Labour Showing True Colours With Minimum Wage

They've actually done, the impossible, or at least I thought it was the impossible until today. The moron on the south eastern segment of Sunday Politics made me agree with a Conservative politician (about 55 minutes in). Even if that was only for the briefest of moments it still left me feeling sick, and not just regularly sick but the kind of sickness that made want to vomit continuously for the next 45,000,000,000,000 hours or until I was dead and unable to remember that awful moment, whichever came sooner.

Simon Thomson is the name of the moron I was referring to, who set about defending the minimum wage increases being proposed by the former left wing party Labour and their leader (not so) Red Ed. This defence of the underwhelming and untimely increase in payment to those unable to live, despite working, was labelled 'derisory' by the Conservative politician Sam Giymah, to which I mentally verbalised 'hell yeah it is', whilst the aforementioned gag reflex kicked into overdrive.

That comment alone, about the suitability of this nominal increase in minimum wage to make a real difference now to the lives of working people, would have validated my views that Labour are just Tories in all but name, but once he pointed out something which previously was unknown to me, that it would not come into force until 2020. I was shocked at the brashness of their confidence that old voting habits could continue to be relied upon, the old working class support for those who are supposed to me representatives of them. Veiling their love of unrestrained free market capitalism, and their rich friends in big business, behind their ineffective inequality reduction policies.

Now do not get me wrong Sam Giymah, as a Conservative politician, will not be getting any support from me, pretty much every other comment that came out of his mouth was the usual nonsense that characterises that end of the political spectrum. He is after all a member of the nasty party, the party that is systematically destroying all of the social security nets and required services in this country. However, the enjoyable way in which he corrected a Labour politician on his parties pointless, ineffective, and most of all ridiculous 'socialist' policy is something that will always place him marginally above the rest of the idiots.

So why is a much needed increase in minimum wage so objectionable to myself? Should I not be supporting any measure that increases the living conditions of those who are struggling financially, and barely surviving, under this oh so broken system? Well no, not if the measures that are being touted as solutions to the problem are useless.

If you examine the article titled 'Ed Miliband pledges Labour will raise minimum wage to at least £8 an hour' on the Mirror website clearly supporting this increase in minimum wage, you will see just how ineffective it will be.

Firstly, the article points out that on average minimum wage workers will be earning around £60 per week more than at present. An increase on the 39 hour week wage from £253.50 to £312 per week. So that sounds fine, whatever way you cut it that is a sizeable percentage increase in their wage. But will it make that much difference to the average person?

Luckily the article has provided some examples of people who support this increase and the difference it will make to their lives.

Case number one, Burger King Woman: "It's incredibly hard for me. I live three miles away (from work presumably). I can't afford a car and there aren't many buses. I often have to take a taxi. That's where my wages go"
Lets assume that the taxi and cost of road tax, fuel, and MOT's, are roughly the same across a year. Maybe even throw in some of the insurance, or all of it depending on her age. That is still excluding the fact that she has to purchase this car, this life enhancing vehicle on £60 per week extra. If she was able to do that, conceivably she would have to go second hand, maybe even very old and in a poor state, and then run the risk of constant repair issues. These issues often totalling in the hundreds of pounds, on a tight budget it seems highly unlikely that £60 per week is going to be this miraculous liberator some are believing it will be. Let us not forget that breakdown cover does not come free either, and if you get an older car it WILL be needed.
Surely the issue here in her case, which was mentioned in the article with no real reaction to it, would be the fact that she is on just above minimum wage despite being a manager at this very rich fast food chain? Not how much better her life would be if she got some rather paltry increase in her wage, out of line with the amount of profit generated in store daily for the bosses.

Case number two, Airport Worker Naomi and partner Ellis: "The problem is that due to rising living costs we just can't afford to live. Our rent is £475-a-month and then on top of that we have to pay £100 a month in council tax, £100 for water and around £80 for electricity" "We're both now having to move out and back in with our mums"
On the surface this one seems as though the minimum wage increase would indeed help this couple remain independent. That is until you look at the inconsistency in their working hours, varying by as much as 40 hours per week between them. At which point you realise the actual benefits for the individuals on such wildly varying contracts would be negated somewhat by their bosses reluctance to spend on wages, and the drive from the companies they work for to increase 'profitability'. They would probably find their hours slipping ever closer to the lower portion of the stated working weeks.
Additionally, these rising living costs will continue to be rising living costs. Thus in the mean time making it ever less viable for them to live independent of the family support structures they are going to have to fall back into. This is especially true as this 'above inflation' wage increase date is set only as coming before October 2019, so sometime in 2020 (if at all) it is then. So they will have to suffer five more years of below inflation wage increases before they can begin to claw back (a small proportion of) the real world wage cuts they have suffered at the hands of the neo-liberal economy, loved so wholeheartedly by all of the main parties.

