Making Female Deaths More Tragic Is Sexist

I have long been annoyed with the never ending news reports of tragedies and massacres that give prominence to the deaths of females and children, whilst seemingly discarding the tragic loss of male lives. It serves as a constant reminder that the balance of power between the genders is a hugely uneven one, with one gender receiving much greater value as individuals than the other. The death of a male is as important as the death of a female, it is a tragedy either way. To continually allude to it being otherwise is yet another example of the media's sexism. The MRA's would claim it is because women are afforded more rights and are valued higher than men, the opposite is true, they are actually reporting their deaths more prominently because of the patriarchal structure of society.

When a reporter chooses to highlight their deaths in a headline, such as "'Dozens' of refugees, including women and children, killed by rocket fire in Ukraine", they are placing the female in a subordinate position to their male protectors. The inclusion of female life alongside children of all genders, although this can be different at times too, alludes to the perceived gender roles in conflicts and dangerous situations. The male has always been the protector of the female and of the children, it is timeless and unchanging, it is the natural order of things. Women and children alike are seen as weak, easily harmed, and much more vulnerable than men to the rigours and adversity associated with disasters and wars. This just is not true, the average woman in times of crisis will perform as competently in defending herself as the average man would (not that you can defend yourself from unexpected rocket attacks). It is likely that neither the average man or woman would have received training in counter-terrorist survival tactics, or natural disaster survival methods, or any of the other news stories of tragedies that you are likely to see this sexism highlighted in. It is the old sexist myth of 'women and children first' rearing its head, children should survive with their mothers to look after them, and men should display the macho heroism of self sacrifice to ensure this happens. When this does not happen it is considered by some as an affront to the natural order of things, that it is inappropriate behaviour for men to seek self-preservation, and that chivalrous (sexist) behaviour is dead.

Often people will claim that the reason for the perceived superiority of the female life is not because women are characterised by society as being weaker, they claim that it is purely biological. They might point to female reproductivity as a resource that needs protecting more than male reproductive rights. To them it is simple mathematics that justify this increased attention to female deaths, 50 males and 1 female = 9 months per child vs 1 male and 50 females = 9 months per 50 children, so to them "each woman matters because women have a much more limited reproductive potential". This attitude that biology should determine the relative importance of male and female lives is not without sexism. It is implying that a females worth to the planet or a particular society is measurable purely by their capacity to be reproductive. It is measuring a woman's worth through her ability to reproduce. Those who claim that the relative importance of a woman's continued existence is so they can fulfil their primary function, to be mothers, are being sexist. This attitude may have been excusable in a pre-modern society in which childbirth, alongside diseases and famine, would ravage populations making female reproduction key to the survival of a society. However, in today's society population levels are not as fragile, if anything child birth is too common. For the proponents of this biologically deterministic view, that female life will always be inseparably linked to reproduction, supporting this means ascribing to the notion that the feminine and domestic sphere are also inseparable. That the woman's place is in the home, all safe and secure.

This gendered sexism does sometimes even extend to the group being repeatedly mentioned that would require an uneven level of protection, children. One notable and recent example of this is the abductions of boys and girls by Boko Haram in Nigeria. The media coverage between the abduction of 300 girls and later 100 young men, many boys, is a perfect example of this. No one would have missed the vast news coverage of the abduction of 300 girls from their school in Chibok, with everyone from Michelle Obama and David Cameron to some 'celebrities' I have never heard, of all joining in on a huge twitter campaign (#bringbackourgirls) to raise awareness. A few days ago Boko Haram struck again this time taking 100 males from a village in Nigeria to be forced to serve as soldiers for them, yet it has not received a fraction of the media coverage that the girls received. There is no #bringbackourboys, no celebrity news coverage calling for their safe return, there is no rolling news reports, and there is barely comparable number of articles having been written about it. The only reason I can think of is because 'men are strong' and are meant to defend themselves, being kidnapped is seen by many (including those in Boko Haram) as being their own fault. Not an attitude that would have been expressed towards the female captives. Whilst they are both considered victims the coverage tells a different story. They are in the eyes of the world's media not equal. The teenage boys are their own victims, the girls are victims of the aggressors. Females are always considered weaker and more in need of defending from the evils of the world by men, even as children.

It is sexist to highlight tragedies of one gender more than others. Doing so trivialises male tragedies, makes women seem weak and powerless, and it does not help anyone in the long run.

The Censorship of our Internet

As Google hides its first links to news sources on the internet deemed “old or irrelevant”, from websites including the BBC and Wikipedia under the 'right to be forgotten' legislation, you have to wonder what the future of the internet will look like.

