E is for Eddie, L is for Loser (Eddie Izzard Talking Politics, Bloomsbury Theatre, 27th April 2009)

Long winded title so apologies.

E is for Eddie -

Went to see Eddie Izzard Tonight at the Bloomsbury Theatre in Euston, London. Stopped over at the Bree Louise for a pint and half.

Eddie was joined by Ed Balls MP (Minister for Education) and Tessa Jowell MP (Minister for Sport, Arts and Culture). It was a political question time with Eddie playing the host role.

Only difference being there wasn't anything negative, except your normal Tory/Cameron political bashing.

Nothing really of note - Europe and the Olympics were the big talking points. Eddie is very passionate about Labour politics and Europeanisation that he had said he intends to stand for public office - I'd like to see him run against Boris.

Twitter was also mentioned - Ed Balls didn't quite get it, and one Tweeter has commented that Eddie should run against Boris Johnson for Mayor of London - and see the clown get beat by a real comedian.

Audio of Eddie Talking Politics here (my AudioBoo) - you can hear me laugh at one point!

Picture Gallery:

Picture 1
Picture 2
Picture 3
Picture 4

L is for Loser

Other than that, at some point between Bloomsbury and Euston I noticed I had lost my wallet - rediscovered it back at the Theatre!

On top of that, I lost my keys, too.

E is for Eddie; L is for Lucas - L is for Loser...

Britain is not 'broken', the media is.

Thanks to a reader, I have been alerted to the news that Alfie Patton is not the father, as was once suggested - see my blog here

It seems that there is barely any news anywhere on the subject, perhaps because its not so sexy now that the 'youngest father' in Britain is not really the father. It took a feedly search to find any news on the subject, and all I got was a blog. (and, by the way, my feedly RSS gets all the major UK news sources, shocking, really.)

So is this a surprise?

Not really. Perhaps the media don't like to admit they are wrong - the Sun will do anything to sell their newspapers, but not to damage their own credibility at publishing false stories. The Hillsborough disaster is a case in point - the author has never retracted his story.

Britain is not broken - the media is.

'Seize the Moment'

'Flash' Gordon Brown gave a speech to the US Congress calling for the US to seize the moment on the economy woes of our time.

Nick Robinson claims that this is not Brown's colgate moment with Obama, yet the Guardian calls it the crowning moment of Brown's political career.

Still with Brown's economic credentials, if the US actually listen to Brown, and do not vote for more protectionism and a 'buy American/made in America' clause, then maybe this influence of 'Brown knows' could hit home back here in the UK and thus the prophecy of Mandelson can be realized:

Labour can win a 4th term.

Bring Home the Revolution: Obama, Hope, Progress, Change

5,000 tickets sold in less than a minute for the Obama Inauguration. Barack Hussein Obama, legally president at noon on January 20th before he took the Presidential Oath of Office, has now ushered in a new era of 'remaking America', an era of change.

Gone is George W. Bush and the neo-cons - now...

"On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics."

There is an international appeal to the Obama presidency and the powerful role of the United States plays in our world. It is, a notion that we here can share at home in the United Kingdom of failed politics.




As a member of Republic, I received an email from Republic: Campaign for an Elected Head of State, an organisation that I have been a member of for the past year and attended their annual conference back in October. Graham Smith, campaign manager of Republic is calling for increased membership and the launch of 55 in 5 campaign - a drive to establish a elected British head of State within the next 5 years. This is all very optimistic, and the state of the Monarchy in Britain is pretty low after the recent revelations of Harry making racist remarks on a video and Prince Charles (heir apparent) stating he wants to play a more hands-on role.

It reminds me of the old joke about the optimist and the pessimist:

Pessimist says: "It can't get any worse."

But the optimist says:

"Oh yes it can!"

American politics, British politics, democracy in general is as I can see it: Broken. There is discontent in UK political circles over the question of Scottish Independence (for one), and the political apathy as of late puts the major parties in a dead heat. In the latest opinion polls, (9th January in the Sun/YouGov), Conservaties are 41% to Labour's 34% and Liberal Democrats at 15%. The 7 point gap is not too massive, and I would argue that the polls taken in the Sun has arguably a right wing bias anyway. There is a reality, I feel that there could well be a 'hung parliament' at election time. What does this mean for UK Politics?

