Dear MP
The views expressed are mine. Three pieces of legislation need to be introduced, preferably before the next election.
1/ Voters need to be able to force the immediate resignation of "their" MP.
2/ MPs need to be able to force the immediate resignation of any MP.
3/ MPs need to be able to force any Minister or Deputy Minister to relinquish their office.
Extremely careful consideration needs to be given as to how these three different events can be accomplished. In blogs about politics that can be found via http://blrcfwg.blogspot.com I have made several suggestions regarding this. Politics One on 07 July particularly applies.
Frederick W Gilling Tuesday 15 December 2009
Tuesday 15 December 2009
Friday 27 November 2009
Complaint ABOUT the Press Complaints Commission
This is Part Seven of, Complaints about, Criticism of, and Suggestions to, the PCC.
In three different letters to me from PCC officials they each referred, in some way, to me rejecting an offer of an apology. At no stage did I reject such an offer, when, finally the Editor offered an apology he used the exact words that I had suggested, these words were couched in as mild a way as I could think of, they were as given in his second email of 18 October 2007 and were, I quote,"We are sorry for any worry this error may have caused the author". The only part of the offer I rejected was the part that offered to publish The Ice Canyon, part of my comment on that part of the offer was that it was ludicrous, at another stage I might have said it was perverse. Any fair minded person who had all of the facts at their disposal would, I am sure, agree with me.
Such an offer was certainly not "In the spirit of the Code". Some of the PCC's secretariat must have been aware of the facts, I wonder if the Commission Members were when they judged my case?
The following lines are from letters sent to me by the PCC office and administration staff handling my complaint, some of them have been mentioned previously.
A "I must now consider this correspondence closed"
B " I have now examined the file of your complaint. The Commission will not be revisiting it further"
C " ----- I should tell you that this letter will mark the end of the correspondence from the PCC ----- "
D "It is not for me to answer questions about the details of your correspondence with the Secretariat"
How does one reconcile these statements with the PCC's aim of Fair?
In one letter a senior PCC official referred to the "protracted correspondence", to the best of my knowledge no mention of the length of the correspondence was made to the Editor. It should be firmly borne in mind that it took the Editor some 54 days to, sort of, acknowledge the inaccuracy, and about 72 days to offer any form of regret, these periods being totally at variance with the time allowed in the Code.
One part of the Code reads "It is essential that an agreed code be honoured not only to the letter but in the full spirit". In my opinion the Editor's stance was defensive in his first letter to me and this attitude persisted for 70 odd days until he used the word sorry.
Also in my opinion "in the full spirit" just has to include the moral aspects of a case. The review was sarcastic, and had a certain tenor to it which the inaccuracy fully supported. The Editor sang the praises of the man who wrote the review, quote, "I have no reason to doubt the integrity of his report". This in spite of the major inaccuracy.
Returning again to the "amalgamated" email, I think that displayed lack of the total rigour that should be expected from a body charged with the self regulation of an industry. From the various letters to me about that matter I am forced to accept the feeling that this lack of rigour was condoned by members of the secretariat whose opinion was sought. It is interesting to quote from the Code " ----- sets the benchmark for those ethical standards ----- " I venture to suggest that amalgamating two important emails into one, without notifying the person who had to read it, did not meet any ethical standard.
On page three of the PCC booklet "How to Complain" a paragraph ends with " You will be sent copies of all relevant documents" I did not receive copies of all relevant documents until asking for them after the decision had been made on my complaint. At the time I was trying very hard to become acquainted with anything that pertained to my complaint as I just could not, even remotely, understand how the Commission came to their decision. A clear cut inaccuracy had occurred, the Editor was not required by the PCC to do anything about it and, to the best of my knowledge, has done nothing about it. I would like a proponent of self regulation to explain to me why it should be supported. A paper prints a major inaccuracy, it is pointed out to them, they, without delay, admit the error by post to the complainant and in the next edition a correction is printed. What could be simpler than that? Basically that is what the Code wants.
Regarding the decision I assumed, incorrectly, that Commission Members would sit round a table and discuss my complaint. I found out subsequently that my case was considered by Members individually, presumably mainly by post or telephone. I understand that they are presented with a draft resolution prepared by the office. I had occasion to comment on how the decision was presented to me, for example it was not dated or signed. Later I was informed that the office drafted the wording for the decision. The office also decide if sufficient cause is raised to warrant the case being judged again, it is quite clear that the office wields a lot of power. It should have been enough power for them, the office, to have required the Editor to publish a simple correction in the next edition of his paper. That would have saved, say, ninety percent of the subsequent protracted correspondence, would have followed the Code, would have enhanced the standing of the PCC in my eyes and would have been a perfect example of their often repeated claim regarding the effectiveness of the self regulation of the publishing industry. It would certainly have saved me a great amount of time as well as saving me and my close family a great deal of worry. Would any member of the PCC like to point out, to me, the harm that could have been caused by them requiring the Editor to print a simple correction without delay?
This is the action specified in the Code. I cannot think of any great harm to anyone.
Some suggestions for the PCC to consider.
Agree to be bound by the Freedom of Information Act.
Agree to the appointment of an Ombudsman
Supply all parties to a complaint with copies of all documents, and transcripts of any conversations concerning the complaint.
Require any party connected with the complaint to immediately comply with any provision in the Code pointed out to them, clarified if necessary, by the PCC.
Immediately launch a nation wide enquiry as to what members of the public find offensive, or unworthy of publication in the nation's newspapers and magazines. If there is overwhelming evidence that changes are needed then the PCC, without reference to the people who are paying them, should incorporate these changes, government permitting, into the Code.
If there is not one already take steps to have a legally enforceable "Right of Reply" created.
These suggestions, and possibly others, if implemented, should go a long way towards
giving credence to the PCC's assertions regarding the effectiveness of self regulation. They should also go a long way towards making the UK's publishing industry an example, not only for the world, but also as a step forward in establishing what is, in general terms, acceptable behaviour among our population.
This seven part blog on the PCC is now concluded.
Frederick W Gilling Friday 27 November 2009
In three different letters to me from PCC officials they each referred, in some way, to me rejecting an offer of an apology. At no stage did I reject such an offer, when, finally the Editor offered an apology he used the exact words that I had suggested, these words were couched in as mild a way as I could think of, they were as given in his second email of 18 October 2007 and were, I quote,"We are sorry for any worry this error may have caused the author". The only part of the offer I rejected was the part that offered to publish The Ice Canyon, part of my comment on that part of the offer was that it was ludicrous, at another stage I might have said it was perverse. Any fair minded person who had all of the facts at their disposal would, I am sure, agree with me.
Such an offer was certainly not "In the spirit of the Code". Some of the PCC's secretariat must have been aware of the facts, I wonder if the Commission Members were when they judged my case?
The following lines are from letters sent to me by the PCC office and administration staff handling my complaint, some of them have been mentioned previously.
A "I must now consider this correspondence closed"
B " I have now examined the file of your complaint. The Commission will not be revisiting it further"
C " ----- I should tell you that this letter will mark the end of the correspondence from the PCC ----- "
D "It is not for me to answer questions about the details of your correspondence with the Secretariat"
How does one reconcile these statements with the PCC's aim of Fair?
In one letter a senior PCC official referred to the "protracted correspondence", to the best of my knowledge no mention of the length of the correspondence was made to the Editor. It should be firmly borne in mind that it took the Editor some 54 days to, sort of, acknowledge the inaccuracy, and about 72 days to offer any form of regret, these periods being totally at variance with the time allowed in the Code.
One part of the Code reads "It is essential that an agreed code be honoured not only to the letter but in the full spirit". In my opinion the Editor's stance was defensive in his first letter to me and this attitude persisted for 70 odd days until he used the word sorry.
Also in my opinion "in the full spirit" just has to include the moral aspects of a case. The review was sarcastic, and had a certain tenor to it which the inaccuracy fully supported. The Editor sang the praises of the man who wrote the review, quote, "I have no reason to doubt the integrity of his report". This in spite of the major inaccuracy.
Returning again to the "amalgamated" email, I think that displayed lack of the total rigour that should be expected from a body charged with the self regulation of an industry. From the various letters to me about that matter I am forced to accept the feeling that this lack of rigour was condoned by members of the secretariat whose opinion was sought. It is interesting to quote from the Code " ----- sets the benchmark for those ethical standards ----- " I venture to suggest that amalgamating two important emails into one, without notifying the person who had to read it, did not meet any ethical standard.
On page three of the PCC booklet "How to Complain" a paragraph ends with " You will be sent copies of all relevant documents" I did not receive copies of all relevant documents until asking for them after the decision had been made on my complaint. At the time I was trying very hard to become acquainted with anything that pertained to my complaint as I just could not, even remotely, understand how the Commission came to their decision. A clear cut inaccuracy had occurred, the Editor was not required by the PCC to do anything about it and, to the best of my knowledge, has done nothing about it. I would like a proponent of self regulation to explain to me why it should be supported. A paper prints a major inaccuracy, it is pointed out to them, they, without delay, admit the error by post to the complainant and in the next edition a correction is printed. What could be simpler than that? Basically that is what the Code wants.
Regarding the decision I assumed, incorrectly, that Commission Members would sit round a table and discuss my complaint. I found out subsequently that my case was considered by Members individually, presumably mainly by post or telephone. I understand that they are presented with a draft resolution prepared by the office. I had occasion to comment on how the decision was presented to me, for example it was not dated or signed. Later I was informed that the office drafted the wording for the decision. The office also decide if sufficient cause is raised to warrant the case being judged again, it is quite clear that the office wields a lot of power. It should have been enough power for them, the office, to have required the Editor to publish a simple correction in the next edition of his paper. That would have saved, say, ninety percent of the subsequent protracted correspondence, would have followed the Code, would have enhanced the standing of the PCC in my eyes and would have been a perfect example of their often repeated claim regarding the effectiveness of the self regulation of the publishing industry. It would certainly have saved me a great amount of time as well as saving me and my close family a great deal of worry. Would any member of the PCC like to point out, to me, the harm that could have been caused by them requiring the Editor to print a simple correction without delay?
This is the action specified in the Code. I cannot think of any great harm to anyone.
Some suggestions for the PCC to consider.
Agree to be bound by the Freedom of Information Act.
Agree to the appointment of an Ombudsman
Supply all parties to a complaint with copies of all documents, and transcripts of any conversations concerning the complaint.
Require any party connected with the complaint to immediately comply with any provision in the Code pointed out to them, clarified if necessary, by the PCC.
Immediately launch a nation wide enquiry as to what members of the public find offensive, or unworthy of publication in the nation's newspapers and magazines. If there is overwhelming evidence that changes are needed then the PCC, without reference to the people who are paying them, should incorporate these changes, government permitting, into the Code.
If there is not one already take steps to have a legally enforceable "Right of Reply" created.
These suggestions, and possibly others, if implemented, should go a long way towards
giving credence to the PCC's assertions regarding the effectiveness of self regulation. They should also go a long way towards making the UK's publishing industry an example, not only for the world, but also as a step forward in establishing what is, in general terms, acceptable behaviour among our population.
This seven part blog on the PCC is now concluded.
Frederick W Gilling Friday 27 November 2009
Wednesday 25 November 2009
Complaint ABOUT the Press Complaints Commission
This is Part Six of, Complaints about, Criticism of, and Suggestions to, the PCC.
20/ As explained in the previous blog I was looking at events of 18 October from the perspective of different viewpoints dependent on information supplied at later dates. This is from perspective C which arose from new information supplied to me on 06 February 2008 by the Assistant Director of the PCC. As a consequence of that information I was in the position of being able to put the events of that critical day in the correct chronological order.
Firstly the Complaints Officer appointed to handle my complaint received an email from the Editor "sent Thu 18/10/2007 at 11:41", this email was in fact addressed to another PCC staff member who had written to the Editor while the Complaints Officer was on leave.
The essential part of this email from the Editor read; "I am unwilling to offer anything further to the suggestions I made to [name supplied] in my email dated 02 October 2007 and would welcome you asking the Commission to come to a view on the complaint". I note that those suggestions did not specifically acknowledge the inaccuracy and had no mention of regret.
The Complaints Officer then composed and sent off the "intervening" email to the Editor. This was timed at 14:50 and I quote from it; "I appreciate that you are not willing to offer anything further on this matter, and will of course put this case before the Commission for its view.
Before I do so however, I wonder whether you might be willing to outline the wording of the correction that you are willing to offer, in order that the complainant, and of course the Commission, are aware of the exact terms of your offer"
I note that the words quoted above infer that the exact terms of the offer on which the Editor was "unwilling to offer anything further" were not known. I also note that the Complaints Officer had told him, "I appreciate that you are not willing to offer anything further on this matter, and ----- "
At 16:53 the Editor emailed his reply to the Complaints Officer's "intervening" email, I quote parts of this letter:
"The wording of the correction I am prepared to offer would be on the lines of ----- "
" ----- incorrectly stated that the longest story ----- "
"We are sorry for any worry this may have caused the author"
This was the first direct admission of the inaccuracy and the first mention of any form of regret.
In general this was a drastic departure from his offer of 02 October and from his statement in his first email that morning. This I venture to think was due to the intervening email from the Complaints Officer.
The Complaints Officer then amalgamated the two letters from the Editor into one, addressed specifically to her, even though the first one had been addressed to another person. I fail completely to see any reason to amalgamate two emails, particularly the two mentioned and even more particularly because the second one was prompted by an intervening email, of which I knew nothing. The three emails were heavily inter related and should have been presented as separate entities.
At some time shortly after receiving the amalgamated email, and before I had been told that it was an amalgamation of two emails, I marked two places on it and wrote on it in red ink "this is one offer and this is another". I would not have known anything about the two letters being amalgamated unless I had queried the plural implied by the use of the word emails and as I composed and typed these last words I had the thought, "and I wonder who else knew about them"? Did the Complaints Officer talk about what she had done or was about to do? And yet another thought "were the Commission Members told that it was an amalgamated letter"? If, that is, it was presented to them, or for that matter if any part of it was quoted by the Complaints Officer in support of a draft resolution to my complaint
Even when writing to me, on 10 December 2007, and telling me that there were two emails from the Editor on 18 October, she did not send me copies of the individual letters, nor indeed mention her intervening letter.
Another point that worried me, and still does, concerns a phone conversation between the Complaints Officer and the Editor, in respect of this I quote from a letter from the Complaints Officer to me dated 22 November 2007; "I have had one conversation with [name given] about this case. It took place on 25 September, and [name given] indicated his intentions to revise his offer to the terms set out in his email of 2 October"
On 24 November I wrote and asked "Am I right in assuming that the conversation was on a telephone and that the call had been initiated by [Editor named]"? This question was answered on 27 November by the Complaints Officer as follows, "You are correct in your assumption that the conversation was by telephone. From my recollection, the conversation was initiated by
Mr[Editor named]".
The last paragraph of this letter to me, from the Complaints Officer, finished with the sentence
"I must now consider this correspondence closed".
The situation had developed that answers to questions that I had asked just raised more questions. The answer to the question about the conversation did just that, and in my mind I feel certain that aspect of establishing the facts about the phone call have not been answered. At that particular point in time I cannot think of a reason for the Editor to phone the Complaints Officer but I can think of a reason for her to phone him, which could well be to do with the PCC's aim of "fast" Later a copy of the Complaints Officer's jotted down notes regarding the phone call was sent to me, they were very brief and not easy to read.
It is a source of amazement to me that several senior members of the PCC secretariat, including the Independent Charter Commissioner, could not fault the way my case had been handled.
The Complaints Officer amalgamated two critical email into one and did not mention it to me, she also cannot recall exactly who initiated a phone call, did not later send me copies of the two emails that she had amalgamated, did not tell me about her "intervening" email and accidentally omitted to send me a copy of it. I have already mentioned what I term grey areas in one letter, I have no reason to withdraw that statement, and will add to it by stating the thought that at least two of her letters were potential minefields to me, this is not to say they were intended to be but that is how I came to view them.
Before closing this part of my blog on the PCC I wish to record my appreciation of the letter, written to me on 06 February 2008, by the Assistant Director in charge of the Complaints Department. He supplied the information and copies of documents that filled in gaps in my knowledge. However I wish to comment on several aspects of his letter, part of which read "I should tell you that this letter will mark the end of the correspondence from the PCC".
Another part, about the accidental omission on the part of the Complaints Officer concerned to send me her intervening email then went on; "I think this may be the root cause of the confusion on this. I therefore enclose that email also. I hope that you accept this as the final word on the matter, and recognise that there was - clearly - nothing suspicious or untoward going on." My comment on this after all, hopefully, of the facts eventually became known to me is that if it was clear that nothing untoward was going on why comment on it?. If amalgamating two critical emails into one and not telling the complainant about it is par for the course among the PCC secretariat then I think that is untoward. It is also untoward, in my opinion, not to let me know on exactly what information the Commission judged my case.
I will comment on the part of the Assistant Director's letter to do with my alledged refusal of an offer of apology in the next part of this blog.
This blog on the PCC will be concluded in Part Seven.
