The UK Turf War

Once again immigration is the topic of conversation for the UK, and as usual it hasn’t taken long for the UK press to revel in the delight of ‘scaremongering’ and ‘scapegoat’ rhetoric.

If the news is to be read literally though, it would be enough to frighten the pants off any level headed individual just going about their business; an influx of foreign workers stealing jobs and benefits, who plan to eventually take over the country for their own ends! Sounds sinister!

All of the talk, press and otherwise, does raise important questions though. Is this truth or merely scare tactics? Also, just how fair, equitable, free and humane does it all sound? It is immigration, but we are talking about people right and not merely cattle?

Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU in 2007, but now that the UK has had to lift its restrictions to their job market, fears have escalated, by what seems like over-night, to a boiling point.  Should the UK nation be afraid, is there about to be a turf war?

I was nosing around the net, wondering if all the hullabaloo was in fact worth the media frenzy. What I wanted to know was whether the people of the UK really gave a damn about who from the EU might or might not take up UK residency. It didn’t take too long to stumble upon something curious.

The below text has been copied from an actual on-line petition set out on the HM Government website. Its creator, a member of the UK public, along with 153,811 signatories, seemed to obviously feel that there indeed would be a mass of Romanian, and Bulgarian immigrants desperately making their way to the shores of the UK.

“In 2014 EU restrictions are set be removed, allowing nationals of Bulgaria and Romania ‘free movement’ to the UK. The move is similar to the one that granted access to around 600,000 Polish immigrants to enter Britain over recent years.

Despite Bulgaria and Romania joining the EU in 2005 (Savvy Senorita edit – it was 2007), restrictions were put on the number who could move to Britain. However, those restrictions will be abolished in 2014 (Savvy Senorita edit – I.E now).

Once the restrictions are lifted all new comers will entitled to claim benefits, housing, child, job seekers etc. There is currently an estimated 1.5 million people seeking work within the two countries

The impact will also put pressure on housing, infrastructure, schools, and heath care. All at a time the government are cutting pensions, jobs, public services and the armed forces.

I request the government suspends the easing on these restrictions” 

I then took a look at the newspapers. There were ample comments left upon The Daily Mail and Guardian’s websites; replies to the articles telling the world about how our MPs feel or fear about immigration. In one such article, (posted in the Guardian: link below), it was claimed that David Cameron believes that the immigration levels for Romanians and Bulgarians is now reasonable enough; the responses to this article however provided a somewhat different perspective;

“We need mass immigration as a pro business policy Cameron is completely wrong.

Think about the benefits, house prises rise make home owners wealthier and Britain can remain competitive by getting cheaper labour.

We live in an increasing globalised world and we in the EU have China to compete with. He couldn’t be more wrong.

In addition without immigration we would have to spend an exorbitant amount training our own feckless and work-shy, and the price of house keeping would rocket.

The EU must not allow him or his party to get away with such inflammatory comments”.

These quotes demonstrate two very different ideas about immigration, both of which are actual opinions held by people living in the UK.

OK, so I know there maybe those out there who feel that any level of immigration is too high, and others who think that the doors of a country ought be flung wide open (each to their own); but isn’t there a happy medium?

What I mean is, can’t we talk immigration without becoming so emotive? Can’t we leave all the scapegoating, racism and the overly P.C comments behind, and focus on what could be the real issues of immigration for the UK?

I want to ask the powers that be, and the people;

Can any country allow mass immigration? Does any country have the capacity to offer that? Is it economically viable? Could they offer employment, housing, services and support (et al) to everyone that comes to, and resides in the country?

Is immigration a one way street – the people from the poorest nations moving to the richer ones? Is immigration about making money for a country or spending money? Do we all really have freedom of movement? How many people would up-sticks and re-locate to another country? Is that even possible with the economy and the lack of job opportunities? Also, EU countries differ from the UK; different languages, educational requirements, alien benefit and health care systems which not every resident will have access to.

Why is the UK immigration fears/policies subject to mass interjection from other countries? Why has it become such a contentious subject? Every country has its own ideas regarding immigration, yet, I don’t see every country being asked to explain themselves. Is UK immigration a national or international issue? Whose country is it to govern, and make those decisions about immigration? Have the UK Government merely become some middle man in all of this, without the real power to decide what happens in their own country? More importantly, does anyone care what the public think and want?