The article also provides more flawed examples of people in similar situations to that of Naomi and Ellis who are labelled as beneficiaries of this much needed wage 'increase'. Crucially, for my point, they are all couples who are able to split the cost between them, and as such negate some of the problems that minimum wage work work throws up. Which gets to the root of my problem with the increase being labelled by many as a living wage.

A single person would have to face these increases in living costs alone, to them £60 per week would be like urinating on a house fire, such is the scorched earth 'austerity' tactics of this current government, and the capitalist love-in many preceding governments have had, they have nothing to fall back upon and no real acceptable wage to start with.

If you cannot afford to live comfortably on the wage as a single person, living alone, and still afford the 'luxuries', such as being able to entertain yourself with a night out here and there, going to a comedy gig, or a sporting event... THEN IT IS NOT A LIVING WAGE! It is, at best, a way to continue breathing on a day to day basis.

That is not nearly enough.

She's More Of An Object Than A Steel Chair

A few days ago I was blurry eyed, bored, and channel hopping throughout the endlessly frustrating sleepless night I was enduring. By chance I happened to pause for a moment on a channel I would otherwise have skipped nine times out of ten. On it appeared a face from my childhood. Someone whom reminded me of my many moments of childhood ecstasy as I observed the faux violent dance of oiled up, muscular, grown men in Lycra, I am of course am referring to wrestling. As a side note, the wrestler in particular was Rhino who happens to be as far from the stereotyped image of a wrestler as it is possible to find, but as I will get to that later.

What caught my attention, in an otherwise unremarkable piece of uninterested gazing, was the marked difference in the portrayal of gender. 

You might be forgiven for believing that a piece of entertainment that has attempts to pass itself of as a legitimate sport (even having its own dedicated bleacher report section), at least to make the audience suspend their belief, so that it appears the pain and coordinated attacks have an impact upon the outcome of this tightly scripted play-fighting. For any kind of casual viewer you will know how badly this is achieved but never the less it is attempted. Additionally, with the presence of female wrestlers comes the assumption that scripted entertainment attempting to portray real sport, you would hope that they would legitimately wish to portray female sporting prowess and power realistically. This was not the case.

Perhaps the most illuminating moment was presented in a mixed gender tag team match between two teams, so three versus three with one female and two males to a team (and an extra person ring-side on both teams, I do not know why they are needed), when Crazy Steve kissed the opposing teams female wrestler Velvet, thus rendering her somehow disorientated. 

If you take this further and look at the match (The BroMans and Velvet Sky vs The Menagerie) from a deeper perspective, including names, persona's and even the camera angle, attire, and coverage of the proceedings, it paints an even richer picture of the gendered performances. 

Here is the television footage from the event.

The first thing you will notice from the match is the ring entrances, choreographed to encourage the audiences gaze to fall upon the female members of the tag teams. They are treated by their own team, and by extension the viewers, as objects of desire as the parade around beside them as 'trophies' and provocatively crouch and wiggle their bottoms for the male team members and home audiences respectively. The attire they adorn deliberately designed to only heighten the sexual fantasies being teased out of a predominately adolescent male fan based. Both female members considerably less 'toned' than their male counterparts, whilst adhering to the values associated with beauty in western society, they are slim, light haired, large breasted, and white.

The menagerie's entrance in slight contrast does not focus primarily upon the female member of the team, it at least initially is far more concerned with (not so) Crazy Steve's exploits. that is until Rebel takes centre stage (or to the ropes). At this point the camera pans to her bottom once more, revealing it to be once more upholding western beauty standards, although arguably equally athletic in nature. One adorning the ropes she begins to to play a subservient role to the teams 'leader', Knux, a role often associated with femininity. However, it does not end there, once Knux is halfway through the ropes being held open by Rebel's legs, which once again the viewers eyes are drawn towards, he sniffs her foot in a fetishistic manner in keeping with the teams persona's as outsiders. Then comes the most revealing contrast between the dignified, powerful and sexually controlled entrance of the male members and the overtly sexual entrances of the female members. As the team have all made their respective ways into the ring Rebel takes to the bottom rope slowly lowering herself into the splits, revealing her 'flexibility' as the camera begins to centre itself to allow the viewer to look directly up at the face of Rebel via her now focused upon vagina.