It means that no party can command a majority and so it is to the Monarch's discretion who to ask to form a government. The Monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II, an unelected official could decide the legislative destiny and direction of the UK Parliament in the 21st century. Though the monarchy, some might argue has little importance (all she ever does is wave, see video below...) This threat is very real and very damaging to the notion of democracy.



Barack Obama spoke in his inaugral address of "remaking America". America is a country founded on the back of a bill of rights, on democracy, freedom from religious and political tyranny with liberty and justice for all. With the inaugration of a African-American as president, it is a sign that the social attitudes of even a country like America are shifting. They have elected a liberal as a President. With a Muslim middle name. Who is also mixed race. If America can see the error of their ways after the Bush years then I would argue there is hope for humanity yet. The notion of 'remaking America' has a personal touch to the Americans but it has a wider and global appeal. It is not Americentric. Instead. it is about the ideals for which the United States stands for, and exporting that to the world. Freedom for all people, the French have done it (5 times), the Germans, the Italians... and it is about being able for the people to govern themselves - either by proxy in a centralist government with representatives or small communities of direct democracy.

Of all the systems of government, as Winston Churchill once remarked "Democracy is the best of the worst" (or something to that effect). The system we have in the United Kingdom is not, if there is a hung parliament, a democracy at all. If no majority is found in a general election and the Queen chooses of her own accord who to form a government, then this is clearly going against democratic principle that the people have freedom. Freedom means choice.

We do not have that, here at home, with the realities of the British Constitution.

In 'remaking America' - 'America' being a system of ideals rather than a singular identity (see Jonathon Freedland - "Bring Home the Revolution") - we can take the inspiring message of hope, of change, of progress, of Obama, to the United Kingdom, and the rest of the world.

Bush: Smart, Articulate, Successful

So said Bob Tuttle, US Ambassador to the United Kingdom in the Telegraph.

What successes, I wonder? The Iraq debacle will always be his 'legacy', in my mind, and the global crisis that has soured the end of his second term.

Not to mention he is the most unpopular outgoing President (ever). The sooner Obama is sworn in, just a few more days come Jan 20th, the better.






Can't say I blame Connecticut, to be honest.

One thing, if anything I agree with Tuttle on, is that we should keep close ties with our American cousins. It is important for them, and important for us. I wouldn't have thought Sarkozy and France, Merkel and Germany would be too comfortable with us having a major role in European Politics, particularly as we weren't one of the founders of the Rome Treaty in 1957.

That is not to say I am a Euro-skeptic, far from it. Recent events in the financial crisis have shown that we do have an important role to play in International Affairs. Even though it was a big gaffe for Brown saying he 'saved the world' regarding the financial crisis... Even though he seems to be leading the way.

The only thing is... I'm not so sure if Obama and Brown will be best of friends, even if Obama thinks Cameron is a 'lightweight'.

It will be interesting to see how relations and UK impact on the foreign stage will play out in the next decade.


-- Post From My iPhone

Woolworths

In the news a lot lately, the financial credit crisis has affected UK retailer Woolworths forcing massive store closures.





Picture: Woolworths in Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

A sad state for a company in trading for over 100 years. I hear other Woolworths are doing ok however, but still sad to see. Apparently there's news circulating on BBC and other news outlets that Tesco or some other big company may buy out most of the failing stores.

I would post links but it's not so easy on the iPhone...

This store in particular though might be bought out by Iceland, who would be particularly interested considering the city's redevelopment scheme.

-- Post From My iPhone

Christmas Speeches

Every Year, Channel 4 broadcast an "alternative" christmas speech.

This year, it was by the Iranian President Ahmadinejad.

The Christmas speech, as normal was given by our lovely Queen.

Check the links above to watch the clips (if you're interested).

Basically, the UK Government has expressed their outrage at C4's broadcast because Ahmadinejad is "racist", "anti-semetic", "homophobic". That all may be, but that isn't the point.

The annual Queen speech, by contrast, is a patronizing debacle that only reminds us Britons that we are subjects, not citizens. It's hardly perfect either.

In the first case, the Iranian Christmas message is insulting because of its racial and extreme beleifs that give the impression if we don't consort to these beleifs we are not good people. That is, of course the idea with following religious scripture ideals, isn't it?

The second, the Queen's speech, is like I said, a reminder of the class-prejudice, pro-Aristocratic that just seems as downright patronizing.

