Personal Blogs

I wonder if Andrew will question Gen Sir Mike Jackson tonight on the role of private contract firms now operating in Iraq and Afghanistan. I regard these people as nothing other than paid mercenaries.

Is it right that a former head of the British army should be a paid director of these firms. I wonder if Andrew will also ask the General why he sought his own legal advice before accepting the job of heading our army in Iraq. What does he think of the actions of Blackwater in Falujah, which necessitated a very strong reaction from the American official forces. Does the General think that sometimes it is right for soldiers to refuse orders, because if he didn't then why did he seek his own legal advice, as is confirmed in his own memoirs. Should he be able to make money of the war? What does he think about freedom of speech, and can he justify the use of court injunctions to prevent former soldiers speaking in public. Just a few of my thoughts on the war, the precedings to the war, and the subsequent occupation, extra-ordinary rendition and enhanced inetrrogation techniques. 

rather than have a debate on the Iraq Inquiry maybe parliament would like to have a proper debate on what exactly is happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The extra American troops now going in to our zone show the total abject failure of our presence in Afghanistan. We went in with the Americans after 9/11, we then took our eye off the ball because of Iraq. Now we are paying the price in terms of British soldiers injured and killed. Furthermore, we just cannot hold what we take, we are reinforcing defeat, something any military historian will tell you is just so not the right policy.

There must be a withdrawal policy from Afghanistan, there is absolutely no further point in our being there. Also, too many civilians are being killed, we are using drones because the Air Force show more courage by not bombing sites where there is the danger of killing innocent women and children. The war is being fought like a video game.

When Harry went to Afghanistan, in secret, he let the cat out of the bag. He was shown at a computer screen calling up an air strike which resulted in deaths of 'Talibhan' and the worst thing of all was his cap logo 'we do bad things to bad people' which in the light of allegations on the BBC of mistreatment, by the Americans, of detainees says it all. I suppose that by bombing people to death it prevents them from being detained and then ill treated!

thought that the Straw interview on the Today programme was absolutely illuminating. Apparently the head of the Probation Service in London was going to be sacked, or fired, according to Straw. Instead he was 'allowed' to resign. Now then let's have the details of the compensation package given to the former head of the Probation Service in London, just like somehow we found out about the pension package for Goodwin.

There is a problem which Straw identified. That is carry-forward. Government spending is out of control. We are told that the government is bringing forward expenditure for next financial year to this year, so it won't be there next year. But, if I give you money this year but then ask you to underspend, then you can carry forward the money for this year to next year. The only trouble is that it is highly likely that the person making the promise will not be in power next year, they will out of power, saying to the next government that there will be cuts under the new government, we would never have made cuts, we will not make cuts. You are for the few, we are for the many.

I think that the first test for the new Speaker will be when Cameron has the guts to actually stand up and call Brown a liar. Just like Blair lied, now Brown is doing nothing other than lying! Sorry, that would be unparliamentary language and would end up in the courts, so let me put it another way, they are both being economical with the truth.

Finally, I can't fail but have a laugh over Blair and his expenses not being available. We have had Fred the Shred, there is not the same with Blair the Shred, let's go back to Blair the Liar shall we. Maybe see you in the High Court. The trouble is there is going to be so little evidence left, either that or it will be redacted.

just to say that I was listening to Milliband on the interview circuit this evening and he was talking about the British Ambassador being called in and comments being made to the effect I think that the British government should control the BBC. The Foreign Secretary then said that Iran had to understand that the government does not control the BBC. I think that this needs some sort of clarification.

I would ask Milliband about Prince Harry who served in Afghanistan and whose presence in the war was kept secret, and the BBC went along with it. I would ask the BBC if they know that a High Court judge has placed an injunction on my son preventing him from speaking in public, and the free BBC goes along with this restriction on free speech. I would say that although you give us a tremendous amount of leeway, we are still moderated, so much for free speech. Would anybody say that the BBC coverage, with embedded journalists in Iraq was free and fair, and showed all the activities, without restrictions.

As for elections of Presidents, or even Prime Ministers, of course Britain has an elected PM, doesn't it. I mean England does not even have it's own Parliament, so much for democracy. no, I'm afraid that sometimes the foreigners are quite right, we do not live in a free and fair country, national security of course, and D-Notices.

what I think we have to do is to look out for people who simply assert something with little or no evidence. All the people coming out in support of Brown are simply making assertions, there is no actual substance to their argument. Our eyes have been opened by the revelations in the media about MPs, and government ministers and former ministers.