Is the UK a ‘soft touch’ for the world? Is the UK being racist in its cautious approach to immigration?

Is the UK Government trying to appease everyone, and pleasing no-one at the same time? Is immigration a way of making amends for a shady past history as ‘colonial conquerors’, do they feel guilty?

Has the UK given up on its people – do they invest enough in what resources and talent they already have? Why would the country require an extra work-force from abroad, when the UK already has those who are in need of training/re-training, educating, employment, self-employment, good wages and steady/secure jobs? In fact, can the UK Government deal with the issues/changes and problems the country already has? Are they actually taking on too much responsibility by accepting more people they won’t be able to ‘do right by’?

Will there be a mass exodus from one country to another? Will the Romanians and Bulgarians swamp the UK, and take over the country? Why do people live in fear of immigrants stripping the country bare? Immigration is nothing new for the UK; it has always been multi-cultural and accepted people from far and wide, why then is the country now so angst ridden?

Is immigration a good business and economic policy? Is it investment and profit? Is it more people claiming benefits and abusing the system, sending money back to their families in Romania or Bulgaria? Is it escalation of crime? Is is merely public cynicism and distrust? Is it greed and shady dealings? Is it appeasement or enlightenment?

I personally feel the UK cannot close the doors to immigration, but there are certain discrepancies with how the UK handles the subject. I don’t doubt that UK immigration and policies per se are being vetoed or strangled by the EU. I question though, who benefits from all the upper echelons (in the UK and EU), wrangling amongst themselves because of their own agendas? Well, it isn’t the people they are supposed to represent and that is for certain.

I believe immigration has become a convenient red herring in many ways, an issue placed before the public to distract from the real issues on the table, the real failure of those in charge.

With or without immigration, the UK still has serious issues; how is the Government going to convince the UK public that they can do what they say they will? When all the scapegoating and smoke screens have gone, what is left? A Government who doesn’t really know what they really stand for, and which way to turn in any crisis without squabbling like children.

I wonder, when there is nothing to fight over, what remains to fight for?

I will leave you with a quote (another reply) to that article in The Guardian (I mentioned earlier in this post: link below);            

“The UK is not concentrating on “job building” it is penny wise and pound foolish, driving wages down to a minimum base and sitting complacently on a million unemployed and millions under-employed. We have so many things that need replacing and repairing, upgrading and restoring here, but the governments we have seem happy to suck up to businesses who cream profits off-shore and let the citizens scrabble around in the mire for part-time low paid work.

We have work that needs doing, but lack the courage to invest in our people to improve the quality of life for everyone”.

Check out the article at: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/27/cameron-romania-bulgaria-immigration-reasonable

Freedom Of Speech?

Everyone has got something to say about how free their speech should be.

However, peoples beliefs, ideas and notions about freedom of speech seem to be in conflict with what it actually is.

Well, what exactly is freedom of speech?

To clarify the mystery let us look at the Wikipedia definition, just so we know we are all on the same page, so to speak:

“Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one’s opinions and ideas using one’s body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified or otherwise.

The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that “[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference” and “everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice”. Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries “special duties and responsibilities” and may “therefore be subject to certain restrictions” when necessary “[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others” or “[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals”.

Interesting. Interesting also to note I have emboldened certain parts of this text, to comment on obviously, as on the this humble piece of the blog-stratosphere, I have the freedom to speak my own opinions.

The first point to consider states that we have the right to; “Communicate one’s opinions and ideas….to anyone who is willing to receive them”. To me, this statement does not mean forcing your opinions or ideas upon those people, who frankly couldn’t care a less. As we all know, we all have our own ideas and opinions, and of course as is human nature, and the difference of being different, they all differ from time to time. What a shock!

Why then do some people think they have a right, or a duty, above and beyond us mere mortals, to shout their ideas and opinions loudest of all? Why do some people wish to drown everyone else out, and force others to shut up and concede to them? Where is the freedom of speech in that ethos? What makes one person, or people, think their ideas and opinions are superior, and are worth listening to more than anyone else’s? “[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference”, that is what the definition states loud and clear. Perhaps then these people who wish to subdue everyone else, really ought to educate themselves on the premise of freedom of speech, before they speak!

