Pornagraphic Censorship and the Sexualisation of Women.

The Government have announced backing for a campaign to keep Internet based porn away with an innovative "Opt in" system, and the Liberal Democrats want to remove Nuts magazine and Page 3 from the Sun. Are we now living in Victorian England?

The Nuts and Page 3 model Sophie Howard

The answer is No... and this is why.

I shall divide this into two parts, the one I agree with and follow it with the one I don't.


The Liberal Democrat Conference held in Birmingham had some very interesting headlines and debates, none more so than Dr Evan Harris' speech on the sexualisation of women and the soft core pornographic images that were available for children to see in our newsagents.
This was quickly followed by a lot of Media hype about how the Lib Dems wanted to ban Page 3 and Nuts magazine! This is a direct attack on freedom of speech and expression! How dare they threaten the "British institution" of page 3!
I hate to break it to those Sun readers but Slavery was a British institution and that was overturned.
Anyway, the point is the Lib Dems don't want to ban page 3.

The actual motion read;

Tackling the projection of women as sex objects to children and adolescents by restricting sexulised images in newspapers and general circulation magazines to the same rules that apply to pre-watershed broadcast media.
and that is what was proposed.

Printed media like the Sun's page 3 and lads mags which include vast amounts of soft core pornographic images and sexulising text that do encourage the idea that women are sex objects or that they are all promiscuous. This paints a false image of women to the young and impressionable.
I do agree that banning these publications is an attack on freedom of speech and action. Should a model, like Sophie Howard, choose to take her clothes off for money then that is perfectly fine. Many models use the money to support their family, lifestyle or education. Others use their status and fame to raise money for worthy causes. Peta Todd has worked tirelessly for "Help the Heroes" including doing tours of Afghanistan and Iraq, climbing Mount Kilimanjaro and other sponsored events.

What we are arguing is that the publications should not be in general view in the newsagents and instead should be placed on higher shelves.

Could you imagine the outcry if a topless woman appeared on day time TV where any child could see?

It is the same principle.

Now news has hit the Twittersphere that the Government is thinking about a new inbuilt censorship of the Internet. The scheme, supposedly put to the Government by a Christian Mothers group, would rely on service providers setting up automatic censorship so that Pornographic images and sites are automatically blocked and that you need to "Opt out" to get the full Internet.
"Excuse me... I'd like Pornography on my PC please."
Not something many people would say!

Now this, I'm not to fond of.

The Internet is a great tool and resource but it does have pornography, politically evil sites, some horrific imagery etc that you wouldn't want a child to see or any right minded person would want to see! However censoring it straight off isn't the answer. and that is what was proposed.

My daughter Sophie and I

Firstly, if you're a parent and you are worried what your child will discover then why not do some actual parenting and sit with them whilst they do their homework?
I'm all for letting Sophie, my daughter, exploring and growing but the same with any parent I don't want to see her in danger. I want her to know that knives are sharp but that doesn't mean I let her play with the Bread knife. Thusly my wife and I will be monitoring her Internet usage when she is old enough to use it and she certainly won't have a computer in her room.

Also, the values being pushed are from a Christian Mothers group that even cited Jesus' values. What of us that aren't Christians? Are we having someone else's moral code pushed upon us?

Finally there I must raise genuine research. When I was at school and again at university I often found that the network "filter" would filter out massive amounts of genuine URLs that I was going to use as research for no apparent reason. I wrote my dissertation on the Luftwaffe at war and so many sites were banned because the word Nazi appeared on them... very problematic when writing about the Nazi regime. There were also sites that had pornographic content that were not blocked as the URL name was not obviously pornographic! How accurate will this new filter be? There is also the fact that teenagers are better than adults when it comes to working the Internet. They can do all kinds of technological wizardry and nothing can get in the way of a teenage boy and the search for naked women!

So there you have it, a double edged sword of censorship. Both designed around protecting children from overly sexualised imagery but one way, placing it out of harms way and the other banning it altogether. But as citizens the choice is ultimately up to you.

