Let Me In – part two

30/06/202228/06/2022 / Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

Most European countries have at least one land border with another country. But the UK is an island and this proved a great strategic advantage for the British, stopping intending visitors like Napoleon and Hitler. The English Channel is now one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world so you might think that crossing it without being noticed and at least avoided, would be difficult.

This makes you wonder how seriously the borders of the UK are watched when rubber boats arrive who could be invaders from a hostile country. Dorset Police went out and bought three boats, which doubled the patrol capacity for the whole of the UK. Interestingly the Royal Navy have become involved…but only recently.

This essay is not principally about the UK. The plight of those wishing to enter it, is merely intended as an example of similar situations all over the world, such as Cubans wishing to enter the USA.

With climate change, scarcity of food, water and raw materials, wars, disease, corruption, rogue governments and other factors, the world needs to apply a united strategy to those affected. The mass movements of populations needs to be handled co-operatively and competently.

So let us re-focus the problem in the English Channel and consider how a strategy can be formulated and implemented rather than narrowed to a single issue.

Firstly there needs to be a ‘triage’ of emigrants who turn up at the in French sea ports and coastal towns. They will either be in the ‘criminal’ group (5) or one of the other groups listed in Let Me In – part one, and it is of primary importance to identify them in the interests of all countries.

They may well be pretending to be seeking asylum in the UK and will have worked carefully on a fictitious cover story. If and when known criminals are identified by security services, it is imperative that they are dealt with. Those who are known to be linked to crime, war crimes, terrorism, extremism etc. may already have international warrants for their detention enabling their immediate extradition to other countries. In doing harder, what governments should already be doing, there is no longer a temptation or excuse to treat the greater majority of genuine migrants, as criminals.

The ‘people trafficking gangs’ and their leaders clearly, also need to identified and put on trial. Good police work should be capable of locating and monitoring them by using surveillance and sting operations to infiltrate their organisations and make arrests. If this has ever happened it has not hit the headlines. Do more resources need to be aimed towards identification of the gang leaders? They may be linked to other organised crime such as drugs, sex trafficking, terrorism and the rest. This is just bread and butter policing and yet it does no appear, at least, to happen.

The sale of the boats and safety equipment which takes place in the Calais markets and Marine supply shops, could be licensed and stricly monitored by CCTV, forcing traffickers to transport this equipment from elsewhere. This will not stop them, but it will increase the risk of being caught in possession of it and having to spin improbable yarns to police.

Security services have teams scanning the dark web for extremists, terrorists and their associated criminal networks. Little is made public about this work; no doubt for good reason, but there needs to be some publicity if only to reassure the public on both sides of the channel that there is a raft of measures operating to close what is happening down. Why is it so difficult?

Post Brexit, the French north coast became a border of the European Union. As such it will have been given substantially greater security measures than the internal borders within the EU. If 440 people leave the coast in one day and there are 20 people on each boat, then that is 22 boats! The English Channel crossings are made in broad daylight from busy coasts. Do the general public, commercial and leisure users of ports and marine facilities report suspicious activity? Is there a Coastguard hotline to report such craft? If you ask Google this question the answer is yes; 1-888-373-7888, but it’s in the United States of America.

If we consider new technologies then it has become practical and effective to search for and monitor suspicious activity using drones. These will provide real time intelligence and enable land and sea based patrols to investigate in a timely manner. They can also be used to verify reports from the general public before allocating resources. Drones could be used on both sides of the English Channel. It is likely that members of the public with an interest in using drones, could work alongside coastguard officers; reducing costs and releasing officers for duties that require their legal powers and skills. (There will also be a spill over benefit help catch smugglers and other illegal activity.)

Crossing the Dover Strait from Calais depending on, wind and tides, speed of vessel etc. is going to take at least three to four hours. Crossing the shipping lanes is fraught with danger as all sailors know. This means that it is important to intercept emigrant boats before leaving the relative safety of the inshore waters. Maritime law requires interception of a such a vessel to be taken directly to the nearest safe place. If emigrant boats are allowed to stray too far towards the centre of the Channel this can become an issue between UK and French authorities. Should boats be turned around as they approach the other side of the channel (as the USA Coastguard does to Cuban refugees) or should a border be enforced in the centre of the Channel? Is this idea remotely practical in any case when emigrants dangle their children over the water as a threat to intercepting authorities or simply just jump into the water. At one point the Home Secretary Priti Patel wanted boats physically turned around, not appreciating or perhaps caring, how dangerous confrontations at sea are.

Newspaper articles and even presidents of countries will try to persuade the public that all or most emigrants are all criminals but statistically, the majority will fall into one of the other four groups already described.

Many will probably be without documentation often through no fault of their own. This issue could be solved by the often suggested policy of ‘creating safe routes’ and simply issuing temporary documentation. These can include biometric identification as is reasonably required by the UK government. (Scanning finger prints is part of process of identification of the known or wanted criminals and will already have been done. It takes a few minutes, not months, to do for each person.) The Prime Minister has lauded the idea of ‘safe routes’ in debate, but in reality the only safe routes the UK has set up are for Ukranian Nationals and a restricted number of Afghans.

My principle point, as I have almost certainly missed out many details and parts of a more general strategy simply because I am just writing this as a lay observer, is that controlling the mass movements of undocumented people is a complex issue. Enormous co-operation between nations is required, the sort of relationships that the European Union was partly set up to achieve.

There is an ‘elephant in the room’ however and they is why the UK is a honey pot to emigrants. Why do individuals and families wish to come to the UK so very badly they will risk their savings and their lives to get there? Perhaps the answer includes the facts that English is a lingua franca for many, it has given out UK passports following it’s Empire days (e.g. Hong Kong), it has a free health service based solely on residency and has a generous welfare system into which there is no immediate requirement to pay, in contrast to most other European countries.

picture credit: AA Milne and Walt Disney

The UK public might be proud of these humane and welcoming promises but it is cruel to dangle the carrot without letting go of it just as the donkey has finally completed the journey and this is precisely the strategy of the present government in most cases. In my view this is a slippery slope to the UK losing it’s reputation for fairmindedness.

This essay has been long and covered at lot of ground. This has been deliberate and well done if you have reached this far! My aim has to be to outline only the broad spectrum of issues around the mass movement of people around the globe, using the UK as a sorry example of ineptitude.

Governments ignore complexity at their peril. It is always tempting for policticians who often are vastly under qualified for the roles they attempt to do and say as little as possible. This is all very well for the ordinary person who knows they have no idea about international polictics, but leaders are expected to be better than this. The detail is most often where policies go wrong and ignoring detail is much the same as devil worship, for does he not love the same?

Let Me In – part one

16/06/2022 / Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

Governments have to identify goals which are desired by their supporters and decide the means by which these goals can be achieved.

This simple statement makes sense, until the details and the means are examined in depth. Specifically, the means may not either be effective, or worse, they bring about unintended consequences which may cause harm.

An example of this is happening in the United Kingdom right now over the issue of immigration.

Voters in the Brexit referendum of 2014 had many concerns and one was a perception (stoked up by the media over inadequate public services and poor town planning rather than economists) that immigration into the UK was a problem. Brexit was posited as a means to ‘take control of our borders’. Unfortunately the ‘problem’ was incorrectly perceived in my view and I will explain why.

