Interviewed

Not normally one for Social Interaction; you know, those memes that ask intrusive questions that are then visible to the whole Internet World. My normal answer is, 'Sod off and don't be so nosey!' However, the individual who posed the challenge this time is someone who, from experience, I can totally trust and with who I feel comfortable. She did what she suggests - that is good enough for me. In her own words

I did this a few years back but I thought another go might be fun. This version comes via Mr Nighttime and it works like this;

If you want to be 'interviewed on your blog' drop me a mail or a comment and I will mail you five questions, you answer them in a blog post and send me the link. I think originally the rules said to mail the originator the reply as well as post it but just a link seems simpler."

My questions

1. You have the opportunity to donate a large sum to a charity, which charity would it be and why?

No great problem here. I've made that decision already. It would be the charity Help for Heroes (H4H). They raise funds for injured servicemen. Injured in mind or body. Instead of complaining about the dark, H4H aims to light a candle. It is no secret that the attention given to our wounded and harmed is sadly lacking. There used to be a formally accepted idea of a Military Covenant. Because there are few other jobs where the ultimate sacrifice is part of the Job Description, the authorities undertook to be especially caring to members of HM Forces. Unfortunately, for reasons I will not detail here, the Covenant has been broken. H4H fills the gap. And does it very well.

2. If you could choose to meet one person from history who would it be and what would you say to them?

Tough one. I have made three or four choices but when it comes to the 'what would I say', I realise that there is a need to connect with others to maybe check the answers given or to add another dimension. So, the just one is a buggeration. Another complication is 'where does the talking lead to?' Salome was a consideration! Having once been in what is now called 'a relationship' (at the time, it was known as 'shacked up') with a quite famous Lebanese belly-dancer it would be nice to meet an originator of that art form.

As a former soldier, my aim would be directed towards military men. Air Marshall Arthur Harris was the founder of the World War II strategy of massive air power being used on civilian targets with a view to fomenting dissent between enemy civilians and the German authority. There has been ferocious argument about both the tactic and its effectiveness. Whatever, it was a massive change from the concept of honourable war - if one can attach that word to war anyway. I would want to know his own explanation and assessment. The idea of bombing a nation into submission is outmoded - despite ongoing events right now.

If Harris was 'unavailable for comment', set me up for Cromwell or Wellington or Rommel.

3. Would you back the underdog even if you knew you couldn’t win?

Having been an underdog on numerous occasions, it would be a natural reaction. Apart from that, I am a confirmed adrenalin junky and the impulse in fight or run conditions that adrenaline creates has always been to fight. Regardless of the prospects of winning. When I come to think of it, the prospect of losing has never come into the debate so I suppose the support of the underdog is not so meritorious as it may seem. More self-serving.

4. You are a fire-fighter, you rescue an individual from certain death, risking your own life in the process only to discover the person you rescued, far from being grateful, is angry and abusive toward you because they set the fire in an attempt at suicide. In the knowledge that arson is a criminal offence but also that this person is very disturbed, do you report your knowledge to the authorities or not?

Instant answer - yes. I do not subscribe to the belief that all suicides are selfish but I do expect that those who choose this route out do it with some discretion and not involve third parties. I cannot think that the risk to my life would be of great consideration; it's adrenaline generating as well as being an opportunity to put into practice what I had been taught. All professionals welcome that.

I have written instant answer. I have to say that I might just as likely give him a forceful punch on the nose!

5. If you could have changed your profession what would you have made the change too and why?

More quibbling! I have changed my profession. I was a soldier for 23'ish years and then worked as a civilian Facilities Manager for 23'ish years. Both of them were totally fulfilling. Had I been able to soldier on for the 46 or so years of my working life, I would have done so. More than willingly. Even now, I refer to myself as a 'former soldier' and do not think in terms of being an 'ex-soldier'. It is like a vaccination mark - once it has 'taken', it never leaves you.

The role of a Facilities Manager did not exist when I entered the employment world. Indeed, I was in on the very start of it in UK working with one of the major players. Here again, it was something I would have been able to do for that 46 years. No two days were the same. That adrenaline injection is always in the background. One is responsible for a number of office buildings. The systems within that building that sustain life and support the work of the other occupants. The premises' efficiency and safety of the occupants and visitors. Responding to emergencies and planning works. Writing, presenting and adhering to Budgets. Inter-personal relationships.

So, no. I would not have changed. Mind you, I do think of myself as a ex-Facilities Manager so that suggests where the love lay.

