What Do You Think Today?

[Avatar]

Double post, but worth it I think.

And yet, and yet.........

Is this really important?

What seems to me to be important is not that we survive, but that life, the earth, the blue jewel of the cosmos survives us.

So...this is largely the crux of my own thinking...

1) It is surely the height of arrogance for us to assume that the only "good" climate range is one which suits humans.

2) There have been 5 mass extinctions known to history. The cause of them is largely irrelevant.

The point is that 99% of all species that have ever lived on earth are currently extinct.

The world (and climate) changes, 95-99% of all living species go extinct, and the remaining 1-5% become the evolutionary progenitors of all living things that arise in the subsequent age.

That is literally both how and why evolution exists.

Humans arose in a very specific "goldilocks" period in global climate. Now, I certainly don't dispute that what we have done in this time has indeed affected the environment. Pretty incontrovertible if you ask me.

But it would have happened anyway at some point.

Much as I dislike the fact that species are becoming extinct, (and I really do dislike it), the simple truth is that all species become extinct at some point. (Perhaps with some notable exceptions, like sharks and tardigrades. )

Will it be unpleasant and inconvenient and potentially fatal to us? Yes. But nature doesn't care. Nature doesn't care about anything. It will find a new equilibrium with whatever is left standing.

Sucks to be us.

--A

[Skyweir]

Well yes and no … we can hardly complain about what we have brought upon our own arrogant heads. I like your explanation aamof and I think it is the inevitable and unavoidable truth.

We can enjoy the planetary experience for as long as we get to - no real reason not to do that responsibly.

[peter]

So you both live in countries where the onus is on you to demonstrate your right to be there, whereas I live in one where the onus is on the state to demonstrate that I haven't.

That seems a funny way of looking at it. Nobody has ever asked me to present it in the random course of daily events. But if I want to, for example, open a bank account, or register for something, then part of the info I provide is my ID number as part of the process. It's not even mandatory to carry your ID, just to have it.

When a cop pulls me over, he asks for my drivers licence. And it's mandatory to carry that when you drive, same as it is there. (Actually, technically not even mandatory, if I'm not carrying it I have 7 days to present it IIRC.) It is mandatory to carry my firearm license if I'm going about armed of course though.

Can't see much difference really. Literally no impact on my life at all that I have an ID number.

--A

I think that this is the nub; it's not the having of ID documents that is so contentious as the having to carry it. If you don't have to carry it, and also already have means to prove your identity without it, then what purpose does it serve? Seems academic to me. In the UK the debate seems to take it as read that the requirement to actually carry the thing will be legislated.

On the climate change issue - we have pretty much screwed things for ourselves (or so it would seem), but we still have the potential to screw things for the rest of life (by pushing the temperature beyond the 'goldilocks' limits at which the chemistry of life can function). If we don't radically limit our carbon emissions, even in the face of our own forthcoming demise, then we will likely turn the earth into a dead planet. This is the point at which we discover whether we have the selflessness to rise to such a call - or whether in truth for the bulk of us, it really is 'all about me'.

There is a certain irony in the fact that it is that which has 'lifted us up' to a point where we set ourselves on a pedestal above the rest of the animal kingdom (how like an angel is man, as the saying goes) - our intelligence - that has wrought our very doom. And also that it is science that has ushered us to that doom, and is now the one shrieking in our ear that 'we are bringing it on ourselves'. Where, I ask, was your warning when you ushered in all of these technologies? Better we had stayed in the forests. (Those "arrogant heads" Sky, would be the ones I was referring to in another post - the ones that put us at the centre of all things.)

[Skyweir]

Fair enough re the “carry ID” mostly cuz police don’t really need hard ID these days - most LEA equip cops these days with the computational capability lol to identify you electronically lol

A lot of COVID management strategies could well do with being reviewed and improved. Some measures lack all defensible logic which serves only to put people off side.

And getting the public off-side is counter-productive cuz to effectively address this threat you need willing public support/compliance.

My son for instance, is a performer - and granted they’re all vaccinated - but on stage they sing, dance & sweat up a storm - and are in close contact - but to transit from the stage to their change rooms they MUST be masked. Now he has no real issue with masking as it’s been proven to limit spread of infection - but how does that make much sense. Also once they return to their rooms they are locked down - not even allowed masked to wash clothes in the downstairs laundry

The other day here we went to the pub to enjoy the inaugural piano “parlour” - well it’s really a well to do music room hosting a baby grand piano - but there was an excellent vocalist and bassist performing there.

The room was divided into lovely covered tables and excess attendees could sit on bar stools up against the walls. That was my choice. But to walk into the pub entrance and along the very quiet hallway you HAD to be masked. No biggy. But when we got to the parlour we could remain massless in relatively snug circumstances.

It just seemed nonsensical and we are so delightfully remote that we haven’t seen COVID for more than a 100km sq. Now ok if it’s a dense urban centre but we are a tiny rural township. But of course I comply as that is what is required and it’s no great imposition- it’s just stupid.

As to the planet absolutely - but I get your point on “progress” but science HAS been warning us of our irresponsible exploitation of resources - warning us of the finite nature of those resources, has been warning us of the need for sustainable practices and the need to address pollutants and reduce carbon gasses.