Dr Vince and Wartime analogy

During his conference speech Dr Vince Cable made a comparison of the Economic crisis to being at war. He was slated by some critics for his comments but I think they have some veracity and wartime experiences can be called upon by the populous to help with the austerity measures.

Firstly the comparison. The world is struggling to sort itself out after the cataclysmic blow caused by reckless banking and misuse of the economy by different governments but like the war it has struck everyone from every walk of life. None of us has got away without being touched by it in one way or the other. Unlike the German threat of the early 40s we are not likely to be overrun or suffer casualties but we all need to unite to defeat it and come out the other side, it might be even worth a national Government forming like the ones in the 1930's and during both World Wars. The threat is real and it is here until we, as in everyone in the country or even Europe and the world need to solve.

There are always lessons from history which can be learnt and reapplied where necessary, there is no need to re learn what history can always show us. One of them is how to be careful with money in our own house holds. With the U-boat blockade of the UK food stuffs became a rationed due to low numbers, now it is not so much that certain foods are rare just too expensive to buy. Why not turn, as our grandparents did, to growing your own veg. Flowers are all well and good but if you have the space, and I know a lot of people in urban areas don't, then why not give it a go? I did it a year or so ago and my wife and I grew Corn on the cob, Potatoes, Tomatoes, we have a pear tree already, and green pepper. This year we have pepper, tomato and strawberries! Nothing tastes better than your own veg - strangely! There is also the war time mindset of being frugal, waste is the Hun's best friend etc. Money is tight so don't throw it away.

The Big Society seems to be rooted in an idealised version of the 1950's - The Conservative party's heyday, and of a community that helps each other and volunteers. In the 1940's my Great Grandfather bread rabbits and traded the meat with a neighbour for vegetables, and other neighbours for other things. My Grandfather would trade his tobacco ration for vodka with the Russians (in occupied Austria) and then trade Vodka with the Americans for other luxury goods like chocolate etc. The same thing can go on now. If you have an allotment why not trade with someone else. Indeed a neighbour of mine offered me a bag of Cooking apples in exchange for a bag of Pears. Why not pull together as a community like this?

Now is not the time for party politics and partisan point scoring. The nation is in crisis, if we go down a no cuts scheme we could end up like Greece and folding financially. Also with cuts and austerity measures- something is going to be got rid of... I'm sorry but it has to. In your own lives if you can't afford a thing you don't buy it, or if you  are having a tight month you cut out the luxuries so why shouldn't the Government? Take for example Libraries. Now I'm a massive book worm and collector and I love libraries and think they are important in society however the simple truth is people just don't use them as much as they should. Is it thusly wrong for the Government to cut some of the lesser used ones and save money? I read an article in the Evening Standard that highlighted this when they asked a member of the public;

"How do you feel about the cutting of your library?"

The member of the public rallied about how awful it was etc.

"How often do you use the library?" They were asked.

"Oh, Never."

I know some of the cuts have been devastating and I don't agree with all of them, and protest isn't a bad thing at all, quite the opposite, we shouldn't all meekly do what we are told by the Government because... well they're in charge... However you have to remember that they are making tough decisions for the benefit of this country and cannot save everything. At the moment it feels (to me anyway) Mr Miliband's opposition are not offering alternate routes, merely criticising the Government. The double standard of Ed Balls saying the Cuts are wrong but forbidding his colleagues from promising to turn the cuts around should they get into power. Now is not the time.

If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

I challenge Labour to help, come up with viable alternatives and methods rather than ney saying. Don't do it for the political points, the polls, the future voters. Do it for Great Britain and her people, the jobless, the poor, those who will suffer because of your administration's cock ups. They need you to stand up for them. Offer alternatives. If all our MPs are not working to the one goal of victory then we will end in defeat.

There is also a certain amount of truth in having to work with our Allies. Now I know it seems strange thinking of the Germans and the French as our Allies but Europe is in need of our help too. It is true that a damaged Europe means a damaged Britain. We do a fair amount of our trading with Europe and are in need of their markets and their exports. Should we stop supporting them they may collapse and then who will buy our exports? Business will suffer and more jobs will be lost.