Frederick W Gilling 26 November 2009
20/ As explained in the previous blog I was looking at events of 18 October from the perspective of different viewpoints dependent on information supplied at later dates. This is from perspective C which arose from new information supplied to me on 06 February 2008 by the Assistant Director of the PCC. As a consequence of that information I was in the position of being able to put the events of that critical day in the correct chronological order.
Firstly the Complaints Officer appointed to handle my complaint received an email from the Editor "sent Thu 18/10/2007 at 11:41", this email was in fact addressed to another PCC staff member who had written to the Editor while the Complaints Officer was on leave.
The essential part of this email from the Editor read; "I am unwilling to offer anything further to the suggestions I made to [name supplied] in my email dated 02 October 2007 and would welcome you asking the Commission to come to a view on the complaint". I note that those suggestions did not specifically acknowledge the inaccuracy and had no mention of regret.
The Complaints Officer then composed and sent off the "intervening" email to the Editor. This was timed at 14:50 and I quote from it; "I appreciate that you are not willing to offer anything further on this matter, and will of course put this case before the Commission for its view.
Before I do so however, I wonder whether you might be willing to outline the wording of the correction that you are willing to offer, in order that the complainant, and of course the Commission, are aware of the exact terms of your offer"
I note that the words quoted above infer that the exact terms of the offer on which the Editor was "unwilling to offer anything further" were not known. I also note that the Complaints Officer had told him, "I appreciate that you are not willing to offer anything further on this matter, and ----- "
At 16:53 the Editor emailed his reply to the Complaints Officer's "intervening" email, I quote parts of this letter:
"The wording of the correction I am prepared to offer would be on the lines of ----- "
" ----- incorrectly stated that the longest story ----- "
"We are sorry for any worry this may have caused the author"
This was the first direct admission of the inaccuracy and the first mention of any form of regret.
In general this was a drastic departure from his offer of 02 October and from his statement in his first email that morning. This I venture to think was due to the intervening email from the Complaints Officer.
The Complaints Officer then amalgamated the two letters from the Editor into one, addressed specifically to her, even though the first one had been addressed to another person. I fail completely to see any reason to amalgamate two emails, particularly the two mentioned and even more particularly because the second one was prompted by an intervening email, of which I knew nothing. The three emails were heavily inter related and should have been presented as separate entities.
At some time shortly after receiving the amalgamated email, and before I had been told that it was an amalgamation of two emails, I marked two places on it and wrote on it in red ink "this is one offer and this is another". I would not have known anything about the two letters being amalgamated unless I had queried the plural implied by the use of the word emails and as I composed and typed these last words I had the thought, "and I wonder who else knew about them"? Did the Complaints Officer talk about what she had done or was about to do? And yet another thought "were the Commission Members told that it was an amalgamated letter"? If, that is, it was presented to them, or for that matter if any part of it was quoted by the Complaints Officer in support of a draft resolution to my complaint
Even when writing to me, on 10 December 2007, and telling me that there were two emails from the Editor on 18 October, she did not send me copies of the individual letters, nor indeed mention her intervening letter.
Another point that worried me, and still does, concerns a phone conversation between the Complaints Officer and the Editor, in respect of this I quote from a letter from the Complaints Officer to me dated 22 November 2007; "I have had one conversation with [name given] about this case. It took place on 25 September, and [name given] indicated his intentions to revise his offer to the terms set out in his email of 2 October"
On 24 November I wrote and asked "Am I right in assuming that the conversation was on a telephone and that the call had been initiated by [Editor named]"? This question was answered on 27 November by the Complaints Officer as follows, "You are correct in your assumption that the conversation was by telephone. From my recollection, the conversation was initiated by
Mr[Editor named]".
The last paragraph of this letter to me, from the Complaints Officer, finished with the sentence
"I must now consider this correspondence closed".
The situation had developed that answers to questions that I had asked just raised more questions. The answer to the question about the conversation did just that, and in my mind I feel certain that aspect of establishing the facts about the phone call have not been answered. At that particular point in time I cannot think of a reason for the Editor to phone the Complaints Officer but I can think of a reason for her to phone him, which could well be to do with the PCC's aim of "fast" Later a copy of the Complaints Officer's jotted down notes regarding the phone call was sent to me, they were very brief and not easy to read.
It is a source of amazement to me that several senior members of the PCC secretariat, including the Independent Charter Commissioner, could not fault the way my case had been handled.
The Complaints Officer amalgamated two critical email into one and did not mention it to me, she also cannot recall exactly who initiated a phone call, did not later send me copies of the two emails that she had amalgamated, did not tell me about her "intervening" email and accidentally omitted to send me a copy of it. I have already mentioned what I term grey areas in one letter, I have no reason to withdraw that statement, and will add to it by stating the thought that at least two of her letters were potential minefields to me, this is not to say they were intended to be but that is how I came to view them.
Before closing this part of my blog on the PCC I wish to record my appreciation of the letter, written to me on 06 February 2008, by the Assistant Director in charge of the Complaints Department. He supplied the information and copies of documents that filled in gaps in my knowledge. However I wish to comment on several aspects of his letter, part of which read "I should tell you that this letter will mark the end of the correspondence from the PCC".
Another part, about the accidental omission on the part of the Complaints Officer concerned to send me her intervening email then went on; "I think this may be the root cause of the confusion on this. I therefore enclose that email also. I hope that you accept this as the final word on the matter, and recognise that there was - clearly - nothing suspicious or untoward going on." My comment on this after all, hopefully, of the facts eventually became known to me is that if it was clear that nothing untoward was going on why comment on it?. If amalgamating two critical emails into one and not telling the complainant about it is par for the course among the PCC secretariat then I think that is untoward. It is also untoward, in my opinion, not to let me know on exactly what information the Commission judged my case.
I will comment on the part of the Assistant Director's letter to do with my alledged refusal of an offer of apology in the next part of this blog.
This blog on the PCC will be concluded in Part Seven.
Frederick W Gilling 26 November 2009
Monday 23 November 2009
Complaint ABOUT the Press Complaints Commission
This is Part Five of, Complaints about, Criticism of, and Suggestions to,the PCC.
17/ I have stated that I considered the 18 October 2007 to be a critical day in regard to my complaint to the PCC, I will now attempt to justify that belief. With the benefit, again of hindsight, I feel that the events of that day need to be considered from three perspectives, these are:
A/ My feelings and actions prompted by the Complaints Officer's letter to me of that date, 18 October, and a copy of an email, also of that date, from the Editor.
B/ My feelings and actions prompted by the new information that the purported letter, from the Editor, was an amalgamation, by the Complaints Officer, of two emails from the Editor on 18 October. This information was contained in a letter from the Complaints Officer to me on 10 December 2007.
C/ My feelings and thoughts prompted by more new information that, between the two emails from the Editor on 18 October, the Complaints Officer had sent him him an email asking him for an outline of the correction that he was prepared to offer. This information was in a letter to me, dated 06 February 2008, from the Assistant Director of the PCC. This letter also contained copies of the two emails that that Editor had sent to the PCC on 18 October and informed me that the Complaints Officer had accidentally omitted to send a copy of the intervening email to me in her letter of 22 November 2007. A copy of that email was also enclosed.
18/ Dealing with perspective A above.
On 20 October I wrote to the Complaints Officer and replied to her letter of 18 October. This letter to her obviously reflects my feelings from perspective A, I suggested a few minor alterations of the correction regarding the inaccuracy and stated that I was prepared to write a letter of up to 280 words for the paper's Letters page.
I rejected the offer to publish The Ice Canyon and gave my reasons for this. I did not reject any offer of apology. In fact the Editor had more or less used the exact words that I had previously suggested. The words I had used were very low key as, at that time, I was pandering to the Editor's apparent reluctance to admit the inaccuracy or express any regret for it.
19/ Dealing with perspective B above.
On 10 December 2007, long after the Commission's decision had been made, the Complaints Officer, in response to a question I had asked, wrote to me and informed me that the Editor had sent two emails and that she had amalgamated them for convenience. She did not send me copies of the emails but briefly described what was in them.
Naturally I looked at what I had thought to be a letter from the Editor on18 October again, as well as looking at her covering letter of that date. As there was no indication in that letter that she had amalgamated two emails from the Editor into one I was puzzled as to why the purported email looked as it did, that is to say there was nothing on it to indicate that it was not what it seemed to be. The more I thought about the amalgamated email the more I thought that it could be regarded as a forgery. I have recently looked at some information that sought to explain the use of the word forgery, one of the words used was deceit. The Complaints
Officer had stated that the amalgamation was for convenience, she reproduced some of the amalgamated email in her covering letter for ease of reference. In a subsequent written comment on this to a senior member of the PCC I asked what could be easier than pressing a few keys and letting a machine print copies.
The amalgamated email certainly deceived me into thinking that it was a genuine email but, at the time, I did note that it links two different offers on two different days into one, it also contains the first direct admission of the inaccuracy and the first indication whatsoever of any regret. The Complaints Officer had stated that the amalgamation was for convenience, this reason, one must accept, but accepting it does not rule out the possibility that it can also deceive.
As I have previously mentioned I would like to know exactly what the Complaints Officer put to Commission Members as a draft resolution to my complaint. If the amalgamated email had been presented to them then it could well have deceived them, particularly if they thought all of the offers had been made on 02 October.
This blog on the PCC will be continued in Part Six.
Frederick W Gilling 24 November 2009
17/ I have stated that I considered the 18 October 2007 to be a critical day in regard to my complaint to the PCC, I will now attempt to justify that belief. With the benefit, again of hindsight, I feel that the events of that day need to be considered from three perspectives, these are:
A/ My feelings and actions prompted by the Complaints Officer's letter to me of that date, 18 October, and a copy of an email, also of that date, from the Editor.
B/ My feelings and actions prompted by the new information that the purported letter, from the Editor, was an amalgamation, by the Complaints Officer, of two emails from the Editor on 18 October. This information was contained in a letter from the Complaints Officer to me on 10 December 2007.
C/ My feelings and thoughts prompted by more new information that, between the two emails from the Editor on 18 October, the Complaints Officer had sent him him an email asking him for an outline of the correction that he was prepared to offer. This information was in a letter to me, dated 06 February 2008, from the Assistant Director of the PCC. This letter also contained copies of the two emails that that Editor had sent to the PCC on 18 October and informed me that the Complaints Officer had accidentally omitted to send a copy of the intervening email to me in her letter of 22 November 2007. A copy of that email was also enclosed.
18/ Dealing with perspective A above.
On 20 October I wrote to the Complaints Officer and replied to her letter of 18 October. This letter to her obviously reflects my feelings from perspective A, I suggested a few minor alterations of the correction regarding the inaccuracy and stated that I was prepared to write a letter of up to 280 words for the paper's Letters page.
I rejected the offer to publish The Ice Canyon and gave my reasons for this. I did not reject any offer of apology. In fact the Editor had more or less used the exact words that I had previously suggested. The words I had used were very low key as, at that time, I was pandering to the Editor's apparent reluctance to admit the inaccuracy or express any regret for it.
19/ Dealing with perspective B above.
On 10 December 2007, long after the Commission's decision had been made, the Complaints Officer, in response to a question I had asked, wrote to me and informed me that the Editor had sent two emails and that she had amalgamated them for convenience. She did not send me copies of the emails but briefly described what was in them.
Naturally I looked at what I had thought to be a letter from the Editor on18 October again, as well as looking at her covering letter of that date. As there was no indication in that letter that she had amalgamated two emails from the Editor into one I was puzzled as to why the purported email looked as it did, that is to say there was nothing on it to indicate that it was not what it seemed to be. The more I thought about the amalgamated email the more I thought that it could be regarded as a forgery. I have recently looked at some information that sought to explain the use of the word forgery, one of the words used was deceit. The Complaints
Officer had stated that the amalgamation was for convenience, she reproduced some of the amalgamated email in her covering letter for ease of reference. In a subsequent written comment on this to a senior member of the PCC I asked what could be easier than pressing a few keys and letting a machine print copies.
The amalgamated email certainly deceived me into thinking that it was a genuine email but, at the time, I did note that it links two different offers on two different days into one, it also contains the first direct admission of the inaccuracy and the first indication whatsoever of any regret. The Complaints Officer had stated that the amalgamation was for convenience, this reason, one must accept, but accepting it does not rule out the possibility that it can also deceive.
As I have previously mentioned I would like to know exactly what the Complaints Officer put to Commission Members as a draft resolution to my complaint. If the amalgamated email had been presented to them then it could well have deceived them, particularly if they thought all of the offers had been made on 02 October.
This blog on the PCC will be continued in Part Six.
Frederick W Gilling 24 November 2009
Sunday 22 November 2009
Complaint ABOUT thr Press Complaints Commission.
This is Part Four of, Complaints about, Criticism of, and Suggestions to, the PCC.
13/ The next letter from the Complaints Officer to me was dated 02 October 2007, enclosed with her letter was a copy of a letter from the Editor. I have read that letter from the Complaints Officer many times, she reproduced much of the Editor's letter, one can pick large holes in her letter and I came to regard it as virtually an ultimatum to me, "Accept the Editor's offer or it will go to the Commission". I quote the first two lines of the penultimate paragraph of her letter;
"Should you not be willing to accept the newspaper's offer, I think the next step would be to put this matter to the Commission for its view". Kindly note I was not given the opportunity to comment on the Editor's new offer or on her letter.
The Editor's offers was different to his first offers, there was no direct admission in regard to the inaccuracy and no suggestion of an apology. Part of the Editor's offer could, I think, be considered to be approaching perverse. I replied with regard to the Editor's new offers.
14/ The next letter to me from the PCC, dated 09 October 2007, was from a different Complaints Officer, as the one dealing with my complaint was on annual leave. The letter listed her view as to the points raised in my letter and stated that she was happy to ask the newspaper for its response to the issues I had raised.
15/ The next letter to me from the PCC was dated 18 October 2007, it was from the Complaints Officer originally dealing with my complaint as she had returned from leave.
Her letter stated that she had received a further response from the Editor and had enclosed a copy, she also quoted "for ease of reference" five lines from the editor's letter. In these five lines, among other things were words that, for the first time clearly admitted the inaccuracy
and also included the word sorry. At that time I accepted both the Complaints Officer's letter and the copy of the letter from the Editor at face value, this because there was no indication whatsoever that they should not be accepted at face value. However, even at face value there were "grey" areas in the letter from the Complaints Officer.
16/ Much later, after the Commission Members had come to a decision, I queried the word
"emails" used in a letter by the Complaints Officer. The answer to my query clearly showed that neither the letter written by the Complaints Officer nor the "letter" from the Editor could be taken at face value. When I brought my concern about this to the attention of senior members of the PCC Secretariat I used words similar to "lack of rigour", now I think that the more robust word to describe the "purported" letter from the Editor could well be "Forgery". As a result of this I came to view the correspondence on the 18 October as being critical in regard as to how my complaint was handled and, in all probability, judged. I have asked the PPC to let me know exactly what was placed before the Commission Members, by Complaints Officers, to aid them in coming to a decision in regard to my complaint, this was not complied with, so much for their aim of Fairness.
This blog on the PCC will be continued in Part Five.
Frederick W Gilling 22 November 2009.
13/ The next letter from the Complaints Officer to me was dated 02 October 2007, enclosed with her letter was a copy of a letter from the Editor. I have read that letter from the Complaints Officer many times, she reproduced much of the Editor's letter, one can pick large holes in her letter and I came to regard it as virtually an ultimatum to me, "Accept the Editor's offer or it will go to the Commission". I quote the first two lines of the penultimate paragraph of her letter;
"Should you not be willing to accept the newspaper's offer, I think the next step would be to put this matter to the Commission for its view". Kindly note I was not given the opportunity to comment on the Editor's new offer or on her letter.
The Editor's offers was different to his first offers, there was no direct admission in regard to the inaccuracy and no suggestion of an apology. Part of the Editor's offer could, I think, be considered to be approaching perverse. I replied with regard to the Editor's new offers.
14/ The next letter to me from the PCC, dated 09 October 2007, was from a different Complaints Officer, as the one dealing with my complaint was on annual leave. The letter listed her view as to the points raised in my letter and stated that she was happy to ask the newspaper for its response to the issues I had raised.
15/ The next letter to me from the PCC was dated 18 October 2007, it was from the Complaints Officer originally dealing with my complaint as she had returned from leave.
Her letter stated that she had received a further response from the Editor and had enclosed a copy, she also quoted "for ease of reference" five lines from the editor's letter. In these five lines, among other things were words that, for the first time clearly admitted the inaccuracy
and also included the word sorry. At that time I accepted both the Complaints Officer's letter and the copy of the letter from the Editor at face value, this because there was no indication whatsoever that they should not be accepted at face value. However, even at face value there were "grey" areas in the letter from the Complaints Officer.
16/ Much later, after the Commission Members had come to a decision, I queried the word
"emails" used in a letter by the Complaints Officer. The answer to my query clearly showed that neither the letter written by the Complaints Officer nor the "letter" from the Editor could be taken at face value. When I brought my concern about this to the attention of senior members of the PCC Secretariat I used words similar to "lack of rigour", now I think that the more robust word to describe the "purported" letter from the Editor could well be "Forgery". As a result of this I came to view the correspondence on the 18 October as being critical in regard as to how my complaint was handled and, in all probability, judged. I have asked the PPC to let me know exactly what was placed before the Commission Members, by Complaints Officers, to aid them in coming to a decision in regard to my complaint, this was not complied with, so much for their aim of Fairness.
This blog on the PCC will be continued in Part Five.
Frederick W Gilling 22 November 2009.
Friday 20 November 2009
Complaint ABOUT Press Complaints Commission
This is Part Three of, Complaints about, Criticism of, and Suggestions to, the PCC.
11/ Following the first "standard" letter from the PCC, with the two booklets and an explanation of how my case would be handled, I received a letter dated 13 September 2007 from a member of their staff which told me the writer would be dealing with my complaint, and that a copy of my letter had been sent to the newspaper. I subsequently became aware that the writer's title, as it were, was Complaints Officer, I will therefore refer to such members of the PCC Secretariat as Complaints Officers.
12/ My next letter from the Complaints Officer was written on 20 September 2007. Looking at the letter sometime later, when I had obviously developed a critical "mindset", I had the thought that her letter, which summed up the Editor's reply and the offers in it, would look very good on file. One reason for this is that the Editor had qualified his offers by writing "However, if there is an inaccuracy ------ " In fact some 44 days after being notified of the inaccuracy the Editor had not admitted that there was an inaccuracy. The Complaints Officer had not commented on that proviso in her covering letter. I quote the penultimate paragraph of her letter and then comment on it.
"As you may be aware, one additional benefit of the resolution of a complaint is that we would publish a summary of the case - with a wording to be agreed by you - on our website and in our biannual report. This will, importantly, act as a public record of the concerns you have raised and the action required of the newspaper." Reference was made to this point in subsequent letters. As, in the end, my complaint by their rules presumably, was not resolved and so I was denied any pleasure or satisfaction that may have provided. To the best of my knowledge the PCC did not require any action from the newspaper, this in spite of the fact that on at least one count, possibly two, their Code had been ignored by the Editor. I pointed out this transgression of their Code to the PCC.
12/ Having read the Complaints Officer's covering letter I then read the enclosed copy of the letter from the Editor. The short second and third paragraphs gave the reviewer praise, mentioned his 40 years of experience and stated that the Editor had no reason to doubt the integrity of [name given]'s review. There was no reference to any explanation from the man who wrote the review as to how he came to create the inaccuracy, or for any regret on his part for it. There was, also, no suggestion of any regret in the Editor's reply.
I found part of the fourth paragraph surprising, " ----- in fact readers who do not like [name given]'s reviews may well buy a copy on the basis that if he does not like it, they probably will. Criticism works that way." This was another example of the Editor's totally defensive attitude, there was an inaccuracy why not simply admit it ? Further to that why did the PCC not tell him to admit it?
The last paragraph of the Editor's reply starts "However, if there is an inaccuracy ----- "
The word "if" really annoyed me and the case moved on. Again, with hindsight, IF I had ignored the "IF" in the Editor's letter and taken up his offers at face value my case may have been resolved at that point. However I wrote a long reply to the Editor's letter and the opportunity had passed.
This blog on the PCC will be continued in Part Four.
Frederick W Gilling Friday 20 November 2009
11/ Following the first "standard" letter from the PCC, with the two booklets and an explanation of how my case would be handled, I received a letter dated 13 September 2007 from a member of their staff which told me the writer would be dealing with my complaint, and that a copy of my letter had been sent to the newspaper. I subsequently became aware that the writer's title, as it were, was Complaints Officer, I will therefore refer to such members of the PCC Secretariat as Complaints Officers.
12/ My next letter from the Complaints Officer was written on 20 September 2007. Looking at the letter sometime later, when I had obviously developed a critical "mindset", I had the thought that her letter, which summed up the Editor's reply and the offers in it, would look very good on file. One reason for this is that the Editor had qualified his offers by writing "However, if there is an inaccuracy ------ " In fact some 44 days after being notified of the inaccuracy the Editor had not admitted that there was an inaccuracy. The Complaints Officer had not commented on that proviso in her covering letter. I quote the penultimate paragraph of her letter and then comment on it.
"As you may be aware, one additional benefit of the resolution of a complaint is that we would publish a summary of the case - with a wording to be agreed by you - on our website and in our biannual report. This will, importantly, act as a public record of the concerns you have raised and the action required of the newspaper." Reference was made to this point in subsequent letters. As, in the end, my complaint by their rules presumably, was not resolved and so I was denied any pleasure or satisfaction that may have provided. To the best of my knowledge the PCC did not require any action from the newspaper, this in spite of the fact that on at least one count, possibly two, their Code had been ignored by the Editor. I pointed out this transgression of their Code to the PCC.
12/ Having read the Complaints Officer's covering letter I then read the enclosed copy of the letter from the Editor. The short second and third paragraphs gave the reviewer praise, mentioned his 40 years of experience and stated that the Editor had no reason to doubt the integrity of [name given]'s review. There was no reference to any explanation from the man who wrote the review as to how he came to create the inaccuracy, or for any regret on his part for it. There was, also, no suggestion of any regret in the Editor's reply.
I found part of the fourth paragraph surprising, " ----- in fact readers who do not like [name given]'s reviews may well buy a copy on the basis that if he does not like it, they probably will. Criticism works that way." This was another example of the Editor's totally defensive attitude, there was an inaccuracy why not simply admit it ? Further to that why did the PCC not tell him to admit it?
The last paragraph of the Editor's reply starts "However, if there is an inaccuracy ----- "
The word "if" really annoyed me and the case moved on. Again, with hindsight, IF I had ignored the "IF" in the Editor's letter and taken up his offers at face value my case may have been resolved at that point. However I wrote a long reply to the Editor's letter and the opportunity had passed.
This blog on the PCC will be continued in Part Four.
Frederick W Gilling Friday 20 November 2009
Monday 16 November 2009
Complaint ABOUT Press Complaints Commission.
This Is Part Two of, Complaints about, Criticisms of, and Suggestions to, the PCC.
9/ Initially I was extremely impressed with the organisation of the PCC. They sent me two booklets, these being their "Code of Practice" and "How to Complain". As it happened I had, in modern parlance, ticked all of the right boxes in putting my complaint to them. I note that on the cover of each of these booklets, in the bottom right hand corner, is what may be termed an "icon". Representing their avowed aims are the words "fast free fair". This same "icon" also appears in the bottom right hand corner of their headed paper.
In the course of time, as my complaint was dealt with, I became increasingly cynical about what they considered to be fair and also had cause to assess the aim fast.
Much later I chanced on literature they published in connection with appointing new Commissioners, that literature gave me a great deal of information as to how the PCC functioned.
10/ The PCC's first letter to me, dated 12 September 2007 may well have been their "standard" reply. Re- reading it, with the benefit of hindsight, I will comment on two aspects that, I feel, need mentioning. Firstly, paragraph two reads "Your complaint will now be assessed as to whether it requires investigation under the Code. If this appears to be the case we will ask the editor to deal with your complaint". My comments on this paragraph follow.
Bearing in mind the PCC's aim of fast it should have taken about thirty minutes to assess the
crystal clear evidence that there was a significant inaccuracy and that the Editor needed to obey the Code. The PCC should have "required" him to publish a correction in the next issue of his paper. That could well have ended the matter very quickly in compliance with their aim of fast. A simple apology would not have been out of place.
Secondly, later in the initial letter from the PCC to me the following sentence appears. "As part of a full and fair investigation we must ensure that each party to a complaint is able to see and comment upon what the other has to say". My comment on this is that each party should also "see" what the PCC has written to the other party and what exactly the PCC staff put before the Commissioners as an aid to them coming to a decision. Further "seeing" should include an exact transcript of any phone calls in connection with the complaint, in fact all concerned with the complaint should be able to "see" anything to do with the complaint, that would be fair.
This blog on the PCC will be continued in Part Three.
Frederick W Gilling Tuesday 17 Novemer 2009.
9/ Initially I was extremely impressed with the organisation of the PCC. They sent me two booklets, these being their "Code of Practice" and "How to Complain". As it happened I had, in modern parlance, ticked all of the right boxes in putting my complaint to them. I note that on the cover of each of these booklets, in the bottom right hand corner, is what may be termed an "icon". Representing their avowed aims are the words "fast free fair". This same "icon" also appears in the bottom right hand corner of their headed paper.
In the course of time, as my complaint was dealt with, I became increasingly cynical about what they considered to be fair and also had cause to assess the aim fast.
Much later I chanced on literature they published in connection with appointing new Commissioners, that literature gave me a great deal of information as to how the PCC functioned.
10/ The PCC's first letter to me, dated 12 September 2007 may well have been their "standard" reply. Re- reading it, with the benefit of hindsight, I will comment on two aspects that, I feel, need mentioning. Firstly, paragraph two reads "Your complaint will now be assessed as to whether it requires investigation under the Code. If this appears to be the case we will ask the editor to deal with your complaint". My comments on this paragraph follow.
Bearing in mind the PCC's aim of fast it should have taken about thirty minutes to assess the
crystal clear evidence that there was a significant inaccuracy and that the Editor needed to obey the Code. The PCC should have "required" him to publish a correction in the next issue of his paper. That could well have ended the matter very quickly in compliance with their aim of fast. A simple apology would not have been out of place.
Secondly, later in the initial letter from the PCC to me the following sentence appears. "As part of a full and fair investigation we must ensure that each party to a complaint is able to see and comment upon what the other has to say". My comment on this is that each party should also "see" what the PCC has written to the other party and what exactly the PCC staff put before the Commissioners as an aid to them coming to a decision. Further "seeing" should include an exact transcript of any phone calls in connection with the complaint, in fact all concerned with the complaint should be able to "see" anything to do with the complaint, that would be fair.
This blog on the PCC will be continued in Part Three.
Frederick W Gilling Tuesday 17 Novemer 2009.
Friday 13 November 2009
Complaint ABOUT the Press Complaints Commission
This is Part One of, Complaints about, Criticism of, and Suggestions to, the PCC.
I have touched on this in a previous blog and will now deal with the matter in more detail.
The main reason for this is that I have a deep, and lasting, feeling of injustice in regard to a decision that the PCC came to. This was in connection with a complaint from me about an inaccuracy in a review of a book of short stories that I had written. Large parts of this blog will be in point form in the interest of brevity.
1/ I had written, and "self published", a book of short stories.
2/ I submitted the book, by hand with a covering letter, to the office of a West Sussex weekly newspaper.
3/ In the issue of 02 August 2007 they published a review of my book. 4/ There was an inaccuracy in the review, in view of the general tenor and sarcastic style of the review which, I think, the inaccuracy fully supported, I considered that it was a major inaccuracy.
5/ On 06 August 2007 I handed a letter to the Editor into the paper's office. This letter gave my feelings about the review, pointed out the inaccuracy and asked him to publish a correction.
6/ On 20 August 2007 I handed another letter to the Editor into the office and, as nothing had been published, I repeated my request for a correction to be published.
7/ On 21 August 2007 I received a letter from the paper, it thanked me for my letter dated August 6, stated, -----The content of your letter is noted ----- and then sang the praises of the man who reviewed the book. I could not make out the signature on the letter but it was qualified by a hand written PP and then, in type, gave the Editor's name and his title Editor.
This reply, dated 20th August 2007 could have been prompted by my letter handed into the office on the same date.
8/ Purely by chance I had seen a reference to the Press Complaints Commission in a free local paper. I wrote to them on Sat. 08 September 2007 and complained about the inaccuracy in the review. I sent them copies of the review and all the letters mentioned above as well as a copy of the book. They had everything that was needed to verify the inaccuracy in the review and to confirm that the newspaper had not corrected the inaccuracy. Let me make that point clear, when the PCC received my complaint the Editor should have known for 27 days that there was an inaccuracy and had not printed a correction. This delay was well over the time stated in the PCC's " Code of Practice", this being ----- must be corrected, promptly -----. As a matter of interest the Editor did not admit to the inaccuracy until 02 October 2007, this was some 57 days after he was first notified of the inaccuracy. I wonder if the PCC had, in any way, drawn the Editor's attention to this delay in admitting the inaccuracy and publishing a correction, as called for in their "Code of Practice".
This blog on the PCC will be continued in Part Two.
Frederick W Gilling Saturday 14 November 2009
I have touched on this in a previous blog and will now deal with the matter in more detail.
The main reason for this is that I have a deep, and lasting, feeling of injustice in regard to a decision that the PCC came to. This was in connection with a complaint from me about an inaccuracy in a review of a book of short stories that I had written. Large parts of this blog will be in point form in the interest of brevity.
1/ I had written, and "self published", a book of short stories.
2/ I submitted the book, by hand with a covering letter, to the office of a West Sussex weekly newspaper.
3/ In the issue of 02 August 2007 they published a review of my book. 4/ There was an inaccuracy in the review, in view of the general tenor and sarcastic style of the review which, I think, the inaccuracy fully supported, I considered that it was a major inaccuracy.
5/ On 06 August 2007 I handed a letter to the Editor into the paper's office. This letter gave my feelings about the review, pointed out the inaccuracy and asked him to publish a correction.
6/ On 20 August 2007 I handed another letter to the Editor into the office and, as nothing had been published, I repeated my request for a correction to be published.
7/ On 21 August 2007 I received a letter from the paper, it thanked me for my letter dated August 6, stated, -----The content of your letter is noted ----- and then sang the praises of the man who reviewed the book. I could not make out the signature on the letter but it was qualified by a hand written PP and then, in type, gave the Editor's name and his title Editor.
This reply, dated 20th August 2007 could have been prompted by my letter handed into the office on the same date.
8/ Purely by chance I had seen a reference to the Press Complaints Commission in a free local paper. I wrote to them on Sat. 08 September 2007 and complained about the inaccuracy in the review. I sent them copies of the review and all the letters mentioned above as well as a copy of the book. They had everything that was needed to verify the inaccuracy in the review and to confirm that the newspaper had not corrected the inaccuracy. Let me make that point clear, when the PCC received my complaint the Editor should have known for 27 days that there was an inaccuracy and had not printed a correction. This delay was well over the time stated in the PCC's " Code of Practice", this being ----- must be corrected, promptly -----. As a matter of interest the Editor did not admit to the inaccuracy until 02 October 2007, this was some 57 days after he was first notified of the inaccuracy. I wonder if the PCC had, in any way, drawn the Editor's attention to this delay in admitting the inaccuracy and publishing a correction, as called for in their "Code of Practice".
This blog on the PCC will be continued in Part Two.
Frederick W Gilling Saturday 14 November 2009
Tuesday 3 November 2009
The Press and the Establishment. Part Five.
Part Five of The Press and the Establishment.
Having explained my reasons for starting to think about the establishment and a person's titles I will now explain my thinking about "The Press"
When I wrote to the editors of eight national newspapers to complain about the Press Complaints Commission [PCC] I stated that I had a complete belief in the need for Press Freedom, this partially garnered by living in a country where for many years the press was not completely free.
As well as being totally in favour [national security excepted] of a free press I was also totally against the unbridled "power of the press".
I suggested that legislation be passed to make it easier for the public to complain about an article in any newspaper or magazine. The suggestion follows, there is nothing to stop a publication from implementing the suggestion without the need for legislation. The thought has just surfaced that the PCC could require publications to do what I suggest, that would show where their loyalties reside as well as boosting and supporting their self enhancing claim that self regulation of the press really works.
On page three of a newspaper or magazine something similar to the following is printed. "If any reader has a complaint about anything published in this paper they may write a letter to us, of no more than sixty words, addresses will not be word counted. If your letter is the only one dealing with a particular matter it will be published on page three over your name. If there is more than one letter complaining about the same matter one of them will be published, over the name of the writer. The total number of similar letters will be stated and the names only of the writers will be published.
One of the things that I find annoying is when an attention grabbing headline, in very large print, appears to be stating a fact, however when the much smaller print is read it is clear that the headline is anything but a fact.
Surely, I think , the time has come to take a long hard look at the potential worry and harm to people,s feelings caused by crude, degrading, obnoxious and insulting articles and cartoons published in papers and magazines. Please do not point out to me that such things have been common for, a hundred, even hundreds of years, that should not make them any more acceptable. With the aid of the IT world the headlines of a national paper can be seen by
many millions of people throughout the world within minutes of them being printed. The small print that clarifies the accuracy of the headline may not even be shown.
My next blog will outline some points and suggestions I wish to make about the Press Complaints Commission.
Frederick W Gilling Wednesday 04 November 2009
Having explained my reasons for starting to think about the establishment and a person's titles I will now explain my thinking about "The Press"
When I wrote to the editors of eight national newspapers to complain about the Press Complaints Commission [PCC] I stated that I had a complete belief in the need for Press Freedom, this partially garnered by living in a country where for many years the press was not completely free.