In other words; if you have something to say then make it worthwhile, otherwise, please just shut up and leave other people alone! We’re not listening if we don’t want to, as per our right, according to freedom of speech!

“The right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations”. People often disagree with this, but then of course these people also don’t wish to hear or be informed about other people’s ideas and opinions either. Some people only really want to hear what they want to, and would indeed censor anyone who conflicted with their own ideas and opinions. So, once again, where is the freedom in that??

I would like to know, what is absolute freedom anyway?? Also, why do some people think that their freedom is more important than anyone else’s? Could it be that people claim there ought to absolute freedom when they themselves are censored, because they have something horrible, threatening, bullying and insidious to shout about? Maybe.

This leads me directly to what is censored, and why of course; “the exercise of these rights carries….. special duties and responsibilities………and may…..therefore be subject to certain restrictions……. when necessary……[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others….or…..[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals”. Does this clause, that can limit the freedom of anyone’s speech seem reasonable??? For me, no.

Before people accuse me of having petty despot fantasies, hear me out; this is my freedom of speech after all!!

Consider what damage words can do to a person, their life, their reputation, their happiness and security. Many of us may indeed recall a school-yard bully, who didn’t resort to violence to inflict pain and rule with terror, but only words. The sort of words that are better off never being spoken. The type which are threatening, nasty, damaging and damn right insidious.

Extrapolate this example then into the wider-world, and imagine what damage words, uncontrolled and misdirected can do. The answer is, plenty of damage.

Shouldn’t we all then have a responsibility to edit our words? Consider the content, quality, quantity and intent before we fire the loaded weapon, and expect everyone to just sit back and be OK with it all? If we aren’t willing to allow other people’s words to just fly past our ears without response, then why should other people afford us such courtesy?

I think the moral of this tale is; choose your words carefully, and always, always, expect a response!

Is This Feminism?

Are bare breasts ever a weapon?

Are bare breasts instruments of political protest?

Are bare breasts able to make a direct difference to politics?

FEMEN, a Spanish branch of the feminist protest group founded by Ukrainian Inna Shevchenko, believe that bare breasts represent all of these things.

So, are semi naked protests the way forward for the feminist movement in the 21st century?

Well, I personally don’t think the naked body has anything to do with a protest of any description. I just wonder if it is merely an excuse to get officially naked publicly?

Perhaps the bare breasts detract from the actual message being delivered by the group.

I wonder what percentage of the population actually read the article specifically to discover what these women were protesting for. How many really read it solely for the bare breasts? Ummm, I wonder!

By the way, if you too are finding yourself absorbed by the bare breasts, and have missed the political message, I shall enlighten you – they are protesting against patriarchy.

Spanish Anti-Abortion Move

Out with the old and in with the new? Well, not for Spain.

An abortion policy that really ought to have been condemned to the history books is soon to be revived, if Spain’s ‘Popular Party’ have their way.

The Socialism of the previous Government is the antithesis of the Popular Party. There is no room for what was. The right wing ruling machine have opted for a ‘clean’ slate’, well, if you consider corruption in economic dealings and social injustice per se, a clean slate.

Apparently, Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy has drawn his inspiration for tougher abortion laws from the Catholic Church. He is happy to publicly allay himself with the moral and ethical ‘standards’ of this religion. Well, just like in religion, adopting double standards never hurt the cause; just those following it.

So, the plan is to reinstate an outdated abortion law which keeps the religious elements appeased (70% of Spainish claim to be Catholic). The law will state that abortion will be deemed acceptable, only, in cases of rape (Spainish law is also outdated concerning this too), and if the Mother or child will suffer severe health risks.

However, laying stake to such a high moral ground seems perculiar, especially upon knowing the sexualisation within Spanish culture. Sexually transmitted infections are on the increase, affairs are common place, prostitution is ignored, couples are extremely intimate in public places, sex and nudity advertises everything, oh, and women dress scantily clad. Spanish culture is hardly demure and reserved.

So, what can such a restricted abortion law achieve?!

Seems to me as though Spain is a country with conflicting morals; two and two doesn’t necessarily make four.

To make the serious issue of abortion, the rights and freedoms of women worse, Pro-Life organisations have become involved in the mix too. 250,000 plus supporters have protested and petitioned.