Economist promote immigration as it promotes growth and prosperity. The Tory governments of the last decades have known this and Home Secretaries such as Teresa May, did little to control immigration. Why would you when you need foreign workers? But after Brexit voted against the free movement of people within the European Union, unemployment in the UK now stands at 1.3 million.

*picture credit; I Volunteer International*

The present argument by the Johnson government, is that the ‘problem of immigration’ is the number of people who die on inadequate boats whilst trying to cross the English Channel. This emotive argument correctly demonises the illegal traffickers but fails to approach the problem from a strategic perspective. If they used safe boats would that be okay? Is this a sea worthyness of boats problem?

The absurdly narrow focus on what the problem is and how to solve it, only satisfies voters who are content with a simplistic problem / solution statement. To gain a full grasp of the problem, I shall outline as best I can, the breadth of the issue of mass movements of people into the UK and how improved ‘control’ of the borders of the UK could be achieved.

Firstly, there are five types of emigrants;

Those escaping hardship in their own countries through famine, war, climate change through no fault of their own.
Skilled and unskilled economic emigrants who are seeking work and higher remuneration.
Political emigrants who are escaping persecution by their own government because of their political views and acts and seek political asylum.
Emigrants who are seeking to be re-united with their families; a group that includes children travelling alone.
Those outside of the law in any country involved in subversive and or illegal activities, either in the interests of their own government or for criminal motives.

For each of these groups, there has to be a specific solution to their desire to emigrate to another country to live and work. But before I examine these, there is one further beneficial general approach.

The conditions in countries which people are seeking to leave own a large part of the problem. You might expect diplomats from countries likely to become unwilling hosts to emigrants to spend a large part of their time and resources in working on this problem with other governments. I personally suggest this should include processing asylum claims in local embassies (excepting when appropriate, political emigrants) and issuing temporary visas on ’emergency passports’ to enable safe travel using conventional means. Buying a 50 euro airline ticket instead of paying people traffickers, is no financial burden on the UK government and puts illegality out of business. It is certainly less than chartering an aircraft for 500,000 pounds to take the unwilling to Rwanda, but who am I to point this out?

But let us assume that all the targeted aid and supportive diplomatic steps have been taken and people are still desperate to leave their own countries. What interventions are available and appropriate for each of the five types identified above?

Group 1. Escaping hardship;

In the short to medium term, build refugee camps.
Identify suitable locations for these and provide appropriate support.
Have international protocols and means in place to be ready for the next global catastrophe, through non-political global organisations that are trusted by those seeking help.

Group 2. Economic migrants;

Maintain physical border controls so that border crossings can be managed and legal crossings enabled.
Put in place means to screen those with and without documents to confirm identity, purpose, ability for self support and seek work opportunities or evidence offers of employment.

Group 3. Political emigrants;

These should be identified by host countries only, as they will not wish to be intercepted by the countries they leave.
They may be oblidged to cross borders by illegal means in order to remain safe.

This group is likely to be used by group 5 (criminals) so particularly high security measures and screening methods will have to be used by potential hosting countries.

Group 4. Seeking family re-union;

Set rules for family members to be able re-unite after non-self imposed trauma legally and permanently.
Have facilities and protocols in place to process unaccompanied children.

This group would benefit from being able to apply for a visa and /or residency before leaving their own country.

Group 5. Criminals; This is the group that makes it necessary to have strict controls on all the rest.

They need to be identified at the earliest opportunity and dealt with according to international law and extradition agreements, much of which may need revue and extending in scope to fit the present movement towards a ‘global community’ rather than nationalist self interest.

You can appreciate that these principles apply to most emigration and immigration, and examples abound in today’s current affairs. To keep this essay focused I shall use just the example of immigration into the UK and the policy that the government believes will stop people crossing the English Channel in unsuitable craft.

My first point is a fault in the government’s argument. They state that the aim is to stop people drowning in the English Channel. Clearly no person is going to be against this. However their method is to deter people getting into unsafe boats and how strong a deterrent this is going to be, is unproven. The counter argument suggests the policy is ineffective and costly, at which point government ministers will accuse those against the policy of being ‘in favour of allowing people to drown in the English Channel’.

Unfortunately this extremely poor level of debate and problem solving has been carried over from the Brexit referendum in 2014. The focus of the ‘benefits’ of Brexit was on immigration, stating a desire to reduce numbers entering the UK. Not surprisingly, by being no longer a part of Europe the interests of the Mayor of Calais became no longer aligned with the UK. The solution for the French to the problems around refugee camps in Calais, was to do as little as possible to stop migrants leaving for the UK. For this reason they expressed no interest in accepting UK money for extra police and border controls on French territory. Such measures are popular with voters but are again ineffective. Emigrants who have already made long journeys are expert at avoiding detection. Effective ‘strong borders’, require measures in place similar to those between North and South Korea and it is unreasonable for Calais to accept machine gun posts, razor wire and mine fields along it’s beaches.

*picture credit; All That is Interesting*

So after the UK government has stopped accusing France of being ‘uncooperative’ rather than understanding the points about motive and means just made, the brutal ‘one size fits all’, send-emigrants-to-Rwanda solution is put in place. The British public – who have traditionally been internationally respected for being fair minded – are expected to accept that denying the human rights of desperate men, women and children will deter others from entering the UK illegally.

On the first day that this policy started the plane carrying eight emigrants, was grounded by the European Court of Human Rights and 440 people crossed the English Channel successfully in the other direction. Even after a year of this policy in operation – is it really likely that there will be fewer people crossing the English Channel in boats and if so how many fewer? Is denying human rights as a deterrent really acceptable?

In my view the government’s problem solving ability would hardly be accepted in a school debating society.

to be continued

Democracy by Numbers

08/04/2022 / Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

There is a system of ‘painting by numbers’ for novice painters which gives great looking results using very basic skills. A picture created by a professional is divided into sections of say, seven different hues and tones. Each is given a number between one and seven and all the novice painter has to do is fill in each section of the canvas with the appropriate colour or hue.

The majority of the world is now governed by autocratic leaders. In the previous decades of the twentieth century this was not the case but recently the tipping point was passed and autocrats now ‘rule the world’ – or do they?

You see, what I am doing here is making an error of thinking committed by ‘democratic thinkers’, whereby there there are only two possibilities – most or least. What is the ‘most’ or majority, becomes the ‘status quo’ for the oversimplified reason that ‘most people want it’.

It’s a beguiling argument because it simplifies everything into one overgeneralisation, hitting contradictory nuances and unintended consequences right between the eyes with a knock out punch.

At our peril. Because in my view we should always go one layer deeper into what a ‘majority’ is and what effects it will have on the government of a country.

To go back to a basic definition of democracy;

Control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.

So let’s see how self styled Western democracies fit this definition.

The first glaring contradiction is the rise of the super rich, super powerful entrepreneurs like Bill Gates, Elon Musk and others.

These and their lesser known ilk, now constitute one percent of the population of the world and yet, influence most of it and control at least 25% of it, directly or indirectly. Elon Musk created an electronic car when most American motor manufacturers, except Ford, were going out of business. You could also question; how comfortably does a software engineer sit in the theatre of mass vaccination?

