Communism in Oxford and also in central London

It is reported that a student at Oxford University has avoided arrest and prosecution for publishing and distributing a magazine which claims to champion the cause of free speech.

Officers from Thames Valley Police approached the magazine stand while it was unattended and took all 150 copies ‘to assess whether the content was obscene’.

A spokesman said they were warned that a magazine containing ‘offensive and distressing’ material was being distributed. An officer deemed it was not obscene and arranged for the issue to be left at a university college. The student union and university declined to comment.

I have not read the magazine in question, and so I cannot comment as to its contents.  Nevertheless I have some questions.  First, I would like to know why the police took 150 copies of the magazine in order to assess its content.  Surely they could have taken just one copy.  Taking all of them suggests that they were treating the publishers of the magazine as if they were guilty until proven innocent.

Second, I would like to know why the student union felt it necessary to report the magazine to the police.  If they deemed that some part of it was illegal, then maybe they could tell us what exactly they thought was illegal.

It is also reported that a communist demonstration in central London turned violent.  

The protesters tried to enter the railway station, which is the UK terminal for Eurostar services to Europe, to call for a relaxation of borders.

However, they were stopped by officers from the Met and British Transport Police as they tried to get on to Eurostar platforms and the demonstration turned violent when paint and smoke bombs were thrown.

In other words, the communist police found themselves in a fight with another bunch of communists who objected to the establishment being less than wholehearted in its dedication to the communist ideal.

I can't help but wonder how many of the communist thugs who stormed the Eurostar terminal studied at British universities dominated by communist idiots who appear to disregard free speech.

Related previous posts include:

Communism in Oxford

Do Oxford and Cambridge matter that much?

Should we safeguard our heritage?

There is a campaign in the town where I live at the moment.  I am not sure of the exact details, but it appears that a historic building is under threat.  I don't know how old the building is, and neither do I greatly care.  This is not because I do not care at all about Britain's heritage, but rather because I have a strong sense of futility.

Many years ago I was reading a magazine which reported a survey into people's attitudes to Britain's heritage.  The magazine's editor noted with regret that a black woman who was interviewed said That is the white man's - appearing to imply that she did not care about it.

I do sometimes feel a surge of pride when looking at - for example - a Victorian railway bridge.  Although it is unlikely that any of my ancestors helped to build it, I know that British minds designed it, and that British hands built it.    Immigrants who look at the same bridge are unlikely to feel that sense of pride, but they might nevertheless admire the achievement.

But do they?  I have just looked at the websites of English Heritage and the National Trust, complete with photographs of children visiting their various properties.  Just one photograph features a non-white child.

Being indifferent to our heritage is not the same as being opposed to it, but I cannot help but wonder if an ongoing policy of open door immigration to this country is really conducive to protecting our historic buildings.  Also, the fact that ISIS fighters are destroying historic monuments in Iraq makes me wonder if the same thing could happen here.

But then I have to reflect that this is ultimately an issue of little importance in the great scheme of things.  As I write, a Slovakian man is about to be sentenced for the particularly vicious rape of a teenage girl in Leeds.  I've got a good idea.  Maybe the authorities should lock him inside a historic building, and then knock it down.

In praise of mathematics

It is reported that this year's Scottish Highers maths exam was too difficult.  The Daily Mail quotes two questions, one of which concerns a frog and a toad in a well, while the other concerns a crocodile swimming across a river.

The frog and toad question is one which is at about the level of a year eleven pupil, although a lot of younger pupils would be able to tackle it if they have a good grasp of mathematics.  Access to a computer spreadsheet helps as well.  If I've got it right, the toad escapes from the well on the twelfth day, whereas the frog never rises above two feet below the top of the well.

The crocodile question is far harder, and the reader might find this video helpful.

I was pleased I could make sense of it.

A lot of the comments on Mail Online are to the effect that no one needs to understand this kind of mathematics, and it is true that most people do not - but most people do not work in engineering or accountancy.

Actually you do not need to be a mathematical genius to be an accountant.  At the heart of accountancy is the trial balance, which is two lists of numbers.  Each list should add up to the same total as the other.  You do not need to be able to understand complex algebra to add up two lists of numbers.  Nevertheless accountancy is often complicated, and requires tenacity.  Therefore someone who can leave school able to tackle the crocodile question would probably be better prepared for a career in accountancy than someone like myself who could only manage the frog and toad question.

As for engineering, it was reported during Tony Blair's tenure in Downing Street that many first year engineering students could not cope with the mathematical content of their courses - and these people are presumably now in charge of building the nation's infrastructure.

If exams are getting harder under the present government, then that is surely to be welcomed.  Then again, this is Scotland we are talking about, and so I'm not sure that David Cameron can take any credit whatever for this.

The demonisation of Josie Cunningham

Josie Cunningham is a young British woman who is famous for having had her breasts enlarged at public expense.  I can understand that this might not endear her to people who are waiting for hip replacement surgery, but on the other hand it was not by her choice that the taxpayer paid for her breast enlargement.  You might like to remember that next time you vote in an election.

It is now reported that Josie Cunningham- a mother of three - had an abortion after being denied cosmetic surgery on the grounds that she was pregnant.  Apparently she wanted the cosmetic surgery so that she could pursue a career as a pornographic actress. At the time of writing, the comments in the newspaper are overwhelmingly negative.

Since 1967, around eight million babies have been slaughtered in abortion clinics in this country.  Does anyone know how many of those babies died so that their mothers did not have to adjust their career plans?

We live in a society in which we are expected to condemn murder, except when our political masters want us either to condone it or ignore it. Josie Cunningham is a product of a society saturated with hypocrisy, and she is no more worthy of demonisation than millions of other people.

Related previous posts:
A stupid fuss over immigrant abortions
Do we really want what we vote for?