One such protester, Ana Maria Llera de la Torre, spokeswoman for Adevida-Jaen Pro-Life Association told the press proudly that her organisation agreed with the Governments proposals to tighten abortion laws. She said in a recently interview; “We want to say yes to life, say yes to the birth of a son”. Ummm, how interesting. Perhaps then, Ms. Torre and her archaic attitude, would be far more sympathetic, and extend the offer of an abortion to those expectant Mothers carrying a girl child?

Such nonsensical attacks on rights, and more specifically rights of women, at this moment in time make sense; consider the economic troubles in Spain. A Government needs to be seen attempting to appease the electorate, so what better way than stamping on the vulnerable. These type of drastic and alienating policy changes are seemingly the only ones this Government is capable of making. They are reactionary, and to be honest not worth the paper it will be written upon. When so much needs to be done, abortion (for or against) is not an issue which will keep the country poor for years to come.

Priorities, por favor!

What’s So Civil About War Anyway?

Just one word, war.

OK, not yet, but the potential of such an act should be enough to warn other countries; stay the hell away. Haven’t there been enough incidents to prove this type of ‘civil’ war gets no one anywhere, this type of war drags on, kills hundreds of thousands and costs the same amount in money too.

Ample previous experience surely proves to U.S and UK governments how this war will end, badly.

Syria, will be such a war, given the chance. There will be no real or swift resolution to their problems. It would be another war neither the UK nor U.S have any business being involved with.

Why must the UK feel they have to become embroiled in such ‘fights’? Perhaps because the U.S ask them to be? Where are the rest of the world in such situations? Oh yes, staying out of it because they are sensible enough to realise they haven’t the resources, and they aren’t some super human power capable of healing the world.

I do wonder though, if the U.S or UK were having such problems (like Syria), would other countries also be so eager to rush in and help, to solve, and heal the problems? I think not.

Again, can the problems of the world be solved, and solved well enough by merely playing the war game, no.

These wars are about ego, pride, heritage, history, religion, money. These are men’s wars.

What does concern me is that so far Syria has had no qualms in killing their own people in vile and despicable ways. I wonder then what ‘joys’ will await the troops, and countries, who dare to become involved in Syrian ‘civil war’.

The only clear answer then to avoid such wasted efforts and human carnage; leave Syria to their war. Now is not the time to become part of yet another middle eastern power struggle.

Nothing is worth becoming tied up with, and into, yet another pointless ‘civil war’.

Maggie And Me

One of the UK’s most controversial former Prime Ministers Margaret Thatcher passed away 8th April.

A recent UK television programme was discussing her life and contribution to politics, in this they questioned Gerry Adams Irish Sinn Féin politician. Mr Adams, funnily enough blamed old Maggie for the troubles Northern Ireland had experienced in the past.

Strange that; and there was me thinking that the IRA and Loyalist Paramilitaries were the cause of all that cowardly violence dished out to the innocent people residing in Northern Ireland, and those serving in the armed forces too!!

Well, guess history is definitely defined by the opinions of people, and if you are inclined to listen to Mr Adams, well, then he had no part to pay in the murders and bombing of Belfast, or those that took place in the UK either.

How quickly he forgets!!

Anyway, sad though it may be that the ‘Iron Lady’ has departed – her grip on the Government purse strings still lingers. UK tax payers are paying for her funeral, great!

So, I was wondering – where is my invite, as a tax payer??!!! Oh, and also, could the tax payer of the UK see fit to also foot the bill for my lavish funeral, when I need it, of course.

      

Freeganism

 

Freegans are people who employ alternative strategies to live their lives. The theory behind it is limiting their participation in the conventional economy, and indulging in minimal consumption of resources. Freegans see themselves as embracing community, generosity, social concern, freedom, cooperation, and sharing. They are opposed to materialism, moral apathy, competition, conformity, and greed.

For many years Freegans looked to avoid products from unethical corporations who they seemed to be responsible for human rights violations, environmental destruction, and animal abuse. Yet Freegans soon discovered that whatever they bought they ended up supporting something they classed as deplorable; realising that the problem wasn’t just a few bad corporations, but the entire system itself.

Freeganism is a total boycott of an economic system.