Whilst all of this is going on the commentators are encouraging the audience further to view these wrestlers as sex objects (and little more). They achieve this through the use of language and buzzwords such as talking about the previous segments subject (a man named Sandie Shaw) having "game", and of the menagerie's Rebel "what do you like better then balloons or the horn""err Rebel", "oh what a lady" and "oh there we go that's rebel showing her..." "amazing dexterity".

Once the match starts, Crazy Steve proceeds to blow a kiss at Velvet which infuriates her also generically good looking partner (might be both team and romantically as the commentary suggests, I do not watch enough to know for sure) Robbie E. This once again says something about the role of the female 'wrestlers' in this match, they are there to double as objects, both to move the 'plot' forward and to be looked at.

After a few moments of fighting what better time for the commentators to announce the new 2015 'knockouts calendar' now being on sale? Especially as there is currently three of these 'knockouts' in the ring for this matchup. As this is going on Velvet is tagged in to face off against Crazy Steve. Is it finally possible that some equality in physicality will be attempted here? Two 'athletes' will be shown competeting on an equal playing field despite being differently gendered. Nope, she will just slap him and tag back out, that is the limit of female sporting excellence displayed thus far in this piece of entertainment. They have been limited to the realms of stereotypically feminine 'physical violence'. Ending with the announcement about an announcement later in the show, which will be announcing who is deemed to be the most beautiful amongst their roster of eye-candy.

Finally, there is some brief fighting between the two female participants in this match, before Velvet is rescued by her teams mates from a pin (this happens all the time so I wont call sexism on that). However, this is done putting Rebel at risk of being hit by one (or both) of the opposing teams male members, she assumes a pose reminiscent of a damsel in distress and not at all like a fighter. At this point Rebel then is assisted by her knight in not so shining armour to coming to her rescue by removing the threat. 

Then comes the forced kiss between Velvet as the victim and Crazy Steve as the perpetrator of the assault. This too as 'light-hearted' entertainment is very concerning for anyone who looks at the bigger picture. It says a lot about women's bodies that invasiveness like this can be considered entertainment, as Crazy Steve is depicted using his physicality to subdue an unwilling participate for his own satisfaction, whilst the commentators laugh it off and the crowd cheer. What was that about rape culture?

Finally, Velvet runs around a bit in an overly feminised way, Rebel body slams her, kicks the other female wrestler (who otherwise did nothing) in the head, gets pinned and fight over. 

As the Beautiful People and The BroMans make their way from the arena, Velvet appears to be trying to remove the horrible taste of Crazy Steve from her mouth. 

Likewise I am off to do the same and remove the taste of this horrible piece of sexism from mine.

September 11th: The Anniversary

Today is the 11th September, or 11/9 if you prefer, a day to remember those who suffered and died at the hands of a murderous, vile, and completely undemocratic man. It is of course the anniversary of the Chilean coup d'état, in which a democratically elected and supported government was overthrown by an American backed dictator, who wanted to seize power and control of a country primed for exploitation by American interests and remove those darned socialist policies getting in the way of US economic gains.

Over the course of his reign as supreme lord of Chile (chief underling to the president of the United States) he was responsible for the torture of an estimated 40,000 people, with a further 3,000 killed or 'disappeared'. Go USA, Go Democracy!

I know for a fact a lot of people have not heard of this military coup in Britain, particularly true if you are quite young. Why would you know about it? After all is was a while ago and the people involved do not speak English. So they sort of are not real people right? At least not like you and I. Because of this bias towards only remembering white European tragedy, I will briefly run over the facts about the situation for you.

Early morning, September 11th 1973, the US backed Chilean military flew jets over the presidential palace and bombed it. Hours later the socialist president Salvador Allende was dead. He was replaced by General Pinochet who set about opening the country up to foreign 'free-market' interests, whilst torturing and executing anyone who dared express and opinion in opposition to his illegitimate, but powerfully backed, dictatorship.

Some people hold the belief that his dictatorship was a necessary evil, that it was required to alleviate the poverty of socialist Chile. In doing so they ignore the fact that this poverty was falsely created by the American capitalist system, who sanctioned the last drops of life out of the country in an attempt to "make the economy scream".

Britain does not get out of this smelling of roses either. As was the case with the US government (and its business interests) we too had something to gain from this coup. The UK government and that bastion of left-wing solidarity the BBC both went out of their way to support this murderous thug, solely because his control was good for our economic interests abroad both in Chile and the rest of Latin America. You know the man is a wrong'un when Maggie actually liked the person.

I guess it says all there is to say about the west, and our governments attitudes towards murderous and dictators in pursuit of quick buck, when you see a quote like this attributed to 'that woman' about another murderous dictator by the name of Suharto, stating that he is "one of our very best and most valuable friends". Why was he such? Well because all those guns he was using to murder his own people, they were of course British made.

