Terror in Westminster

A sufficient amount of time has passed since the terror attack in Westminster for me to feel confident about sharing my thoughts.

The facts are that a fifty-two year old Muslim man with a known history of violence drove a car onto the pavement while crossing Westminster bridge, deliberately ploughing into numerous pedestrians.  He then got out of his car in the precincts of the Houses of Parliament, and stabbed a policeman before being shot by another policeman.

The attacker – identified as Khalid Masood - died of his injuries, but by this point had killed four people and injured around forty others.

Unsurprisingly, the Prime Minister has publicly stated that Islam is not to blame.  It is also not surprising that she did not blame her own failings.  Prior to becoming Prime Minister last year, she served for six years as Home Secretary, and I have no problem in describing her as the worst Home Secretary this country has ever had.  Masood might not have perpetrated this attack had he been imprisoned for some of his previous acts of violence, yet we live in a society in which far too many violent criminals escape with non-custodial sentences - assuming that they are even prosecuted in the first place.

It is also not surprising that Mrs May has not blamed the belligerent policies of successive British governments.  She happily served in the government of the warmonger David Cameron.

The Mayor of London has received a lot of criticism for saying that terror attacks are part and parcel of living in a large city.  There are in fact around twenty cities in the world with a larger population than London, plus another fifteen or so of similar size.  How many of those cities experience anything like what happened in Westminster?

It appears that Londoners are now living their lives very much as before, and proudly so.  This is important, because terrorism normally affects us in two ways.  First, the incident itself causes death and injury and destruction; second, the aftermath is that everyday life is to some extent disrupted as a consequence.  In fact sometimes the disruption is the only consequence.  The Provisional IRA used to explode bombs in central London, but then they experimented with planting bombs at railway stations and then informing the police by telephone.  The station would then be closed, and the bomb would be located and made safe.  No one would be killed or injured, but the disruption to the rail services served as the triumph of the terrorists.

It is reported that a leading media figure has spoken sneeringly of the dead attacker, and has referred to London as the city that stood up to the Luftwaffe, but the comparison is naive.  The Luftwaffe sent aeroplanes which could be identified and shot down, and which were not easily replaced.  Masood’s deadly rampage may not have been as devastating as a Luftwaffe bombing raid, but it was achieved with very little in the way of resources.  Quite simply, almost any car in Britain could be used tomorrow as a murder weapon.

There is of course a link to immigration, and I cannot resist quoting Richard Littlejohn on this subject:

The politicians have opened the floodgates to mass immigration without insisting on integration.

They pretend every culture, no matter how medieval and barbaric, is worthy of equal respect.

This is the same Richard Littlejohn who to my knowledge has never once made a positive comment about any political party which seeks to end immigration, or about any political party which seeks to put pressure on immigrants to integrate with the wider community.  (If I am wrong about this, please leave a comment.)

The United Kingdom continues to wage war against Islamic countries, and is currently doing so under the pretence of fighting ISIS.  The downside is that ISIS has a fifth column operating in this country, and the next ISIS-inspired terror attack could happen tomorrow.  A Muslim man (or woman) driving a car could easily mount the kerb, and where will you be when that happens?

I find it astonishing that so many police officers in this country are happy to persecute anti-establishment politicians.  I have long since lost count of the number of incidents I have come across where members of anti-establishment political parties have been arrested or mistreated by the police without good reason - including the instance of a parliamentary candidate who was removed from a hustings by police because a Labour councillor did not want him there.

I do not blame anti-establishment politicians for the murder of PC Keith Palmer.  Does anyone?

Update: it is now being claimed that Masood was not linked to ISIS.  Even if no formal link can be established, then this does not eliminate the possibility that Masood saw himself as striking a blow for ISIS.

In defence of the internet

Day after day, the already deeply tarnished reputations of the filth-peddling, tax-dodging, terror-abetting internet behemoths sink lower into the mire.

Apparently above the law, they allow on their platforms the most depraved content, from extreme pornography to terrorist propaganda and images of child abuse.

These are the opening words of today’s Daily Mail comment.

I had planned to write today about grammar schools, but that can wait.  In my most recent post I described the internet as perhaps the most truly egalitarian invention in the history of the world, and now I feel moved to defend it against the invective of a national newspaper (which of course has a considerable online presence).

 

The opening salvo quoted above may make some fair comments, but surely lots of companies seek to avoid paying taxes, and surely almost anyone who has ever published anything could perhaps stand accused of peddling filth.

As for abetting terror, has the Daily Mail ever urged its readers never to vote in elections for terrorist politicians like Tony Blair and David Cameron?  The comments continues:

... rape apologists, anti-Semites and hate preachers receive taxpayers’ money when government-funded adverts appear alongside their YouTube videos.

Adverts for the Home Office, the Royal Navy and the BBC have been run beside videos by the likes of US white nationalist and ex-Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke ... Adverts for Argos, Sainsbury’s and The Guardian appeared next to videos by US preacher Steven Anderson, who praised a terror attack on a gay nightclub.

No definition of the term hate preacher is offered.

I am not aware of who the Daily Mail has in mind when they refer to rape apologists and anti-Semites, but I have often watched videos by David Duke in the past, and never found any of them offensive that I can recall.  As for Steven Anderson, I have just today watched some of his videos, and he comes across as very reasonable – although admittedly I have yet to watch any video of his which discusses homosexuality.

I am also interested to know how many people have ever died in attacks on gay nightclubs, and how that figure compares with the number of people who have ever been killed by the Royal Navy.

The BBC has for many years now advertised the life-ruining National Lottery.  In 2004 it also sought the imprisonment of Nick Griffin and Mark Collett – two brave men who dared to crusade against paedophile grooming gangs at a time when the mainstream media was happily turning a blind eye.

The comment goes on to make a few more reasonable points, but it is hard to avoid the conclusion that what the dark forces behind the Daily Mail really want is for the internet to come under the control of censors who will ensure that the internet never peddles any point of view other than that espoused by the mainstream media.

As a final point, the opening reference to behemoths is an allusion to a creature mentioned in The Old Testament.

Do we need universities?

A comment writer in a national newspaper has recently observed that information found on the internet may not always be correct.

Only last week this same comment writer wrote about his education at Cambridge University in the 1970s.  He recalls that some of the academics who taught him were right wing, while others were left wing.  He does not make it entirely clear what he means by those terms, but he does offer some clues.  For example, he associates left wing views with opposition to racial discrimination, and right wing views with opposition to inheritance tax.

He implies – or at least appears to imply – that some of the left wing academics sought unduly to influence the opinions of their students – in short, to brainwash them.  He does not imply – or appears not to imply - that any of the right wing academics indulged in any form of brainwashing.

He then argues that it is increasingly common nowadays for academics to be left wing.  He suggests that this may be a matter of self interest, as academics feed off public funds to a large extent, but surely that was no less true in the 1970s.

Also, even if it is true that British universities are increasingly becoming bastions of left wing brainwashing, then presumably their influence is limited – at least as far as political views are concerned.  I think it is fair to say that most of us change our opinions as we get older, and often do so in response to changes in our personal circumstances.  It is easy to adhere to one set of views when we are students at university, but it is equally very easy to adhere to different views once we have graduated and find ourselves in a different situation.

On the other hand, not all views are what we might term political.  I have read accounts of the persecution of Christian students in universities in the USA, and I often wonder if the same thing could happen in the United Kingdom.

I cannot be certain, but it appears that there may be a lot of brainwashing going on in science faculties of universities both in this country and elsewhere.  Without going into detail right now, I used to be active on a science forum on the internet, and based on that and other experiences I find it hard to avoid the conclusion that people with science degrees can be extremely narrow-minded and even bigoted.

Is there a law which requires universities to seek to educate rather than indoctrinate?  Are university academics required by law to grade their students’ work strictly on the basis of merit?  So far as I am aware, the answer is no.

Universities came into existence in the middle ages, when books were handwritten on vellum, and so were prohibitively expensive for almost everyone.  Public libraries did not exist, but universities had libraries where students could have access to books, and in a structured environment.  Teaching staff were on hand to advise students on which books to read first. The drawback to this was that the teaching staff were in a position to abuse their influence, which is not to say that they did.

We now live in a very different society.  For as long as I can remember, this country has had public libraries where people can access a wide variety of books, and where almost any book can be obtained on request.  Book shops allow us to buy books at prices which most working people can afford.

We also have the internet, which is perhaps the most truly egalitarian invention in the history of the world.  The internet allows almost anyone anywhere in the world to access almost any information, including information which brainwashing academics might prefer us not to have access to.  Of course what we read on the internet may not be true, but things we read in books or hear in lectures may also not be true.

In other words, the foundations of the university system are crumbling, and any sensible government should ask why they still exist.  I am not saying that there is not a reason, but perhaps we could at least be clear what that reason actually is.

The future of the House of Lords

Like many countries, the United Kingdom has a bicameral parliament, meaning that is has two chambers.  The lower chamber is the wholly elected House of Commons, while the upper chamber - the House of Lords or House of Peers - has a membership which is either unelected or else elected only by a clique.