Of course there is also the possibility of War time self sufficiency and supporting British industry over foreign imports but that takes time and is expensive and ultimately isolates us from the rest of the world. Unlike 1940's Britain, we don't have these institutions in place and an Empire to support it.

Many laughed at Doctor Vince but there is indeed truth in his analogy, we are at war, not a physical war against Germany but a financial war against an enemy that doesn't physically exist and we must combat it in the same old style of frugalness, community and collectively.

Will the future ever be bright and Orange?

The Liberal Democrat party stand at a crossroads, one way leads back to Government and a role in this nation's future - the other is the path of wrack and ruin leading to political obscurity and eventual death. But who is manning the helm?

It appears the electorate are becoming more and more disheartened by the system and politics, voter apathy has become a real phenomenon with vast swathes of the people turned away from politics. In Medway less than 40% turned out to vote for the AV referendum! Whether you agree or not with AV is not the point. This was a momentous political step, a nationwide political referendum that decided how You elect Your representatives something our ancestors would have killed for but six in ten people couldn't be arsed to vote.
 But why should they be interested?

Westminster is full of grey men who argue the finer points of policy that has no relevance to their lives, more interested in political point scoring than in policy that will affect peoples lives - Or so popular opinion goes.

It is easy to disrespect the rule of law if you do not acknowledge the state's ruling body as representing you - Its' laws mean nothing.

Cleggmania offered change. Nick's showing at the Televised leadership debates really got people interested in the Party's message, change - a new way forward for society and political reform. There was a surge in support and in the media. Nick could do no wrong, he was a voice of reason, a fresh breeze on a stuffy day. We even increased our share of the votes! However to no avail as we lost seats. To many people there is only the two extremes, Red or Blue. Some households will always be Tory, others always Labour and will never cross sides.

There is also the old adage that if you want Labour out Vote Tory and voting for another party (if you vote at all) would be a waste of time and would be splitting the vote, especially on the left. However you end up that way with a choice between two parties that are beginning to represent the same thing. As the video points out, you get the same result if you vote for Kang or Kodos!

It is difficult, however convincing the electorate of the Lib Dem message, why should they risk voting for you?

There are areas with a strong Liberal Democrat Council or with exceptional Liberal Democrat Councillors who can convince the electorate of a Liberal way of thinking and of the party's merits. For eight years I lived in Mark Oaten's constituency of Winchester where;
"Labour Cannot Win!"
Admitting you were a Lib Dem was not an issue but those places are far and few between. It is difficult in other areas without a strong Liberal presence, such as Medway, to get the message across without people wondering if they are wasting their vote on you.

The Coalition government gives the party the chance to show the electorate that the party is fit to govern, that we have kept most of our election pledges and put through our manifesto for everyone's benefit. Tough Liberalism must be seen to work.

Even if a larger portion of seats is not on the table for 2015 and the party manage to return with give or take ten seats then there is another role for us. With the growth of voter apathy and the blurring of party lines the chances of a hung parliament become more likely, in which case the third party holds the power -rightly or wrongly. this is our opportunity, to grow, as Labour once did, within the other parties, gain experience and prove that the Liberal Democrats are a serious party of Government. Yes unpopular decisions need to be made and seats will be lost but that is what happens in government - decisions have to be made for the benefit of everyone.

Of course there is the other path. Will the electorate trust us as a party after the Tuition fees U-turn? Or support for the topical NHS reform? Or for the biggest of sins - Letting in the Conservatives? A few people have said to me that they won't vote Lib Dem again as they don't vote Tory. The decissions of Government have upset voters and party members. Others, like me, know that Coalition was the only way forward in May 2010, I may not agree with every decission made but then who does with any Government? With power has come greater Media attention and some serious cracks have appeared as well as scrutiny of our leaders such as Chris Huhne, who does himself no favours! Nick Clegg has become, unfairly, a focal point of hatred as one of the ringleaders of the Coalition and selling out on his ideals and Liberal fire- though he has not and continues to push through our Manifesto. The big question is; Will the electorate still hold these actions against us in 2015? That all depends on what the Government does in the next four years. Will the electorate punnish good constiteuncy MPs just for being Liberal Democrats? We will have to see - I sincerely hope not.

