government Response.

You can read a summary of the final Serious Case Review into Peters death here
You cannot read the full Serious Case Review findings, as these are not public.

You can read Lord Lamings review of child protection services in England here.

You can read the full 58 point government response and ‘action plan’ here

The Final Serious Case Review

In summary, the final Serious Case Review into Peters death, headed by Graham Badman, chairman of Haringey’s local safeguarding children board, found that many opportunities had been missed to save Peter by ALL professionals responsible for his care, including social workers and their managers, doctors, police and other professionals. His death was ‘could and should’ have been prevented. It states that attempts to safeguard the Peter lacked “urgency, thoroughness and were insufficiently challenging” to his ‘mother’. The agencies involved were not fully focused on Peters’ welfare and “adopted a threshold of concern for taking children into care that was too high”. According to the report, and what is also glaringly obvious, is that Peter deserved much more from the services that were supposed to protect him.

Summary of Government response

  • The government have introduced a ‘Chief Advisor on Safety of Children’, who will have a particular responsibility to influence and monitor the co-ordination of central government department policies and approaches toward safeguarding and to assess the extent to which the advice and guidance issued by professional bodies contributes towards effective multi-disciplinary working at the front line.
  • Introduction of Government National Safeguarding Delivery Unit (NSDU) to give strong, co-ordinated national leadership across the system, Support Children’s Trusts Boards, local authorities, health and police, Monitor and challenge progress on the implementation of the recommendations in Lord Laming’s report.
  • Ofsted have designed more rigorous inspection arrangements for safeguarding and will shortly be publishing a new framework for a rolling programme of inspections of safeguarding. Authorities will now have unannounced yearly inspections.
  •  An ‘ethics committee’ will now consider new therapy pilots and the appropriateness of their use in chid protection cases.
  • The government deployed a ‘Social workforce’ headed by Moira Gibb, and have promised social work reform according to the task force recommendations by autumn.
  • In April, Ofsted set up a ‘hotline’ for children’s services workers who are concerned about practise in a pilot scheme. It was not continued after the pilot.
  • The government promise to change the ICS system social workers use to record information.
  • Government pledge 73 million for social work reform. Though it is important to note that since then, serious doubts have been raised about the governments commitment to the cost of proposed and highly needed reforms.
  • Government has announced a Return to Social Work scheme to help former social workers move back more easily into the workforce.
  • Government have promised to improve delays to care proceedings, though have yet to ‘finalize’ how they are to do this.
  • Francis Plowden has been appointed to conduct a review of court fees, and to establish whether court fees act as deterrent when local authorities decide whether or not to commence care proceedings.

Promises, promises.

Questions that STILL remain unanswered:

  • Crucially, Haringey maintain that they had no idea the Boyfriend was living with Peters ‘mother’. But there is a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise. Haringey missed over 7 chance to expose the boyfriend:

a) The VIDEO.
During a piliot video made by senior social work manager Susan Gilmour, Peters mother speaks at great length about her ‘friend’. She uses his name, talks about cooking him a valentines dinner and says he has been making the garden nicer for the children.
b) At the first case conference to discuss injuries to Peter, the boyfriend was mentioned by his first name.
c) Peters real father told Social Workers he believed the mother had a new partner.
d) Peters maternal grandmother claims to have told Social Workers (while her daughter listened in upstairs) that the boyfriend was ‘here (at Peters home) more than her’ and that she ‘wouldn’t be surprised’ if he had moved in. Haringey have no record of this.
e) A family support worker met the boyfriend at the family home.
f) While at the parenting classes organised by Social Services before Peters death, his mother talks about being pregnant. Noone thinks to ask who the father of the baby is.
g) Peters mother openly discusses her new relationship on social networking sites.
Statistics from the NSPCC show that a child is up to 33% safer when living with its natural parents, as opposed to stepparents. Without victimisation, this area needs to be investigated more by Social Services and Social Workers made more aware of the potential dangers, as well as what to look for.

Haringey maintain if they had known about the boyfriend they would have acted very differently toward Peter, and blame the mother for her manipulation, which is a factor the government have tried to address. However, what if Social workers are under so much pressure that they subconsciously choose not to see dangers that might cause a lot more paperwork, or do not want to cause more ‘problems’ and be seen as trouble makers among their colleges? The evidence certainly suggests Haringey chose not to see this danger. Why? What can be done to prevent this, not only in Haringey, but across the country?

  • Children on the ‘At-Risk’ register have an electronic file to record their story. If a child dies in suspicious circumstances, it is the ‘locked’ as it becomes evidence in possibly a criminal investigation. Panorama reports that Peters file was accessed TWICE, illegally, after his death. Haringey claim it has been investigated and no data was altered, but the police maintain there has been NO INDEPENDENT FORENSIC INVESTIGATION into who accessed the files and if anything was changed.
  • Perhaps even more worryingly, there is evidence to suggest Social Services withheld information from the police, even after Peters death, and when his mother was being investigated for child cruelty. The police would have been VERY interested to know about the existence of a ‘male friend that helps out’, even if it is only to eliminate him from inquiries and get another witness statement about the ‘mothers’ parental ability. Despite there being a note on Peters electronic file from Susan Gilmour detailing information about the pilot scheme and her interview, this information WAS NOT on the document received by police investigating the charges. They NEVER saw the video and none of this evidence was used as part of the murder trial that the 3 suspects were acquitted for.
  • How did the police allow the child protection investigation to drift so drastically? How could the police drop the investigation into cruelty charges the day before Peter’s death? Why were the police not open to alternative explanations about the person who could have inflicted Peter’s injuries? Maybe communication with Social Services was to blame or maybe information was withheld, these questions remain unanswered. The government report does not adequately address the role of The Police in these issues.
  • A few months prior to Peters’ death, an Ofstead report rated Child Protection at Harringey to be ‘excellent’. When inspectors returned after the conviction of Peters killers’, Harringey failed. The NSPCC statistics show that on average 1 child a week dies from cruelty in the UK, and that child is as likely to come from an area with a good Ofsted report as those with bad ones. Maybe Ofsted inspections do not adequately measure the authority’s ability to cope with the real factors that put a child at risk of serious harm. If Haringey staff were able to manipulate data etc to make themselves look good, what is to stop this from happening in other authorities across the UK? How much confidence can we have in Ofsted ratings?

The government response and Lord Laming’s report both ignore an important issue that has been raised by many workers on the front line against child abuse. This is that the ‘Every Child Matters’ initiative may make identifying at risk children akin to finding a needle in a haystack. This issue needs to be addressed. Most children who die from cruelty and neglegt in the UK are still unknown to Social Services, this is a major problem that we need to be working to solve, not make even more difficult.

  • Wes Turnell from the NSPCC says the statistics that measure deaths from cruelty in the UK have not changed for the past 30 years, and he believes they will not change until we see major reform. The government needs to address why our child protection system seems to be ineffective at reducing child deaths from cruelty and neglect.

What Is a Public Inquiry and What Are They For?

‘A Public inquiry is an official review of events or actions ordered by a government. A public inquiry differs from a Royal Commission in that a public inquiry accepts evidence and conducts its hearings in a more public forum and focuses on a more specific occurrence. Interested members of the public and organisations may not only make (written) evidential submissions, as is the case with most inquiries, but also listen to oral evidence given by other parties.
The conclusions of the inquiry are delivered in the form of a written report, given first to the government, and soon after published to the public. The report will generally make recommendations to improve the quality of government or management of public organisations in the future.’

The Prime Minister orders a Public Inquiry when it is considered to be in the public interest. The Inquiry into Victoria Climbie’s lonely death did not prevent Peters, less than a few streets away and less than 10 years later. The promises of ‘lessons learnt’ then appear to be empty. How are we to believe the exact same promises, from some of the very same people, now? If there are fundamental flaws in our Child Protection System, we cannot shy away from exposing them, we MUST act now to uncover the problems so that we may begin to find solutions.