That brings me onto the final point (yes I am finally going to mention it), why remember this coup and the lives lost on 9/11 in the world trade centre building attacks?  It is because of this aforementioned widespread, and popularly supported, brand of western imperialism that those attacks took place. We have been dominating and systematically installing brutal, puppet governments throughout the developing world. Controlling their economies and taking down anyone who stood in the way of western economic interests.

It is because of this that Thatcher, Reagan and countless others like them across all sectors of the political landscape are "staunch supporter(s) of many of the world's most brutal regimes, propping up and arming war criminals and dictators in service to Western imperialism, anti-communism and (the) neoliberal hegemony". By association they are as responsible for the countless numbers of deaths and tortures throughout the developing world as those carrying it out, and by supporting the politicians we too are legitimising the action of the dictators they support and prop-up. (brackets added myself)

So yes, mourn the tragic loss of life that day. But do not forget to remember the lives lost and ruined in pursuit of the "American dream" that got rocked that day. Like those in Chile's 9/11.

Don't Shoot For The Stars You Mug

A couple of days ago I was at a friends house when the subject of work came up. More specifically my working situation. My friends mother and her friend, who were present at the time, asked me what I was doing with my life now that I had moved back to the Medway towns. To which I replied, "I am currently unemployed and am looking for work". This should have been a straightforward conversation, perhaps acting as a pre-requisite to the only remaining question... What sort of work are you looking for? Alas, it was not.

It seems that it has now become impossible for people (even those who have known each other for years) to take the act of seeking employment at face value. The unemployed friend, family friend, whoever, must at all times be questioned, scrutinised, and treated with contempt. The questioning that followed included poorly-veiled accusations of laziness, an undercurrent of derision, and not so subtle hints at having ideas above my station.

Having remarked that I had recently quit a job that was incredibly low-paid and long-houred (£1 per hour in my last week of work), I was met with the contemptuousness, from the friend's mother's friend, usually reserved exclusively for those who appear on the Jeremy Kyle show. 

The why don't you get a job you lazy bum? You are exactly what is wrong with this country. Oh you had a job but quit because 'it doesn't pay enough to survive on'? Work harder then you moron. Stop smoking drugs!!!!*

All of that nonsense I can happily deal with. I shrug it off as the tabloid inspired, unthinking, nonsense that it is. What did hurt was the hinting that I was aiming for something above what I was capable off. That the career I would like to pursue is not one that is accessible to someone from a working class background. More importantly, that I should not be aiming to harness any of the (limited) social mobility that my degree has potentially opened up to me. The classic "you're aiming too high" and "you're being too picking" featuring as favourites from this conversation.

Now I know that what I want to do is a competitive field of work, I also know that I am unlikely to ever find work in the field, and it is even less likely that I will ever be able to meet my career goals. However, I will continue to try. It is not like I am someone who wants to find work in a truly closed shop for the countries elites (like trying to be a judge). Aspiring to become a newspaper columnist only requires that I be 47% toff. 

Which gets me to the crux of this post. The only reason I began to write it. The reason that the conversation stuck with me. Through questioning my my career aspirations in a way that suggested I should give in, or not hold such high hopes altogether, they made me feel like a class traitor. It was almost as if now that I had gone to university, and returned with ambitions beyond 'proper' manual labour (or worse retail work), I had kicked the collective working class straight in the knackers. 

It is a feeling that is not entirely new to me. I have grappled with it since I became captivated with the idea that I could break this cycle of deprivation that has characterised my family. I do not want to spend my life meandering from low-paid, insecure jobs to lower-paid, more insecure, and worse jobs, all interspersed by months (or years) spent in the dole queue. I want to be more secure whilst waiting in anticipation for the forthcoming revolution, perhaps even doing a job that could help agitate the masses. 

It is probably a feeling that is familiar to many who have come from a working class background, dragged themselves off to university despite pressures to work, and emerged somewhat triumphant at the other side. All too often only to find the immense pressures for them to gain 'proper' employment very quickly resuming. Sadly, much of it coming from within the working classes, through both an adherence to the outmoded idea that this is our place, our lot in life, and the simple fact that work means survival in relative comfort (at least compared to life on the dole).

However, it is that which makes it so uncomfortable for us who, upon completion of our studies, find ourselves feeling as though we fully belong to (or indeed are wanting by) neither the working nor middle classes.

*that wasn't said, but it works for the JK analogy

Economic Success Behind The Extinction Of Languages?