Democracy in this 1% of world leaders, (which is what they are by any definition) does not exist. No one voted for any of them or the technologies that they pushed to the top of the mountain.

So there we have brush No.1. Paint in all the areas with the number one on your painting.

The next significant number is No. 50. This is the magic ‘tipping point’ in any democracy that defines the majority. Once you have this number of voters and ‘a few more’ then you control everything.

Or should they? Well, if we are thinking about ‘free elections’ in western democracies then these never really happen for the simple reason that a large number of people prefer not to vote. In some countries, this problem is countered by making it illegal not to vote…but this makes most liberally minded people uncomfortable… as does the idea of someone under a certain age voting. What right does a sixteen year old have to have an opinion on a country’s energy policy, a policy that is likely to affect them for the rest of their lives unlike an eighty year old who can vote but probably doesn’t have that long left to live.

Then there is the management nuance created by a 51% to 49% result. Imagine you survive a plane crash into the Pacific Ocean. You are bobbing up and down in a life raft with 8 passengers who look to you, the only member of crew to survive. They discount you as their leader as you are just a ‘trolley dolly’. Four of them argue that we should all start paddling. Four say we should stay put, so they all look to you for the casting vote. You know that whichever option you support there is going to be trouble. If everyone starts paddling there will be four who will not be putting their back into the effort. Worse still, they will begin to moan about what a waste of effort it is and how the rescuers will now not find you. The effect on moral is catastrophic. The same will happen if you follow the option to stay put and there is no sign of rescue.

If you think this is an unlikely scenario then just look at ‘Brexit’ and how the 48% to 52% vote (by those who bothered to get out of bed that morning because they thought Brexiteers would never win) has and is, panning out.

The third number on our palette is No.100. This is the colour for the 100% majority in favour. The rule in this version of democracy is that unless everyone agrees, nothing will get done. For this reason autocrats favouring the mere appearance of democracy whilst carry on as a despot, imprison the opposition (or worse) and create voters who are too frightened to vote against another ten years of tyranny.

Anyone who has lived in a family will know how this works and the misery it causes. Dad decides we are all going to the seaside, whilst Mum objects because she has an old friend to meet and Kitty wants to go on a school museum trip and Jazz wants to play in the local soccer team finals. Dad overalls and the family go to the seaside and all have a miserable time. The next day, they all go off in their individual directions and all is well.

Rarely do countries have the same interests and ideals in common which is why it is difficult for the European Union gain consensus in the 27 member countries. The only way is to ‘water down’ the proposal to such an extent that it causes no offence to anyone, but of course such vague proposals then become open to misinterpretation or biased interpretation from then on.

Most blatantly the United Nations Security Council gives the right to ‘veto’ any proposal to all of it’s seven member countries. This means that if one of them is committing war crimes somewhere outside it’s own country, it can veto any criticism and carry on.

So far I have placed three colours on the palette; 1% of unelected powerful people, 51% majority who upset the rest and the 100% who want their own way.

It would be reasonable to ask at this point ‘what does work?’, for democracy is meant to be the foundation stone of modern western civilisation.

Well, the only variation of the rules of democracy that does work in my view, is the requirement for a ‘super majority’. In this system it is recognised that the 51/49 split is unfair and becomes unworkable.

A super majority is therefore anything over a 60/40 or 66/34 split.

It’s subtle to understand at first but comes closer to what might be called ‘common sense’ management. If there are four in the family car heading off to the seaside, at least three are happy to be there and soon the fourth finds that perhaps it wasn’t such a bad idea after all or at least, it’s a fair deal.

If the super rich entrepreneurs and Oligarchs were compelled to pay 99% taxes, their power to influence would be taken away and their wealth fed into the poorest people in societies, creating the greatest benefit for most. Most of the super rich might well find that living off 1% of their wealth actually made them happier human beings or at least, that it was a fair deal. After all, Robin Hood was far more popular than the Sheriff of Nottingham.

If Russia is committing war crimes then the Security Council of the United Nations should have to power to act to investigate the allegations and call a cease fire or put in UN troops until the heat of battle dies down, and common sense prevails. Five to Two in favour is a reasonable super majority; get over it Russia and (abstaining) China.

To return to the ‘painting by numbers’ analogy, we can see that one coat of one hue paint is simple, but creates no work of art. Once the notion of ‘government by the people’ is broken down to examine the question ‘how’, several hues of interpretation present themselves. We must be bold because in calling everything ‘democratic’ we are committing the sin of over-simplifying.

Yes, they are all democratic but the devil is in the ‘how’ you create your democracy. You will need nuanced thinking to make things work whether on the small family scale or at a national level. The more colours in your painting the more it’s going to be a master piece and less like an amateur filling in spaces.

The Oldest Profession

18/10/2021 / Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

The Prime Minister of Spain, Perdro Sanchez, has announced his intention to make prostitution illegal as it ‘enslaves’ women. There certainly is no monetary benefit for the government to do this;

Prostitution was decriminalised in Spain in 1995 and in 2016 the UN estimated the country’s sex industry was worth €3.7bn (£3.1bn, $4.2bn). ( Source BBC News )

I live in Spain and when I first saw the ‘clubs’ on the edges of towns, I thought how sensible to make brothels legal, healthy and safe places. In the UK they are illegal and of course driven underground means illegal, unhealthy and unsafe. An estimated one in three Spanish men use them.

I am surprised that Snr. Sanchez uses such a crude approach to problem solving. The technique he is applying is commonly known as ‘throwing the baby out with the bath water’. In other words he has over simplified the problem and in doing so, lost the good as well as the bad.

Clearly a better approach to problem solving is to examine the detail first.

Prostitution is often referred to as ‘the oldest profession’. In ancient Egypt, Rome and Greece sex for money or sex without consent with slaves (or rape), was a social norm. Thankfully we have moved beyond slavery today, or have we?

Most people are aware that ‘sex slaves’ are imported into modern rich countries against their will. The organisers and pimps will attract young women with promises of a visa respectable job, a plane ticket, accommodation and a wage. Spurred on by a wish to get a better life for themselves, the victims eventually realise they have been trapped into slavery. A ‘debt’ has to be repaid for setting them up as a prostitute in another country. They are paid so little, if at all, that their prospects ever to move on are hopeless.

It should not be hard for a prime minister to focus his resources on finding such ‘sex slaves’ in his own country. A simple help line, a Facebook page and a team of volunteers giving support and passing intelligence to enforcement agencies is an obvious way forward. Slavery, rape, imprisonment, human trafficking and illegal immigration require no new laws.

The size of the problem should not be underestimated.

The Spanish police freed 896 women being exploited as sex workers in 2019 and estimate that over 80% of those working as prostitutes are victims of mafias. (source BBC News)

896 is a small proportion of the estimated 300,000 sex workers in Spain and the question should be asked of the police why only 896?

Whatever the mix, there are two types of prostitutes. Those who see themselves as legitimate ‘sex workers’ who demand and get respect and support from society and the state and those who are prostitutes against their will.

The second variety are really those who Mr Sanchez has legitimate concerns for but to fudge these concerns with ‘respect for women’ is to lose focus. The example I have given of sex trafficking and slavery, demonstrates that the Mafia is not interested showing respect to anybody. Strict enforcement of the law is absolutely necessary to protect sex workers and give modern slaves their freedom.

However, if a women chooses to become a sex worker and feels good in themselves for their free choice of occupation, who are we to judge? Some claim that this is economic co-ersion but by any measure is not a factory worker a victim of needing money to live?

Judgment opens the gates to hypocrisy at the most extreme level. The Victorians in 19th century Britain were against all sorts of things based on religious dogma. This did not prevent them committing mass murder during colonisation and non-consensual sex. ‘Jack the Ripper’ was a sort of emblem of how hatred of women can emerge as acts of pure horror.

Clearly laws did not prevent Jack from committing his fowl acts. A new law in the 20th century in Spain is not going to change behavior and it’s causes either. The whole profession is going to be moved out of the benign influence of health workers, social workers, immigration officers, police… into an underworld where ‘respect’ is seen as weakness.

In my view Spain is already a flag ship for showing respect to men and women working in the sex industry. Is the ‘high moral ground’ of ‘respect for women’ a disguise for old fashioned prudery?

All humans need to express their sexuality, whether we like it or not. Marriage used to be the means of making such feelings ‘sacred’ and approved by God no less, but as communities have at least half of their population enjoying a single life, making sex illegal between consenting adults (even if one party is being paid) is opening the path to hell. History tells us that just as history tells us slavery is wrong.

Understanding the problem before reaching a solution, is a skill not taught in schools, churches or political science degrees. In my view, generalised slogans such as ‘respect women’ and ‘black lives matter’ create well intentioned feelings without knowing what is wrong and how to fix it.

Agro and Shampoo

05/09/202111/12/2021 / Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

What is it with Hotels? I have to admit to having a problem with them.

The clue is in each hotel room. Central to the arrangement of most hotel rooms is a bed and a bed is generally, for sleeping in. And there we have the crux of where I find most hotels get it wrong. The whole notion that their guests basically just want to comatose, appears to be foreign to them. Because of this fundamental misunderstanding, much of what hotels provide becomes a waste of effort and money for all parties. People who want to sleep and or are asleep, do not require a conference suite, a swimming pool, a spa, a restaurant, a dining room, a library, a grand view of the city, an entertainment programme, a stage, a discotheque, wide screen television for sports coverage etc. etc.

We just want a bit of peace, and a toothbrush.

Instead, you get aggravation and cheap shampoo.

The problem with so called ‘facilities’ is generated in part by the hotel star system, which awards stars not on the quietness of the hotel and politeness of its staff, but on the breadth of it’s facilities.

I can accept there may be families and business travellers who intend to spend days and weeks in the hotel and need these things. In this case these quests should be directed to hotels which do not provide an environment for guests to sleep.

If I were head of the United Nations Peace on Earth Commission (if they don’t have one, they should), I would categorise hotels between places of rest and the rest. I would award ‘bed’ symbols for quietness rather than ‘stars’ for what are sources of sleep deprivation.

Perhaps it is time to give some examples of what I mean. I look back to earlier last year when I went with friends to a charming town in the Alpujarras in Southern Spain. The hotel where we stayed the night had a central courtyard around which corridors accessed private rooms. The floors and walls were compleltely tiled. This meant that every footstep was amplified depending on the size of guests steel toe caps. Every cough, conversation and slamming door, was heard by everyone. My friends in the morning, complained that they had to endure a woman talking for two hours on her mobile phone in the corridor, before they could get to sleep.

Continue reading →

Dynamic Resources

22/08/202111/12/2021 / Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

I want to point out a problem that defies a solution in present international law.

It is about ownership of ‘resources’ by nation states. We know that many disputes have started over this issue so in my view it needs absolute clarity.

The issue is like where we find water. It is either static like in a lake or dynamic, as in a river. Nations acquire rights over lakes and that is simple. But when the resource is moving there are many parties interested to the water, in addition to the owner of the lands over which it passes.

The concept of a nation ‘owning’ both it’s static and dynamic resources, can lead to a loss of those resources to neighbouring states and in some cases, the whole planet.

The Antarctic Treaty was drawn up and agreed by twelve nations on 1st December 1959. It aims to protect the freedom of scientific investigation by peaceful cooperation. In reality it does a lot more than that. Antarctica is unique in being protected as a shared and protected world resource and the planet is no doubt a better place because of this.

However, global warming is affecting Antarctica. Glacial shelves are breaking off as giant icebergs with increasing size and regularity. Fresh water previously frozen is and will, affect ocean currents which in turn change climates.

Such issues are normally ‘dealt with’ by the government of that country but in this case there is no such responsibility held by a nation state.

This illustrates how the legal concept of ‘it’s in my country so I own everything in it’ sometimes falls short. The rule of thumb works in most countries but clearly not always.

When we forensically consider the case of a country ‘owning’ a resource because it is within that country’s boundaries, neighbours and or the whole planet, can be affected. For instance, the rain forests of South America are, or were, regarded as the ‘lungs of the planet’. They absorbed CO2 gas, slowing one of the main causes of climate change. If we examine the attitude of Brazil to it’s rain forest, the Bolsinario government refuses to be advised by non-Brazilian interested parties. It claims the right to destroy the rain forest and all the resources it contains. The rights of the indigenous tribes are also not respected.

If I found a hoard of Roman gold coins in my garden I would have to inform the government of the country I live in, let us say the UK. They might regard the ‘trove’ as a national treasure an take away my right to it’s worth. Or they could give all or part of it’s value to me, depending on the higher national interest. In this case a ‘lesser owner’s’ rights are trumped by a ‘higher owner’s’ rights. This concept could be appropriately upscaled to national and international rights. The latter trumping the former where the international interests serve a higher purpose than short term economic gain. At present this would not work because legal rulings require the threat of sanctions or even physical force if ignored. There are only limited means to do this at present.

Yet there is another perspective achieved when we consider just the dynamic resources of the country; those most like to be problematic. Dynamic resources are not rooted to the soil like trees and minerals. A simple example is water again. A river may often pass through several countries before it discharges into a greater body of water. Who owns this water as it moves? When the river flows at a constant speed and volume, then the concept of owning the water as it crosses ‘your’ country works. When the rainfall drops or a country near the source of the river pollutes it or decides to build a dam, then they are problems. Such a dispute is occurring between Egypt and Ethiopia at the present time as Ethiopia builds a dam to create hydroelectricity from the Blue Nile.

A moving resource should clearly respect the rights of all countries. As it passes though several countries each should have a right to influence it’s management.

picture credit: Eastbourne Herald The River Cuckmere East Sussex England

Lawyers and Diplomats would clearly have a great deal to think about to formalise this concept But the world should not delay in my view. Every migrating bird, every ice berg, every bee and butterfly is a shared resource capable of influencing the well being of every human being.

The human race is presently facing an era of catastrophes caused by increasing populations desiring finite global resources and climate change. Denial of these facts was a phase in the 1970’s but not anymore.

When we consider how vital dynamic resources are, it is clear that many are jointly owned and enjoyed by all of humanity. In addition, human beings share a right for dynamic resources not to be destroyed or degraded. The concept of one country having a right to pollute water before it enters it’s neighbour’s land, should be trumped by an international law.

Whales travelling through oceans have no concept of the countries they are passing. Why should one particular country, such as Japan, feel it has rights over whether these whales should live or die? If the consensus of the world is that the whales should not die, then an international body should have to power to order their protection.

Such a body could come under the wing of the United Nations. The chamber might find itself debating the right of the Brazilian government to destroy the Amazon rain forest for Brazil’s short term economic gain and the world’s long term loss. The debate would include the unique forna and flaura and the rights of future generations to have access to this DNA bank. The forest contains chemicals with medicinal properties, viruses that should never be released and countless creatures that once lost, will never be replaced. The neighbouring countries to Brazil, could demand their right to not have desert and refugees, wildlife and viruses crossing into their countries. The indigenous people would also be empowered to demand respect of their rights to the dynamic resources of the forest, in addition to their ancestral land rights.

If the resources that are dynamic are given the international status they deserve, there will be fewer international conflicts over ‘me and mine’ and more co-operation or ‘us and ours’.

Laws work when they embody truths the are Universal. If they are applicable in every corner of the Universe at all scales, they are more enduring and relevant than passing political values. The law would be called The Global Treaty of Dynamic Resources 2021.

Such a law and it’s enforcing body, will become even more important when humans begin to explore new planets and space. It might well be expanded to include static resources. The race to mine the moon that we see today, is about commercial rights to resources that are becoming scarce on earth, so called ‘rare earth elements’. Similarly, the filling up of the earth’s upper atmosphere and deep space with satellites, needs strategic guidance to avoid commercial exploitation and associated ‘space wars’.

If humans don’t get this right, then the next phase after the literal ‘carving up’ of our beloved planet, will be the ‘carving up’ of space and a repitition of the resource-driven disputes and wars in history. Even Helen of Troy was a dynamic resource and if a ruling had been made by a respected Greek god, the Trojan wars would never have happened!

One comment made by many of the men and women who have looked down on earth from space is that there are no national boundaries. We are so used to political maps that the real picture has, until now, been hidden by nationlism. Globalism, whether desired or not, will be the next paradigm for planet care, in my view. Without it, shared dynamic resouces will be seized or destroyed by the short term priorities and political ‘gain’ of politicians who rule without a trace of compassion for the people or the planet. You know who they are.

HS2 Where?

31/07/202116/11/2023 / Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

Twenty Reasons Why HS2 Might Not Be the Promised Public Transport Option of the Future

There is a project in England called HS2. It stands for High Speed 2 and is a plan to build a high speed rail route between London and Birmingham and then beyond. The stated justification for it by the government is to move the political centre of gravity away from London and nearer to the Northern and Midland cities; the so called ‘power house’.

These cities have conventionally voted for the socialist or Labour Party and HS2 was originally a Labour government idea in 2009. Why it has not been cancelled by the Tories in my view is that there may be some political gain for the Conservative and Unionist Party in making Westminster ‘closer’ to the North. In the last election these cities did largely swing to vote Conservative for, no doubt, many reasons.

One skill that I believe is essential for politicians is ‘problem solving’. There is a science to this subject and the first question to be asked in solving a problem is; what is the problem? As much as this may seem obvious, it is heart breaking to observe how much money is wasted on national projects that turn out not to solve the problem. I am reminded the airport in Spain that has never opened and you can probably think of some ‘vanity projects’ in your local area. ‘Vanity’ may be one reason those in power do not ask the right questions. Or perhaps it is the Dunning-Kruger Effect…

(The Dunning–Kruger effect is a hypothetical cognitive bias stating that people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability), : source Wikipedia

…that makes politicians believe they understand the problem perfectly and have the perfect solution.

An Idiots Guide to Digging a Hole for Yourself
:
credit Reseachgate net

Another common pitfall for ‘problem solvers’ is the temptation not to apply a new solution when the original one does not work. This is known colloquially as to ‘dig a hole for yourself’. Rather than abandon the first location to dig, the blinkered view and or fear of admitting a mistake and or wasting time, money and effort… compels decision makers to keep applying the original problem solving technique. Feedback is rarely sought, dissenters are ridiculed and rational insight is lost in the rush to jump into the deepest hole ever dug…

The HS2 project in my view is a perfect example of this and even the PM used this metaphor…

Boris Johnson has suggested the only answer to the “hole” enveloping HS2 is “to keep digging”. BBC News 31 January 2020

So far three billion pounds has been spent on demolition and railway infrastructure. To change now would mean wasting all of this money and admitting a mistake. To admit to such things is political suicide, and career politicians need to impress upon their voters that they know what they are doing. This is what we see at the moment.

Personally, I would vote for any politician who is prepared to describe the white elephant under construction as just that. Here is my ‘off the cuff’ list of reasons to abandon the project. I am sure the list could be even longer but it hardly seems necessary. It is not all negative. It contains the precise locations where treasure can be found, should the current hole ever be realised to be just full of air.

Here is my list of strategic reasons to abandon HS2;

1.The people who live in the Midlands and North of England desire most to have better rail links between the East Coast and the West Coast of England and connecting the cities in between.

2. The people who live in the Midlands complain that the existing rail service to London is at full capacity and needs upgrading. This could be achieved quickly and relatively cheaply with additional conventional infrastructure and rolling stock.

3. HS2 is planned to go initially North South, adding a link to London which is contrary to stated intention to move the ‘centre of gravity’ of the country. The word ‘London’ is the clue.

4. The country has borrowed a vast quantity of money during of the Covid -19 pandemic. To reduce this burden ( and presumably vulnerability to any future rise in interest rates) it is proposing to reduce aid to the poorest countries in the world. In doing so it risks losing the ‘world leader’ status it aspires to. One obvious alternative is to admit it can no longer afford to pay for HS2.

5. Since the pandemic, people have become used to communicating using the internet. Moving physically between locations has become less important.

6. Trains are old technology. They have been improved as much as they ever can be and now only new technology should replace it.

7. High speed trains are at their most economic on long distances such as found on the continent of Europe, North America or Australia. As any continental traveller will tell you, the UK major cities are relatively close to each other and journeys short in comparison with countries where high speed trains have been a success.

8. Fast, long distance trains are rivalled by aircraft. In Spain, for instance, internal flights are cheaper and quicker than the extensive high speed rail network.

9. Trains are rivalled by new technology such as the Hyperloop. They are likely to become superseded in the next few decades, just as railways took over from canals. Technology and economics are more sustainable drivers than political policies. New technology by-passes the decision making processes of government. In the era of present rapid ‘advances’ in technology governments must work with new technologies in the way that voters do.

10. A large proportion of ‘clean’ electricity is produced by fossil fuel power stations and nuclear power stations. The first is neither clean nor efficient. The nuclear option is becoming more and more expensive (as decommissioning costs are included) and prone to the dual risks of nuclear accident and the problem of the indefinite safe storage of nuclear waste on planet earth.

11. The costs of major infrastructure projects can be reasonably expected to double by the time they are completed. The original estimate for HS2 in 2005 of 37 billion pounds has already doubled to 78.4 billion pounds by 2015! (according to Institute for Government statistics). At this rate of increase it will have doubled again by 2025 and that is only the estimated cost. There are inevitably going to be delays and unforeseen extra costs. This during predicted future decades of Covid 19 austerity.

12. Europe is joined to one nation by the Channel Rail Tunnel. The United Kingdom is connected to twenty seven countries by the Channel Rail Tunnel – and beyond. The train from Berlin to Manchester appeals to a minority who will either meet virtually, go by air or just not choose to do business in the United Kingdom.

The List Extends into the Tactical Reasons to Abandon HS2

What have the Victorians ever done for us? picture credit *Country Life*

13. When the Victorians built railway stations, they were able to build their palace-like stations in the centre of towns and cities; just where travellers wanted to arrive! Due to high land values and ethical (archaeology, listed buildings, city centre decay, the housing shortage ) concerns around compulsory purchase, this is no longer practical. Most HS2 stations will be built outside the towns and cities they serve. The connecting transport will take away some or all of the time gained (1hour 21 minutes reduced by 29 minutes) by using a high speed train. An example I experienced many decades ago, was in Brisbane. When you arrive in Brisbane rail station you have to stand and wait for a bus or taxi to get you to the centre of Brisbane. I believe a local train has now reduced this problem but the insanity of these slow ‘connections’ remains.

14. Simple analysis of the problem will reveal there are many means to connect the regions of the UK other than high speed trains. The best and perhaps most cost effective of these, is to improve connectivity using the internet. This has the potential to allow passengers to work during their journey on conventional trains. This will make the speed of the train less important.

15. A new train route will cause considerable loss and damage to the countryside and communities through which it is intended to pass. The least of these is the one hundred ancient woodlands which will be destroyed. At a time when the country has been promised it will be more self sufficient in food, farms will be significantly negatively affected.

16. One hundred ancient woodlands, fauna and flora and in areas of outstanding natural beauty and special scientific interest will be permanently harmed or eradicated at a time when the environment is being prioritised, not least because of climate change.

17. Trains are a less safe means of travel than flying and in the future, the hyperloop. The later will be so safe that the prototype has already been trialled over a short distance by it’s designers and backers, personally. Hyperloop is frictionless so will require a fraction of the amount of energy required to propel an ordinary or high speed train.

18. To fit the broader brief of ‘increasing connectivity’ within England, new trains and routes should be started in the North. Phase One HS2, starts in London and therefore does not benefit those in the North unless they want to go to London.

19. The money spent by the Test and Trace and PPE procurement was approximately 57 billion pounds. This is in the same ball park as the current estimated cost of HS2! If HS2 costs reach 106 billion pounds, then this is the same as the cost of running the National Health Service for a year. Politicians have to be asked why not run the NHS for a year with this money?

20. The High Speed train network will not serve the satellite regions of the United Kingdom; known as Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. These areas already resent to control of an England-centric government based in the south of England. In my view this may become the straw that breaks the camel’s back and play into the hands of the Nationalist Parties of each country, the first to fall being Scotland followed by Northern Ireland, then Wales and then Yorkshire – Cornwall?!

I have not included any benefits from a High Speed train network in the United Kingdom.

Such as list should always be included in any rational ‘problem solving’ assessment. My problem is, I can’t see any benefits, except some good publicity photos of dolphin-nosed trains and grinning politicians in high visibility jackets.

If there ever were benefits, these should have been gleaned after the second world war when the UK’s industrial cities had been demolished. Despite ‘winning’ the war in 1945 the UK was bankrupt. Japan ‘lost’ the war and in the 1970’s built some of the first high speed trains – the famous Skinhansen.

The Right Technology at the Right Time in the Right Place – Shinkansen

Perhaps some would argue that an electric train speeding along the tracks is much greener than the cars on the motorway running parallel. With the proviso that the National Grid is powered by carbon neutral fuel sources, this is true, but certainly by 2040 (as phase 2 is due for completion), cars and lorries are going to be mainly electric or hybrid. Any ‘green’ advantage to all trains is slowly disappearing.

And in the midst of a pandemic and in preparation for the next, is not personal transport going to be preferred to public transport?

What would Robert Stevenson be thinking if he saw the final phase of his invention being acted out? What would he say about today’s ultra wealthy taking personal travel into the edges of space and is that why he called his invention Rocket?

1829 Rocket – Still the best public transport concept applicable two hundred years later?

Pandemos

13/06/2021 / Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

Common to all the people

The thing with pandemics is that they are far from being ‘unprecedented’ as many politicians offer as an excuse for making mistakes. Historically there is a long list including the plague or ‘Black Death’ as it was known in England.

So aware are public health experts today that, certainly in the UK, pandemics are regarded as the number one risk. Governments have to be prepared for even the most unlikely eventualities and there will be a plan, somewhere. This will describe the risks – particularly the level of harm – and how to mitigate and eventually, eliminate, those risks.

A well thought out emergency plan will include the ‘hardware’ and ‘software’ needed. Warehouses across the country will store vast quantities of ‘just in case’ resources, from dried baby milk to personal protective equipment. Software will be posters and public information announcements already prepared for broadcasting to worried populations. It’s a whole area of expertise and those trained will be employed in all levels of government, from national to local. Protecting the population of a country is, after all, one of the primary functions of government.

Let us examine, pandemics caused by viruses. To mitigate and plan for a new viral infection there are six stages;

Identify the origin of the virus and strictly control the contributory factors.
Analyse the virus and it’s methods of transmission between hosts.
Analyse the effects of the virus on the human body.
Identify ways of preventing and treating the virus and it’s transmission.
Share all of the hardware and software between countries of the World to do the above.
Initiate prevention and treatment programmes throughout the global population.

At the time of writing there is a pandemic which is estimated as causing between 100,000,000 and 400,000,000 infections a year, according to the World Health Organisation. There has been a dramatic growth of cases in recent decades and at least half of the world’s population are at risk.

*picture credit: thenativeantigencompany.com*

The virus causes mild symptoms but in some cases can produce acute flu-like symptoms in humans. There are four serotypes meaning it is possible to be infected four times. According the BBC News App, ‘explosive outbreaks can overwhelm hospitals.’ In it’s most lethal form, fatality rates are 1% of the population when proper treatment and care is available.

Readers will probably have realised by now that I am describing dengue fever or DENV.

It’s a viral infection that you certainly do not want to experience. It’s commonly known as ‘break bone fever’ as it causes severe pain in muscles and bones. Like all viruses it poses a significant threat to the human population.

The good news for those living in high risk urban areas in the tropics, is that a new method of prevention has given very promising results in trial. The BBC News App reports that infections in the city where the trial took place were cut by 77%.

The method used ticks item 4. in my list above. Researchers used a ‘miraculous’ bacteria (Wolcachia) to infect host mosquito’s that spread the virus. The bacteria makes it much harder for the DENV to survive in it’s shared host so the mosquito is less likely to cause an infection. The trial set about introducing this bacteria into the local mosquito’s; fighting fire with fire.

What we can learn, in common with most viral outbreaks is that the origin of the virus and it’s method of transmission must be thoroughly investigated (1. above).

With this understanding, whenever new virus’s are discovered, pandemics can be prevented more quickly and as we know – speedy intervention is vital to reduce transmission. In an ideal world, governments will work together. Knowledge and resources should be immediately sent to the centre of any outbreak and paid for by global contributions rather than the host country, in my view. NGOs and strategic public health organisations, I believe, should be given overall control of treatment of the outbreak, with politicians merely signing off the allocation of national resources. Each country contributes according to it’s means, the rich and those without any outbreaks (pre-pandemic) pay more.

And if one pandemic is given disproportionately more publicity and resources than equally serious concurrent pandemics, what could possibly be the reason? Mind the mind gap!

The Bill

01/04/202102/04/2021 / Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

There is presently being considered in the UK parliament a ‘Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill’. It is wide ranging in it’s intended effects. So much so that citizens are worried and they are asking questions are;

Are these new legal powers necessary and if so are stricter legal powers the best way to achieve the intended result?

In other words, is shooting the cockerel the best way to have a lie-in?

It is coincidental that the timing of these proposals coincided with a public vigil for a murdered woman, Sarah Everard. Sarah was tragically murdered, allegedly by an off duty police officer, whilst walking home.

The vigil was held in Clapham Common in South London. Unfortunately there were ugly violent scenes when police enforced the Covid regulations, which ban such public events. The confrontation had been foreseen. Prior to the vigil, an organisation called ‘Reclaim These Streets’ approached the police and then the High Court. The High Court told the organisers to sort it out with the police.

The question has to be asked, how ‘negotiations’ failed to find a solution that eliminated the risk of confrontation and violence.

picture credit: thedailymail
comment: how the media encourage dualistic thinking

People with an iota of problem solving sense and mediation skills, will know that if you set up two sides with conflicting agendas, they will always disagree with each other.

The BBC News webpage comments; For almost a year, the ambiguities and omissions within the coronavirus restrictions have left both the police and the public grasping for answers as to what is possible in public. It’s so complex we’ve even seen people fined for walking while holding a cup of tea.

The Covid ‘regulations’ are already a cause for antagonism between the public and the police. The police are having a hard time maintaining public confidence in their impartiality and fairness. The Police are currently lumbered with issuing Enforcement Notices, fines of £200, under the Covid Regulations.

Personally, I can see good reason to remove the police from the enforcement of Covid rules.

Police are principally responsible to protect the public from those breaking criminal law. They stopped being responsible for lost dogs and parking on double yellow lines long ago, so why are they involved with Covid rules?

One possible solution would be to create a new temporary role of ‘Covid Enforcement Officers’. This process of specialist enforcement officers has already been successfully with non-criminal offences, such as parking fines. Police used to issue parking fines decades ago. Then Traffic Wardens were created for this purpose and currently used ‘Parking Enforcement Officers’ have the role.

The Home Office might be able to recruit volunteers to enforce Covid Rules, given the large number of community spirited citizens who have already put their names forward for public service during the emergency. Alternatively, or as well as, the Home Office could pay CEO’s in the full time role. Alternatively or in addition, the Home Office might use the services of those currently paid to ‘furlough’ at home. This at least would be a better use of tax payers money. The role might also be given to a strictly selected portion of those ‘homeless’ and living in hotels at public expense and even released prisoners. Both groups who might well rise to the being awarded public trust and benefit for the rest of their lives for some experience of employment. My point is that there are many avenues to explore before dismissing the role of CEO.

Let us next examine the subject of public protests during the Covid state of emergency. It cannot be denied that where there is a public protest planned over an issue of current high public interest, there is good reason for respecting public feelings. If the government restricts the human right of protest it runs the risk of appearing draconian. When the government and rule of law is perceived by citizens to lose the high moral ground, ‘policing by consent’ becomes difficult to impossible. We see this in Hong Kong and Myanmar at the moment where protest has effectively been made illegal.

The problem for the British government that the vigil in Clapham Common posed, was for a potential ‘mass Covid spreading event’ to take place. This was the fear and Police had a duty to prevent such an outcome. They would be sure to be blamed for not using their powers should there be a subsequent localised outbreak of Covid infection.

The problem solving method used was for both sides to line up against each other like in a medieval battle. Even the High Court ran from this confrontation. All were victims in my view of the process of dualistic thinking or ‘either or’ solutions.

The way I would look at this problem is that it is not only a ‘police’ responsibility. In most problem solving processes, problems will be found to be widely shared. Who might the other stake holders be?

Just of the cuff I would suggest that the problem was owned by the organisers, those attending, the Park Authorities and the by-laws, the National Health Service (local hospitals), Human Rights organisations, the Courts, scientists of the health and social variety, the local MP and London Mayor’s Office, Legislators and the Home Secretary.

The only intervention the government could conceive was a new law, because that is what governments do; a classic case of ‘digging the hole deeper’. This is how they intend to make the present police powers more stringent;

The Bill being proposed wishes to prevent public protest that creates “serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community”.

The lack of any nuance to this ‘nail – hammer’ thinking was, in my opinion, is woeful. If the complexities of solving a problem are embraced, then solutions are abundant.

For instance in the case of this public vigil by, say one thousand people, it can be be managed to achieve the clearly set out objective…to let people have their moment of remembering peacefully and without disproporthionate harm to themselves or others. After all, if strangers mix inside a supermarkets without creating mass Covid spreading events each day, then a single outdoor event is considerably less risky. Experience of public gatherings outdoors, including when not socially distanced, has shown that mass Covid events do not take place afterwards. This was shown to be the case at recent public protests in the USA such as the Black Lives Matter marches or the infamous storming of Capitol Hill.

Aside from the spread of infection it is hard to see why any peaceful outdoor protest should culminate in;

“serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community” if managed properly.

There are clear Covid rules of social distancing, mask wearing and hand washing and the attendees would willingly follow such rules as they Sainsbury’s where public disorder is not considered an imminent threat.

A vigil by definition, is a passive affair where people sit or stand with candles and placards to express their feelings of solidarity, sadness and, in this case, discontent that a young woman’s public murder makes many women feel unsafe.

Imagine how a Problem Solving / Protest Management Meeting that I am envisaging, might have taken place. There would be numerous attendees with multiple points of view but with a overlapping and shared desired outcomes. The aim of the meeting will be to express and examine all views in a spirit of co-operation to solve a shared problem. The fruit of such meetings is that solutions can be just as impactive as force, but in a subtle and almost invisible way.

So if you were the Superintendent of Parks, would you not be a good person to involve in how to make this peaceful event as safe as possible whilst supporting the Human Right to protest? You could provide detail maps of the park showing entrances and exits, toilet facilities, how previous public events had been managed, first aid and other emergency considerations (normal for large gatherings), catering etc. etc. in as much detail as you need and that’s just the Park Keeper.

The Fire Service say they could provide sand bags for people to sit on at the required distances…good idea…and safe bins to dispose of used candles. The local press and police might hire a drone to take photographs from above. The police use it to monitor events and the press get some great photograhps. Those attending are told that by staying on their sandbags they images will be spectacular visually, whilst respecting privacy and not spying on indiviuals. Instead of a grid, an local artist might design a shape for the sandbags and candle holders, like a flower of rememberance. You get the idea. It’s soft management designed to delight not draw battle lines.

The Covid Enforcement Officers might have produced some posters which will be clearly displayed at the entrances to the Vigil Arena, reminding attendees of the Covid safety rules and the fines for infringement.

I could list the inputs of each party but you get the picture. Towards the end of the meeting the person representing the local police, shares that there is intelligence that the an anarchist organisation are planning to attend. There is a history of them creating public disorder and damage to property. A few mug shots are shared.

Are These People Mourners or Political Activits?

The Police therefore commit to having 200 riot trained officers on hand but out of view, in case of “serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community”. They confirm that there are existing laws under the Public Order Act, Criminal Damage Act and Breach of the Peace to make arrests and allow the vigil to continue peacefully.

Dame Cressida Dick, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, is at the meeting and says that she intends to take part in the Vigil. Everyone applauds. Apparently, several other celebrities and leaders of Human Rights and Women Safety organisations are also going to take part. There is decided to be a VIP area next to the area designated for the Press.

In this hypothetical scenario the event takes place and the Anarchist ‘rent-a-mob’ do make an appearance. They are ‘kettled’ away from the vigil into an area that the Park Superintendent recommended which is surrounded on three sides by high fences. Flood lights had been secretly positioned their and their switching on allows for CCTV surveillance to begin and the press to get some good pictures. The police keep them there until the vigil has ended and the park is clear. Two anarchists are arrested are, both for previous offences using outstanding warrants.

My conclusion is that any public protest with warranted public interest and sympathy, should be allowed to take place under Covid regulations, and the Regulations should be amended to permit this. It is for the committee of interested parties to decide what level of public interest and support exists, not the courts or the police.

In summary, when the only parties involved are cast as protagonist and enforcer, the result will tend towards the violent scenes sadly witnessed on Clapham Common. Giving the enforcers more powers to enforce is no solution, and leads to the very thing purported to avoid, that is;

“serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community”.

So in answer to the question at the top of this essay which was;

Are these new legal powers necessary and if so are they the best way to achieve the intended result?

…my answer is no. The existing laws were sufficient for the nine arrests made at this vigil. Next time, organisers should seek the help of the ‘partnership approach’ to public protest event planning. Use it or ignore it at your peril.

Who Orders the New Order?

23/09/202031/12/2020 / Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

A ‘normal’ state of affairs in a society is always a vague concept. We know that what is ‘normal’ in one year or decade, will not necessarily so in the next. Changes in technology, education, religion, health, cultural diversity, incomes and expenditure, world events such as weather patterns, personal expectations and many other factors, influence how societies morph. In this essay, I am going to use one of these, education, as an example of how ‘normals’ become established and how they can change for the benefit of all.

A common cliché is the ‘new normal’ – as if this makes anything clearer – which it does not. By definition a ‘normal’ state of affairs has been in place and unchanged for a substantial period of time. If it had not then it would be just ‘new’. Normal should appeal to persons of a ‘conservative’ outlook; they resist change on principle, even if the change is for the better.

Taking the long term view of the current changes in Western societies, it is likely that the next ‘normal’ will be very different to anything in the past.

Whether that is a ‘New World Order’ as politicians have been predicting for the last hundred years or more, remains to be seen.

If we can adapt our expectations and thoughts to a ‘new order’ that has been voted for and accepted by society, then there will be more gains than loses for everyone. If the control comes from anywhere else, then it will be impossible to predict what that strategic outcome will be. It is most likely however that that objective will not be in the best interests of the people.

People living in countries where they still have the power to influence those who govern them, must first determine what it is they want. History informs us that one of the most basic rights is the have an the same opportunity at success as our neighbours. Inequality of opportunity creates disparity at all kinds of levels, no just wealth. Anyone who does not succeed following this rule has only themselves to blame if they do not gain as much as their neighbour. The lazy, inept, greedy, fantasised and any other human weakness you care to name, these people will achieve few privileges but will know they only have themselves to blame.

The attempt at an alternative means of assessing pupils’ grades failed in my view because it was not sufficiently a radical change. Today Universities think they need to select bright students when in fact they just need fee paying students.

The ‘merit’ system of the mid 1900’s, assumed that Universities should offer free places to the brightest students. This was generally 4% of the brightest students each year. Society paid, but gained in the long term because it gave a level playing field of opportunity to young people from all social backgrounds. When students left University they entered society as future managers and leaders.

Since the Tony Blair government stated a new aim of half of all young people gaining degrees, the whole game changed.

Surely such an aim produces too many chiefs and not enough Indians? Today young people with degrees have found it challenging to find work, let alone one that offers them to fulfil their personal potential.

Degrees issued to so many people, lose their inherent value, simply because of the law of supply and demand. Employers are now are looking for candidates who have a degree and something else.

The whole process of gaining good A-levels in order to be accepted by a University appears to me to be of little relevance.

If Universities took a fresh look at what they offer in the current ‘Covid’ restricted environment, they might become more radically innovative. The traditional University campus and it’s associated support activities all have to be located in buildings. The students expect some sort of accommodation and transport facilities such as parking for cars and bicycles.

It is not surprising that Universities need large incomes from fees and government. Yet, the introduction of ‘remote tuition’ – a product the Open University in the United Kingdom has offered for decades – is a ground changer.

If Universities moved out of campuses where the whole Universities culture is no longer needed, fees could be drastically reduced. With less travelling by staff and students, there is a saving to the environment and days for work and study. Other benefits will be easier child care and part time working.

Universities will be not be limited on offering places for courses because they will not be counting seats in lecture theatres. There might be a three hundred on a course that in the ‘old normal’ was limited to say, thirty.

Why should a place in University be decided by how well a student performs in examinations? They might have high potential in the work place but not shine at academic subjects and in the examination theatre. They might have a less than perfect understanding of a language, such as must be common in foreign students, and yet have high potential once that weakness was allowed to be overcome. I knew a Ukrainian woman who spoke Russian and studied Law in an English University for which I give huge respect.

There are many other physical and mental ‘disabilities’ which students encounter temporarily or permanently which Universities should be the first to respect. Offering places purely on academic success, is in no way respectful of what a person can achieve if given the chance they deserve. Most employers in the ‘new order’ and not going to discriminate irrationally simply because it is against the law of the land. Remote studying suits such students very well as they can take the time they need at the pace they need.

What I am suggesting then is a revolution in academia where they students decide which courses they want to purchase independent of their previous academic performance. If the student is to be a ‘customer’ then like customers, they hold the power to get what they aspire to.

When I went to University I was awarded a place on how well I performed in interview and my rather poor A-level results ignored. I like to think I was assessed on my human potential rather than how well I remembered facts.

I have used the University admission system as an example of how the ‘normal’ in any organisation can be changed. Most importantly this change enables everyone to have an equal bite of the apple, independent of what sticks and carrots life has presented them with in their lives so far. It is true to say that ‘life is never fair’ but that is a reason to try and make it fair, not to give in.

The changes in societies currently taking place across most of the world can be blamed for personal failure but equally for personal survival and success. Those who are not brought down should be those who are most willing to throw the ‘rule book’ out of the window. Comfortable lifestyles from privilege and convention, one would like to think are most at risk.