There is CLEARLY a problem with getting to the truth in Peters story, for example, the hospital claiming they told Haringey about their child protection concerns on Peters second hospital visit, and Haringey denying this. Many discrepancies like this can be found in Peters story. How much information Haringey had about the Boyfriend, and how much they shared with the Police. Why was Peters electronic file illegally accessed twice after his death, by whom, and why? Haringey, the Police, the NHS and the government have all been accused of trying to cover-up their mistakes, and in some cases there is considerable evidence that this is true. If the government wish to restore confidence in their ability to protect children, they must begin with facing the real problems, starting with a Public Inquiry into Peters death.

If the government is serious about protecting children, they must be, (and they must force all agencies involved to be) completely transparent in their admissions about the case and about the problems at whole. It is nearly impossibly to believe that Haringey is one ‘bad apple’ in a relatively well functioning system; actually, many experts in child protection have called the system ‘un-fit for purpose’. The results of a Public Inquiry would provide invaluable information for child protection authorities across the country, and a chance to implement changes so that the chances of ‘another baby P’ are very slim, as opposed to certain as things stand now.

A Public Inquiry into Peters death and child protection at Haringey is in the best interests of the public and is in the best interests of the Social Workers who feel they are reaching crisis point, who feel they are unable to do their jobs properly and effectively because of a defunked system. It is most certainly in the best interests of vulnerable children who are suffering, right now, as Peter did. It is in the best interests of the child that will die probably in incredible pain, maybe starving, feeling unloved, alone and completely unable to defend his or herself, somewhere in the UK this week.

Vulnerable children with no voice who are completely unable to defend themselves need the government to fully commit to transparency and ownership of the problems that hinder child protection, so that we might find solutions.

The government have the opportunity to ensure that Peters death is not in vain. His legacy should offer better protection to children like him surviving in the UK today.

NO LIP SERVICE, NO FALSE PROMISES, NO WHITEWASH.  REAL, LASTING AND EFFECTIVE CHANGES.

Thank you for reading.

Sleep tight little man xxx

My Friend Leitrim, World Peace and Michael Jackson

19 May

One of the people i most admire is my very lovely friend, Leitrim. You may’ve guessed he is an Irish man, and not just because that’s what it says on his birth certificate. He is (deservedly, i might add) very proud of his country, and he has a very strong sense of its’ culture and history.

He is a philosopher, poet, author and one of the most passionate activists i have the pleasure of calling friend. I respect him very much and love him even more.

One of the things we disagree on (sort of) is how peace is ever likely to be achieved in this confusing world of ours.

Leitrim recognises the importance of understanding past conflict in order to find conflict resolution. I do too, but i also think that, at some point somewhere, a line must be drawn if there is any hope of moving forward.

He often gets into trouble because he can seem aggressive toward English people, as he feels the effects of the oppression and violence toward his country very deeply.

I can’t and i won’t even pretend to fully understand the conflict between England and Northern Ireland, or The Palestinians and Israelis, or any other longstanding conflicts in history. I am not that educated; i catch the news a couple of times a week and try to stay abreast of issues concerning peace, because i feel it’s my obligation, as a peace-loving citizen of the earth. But that’s about as far as it goes.

But i do understand eternal and universal laws, and one of them is this;

Hatred perpetuates hatred. Only Love can dispel hate.

So many times, in interviews from the frontlines of various wars i’ve seen  (by AMAZINGLY brave reporters who we should all thank for ensuring this shit gets out there), people have said “We will kill them because they killed our fathers…”.

Where does it stop, this tit for tat?

In the next news report, you might see the same person weeping with terrible grief, because now their children or other family members have been killed,  again in retaliation.

When Leitrim and i discuss this, i tell him i think he is perpetuating the hatred, by continuing to hold colonialism against the new generation, our own generation. I didn’t and wouldn’t do anything to hurt anyone.

He tells me that it’s still going on (which it is; Iraq, Afghanistan).

I admit (sadly and shamefully), yeah it is, but not in MY name. And i remind him that the biggest protest in British history was against the war in Iraq.