This is an important question for many. The growing concern about the 'right to be forgotten' is stemming from the way the internet has become a hugely democratic space. A great societal leveller. It is somewhere information is disseminated between vast swathes of individuals, often for the purpose of making society more transparent. This need for a free and open internet is an essential requisite in the spreading and retention of important information, it helps preserve that which could all too easily be swept under the carpet in the past.

The 'right to be forgotten' is not a terrible piece of legislation, it could be fantastic, as long as it is used correctly. It could be incredibly useful for many who should be afforded the right to start afresh. Theoretically, much of the stigma attached to people deserving of a second chance who have made mistakes, suffered bankruptcy, or been victims themselves could be removed, or at the very least dissipated by enacting this right.

However, the 'right to be forgotten' comes with many obvious and worrying implications. It is not impossible to see a direct line between this piece of legislation and future successful attempts to limit the freedom of important information on the internet. If your average person such as Mario Costeja Gonzalez can win a case against Google, effectively limiting the freedom of information on the internet, how long will is be until the powerful decide it is their right too? Armed with their vast reserves of cash and the best lawyers it is not impossible to think of situations in which they might be successful.

Societies elites could then effectively remove links to articles and information they do not wish to be publicised via the internet. They could, in the foreseeable future, begin to shape the bias in search results similarly to the bias they enjoy in the traditional forms of media. It leaves us Europeans (for now) open to the further censorship of the internet, and to attempts at stifling the spreading of details and nefarious workings of 'our betters'.

Google removing links to data on Wikipedia is perhaps the most important part of this. It is a milestone in the attempts to censor this important cultural space. Simply because in the case of Wikipedia, unlike the other websites to date, it is not a corporate entity. It is entirely edited by the community, by the worlds population, thus making it the largest, most influential, and most democratic source of free information in existence.

It is by extension a fundamental right.

A right you cannot help but feel is being stifled in the interests of the elites. A right afforded by the internet that seemed untouchable not too long ago.

Yet More Rubbish From The Right and Racism in the Comments

This time it is Chris Roycroft-Davis' turn to spout nonsense on a subject matter, conveniently glossing over the facts and the common sense. In his piece published on the Express website "Why didn't they send up a man with a chainsaw? UK's health and safety farce" he engages with all of the misconceptions and half-truths commonplace in right-wing unthinking ranting.

His argument is that 'elf and safety', as he constantly (and annoyingly) refers to it as, is a ridiculous blight on the British social landscape. It is inconveniencing and threatening lives of people for nothing, it is a product of the left, a disease that has infiltrated our otherwise rational Britain, and it is against our traditions. He is of course talking out of his posterior.

He begins his nonsensical swim through a pool of ill-informed idiocy, by citing that staple of autumnal/wintry weather and 'elf and safety' madness news, the trains, or more specifically the train disruption over 'trivial' rubbish. Using recognisable phrases in his rhetoric such as "leaves on the line" or the "wrong kind of snow" he is displaying the articles underlying issues, the facts do not support his argument. These train delaying inconveniences are perfect examples of this. The 'elf and safety' elements seem over the top and crazy, the truth about the hazards and complications caused by the weather actually prove them to be perfectly reasonable.

The "leaves on the line" cause something called Low Railhead Adhesion, low adhesion means slippery, slippery means slow acceleration and slow deceleration, slow deceleration is very dangerous, simple. The "wrong kind of snow" is a little more complicated. Powdery small snow flakes get blown around a lot in the turbulent air from the moving train, they sometimes get into electrical systems, they melt, water and electricity are not best friends, it causes problems. Yes snow covered countries do not have these problems, they are prepared and equipped for it, it is a common problem over there. It is not an everyday problem here. If commuters want it covered then they need to be prepared for even more expensive train tickets because it wouldn't come cheap. It is not loads of ridiculous 'elf and safety' bods being stupid, it is a simple fact that water and electricity mixing causes problems.

He cited these perceived instances of 'elf and safety' madness as a lead up to his articles main point. That a man who climbed a tree next to some lines, after being suspected of burglary, caused very long train delays. His solution would have been to unleash someone with a chainsaw to cut him out of a tree. A tad heavy handed if you want my opinion. What if the chainsaw sliced him up as his perch fell? Would he think that was okay? Would it be a fitting punishment for his (alleged) crime? Would potentially slicing him up with a chainsaw be justifiable just because he was causing delays? No, of course it would not. However, Chris Roycroft-Davis seems to think so, even stating that "if he gets hurt it serves him right". The punishment for burglary, according to at least one member of the right-wing idiot brigade, is now on round of Russian Roulette with a chainsaw.