As well as being totally in favour [national security excepted] of a free press I was also totally against the unbridled "power of the press".
I suggested that legislation be passed to make it easier for the public to complain about an article in any newspaper or magazine. The suggestion follows, there is nothing to stop a publication from implementing the suggestion without the need for legislation. The thought has just surfaced that the PCC could require publications to do what I suggest, that would show where their loyalties reside as well as boosting and supporting their self enhancing claim that self regulation of the press really works.
On page three of a newspaper or magazine something similar to the following is printed. "If any reader has a complaint about anything published in this paper they may write a letter to us, of no more than sixty words, addresses will not be word counted. If your letter is the only one dealing with a particular matter it will be published on page three over your name. If there is more than one letter complaining about the same matter one of them will be published, over the name of the writer. The total number of similar letters will be stated and the names only of the writers will be published.
One of the things that I find annoying is when an attention grabbing headline, in very large print, appears to be stating a fact, however when the much smaller print is read it is clear that the headline is anything but a fact.
Surely, I think , the time has come to take a long hard look at the potential worry and harm to people,s feelings caused by crude, degrading, obnoxious and insulting articles and cartoons published in papers and magazines. Please do not point out to me that such things have been common for, a hundred, even hundreds of years, that should not make them any more acceptable. With the aid of the IT world the headlines of a national paper can be seen by
many millions of people throughout the world within minutes of them being printed. The small print that clarifies the accuracy of the headline may not even be shown.
My next blog will outline some points and suggestions I wish to make about the Press Complaints Commission.
Frederick W Gilling Wednesday 04 November 2009
Sunday 1 November 2009
The Press and the Establishment. Part Four.
Part Four of The Press and the Establishment.
I feel that the time has come for the whole question of the title before a person's name to be re-appraised. Several broad considerations need to be thought through initially, these will differentiate, for example, between civilian and defence services as well as along religious lines.
I suggest that the initials Dr should continue to be used in advance of a name for medical doctors only. For all other instances they should occur after the holder's name with a suitable and therefore recognised way of indicating what the doctorate relates to. Examples being: Mr, Mrs, Ms A N Other Dr [Eng] or A N Other Dr [Phy] for physics etc etc.
Similarly the prefixes Sir or Dame should be abolished and replaced by A N Other Kt [PS] where the PS indicates that the honour was awarded for Public Service, A N Other Dm [E] for Education, Kt [D] or Dm [D] for Defence, [S] for Sport, etc etc.
Members of the defence/security forces should continue to be referred to by their rank but this only applies while they are still serving members, the use of such ranking falls away on retirement, if their service was outstanding they could be honoured with, for example, Kt [D] or Dm [D] after their name.
The title Lord should be abolished completely and the word should only be used in its religious context in the particular religion to which it applies. Here is a suitable place to consider the pomp, ceremony and associated robes worn by members of the House of Lords. I feel that such a display, in the UK today, is truly ostentatious and archaic and serves to reinforce the position of "The Establishment".
It would be extremely interesting to study and debate what effect "The Establishment" has had on every facet of life in the UK through the centuries. How good has the "them and us" syndrome been for making us what we are? Of course the syndrome could well be "us and them". From whatever stand point it is viewed I feel that if the "us and them" or "them and us" fact and feeling is truly no longer a reality we should be able to reach our true potential as a nation, both in wealth and moral righteousness.
This blog will be continued in part five of "The Press and The Establishment".
Frederick W Gilling Monday 02 November 2009.
I feel that the time has come for the whole question of the title before a person's name to be re-appraised. Several broad considerations need to be thought through initially, these will differentiate, for example, between civilian and defence services as well as along religious lines.
I suggest that the initials Dr should continue to be used in advance of a name for medical doctors only. For all other instances they should occur after the holder's name with a suitable and therefore recognised way of indicating what the doctorate relates to. Examples being: Mr, Mrs, Ms A N Other Dr [Eng] or A N Other Dr [Phy] for physics etc etc.
Similarly the prefixes Sir or Dame should be abolished and replaced by A N Other Kt [PS] where the PS indicates that the honour was awarded for Public Service, A N Other Dm [E] for Education, Kt [D] or Dm [D] for Defence, [S] for Sport, etc etc.
Members of the defence/security forces should continue to be referred to by their rank but this only applies while they are still serving members, the use of such ranking falls away on retirement, if their service was outstanding they could be honoured with, for example, Kt [D] or Dm [D] after their name.
The title Lord should be abolished completely and the word should only be used in its religious context in the particular religion to which it applies. Here is a suitable place to consider the pomp, ceremony and associated robes worn by members of the House of Lords. I feel that such a display, in the UK today, is truly ostentatious and archaic and serves to reinforce the position of "The Establishment".
It would be extremely interesting to study and debate what effect "The Establishment" has had on every facet of life in the UK through the centuries. How good has the "them and us" syndrome been for making us what we are? Of course the syndrome could well be "us and them". From whatever stand point it is viewed I feel that if the "us and them" or "them and us" fact and feeling is truly no longer a reality we should be able to reach our true potential as a nation, both in wealth and moral righteousness.
This blog will be continued in part five of "The Press and The Establishment".
Frederick W Gilling Monday 02 November 2009.
Saturday 31 October 2009
The Press and the Establishment. Part Three.
Part three of The Press and the Establishment
My feelings about "The Establishment" were born as I realised that I had developed an in built sense of respectful awe, this being on account of the honour and implication earned by the right to use the title SIR in front of one's name. I wish to stress that point, I most decidedly felt that starting a letter with Dear Sir, when the "Sir" meant that I was writing to a Knight of the Realm was rather a daunting and awe inspiring challenge.
This sense of awe faded as deep feelings of injustice took very firm root in my mind. As I felt that Knights of the Realm were automatically linked with "The Establishment" I came to think harder and harder as to what degree a person's thinking is affected, consciously or not, by their perception of "The Establishment".
As I pondered as to what is "The Establishment" I felt that somewhere and somehow a person
or group of people could define, in point form, what distinguished a person as a member of the "true" Establishment". Could one of these points be that the person was a member of the traditional "ruling class"? This raises a question as to whether a person not "born" into it can ever become a member of the traditional ruling class. Note that ruling class does not imply that MPs, on account of their role, are automatically members though, of course, some of them may qualify on account of being "born" into it.
In defining"The Establishment", that I am concerned with, care has to be taken that one is referring to to the ruling class establishment. This because there are many mini and/or specified establishments linked with various callings or professions. Some that spring easily to mind are medicine, education, law, publishing, science, engineering,art, finance, international politics and religion. Many of the persons who qualify as top members of a mini establishment may also be members of the true or ruling class "Establishment"
I consider it rather an anomaly that political parties, in the House of Commons, can create Life Peers to serve in the House of Lords, and that the titles of Lord or Baroness so awarded tend to assure that the person so honoured is well on the way to becoming a member of "The Establishment". This facet disturbs me and I would like to see a different system created, to ensure that brilliant minds, tuned in and trusted by virtue of experience and exposure to the public, can be called on to advise MPs on any matter.
This blog about "The Press and the Establishment" will be continued in part four.
Frederick W Gilling. Sunday 01 November 2009.
My feelings about "The Establishment" were born as I realised that I had developed an in built sense of respectful awe, this being on account of the honour and implication earned by the right to use the title SIR in front of one's name. I wish to stress that point, I most decidedly felt that starting a letter with Dear Sir, when the "Sir" meant that I was writing to a Knight of the Realm was rather a daunting and awe inspiring challenge.
This sense of awe faded as deep feelings of injustice took very firm root in my mind. As I felt that Knights of the Realm were automatically linked with "The Establishment" I came to think harder and harder as to what degree a person's thinking is affected, consciously or not, by their perception of "The Establishment".
As I pondered as to what is "The Establishment" I felt that somewhere and somehow a person
or group of people could define, in point form, what distinguished a person as a member of the "true" Establishment". Could one of these points be that the person was a member of the traditional "ruling class"? This raises a question as to whether a person not "born" into it can ever become a member of the traditional ruling class. Note that ruling class does not imply that MPs, on account of their role, are automatically members though, of course, some of them may qualify on account of being "born" into it.
In defining"The Establishment", that I am concerned with, care has to be taken that one is referring to to the ruling class establishment. This because there are many mini and/or specified establishments linked with various callings or professions. Some that spring easily to mind are medicine, education, law, publishing, science, engineering,art, finance, international politics and religion. Many of the persons who qualify as top members of a mini establishment may also be members of the true or ruling class "Establishment"
I consider it rather an anomaly that political parties, in the House of Commons, can create Life Peers to serve in the House of Lords, and that the titles of Lord or Baroness so awarded tend to assure that the person so honoured is well on the way to becoming a member of "The Establishment". This facet disturbs me and I would like to see a different system created, to ensure that brilliant minds, tuned in and trusted by virtue of experience and exposure to the public, can be called on to advise MPs on any matter.
This blog about "The Press and the Establishment" will be continued in part four.
Frederick W Gilling. Sunday 01 November 2009.
Thursday 29 October 2009
The Press and the Establishment. Part Two.
Part two of The Press and the Establishment.
A few of the reasons for my deep sense of injustice with regard to a decision by the Press Complaints Commission are given below.
A Press Complaints official informed me , in a letter, that there would be no further correspondence from the PCC to me.
This same officer had "amalgamated" two emails from the Editor into one for "the sake of convenience", one of the emails from the Editor was not even addressed to her. There was no indication on the "amalgamated" email that it was anything other than what it appeared to be.
That " amalgamated" email may have been presented to the Commission Members, by the complaints officer, in support of a draft ruling to help them come to a decision regarding my complaint.
If I had not seen a reference to "emails" [inferring more than one] I would not have known that two emails from the Editor had been sent to the PCC on that particular day.
I wrote to both the Chairman and the Independent Charter Commissioner of the PCC and expressed my feelings of injustice, I did not expect and did not get a reply.
As a result I wrote, individually, to the 17 members of the PCC and explained my feeling of injustice, among other things. Three of them replied and stated that they were no longer Members of the Commission, a fourth replied that he felt sure normal channels for a complaint were in place , he had completely missed the point of my writing to him directly.
Comparatively recently a new Chairperson of the PCC been appointed, I wrote to her and asked her to review my complaint, I did not receive a reply.
As far as I am aware there is no method of appealing against a decision by the PCC and they are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. I understand that a Chairman at the time did not favour the appointment of an Ombudsman in connection with the PCC.
For a body that sings the praises of Self Regulation and of Fairness they are extremely autocratic.
This blog about "The Press and the Establishment" will be continued in Part Three.
Frederick W Gilling Friday 30 October 2009.
A few of the reasons for my deep sense of injustice with regard to a decision by the Press Complaints Commission are given below.
A Press Complaints official informed me , in a letter, that there would be no further correspondence from the PCC to me.
This same officer had "amalgamated" two emails from the Editor into one for "the sake of convenience", one of the emails from the Editor was not even addressed to her. There was no indication on the "amalgamated" email that it was anything other than what it appeared to be.
That " amalgamated" email may have been presented to the Commission Members, by the complaints officer, in support of a draft ruling to help them come to a decision regarding my complaint.
If I had not seen a reference to "emails" [inferring more than one] I would not have known that two emails from the Editor had been sent to the PCC on that particular day.
I wrote to both the Chairman and the Independent Charter Commissioner of the PCC and expressed my feelings of injustice, I did not expect and did not get a reply.
As a result I wrote, individually, to the 17 members of the PCC and explained my feeling of injustice, among other things. Three of them replied and stated that they were no longer Members of the Commission, a fourth replied that he felt sure normal channels for a complaint were in place , he had completely missed the point of my writing to him directly.
Comparatively recently a new Chairperson of the PCC been appointed, I wrote to her and asked her to review my complaint, I did not receive a reply.
As far as I am aware there is no method of appealing against a decision by the PCC and they are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. I understand that a Chairman at the time did not favour the appointment of an Ombudsman in connection with the PCC.
For a body that sings the praises of Self Regulation and of Fairness they are extremely autocratic.
This blog about "The Press and the Establishment" will be continued in Part Three.
Frederick W Gilling Friday 30 October 2009.
Wednesday 28 October 2009
The Press and the Establishment. Part One.
Part One of "The Press and the Establishment"
The first thing that I must make very clear is that I have an axe to grind. When it is ground to a very fine edge I wish to use it, figuratively, to cut through the defensive wall that surrounds the Press Complaints Commission. [PCC]
The second thing that I must, hand on heart proclaim, is that until three years or so ago I never, even lightheartedly, thought about "The Establishment".
Strangely the growing need for a sharp axe to attack the wall around the PCC fostered and directed my thoughts about "The Establishment". The reason being, that at that time, two of the top men in the PCC were "Knights of the Realm" and, trustingly naive that I was, through my rose tinted spectacles I could see them charging, on snow white steeds, to the aid of a common man. How wrong I was.
Very briefly:
I "self" published "An Adult Stocking Filler", a book of short stories.
A local paper in West Sussex reviewed it.
There was a major inaccuracy in the review.
Played for or not the inaccuracy supported a sarcastic theme of the review
I delivered a letter by hand to the office of the paper. In the letter I pointed out the inaccuracy to the Editor.
Two weeks later, by the same method, I again pointed out the inaccuracy to the Editor.
The next day I received a reply, from the Editor, to my first letter. It stated, simply, that my remarks had been noted.
Purely by chance, in a free local paper, I saw a notice informing readers about the PCC. I wrote to the PCC and complained about the inaccuracy.
A very long and protracted correspondence then followed, I must shoulder some of the blame for this. Initially I was very impressed with the modus operandi of the PCC and their proclaimed aims, I commented along those lines to them. When, eventually, the Commission came to a decision I was totally amazed with it and, consequently and subsequently, developed a very deep sense of injustice about several aspects of how my complaint had been handled.
This blog about "The Press and the Establishment" will be continued in Part Two.
Frederick W Gilling. Thursday 29 October 2009.
The first thing that I must make very clear is that I have an axe to grind. When it is ground to a very fine edge I wish to use it, figuratively, to cut through the defensive wall that surrounds the Press Complaints Commission. [PCC]
The second thing that I must, hand on heart proclaim, is that until three years or so ago I never, even lightheartedly, thought about "The Establishment".
Strangely the growing need for a sharp axe to attack the wall around the PCC fostered and directed my thoughts about "The Establishment". The reason being, that at that time, two of the top men in the PCC were "Knights of the Realm" and, trustingly naive that I was, through my rose tinted spectacles I could see them charging, on snow white steeds, to the aid of a common man. How wrong I was.
Very briefly:
I "self" published "An Adult Stocking Filler", a book of short stories.
A local paper in West Sussex reviewed it.
There was a major inaccuracy in the review.
Played for or not the inaccuracy supported a sarcastic theme of the review
I delivered a letter by hand to the office of the paper. In the letter I pointed out the inaccuracy to the Editor.
Two weeks later, by the same method, I again pointed out the inaccuracy to the Editor.
The next day I received a reply, from the Editor, to my first letter. It stated, simply, that my remarks had been noted.
Purely by chance, in a free local paper, I saw a notice informing readers about the PCC. I wrote to the PCC and complained about the inaccuracy.
A very long and protracted correspondence then followed, I must shoulder some of the blame for this. Initially I was very impressed with the modus operandi of the PCC and their proclaimed aims, I commented along those lines to them. When, eventually, the Commission came to a decision I was totally amazed with it and, consequently and subsequently, developed a very deep sense of injustice about several aspects of how my complaint had been handled.
This blog about "The Press and the Establishment" will be continued in Part Two.
Frederick W Gilling. Thursday 29 October 2009.
Tuesday 27 October 2009
Moved to Dorset
I am sorry for long delay but we have moved to Dorset and met all sorts of communication problems. The first was getting a phone line re-coupled and the second was getting connected to broadband. For reasons which I am never likely to know it took over a month to reconnect to broadband. One phone call to the provider lasted over 100 minutes!! There are times when, as one goes around and around in circles, one could subscribe to thinking "Can a system be so efficient that it is inefficient"?
I hope to get part one of "The Press and the Establishment" on line within a couple of days
Frederick W Gilling 23:50hrs Tuesday 27th October 2009.
I hope to get part one of "The Press and the Establishment" on line within a couple of days
Frederick W Gilling 23:50hrs Tuesday 27th October 2009.
Friday 18 September 2009
Security, Human Rights and Religion. Part eight.
In part eight of Security, Human Rights and Religion I will attempt to condense my thinking, on these specific matters, as I feel that it is vital for members of different religions, and indeed for those who do not have any religion, to have a broad knowledge of the different beliefs held by billions of people throughout the world.
I feel this knowledge and apreciation of the salient points is vital, for the world appears, to me, to be slowly but inexorably building up to what surely would be WW3. This may be brought about by conflict between the major religions; this could be hastened, even disguised, by economic forces, particularly in respect of power supplies both from oil and nuclear sources.
The leaders of the world's religions should, in my opinion, be asked many very important questions regarding, for example, their attitude to suicide "bombers" and other actions that fall under "terrorist" attacks. These attitudes should be stated very clearly and should be given maximum publicity. This authentic information should enable those people, who care and worry about such matters, to better appreciate the true position.
The same leaders of the world's religions should also be asked many questions in regard to their attitude to Human Rights as advocated in the European Union. I know that the EU has deliberated long and hard on their views on Human Rights but profess to being completely in the dark as to whether the United Nations have spelled out the whole "World's" view of these rights. There are, for example, glaring differences in the way women are treated in different countries and cultures, and, as I have previously advanced, some of these ways are deeply reprehensible to some people's consciences but do not bother others at all.
In my opinion, the world's population should have specific and common universal total belief and uniformly clear consciences in regard to instances when an individual may kill or injure, or attempt to kill or injure, any other person or persons. In respect of this vitally important matter all Religions should, in very firm and concise statements, make their position crystal clear.
I have explained why I think Security, Human Rights and Religion are so very closely linked; religion should be a calming force but, regrettably, in many cases that does not seem to pertain, some may argue that the reverse applies. A sustained effort, vigorously prompted and promoted by the acclaimed leaders of all religions, should be mounted to ensure that World peace is maintained.
My next blog will start to deal with "The Press and the Establishment".
Frederick W Gilling Friday 18th September 2009
I feel this knowledge and apreciation of the salient points is vital, for the world appears, to me, to be slowly but inexorably building up to what surely would be WW3. This may be brought about by conflict between the major religions; this could be hastened, even disguised, by economic forces, particularly in respect of power supplies both from oil and nuclear sources.
The leaders of the world's religions should, in my opinion, be asked many very important questions regarding, for example, their attitude to suicide "bombers" and other actions that fall under "terrorist" attacks. These attitudes should be stated very clearly and should be given maximum publicity. This authentic information should enable those people, who care and worry about such matters, to better appreciate the true position.
The same leaders of the world's religions should also be asked many questions in regard to their attitude to Human Rights as advocated in the European Union. I know that the EU has deliberated long and hard on their views on Human Rights but profess to being completely in the dark as to whether the United Nations have spelled out the whole "World's" view of these rights. There are, for example, glaring differences in the way women are treated in different countries and cultures, and, as I have previously advanced, some of these ways are deeply reprehensible to some people's consciences but do not bother others at all.
In my opinion, the world's population should have specific and common universal total belief and uniformly clear consciences in regard to instances when an individual may kill or injure, or attempt to kill or injure, any other person or persons. In respect of this vitally important matter all Religions should, in very firm and concise statements, make their position crystal clear.
I have explained why I think Security, Human Rights and Religion are so very closely linked; religion should be a calming force but, regrettably, in many cases that does not seem to pertain, some may argue that the reverse applies. A sustained effort, vigorously prompted and promoted by the acclaimed leaders of all religions, should be mounted to ensure that World peace is maintained.
My next blog will start to deal with "The Press and the Establishment".
Frederick W Gilling Friday 18th September 2009
Thursday 10 September 2009
Security, Human Rights and Religion. Part seven continued.
Part seven continued of Security, Human Rights and Religion. Sorry about the need to continue Part seven folks, I needed to leave the blog for an hour or so but made a bad mistake and clicked on Post instead of Save. I immediately realised it and went back to Edit. Later I typed in the rest of the blog but for some reason the "machine" did a wheels up and the connection to the server was broken. When, twenty hours later, normal service was resumed there was not a trace of some twenty five lines of script. An indicative straw in the wind may have been that the Spell Check was not working, oh to be an expert on IT and computers. I was not copying from a draft but I will try to continue where I left off.
Getting back to reality I must believe that through the centuries, as suggested previously, great scholars have attempted to clarify or prove how religions developed. Speaking just for myself I believe that Jesus Christ was a man who preached and practised a religion that many people could relate to, he was a leader and an inspiration. However the more that I think about a life hereafter the harder I find it to accept that there will be one, I well may be in a decided minority group. Thinking as I do, it makes it even harder to visualise that, depending on how one is judged, life hereafter will be wonderful or horrific.
Where did the nineteen young men, some off them married with families, think they were going as a result of killing close to 2000 people in the Twin Towers attack. The same can be asked of suicide bombers. Religious leaders should speak out very clearly as to the stance of their religion in relation to suicide attacks. The same leaders should state where the suicide attacker's spirit will go. In a more earthly context it should also be ascertained as to whether the suicide attacker's family benefited financially from his or her actions, and if so, by how much and who provided the money.
In my opinion the whole question regarding suicide attacks should be debated at length in the United Nations so that, as far as is possible, every one knows exactly what the position is.
In Part eight of Security, Human Rights and Religion I will sum up my reasons as to why I think those three subjects are closely linked.
Frederick W Gilling 23:42 hrs Thursday 10th September 2009.
Getting back to reality I must believe that through the centuries, as suggested previously, great scholars have attempted to clarify or prove how religions developed. Speaking just for myself I believe that Jesus Christ was a man who preached and practised a religion that many people could relate to, he was a leader and an inspiration. However the more that I think about a life hereafter the harder I find it to accept that there will be one, I well may be in a decided minority group. Thinking as I do, it makes it even harder to visualise that, depending on how one is judged, life hereafter will be wonderful or horrific.
Where did the nineteen young men, some off them married with families, think they were going as a result of killing close to 2000 people in the Twin Towers attack. The same can be asked of suicide bombers. Religious leaders should speak out very clearly as to the stance of their religion in relation to suicide attacks. The same leaders should state where the suicide attacker's spirit will go. In a more earthly context it should also be ascertained as to whether the suicide attacker's family benefited financially from his or her actions, and if so, by how much and who provided the money.
In my opinion the whole question regarding suicide attacks should be debated at length in the United Nations so that, as far as is possible, every one knows exactly what the position is.
In Part eight of Security, Human Rights and Religion I will sum up my reasons as to why I think those three subjects are closely linked.
Frederick W Gilling 23:42 hrs Thursday 10th September 2009.
Wednesday 9 September 2009
Security, Human Rights and Religion Part seven.
Part seven of Security, Human Rights and Religion. A great number of very learned persons, from well over a thousand years ago until the the present time, have, in many instances, devoted their lives to researching the history of religion. I think, it can be safely said, that due to many factors, not the least being the complexity and antiquity of the subject that there is often a wide divergence in any conclusions that have been reached.
Let me introduce a hypothetical scenario, with apologies to any person who may have previously written something similar. Imagine that one hundred thousand week old babies, half boys and half girls, are left on a large island in the middle of the Pacific ocean and they are the only humans on earth. They all survive because it is a very well provided for and benign island, and it suits my hypothesis. What, if any, religion will evolve ? How many generations will pass before idols are conjured up ? Assuming that they were not invented by the original babies' generation, would the sun, moon or mountain tops be considered mystical in any way. After how many generations will it be shown, and believed, that idols possess no powers ?
Will the people on the island ever start to kill each other in the name of a religion they believe in ?
Getting back to reality I must believe that through the centuries
Let me introduce a hypothetical scenario, with apologies to any person who may have previously written something similar. Imagine that one hundred thousand week old babies, half boys and half girls, are left on a large island in the middle of the Pacific ocean and they are the only humans on earth. They all survive because it is a very well provided for and benign island, and it suits my hypothesis. What, if any, religion will evolve ? How many generations will pass before idols are conjured up ? Assuming that they were not invented by the original babies' generation, would the sun, moon or mountain tops be considered mystical in any way. After how many generations will it be shown, and believed, that idols possess no powers ?
Will the people on the island ever start to kill each other in the name of a religion they believe in ?
Getting back to reality I must believe that through the centuries
Tuesday 8 September 2009
Security, Human Rights and Religion. Part six.
Part six of Security, Human Rights and Religion. Before venturing into the often contentious subject of religion I will recall, as accurately as possible, some recent comment regarding the regular support for Christian religions in large "Western" areas. For a selection of West European countries it was in the 30 to 40 percent range. For America it was over 70 percent.
How do the majority of people born in the UK, around about 80 years of age, account for their religious identity, the initials they put on a form that asks for that information. I would suggest that they are more likely to have followed the religion of at least one of their parents, in my case that gave me the initials RC. This no doubt due to my mother's parents having come to England from Ireland. I cannot recall in detail and with any certainty any religious education apart from attending Sunday school and, subsequently, the church parades while in the army.
It can, I think, be surmised that an ever increasing number of UK children are not getting introduced, on a regular basis, to attending a Christian church on Sunday, and religion is playing an ever smaller part in their lives or thinking.
In a book that I self published entitled "Fred's Rules" on page 83 I wrote "Another wish is that I could pick up one small book and in it read an accurate and authorised explanation of the world's major religions because, at the moment, I do not know how many major religions there are and how numerically they are supported.
One question that, I feel, needs to be clearly answered is, "Does any religion impose an obligation on its followers to, for any specific reason, or reasons, kill or attempt to kill a person"? If there is such a religion the temptation to bar anyone who follows that religion from becoming, or being, a citizen of the UK, even residing here or being allowed into the UK is an obvious thought. However, how would such a temptation fit in with a person's human rights ? Particularly with
"The State is never permitted to interfere with a person's right to hold a particular belief". But then comes the qualification " ----- can only restrict their right to manifest their belief by practising their belief in public or in private". The end result could be that a great many people will have to be watched more or less on a full time basis!
A few months ago a friend emailed me some photographs of parts of the universe taken from Hubble, I replied something like this: Photographs absolutely amazing, but so is the technology by which, in virtually a flash, she transmitted them to me, and so was the technology, and skill, that was displayed when my wife had a cataract operation recently. I then went on "Human beings have displayed their truly fantastic technical abilities in scores of different ways, so why are we still,willy nilly, killing each other"?
To be continued in Part seven of Security, Human Rights and Religion.
Frederick W Gilling 17:05 Wednesday 09 September 2009.
How do the majority of people born in the UK, around about 80 years of age, account for their religious identity, the initials they put on a form that asks for that information. I would suggest that they are more likely to have followed the religion of at least one of their parents, in my case that gave me the initials RC. This no doubt due to my mother's parents having come to England from Ireland. I cannot recall in detail and with any certainty any religious education apart from attending Sunday school and, subsequently, the church parades while in the army.
It can, I think, be surmised that an ever increasing number of UK children are not getting introduced, on a regular basis, to attending a Christian church on Sunday, and religion is playing an ever smaller part in their lives or thinking.
In a book that I self published entitled "Fred's Rules" on page 83 I wrote "Another wish is that I could pick up one small book and in it read an accurate and authorised explanation of the world's major religions because, at the moment, I do not know how many major religions there are and how numerically they are supported.
One question that, I feel, needs to be clearly answered is, "Does any religion impose an obligation on its followers to, for any specific reason, or reasons, kill or attempt to kill a person"? If there is such a religion the temptation to bar anyone who follows that religion from becoming, or being, a citizen of the UK, even residing here or being allowed into the UK is an obvious thought. However, how would such a temptation fit in with a person's human rights ? Particularly with
"The State is never permitted to interfere with a person's right to hold a particular belief". But then comes the qualification " ----- can only restrict their right to manifest their belief by practising their belief in public or in private". The end result could be that a great many people will have to be watched more or less on a full time basis!
A few months ago a friend emailed me some photographs of parts of the universe taken from Hubble, I replied something like this: Photographs absolutely amazing, but so is the technology by which, in virtually a flash, she transmitted them to me, and so was the technology, and skill, that was displayed when my wife had a cataract operation recently. I then went on "Human beings have displayed their truly fantastic technical abilities in scores of different ways, so why are we still,willy nilly, killing each other"?
To be continued in Part seven of Security, Human Rights and Religion.
Frederick W Gilling 17:05 Wednesday 09 September 2009.
Security,Human Rights,Religion. Part five.
Part five of Security, Human Rights and Religion. While on the subject of law making two more spring to my mind, firstly a law should be enacted to protect the dignity and respect for the police.
I was disgusted with the actions of some of the protesters during the G20 summit meeting in London. One tall man,wearing a white shirt, was shown on television for several minutes, practically in eye ball to eye ball contact with the police, arms spread out wide he appeared to be taunting them, later he did seem to have some blood stains on his shirt but it did not seem to reduce his mobility. The scene outside and inside the Bank of Scotland showed the ugly and criminal side of demonstrations that can develop.
The second law should be concerned with the actions of UK citizens while abroad, this should include being a passenger on a plane or ship. Something along the lines of: Any UK citizen who brings the UK into disrespect, while abroad, shall be guilty of an offence, max fine ??, maximum time in prison ??. This to be on top of any penalty imposed by a foreign court. Let our courts decide on how much disrespect for the UK had been generated and what the punishment should be. As I was writing the draft of this blog the thought occurred as to whether, when people are entering a foreign country, they should be required to sign an agreement to observe the laws of that country. Now that really does need thinking about, particularly if we require visitors to the UK to sign to obey our laws.
Part six of Security, Human Rights and Religion will be on religion.
Frederick W Gilling 05:02 AM Wednesday 09 September 2009
I was disgusted with the actions of some of the protesters during the G20 summit meeting in London. One tall man,wearing a white shirt, was shown on television for several minutes, practically in eye ball to eye ball contact with the police, arms spread out wide he appeared to be taunting them, later he did seem to have some blood stains on his shirt but it did not seem to reduce his mobility. The scene outside and inside the Bank of Scotland showed the ugly and criminal side of demonstrations that can develop.
The second law should be concerned with the actions of UK citizens while abroad, this should include being a passenger on a plane or ship. Something along the lines of: Any UK citizen who brings the UK into disrespect, while abroad, shall be guilty of an offence, max fine ??, maximum time in prison ??. This to be on top of any penalty imposed by a foreign court. Let our courts decide on how much disrespect for the UK had been generated and what the punishment should be. As I was writing the draft of this blog the thought occurred as to whether, when people are entering a foreign country, they should be required to sign an agreement to observe the laws of that country. Now that really does need thinking about, particularly if we require visitors to the UK to sign to obey our laws.
Part six of Security, Human Rights and Religion will be on religion.
Frederick W Gilling 05:02 AM Wednesday 09 September 2009
Sunday 6 September 2009
Security, Human Rights and Religion. Part four.
Part four of Security, Human Rights and Religion. I have previously shown that I believe thought needs to be given to the word conscience, and the fact that in several matters there is a wide divergence in what may, or may not, trouble a person's conscience. In offering the following comment I justify it by the thought that it acts as a lead in to what follows. The comment is that, I understand, persons becoming residents of the UK are now required to promise their allegiance to the Queen. I have heard that the ceremony itself can be both meaningful and moving.
I assume that, comparatively, few citizens of the UK have formally undertaken such allegiance. While knowing that ignorance of the law is no defence for breaking it, most of us have not formally declared that we will obey the laws of the country. Perhaps one such law that, I suggest, should be put on top of the list already exists, essentially it should read something like this; "I will not deliberately, directly or indirectly, kill or injure, nor attempt to kill or injure any person or persons whatsoever unless permitted by the UK government under one or more of the following conditions". Here should follow the usual disclaimers regarding a state of war existing, self defence or protection of life or property etc etc.
Every adult resident wishing to become, or remain, a citizen of the UK must sign to acknowledge their agreement to all of the UK's laws.
In part five of Security, Human Rights and Religion I will suggest other laws that, I feel, should be created.
Frederick W Gilling 08 August 2009
I assume that, comparatively, few citizens of the UK have formally undertaken such allegiance. While knowing that ignorance of the law is no defence for breaking it, most of us have not formally declared that we will obey the laws of the country. Perhaps one such law that, I suggest, should be put on top of the list already exists, essentially it should read something like this; "I will not deliberately, directly or indirectly, kill or injure, nor attempt to kill or injure any person or persons whatsoever unless permitted by the UK government under one or more of the following conditions". Here should follow the usual disclaimers regarding a state of war existing, self defence or protection of life or property etc etc.
Every adult resident wishing to become, or remain, a citizen of the UK must sign to acknowledge their agreement to all of the UK's laws.
In part five of Security, Human Rights and Religion I will suggest other laws that, I feel, should be created.
Frederick W Gilling 08 August 2009
Friday 4 September 2009
Security,Human Rights,Religion. Part three.
Part three of Security,Human Rights and Religion. I think one can safely assume that most adults in the UK are aware of the expression Human Rights, and are broadly aware that most of these rights have been clarified within the European Union and also, more particularly, in the UK.
Article 9 is concerned with "Freedom of thought, conscience and religion". This has been explained as protecting peoples' rights in relation to a broad range of views, beliefs, thoughts and "positions of conscience" as well as to their faith in a particular religion.
However it just so happens that Article 9 is one of four articles in which the rights are qualified, that takes my argument into the domain of lawyers and judges, neither of which I am qualified in but, while wishing that "things" would be better if their meaning was crystal clear I will push on.
"The State is never permitted to interfere with a person's right to hold a particular belief". My comments follow, a person can think anything they like, end of story! However with the advances in the knowledge of genes and brain surgery it could be nice to know that the State cannot interfere with the way a person thinks!
Then along come several qualifications, I quote: "It [the State] can only restrict their right to manifest a belief [for example, worshipping, teaching, practising and observing their belief either in public or in private]". My comment, there is plenty of grist for the mill there as lawyers and judges seek to establish case law in respect of article 9, particularly when the qualifications concerning public safety, public order, health, morals and the rights and freedom of others are thrown into the mix.
To be continued in Part four of "Security, Human Rights and Religion"
Frederick W Gilling 07 September 2009
Article 9 is concerned with "Freedom of thought, conscience and religion". This has been explained as protecting peoples' rights in relation to a broad range of views, beliefs, thoughts and "positions of conscience" as well as to their faith in a particular religion.
However it just so happens that Article 9 is one of four articles in which the rights are qualified, that takes my argument into the domain of lawyers and judges, neither of which I am qualified in but, while wishing that "things" would be better if their meaning was crystal clear I will push on.
"The State is never permitted to interfere with a person's right to hold a particular belief". My comments follow, a person can think anything they like, end of story! However with the advances in the knowledge of genes and brain surgery it could be nice to know that the State cannot interfere with the way a person thinks!
Then along come several qualifications, I quote: "It [the State] can only restrict their right to manifest a belief [for example, worshipping, teaching, practising and observing their belief either in public or in private]". My comment, there is plenty of grist for the mill there as lawyers and judges seek to establish case law in respect of article 9, particularly when the qualifications concerning public safety, public order, health, morals and the rights and freedom of others are thrown into the mix.
To be continued in Part four of "Security, Human Rights and Religion"
Frederick W Gilling 07 September 2009
Thursday 3 September 2009
Security, Human Rights and Religion. Part two.
Part two of Security, Human Rights and Religion. In recent years several terrorist attacks have been launched against targets in different countries, the most noticeable being the attack on the Twin Towers in New York. What was the "mind set" of the people who planned it and carried it out? I feel that is a critical question, and will it be possible in the future to alter that mindset?
Two other very much smaller incidents in the last year also warrant the question about mindset. In one of them two young men in Kabul, in cold blood, shot and killed a white Christian woman, in another, local female teachers, and female pupils, had acid thrown onto their faces. In thinking about the first incident one can surmise that the mindset of the of the two young men was a rock solid belief that what they were doing was praiseworthy, that killing a person because that person's religion was different to theirs, that their religion called for them to take action. That far from feeling any regret they could bask in the glory of doing right, that their consciences would not bother them at all.
I felt that a key word is "conscience", how can one live with one's conscience if, in conjunction with a friend or not, you had shot and killed, at point blank range, a defenceless woman. I suppose one answer is, because of what you had been taught for many years, some of those years as a child, that any person you suspected of teaching a religion that was at odds with yours should be killed. How many hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, through the years, in the name of religion? [Did any of the Gods smile?]
For the meaning of conscience a Concise Oxford Dictionary gives "a person's moral sense of right and wrong". A reference source on the internet gives two meanings 1/ The awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one's conduct. 2/ Conformity to one's own sense of right conduct.
This second meaning made me think long and hard, it more or less seems like an "anything goes" clause. It had more impact on me than the meaning given in the Oxford dictionary yet is it so different?
A simple litmus test for people living in the UK. In one of the World's continents female children were useful members of the family, as they could be used to increase the families'
assets by an arranged marriage, they had to be paid for. In another continent a reverse situation applied, the end result being that female babies, in some parts of the continent, were not welcome and, at times in the past this led to unfortunate action. The question for UK residents is "Does either or both of those practices bother your conscience"? I think that both of them would bother the conscience of most people living here, but, conversely, many people living in those two continents would not have a quarrel with their conscience. It throws into pin sharp focus the question of "Conformity to one's own sense of right conduct".
To be continued in Part three of "Security, Human Rights and Religion"
Frederick W Gilling 04/09/2009
Two other very much smaller incidents in the last year also warrant the question about mindset. In one of them two young men in Kabul, in cold blood, shot and killed a white Christian woman, in another, local female teachers, and female pupils, had acid thrown onto their faces. In thinking about the first incident one can surmise that the mindset of the of the two young men was a rock solid belief that what they were doing was praiseworthy, that killing a person because that person's religion was different to theirs, that their religion called for them to take action. That far from feeling any regret they could bask in the glory of doing right, that their consciences would not bother them at all.
I felt that a key word is "conscience", how can one live with one's conscience if, in conjunction with a friend or not, you had shot and killed, at point blank range, a defenceless woman. I suppose one answer is, because of what you had been taught for many years, some of those years as a child, that any person you suspected of teaching a religion that was at odds with yours should be killed. How many hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, through the years, in the name of religion? [Did any of the Gods smile?]
For the meaning of conscience a Concise Oxford Dictionary gives "a person's moral sense of right and wrong". A reference source on the internet gives two meanings 1/ The awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one's conduct. 2/ Conformity to one's own sense of right conduct.
This second meaning made me think long and hard, it more or less seems like an "anything goes" clause. It had more impact on me than the meaning given in the Oxford dictionary yet is it so different?
A simple litmus test for people living in the UK. In one of the World's continents female children were useful members of the family, as they could be used to increase the families'
assets by an arranged marriage, they had to be paid for. In another continent a reverse situation applied, the end result being that female babies, in some parts of the continent, were not welcome and, at times in the past this led to unfortunate action. The question for UK residents is "Does either or both of those practices bother your conscience"? I think that both of them would bother the conscience of most people living here, but, conversely, many people living in those two continents would not have a quarrel with their conscience. It throws into pin sharp focus the question of "Conformity to one's own sense of right conduct".
To be continued in Part three of "Security, Human Rights and Religion"
Frederick W Gilling 04/09/2009
Wednesday 2 September 2009
Security,Human Rights,Religion.
Part one of Security, Human Rights and Religion. One could write, practically for ever, on each of these subjects specifically. I will only touch on them in an attempt to put my feelings across and to justify dealing with them together.
I visited a friend in a care home and he had heard, on the radio, an article about a man who, hundreds of years ago, had calculated the circumference and radius of the world to what we now know to be a high degree of accuracy.
My friend could not remember details of the programme very clearly apart from thinking that the man was an Arab. Consequently at home, over a period, I sought information on the internet. One of the sites had compiled info under different headings, one of which was "Islamic World" Under that heading details were given of a man, Abu al-Rayan al-Biruni [973-1048]. I felt certain that was the man discussed in the programme my friend had listened to.
Feeding that name into a search engine yielded several pages devoted to explaining the practically mind blowing achievements, in that era, of al-Buruni in several scientific disciplines, including Geodesy, the study of the shape and area of the earth. Many knowledgeable people think that he was one of the best, in any era, polymaths in the world. He was a Persian, born in what is now called Uzbekistan and he died in Afghanistan. He was also considered to be very fair in his summing up of religions and beliefs other than his own. A crater on the moon, al-Biruni is named after him and the 1000th anniversary of his birth was honoured on a 1973 Afghan Post Stamp.
I have laboured the subject for, primarily, one reason alone, and that is to show my total lack of knowledge of the abilities of people, more than a thousand years ago living, in my opinion, in such an out of the way location.
May I safely suggest that there are millions, maybe billions, of people in the world with a similar lack of appreciation of the knowledge, and of the standard of development of the Islamic world a thousand or more years ago. May I also suggest that such a lack of appreciation needs to be rectified to enable a more balanced view of any potentially dangerous situation that may arise.
The paragraph before this reminded me of something in the same vein that I wrote in my book entitled "Fred's Rules" [ps 91 & 92]. This recalled a few words I had with a young man from Turkey. I had a recording of Deanna Durbin playing and he, standing at the front door, voiced the opinion that it was very nice. I was totally surprised that a young Turkish man could relate
to, and obviously appreciate, music completely out of his era. In response to a question he explained that it touched his heart. This left me very moved and I subsequently penned the words "I must not judge a person by their ethnicity or the colour of their skin but I should take note of the colour of their heart" This blog will be continued in Security, Human Rights and Religion, Part two.
Frederick W Gilling Thursday 3rd September 2009.
I visited a friend in a care home and he had heard, on the radio, an article about a man who, hundreds of years ago, had calculated the circumference and radius of the world to what we now know to be a high degree of accuracy.
My friend could not remember details of the programme very clearly apart from thinking that the man was an Arab. Consequently at home, over a period, I sought information on the internet. One of the sites had compiled info under different headings, one of which was "Islamic World" Under that heading details were given of a man, Abu al-Rayan al-Biruni [973-1048]. I felt certain that was the man discussed in the programme my friend had listened to.
Feeding that name into a search engine yielded several pages devoted to explaining the practically mind blowing achievements, in that era, of al-Buruni in several scientific disciplines, including Geodesy, the study of the shape and area of the earth. Many knowledgeable people think that he was one of the best, in any era, polymaths in the world. He was a Persian, born in what is now called Uzbekistan and he died in Afghanistan. He was also considered to be very fair in his summing up of religions and beliefs other than his own. A crater on the moon, al-Biruni is named after him and the 1000th anniversary of his birth was honoured on a 1973 Afghan Post Stamp.
I have laboured the subject for, primarily, one reason alone, and that is to show my total lack of knowledge of the abilities of people, more than a thousand years ago living, in my opinion, in such an out of the way location.
May I safely suggest that there are millions, maybe billions, of people in the world with a similar lack of appreciation of the knowledge, and of the standard of development of the Islamic world a thousand or more years ago. May I also suggest that such a lack of appreciation needs to be rectified to enable a more balanced view of any potentially dangerous situation that may arise.
The paragraph before this reminded me of something in the same vein that I wrote in my book entitled "Fred's Rules" [ps 91 & 92]. This recalled a few words I had with a young man from Turkey. I had a recording of Deanna Durbin playing and he, standing at the front door, voiced the opinion that it was very nice. I was totally surprised that a young Turkish man could relate
to, and obviously appreciate, music completely out of his era. In response to a question he explained that it touched his heart. This left me very moved and I subsequently penned the words "I must not judge a person by their ethnicity or the colour of their skin but I should take note of the colour of their heart" This blog will be continued in Security, Human Rights and Religion, Part two.
Frederick W Gilling Thursday 3rd September 2009.
Saturday 29 August 2009
The United Nations
The United Nations. When the UN was formed after WW Two it must have created, particularly in the minds of older people, high hopes that they would not see any more mass destruction of lives and property, and that the world would be, indeed, a much nicer and safer place to live in.
I did have the honour of working for, on a short term contract, two of their agencies. One cannot deny that the different UN agencies have achieved a great deal in their specified fields. However in the very important field of controlling or preventing warfare or changing unjust regimes the UN has, I believe, only had limited success.
In dreams one can think that the mere threat of the UN using force to solve a problem would immediately solve it. That is how it should be but that threat, due to the use or potential use of a veto in the security council, is not even brought to bear. There are two or three glaringly obvious situations where the amount of force needed could easily be made available to the UN but, for reasons best known to members of the Security Council, the resolutions to use force are not agreed to or even debated.
Obviously when the UN was formed the key members, particularly, had their own agendas to follow, their own interests to safeguard, hence powerful nations formed the security council and secured the right to veto any resolution. How many of those nations would have become members if the body had been named The United Democratic Nations ? It would be interesting to know if such a title had been considered. It would be even more interesting if such a name change could be discussed today.
Frederick W Gilling 30/08/2009
I did have the honour of working for, on a short term contract, two of their agencies. One cannot deny that the different UN agencies have achieved a great deal in their specified fields. However in the very important field of controlling or preventing warfare or changing unjust regimes the UN has, I believe, only had limited success.
In dreams one can think that the mere threat of the UN using force to solve a problem would immediately solve it. That is how it should be but that threat, due to the use or potential use of a veto in the security council, is not even brought to bear. There are two or three glaringly obvious situations where the amount of force needed could easily be made available to the UN but, for reasons best known to members of the Security Council, the resolutions to use force are not agreed to or even debated.
Obviously when the UN was formed the key members, particularly, had their own agendas to follow, their own interests to safeguard, hence powerful nations formed the security council and secured the right to veto any resolution. How many of those nations would have become members if the body had been named The United Democratic Nations ? It would be interesting to know if such a title had been considered. It would be even more interesting if such a name change could be discussed today.
Frederick W Gilling 30/08/2009
Friday 28 August 2009
European Union
European Union, I am not aware of all of the implications for different countries who are members, or wish to be members, of the EU. I do know that in the UK there are very strong views as to membership. Many MPs and UK voters think that a referendum should be held in relation to ratifying proposed changes to EU regulations.
Is it possible for counties to have a choice, in all regards except one, as to the type of membership they to apply for? My suggestions as to suitable headings are listed below.
1/ Defence. Membership under this heading is essential. If a country wishes to become a member of the EU they must agree to comply with all of the obligations in relation to defence.
The following sections are not in any particular order and countries are free to choose, the list is not exhaustive.
2/ Economic. Under this heading a country must convert to the Euro and comply with all rules relating, specifically, to EU economics.
3/ Immigration.
4/ Health.
5/ Human Rights.
6/ Law.
7/ Agriculture and commercial fishing.
Two years or so ago the German Chancellor Angela Merkal, in a discussion about the EU, came out with words that approximated in meaning to stating that there had not been a war in Europe for 50 years.
During WW Two I think there were countless barbarous acts, both on an individual basis as well as on a much larger scale involving whole units or even armies. I have seen estimates of more than 50 million deaths during that war, this is an incredible number to contemplate.
I spent approx three and a half years in the British army, some of that time during WW Two but I did not see any action as such. I find it difficult to understand how some people can manifest
hate over generations. However I recall that when Yugoslavia broke up a friend said to me "Fred, they are fighting over something that happened fourteen hundred years ago".
I do not hate German or Japanese people, I can understand people who witnessed brutal acts, or whose close relatives or friends were killed, not finding it easy to forget. But generation after generation nursing a grudge is not, for me, so easy to understand.
If the EU prevents a war between member states or member states stand shoulder to shoulder with each other in resisting aggression then that alone, in my opinion, justifies the existence of the EU.
In my previous blog to this I put some ideas forward regarding "protectionism", I feel that the EU could well be a "grouping" such as I suggested and should consider if their best interests would be served by embracing, openly, some form of protectionism. Non EU member countries could well be members of such a bloc. To me it is glaringly obvious that a major watershed moment has already dawned, particularly for developed countries, and that the rule book for providing gainful employment for their populations has to be completely rewritten, and agreed to, by members of the developed countries. It could well transpire that some developed
countries could feel that their best interests would be served by becoming a member of a different trading bloc to which they previously belonged, and in which they traditionally operated.
If the playing field of world economies has to be levelled out it is essential that some form of control is maintained over the bulldozer drivers. This control must be exercised by governments driven by the desire, to make the world, in the long term, a better place. This can be done by generating and harnessing the "goodness" of people, there has to be a better driving force than greed.
Frederick W Gilling 29/08/2009
Is it possible for counties to have a choice, in all regards except one, as to the type of membership they to apply for? My suggestions as to suitable headings are listed below.
1/ Defence. Membership under this heading is essential. If a country wishes to become a member of the EU they must agree to comply with all of the obligations in relation to defence.
The following sections are not in any particular order and countries are free to choose, the list is not exhaustive.
2/ Economic. Under this heading a country must convert to the Euro and comply with all rules relating, specifically, to EU economics.
3/ Immigration.
4/ Health.
5/ Human Rights.
6/ Law.
7/ Agriculture and commercial fishing.
Two years or so ago the German Chancellor Angela Merkal, in a discussion about the EU, came out with words that approximated in meaning to stating that there had not been a war in Europe for 50 years.
During WW Two I think there were countless barbarous acts, both on an individual basis as well as on a much larger scale involving whole units or even armies. I have seen estimates of more than 50 million deaths during that war, this is an incredible number to contemplate.
I spent approx three and a half years in the British army, some of that time during WW Two but I did not see any action as such. I find it difficult to understand how some people can manifest
hate over generations. However I recall that when Yugoslavia broke up a friend said to me "Fred, they are fighting over something that happened fourteen hundred years ago".
I do not hate German or Japanese people, I can understand people who witnessed brutal acts, or whose close relatives or friends were killed, not finding it easy to forget. But generation after generation nursing a grudge is not, for me, so easy to understand.
If the EU prevents a war between member states or member states stand shoulder to shoulder with each other in resisting aggression then that alone, in my opinion, justifies the existence of the EU.
In my previous blog to this I put some ideas forward regarding "protectionism", I feel that the EU could well be a "grouping" such as I suggested and should consider if their best interests would be served by embracing, openly, some form of protectionism. Non EU member countries could well be members of such a bloc. To me it is glaringly obvious that a major watershed moment has already dawned, particularly for developed countries, and that the rule book for providing gainful employment for their populations has to be completely rewritten, and agreed to, by members of the developed countries. It could well transpire that some developed
countries could feel that their best interests would be served by becoming a member of a different trading bloc to which they previously belonged, and in which they traditionally operated.
If the playing field of world economies has to be levelled out it is essential that some form of control is maintained over the bulldozer drivers. This control must be exercised by governments driven by the desire, to make the world, in the long term, a better place. This can be done by generating and harnessing the "goodness" of people, there has to be a better driving force than greed.