What ever happens in the Coalition, if we can suffer the slings and arrows from the media and keep the attention of an increasingly apathetic and fickle electorate we sand a very real chance of making a difference and bringing some Lib Dem gold to people's lives whether they voted for Kang or Kodos.

Fat tax on unhealthy food. Is this fair?

mmmm Whopper.... *drool*

Obesity is a major problem in Britain. Hell I'll admit it I could do with losing a stone... maybe two to look really trim, and I do enjoy good meals and don't get that much exercise as I travel by train and spend my working day sat down watching screens all day.

Individual studies have found that Obesity and heart disease, mostly caused by unhealthy living is one of the top killers in this country, even more so than Cancer. It is a major drain on our economy and on the NHS and something should be done.

Que the new proposals to levy a duty on high calorie food. This, like the duty on beer and tobacco products will raise money for the Treasury which can be put back into the NHS to help fund treatments and re-education on correct eating. Also with the raised costs it may put people off ordering a Whooper meal and perhaps eating something more healthy which again is a good thing right?

Well that's the merits dealt with, lets talk about the cons.

I like MacDonald's, Burger King and KFC. I like food that's not good for me. I don't eat it all the time but when I've got up for work at 4.30 am and caught a train so I can be in London for 6.30 why not have a McMuffin meal to make me feel better about myself? I have OJ with it...

Some people do eat to excess but why should we all have to suffer? Its not fair as its the casual munchers that suffer. Why should Government tell me what I can and can't eat? Will Chocolate be next?!

I don't smoke so that particular vice has gone and I already can't afford a beer anymore and I didn't even drink to excess anyway!!! If the Government take away my Zinger tower meals I will be most distraught.

Let people live the way they want to. Let them have the freedom to eat what they want to. If they want to fill their faces with greasy crap and face the consequences let them.

I know this is a weak argument in the face of sorting out Obesity and off setting the cost of health care but lets face it, it is a case of the Paternal Government taking you by the hand and saying.

"Now son, do you really want a Big Mac? Have some salad... Go on. There's a good boy."

As a closing statement I must say;

I could eat healthily and get hit by a bus tomorrow. I could eat KFC, Sausages, MacDonalds, Red meat and live to the grand age of 100. You never know, shouldn't life be about enjoyment? (Not controlled fun.)

Crouch forbidden to play by FA.

Football- It's full of crazy decisions, Christian Wörns being sent off in the Euro 96 final, Thierry Henry's hand ball in the France - Ireland game, FA officials refusing to officiate between MPs and Press because Tracey Crouch wanted to play, disallowing the second goal in the... hang on what was the last one?

Yes it is true, The FA, who were due to officiate the traditional MPs vs. Political Journalists stepped down when both teams insisted that Tracey play.

Due to its rules on mixed football, The FA is unable to support this match. As a consequence, once Tracey and the two teams confirmed that they wanted Tracey to play we stepped back from our official administration and endorsement of the fixture.

The rules state that only girls under 13 are allowed in mixed games.

Its ridiculous and yes, it does annoy me... I'm perfectly capable of looking after myself.

After all she's not stepping out for the World Cup final, or for her beloved Spurs against Arsenal ( though I'm sure she would have loved to play in last week's game!) or even for Gillingham against AFC Wimbledon - though if you are reading this Tracey, the way we have performed in the league I'm sure Mr Hessanthaler would welcome you at Priestfield for quality and enthusiasm. In fact Miss Crouch said in the Belfast Telegraph in May 2011 [ http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breaking-news/offbeat/female-mp-barred-from-kickabout-16006201.html ] a similar thing;

All of the male MPs I've spoken to think it's ridiculous. I've played five-a-side with many of them so they know what I can do and what I can't do.

I just think that there has to be some common sense when it comes to what is essentially a kick about. It's not the Champions League final.

Yes, it's often competitive but that's not to say that I couldn't hold my own.

I think the FA need to think about their rules when it comes to non competitive games and friendlies for non league teams. After all, why should it matter if the player and all of the other players do not have a problem with it?