The charming chappy then moves on to further absurdities to defend his already quite risible argument. He invokes the power of 'the war', the common go to card for anyone attempting to legitimise a poorly thought out position on something. He writes that "Britain (has) taken leave of its senses" because we would not have had 'elf and safety' assessments during 'the war'. He then gives three witless examples of 'elf and safety' gone mad. Examples that would have assured Britain lost to ze Germans in 'the war', as if it would strengthen his case.
(1) "Sorry Tommy, you can't run with your Bayonet fixed as you might trip and hurt someone."
(2) "Put that light out, you might dazzle a German bomber pilot and make him crash."
(3) "You can't shelter on the Underground because you might turn over in your sleep and roll of the platform."
I'm (not) sorry Chris Roycroft-Davis but you have just committed a major error in your arguing against those who defend 'elf and safety' regulations. Invoking 'the war', as justification for ignoring the 'elf and safety' regulations you seem to despise so much, does not provide a strong argument. In fact it makes it much weaker. In doing so he has created a straw man argument, he has created a weak argument no one has ever supported, and presented as the blanket views of 'elf and safety' supporters (in his opinion the left) in order to easily refute its necessity. When arguments resort to that they have ceded any attempt to have an informed discussion.

Chris then goes on to list quite a few poorly chosen examples of this 'elf and safety' culture being harmful to the UK populations enjoyment and safety.

(1) He almost missed a flight because a vehicle fire on the M25 caused the motorway to be temporarily closed.
I've looked and I cannot find mention of any four lane closures due to a vehicle fire. I did find a couple of two lane closures, which is understandable, car fires do create a lot of smoke and fire trucks are not the smallest of things. It is going to slow traffic to a standstill, it is impossible to avoid! If he meant all four lanes were closed I can only assume that Chris is exaggerating or making it up, both are common right-winger tactics. If he was blaming 'elf and safety' bods because a vehicle fire created delays on a motorway as they tried to put out the fire, in the process getting annoyed at the fire fighters because it almost made him late for a flight, then he has a warped sense of self-privilege. What the hell were they supposed to do then Chris?

(2) A suspected terrorist attack on a coach closing down the M6 for a few hours.
Once again this is an idiotic example and a lose-lose situation for the police. If it was a terrorist bomb, and the coach blew up, Chris Roycroft-Davis would have been screaming for their heads. However, it was not, so he thinks that it is an example of moronic 'elf and safety' bods. All because they took a member of the public's concerns seriously (defending the police hurts me, but it needs to be done here).

(3) Cordoning off Trafalgar Square because a man is threatening to jump off an eight foot high wall.
Okay this is ridiculous, if it is true. All we know about it is a man with a camera is describing what he thinks is happening. No statements from those concerned; no proof of his intentions. I will reserve judgement. But for the purposes of this post, Chris Roycroft-Davis misrepresents the information to aide his argument. He writes, about the man who attempted to jump off a wall, that "No wonder he was led away saying: "I do love England"". That is a lie, the man who filmed the incident (nothing happening) at one point said that, but Chris is attributing the quote to the wrong person. He has represented a false version of the facts (as all right-wingers do) to suit his agenda.

(4) Ipswich man climbs on a train station roof causing long and numerous delays.
What Chris fails to mention is that the roof was very weak and there was a possibility that it might give way. If it had he could have been seriously hurt but the electrical cables below, or possibly could have fallen onto the tracks. Whatever the dangers were to the man on the roof, there were some.

(5) School banning yo-yos. (6) Public kitchen hall removing knives. (7) Office staff not being allowed to use kettles.
All here from the Health and Safety Executive themselves.

(8) Man drowns in three foot deep lake, as fire fighters refuse to save him from 'level two' depth waters.
Tragic. Skewed news. This article explains that the Fire fighter in charge, Mr Nicholls, was told that the "body had been in the water for five or ten minutes" and that he saw "no obvious signs of life" thus making it "a body retrieval". In other words they chose not to go in to collect a dead body in an undignified manner, instead waiting for a specialist team who could do it whilst preserving the deceased man's dignity. An error in judgement perhaps, but it was not 'elf and safety' rules that ultimately stopped his rescue. Health and safety would not have stopped a trained life saver from saving a man they thought had a possibility of survival.

Finally, I cannot let this article go without pointing out the racism littering the comment section. IT IS DISGUSTING THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN REMOVED ALREADY!