Reversal of the train

Satire. But there is that grain of truth .................

A Swiss man paralysed five years ago in a skiing accident has chosen to end his life early in the UK after shunning the local suicide clinic a few minutes drive from his home. ‘I want to end my life,’ said Max Friedland today, ‘but I don’t want to actually commit suicide. Which is why I have chosen a routine minor operation in an NHS hospital.’

Friedland, has an appointment in February at a London hospital for the removal of a benign mole on his back. ‘I am hoping that this short overnight stay coupled with the surgery will be enough for me to contract one of the many viruses present in NHS hospitals, C Diff, Norovirus, MRSA, I don’t mind as long as death is quick and relatively pain free.’

Yes but ......

Article in today's Grauniad refers to something that has been exasperating me for some while.

This -

As Cameron's Conservatives become more trenchant in their criticism of what Cameron termed " Labour's debt crisis", the edict has gone out that Tories must not appear to revel in the political opportunities provided by the downturn. And the media-savvy Conservative leader knows that audiences will turn away from a negative message. They want to hear some good news.

That may well be true but what I want is some sign that he has worked out the consequences of his silence. If his forecasts are right about just what troubles Brown is storing up down the road then the sooner he does something to bring about a change, the better. The government must be brought to face an election. Then we will see just how the public see Brown's policies. If they support them, then everyone in any position of influence should sign up with the programme and get on with it. I used to be the simpleton who thought the task of the Opposition was to oppose but Dave has changed that. By just acquiescing with Brown he is, and will be, as guilty as NuLabour of the consequences. If something is wrong, it must be exposed and brought to an end. Tantamount to commenting on Gary Glitter that it is a matter for him and the parents of the kids.

Funny old paper that Grauniad. In the same issue they have comment on Cameron's style from Pretty Polly.

Sense spoken here

We should breed from this man!

Buddha Basics

I've mentioned somewhere on here about my Buddhist Retreat. A long week-end in an atmosphere conducive to learning by instruction and learning by observation of the inmates of the Retreat centre. Being a pedant, I have problems with religion but if I were to consider changing this, I would try to be a Buddhist.

I read something today which sums it up for me. See what you think. For those who do not 'do' links, here is an extract.

When I first started reading about the Buddha's life, I was disappointed to learn that the existence of God was one of the subjects on which he declined to make a definitive comment. At the time, this seemed to me either rather unfair or something of a cop-out – surely this was exactly the kind of topic that an awakened being should pronounce upon, for the benefit of all. However, after the last couple of years of amusing but unproductive pantomime debate ("oh yes he does, oh no he doesn't"), I am beginning to get a sense of how not answering may well have been an enlightened response.

Pressed further, the Buddha is said to have explained that dwelling on such a question is not conducive to the elimination of suffering, which was the sole purpose of his teaching. He asked whether, if we had been shot with a poisoned arrow, we would want to know who had fired it, why, and what type of bow was used, before deciding to have it removed? "If the person who was shot were to seek the answers to all these questions," he told the monk Malunkyaputta, "he would be dead before he found them." Touché.

The tussle over God is marginally more entertaining than getting shot, but the protracted diversion created by its war of words could nevertheless be more of a hindrance than a help. Not only has the stream of agitated comment brought us no closer to finding an answer, it hasn't even enabled us to formulate agreed terms for the question. Part of what makes the argument so comical is how the concept of "God" onto which atheists project is rarely the same as the one defended by believers. Part of what makes it tragic is how, at the extremes, each party insists that their denial of what they think the opposition believes is enough to make them correct, to the point of misrepresenting the traditions they seek to uphold.

You're a nasty nasty child. Go away!

Two items from the 'please flush before you leave' news category today'

Shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve believes the public should rely less on the police when dealing with low-level antisocial behaviour by young people. He told the Independent newspaper members of the public need to lighten police officers' workload by no longer constantly running to them for support. Most of the complaints being made by the public are about quite low level antisocial behaviour issues about children and adolescents," he said.

"I don't believe these problems didn't exist in the past, but in the past they were controlled because adults felt confident in tackling these problems themselves, not by being vigilantes, but by being sensible citizens." Mr Grieve is concerned people should not be so concerned about telling children to behave themselves. And he suggested part of the reason for this tendency may be because they are so "regulated and controlled in every other way".