We in OUR arrogance have stuck our noses in the air and disregarded the call for responsible environmental management. We humans are egregiously self-centric - everything is ALL about me and my convenience/laziness and have cultivated an idgaf attitude about anything that does not directly ingratiate us.

I read a funny meme sometime ago that said “the difference between humans and animals is animals don’t make their most stupid leader” lol

I look at all of us - ScoMo is a total wanker, BoJo is a giant nob, well we all know what Trump was and still is lol

We are being lead to our doom (as you say) by morons who care more about profiteering than they do about you, me and least of all the planet.

Big business runs the global economy for one clear purpose - not improved living conditions for all, not for the long game - but for what I can make for me (and my shareholders) in the here and now.

Shortsightedness has got us where we are - we need global governance and leadership from these moronic heads of state.

How good does the Federation look about now? When the nations come together and collaborated to secure outcomes for us all, for our planet and for all myriad indigenous species who have not contributed to environmental decline.

In fact for the most part they have become the first victims of progress in perpetuity.

As we expand into natural habitats, as we rip out natural bush lands and wetlands and forests- weve directly attacked their existence. Cuz it’s always all been about us.

What little we can do - I’m of the opinion we should do - including corporate entities and big business. We all should make the effort that’s required. And science has lead us to this juncture. Science may well save the planet - but I have zero confidence science will save the rich diversity of natural habitats and the species who depend upon those habitats for their survival.

[peter]

Oh make no mistake Sky - science will save the rich....... The rest of us I have my doubts about.





And talking about the rich and arrogant brings me nicely into the news that Prince Andrew is to face charges in America for his purported sexual shenanigans carried out while staying with the now deceased tycoon Geoffrey Epstein in the nineties (?).

Whether he would attend such a hearing is of significant doubt, and as (I believe) the charge is being brought in a civil court, I don't believe there would be grounds for the US to request extradition (which would be embarrassing in the extreme). No doubt if her claims are true, Andrew believed that because this lady was of legal age in the UK (but not in the US where the alleged offense took place), she was 'fair game' (given that from from the photographs that are circulating, she seems to be a willing participant in the game), but in fairness he is denying any sexual activity with the (then) girl at all.

In the eyes of the UK press it seems to be 'game over' for Prince Andrew; he has already been forced to retire from any public duties, he has been dropped from over fifty of the organisations that formerly he had represented and even Prince Charles has apparently conceded that there is "no way back" for him, and that this is a problem without solution.

It goes without saying that Prince Andrew will never be incarcerated in an American prison - or any other for that matter - for what he is said to have done: he will never even be formally punished. But this does not mean he gets away scot-free. The loss of status, the indignity of his position, his pariah status amongst his own countrymen - all these will bite deep into an individual who was brought up from day one of his life to believe that he answered to no-one. If he did indeed commit this offense on American soil, perhaps the situation he now finds himself in will give him cause to reflect, that while the law may give him carte blanche in this country to do pretty much as he pleases, the same will not apply outside the protective walls of the British state. He and his family might 'own' the UK (and in terms of the land itself, in large part certainly do), but beyond our boarders they have to tow the line. Annoying for ones who regard themselves as 'raised by God' to the privileged position they enjoy, but there you have it. Into every life a little rain must fall........

(And briefly turning my attention to the lady bringing the accusations herself, I must confess to having little sympathy. As I note, from the photographs she certainly seems to have been a willing participant, enjoying the attentions of the rich and powerful into whose company she had fallen. One does not get the impression that she was brought in in handcuffs straight from the slave auctions of New Orleans. Had she not been where she was, one suspects she would have been enjoying the attention of the local lads just as much as she was the Prince's, the difference being that in their cases there wouldn't have been a story to be traded upon in latter life that could lift her out from behind the counter at Walmart.)

[Skyweir]

Aye Peter I think you have the right of it

Giuffre claims that Epstein trafficked her to the prince in the UK when she was 17 is one thing - but would depend on the law of the UK would it not? Whether she was a minor.

And if this is proven well that changes things as US law applies

Giuffre said Andrew also abused her at Epstein’s mansion on Manhattan’s Upper East Side, and on a private island that Epstein owned in the US Virgin Islands.

From the looks she was suing Epstein for sexual trafficking a minor from the age of 16. That’s pretty egregious especially as it looks like he was pimping out kids to the highest buyers.

Like you though not bring criminal charges (as you noted) an extradition order seems rather unlikely.

But she might have another agenda - and I suspect she is hoping that the publicity and public opinion will force an out of court settlement.

Now this may be poorly articulated but on the face of this description- it’s an odd basis for fear. Some would fear physical or even emotional reprisal/punishment but I’ve not heard of fear based on the financial status of a third party and how that could affect a victims standing at a relative dependents age. Perhaps it was based on a fear of losing out financially that would certainly go some way to understanding why a civil law remedy was chosen over the usual criminal law process. I might be doing Ms Guiffre a dire mis-service as I’m a little sceptical.