We are all people created equal, before God, before the law. So let's ditch these religious and class - namely biased - speeches for Christmas. Let's have something secular, and meaningful. Something that is actually relevant and we can all relate to and subscribe in the 21st Century.

Something that is actually worth watching, anyway. Why anyone would want to be patronized by the Queen or lectured to by the President of a rogue, religious state I don't know. Where, in Iran, violation of its religious teachings are not crimes against our family but crimes against the state is a direct example why it is not worth listening to. The Monarchy, and all it symbolizes, is reason enough not to listen to it.

We are all equal. Maybe next year I could mock my own Christmas speech. Now that would be something.

Queues

A great British tradition.
Christmas Shopping at HMV.
Miles away from the counter!
-- Post From My iPhone

'Baby P' scandal rumbles on

The Baby P scandal rumbles on.

The head of children's services at the council at the centre of the Baby P controversy has been fired without pay.

Haringey Council said Sharon Shoesmith, who had defended her department over the death of the 17-month-old baby, had been dismissed with immediate effect.

The boy, who was on the council's "at-risk" register, died in 2007 with major injuries, including a broken back.

His mother admitted causing or allowing his death. Her boyfriend and Jason Owen were convicted of the same offence.

Reports the BBC

It has been well documented the Baby P case, causing rows in Parliament. Most shockingly is trhe injuries the baby suffered that the mother and boyfriend got away with:

April 2007: Baby P is admitted to North Middlesex hospital with bruises, two black eyes and swelling on the left side of his head.

May 2007: After seeing marks on the boy's face, a social
worker sends Baby P to the North Middlesex where 12 areas of bruises
and scratches are found. The mother is re-arrested.

30 July 2007: Injuries to Baby P's face and hands are
missed by a social worker after the boy is deliberately smeared with
chocolate to hide them.

This is just a few of the key events in the timeline

So what is there to be done? And exactly who takes the blame? Is it the Labour government, who since 1997 have decentralised government and given more power to local authorities - and in this shocking case, a local authority that failed to protect the welfare of a child. The responsibility of the child rests firmly on the mother I beleive but also government has a right and a duty to make sure that the wellbeing of the child is protected.

It would be perhaps, too extreme to wish the mother be sterilised for her negligence of her own baby - that would be taking it too far. And it seems that the amount of incidents that social services saw happen to Baby P meant that they should have acted.

There is a saying - Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc - after it therefore because of it. Baby P did not die because Labour decentralised government and the local authorities failed to act in the best interest of the child. It is not Labour's fault. But it did, indeed happen on Labour and Brown's watch.

Right, left and centre I beleive Labour are vulnerable with scandals like these and the effects of the credit crunch that we are having to deal with. The 'era of change' is something that will be translated to British Politics come the next general election. It does not help that the council in the case was forced to admit earlier this month that it had spent
£19,000 on media training for high-profile employees involved in the
Baby P case. The last thing this country needs is spin, it requires action.

The sacking of the official will help, but the sooner the Labour government can complete their inquiries, the sooner Labour can focus on the good things that they have done for the country in the last 11 years, in education and the welfare system and reducing crime. Yes its not perfect but things never will be.

Baby P, the economic crisis and the foreign policy of the UK are the major attacking points and weaknesses of Labour. It is not a time to dwell on past mistakes, scandals or tragedies, it is time to put things right. And that is what is happening here in the Baby P case with the sacking of the Sharon Shoesmith. So when you think about who you are voting for in the next General Election, vote Labour. It's the best of the worst. Brown isn't the most charismatic of Prime Ministers, but at least he's not lightweight like Cameron.

Child Pornography, or Art?

---

Wikipedia child image censored

Wikipedia allows readers to edit the content of its pages

A decision by a number of UK internet providers to block a Wikipedia page showing an image of a naked girl has angered users of the popular site.

The blocked page of the online encyclopaedia shows an album cover of German heavy metal band Scorpions.

Internet providers acted after online watchdog the Internet Watch Foundation warned them its picture may be illegal.

Some volunteers who run Wikipedia said it was not for the foundation to censor one of the web's most popular sites.

They also argued that the image was available in a number of books and had never been ruled illegal.

But the IWF, which warns internet providers about possible images that could be linked to child abuse, said it had consulted the police before making its decision.

The foundation's list of proscribed sites is widely used by British internet service providers to filter out images showing child abuse and other illegal content.

It's the first time they've done this on such a visible site David Gerard, Wikipedia volunteer

As a result, the addition of the Scorpions Wikipedia page has made it inaccessible to the majority of British internet users.

A spokeswoman for the IWF, which lists its members as including the BBC, AOL (UK), Ask and News International, suggested as many as 95% of British users would now be unable to access the page.

Wikipedia volunteer David Gerard said he and fellow users were angry that as well as the photo, the text on the page had been blocked.

"Blocking text is a whole new thing - it's the first time they've done this on such a visible site," he said.

Jay Walsh, a spokesman for the Wikimedia Foundation, which manages the encyclopaedia, said the removal of the page also appeared to have stopped thousands of UK users from editing articles on Wikipedia, which allows readers to self-edit its pages.

"It appears that there's a large number of editors - I can't say all - who appear to have access issues," he said.

The IWF spokeswoman said a reader had brought the image to the foundation's attention last week and it had contacted the police before adding the page to their list.

Wikipedia is one of the world's most popular websites. It is a multi-lingual online database written, edited and funded largely by its users. It has 2.6m articles in English alone.

(Source: BBC)

---

Child Pornography, or Art?

The Album the news is referring to, is Scorpions album "Virgin Killer" released in the 1970s - (access to wikipedia to find out if you can get to the page for UK users).

Reading further into Wikipedia's own entry on the controversy, I found that:

"The filtering is in response to the Internet Watch Foundation’s list of websites that host or contain content that have been reported to contain inappropriate images of naked children,(those under the age of 18). The IWF considers those images child pornography. However, in the United States (where the websites of the Wikimedia Foundation are hosted), it is not considered obscene under the criteria of the Miller test, which requires that an obscene work lack “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value” (as album art is used to “brand” the album, it is considered to be artistic)."

This then, brings the question of whether we can consider such controversial images as Art. The crucial thing to note between the US and UK system of laws is that the UK is not protected by any Bill of Rights and I would assume that the "Miller test" which makes this kind of controversial image legal in the US is protected by the first amendment, the freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The UK however, is not given this kind of protection in the constitution as we are bound to the 1998 Human Rights Act, which is subject to EU Human Rights legislation. There appears to be a case for a new bill, which is advocated by David Cameron.

I am not defending child pornography in any way, but freedom of speech, freedom of art and publication and expression is at the very foundation of our society. I have already looked into recently the criticism of Alan Carr, Russell Brand and Jonathon Ross in two blogs (One and Two).

Unfortunately because there is no real Bill of Rights in the UK protecting free speech (something that we really ought to sort out in the 21st Century), I cannot give any further analysis without viewing the image, which at the moment being considered "Child Porn", I could arrested for viewing and publicising the picture for something which is arguably art.

I would argue however, if it can pass the US litmus test for appropiate freedom of expression, then surely it can be accepted in our own society. The real crime here, is the true lack of any established bill of rights universally - if it can pass a western democracy with the power and stature in the world like the United States of America, then why not here in the United Kingdom.

Protect Art.

Protect Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression.

The argument against the publication or viewing of the album cover that it personifies and encourages child porn is akin to saying watching Texas Chainsaw Massacre will make us all like Edward Gein.

It would seem the media lately are having a particular moral panic and we cannot be trusted in the UK to use our common sense to say that such work (however distasteful) is art, not child It would not seem that the cover to Nirvana's "Nevermind" album is censored, it does feature a naked baby afterall. Is this "art" or child pornography? Art. And though it is apparently on the grey area whether I can look at the Scorpions album cover or not for legal reasons, I would argue anyway on the same grounds that artistic integrity should be protected, not just because somebody is offended by a particular image of particular expression. If the Virgin Killer album cover is censored for a depiction of 'child porn' and not art, then how the Nevermind album cover is free from scrutiny I will never know. I would like to think we can acheive some sort of moral standand. At the moment this smacks of nothing but double standards, and freedom of speech and expression has gone down the toilet because somebody raised a red flag because they were offended. Again.

If such arguments and events are a sign of things to come, then we have let the dark side of humanity win, and not our good side.

I would hope, that we can all use our common sense when it comes to moral issues and controversial subjects. Perhaps then we will actually get somewhere without seemingly pressing the panic button at every opportunity.