It is being reported today that a study 'discovered' a trend between the economic growth of a country and the loss of minority languages. Who would have thought it? I had always believed that capitalism was so accommodating towards minorities, their way of life, and their culture. It is not like its history has been one of aggressive colonialism and slavery.

I would go further than the journalists reports* of the study suggest. It is clear that it goes far beyond just being economic conditions causing a decline of minority tongues, that global and national hegemonic systems, and their structures of control, are imposing a dominant language upon people. Something that was highlighted (only implicitly) by the researchers, but largely ignored by the majority of journalists reporting on it. In an interview one of the researchers stated that "as economies develop, one language often comes to dominate a nation's political and educational spheres. People are forced to adopt the dominant language or risk being left out in the cold - economically and politically". This is exactly how the hegemony operates, culturally and economically, it forces people to adopt its conditions by offering or allowing no viable alternatives.

The researcher then goes on to remark that, "of course everyone has the right to choose the language they speak, but preserving dying language is important to maintaining human cultural diversity in an increasingly globalised world". The researcher is ignoring (or at least not noticing) the obvious contradiction between the two halves of his statement, that the choice of language diversity has been effectively removed by the hegemonic class. It comes down to a simple choice between adopt or resist; between relative wealth or impoverishment. 

It is no surprise then that the rapid demise of minority cultures, expressed here through their language, are predominantly located within countries and areas which have already experienced significant economic development, or ones undergoing rapid development. It is the exertion of the hegemonic classes power over the subordinate groups, with aims to homogenise the populations, to create a single (but still divided) labour force capable of producing capital as efficiently as possible. This means that no divergence in language is encouraged. Schooling, propaganda, everything is produced in the language of the hegemonic class. It has one aim to encourage complicity with the classes objectives, and in order to seemingly benefit from the hegemony, the minorities must accept the dominance of their culture, their world-view, and their language. The loss of their native language and the adoption of a dominant one is important for the transmission of the hegemony's ideology. It is ensuring their codes, their meanings, are disseminated wholly amongst the population. 

So despite the researchers highlighting factors beyond economics that 'contribute' to declining language diversity, such as low populations, temperate climates (like the ones found in most advanced capitalist societies), and (although only briefly mentioning) educational structures of a country encouraging complicity with dominant languages, they fail to explicitly state the obvious cause for this loss of minority cultural markers (bloody Zoologists).

It is 'progress' towards a fully realised global hegemonic capitalist class that is systematically destroying language diversity and native culture. It is not simply because of 'economic success', low populations, or being in a nice, moderate climate.

The actual report of the study can be found here.

*They do briefly mention some other factors in the actual study.

So I Went To The JobCentre Today. That Was Fun!

The JobCentre, a place famous for its life enriching qualities, a monument to Britain. A statement made to the rest of the world that this is a land of wealth, of bowler hats, of cream tea, of quaint British traditions, and of lords and ladies. It is a place where those who have been made temporarily redundant go, to be helped compassionately, and with their best interest at heart, into a post suitable for them. Every time you enter this cathedral to the success of Capitalism you are greeted with a wide smile by a well paid, content, and helpful employee. The positivity of the temporarily leisured only heightened by the skill of the craftspeople carefully weaving career paths for their benefit. The alacrity of the workers in perfect harmony with the light, comfortable, and aesthetically pleasing surroundings. All are treated with respect. All are treated as individuals. If someone were to enter devoid of self belief it would not last, upon existing this temple for the soul they shall be displaying the poise befitting a resident of Britain. What was once eluding them has now been subsumed. Optimism now very much resident in their psyche.

This is a world where workfare does not exist. Where people are considered by circumstance not meaningless numbers. There is no conformity to bureaucratic procedures designed to optimise the processing of people. Where claims are not handled by uncaring hirelings. There is no resemblance to livestock amongst those unfortunate enough to be present. Those indubitably marked by the false stigma attached to unemployment. They are not scapegoats for the retrenchment of businesses and services. They are not recipients of vitriolic attacks from the media and community. The systems design and falsities does not benefit an uncaring Capitalist class and their political puppets in the class warfare division. The working class and underclass are united, they are one.

Unfortunately, this world does not exist. It does not look likely. The working class targeted media would never allow compassion to seep into this discussion. Truth will always be suppressed by the rich owners, by those who have an interest in harbouring an animosity between the exploited. The cost conscious schemes will continue to be implemented. People will continue to be made to feel insignificant, desperation will continue to saturate every aspect of life on the dole. However, when all of this is considered, I still refuse to go back to my former employment. I'd rather starve than be a cog in that machine, to contribute to their 'business plan' made me feel sick. Self-immolation would be preferable.

It is time to find a job where I can do some good in the world.

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?!