They believe that profit driven motives have eclipsed ethical considerations. The complex systems of production guarantee that all the products we generally purchase, and don’t think much about, have detrimental impacts. Thus, instead of avoiding the purchase of products from one bad company, Freegans believed they were only lending their unconscious support to another.

Freegans now buy as little as possible!!!  

The word Freegan has it’s origins in ‘free’ and ‘vegan’. For those of you who don’t know; vegans are people who avoid products from animal sources or products tested on animals.

Freegans however take this a step further. They have come to recognise that avoiding abuses in our mass-production economy is impossible. Profit driven industries abuse humans, animals, and the earth; this is the by-product of production.

Freeganism aims to avoid supporting; sweatshop labour, rainforest destruction, global warming, displacement of indigenous communities, air and water pollution and eradication of wildlife on farmland as ‘pests’. They are against; overthrowing popularly elected governments to maintain puppet dictators, compliance to big business interests, open-pit strip mining, oil drilling in environmentally sensitive areas, union busting, child slavery, and pay-offs to repressive regimes. These too are stated by Freegans as impacting on the consumer products we consume every day.

****The above adapted from information at:  http://freegan.info/

**** Above image from same website

OPINIONS PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do YOU know a Freegan or ARE YOU A FREEGAN????

What do YOU think about Freeganism??????

Could YOU convert to Freeganism????

Could YOU boycott ALL the products we take for granted everyday???

Could YOU live for free????

Do YOU think Freeganism advocates a new type of UTOPIAN SOCIETY??????

OR are Freegans merely free-loading??????

One Smack Won’t Hurt

Image from The Guardian newspaper

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/9846270/So-smacking-kids-is-wrong-and-doping-them-is-right.html

This post is a quick response to the above article featured in The Telegraph newspaper.

 

It led me to wondering what people’s actual opinions are about smacking children when they are naughty.

Isn’t there a difference in beating a child senseless and a light tap on the hand or bottom???

Does smacking a child always mean they will be physiologically disturbed when they grow up???

Or do they become violent adults????

Is it possible to fully reason with a 5 year old?? Explaining to them that their behaviour is wrong, and asking them why they engaged in such behaviour????

Is it the states responsibility to intervene, and create laws forbidding parents to discipline their children as they see fit????

Has this all gone too far – admit you smack your child and face the wrath of Hell????

After all – extreme cases of abuse and diabolical stories of children suffering go unnoticed by the powers that be. They don’t intervene , they don’t arrest anyone, they don’t remove the child, they don’t work to change the child’s environment. So, why are they so concerned with one tiny tap on the hand???

Are the powers that be only interested in the ‘easy’ targets???? Accusing parents who genuinely care for and love their children of abuse, when really it isn’t?????????

Another thought; has a decline in smacking correlated with the decline in society????????????????

OPINIONS PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Should The British Be Ashamed Of Being British?

Over worked and underpaid???? Ashamed to be British when all said and done???

I read an article stating that British MPs are dissatisfied with their salaries. These MPs weren’t willing to go public with this dissatisfaction, I wonder why? No, this ‘poll’ was conducted in secrecy, and this secrecy allowed MPs to answer honestly (for once). However, the results were revealed; though unfortunately NONE of the MPs names were provided!

69% of MPs believe they deserve a 32% wage increase.

Shock and horror!!!!

Who would have guessed that MPs, people in power, want MORE! Doesn’t matter what state the UK is in or how the people flounder; as long as they are OK, they don’t give a damn about anything or anyone else. Democracy at its finest!

A reality check perhaps is required. I would love to see them actually working for a minimum wage, without expenses. Then maybe they’d get the gist of the Hell they put everyone else through. That or maybe something more drastic!

Anyway, a response to this revelation was that people have said that they feel ashamed of being British. Britain is seen as the joke of the world.

I wondered, is that true or just us Brits paranoia kicking in??

So, I ask all of you out there who may wish to voice an opinion on this;

ARE YOU ASHAMED TO BE BRITISH??????

SHOULD THE BRITS BE ASHAMED OF BEING BRITISH??????

IS BRITAIN A JOKE TO THE REST OF THE WORLD??????????

I am EAGER for ANSWERS to these questions.

Please let me have your thoughts and opinions; enquiring minds need to know!!!!!!!!!!!!