Just as aside, the MPs lost 5-1. As a Germany fan I feel their pain, there is nothing worse than losing 5-1 to anyone... but Tracey take heart, if we can come back and beat England 4-1 there is always next years game!

[sources  http://bit.ly/nB8fWj and http://bit.ly/ocQlgM ]

Medway Tunnel; To toll or not to toll?

The sorry story of Medway Tunnel continues to ravage... well local news stands and the concerns of Medway motorists who are already hard pressed for money. The root of the problem seems embedded in Gun Wharf and the Council offices, however it is not clear whether it is a Conservative Council cock up or a Labour party ruse. What is clear that in the confusion Medway citizens are kept in the dark, what they and the Liberal Democrats want, is answers.

The story of the Tunnel is long but interesting and worth noting.

Before the tunnel opened only the A2, that ran over the beautiful Rochester Bridge, spanned the river linking Rochester and Strood and so steps were taken to remedy this. In 1990 a bill was passed allowing the Rochester Bridge trust with funding from Kent County Council to build a ground breaking design that crossed the Medway. After four years it opened in 1996 and KCC took a 999 year lease with the RBT paying a contribution towards maintainace and running costs, the KCC lease was eventually passed to Medway Council in 1998. All standard and above board?

Well hold on, here's the intriguing part;

In 2008 the Council made a deal with the RBT to buy it for £1. Yep £1. You can't even buy a 500ml Bottle of coke for £1! Not even in 2008.
Anyway I digress. So the council wouldn't be out of pocket the RBT paid the council £3.6 million as a one off donation and then washed their hands of the whole affair.
Interestingly Concillor's Jarrett and Chambers, the portfolio holder for the budget and leader of the Council and Conservative group are also members of the RBT - but both claim that they were kept separate from any negotiations on the subject.
Since 2009 the Council has been lobbying the department of transport to take over the repairs and maintenance of the tunnel with their assistance but time is running out...
It is projected that by 2013 the last of the RBT money will have run out and the council will have to seek other means to support it, tolls seem like the only way to do so especially when a safety inspection by the AA projected a £6m price tag to bring it up to scratch! Apparently the rubber seals that connect the tunnel sections will not hold at temperatures of 1500 degrees which can be reached in a horrific accident. Worse case scenario the fires will be put out by the waters of the Medway which will come gushing through the holes in the seal!

The council shut the tunnel of an evening last week so it could carry out essential works and improvements, including upping the computer and electronic systems, £1m is being pumped in to do this and should help reduce the running costs for the future. However the money is running out and more will need to be found.

It is a local concern that the already stretched motorists will have to pay a toll but it seems to be one that the leading body are willing to confirm or deny. They have made representations to National Government about the Ministry of Transport taking it over and paying something towards upkeep but in these economic times will the Ministry take it on?
Councillor Jarrett says; We will keep banging away at that one, but bearing in mind the state of the national finances it might not be fruitful.

The Conservatives have also said that the only reason they are looking into the possibility of a toll is because Labour and the Lib Dems asked the council to look into it and not because it WILL become policy. It is a something that Conservatives and opposition parties all ran against in the local elections. However it does look like unless a donor can be found to help bridge the gap that either the Council will need to up its expenditure or a Toll will have to be enforced.

The people of Medway want answers, not vagary or half truths. Please, treat us as intelligent human beings and tell us what is going on.

Source; Dan Bloom's article in the Medway Kent Messenger 2nd September 2011see;
[ https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_R34lANLo8rKcJ7oeQUARJWSV4CtlQm3Vt36oofwuoefATCWpoKcPoSfxnI-Gh49IJH06LTjNlU3v7-nOLH-5h8dB9bO6M6kKgn-vhAdIKJhdjU0viQWLp5CNuA4sruC98k2MIntT75o/s1600/scan-10.jpg ] a scan of the original.

Rev Hargreeves claims "Christians treated like Jews in Nazi Germany."

Nazi anti Jewish boycott.

This morning on BBC1 the Rev Hargreeves, leader of the Christian Party, made the claim that Christians today, in Britain were being treated the same way that the Jews in Germany were treated under the Nazi Government.