We have all been bound by ropes of lies and half truths. Now we are beginning to see that ropes that bound us are nothing but sand, they can be blown away, we will soon be free.

maybe Andrew Marr could bring in some enetrtainment by saying that Susan Boyle was the favourite to win Britain's Got Talent, and guess what she didn't win, but we don't know the votes.

Now maybe Brown could call a snap election, whilst everybody is on holiday of course, July/August would be a good time. Then he could go on a reality TV show and announce that against all the views of the pundits labour has won the election. Unfortunately the voting slips are being analysed and this may take up to four maybe even five years before all the votes can be authenticated.

In the meantime of course there will be recriminations, the Tories have to sack Cameron, the liberals will of course have to join the government in the cause of national unity, Vince Cable for example, with maybe some others helping in foreign affairs. There is one drawback of course, no beards allowed in the House of Commons and definitely no sandals.

In the meantime Brown goes on an extended world trip where he actually gets elected as the new leader of the free world, and conferring honours on deserving causes, like Teddy Kennedy who did so much for the sport of driving cars off short piers, or Sir Fred Goodwin, who according to the delightfully fragrant Harriet Harman was given his knighthood for services to the Princes Trust, you know not the 'we do bad things to bad people' one, but the one who does so much for everybody, like buying and selling woodland where substantial profits were made but because of the need for trees to build wooden ships to defeat Napoleon very little tax was paid on the profit.

My wife and I were talking about Gordons speech and you must note that she was a social worker during her long career. What she noticed was that Gordon loves referring to the caring professions and carers. The problem is that he is Prime Minister, by the very nature of his position he actually should not care, because if he really did then some of his decisions would never be implemented, they make the situation worse rather than better.

As for why people do things he referred to various people including soldiers who do things 'because they want to make a difference'. What many people have to realise is that if you ask most soldiers why they want to be soldiers it is, 'to kill people', unpalatable but true. So, yes they make a difference in Iraq and Afghanistan, they kill people.

I was actually quite angry when he referred to the miraculous treatment, which he got from the NHS, which saved his sight. Just as the NHS saved my leg when I broke my femur at an early age and resulted in my legs actually being stronger.

Why was I angry, because we know that his own daughter died, the NHS could not save her. What we all have to get used to is the fact that sometimes people just die. That's what happens and it is not the case that before the NHS people did not have their sight saved. Also the doctors, the professionals would have been trained before the NHS came into being.

I want clarification as to what he means by the 'energy dictatorship of oil' and what will he do about it. Did the conference seriously applaud when he referred to 'clean coal' and 'new nuclear power stations'.

This 'great speech' will unravel so quickly.

Further to my earlier posting I was think of the issue from a strictly philosophical perspective and so thought of this as well. Of course citizen Smith is right! but is she being consistent, what is her actual philosophy on the Harm Principle.

Now get your heads around this one if you can. Jacqui Smith has announced a crackdown on brothels, massage parlours, and kerb crawling. Now then, relate that to Mills Harm Principle. Should the government be passing, and enforcing these laws. Do they have a right so to do, where is the harm.

Now before you answer think! Will they also close down massage parlours which cater for women. Basically, will they stop women who pay for sex from men. In our 'modern' society women too have needs, should they not be satisfied or must they forever paddle their own canoe.

This is a touchy subject but I am seriously interested in this from a philosphical prespective, philosophy in action if you like. Should we take gender more into account when passing utilitarian laws.

Also, think about pre-nuptial agreements, does this also not turn us into, as Shakespeare would say 'pimps and whores'. Or should we just be content to be, as Alastair says, 'pissed off'. There needs to be more debate on these sorts of issues before we accept knee jerk reactions.

Henry Ford developed mass production, huge factories producing huge numbers of cars.

His system was copied around the world, huge factories, loads of people, massive profits.

Well we are now in a post-Ford society. Big is no longer good, when the factories closed whole towns and city's were effected.

The banks became like Ford factories, the whole idea was ridiculous, they became so big that they were behomeths. They would not go under because of their size. Well that little exercise has proved to be a total abject failure. Banks must be split up, not merged.

The bank which employed me was a holding company with different entities operating as self contained units. If one part went under the other bits were safe. That is how the banks will be structured, with their own profit centres and service level agreements with other parts of the organisation. If one bit fails then it is containable.