The complaint said Giuffre “was compelled by express or implied threats” by Epstein, Maxwell or Andrew to engage in sexual acts with Andrew, fearing repercussions for disobedience “due to their powerful connections, wealth, and authority”.

Though she is well within her rights to pursue reasonable remedy

The lawsuit, brought under the Child Victims Act, a 2019 New York State law that allows victims to temporarily make legal claims of abuse that occurred when they were children regardless of when or how long ago the alleged abuse took place, seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

Injustices and sexual abuses deserve to be heard and victims there day in court - and the mere fact that these abuses were perpetrated against children/minors is irrefutably heinous.

Giuffre’s lawsuit was filed hours after the administrator of a fund to compensate Epstein’s victims said she had completed the payout process, giving more than $121m to about 138 people.

I hope G Maxwell gets whats coming to her too

Maxwell faces trial in November on sex trafficking charges. She has pleaded not guilty.

A little background

Giuffre has a younger brother. It was reported that she had come from a "troubled home" and, from the age of seven, was molested by a close family friend. Giuffre told the Miami Herald that she went from being in "an abusive situation, to being a runaway, to living in foster homes." She lived on the streets at age 13 before getting abused by a 65-year-old sex trafficker, Ron Eppinger, in Miami. Giuffre lived with Eppinger for approximately 6 months.

At the age of 14 Giuffre reunited with her father and returned to live with him. Her father worked as a maintenance manager at the Mar-a-Lago property owned by Donald Trump, and also helped Giuffre obtain a job there.

In the summer of 2000,Giuffre first met Ghislaine Maxwell when working as a spa attendant at Donald Trump's private Mar-a-Lago club while reading a book about massage therapy. Maxwell, a British socialite and daughter of the late media tycoon Robert Maxwell, approached Giuffre, noted the book that she was reading, inquired about her interest in massage, and offered her a potential job working for Epstein as a traveling masseuse with the assurance that no experience was necessary. Giuffre has stated that after Maxwell introduced her to Jeffrey Epstein, the two quickly began grooming her to provide sexual services under the guise that she was to be trained as a professional massage therapist.

Between 2000 and 2002, Giuffre was closely associated with Epstein and Maxwell, traveling between Epstein's residences in Palm Beach and Manhattan (at the Herbert N. Straus House), with additional trips to Epstein's Zorro ranch in New Mexico and private island Little Saint James. In the Miami Herald's award-winning investigative journalism series "Perversion of Justice", Giuffre describes her experiences of being trafficked by Epstein to provide massages and sexual services for him and a number of his business associates over a two-and-a-half-year period.

Of the instance in March 2001 that Giuffre was allegedly trafficked to Prince Andrew, she stated in an interview that it was a "wicked" and "really scary time" in her life and that she "couldn't comprehend how in the highest level of the government powerful people were allowing this to happen. Not just allowing but participating in it." In court documents from a civil suit that were released from seal in 2019, Giuffre named several others that she claims Epstein and Maxwell instructed her to have sex with, including hedge fund manager Glenn Dubin, attorney Alan Dershowitz, politician Bill Richardson, the late MIT scientist Marvin Minsky, lawyer George J. Mitchell, and MC2 modeling agent Jean-Luc Brunel.

In September 2002, at the age of 19, Giuffre flew to Thailand and attended the International Training Massage School in Chiang Mai. Maxwell provided her with tickets to travel to Thailand, and instructed her to meet with a specific Thai girl to bring her back to the United States for Epstein.

While at the massage school in Thailand in 2002, she met Robert Giuffre, an Australian martial arts trainer, and the two married quickly thereafter. She contacted Epstein and informed him that she would not be returning as planned. She and her husband started a life and family in Australia, and Giuffre broke off contact with Epstein and Maxwell. For five years, Giuffre and her husband lived a quiet life in Australia with their young children.

In March 2005, while Giuffre was still establishing her family in Australia, the Palm Beach Police Department began investigating Epstein after a 14-year-old girl and her parents reported his behavior. The girl described being recruited by a female classmate from her high school to give Epstein a massage at his mansion in exchange for money wherein he subsequently molested her.

By October 2005, the police had a growing list of girls with similar claims of sexual abuse, statements from Epstein's butlers corroborating their claims, and a search warrant for his Palm Beach property.

Police detectives noted that the accusers all described a similar pattern where Epstein would ask them to massage him and then sexually assault them during the massage. When police searched through Epstein's trash, they found notes with the telephone numbers of the girls on them. One of the girls was called by Epstein's assistant while being questioned by police.

Giuffre relayed to the Miami Herald that she received a series of phone calls in rapid succession over three days in 2007. The first call was from Maxwell, then one day later a call from Epstein, both of whom asked if she had spoken to authorities, followed by a third call from an FBI agent who stated that Giuffre had been identified as a victim during the first criminal case against Epstein. She resisted speaking at length to the FBI until she was approached again about the matter in person, this time by the Australian Federal Police, six months after being contacted by phone.

So a few things - age of consent - how old is a minor in the UK & US

In Australia depending on the state the age of consent is 16 and adult is 18.

