Yep, its factual. Petes post not my silly fascist remark. Lets make that plain before he does me for defamation or some other obscure precedent.
We cannot compare the treatment that politicians get with what we would expect for Doctor Smith. The politicians choose to put themselves in the limelight, so thier activities, wealth, and income are bound to get looked at closely and may be publicised and even exagerated. Anyway, I suspect that Dr Smith will have done more for his money than many politicians do, but it does not mean that he is not overpaid to some extent. After all, GPs received huge pay rises in what was widely regarded (even by the doctors) as botched negotiation by the Dept of Health under Labour, because it combined extra pay with a reduction in evening/weekend availability of services. A side effect of the pay rise deal was that many are now choosing to retire early. It is also widely reported (especially in the Daily Mail, but that does not mean it is a fiction) that British GPs are amongst the best paid in Europe, which ultimately means we have less of them per head of population.
It reminds me of watching Murdoch when he was before the Select Commitee and he did a pretty good impersonation of someone with the early stages of dementia. I almost felt sorry for him.
What world do some peolpe live in? The modern politician, the same as the modern CEO or Dr, work more hours and spend more time away from their family than most trades other than if you're in uniform and posted. Even then over the term of a career I'd be amazed if politicians are not away more. Now, you may think dinners, functions, opening hospitals whatever is t work. You're wrong: it is. I believ we should double the MP wage and remove a lot of the parts they can expense and make it genuinely something your average 'I want to do good' can aspire to and make a difference. Thats how we get the Eton elite out. Btw see another of Cammo's mates has been charged, this time with kiddie porn or something, today...
Apologies for the thread hijack Bradders without hijacking this thread please see a white paper that I have recently written in relation to that phrase. TIM ROGERS – CHILD PROTECTION CONSULTANT JUNE 2014 It’s a fair few years ago when I first heard the phrase ‘Child Porn’. The words, spoken by a paedophile I was managing, were just part of his everyday language – a means of justifying his existence. He couldn’t understand the fuss, after all everyone looks at porn, this just had kids in it. At that point I understood the extreme levels of cognitive distortion and justification in a paedophiles mind and vowed never to tolerate that phrase again. It was also the time that I realised that this distortion was meant to minimise the offending not only to themselves but also to others. ‘Yes I may be convicted but really, I’m no different from you. AND this message is confirmed for them by the press and society. Whilst we continue to use the phrase ‘Child Porn’ we undermine the very real harm that this does to the victims. These concerns do not only lay with those that may not know any better. I have heard Police officers, child protection specialists, teachers and those that I have trained use the phrase. So why do we use the phrase? Is it because it makes it easier to conjure up a picture of what someone has been convicted of? Is it easier than using the phrase ‘ Indecent Images of Child Abuse’? Laziness? Or do we have real problems admitting that children are still being abused? So let’s take ourselves outside of the reasons for using it, and take a look inside the scene of these images, Just imagine for a moment that what we are looking at is a crime scene, yes a crime scene. Whereby a child is being sexually abused. That’s what these images are, nothing more, nothing less. Images of child sexual abuse. Okay let’s put ourselves into the frame. We are that child that has been offended against, that has been abused. This is something that through our guilt and our fear we haven’t been able to face, to question and disclose to anyone. Why? Is it that even now, in this society that talks about protecting children, there is still such a stigma of being offended against? Is it because the press still use the phrase ‘Child Porn’ and maybe my abuser was right? It is just porn with kids? If the press minimise it, that then leads to the general public using the phrase and it becomes the norm to use it, when actually what we are looking at is ‘Indecent Images of Child Sexual Abuse’. So for the sake of our children, for those that have been abused, and to ensure that offenders cannot get off the hook, can we as a nation now realise the impact of our labelling and start to use the correct terminology? © Tim Rogers
An excellent point Baldyboy, but we also have to differentiate between pictures of child abuse and perfectly innocent pictures of our own children, remember the fuss that was made over some nude pictures Julia Sommerville took of her 7 year old daughter. How many of us who have children have perfectly innocent photographs some zealot could interpret as pornographic.
Completely agree and I wasn't picking in bradders lots of people incl the press use it without thought. Indecent images are those defined by the copine scale and you have to put them in context if you have images of your child bathing that is not classed as indecent if however your neighbour was in possession of same said images that could/would be.
At the risk if wandering even further off topic and getting lost in a wood, I don't think people pay nearly enough attention to two other massively overused and meaningless phrases which are also used to condone a whole raft of actions. The first is "the war on terror". What, exactly is that supposed to mean? Who is the enemy in this war and what is its timescale? How will we know when it has been won? Who's going to negotiate the surrender - General Terror? What this insidious phrase does is, in Orwellian terms, justify an endless, global war against anyone you fancy. Once you've declared a war on terror you can start to do all sorts of things that might be expedient in a time of genuine crisis - lock people up without trial for years on end, rendition, torture, black ops, black sites etc. In fact, once you've declared your nebulous war you can do pretty much anything you want to, aided by a whole heap of cash to bolster your war work. The media parrot this phrase daily, everyone blindly swallows it, no one ever seems to question it's legitimacy or implications. In a similar vein (and from the same individuals) we have "weapons of mass destruction". So what qualifies here, nuclear? Chemical? Or just a big bomb? Or a car bomb? How much damage do you have to do or people do you have to kill before you are using a WMD? You will also notice that only people you don't like can have or use a WMD. It is a thing which makes no sense within the arsenal of, say, ooo - the USA for example. They only have good weapons, not evil WMD. In fact, it's perfectly fine to bomb or napalm you enemies in the search for some WMD as these really are terrible things. Keep a watch out for the use of WMD - it's another Orwellian term which is being used to control what you think. And keep a look out for how small they are becoming: a bomb in a Bagdad market is now a weapon of mass destruction (which it is - but not what the new insidious phrase was invented for).