"History shows that if you go out and tell ten- and 11-year-olds who are misbehaving to stop misbehaving or you will call the police, they will stop," he added. The shadow home secretary warned police believe "their discretion has been eroded" because of onerous paperwork requirements. "If somebody comes in to a police station and makes an allegation clearly of the most trivial character they nevertheless have to record it, to investigate it, go through a process of dealing with it which may involve going round and confronting the person against whom the trivial allegation has been made," he said. "Equally, the public seem to have become tremendously willing to go running off to the police to bleat about the most minor matters."

And then there is this:

Members of the white working class feel their views are being ignored by the government, Hazel Blears has warned.

The communities and local government secretary's comments came as her department published a report based on anecdotal evidence suggesting growing concerns about immigration.

Interviews with people living on estates in Birmingham, Milton Keynes, Thetford, Runcorn and Widnes revealed many believe it is easier for refugees and single mothers to find a house than a white working class person. The research also suggested many fear being branded racist if they attempt to point this perceived injustice out to the authorities. "White working class people living on estates sometimes just don't feel anyone is listening or speaking up for them," Ms Blears, whose constituency is Salford, said. "While they might not be experiencing the direct impact of migration, their fear of it is acute." She said it was important to debate these issues in the open so that myths about council housing could be dispelled. Ms Blears added: "If we don't do that people from the far right will be able to pedal the kind of myths that they do and it will get some traction."

Shadow community cohesion and social action minister Baroness Sayeeda Warsi said the investigation showed Labour had "completely lost touch with their so-called roots. The danger for the rest of us is that this has now created a ticking time bomb of racial and class prejudice," she commented. Baroness Warsi suggested Labour would pursue what she called "a new 'white relations industry'" to woo back its core voters. "This should be a call to focus on the real core problems of worklessness, debt, welfare dependency, family breakdown and drug and alcohol abuse," she added.

My view is that the first 'statement' shows that not only is it the Labour party that has lost touch. The idea of sensible citizen has led to death. "A judge has warned that an obsession with rights had created a society "bedevilled by feral youth". Judge Ian Trigger spoke out amid a wave of anger over the murder of devoted family man Garry Newlove in a vicious gang attack.He also attacked the policy of releasing violent offenders on bail - the case with the ringleader of the gang who kicked 47-year-old Mr Newlove to death outside his Warrington home" And there is more in the same report "Judge Trigger went further, warning of a generation apparently out of control. His attack came at Liverpool Crown Court, as he sentenced a teenager who smashed a woman over the head with an iron bar while he was out on bail for a knife attack. The judge said: "It is the fault of politicians that bail is so readily granted, rather than judges or magistrates. Parliament and its woeful and indeed dreadful concentration on rights forgets duties and responsibilities. It has meant people like you have the right to bail in these circumstances. We are living in a society which is bedevilled by wild feral youths such as you" These are the sort of youngsters who end up in court. Butter would not melt in their mouths?

Certainly, there have been changes in the law which was introduced to deal with situations where those defending their property were more likely to be prosecuted than the attackers.

The self defence provisions of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 will make clear to the public, prosecutors and the police that those who use reasonable force to protect themselves or others should not be prosecuted. As long as they use no more force than absolutely necessary, people should have confidence that the law will support them, so long as:

• they acted instinctively
• they feared for their safety or that of others, and acted based on their perception of the threat faced and the scale of that threat
• they acted to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained, and
• the level of force used was not excessive or disproportionate in the circumstances as they viewed them.

Quite a few weasel words there though. I've emboldened them. It would not take any great prosecutor to tie someone in knots by asking questions to expand upon those points. Add in the fact that the person who took action will most often be alone and dealing with a number of trouble makers. They will certainly know what story to tell that puts them in the best light and the problem solver in the worst. Stand by for some complaint of sexual abuse if there is a female in their group.

And, what about Dominic Greave himself? Thanks to the democracy of the Internet, we can get some idea of what makes him tick. His voting record as 'Rebel' changes with his Shadow appointment. His voting record (scroll down the link) suggests he is the sort of person who would not get my vote even if he had not come out with such arrant nonsense as his rubbish effort that started this blog. I had always thought that the Boy Dave was my biggest turn-off. No longer. His assertion " History shows that if you go out and tell ten- and 11-year-olds who are misbehaving to stop misbehaving or you will call the police, they will stop" says it all for me. What history? The ten and 11 year olds know the police will not come. They know just how a big hulking adult will be regarded if he uses almost any force to arrest them - they will gleefully embroider this as they give their well rehearsed and fabricated 'evidence' all fresh faced and innocent in their school uniforms. The only stopping they will do is when they grow tired of kicking the adult's head like a football.