We remember that we’re both on the same side; the side of Peace, Love and Understanding. We talk about how ‘they’ (the government, the faceless nameless corporations, the arms dealers, the oil sellers, the Bilderberg group, the capitalist bastards,  and others whose agenda is money, power and  a New World Order) want us to be divided, want us to be in fear. Fear is the best method of controlling the masses, of keeping us in poverty, in conflict, in work, paying taxes so we can go bomb poor people, or sell arms to people who will.

I tell Leitrim that i think he is unknowingly buying into their gobshite and perpetuating their hate and fear by holding the new generation of English people responsible. But that’s only cos I’m a nobber who must have the last word.

Leitrim smiles cos he knows that i know this, and we have another drink. Or something like that.

The point I’m trying to make is it has to stop somewhere, and ‘they’ aren’t going to do it for us, or make it easy, because it’s not in their interests. We have to stand up and refuse to let hate, ignorance and intolerance dominate our lives and our society, we must refuse pass hate on to another set of children.

We can celebrate our differences and our similarities. We don’t have to fight. I don’t care about countries, borders, lines someone drew on a map once. Nationality, race, colour, creed, class, lifestyle is generally irrelevant. We are all earthlings. We are all one.

One of the biggest problems facing world peace is that they’ve got us believing it can’t be done. I don’t matter. What one person thinks won’t make a difference.

That’s what they want you to think. It makes it easier for them to swagger around the world, killing who they want, taking what they want.

It’s bullshit.

I’m starting with the man in the mirror,

I’m asking him to change his ways.

No message could’ve been any clearer;

If you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make a change!

Who would’ve thought I’d be quoting MJ?! :s

Theres literally millions of us. There’s probably only a few hundred thousand of them. What you think and do does matter, because united, we are powerful and nothing can stop us.

Stay awake, stay thinking.

I don’t care that i sound naive, or idealistic, or ignorant, or stupid. If someone can show me another way to stop the senseless killings, I’d listen, with open eyes and an open mind.

But no-one has yet.

Martin Luther King had a pretty awesome dream, and so do i.

A world where no mother has to watch her child starve to death, a world where every child has an education, a home, a community, and never has to worry about their town, their families, their friends, being blown to smithereens. A world where war and poverty are shameful and redundant relics from the past, a nightmare we’re all better off forgetting.

I leave you with one of my favorite quotes of all time, by one of the most prolific philosophers of recent times (stick with it, it’s lengthy but worth it!):

The world is like a ride at an amusement park. And when you choose to go on it, you think that it’s real because that’s how powerful our minds are. And the ride goes up and down and round and round. It has thrills and chills, and it’s very brightly coloured, and it’s very loud and it’s fun, for a while. Some people have been on the ride for a long time, and they begin to question – is this real, or is this just a ride? And other people have remembered, and they come back to us. They say ‘Hey! Don’t worry, don’t be afraid, ever, because, this is just a ride.’ And we…kill those people. Ha ha ha. ‘Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride. SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry. Look at my big bank account and family. This just has to be real.’ It’s just a ride. But we always kill those good guys who try and tell us that, you ever notice that? And let the demons run amok. But it doesn’t matter because: it’s just a ride. And we can change it anytime we want. It’s only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings, and money. A choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourselves off. The eyes of love, instead, see all of us as one. Here’s what you can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money that we spend on weapons and defence each year, and instead spend it feeding, clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, for ever, in peace.

Rebekah Brooks, Reap What You Sew

16 May

Rebekah Brooks doesn’t appreciate irony.

In her statement following the news she will face criminal charges in relation to the phone hacking scandal, she has moaned that her loved ones, who are innocent, have been dragged into the scandal unfairly.

Because the untold pain she has caused (with £££ signs a-flashing in her eyes, no doubt), to entirely innocent people who have suffered the worst kind of grief in losing a child, is completely just. And that’s just one case, the tip of the ice burg.

Me, me, me. That’s all i heard when she spoke. No real understanding of the pain she herself has (allegedly) caused.

Reap what you sew.

%d bloggers like this: