Archive for the ‘ crime ’ Category

What a surprize: Swine Flu “pandemic” declared by experts on payroll of company that sold vaccine


This is neither amazing nor actually surprizing. Disgusting and manipulative, yes, but surprizing? No. This is just a classic example of powerful bodies exaggerating (or creating) a problem to which the populace will demand a solution. The solution, needless to say, has inherent benefits for its providers, in this case, a lot of cash.

British Medical Journal: Swine Flu “pandemic” was declared by WHO experts on payroll of company that sold vaccine –

In fact, healt experts have been saying that Tamiflu should not be given to healthy people at all:


Power ≠ exemption: arrest the Pope (& the corrupt politicians)

Power should ≠ (not equal) exemption, but overall it appears it does. I read an interesting article on the Huffington Post yesterday which lead with this:

Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, two of the world’s most prominent atheist intellectuals, are seeking means to try the pope for crimes against humanity.

Sounds appealing and ‘just’, right? After all, the pontiff has been reported as heavily involved in the cover-up of sexual abuse within the Catholic church. In lay terms that would be aiding and abetting, a serious offence. The Pope, however, seems immune on the grounds that he is a head of state. Heads of state cannot be tried for crimes? Call me sceptical/uninformed, but that seems a bit bent.

Intellectuals Dawkins and Hitchens, both ardent atheists, evidently feel the same and are attempting to do something about it. Hitchens is quoted as saying:

“This man is not above or outside the law. The institutionalized concealment of child rape is a crime under any law and demands not private ceremonies of repentance or church-funded payoffs, but justice and punishment.”

But as a fellow student, Craig Spence, noted:

[It’s] never going to happen, can you imagine the uproar it would cause in mainland Europe? particularly Italy, not to mention all the so called “Irish Catholics” in the states. What the UK should do is ban him from entering the country, make it clear that we don’t agree with his conduct.

Now, I like that idea, but I am holding out hope that he gets arrested — it might give my faith in ‘justice’ a much needed pep. In truth, however, I seriously doubt either action will be taken. There’s too much pressure on the government as it is and in the run up to elections I very much doubt that the government is going to alienate all the Catholic voters. Convenient timing really.

The point is this: conduct such as his (and that of other priests) should not remain unpunished and he should not be exempt just because he’s the Pope, just as politicians should not be exempt from fraud charges over the expense scandal. In any other business, theft on such a scale would have had serious repercussions.

People in positions of power should be as culpable as anyone else.

Dr Atkinson on James Bulger case: “under-12s can’t be criminals” …Say what now?

A Times Online article this morning talks about the new Children’s Commissioner’s view that children under the age of 12 should not be prosecuted for any crime.

Preposterous? Damn straight it is.

The Times’ interview with Dr Maggie Atkinson centres on the James Bulger/Jon Venables/Robert Thompson case.

There’s several conflicting points here:

Blood shouldn’t generally leave the body, it’s a primal knowledge. Blood is bad. Kids should know right from wrong.

However, kids are very unlikely to know right from wrong if they aren’t raised morally by parents.

But then again, in this case, the victim was kicked, beaten with an iron bar, bottom-half stripped, stoned with bricks and genitally mutilated. His body was then laid on a railway track, his head weighed down by rubble for a train to disguise what the 11-year-old murderers had done. His body was cut in half by a train.

If they didn’t know it was wrong, why try to disguise it?

Dr Atkins also believes that teenagers are too often vilified. “If you have to go all the way to giving out an antisocial behaviour order, you have failed, because you haven’t given positive activities to that person.”

‘Positive activities’?

It is still a tough call. Children don’t appreciate life as much, perhaps, as many adults do and there have been success stories of child rehabilitation following serious crimes (in this case bludgeoning an old lady to death). Is the ‘need’ for harsher sentences actually a need to satisfy society’s blood lust?

Conversely, if you don’t know right from wrong by age ten, will you ever? Even in an irresponsible household where children can watch any film, play any game, there is always the pervading understanding that murder, rape and torture are wrong.

So perhaps the parents should be held accountable and the children moved to foster care? The problem here is that there is a lot of negative stigma regarding foster care and that has to come from somewhere. (NB: the problems with children in the care of the social system is a whole other kettle of fish and too long for this post)

Lock them up and throw away the key?

No. What’s the point? Suffering? Not with colour TVs, playstations and duvets. Prison should be like the gaols of old: cold cells, thin blankets, tiny windows, suspension of state benefits. Although obviously, in the name of human rights, the odd run around the yard would be in order.

Prison overcrowding? Capital punishment for the guilty-without-doubt, un-rabilitatable, serial offenders of serious crimes such as rape, murder and torture. Frees up some space and some money that could go in to the rehabilitation of individuals who do have a shot at reform, like children.

…though perhaps not all children.

Some things, some acts, are beyond reform.

ID cards, privacy & hope for a UK Bill of Rights

The increase in surveillance of the British public has long been on the up, but a new state of the nation poll (reported in the Guardian) shows that the country has hit its tipping point.

One such aspect that has come under public scrutiny is the ID card. In July 2009, the home secretary, Alan Johnson, said the card were a ‘no brainer. They would allow easy travel between EU countries— passport free, only terrorists wouldn’t have them, and so on.

“The identity card is a safe, secure and simple way for people to protect and prove their identity and to travel around Europe but leave their passport at home,” he said. “Given the growing problem of ID fraud and the inconvenience of having to carry passports coupled with gas bills or six months worth of bank statements to prove identity, I believe the ID card will be welcomed as an important addition to the many plastic cards that most people already carry.”

And then a UK newspaper hired a hacker to test the ‘unhackable’ cards out. With a phone and a laptop, the card was hacked in minutes and cloned, with new information put on it. Not so fraud-resistant after all. Besides which, even if they were, it only takes one corrupt/breakable/bribable individual on the inside to screw the whole system. On the surface a good, all-inclusive, ‘no sensitive info‘, easy idea. On the inside, deeply flawed and unlikely to go down well in a country where trust in the government is at best tenuous.

The last state of the nation poll showed only 33% of people opposing ID cards. Now 53% perceive them to be a [very/]bad and 63% of people– up from 53% – worry about the government holding information on them.

The state of the nation poll shows the rights that the sample believed should be included in a Bill of Rights:

81% – the right to know what information government departments hold on you

79% – the right to privacy in your phone, mail and email communications

76% – the right to join a legal strike without losing your job

75% – the right to obtain information from government bodies about their activities

72% – and the right to free and peaceful assembly.

Which just goes to show that the UK still wants to be a free society.

This information was released by Power 2010, which asked the public to choose its top five priorities for political reform, the poll revealed that

80% agreed with the need for a bill of rights, 52% strongly.

The British public seems to be rejecting the idea of massive centralised power over which they have no control.

56% thought government power was too centralised, with

88% saying that local communities should have more say over decisions that affect them.

And that’s what democracy is all about… Right?

%d bloggers like this: