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?

Crime in schools

Much as I dislike David Cameron, I believe in giving credit where it is due.  Since he took office there have been numerous reports in the press about school pupils being punished for what might often seem to be minor infringements of their school's uniform policy.

My argument has been that classroom discipline is important, and that any attempt to improve discipline has to be considered favourably.  Neverthless it is now reported that the level of crime in Britain's schools is on the rise, with over fifteen hundred sexual assaults in one year. 

It is also reported that schools are dealing with unruly pupils by suspending them - sometimes repeatedly.  Teachers as well as pupils are being assaulted and in some cases seriously injured.  This may lead some of us to wonder how bad the situation has to become before schools move beyond suspension as a form of punishment.

What is not reported is the extent to which immigration is a factor in the school violence equation.  It is however reported that nearly forty thousand immigrant children are starting school this year.  Let's hope they all wear the correct school uniform.

Related previous posts include:
School uniforms: think before complaining

What is a patriot?

Jeremy Corbyn has received a lot of negative press coverage this past week, and in particular a lot of people are questioning his patriotism.  This is related partly to his being a pacifist, and partly to his failure to sing the national anthem at a service to commemorate the Battle of Britain.

I consider myself to be a patriot, by which I mean that I care deeply about my country.  Being a patriot is not the same as being a monarchist.  Jeremy Corbyn is a republican, but that does not make him not a patriot.  I can understand that someone of a republican persuasion may not want to sing the British national anthem.

To be fair, a lot of people who are not republicans also dislike the British national anthem.

Another issue of contention is that Jeremy Corbyn does not want Britain to maintain its non-existent stock of nuclear weapons. He has also opposed British involvement in various illegal foreign wars, and has even called for Britain to leave NATO.

Being a patriot is not the same as being an apologist for war.  If anything it is the opposite.  I will not vote to send British troops into illegal foreign wars, partly because I respect the right of every country on earth to determine its own affairs.  The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is a murderous organisation which interferes in the affairs of other countries.  (On reflection, that seems to be rather a silly thing to write, given that it appears to imply that NATO is itself a country, which it is not.)

At least one political commentator has compared Jeremy Corbyn with George Lansbury, who led the Labour Party from 1932 until his resignation in 1935.  Lansbury was a pacifist who believed that world peace could be achieved through nation's disarming rather than rearming - a point of view I find hard to take seriously.

But of course Lansbury was a communist, and so presumably wanted the forces of the Soviet Union to be able to invade Britain without encountering any military opposition.

If you are a patriot, then you love your country.  If you love something, then presumably you seek to protect it.  I want my country to maintain a high level of military capability so as to discourage other countries from going to war against us.  That is not the same as saying that I support war.  I support the defence of my homeland, and not the wanton destruction of other countries.

There is however little point in maintaining our armed forces if we are just going to sit back while immigrants take over our country.  I understand that, but Jeremy Corbyn appears not to.  On that basis, he comes across to me as no more of a patriot than David Cameron.

Related previous posts include:
A reasoned approach to war

Is there really just one race?

We often hear it said that there is only one race: the human race.  Other people assert that there are many races.  Which is correct?

First, it is reasonable to point out that people who maintain that there is only one race are almost always hypocrites.  With very few exceptions if any, they are the same people who support a multiracial society in which people of all races are expected to mix together harmoniously.  Quite how this is possible if there is only one race is never explained.

Second, no word in the English language is confined to just one meaning.  Therefore just because a word has one accepted definition does not justify us in regarding other definitions as spurious.

The meaning of any word can be deduced from the context in which it is used.  Therefore when we talk about the human race, then we are presumably talking about the human species.  When we talk about races, we are talking about different ethnic groups.  These groups are founded upon shared ancestry and on shared racial characteristics.

On the one hand, I am inclined to argue that both of these definitions are equally valid; but then it occurs to me that the people who talk about the human race never seem to talk about the canine race or the feline race.  Until they do, I will feel justified in concluding that their talk of the human race is foolish.  There are many races, and I for one am proud to be a member of the white race.

Related previous posts include:
The church of England, race, and paedophiles

This item on Western Spring is also of interest.