With reference to the picture accompanying the article, a black man sitting in a tree, the commentators have written:

jim c: Actually, he doesn't look out of place

judgenjury: Which zoo have I seen one of them in???

logen1: I must admit he looks very at home up there, I am sure that if they had tried to early to get him down, he would have just swung to another branch, and another tree
               Reply: bobajob: They could even have got David Attenborough to make a documentary out of it

LouisaB: Oh and look at him .... surprise surprise. You all know what I mean ...

jbl: Cant chop the tree down and destroy its habitat

By not removing these comments (after reporting them to the police for racism) the Express are condoning these abhorrent attitudes.

Bill Etheridge addressing the Farage Youth

A UKIP MEP today did something only a politician (who is not so secretly racist) could do. He advised a conference for young xenophobes in Birmingham to idolise Hitler. In Bill Etheridge's defence it was his oratory skills he told them to idolise, not his mass murdering psychopathic 'qualities'. However, that does beg the question why not Martin Luther King? Or Nelson Mandela? Why not Mary Robinson? All of these suggestions are very capable public speakers, even if they all speak about subjects too sensible for UKIP. If it was hate speech Bill Etheridge fancied then why not Maggie Thatcher? Everyone knows UKIP are slightly more racist Tories so why not one of their idols? Maybe they did just go down that route and choose a hero of theirs, after all they did choose an irrational racist who hated the rest of Europe as an example.

When you consider what UKIP stands for, its policies and members beliefs, I guess Hitler really was the only choice. They do hate women and people from Bongo-Bongo land so none of my suggestions would have worked.

It is not like they do not have previous with this sort of thing. Who remembers Nigel Farage being accused of singing Hitler Youth songs and being a proud and public racist by a teacher at his private school? An article on the Channel Four website simply titled 'Nigel Farage schooldays letter reveals concern over fascism' should jog your memory if you need it. 

Or you could just look at this collection of lovely people representing the UK in the European Parliament. Once again featuring the charming Bill Etheridge alongside his fellow advocates of decency and fairness; Dr. Julia Reed, Gerard Batten, and Roger Helmer all doing their finest to uphold the racist elements of the party (amongst other things in Roger's case). 

I've already mentioned Godfrey Bloom's Bongo-Bongo Land so that does not really need any further mentioning but what about when he shouted the Nazi slogan "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer" (in English: One People, One Empire, One Leader) at the German MEP Martin Schulz?

Finally, just because otherwise I would be here until eternity, who can forget William Henwood's famous outburst at Lenny Henry. Where he told him to emigrate to a "black country"! Presumably William meant THE black country and not a black country. Maybe all he wanted was for old Lenny to go back to Dudley? Not likely, but at least I cannot be accused of covering all the bases. 

So why are we all surprised with current (although some are ex) party members holding these views that they would want their Farage Jugend and Jungmadelbund to aspire to be like Hitler?!

Baby Oleg Has Two Daddies: Compare the Meerkat Adverts Refelcting Modern Families

The Compare the Market or Compare the Meerkat advertisements have since their inception in 2009 become something of a staple on our screens. A relatively avid television watcher will frequently see these anthropomorphised CGI meerkats telling them, and the rest of the nation, that they can make big savings by getting insurance through Compare the Market. It utilised a set of jokes about eastern European accents accents, typographical errors, Russian wealth, pointless websites, and the aforementioned anthropomorphising of meerkats to create a memorable brand. All very clever marketing; and all very boring.

What is not so boring about the advertisement campaign is how Compare the Market have gone from using the two main meerkat protagonists, Aleksandr and Sergei, to advertise their website in an entrepreneur and employee/assistant relationship, to one that resembles a same sex couple. 

It started of relatively early as an employee/boss relationship.

Later, the idea of this same sex relationship began to be explored. An example of this can be observed at the end of the following advertisement. Aleksandr and Sergei are seemingly about to settle down and go to bed for the night. Both meerkats dressed for (or in) bed with only one being shown on screen, but this was only hinted at by the advertisers.

It was not until the introduction of baby Oleg that the slowly evolving dynamics of this on screen relationship reach its current point. An implied, yet fairly obvious, same sex family.

The advertisement remains in its grandiose location, presumably Aleksandr's stately home, but gone is the presence of a employee/boss relationship between Aleksandr and Sergei. The markers of this relationship, the business attire donned by Sergei have been replaced with his pyjamas. His first appearance on screen signalling a comfortability with his surrounding, the brushing of his teeth, preparing himself for another night as residency at the house. This of course could be a result of his job, he is simultaneously presented as an employee maintaining the Compare the Meerkat website and as a sort of butler, or assistant, to Aleksandr.