Historically, the House of Lords was entirely unelected, and included hereditary peers as well as some but not all of the Bishops of the Church of England.  It enjoyed equal status with the House of Commons.

Then life peerages were created, and these were normally awarded either to senior judges or else to former government ministers.  Another change was that the House of Lords was given a reduced role in the process of passing legislation.  Generally speaking it can delay legislation but not obstruct it.

Further reforms at the end of the twentieth century removed most of the hereditary peers, but a minority remain, elected from among their fellow hereditaries.

As I write, the national press is reporting an apparent clamour to abolish the House of Lords.  Basically there are two options here.

The first is to have just a unicameral parliament with just one elected debating chamber, in which case a new use would need to be found for the chamber currently occupied by the House of Lords.  The second option is to replace the House of Lords with a second chamber which is either wholly or partly elected.

So far as I am aware, there is not and never has been a clamour for the former option.  The House of Lords serves as a revisionist chamber in which legislation which has already been debated in the House of Commons can be subjected to further scrutiny, and that is generally considered to be a good thing.

However the problem arises that there is a substantial lack of consensus on exactly how to replace the House of Lords.  Consider the wholly elected option.  To many people that might seem the only sensible option, but it is problematic.  If I were a member of the elected second chamber, then I would demand without hesitation the same rights as an MP in the lower chamber, and I think every other member of the upper chamber would do the same.

I wonder how many MPs would want the second chamber to have the power not merely to delay but also to obstruct legislation.  (I am not suggesting that the answer is none of them, but I certainly don't think it would be all of them.)

Now consider the option of a second chamber in which some members are elected and some members are appointed.  If I were an elected member of such a chamber, then I would still demand the same rights as an MP.  Granting me such rights would then require the government either to accord the same rights to the appointed members - in which case we might as well have a wholly elected chamber - or to try to engineer a truly mind-boggling situation in which different members of the upper chamber have differing powers.

I am not trying to lead the reader towards any conclusion other than that this matter is far from simple.

The economics of buying online

We make more people employed if we shop on line. One to receive your order, one to process it, one to search for it, one to load the van & one to deliver it.

This comment was recently left on the website of a national newspaper.  It related to a news item about the impact of changes to business rates on some independent shops in the town of Hatfield in Hertfordshire.

A lot of the comments are along the lines that the government is not on the side of small independent shops, but rather on the side of big business.  The comment cited above suggests that buying online makes more sense, and appears to refer to buying online from a large retailer.

My first comment is that I read somewhere a few years back that a pound spent in an independent shop creates more jobs than a pound spent in a supermarket.  I have no idea what evidence if any supported this assertion, and I merely repeat it.

My second comment is that an online retailer is not necessarily a large company.  I often buy things on the internet, and so far as I can make out I am often buying from small traders.  In fact it appears that a lot of the things I buy are sold by people trading from their own homes.

As an aside, I can think of one large online retailer from which I have never bought anything, and never plan to buy anything.

If I buy something from a large company, whether or not that be an online purchase, then I may well be contributing to the salaries of a number of people.  I make the purchase, and an accounts clerk processes my payment.  My order is printed in a warehouse, and a picker collects the item I have bought.  This is then taken to a packer who begins the process of actually delivering the item to me.  The eventual delivery could be made via Royal Mail or a private courier firm.

By contrast, if I buy something from an independent trader, then I would be contributing to that trader’s revenues, but I might not be contributing to the salary of a single employee.  Quite simply the trader might not have any employees, although delivery would presumably still be via either Royal Mail or a private courier firm, and so I would in that sense be contributing to someone’s salary.

Nevertheless the salaries earned by the employees of the large companies would derive not merely from my purchase, but from the purchases of many customers.  Also, it is likely that the large company will employ many of its workers on a salary of the minimum wage or not much more.  It is also questionable to what extent the employees would benefit from the company having a higher turnover.  Higher turnover might well result in the company recruiting more staff, but that is not the same as improving the salaries.

By contrast, if I buy from an independent retailer, then I am tending to increase the income of that trader.  The trader might scrape by or might enjoy a substantial income.  If the trader employs any staff, then he or she has an obvious incentive to pay above the minimum wage.

A large company can more easily cope with a high staff turnover than a small business.  If you have a business and employ just one person, then you are likely to be seriously inconvenienced if that one employee leaves to get another job.  By contrast, a company with hundreds of employees will tend to find the loss of one employee to be less of an inconvenience.

This is of course a generalisation, and I accept that not all small businesses pay good wages – but that is in part because not all of them can afford to.