In Germany age of consent I believe is 14 I read once but that seems a little in the young side. And unless the US has harmonised state laws which I doubt didnt Jerry Lee Lewis marry his 13yo cousin anyway it’s moot - the point is laws differ in different jurisdictions.

So theres that.

Then theres the payments for sexual favours/sexual massages - so that’s prostitution - and prostitution is not exactly the same as sex trafficking - connected but usually involves *procuring* vulnerable people under a deception/offer of employment or some similar gratuity.

So all in all interesting.

[peter]

Yeah, Trump was always going to be in there somewhere!



As you say Sky, age of consent is 16 in the UK, but I believe 18 is the age that an adolescent technically becomes an adult. What age a child moves to become an adolescent, or indeed if there is a legal definition, I couldn't say. Again, the term minor is widely used but I don't know if it is legally defined in any way.

Good point about the out of court settlement - I hadn't thought of that angle. All in all a grubby affair in which no-one comes out in a good light at all.

[Skyweir]

A very grubby affair indeed and you are probably right there

[peter]

No doubt the long suffering citizens of Afghanistan will be much comforted by the news that Boris Johnson and his yes-man Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab are sitting down in the comfort of the Downing Street offices to hold yet another 'Cobra' meeting in which they will discuss ways of presenting our chaotic fleeing of from their country as anything other than the rout that it actually is.

Perhaps they'll take a leaf out of that American administration spokesman who said on the news that in terms of what the US went to Afghanistan for in the first place, the withdrawal was a reflection of its success (masterful bit of spin my man!), or maybe just continue with the line taken to date - grave and meaningless pronouncements that the "international community must come together to prevent the country from going back to where it was in 2001" when the Taliban first took over (and incidentally is exactly what is already happening).

The reality is that neither Raab nor Johnson could give a flying fuck about the people of Afghanistan (all those 'pillar-box' looking women) and the only thing they care about is getting the fuck out of Dodge with the minimum amount of political fallout that they can manage. The girls of one of the Kabul women's universities who reportedly told a Guardian journalist that they were being laughed at by the men as they attempted to flee the city, who said to them, "we'll be marrying four of you each in a few days time" - these girls mean nothing, no more than do the scores of people who had bought into the UK/US presence thinking it might mean something different for the future, and who now likely face reprisals from the incoming administration for their compliance with the'enemy'.

Apparently it was all they could do to get Raab back from the holiday (abroad) that he was advised not to take in the first place - and frankly they might as well not have bothered. Churchill once said that every man in Afghanistan was a soldier fighting every other man, except when they were occupied at which point they all drew briefly together to fight the occupying army, and from the pictures on our screens it would seem that this is still true. The regular forces of the Afghanistan security services (on which billions of dollars/pounds have been lavished in the last twenty years) simply melted away at the first sound of the approaching Taliban fighters, leaving the civilian population of Kabul to fend for themselves - twenty years worth of training and preparation dissolving into thin air as if it never happened.

And if the Taliban run true to form and the country becomes a breeding ground for terrorism and the spreading of fanatical Islamic indoctrination then so what - never a bad thing to have a few extra machine gun toting guys in turbans on the news in order to justify any encroachment upon freedom you want to push through parliament at any particular moment, is it?

All in all, nothing to get too excited about: nothing to see here.

[Avatar]

On the climate change issue - we have pretty much screwed things for ourselves (or so it would seem), but we still have the potential to screw things for the rest of life (by pushing the temperature beyond the 'goldilocks' limits at which the chemistry of life can function).

There are other life chemistries, including things that live around hydrothermal volcanic vents for example.

That's my point...even if only 1% of life can survive the new conditions, it will eventually evolve to re-populate the entire planet again, as it has done multiple times before.

--A

[Skyweir]

But not necessarily with human life.

[peter]

In a furious extraordinary session of parliament yesterday, MPs and former cabinet ministers of both sides condemned the precipitous withdrawal of the American forces from Afghanistan and the failure of intelligence of our own administration in not foreseeing what the consequences of this would be. Johnson, for his part, threw the blame squarely on Biden, further weakening the already pretty wobbly 'special relationship' between our two nations.

Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab has been singled out for the highest level of criticism for failing to respond to a request from his own department days before the final entry of the Taliban into Kabul, that he phone his counterpart in the Afghanistan Government to arrange for Afghani workers at particular risk to be airlifted from the country at that point. He was said to be 'unavailable', the call being made instead by a diplomat of lesser weight. That Raab was in the process of enjoying a luxury holiday in Crete while this tragedy unfolded was made much of by Kier Stamer in the House, and today Raab is facing calls for his resignation in the press.