The initial interaction between Sergei and Aleksandr at the door of their mansion makes that seem less likely. When answering the sound of the doorbell, only to find a baby meerkat left on the doorstep, Aleksandr asks Sergei "Who has called zis time?". It was of course a baby called Oleg with a note asking for them to look after him, presumably by his mother who wished for him to be raised in a caring home. Or at the very least by a family who could provide a better standard of life for her child. The faces of Aleksandr and Sergei showing similar pleasure at the idea of adopting and raising a child as their own, particulalry after baby Oleg calls Aleksandr "dada". This is quite telling in itself, as it highlights the dynamics now growing within their relationship. Sergei has since his inception been occupying a subordinate role, one usually reserved in popular culture and society for the female.

Sergei was immediately pleased at the prospect of adopting a child. Aleksandr was considerably more reserved about the thought of bringing up baby Oleg, that was until he was invited by the child to adopt the role of its "dada". The carrying of the child by Sergei further solidifying the symbolic roles played by these two characters. Made even stronger when Aleksandr, who by now has firmly assumed the role of father, agrees to having a child under the stipulation that Sergei carries out the child caring duties. Sergei is symbolising the feminine in this relationship, he now has even more 'second shift' responsibilities. This obviously playing on the stereotype of feminine domesticity, and the idea that their is always a more feminine member of a same sex relationship.

What is so significant about these adverts, and what I have only just noticed about them, is how it symbolises the ever changing family landscape of modern Britain. The diverse nature of modern family life is one that has been largely ignored by the advertisers who often choose to 'play it safe' when it comes to depicting the domestic. To have a family setting, even one that is only implied, where a gay couple adopts a child, on national television, as part of a popular advertisement campaign, would have unthinkable in the not too distant past. There simply would have been outrage. 

To extent that would still be the case, they are using anthropomorphism to make these characters disconnected from humanity, to make it acceptable to the conservative elements of society, and to break this ground. They are hiding the meaning away and never explicitly stating Sergei and Aleksandr's relationship, and they are using comedic elements to gloss over much of its importance. Advertisements are still a medium of communication dominated by 'traditional' nuclear families, the working husband, the domesticated mother, and the 2.4 children, they all remain mainstays of television and print advertisement. 

However, with all things considered, this is still one small paw in the right direction.

Bernie Ecclestone To Bribe His Way Out Of Bribery Charges

The allegations against Bernie Ecclestone were concerning a bribe he paid to a German banker in 2006 to undervalue the Formula One assets of BayernLB, a bank in Germany. The reason he allegedly paid the £27million sum to a German banker was so that a company called CVC, which he favoured and who had promised him he would keep his job, could buy their stake in Formula One. This bribe upset another German company called Constantin Medien, who claim they missed out on a large sum of commission because of the bribe. As it always is with business dealings it is all very boring, so I have just summarised it briefly, and probably inaccurately. However, if found guilty of bribery he would have faced up to ten years in jail. To avoid that he and his lawyer probably had a conversation something like this:

BE: I need to make these allegations go away, that's why I've got you down here at great expense.

L: Okay Bernie, first thing I want to know... Are these allegations true? I just need to know so I can build a case that avoids any of the facts as much as possible if they are.

BE: Of course they are true, they don't call me the Godfather of Formula One for nothing.

L: They don't! Do they?

BE: No... but I wish they would. I'm always up to something, I have fingers in all sorts of dodgy pies, and I once put a Freddo's head in someone's bed.

L: What the hell are you going on about? What the hell is a Freddo?

BE: It is a small chocolate frog.

L: What are you talking about damn chocolate frogs?

BE: They're really tasty, and because they're bigger than me they can be well intimidating too!

L: *Indecipherable shouting and swearing*

BE: I take it you want to get back on topic?

L: YES! You blithering idiot!

*Long pause as the lawyer calms down*

L: So you're guilty. Everyone knows it. Plus you've admitted to paying this Gerhard Gribkowsky character the money in court, although you're claiming he forced you into it somehow.

BE: Yep.

L: Okay.... So I guess our only option is to bribe the courts to make the charges go away.

BE: Can we do that?

L: Yep, there's some bullshit German provision in courts that means the wealthy can get away with loads of things as long as they're prepared to pay a bribe!

BE: Good news then, I am ridiculously wealthy. Now who wants to go break some more laws with me?!

Astonishingly this it true (not the conversation part though... I just made that up), although officially it is being called a 'payment'. A payment of $100million that will go straight into the German treasury and make everything okay again. This means that all is once again well in the world. Apart from the fact that this proviso unfairly favours the wealthy! It favours the people who can afford to pay bribes to get away with bribery. How can you be taken to court over something, pay some money legally to end proceedings, and then be allowed to walk free without being found either guilty nor innocent? Especially when the bloke you have bribed is currently serving a prison sentence for accepting bribes!