Glid good points well made, often thought it myself. It's about 'branding' and defining for those less able to understand. What completely grips my shit is the way the septics can act with complete impunity. Eg bomb the shit out of anyone in anyone country using air strikes and drones, enter another country's air space land troops assassinate who they please and leave all without question, all with out recourse and all in the name of 'the war on terror'. Just imagine if it was reversed and eg Pakistan carried out a drone strike on Washington or landed troops to off someone? War would be declared by the good ol US of A. Yet no one questions these actions ( or they don't report about it) .
Suppose Pakistan sent drones to bomb bits of Milton Keynes where they had it "on good intelligence" that there was an Al Qaida sympathiser living in one of the houses in the street. They managed to get the guy but did a little collateral damage by wiping out his family and the next door neighbours too. Oh well. Shit happens, eh?
Let's consider the hypothesis of a "perfect weapon", which could be guaranteed to kill only its intended target without collateral damage to next door neighbours, nearby children etc. If the USA had such a perfect weapon, would they use it? Answer yes, every time. And if al-Quaida had such a perfect weapon, would they use it? Answer no, because for them indiscriminate mass killing is the objective, not an unfortunate side-effect. Now, are you still maintaining that there is an ethical equivalence between American strikes and terrorist bombings? (Acks. to Chris Hitchens)
I don't think you've read enough about this subject, Pete, or really thought it through. The American policy, for whatever reason (and there are no doubt many, but I'm writing a post, not a book) is that terrorism can be eradicated by killing all terrorists. This is much like saying that you can eliminate all weeds in your garden by constant weeding. You can't. They will always reappear. To push this analogy a bit further, it would also imply that you use weedkiller quite indiscriminately, killing both the weeds and your vegetables and rendering the ground less productive for future vegetable production. You also claim that your vegetable production is organic. Every time the US bumps off a load of innocent people, they create more terrorists. Those who were relatively unaligned have a relative killed and hey presto - more terrorists. This policy was seen to fail in Vietnam: unable to distinguish between simple peasants and the Viet Cong, torching villages did nothing to stamp out the Viet Cong. Also, the moral equivalence between the US and Al Quaida draws ever nearer if you give up on all the values you are supposedly fighting for. Introducing torture, rendition, indefinite internment, no fair trials, or invading countries unconnected with the real problem, weakens your moral position and undermines your "brand". What is going on in the world is largely a result of American foreign policy. They are the top dogs, they are deciding that policy, and it isn't working. They are also losing the "war on drugs" by essentially using the same type of policy - total eradication of crops and producers. It doesn't work. It seemed obvious to me at the time of 9/11 that the answer was a reassessment of their actions and policy. It also seemed equally obvious that they would focus on a military response, because that is who they are and what they prefer to do. It's just a macro manifestation of the same mindset that thinks that everyone being armed in the US with semi-automatic weapons will reduce crime and if there are constant shootings in schools - well, that's just unfortunate. I might mention that despite all the respect I had for Hitchens, he wasn't right about everything.
All the US does is propagate the ideals by which terrorists breed by their actions in other countries. The American foreign policy such as it is breeds this. Every time they invade a country, every time they target an individual or group they reinforce the negative stereotype that religious cultural or political leaders in anti US states use to create a force prepared for martyrdom. I'm guessing the art of war by sun tzu has never been read by the US military or political leaders. The Americans pre WW2 had a policy of isolationism, now I do not recommend that they revert to that however this constant and continued meddling in other sovereign state nations will continue to undermine them and their world standing whilst continuing to provide ammunition to assist in the radicalisation of individuals and groups. You have to ponder why they continue to use a a sledgehammer to crack a nut, is it to deflect from problems in their own country? Huge prison population problems, social inequality, racism, rampant unemployment etcetera
Steady on, let's not get into argumentum ad hominem. American foreign policy down the decades has included a great number of blunders and follies. Myopic ignorance is the norm. We can all agree on that, I suspect. But that does not mean that everything done by any American government is automatically the epitome of evil and wickedness. I prefer to consider each policy and each action, and decide for myself whether they are good, bad or indifferent. If you think having the USA as the world's main superpower is bad, just consider what things would be like if the main superpower was controlled by Joe Stalin, or Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin Laden [other tyrants are available].
I am not disputing how awful the world would be with Stalin Mao pol pot etc as the definitive superpower . However since WW2 the US has ensured its place at the top of the table by having an enemy real and imaginary. Think communist, McCarthyism etc Post Cold War with the dissolution of the soviet block it has transferred it to the perfect bogey man. You can't see them you don't know who they really are and they strike with impunity and without warning. This then allows you to declare war and behave in any way you care. However it has always been the way, British empire anyone.
If the Taliban or whoever had such a weapon they would use it, for the same reason Americans or whoever would; fear into the top helps control fear into the population. Your president is not safe, so you are not safe, so behave
America, rightly or wrongly, has drawn a line in the sand and said cross it and this is what we are going to do. I see the US as the least worst option for a world superpower.