Johnson made the observation that it would be unrealistic to believe that the UK could have continued to mount an operation in Afghanistan in the absence of the 'prime movers' of the occupation, the American forces, whose logistics and sheer force of numbers have made the whole thing possible, but this did little to assuage the anger and contempt that was heaped upon his shoulders by a House that had decided that he was in good part to blame. Pictures of people falling from aircraft, screaming at the gates of the airport and reports of beatings and raping will have done nothing to lessen the anger of the MPs and Lords, and comments that this is the biggest foreign policy disaster since the Suez Canal crisis of the sixties seemed not to wide of the mark. Ex Prime Minister Theresa May said our whole foreign policy was left in tatters and asked if our intelligence was really so bad that this outcome could not have been foreseen? Other commentators speculate that this will be the defining act of Biden's presidency - the act by which history will remember him. Stamer, threw the words contemptuously across the floor of the House that "Foreign policy can not be decided from the beach", a reference to the fact that both Johnson and Raab were on holiday as the crisis gathered pace. Johnson, flanked by his Foreign Secretary and Defence Minister, sat stony faced across the dispatch box as these accusations were hurled at them.

So all in all a pretty fractious affair and not one that Johnson will care to be reading about this morning. He is a man that likes to be liked - the champion of Brexit was an image that will have been much more to his liking than the dog slinking away from the vomit of our betrayal of the Afghani people. But he at least will live it down which is more than might be the case for the unfortunate individuals we have so badly failed in this soon to be Islamic fundamentalist state. Twenty years of careful nurturing of the Government, of overseeing the opening up of opportunities for women, of establishing a modern functioning polity, thrown to the scrapheap as if it were nothing, and the faithful and loyal individuals who were employed in the furtherance of this vision left to fend for themselves, to bear the brunt of a medieval fury that will soon rein down in blows of hatred and repression on their backs. A shameful day in a shameful period of our history. Taking back control eh? Tell that to the people of Kabul!

[peter]

Boris Johnson has come out in support of his beleaguered Foreign Secretary as the reports on his sins of omission become ever more damning and the facts of the story change from day to day.

While it was first reported that Raab had not made the telephone call to his Afghan counterpart requested by his office because it had been 'delegated to a more junior officer' (while Raab himself either lay on the beach on a sun-lounger or made other more demanding calls, depending on which account you believe), now it transpires that the call was not made at all. The rather weak justification of this by Raab's defenders has been, "Well, it wouldn't have made any difference anyway, so late in the day." - but this entirely fails to hold water. Such requests for such calls to be made are not made on a whim. It's not like you thinking about whether to call your mum in Bognor Regis - there are teams of civil servants working below Raab gaming the situation and coming up with advice and instructions which are fed in whatever direction that action needs to be taken in. The fact that the requested call was requested in the first place tells you it could have made a difference. Raab is on the coals over this and should remain there until he explains himself to the satisfaction of the public or is dismissed from office for gross negligence.

And there is no reason for Johnson to escape the fallout from this by sheltering behind the attention directed at his Foreign Secretary either. As renowned geopolitical expert and ex-political editor of Sky news Tim Marshall said on the radio yesterday, the offering of the PM that it is logistically and operationally nieve to think that in the face of the unilateral decision of the US to cut and run from Afghanistan, that the UK and other countries could have continued with the operation, this simply doesn't stack up. There are twenty eight other countries in NATO besides the UK and US and the suggestion that they would not be able to mount some kind of collaborative effort to maintain the administration in Afghanistan in the absence of the American forces is nonsense. The decision to go into Afghanistan was to any thinking person in the first place,a generational one. The establishment of a modern polity in which a country not mired in medieval thinking and tribalism, in which the people were going to be brought up to speed with how the modern world works and given power and autonomy over their own lives, both men and women, , was never going to be achieved overnight and it was cloud-cukoo thinking to believe that we could be in and out in a decade. We owed it to the people to stay there for the long haul, to see the job through even in the face of losses to our own forces. There was no other way to keep our promise to the Afghan people that we would leave their country a better place, that we would leave them with better lives and greater prospects for the future, than to be in it for the long haul. It required us to be there until this generation was dead and gone and until a new youthful generation, versed in the ways of technology and the modern world, had replaced it. But in this we failed.

And on the mechanics of the situation in Kabul itself (that situation being what it is and having to be addressed no matter what you think about the American decision to pull out) how to best proceed? The scenes of chaos that have reached our news screens in and around the airport are indicative of a people who do not believe that the people they have been serving are going to honour their commitment to ensuring the safety of those who have put their necks on the block in pursuit of the dream of a better society. Quite the opposite in fact. That the Brits are going to cut and run on the coat-tails of the US is a given for them, and they are deep in the mire and know it. You'd have to be gullible to the point of imbecility to believe that retributive actions on the part of the Taliban against those who sought to thwart their plans would be long in coming: that these will include hangings, torture, exemplary killings and public beheadings is an almost given and in the face of this is it any wonder that women are prepared to throw their babies over the barbed wire fences into the arms of soldiers just in the fragile hope that they might escape the savage storm coming their way? Against this backdrop I find the continual claims of both Johnson and Biden that "not one of our nationals will be left behind" sickening. "Our nationals" are about the safest people in the whole fucking city. The one group of people to whom the incoming regime will give second thought before they string them up and put them to the torch will be our people. How about we concentrate upon bringing those out who have supported us with loyalty and dedication before we start worrying about airlifting out our people? Or how about we get our act together and turn our backs on the US decision to pursue its isolationist dream (no better in fact under Biden than it was under Trump) and start forming new alliances with countries less inclined to throw those who have given them their free and full support to the dogs?