The unusual proviso he relied upon to be found to be 'guinnocelty'* is supposed to be enacted to ease the burden on German courts, but only in circumstances where the case looks nigh on impossible to resolve. I am just going out on a hunch here and suggest that this probably was not one of those occasions. Here is why I have my doubts: (just nabbed these quotes from this Guardian article)

"The chief executive of Formula One was accused of having paid the former Bayern LB chief risk officer Gerhard Gribkowsky $44m in 2006 to ease the sale of the bank's share to a company that had guaranteed to keep Ecclestone in his job. He has admitted paying the money but denied it was a bribe."
In what way is that not a bribe? He paid another companies employee some money, with the intention to get him to make the sale of his employers assets to another company go through. Even if his claim that it was to silence him over "irregularities in his tax affairs" then that surely is also a bribe? A bride to stop one rich chap who was guilty of tax evasion from grassing on another rich chap (allegedly) avoiding tax.

"In an explanation of its decision, the court said it had "considerable doubts" about whether Ecclestone knew Gribkowsky held that particular position at the time of the alleged bribe".
No! That is all nonsense, you would not pay someone £27million if you didn't know what position he held and whether he could help you. That would be madness. What did Bernie think he do then? Did he think he was a humble cleaner? Did he just want to be nice to some chap on minimum wage, but surprisingly drinking in an expensive bar in designer clothes?! Rubbish! Rich people do not give away their money, they hoard it until there is nothing left for the rest of us.

""Accordingly, a prosecution of the accused due to bribery is not probable as things stand," the court said, despite admitting that all the evidence in the case had not yet been heard."
The prosecution wasn't probable presumably because the Bavarian state couldn't resist saying yes to that big cheque waving in their face. There really is nothing like bending over backwards for the rich now is there.

So Bernie Ecclestone walked free despite in the judges statement highlighting the fact he had "made a "corrupt" deal. And he had been not "reliable or truthful" during the case in London". All made possible by his wealth, some technicalities, and a dodgy loophole in the German courts that favours the rich.

I just hope they will be as nice to me when I go over, commit a crime, bribe a police officer to get away with it, get caught out because that police officer has been caught taking bribes, and then after some, but crucially not all evidence is heard, wave a cheque for £10 in their faces walk away 'guinnocelty'.

Of course I could just be being a pessimist and dear old Bernie could be truly innocent. That was not really the point of this post. He is rich, that is reason enough for me to dislike the man. I really couldn't care less about his guilt. I just found it ridiculous (but not all that surprising) that a legal system, in a developed part of the world, could get away with having a provision built into it that allows the wealthy to just buy their way out of trouble... more so than usual anyway.

*Had to mix guilty and innocent together because I did not have a word to describe this outcome.

How To Spot Racism On Facebook: A Short Guide To Those Awful Memes Circulating Everywhere

You might be thinking something along the line of "what use is this guide? It's obvious when someone posts something racist to Facebook, I will see a word that will be racist!" And you would be right, that is an easy an obvious way to spot racism on Facebook and the moron who wrote that post is deserving of a swift five finger lesson. In my opinion a disembowelling would not be considered heavy handed either. However, recently there has been a marked increase in posts that disguise racism as national pride or caring for the vulnerable, within shameless like baiting posts. Usually these are in the form of pictures, with short statements designed to get people to see, like and share without ever really engaging with its true meaning. You have all probably seen these and recognise what I am jabbering on about, but just in case you do not I will explain what they are and how to spot one that is racist.

So picture let us now the scene. You are scrolling through the endless cat pictures, videos and insufferable dull posts about people's lives on Facebook. You stop suddenly on a few of these pictures, and go to like one of them. There is a pause... Unlike the moron who clicked immediately, you think about them for a second, you try to find a meaning. Why has it been made? What does it really say? What does it say about me and my friend?

Picture 1.

Firstly, this is linking race to that other great Right-Wing crusade... benefit scrounging. It is clearly, and quite cleverly I have to admit, designed as a joke. One that I do not find funny, but one that many will do, the point is clearly labelled on the thing "share if you laughed". Something which many undoubtedly would have done without thinking about its implications. In this sense it would have been quite successful. Ultimately, it would have spread the lie that being foreign is not compatible with hard-working British ideals. This is and always will be nonsense. This 'joke' is designed solely to distance Johnny Foreigner and his lifestyle from the average stereotypical British person. It also has no truth to it whatsoever!