The holding company will have access through their computer systems to the overall consolidated balance sheet, to see their overall  exposures. The whole world has changed.

does it seem so long ago that the Large Hadron Collider was switched on to resounding cheers and back-slapping congratulations.

Maybe we can be told by Gordon, the Great Leader, that the LHC has actually had to be switched off to warm up so they can fix a fault.

Billions spent, and what have we got a huge underground fridge. Come on Gordon when you make your speech congratulate our Olympic team, sorry Team GB, because it really was your grand idea to spend so much money on our athletes that they came fourth in the medals table. Sorry, it was that John Major, well that won't stop you praising your own success.

The wars, oh well done soldiers you won the war but we, the politicians have lost the battle for hearts and minds. How, well don't forget extra-ordinary rendition, and our mistreatment of prisoners, that really gets the people on your side.

Gordon Brown must not be allowed to get away with this, he has let down the country, he has let down the labour party, he was chancellor during the time that these bankers got away with it. As for we are looking at ways to solve these problems, no knee-jerk reactions. Well I'll tell you what will happen the bankers will run for the hills, they will take their money and run, and live the life of riley while we all suffer.

Well while Gordon and Alastair are being level-headed and looking at the issues, we are going under, big time. This is no lifeboat operation for the banks, this is the Titanic and the Captain needs to go down with his ship.

Nice one John. However, and however is so much better than but, but here is the problem.

If you can just go the the ECA for Liberty & Justice p.10 and look at the two extracts, Hardin and Singer.

Now as some may have gathered I am not a very nice person, I have no problem if people think that I wasn't a senior manager in an Investment Bank for nothing so, if people ignore me or say that's not a very nice thought so be it. I can't change my past, I can only try, in my small way, to change for the better.

My point, look at Hardin's perspective with the lifeboat, and compare to Singer. Now just about everybody if my memory serves me well went for Singer's utilitarianism. Me I'm Hardin.

When you have been reading about the financial crisis the governments and the taxpayer and the general population have gone for Singer's solution, to let them (the banks) be saved 'will prevent something bad from happening'. Only trouble is it won't, it will result in the repercussions from the Hardin approach. We are all so f....d, sorry there is no other word.

When you have to start paying extra taxes to pay my pension from the bank, when you pay extra taxes to keep the 'fat cats' going, when the hospitals are privitized, the social services cut back, the roads deteriorate, the basic infrastructure collapse, the schools cannot be maintained, the pay of the lower paid will keep falling, inflation will turn into deflation, and what is much worse, crime increases, and worse the poor in the developing world are dying in millions, fear and pestilence roam the planet, that is when you realise that Singer is wrong. The people on this planet will want to survive, there is no altruism, it is all about survival of the fittest, and you are letting yourself and your family down if you do not do everything in your power for your family to survive the coming catastrophe, the evil day of reckoning is approaching.

As for working family tax credits and support for the disabled, the poor, the underclass, well please...

I now try to think philosophically in all respects, not just for the nice cuddly bits. It is so hard sometimes but you have to try to be consistent.

Now me, I will be going so far to the left I will even surprise myself. I will survive, I have found my revolution to lead.

Oh, and don't forget the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, now what is happening to 'our boys' now eh, where is Brown on the wars? Ben was right and he is even more right now! The system stinks. we are approaching the end game, only so many want to keep their heads in the sand.

Look at the numbers the US is baling out the banking system with $700 billion, I mean billion, now that is some lifeboat. Lehman Brothers wants $8 billion to Lehman Brothers going until the end of September!!! $8 billion.

So, please study your economics but don't forget your philosophy and politics, and as for cognitive psychology.

Well done John, any comments.

Did anybody else watch the Sunday Politics show on BBC at 12:00. Just how rude was John Prescott, how so condescending. Did you notice how he was putting his hand on the shoulder of Charles Clarke.

Now, when I used to work in a bar one of the first things I did when a situation was developing, was that I would  put my hand on the shoulder of the main trouble maker. Not to be pally but to feel what his neck muscles were like, so that if you got into a fight you knew if he was real threat, what you might be taking on. I wonder what John was doing.

The labour party has seriously lost the plot if they think that by not talking about a situation it will get better. Well sorry guys but the game is up. You've failed, totaly failed during your years in power to cahnge very much at all, there is still the unacceptable face of capitalism. A governmnet of national unity, stop fighting yourselves because next year will be dire.