He later went on to argue that he "Obviously" didn't mean the Holocaust but the beginnings of anti-Semitic law brought in by Hitler at the very beginning of his Government and that History has seen this sort of religious persecution before and it could lead to similar problems.

He has sited a few cases, such as a BA air stewardess who suffered a disciplinary for wearing a Crucifix, a married couple who forbid a Gay couple from sharing a double bed, or a Councillor who refused to assist a Gay couple as it was against his religion. (this turned out to be a damp squib, he did not refuse to council anyone, merely that as a Sex therapist his religion would come into conflict with his profession should he have to conduct sex therapy on a Gay couple.) He also brought up examples of Richard Dawkins who is seeking to ban Creationism from schools education. All these look like attacks on Christians by an intolerant or indeed aggressively secular state.

Not really, no. The BA air stewardess was not disciplined because of the Crucifix itself, rather the visible jewelry rule that BA have. Of course in the case of a crucifix it is probably a bit unfair. After all at MacDonald's they had the same rule except for in the case of Religious Iconography and it was a case of an over zealous overseer and from memory the case of BA was thrown out of court.

The case for removing Creationalism is a touchy subject. As an atheist and believer in Evolution I don't think that Creationalism has a real part in a Science lesson but again relegating it to an RE lesson shows favour of one possibility over the other. Maybe one way forward would be to teach evolution but keep a segment as "Religious groups believe this..." That way everyone wins and students can make their own minds up rather than feeling conflicted. The same is true with professionals who do certain jobs and feel that their religion will come into conflict with their profession. Is it worth giving them scope to step away from certain cases without any sort of come back from employers or the state. That said, it should also be borne in mind that anyone stepping into such a position that conflict between faith and your employer is a possibility and do you want to get caught up in it?

Another problem is discrimination by Christians who then use their faith as a shield. It was stated on the programme that discrimination whether religious based or not  its still discrimination. Whether you agree with homosexuality or not is down to the individual but you can't say that you will not allow gay people the same consumer or human rights as anyone else because you have been taught that it is wrong. It is hearkens back to; "No Coloureds allowed" signs in the US or the road signs "No Jews Allowed in this town." in 1930's Germany. I'm afraid the law is the law whether you agree with it or not and today's society is not what it once was and everyone is the same under it no matter what your religion or creed. To say that Christians are the only ones to be singled out under it is a falsehood.

Comparing these current problems with Nazi German state sponsered anti-semitism that culminated into mass genocide is completely wrong. What Hargreeves suggests that the current actions are similar to the first steps. Though post war Germany sought to blame someone for the defeat and betrayal of 1918 and the already existing Anti-semitism in Europe fueled this fire which is why the pre Hitler NSDAP actually had anti-Semitic policies that grew as the party did and when in power acts to stop Jews working in certain professions, displaying their faith or eating Kosher food became more prevalent. No such policies exist in any of the main parties!

Also Anti-semitism was taught to children in schools and in the German Youth movements, Jews were rounded on in the streets, shop windows broken culminating in Kristallnacht. Road signs proudly proclaimed German towns "Jew Free" or "Sharp bend please slow down - Jews increase speed." and even the state sponsored media itself was aggressively anti-Semitic, I don't recall seeing anything like this in Britain, nor do I see real state sponsored anti-Christianity, after all the state is still predominantly Christian, the church is still led by the Queen and the largest religion is Protestantism, hardly the oppressed minority the Jews were in Germany. Added to that is the fact that genocide was carried out against Jews, gypsies, Homosexuals, Jehovah's witnesses etc. Murder was just part of it, the horrors that occurred have few parallels and it is exceptionally stupid and hurtful to those groups who suffered in humanity's darkest hour, to compare a few judicial lapses in judgement with those events.

So yes, there have been a couple of bizarre cases and some of it has been blown out of proportion by the media but I don't think Christians are particularly persecuted, especially not on the same scale as the Jews in Germany in the 30's and to draw comparisons not only shows a degree of poor education but is also grossly insensitive to the events in German held territory during the Holocaust.