Want proof? Unlike the racists I will provide some. Here is a quick example from the Government and Office of National Statistics, with the most recent statistics I could be bothered to find. "As at February 2013, 16.4% of working age UK nationals were claiming a DWP working age benefit compared to 6.7% of working age non-UK nationals (at the time they first registered for a National Insurance Number) (resident working age UK population figures based on country of birth 2011, ONS). Claimants who were non-UK nationals when they registered for a NINo may of course subsequently have become permanent residents or British citizens."

Read page nine onwards for nationality and benefit statistics. 

If you share a post like that and you deserve... Toe Wedging

If you now dislike the person who shared this then congratulations, you remain a decent human being

Picture 2.

I can hear many of you reading this now saying "oh come on!!! How can a quote by Winston Churchill be construed as racist? He led Britain through World War Two and saved us from horrible racists!" Of course you would be right in saying that. Under his government we did indeed fight the worst case of anti-Semitism Europe has ever seen. Yes we did defeat Nazi Germany and its allies. However, that alone does not stop him being a nasty and despicable man, he was a racist. That quote is just one such example of it. By spreading this quote, or any of his imperialist attitudes you or your friends are implicitly condoning the actions of 'our once great empire'. The same goes for any of the other 'great' imperialists and their like baiting quotes.

For sharing a post similar if not the same as this one the punishment should be... The Pear of Anguish

If you decided to delete this idiot (who at one point was an acquaintance but is now nothing more than a footnote in your history) then you're still in with a shout of succeeding where that moron failed. You could still have an IQ above 70!!!

Picture 3. 

This one has continuously annoyed me since I first laid tired eyes upon it. Why? Because just like a case of herpes it goes away every now and then just to come back when you least want it to. I could be in a good mood, then bang... The same old (eye)sore is back. This particular one is incredibly inaccurate, calls upon the vulnerable as emotional anchors, and uses foreigners as scapegoats for all their woes. All very much the key staples of right-wing propaganda. I can hear people say "surely they cannot make all of this information up, pensioners are paid poorly!" Actually whilst I do agree they are paid a pittance, they have made up most of (or at the very least selectively reported) the facts to create a sensational and divisive load of twaddle.

Point 1. Whilst the average state pension entitlement is indeed around £6000 per year (it is actually £5881.20 per 52 weeks) if you are entitled to the full amount. They have conveniently ignored the other eligible benefits in order to keep the total so low, such as: State Second Pensions, Pension Credit, Council Tax Support, Housing Benefit, Winter Fuel Payments, etc.... I'm not saying they are enough but, it is significantly more than what is stated on this piece of racist propaganda. 

Point 2. The picture they have chosen to use for this is deliberately very evocative. It has been purposefully chosen to encourage the target audience (read: gullible idiots) to sympathise with this lady. She is hunched over in a pose reminiscent of frailty, the heightened camera angle encouraging the audience to view her as small or subordinate. She is counting a minimal amount of change in her hand, signifying the stated pittance she receives as financial support. Visually you are encouraged to view that as the sum total of her entitlement. By using all of these techniques in the photographs composition they want you to view her powerless in the face of this suffering. All of it caused by the 'folk devils' or immigrants/scroungers/government/whoever they want to crusade against. It is however nearly all lies; as we know pensioners are one of the most powerful groups when it comes to policy making. The grey vote is one all the politicians chase simply because they vote more. 

Point 3. The use of a sensationalist newspaper headline is deliberately designed to label all immigrants as recipients of this little old ladies rightful pension fund. This is nonsense, it is a special case and one which requires some leeway. An example of this kind of rubbish, and quite possible the same article from the same newspaper (although I cannot verify that myself), can be found here. A few things jump out when you examine this article: 

Firstly, it is a large family and as such there is a need for a large house. Simply put it is necessary to pay rent on a more expensive property. 

Secondly, the father is an EX-asylum seeker, he has now become a legal and recognised resident of the UK on reasonable humanitarian grounds. 

Thirdly, he had become unemployed after losing his job as a bus conductor. He used to work but is unfortunate to be without a job at the time this article was published. Convenient subject matter if you wish to demonise a group as scroungers. 

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the authors of the article gloss over the real problems mentioned in the article. This is done so they do not draw too much attention to the true cause of such high payments. It states very briefly that the house "is owned by Brophy Group Business Ltd, a British Virgin Islands company whose registered address is a post office box in Liechenstein". Someone is making huge profits on renting this accommodation to this family, simply because there is not enough social housing being built and what there was is being sold off, whilst having the money pumped out of the UK into two tax havens!