(Edit: On reflection I am disposed to ask, why the necessity for our diplomatic mission in Kabul to end at all? Perhaps this demonstrates a lack of understanding on my part, but have the incoming Taliban administration not indicated their intention to engage with the outside world in a manner not seen in their previous incarnation all those years ago when they first came to power? Have they not said that they have no intention of exacting reprisals on those who cooperated with the previous Western backed administration? Does it not behove us to retain a diplomatic presence in the country to see that they are as good as their word? Would not our presence there go some way toward limiting the worst of the potential behaviour which we might expect to see in our absence? Did not Donald Trump sign some kind of agreement with the Taliban leaders (I admit to having no knowledge of what the agreement contained) that might start as some kind of base from which to bring this potentially difficult regime 'on board' with the rest of the world? Are we not sending out entirely the wrong message by our flight from the country and the public statements of our leadership that we will not treat with the new administration? Could we not exercise more influence by remaining in situ to see whether they are as good as their word? Alienation of the new Taliban Government from the get-go is surely the one thing that will virtually ensure that the worst of our predictions (in respect of reprisals, crushing of the populace and future nurturing of anti-West terrorist activities) will come to pass. Could we not be making the rod for our own backs that a bit of diplomatic activity at this point might avoid? Clearly the ongoing presence of our military in the country is going to be difficult if not impossible, but might we not seek to avert the worst of what is likely to come by beginning to engage, even in the face of our clear unhappiness with the nature of the regime that has taken power. Instead by our words and actions we seem to be hell-bent on making the situation as bad as it can possibly be, not only for the people who will be left behind and the general population of Afghanistan more generally, but for ourselves in the future as the worst aspects of the incumbent powers are given free-rein by our absence.)

[peter]

Truly terrible scenes coming out of Kabul airport tonight after a day which saw at least four people killed in the crush to leave the country and dozens more injured and collapsing in the heat. Despite the best efforts of the UK and US soldiers to impose some kind of order the situation was clearly one of absolute chaos and confusion. Funneled into tight compounds with thousands trying to push their way in the results were predictable and disastrous and were, the distressed looking reporter told us, worsening by the day.

Interviewed at some length on the subject, ex Tory MP and a former serving soldier in Afghanistan Rory Stewart was scathing about both the UK and American withdrawal, but reserved the bulk of his anger for American President Biden. Stewart runs a charity that funds schools and medical centers in Afghanistan and told how he had personally received hundreds of pleas for aid in leaving the country from terrified employees of the charity, who he said were every bit as much at risk as those who had served in Government and administrative roles. Told by the interviewer that Biden was simply being consistent with his long term position of requiring an exit from Afghanistan he pooh-poohd this. When, he said, Biden had voted against the 100,000 troop number increase put forward by Obama, he, Biden, had said that what he wanted was a "light-footprint" in Afghanistan where the maximum results were obtainable by the least possible presence. This said Stewart, was exactly what he had, what he inherited; no American or British lives had been lost in years, the number of troops was down to the low thousands, the cost was minimal and yet in it's support of the regular Afghan army it was holding the Taliban at bay and supporting the fledgling Afghani democracy that certainly was flawed, but was a million miles better than the situation was when we entered and was continuing to slowly improve. In response to Biden's saying that it was down to the Afghan people themselves to fight off the Taliban he was scathing. What exactly, he asked, did Biden expect the Afghani forces to fight with? Not only had Biden pulled out the air cover which prevented the Taliban from just rolling their tanks and armoured vehicles down the roads toward Kabul, he had also pulled all of the contractors out who service the Afghani planes, leaving the soldiers completely exposed to hostile firepower. Thus had the forces of necessity abandoned their positions and melted into the hills, simply in order to survive. To accuse them by implication of cowardice and disloyalty was an insult of the worst and most unjustified kind. Biden had, he said, at a stroke by his unilateral decision to pull out (he only spoke to other Western leaders this morning for the first time, if that can be believed), reduced American standing in the world with results that would be decades in the undoing. Far from being "back" (as Biden had claimed at the recent G7 Summit), he had simply demonstrated that it was America first, the rest nowhere. There was every likelihood that the world would reap the benefits of Biden's totally unjustified and unnecessary withdrawal from Afghanistan for years to come in the form of loss of bargaining power (at best) and an increased and emboldened terrorism threat (at worst) as time goes on. Why was it not possible for leaders to understand, asked Stewart, that in places like Afghanistan you have to accept the imperfect, to understand that slow improvement even against a backdrop of problems and insecurities was better than the alternative of just abandoning the gains you have made. As he said, it was costing nothing, our footprint was minimal for a very good return, no soldiers were dying and things were getting better. Why in heavens name did we throw all of that up and bring all of this down on ourselves?

I'd very much like to see both Biden and Johnson put on the spot with these questions, but it ain't gonna happen!

[peter]

Bad decisions, bad governance, bad luck.

These three things will have a destabilising effect on a society and we in the UK have seen all three in the last half decade. Bad decisions in the form of the referendum result; bad governance courtesy of Boris Johnson and his cabinet of low-grade yes men; bad luck that we were delivered the savage blow of the Covid pandemic to our solar plexus just as we were accomodating to the former two on the list.