Frederick W Gilling 29/08/2009
Protectionism
Protectionism
Several of the world's leaders have been quite vocal in stating that protectionism is a "bad" policy. Some of them may have been a little cynical and may have just been paying lip service to the principle. I feel that most of the Western World, that is to say the countries normally referred to as "developed", will not be able to compete with China, India and several of the Pacific Rim countries when it comes to the cost of an article.
The size and complexity of the "articles" have long since left tee shirts, sets of cutlery
and toys far behind. Television sets and various very technical electronic "gizmos" will be supplemented by powerful motorcycles, cars, trucks and even commercial aircraft in the not too distant future.
If China and India really put their minds to it they could also flood the world, for example, with top class medical personnel and professional engineers, of all disciplines, prepared to work for lower salaries than their "Western" counterparts. Does protectionism also extend to offering employment to such highly qualified experts.
As I see it the world could well, with advantage, divide up into areas or groups of countries that share common ties such as race, language, defence, geographic location and, possibly, religion. Sheer logic could well, in some cases, override inherent nationalism and dictate the composition of some such groups. Each group will try to be self sufficient in regard to defence, food, power supplies and commodities. Trading within the group will be freely encouraged and the population, within the group, will learn to accept the situation as it is.
Trading between the groups will be on a mutually agreed basis, almost on a barter system. National and world security will be based on the principle that any suggestion of a conventional war will lead to the mutually destructive use of nuclear or chemical weapons.
Protectionism on such an open basis may eventually lead to a better understanding of the problems facing the world and could even encourage the best developed areas to adopt a more philanthropic attitude to areas of the world in need.
Frederick W Gilling 28/08/2009
Several of the world's leaders have been quite vocal in stating that protectionism is a "bad" policy. Some of them may have been a little cynical and may have just been paying lip service to the principle. I feel that most of the Western World, that is to say the countries normally referred to as "developed", will not be able to compete with China, India and several of the Pacific Rim countries when it comes to the cost of an article.
The size and complexity of the "articles" have long since left tee shirts, sets of cutlery
and toys far behind. Television sets and various very technical electronic "gizmos" will be supplemented by powerful motorcycles, cars, trucks and even commercial aircraft in the not too distant future.
If China and India really put their minds to it they could also flood the world, for example, with top class medical personnel and professional engineers, of all disciplines, prepared to work for lower salaries than their "Western" counterparts. Does protectionism also extend to offering employment to such highly qualified experts.
As I see it the world could well, with advantage, divide up into areas or groups of countries that share common ties such as race, language, defence, geographic location and, possibly, religion. Sheer logic could well, in some cases, override inherent nationalism and dictate the composition of some such groups. Each group will try to be self sufficient in regard to defence, food, power supplies and commodities. Trading within the group will be freely encouraged and the population, within the group, will learn to accept the situation as it is.
Trading between the groups will be on a mutually agreed basis, almost on a barter system. National and world security will be based on the principle that any suggestion of a conventional war will lead to the mutually destructive use of nuclear or chemical weapons.
Protectionism on such an open basis may eventually lead to a better understanding of the problems facing the world and could even encourage the best developed areas to adopt a more philanthropic attitude to areas of the world in need.
Frederick W Gilling 28/08/2009
Saturday 15 August 2009
Summary of Party Free Politics and World Financial Armageddon
In Politics One to Four I advocated that, here in the UK, we should adopt a system of government that does not involve party politics, some of the suggestions I made are listed below in condensed form.
Persons wishing to be candidates for election must have lived in the constituency for the specified periods I mooted, they must not be members of a political party.
Voters can force "their " MP to resign.
MPs can force an MP to resign.
MPs can force any Minister or Deputy Minister to give up their office.
MPs elect the Prime Minister as well as any other Ministers or Deputies.
The speaker is not a MP but can be an ex MP. MPs can force the Speaker to resign.
MPs elect a Speaker when required.
I have suggested that the number of MPs could be reduced to 300 and that that 50 members, all elected, should be sufficient in the House of Lords. I have also suggested that more suitable names should be found for "Commons" and "Lords".
The recent and prolonged exposure of the advantage, that many MPs have taken, of various opportunities to greatly increase their financial affluence have been, I feel, absolutely mind blowing. [Kindly refer to the last paragraph in this blog] This drive by many MPs to enrich themselves is surely reflected in the rash symptomatic behaviour, albeit on a hugely larger scale, that led to the World Financial Armageddon. In my opinion the time is ripe for the drastic changes I have advanced regarding a more democratic and efficient way of governing the UK.
As I type these words, on 15/08/2009, there have been minor signs that have led to some experts suggesting that the worst of the "economic downturn" [oh what spin] is over, other authorities are much more cautious. In no way do I consider myself an expert on world economics [look where the experts have taken the world] but I just have the feeling, deep inside, that my choice of the word Armageddon to describe the state of the world's financial system cannot be faulted. In spite of all the evidence in support of this supposition there are signs, anything but minor, that the pieces are being picked up and attempts are being made to stick them back together, [along with more fantastic salaries and bonuses] in my opinion these attempts defy the totally logical assumption that something better has to be found. As a starting point every country in the world should nationalise their major banks. This statement will obviously give rise to instantaneous howls of derisory laughter. Can we all laugh at the way, seemingly countless, trillions of units of the world's currencies have been poured into the WORLD'S banking systems. This was to save the world from the effects of the Financial Armageddon that private ownership of the banks has created. In this the banks were ably supported by the various money making offspring that they fathered. Please, please do not tell me that, as with party politics, something better cannot, and must, be found.
This last paragraph returns to the matter of MPs expenses. A very revealing insight into the mindset of many MPs, in regard to their expenses, were the different attempts that were made to prevent details being published. This resulted, I would surmise, in many people, including me, reaching for a dictionary to see if there actually was a word "redact" and if so what did it mean, in the dictionary I used there there was some consolation in so far as it was qualified as "rare". Of real annoyance to me was an article in a magazine that drew my attention to the fact that Commons' officials, by mistake, shredded the documents pertaining to some of Mr Tony Blair's expenses for the period 2001-2. Is that the end of the story? If it is I do not think it should be. Surely there must be cross checks available, one source would be Mr Blair's bank statements or his copies of his claims for expenses; the article stated that the documents were the subject of a legal challenge. If the Commons officials involved did anything wrong they should be held to account. There should be a very thorough enquiry into this matter. Finally why should MPs be secretive about their home addresses; exposure to the public eye, and the subsequent risks involved go with the job.
Frederick W Gilling. 15/08/2009
Persons wishing to be candidates for election must have lived in the constituency for the specified periods I mooted, they must not be members of a political party.
Voters can force "their " MP to resign.
MPs can force an MP to resign.
MPs can force any Minister or Deputy Minister to give up their office.
MPs elect the Prime Minister as well as any other Ministers or Deputies.
The speaker is not a MP but can be an ex MP. MPs can force the Speaker to resign.
MPs elect a Speaker when required.
I have suggested that the number of MPs could be reduced to 300 and that that 50 members, all elected, should be sufficient in the House of Lords. I have also suggested that more suitable names should be found for "Commons" and "Lords".
The recent and prolonged exposure of the advantage, that many MPs have taken, of various opportunities to greatly increase their financial affluence have been, I feel, absolutely mind blowing. [Kindly refer to the last paragraph in this blog] This drive by many MPs to enrich themselves is surely reflected in the rash symptomatic behaviour, albeit on a hugely larger scale, that led to the World Financial Armageddon. In my opinion the time is ripe for the drastic changes I have advanced regarding a more democratic and efficient way of governing the UK.
As I type these words, on 15/08/2009, there have been minor signs that have led to some experts suggesting that the worst of the "economic downturn" [oh what spin] is over, other authorities are much more cautious. In no way do I consider myself an expert on world economics [look where the experts have taken the world] but I just have the feeling, deep inside, that my choice of the word Armageddon to describe the state of the world's financial system cannot be faulted. In spite of all the evidence in support of this supposition there are signs, anything but minor, that the pieces are being picked up and attempts are being made to stick them back together, [along with more fantastic salaries and bonuses] in my opinion these attempts defy the totally logical assumption that something better has to be found. As a starting point every country in the world should nationalise their major banks. This statement will obviously give rise to instantaneous howls of derisory laughter. Can we all laugh at the way, seemingly countless, trillions of units of the world's currencies have been poured into the WORLD'S banking systems. This was to save the world from the effects of the Financial Armageddon that private ownership of the banks has created. In this the banks were ably supported by the various money making offspring that they fathered. Please, please do not tell me that, as with party politics, something better cannot, and must, be found.
This last paragraph returns to the matter of MPs expenses. A very revealing insight into the mindset of many MPs, in regard to their expenses, were the different attempts that were made to prevent details being published. This resulted, I would surmise, in many people, including me, reaching for a dictionary to see if there actually was a word "redact" and if so what did it mean, in the dictionary I used there there was some consolation in so far as it was qualified as "rare". Of real annoyance to me was an article in a magazine that drew my attention to the fact that Commons' officials, by mistake, shredded the documents pertaining to some of Mr Tony Blair's expenses for the period 2001-2. Is that the end of the story? If it is I do not think it should be. Surely there must be cross checks available, one source would be Mr Blair's bank statements or his copies of his claims for expenses; the article stated that the documents were the subject of a legal challenge. If the Commons officials involved did anything wrong they should be held to account. There should be a very thorough enquiry into this matter. Finally why should MPs be secretive about their home addresses; exposure to the public eye, and the subsequent risks involved go with the job.
Frederick W Gilling. 15/08/2009
Sunday 2 August 2009
World Financial Armageddon. Part three.
World Financial Armageddon. Part three, condensed for blog.
Knowing my interest in politics and world finance a friend suggested that I should read "Who Runs This Place", this was written by the late Mr Anthony Sampson and published by John Murray in 2004. As I did not want my thinking to be influenced I did not read the book until after drafting out the short chapters of "A Musing Layman" from which I condensed blogs for my blogging site. Pages 247 to 276, and more, in "Who Runs This Place" give thought proviking insight into the various facets of how money is used [misused?] with the sole aim of making more money, often without any regard to the misery it can create.
Mr Sampson drew attention to the MPs' SelectCommittee on the Treasury. The Chief Executives of the big banks were questioned in connection with many aspects of finance, including credit cards, with the base rate at 3.5 percent one bank was charging 17,9 percent interest. [In the last few days with the bank rate at 0.5 percent the same complaints are being voiced.] This particular report was in respect of the Committee's meeting in October 2003. Surely at that time many high ranking financial officials, both in government and private institutions, must have known that a bubble was approaching bursting point. If they knew and did nothing about it they were drastically at fault, if they did not know then they were also drastically at fault, arguably even more so than those that did know. Irregardless of whose fault it was the taxplayers of the world's biggest economies are having to find the money to save gigantic banks from collapsing. When the dust settles the whys and wherefores of this bail out will provide the material for many learned papers.
The world has experienced the astronomical changes wrought by the French and Russian revolutions, these were events, basically, in individual countries. In my opinion, through present governments or ballot boxes, the time is ripe for every major economy to stage a world financial revolution by nationalising all of its major indigenous banks. In many major countries the taxpayers, because of the World Financial Armageddon, already own high percentages of large banks. A big surprise to me, and I suggest to many people, is that governments in virtual control of banks have not cracked the whip and told them what to do. In too many instances large banks and financial institutions have failed in at least one primary duty and that is to safeguard the money that belongs to their customers. I would, however, advise extreme caution in lending to small businesses. My reason for this is that many small businesses owed their success, or even creation, to the freak circumstances generated by the heady spend, spend and spend syndrome, fuelled for several years, by a seemingly never ending supply of borrowed money. Their chances of surviving in a harsher economic climate could well be slim. The reasoning for this may well be applicable to businesses other than small. This blog will be continued in World Financial Armageddon. Part four.
Frederick W Gilling Monday 03 August 2009
Knowing my interest in politics and world finance a friend suggested that I should read "Who Runs This Place", this was written by the late Mr Anthony Sampson and published by John Murray in 2004. As I did not want my thinking to be influenced I did not read the book until after drafting out the short chapters of "A Musing Layman" from which I condensed blogs for my blogging site. Pages 247 to 276, and more, in "Who Runs This Place" give thought proviking insight into the various facets of how money is used [misused?] with the sole aim of making more money, often without any regard to the misery it can create.
Mr Sampson drew attention to the MPs' SelectCommittee on the Treasury. The Chief Executives of the big banks were questioned in connection with many aspects of finance, including credit cards, with the base rate at 3.5 percent one bank was charging 17,9 percent interest. [In the last few days with the bank rate at 0.5 percent the same complaints are being voiced.] This particular report was in respect of the Committee's meeting in October 2003. Surely at that time many high ranking financial officials, both in government and private institutions, must have known that a bubble was approaching bursting point. If they knew and did nothing about it they were drastically at fault, if they did not know then they were also drastically at fault, arguably even more so than those that did know. Irregardless of whose fault it was the taxplayers of the world's biggest economies are having to find the money to save gigantic banks from collapsing. When the dust settles the whys and wherefores of this bail out will provide the material for many learned papers.
The world has experienced the astronomical changes wrought by the French and Russian revolutions, these were events, basically, in individual countries. In my opinion, through present governments or ballot boxes, the time is ripe for every major economy to stage a world financial revolution by nationalising all of its major indigenous banks. In many major countries the taxpayers, because of the World Financial Armageddon, already own high percentages of large banks. A big surprise to me, and I suggest to many people, is that governments in virtual control of banks have not cracked the whip and told them what to do. In too many instances large banks and financial institutions have failed in at least one primary duty and that is to safeguard the money that belongs to their customers. I would, however, advise extreme caution in lending to small businesses. My reason for this is that many small businesses owed their success, or even creation, to the freak circumstances generated by the heady spend, spend and spend syndrome, fuelled for several years, by a seemingly never ending supply of borrowed money. Their chances of surviving in a harsher economic climate could well be slim. The reasoning for this may well be applicable to businesses other than small. This blog will be continued in World Financial Armageddon. Part four.
Frederick W Gilling Monday 03 August 2009
Tuesday 28 July 2009
World Financial Armageddon. Part two.
World Financial Armageddon. Part two [condensed for blog version]
Pointers as to why hundreds of top personnel in financial institutions should have foreseen the impending Financial Armageddon.
Quote attributed to a President of the USA Thomas Jefferson [1743 - 1826] "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies". This quotation certainly illustrates that the awesome power of banks is not a new thing.
The following three quotations are from a long report by Mr Warren Buffet in 2002 on DERIVATIVES.
1/ I view derivatives as time bombs, both for the parties that deal in them and the economic system.
2/ But the parties to derivatives also have enormous incentives to cheat in accounting for them.
3/ In my view, derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal.
Mr Buffet is an internationally known expert on finance and has, on several occasions, staved off potential world financial drama. Please kindly note that these quotations are from the year 2002.
A few months ago I read an article in a national paper, the headline approximated to "At least ten warnings of the impending problems were given" the article then named the persons concerned and stated when the warnings were given and how they were worded.
Part three of the World Financial Armageddon will be in my next blog.
Frederick W Gilling 28/07/2009
Pointers as to why hundreds of top personnel in financial institutions should have foreseen the impending Financial Armageddon.
Quote attributed to a President of the USA Thomas Jefferson [1743 - 1826] "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies". This quotation certainly illustrates that the awesome power of banks is not a new thing.
The following three quotations are from a long report by Mr Warren Buffet in 2002 on DERIVATIVES.
1/ I view derivatives as time bombs, both for the parties that deal in them and the economic system.
2/ But the parties to derivatives also have enormous incentives to cheat in accounting for them.
3/ In my view, derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal.
Mr Buffet is an internationally known expert on finance and has, on several occasions, staved off potential world financial drama. Please kindly note that these quotations are from the year 2002.
A few months ago I read an article in a national paper, the headline approximated to "At least ten warnings of the impending problems were given" the article then named the persons concerned and stated when the warnings were given and how they were worded.
Part three of the World Financial Armageddon will be in my next blog.
Frederick W Gilling 28/07/2009
Thursday 23 July 2009
World Financial Armageddon
World Financial Armageddon. Part one [condensed for blog version]
In my original document I used a sub title "An Economic Force Majeure" as I felt the expression
credit crunch did not, in any way, reflect the devastating seriousness of the cataclysmic implosions/explosions in the world's financial systems/institutions. In its traditional usage contracts maybe rendered void by "Force Majeure", and I feel that an economic force majeure justifies actions that otherwise would not be legally acceptable, for example, recovering rewards such as fantastically high salaries, bonuses, company shares or what have you, given to executives who in any way were responsible for the World Financial Armageddon. Being responsible includes, for example, not acting on advance warnings of the consequences of their actions, not advising all and sundry of the impending problems and/or concealing vast amounts of toxic debt accrued by their companies.