Point 4. This is by a country mile the most inaccurate and the most irritating. Illegal immigrants cannot claim benefits, because by definition they are ILLEGAL. If they came forward and tried to claim benefits they would be caught out and deported! That one piece stupidity alone is enough to make me want to rip the beating heart out of anyone's chest who likes or shares this rubbish. As for refugees they are rightly entitled to benefits should they need them (just like the aforementioned family). Asylum seekers are another favourite of these idiots and I will quickly address that too. They are entitled to some benefits but they are negligible, about £36 for a single person. 

Anything that has 'factual' statements that seem to be incredibly unfair or just plain ridiculous need to be verified before you believe them, that is just not a rule of the internet. That should be a known practise in every aspect of life. Do not trust everything you read, especially if it is trying to scapegoat someone or something. Disinformation is one of the key tactics used by these people. The racists, fascists and a lot of politicians will use the average person's laziness, or inability to research the facts, to spread hate and anger at minorities. Groups who are almost exclusively made out to be the sole benefiters of structural inequalities in our society, rather being the targets of discrimination. 

Punishment for anyone spreading this level of nonsense should be proportionate to the crime... Flaying

Congratulations, if you punched that moron in a particularly nasty part of their body. Even more so if it came after running 23,547 miles to their home (just because you felt so strongly about the need to). Unlike your (now former) friends you can spot racist propaganda and you do not easily fall for the techniques they use to spread this nonsense.

These are only three of the many, many examples of this nonsense currently filling the social media platforms. It could be described as having similar properties to brown and foul substance, one often found in a porcelain bowl.

*Disclaimer* I do not accept any responsibility for torture that is done upon the idiots who spread the aforementioned rubbish throughout the various forms of social media. What is done to them is the responsibility of the person who deemed it necessary to go too far, especially when a simple "you're an idiot and a racist whom I shall no longer associate with" would have sufficed. The torture methods were suggested for my own amusement only!

Civilised Societies Do Not Execute People

The death penalty advocates in the UK have relentless groaned on about the imaginary positives associated with capital punishment since its permanent removal as a punishment for murder in 1969 (after and experimental period beginning in 1965). Its removal occurred via a vote by an overwhelming majority in parliament, since then supporters of such drastic measures have lamented the ability for the state to end a persons life, and with it our transition into a 'civilised' society. Every time a major news story breaks, particularly when it involves a group of people who are currently the subject of a moral panic, the pro-deathers come flying out the gates screaming bloody murder with a wilful disregard for the consequences, statistics and faults.

One such consequence, and in my humble opinion the most severe, is the ever-present risk of taking an innocent life through capital punishment. Often proponents of the death penalty at this point will use tired and false arguments such as: very few people executed will be innocent, that murderers and other criminals deserve the most sever form of punishment, and that it acts as a deterrent (supported via questionable economic theory). 

Who cares if most are guilty? That is not acceptable justification for those who have been wrongly executed and their families. You cannot undo a death penalty no matter how many Derek Acorah's you use! It is pure injustice and advocating the use of it is tantamount to advocating the murder that it is supposed to discourage. They point towards cases of criminals being released and killing again and act like this is justification for blanket killing. The irony of this is that many, if not most, of these pro-death penalty advocates are strong anti-abortionists, or pro-lifers as they are commonly called. Surely this would be taking away even more people's right to life? Innocent people's right to life! Just like those innocent babies they often harp on about! Some supporters even going as far as advocating swift executions to better serve as a deterrent for extreme crimes (once again ignoring the wrongly convicted).

The second important point is this. Is capital punishment even a deterrent in the first place? There are plenty of countries that continue to practise this archaic punishment, but facts prove it to be ineffectual and at worse counter-productive. State legalisation of murder serves as a kind of normalisation to homicide. Therefore, the adoption of institutionalised murder as a punishment and deterrent actually increases murder. Unlike the many advocates who base all arguments solely on conjecture (or rather bizarrely the previously mentioned economic theories), the statistics prove this normalising effect to be the case.

That's even before you mention the cost, and the final point I am going to make. The extremely large amounts of money spent when executing someone convicted of a crime, in the cost of the executions; also in the cost of the trials. Money that could be put to much better use in fighting the causes of murder and violent crimes. Such as alleviation of extreme poverty, drug rehabilitation, domestic violence support programmes, and an alienation for many youths from society and its markers of success. Money better spent on creating a caring, loving and forward looking society. Not one full of the hate and the fear of yesteryear, synonymous of a time when executions were considered acceptable punishment. As Martin Luther King once said "Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that".

Anyway, I will leave this post there. However, if you fancy a bit more reading have a quick gander at this. I found it interesting.