As a result of these undermining effects we as a nation are more fragile, more subject to disturbance and social unrest than we ever have been in my lifetime. You can see this, you can hear it in the language that people use - and the question is what do the Government do about it?

The most likely answer is that they tighten down the lid on people's freedoms; freedom to demonstrate, freedom to mix, freedom to espouse opinions that go against the official grain. This will never happen, you might say - the people would never wear it - .........but then you remember that they just did. And once you have proven that you can lock people down without them rising up in protest then it's really game over. Once confined to your house for a period, who among us, if they emerge to find soldiers on the street, is going to say them nay. The trick with people with guns is, when they say jump, to reply, "How high." And do you doubt that our Government would be capable of putting the army out onto the streets in the event of civil unrest? They came within an inch of it during the lockdown - the threat was always there, if couched in different terms.

But the thing with societal breakdown is that when it happens, it happens fast and often from quaters where you least expect it to emerge. By pure coincidence I have just finished a book by John Wyndham called The Kraken Wakes, where as a result of an alien invasion the sea level rises by significant levels such that much of the low lying land is flooded. Now the thing is, it isn't the alien invasion that does for us - living in the abysmal depths you never even see them - it's the migratory flow of people that causes the society to disintegrate. People from the flooded plains attempt to move to higher ground and meet with resistance from those who occupy these areas, who feel that their already stretched resources are under threat. Faced with widespread violence and sectarian hunkering down, the Government are totally unable to either function or to do anything to prevent the rapid descent into failed state territory. Given the warnings that were handed out to us in the last week or so by the IPCC, the book seemed not a little prophetic to say the least.

Now I'm not saying that any of this is going to happen, but in our current straits I think it would be remiss to imitate the ostrich and not even consider the possibility. And absolutely, if such a breakdown is a possibility, then it is a damn good idea to be ahead of the curve in the seeing of it coming.

[peter]

There will be many very angry animal lovers in the UK this morning as they read their papers and see pictures of Geronimo, the alpaca condemned to mandatory slaughter by DEFRA after testing positive for bovine tuberculosis, being dragged up into an animal transport box prior to his sentence being carried out. That the execution of the......errrr....... execution was handled in the most insensitive way imaginable (and in front of the media cameras to boot) was entirely typical of an organisation that regards itself as all powerful when it comes to to the rules pertaining to livestock and food production. DEFRA does not like or expect to see it's word questioned; as an extension of the State it expects its decisions to be adhered to and if necessary, will avail itself of the full resources of the State monopoly on violence (administered by the policemen that accompany them on such occasions) in order to see its diktats being observed.

Its a classic case of 'the State will not be denied' and is prepared to go to any length in order that it has its way, even if that length is entirely disproportionate to the level of offence that they are demanding satisfaction over. Take for example the case of the naked rambler; he spent six years in prison - six continuous years - because every time they released him he simply reverted to his old naked rambling ways of wandering around the countryside in 'the nip'. Taken to extreme the State could see you in prison for life over a parking ticket, and I have little doubt that it would.

On this occasion, a score of policemen were there to ensure that the august arm of the State was not denied iits due (its always good to have your violence dished out by coppers in bobby's helmets - brings the sympathy element a bit back to your side.....better than Kevlar suited RoboCops) and scuffles broke out. But while they may have won the day, the cost will be high. We are a nation of animal lovers and the upshot of this at a national level will be a feeling of revulsion at what they have done. The papers have got this and interestingly, the further down you go from the quality press (who make the simple observation that the mandatory slaughter has been carried out) down through the middle press to the red-tops at the bottom, the more the revulsion is stated. The Daily Star at the bottom of the pile is scathing of the State action in refusal to defer the sentence.


And yet, and yet.......

It was all so unnecessary. For nothing has the State made this mountain out of a molehill, because there are perfectly good vaccinations available that would entirely eliminate the need for the continuance of the slaughter policy at all. TB was a disease of social conditions; the factors contributing to its lethality were various and multi-faceted. Nutrition, social conditions such as overcrowding, overall public health, absence of treatments - all contributed to the death toll it exacted from society, and its defeat as a major killer was due to the improvement seen in all of these areas as the twentieth century progressed. Each one of the disciplines covering these areas claims the defeat of TB as an example of the success and value of its work, but the truth is that each one played its own part.

Focusing on the veterinary contribution to the defeat of TB, the policy of testing of all cattle on a biannual basis, and slaughter of any effected individuals has been the mainstay of their attack. There has long been developed a highly effective vaccine against bovine TB, but the decision has been not to introduce it, because it is always the case that if vaccination were to replace the slaughter policy, then a small but persistent level of TB would have to be accepted within the cattle population (simply because no vaccine is one hundred percent effective). This, given the improvements in all of the other areas upon which the thriving of human TB is dependent, would not be a problem in terms of causing a rise in the observed cases of TB in humans, but it would absolutely impact upon the veterinary profession itself.

What you have to understand is the huge - the staggeringly huge - resources that flow into the profession by virtue of the testing and slaughter policy. Huge departments within DEFRA staffed by veterinary officers, mapping and tracing occurrences, testing and culling of infected badger sets, dealing with full herd breakdowns (identified by the testing); all this is manna from heaven in the wage packets of the thousands of very well paid professionals who enjoy the employment opportunities it brings.

And in the veterinary practices themselves; huge proportions of their incomes resting on the biannual testing of every animal in the country (annual in the case of brucellosis testing), each farm requiring two visits, two days apart in order to complete the test, large setups often taking days and days to complete - it's gold, gold, gold! But if you introduce vaccination, all of this dissapears. The farmers buy the vaccine, self-administer it, and the jobs a good'un. No self respecting veterinarian advising Government could ever let such a golden goose be killed - he'd never be able to hold his head up at a Royal College black-tie dinner again!

No, there is way too much vested interest in the continuance of the slaughter policy for the profession ever to allow it to be stopped. And while it continues, the Geronimo's of this world will continue to be dragged unwillingly and in terror, up the ramps to their deaths.

[peter]

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation have declined to advise the Government in favour of the vaccination of all children between the ages of 12 and 15, saying that the benefits are too small to make the policy worthwhile. The ultimate decision falls to Ministers however and they are not best pleased about it. They like to have the scientists to shield themselves behind when making such calls, and this one is going to be particularly controversial. The JCVI know this and have decided, this time, not to put themselves in the firing line. Perhaps even they have decided that enough is enough?

Meanwhile the debate continues as to the extent to which people should be forced or coerced into accepting the vaccine, perhaps against their inclination. The NHS app has now been modified in terms of its 'terms and conditions' to allow businesses to use it as an effective vaccine passport upon which entry or refusal thereof can be applied. Where this was originally posited for use by nightclubs and other entertainment venues, its reach has quickly been extended to cover things such as employers requiring its presentation by employees in order to access their places of work.

This is problematic because it clearly moves into the realm of coercion, a person's life opportunities being severely curtailed if they elect not to have the vaccine, but Ministers seem sanguine about this. Michael Gove recently said that if people chose not to have the vaccine then they must be prepared to accept the consequences and even Dominic Raab, who has previously written a book entitled The Assault on Liberty, has no problems with it.

There have been a number of rulings in cases both domestic and European that have enshrined the principal that medical treatments should not be forced on people unwilling to accept them and that their health status should not be a factor in whether they are allowed to work (within reasonable limits). The use of vaccine passports in the way that has been suggested clearly infringes upon whether the choice is being freely made and moves perilously close to overt coercion and as such there could well be some significant legal challenges brought in the near future. The outcomes of such cases will have profound implications for all of us and we should await their happening with interest.

For my part, I've had the two initial doses and while they didn't make me overtly sick, I felt pretty grubby for a while after receiving them (the first one in particular). I don't feel particularly disposed to have a booster in six months and will probably decline to do so, but will, I expect, return for an annual shot, should one be offered. Professor Gupta, writing in the Times last week, said that she did not feel that the general rollout of boosters to healthy individuals was a policy giving of sufficient return to make it worthwhile and I tend to agree with her. Fine, I'm thinking, if you are in one of the categories at particular risk, but otherwise probably not necessary.

My particular views on the more general rights and wrongs of being told what I must and must not do by the state, I have made well known, and also my views on ID documents generally. Going forward, I've pretty much accepted that any form of international travel that would interest me is off the cards now, the costs and complications make it simply too difficult to be worth it, and on this basis I'm not really bothered about having a vaccine passport. Anywhere I can't go because I haven't got one, I simply won't go to, and if I get told I can't go to work then so be it. I've worked long enough and hard enough for any lifetime anyway, so it won't take much to encourage me to throw in the working towel. I'm not rich, but I'd survive until my pension kicked in, so fuck 'em. If you don't want me at work then fine - find some other clown to do your shit job for you!

[peter]

Peter walks up to the door of the new club in town called The Modern World. The doorman clips the red rope in front of him preventing him from proceeding any further. He's reading from a clipboard.


"Hmm...," he says, looking Peter, "You're not very young are you - not very trendy?"

Peter replies, "No."

The doorman consults his list.

"Can I ask, are you gay?"

Peter answers, looking puzzled, "No."

"Are you Black, Asian or from any other ethnic minority group?"

Again Peter replies, "No."

Are you a woman, transitioning, or do you identify with any gender not formally recognised on a UK passport?

"No."

"Muslim, Jewish, Rastafarian?"

"No."

The doorman looks doubtfully at Peter,

"You're not by any chance wearing women's underwear under your clothes are you?"

"No!"

"Then be on your way," the doorman says. "We don't want your kind in here!"

[peter]

The BBC news webpage reports that a women's rights demonstration in Kabul has been broken up using tear gas and pepper spray.

Now that kind of thing would never happen here would it?

[Avatar]

Good point earlier about the vast amount of employment and income that depends on the whole bovine TB thing.

The same is effectively true of anti-drug policies...I read once that ending the "war on drugs" would effectively remove billions from the economy because of the amount of jobs that depend on it.

--A