How does an ordinary person , such as me, come to grips with the number of noughts involved in billions of this and several trillions of that. The front page of the Sunday Times Magazine dated 17/05/2009 has a headline "Anyone seen where our fifty trillion went?" Coincidently enough the magazine also featured a short story entitled "The Decline of the West". The author, Mr Hanif Kureishi, really hit a few contemporary nails hard on the head for, in several ways, his story embraced both the causes and effects of the World Financial Armageddon. Played for or not I feel he also partially illustrated what many people will recognise as a spend, spend, spend malaise that had the Western World very firmly in its grip. I only saw the magazine in July as it was passed on to me en route to the next family in the chain.
My worry is that very little priority will be given to ascertaining who was responsible, in any way, for the practically instantaneous implosion that brought some of the biggest financial institutions in the world crashing down under the weight of debt, billions of it "toxic debt".
Any dealing that is considered to be detrimental to any of the world's communities should be investigated with the backing of governments. Draconian power should be given to the people charged with finding out all of the facts in any way related to the Financial Armageddon.
Unless such a course is followed the whole matter may be swept under convenient carpets
all over the world and the game will re-open and vast sums of money will be released to hunt down ever larger amounts of money.
My mind boggles at the scope there has been for the outright theft of millions by clever personnel, with inside tracks, in practically any financial institution carrying huge amounts of toxic debt.
In part two of World Financial Armageddon I propose to give a few background points to justify my contention that many people, in key positions, must have known that financial disaster was impending.
Frederick W Gilling. 22/07/2009
In my original document I used a sub title "An Economic Force Majeure" as I felt the expression
credit crunch did not, in any way, reflect the devastating seriousness of the cataclysmic implosions/explosions in the world's financial systems/institutions. In its traditional usage contracts maybe rendered void by "Force Majeure", and I feel that an economic force majeure justifies actions that otherwise would not be legally acceptable, for example, recovering rewards such as fantastically high salaries, bonuses, company shares or what have you, given to executives who in any way were responsible for the World Financial Armageddon. Being responsible includes, for example, not acting on advance warnings of the consequences of their actions, not advising all and sundry of the impending problems and/or concealing vast amounts of toxic debt accrued by their companies.
How does an ordinary person , such as me, come to grips with the number of noughts involved in billions of this and several trillions of that. The front page of the Sunday Times Magazine dated 17/05/2009 has a headline "Anyone seen where our fifty trillion went?" Coincidently enough the magazine also featured a short story entitled "The Decline of the West". The author, Mr Hanif Kureishi, really hit a few contemporary nails hard on the head for, in several ways, his story embraced both the causes and effects of the World Financial Armageddon. Played for or not I feel he also partially illustrated what many people will recognise as a spend, spend, spend malaise that had the Western World very firmly in its grip. I only saw the magazine in July as it was passed on to me en route to the next family in the chain.
My worry is that very little priority will be given to ascertaining who was responsible, in any way, for the practically instantaneous implosion that brought some of the biggest financial institutions in the world crashing down under the weight of debt, billions of it "toxic debt".
Any dealing that is considered to be detrimental to any of the world's communities should be investigated with the backing of governments. Draconian power should be given to the people charged with finding out all of the facts in any way related to the Financial Armageddon.
Unless such a course is followed the whole matter may be swept under convenient carpets
all over the world and the game will re-open and vast sums of money will be released to hunt down ever larger amounts of money.
My mind boggles at the scope there has been for the outright theft of millions by clever personnel, with inside tracks, in practically any financial institution carrying huge amounts of toxic debt.
In part two of World Financial Armageddon I propose to give a few background points to justify my contention that many people, in key positions, must have known that financial disaster was impending.
Frederick W Gilling. 22/07/2009
Tuesday 21 July 2009
Politics Four
Politics Four
In the previous blogs on politics I have advocated doing away with party politics and suggested different ways in which MPs may be forced to resign. I am also in favour of MPs electing the Prime Minister as well as such other Ministers and Deputies as thought necessary. MPs, by virtue of a successful vote of no confidence, can also force a Minister or Deputy Minister to resign from office.
I am strongly in favour of the following requirements being made law.
Candidates for election as MPs must have spent the first sixteen years of their life, or at least five years as an adult, living in the constituency in which they wish to stand for election. An adult is classified as being a person of voting age.
The suggestions that I have made will involve a major shift in how MPs are selected and how the country is governed. Every MP will be able to speak their mind in the House without being concerned that they are bucking the wishes of a party's hierarchy, and that should reflect how they think the voters who elected them feel on the matter being debated.
Looking somewhat further into the future it should, at least, be conceivable that the need for general elections will fall away. If the voters are not happy with "their" MP they can force him or her to resign, likewise MPs themselves can force a fellow MP to resign or a Minister to relinquish their position. A safety valve could be built into the system, by a suitable mechanism, whereby voters or MPs can insist that a referendum be held to decide whether voters as a whole want a general election.
Surely with an efficient "no party" system in place democracy must be better served. I have long thought that one of the highest honours that a person may aspire to is to be elected, on personal merit, as a Member of Parliament in the UK. Voters and would-be MPs have it in their power to bring meaning and a golden glitter back to such an accolade.
My next blog is titled "World Financial Armageddon". F W Gilling 21/07/2009
In the previous blogs on politics I have advocated doing away with party politics and suggested different ways in which MPs may be forced to resign. I am also in favour of MPs electing the Prime Minister as well as such other Ministers and Deputies as thought necessary. MPs, by virtue of a successful vote of no confidence, can also force a Minister or Deputy Minister to resign from office.
I am strongly in favour of the following requirements being made law.
Candidates for election as MPs must have spent the first sixteen years of their life, or at least five years as an adult, living in the constituency in which they wish to stand for election. An adult is classified as being a person of voting age.
The suggestions that I have made will involve a major shift in how MPs are selected and how the country is governed. Every MP will be able to speak their mind in the House without being concerned that they are bucking the wishes of a party's hierarchy, and that should reflect how they think the voters who elected them feel on the matter being debated.
Looking somewhat further into the future it should, at least, be conceivable that the need for general elections will fall away. If the voters are not happy with "their" MP they can force him or her to resign, likewise MPs themselves can force a fellow MP to resign or a Minister to relinquish their position. A safety valve could be built into the system, by a suitable mechanism, whereby voters or MPs can insist that a referendum be held to decide whether voters as a whole want a general election.
Surely with an efficient "no party" system in place democracy must be better served. I have long thought that one of the highest honours that a person may aspire to is to be elected, on personal merit, as a Member of Parliament in the UK. Voters and would-be MPs have it in their power to bring meaning and a golden glitter back to such an accolade.
My next blog is titled "World Financial Armageddon". F W Gilling 21/07/2009
Saturday 18 July 2009
Politics Three
No doubt, I surmise, in the early days of Parliament party politics evolved to fill a need, students of political history should be in a better position to voice an opinion on that supposition. At one stage different factions of "The Establishment" probably went head to head in the quest for power but, I should think, it took much longer before "The Rest" took on "The Establishment". Now I think the situation is such that none of the political parties will come out with a manifesto that is too far to the left or right of centre. The situation now, as I see it, in simple terms is as follows. There are 664 MPs, approx 90% of them try to follow the line set by their own parties' hierarchy, 10% are the hierarchy of the parties. 50% minus a few % are trying to get the ruling party out of office, 50% plus a few % are trying to stay in office and belittle the opposition parties. Very regrettably it could be argued that a goodly percentage of them tried very hard, and in many cases successfully, to greatly increase their affluence by making the maximum use of various expenses that they could claim. Then, to further increase the shame that this approach engendered, many of them did their utmost to restrict the publication of essential details. A revealing spotlight is now being shone on the salaries and expenses claims of other public. or quasi public bodies.
Recently there have been suggestions that there are too many MPs. On the TV this morning
[13/07/2009] there were figures showing a massive increase in the annual costs, related to politicians over the last ten years, some of this brought about by salaries now paid to elected members of councils.
I suggest that the number of MPs in the Commons could be reduced to 300. This number of truly independent MPs, motivated by the knowledge that both their "constituency voters" and their fellow MPs can force their resignation if their performance is sub par would, surely, be more effective than double that number following the orders of their party hierarchy.
Switching the focus to the House of Lords raises many questions, first and foremost is the main one, that being "Is a gathering of mature brains required to act as a steadying influence over the House of Commons"? If the answer is yes then a natural question that follows is "How mature should the brains be"? That is to say should it be specified that to be a member of the House of Lords a person must be at least forty years of age, or 50?, or 60?
The next thing to be resolved is whether or not members should be elected, I think they should be and I also think there should be only fifty of them. I also think that voters and members should be able to force their resignation in a similar way to that which I have suggested should apply to MPs.
Having sorted out the composition and function of the House of Lords perhaps some thought could be given to the use of the words "Commons" and "Lords". In my opinion they are archaic
and smack too much of "The Establishment", again, in my opinion, some thought should be given
to the need, in this day and age, to attempt to enhance the importance of members suggested by the ceremonial robes they wear. Carrying that theme a few more steps I suggest that the word Lord should be restricted to use in its religious context.
There is, I am sure, a prime need to give every responsible person in the country a justified feeling that they, the people, are fairly in control of events, other than natural disasters, and that their efforts and opinions, on a grand scale, do matter and are seriously considered. In this context I feel that much more use should be made of referendums to decide critical or contentious issues.
I am convinced that now is an ideal time to consign party politics to the dustbin of history, they are long past their sell by date.
To be continued in Politics Four. Frederick W Gilling
Recently there have been suggestions that there are too many MPs. On the TV this morning
[13/07/2009] there were figures showing a massive increase in the annual costs, related to politicians over the last ten years, some of this brought about by salaries now paid to elected members of councils.
I suggest that the number of MPs in the Commons could be reduced to 300. This number of truly independent MPs, motivated by the knowledge that both their "constituency voters" and their fellow MPs can force their resignation if their performance is sub par would, surely, be more effective than double that number following the orders of their party hierarchy.
Switching the focus to the House of Lords raises many questions, first and foremost is the main one, that being "Is a gathering of mature brains required to act as a steadying influence over the House of Commons"? If the answer is yes then a natural question that follows is "How mature should the brains be"? That is to say should it be specified that to be a member of the House of Lords a person must be at least forty years of age, or 50?, or 60?
The next thing to be resolved is whether or not members should be elected, I think they should be and I also think there should be only fifty of them. I also think that voters and members should be able to force their resignation in a similar way to that which I have suggested should apply to MPs.
Having sorted out the composition and function of the House of Lords perhaps some thought could be given to the use of the words "Commons" and "Lords". In my opinion they are archaic
and smack too much of "The Establishment", again, in my opinion, some thought should be given
to the need, in this day and age, to attempt to enhance the importance of members suggested by the ceremonial robes they wear. Carrying that theme a few more steps I suggest that the word Lord should be restricted to use in its religious context.
There is, I am sure, a prime need to give every responsible person in the country a justified feeling that they, the people, are fairly in control of events, other than natural disasters, and that their efforts and opinions, on a grand scale, do matter and are seriously considered. In this context I feel that much more use should be made of referendums to decide critical or contentious issues.
I am convinced that now is an ideal time to consign party politics to the dustbin of history, they are long past their sell by date.
To be continued in Politics Four. Frederick W Gilling
Saturday 11 July 2009
Politics Two
As a first step towards ending Party Politics I have,in Politics One, suggested ways that will enable the voters in a constituency to force the resignation of "their" MP, and also ways that MPs can remove Ministers or their Deputies from their specific office, as well as ways by which MPs can force an MP to resign. These provisions are, in my opinion, an essential step to party free politics as they should ensure that MPs will strive to stay tuned in to the thinking and wishes of the people in their constituency. This thinking will not be influenced by the wishes of the hierarchy of a party that chose them as a candidate for a particular constituency, they will not have to toe the party line.
A question that I asked myself,long ago, is fundamental to my thinking, the question is "Why are leaders of democratic countries often lionised or hated with passion"? If they are doing their job correctly they should be representing the wishes of the majority of the voters in their country, in effect they should just be a conduit through which the population speaks. At times they may take a position, that though it represents the will of the country they do not agree with it, they can state why they have doubts but never the less they will follow the will of the country. An example contrary to this, I think, is provided by the UK going to war in Iraq, it could well have been that the majority of adults in the UK did not want to go to war with Iraq yet that is what happened.
Very often the leaders of parties with large majorities in Parliament lean towards dictatorial actions, this tends to make a mockery of the word Democracy!
The leader may well have a deeply held belief that he knows best, he should not act on that belief, he should do what the majority of the population of the country think is best. I will slip in a little plug for an idea that I had many years ago and that is, "when a country goes to war the older members of the population should be called up first", the justification for this being that it is more than likely that the older members of the ruling party voted to go to war. Perhaps, if time permits, a country should not go into a war unless, as a result of a referendum, it is the wish of the majority of voters.
MPs at the first meeting after an election must, under the control of a senior judge acting as a Speaker, re-appoint the Speaker or elect a new one. The Speaker must not be an MP but he/she may be an ex MP, suitable legislation can easily be drawn up to allow for this. It could well be that a Speaker may serve as such for many years, they may, however, be forced out of office by a vote of no confidence in which the views of all MPs are recorded.
When the official Speaker is in control the next function of the House is to elect a Prime Minister,and, I suggest,two deputy PMs. That done the House will then elect such other Ministers and Deputies as thought necessary.
In the course of time the Chairmen and Members of various committees will also be elected by the House.
To be continued in "Politics Three". Frederick W Gilling.
Tuesday 7 July 2009
Politics One
End Party Politics Now
Why? Because There Just Has to be Something More Democratic
How?
How?
As a first step three pieces of legislation must be brought into effect ASAP.
Firstly, voters must be given the right to force the immediate resignation of "their" MP.
Secondly, MPs must be given the right to force any Minister or Deputy Minister out of office.
Thirdly, MPs must be given the right to force the immediate resignation of any MP.
A great deal of thought needs to be given as to the different ways that the above can be accomplished, a guiding principle is that it should be neither too easy or too difficult.
The MP, Minister or Deputy Minister being so sanctioned need not have committed any particular misdeed, the voters or MPs who wish the sanction to be applied may be generally unhappy with the performance of the MP concerned; several ways of initiating the above steps are suggested below, there are many other ways or forms of penalty clauses.
Two different ways in which voters can force the resignation of their MP are given, both are subject to fine tuning, there may well be better ways. The first way is that 5000 [or ?000] voters in the constituency must sign a petition demanding the resignation, the petition and five million £s must be handed in to the designated authority. If the MP concerned does not contest, or loses, the resulting by- election the five million £s are returned to the person who handed it in. The second way is that 10 000 [or ?0000] voters must sign a petition requesting that a referendum be held in the constituency to determine whether or not their MP must resign; this petition must be backed up with a sum of money equal to the cost of holding the referendum. If the MP is forced to resign as a result of the referendum the money handed in to cover the cost is returned, if the MP is not forced to resign then the money is not returned.
MPs may propose a vote of no confidence to force a Minister or Deputy Minister to give up his office or to force an MP to resign; something along the following lines is suggested. Five, ten or??
MPs must put their names on the proposal for a vote of no confidence. If the vote was to force a Minister or Deputy to give up their office and the vote was not carried then the MPs who proposed the vote will each be fined three [?] months salary. If the vote was to force an MP to resign and it was not carried then the MPs who proposed the vote of no confidence must resign.
If the vote to force an MP to resign was carried and the MP concerned then wins the resulting by- election the MPs who proposed the vote of no confidence must resign; they can, however, contest the resulting by-elections.
The question as to whether such votes of no confidence are carried by a simple majority or by some other numerical amount is open to discussion.
To be continued with End Party Politics Two. Frederick W Gilling.
Firstly, voters must be given the right to force the immediate resignation of "their" MP.
Secondly, MPs must be given the right to force any Minister or Deputy Minister out of office.
Thirdly, MPs must be given the right to force the immediate resignation of any MP.
A great deal of thought needs to be given as to the different ways that the above can be accomplished, a guiding principle is that it should be neither too easy or too difficult.
The MP, Minister or Deputy Minister being so sanctioned need not have committed any particular misdeed, the voters or MPs who wish the sanction to be applied may be generally unhappy with the performance of the MP concerned; several ways of initiating the above steps are suggested below, there are many other ways or forms of penalty clauses.
Two different ways in which voters can force the resignation of their MP are given, both are subject to fine tuning, there may well be better ways. The first way is that 5000 [or ?000] voters in the constituency must sign a petition demanding the resignation, the petition and five million £s must be handed in to the designated authority. If the MP concerned does not contest, or loses, the resulting by- election the five million £s are returned to the person who handed it in. The second way is that 10 000 [or ?0000] voters must sign a petition requesting that a referendum be held in the constituency to determine whether or not their MP must resign; this petition must be backed up with a sum of money equal to the cost of holding the referendum. If the MP is forced to resign as a result of the referendum the money handed in to cover the cost is returned, if the MP is not forced to resign then the money is not returned.
MPs may propose a vote of no confidence to force a Minister or Deputy Minister to give up his office or to force an MP to resign; something along the following lines is suggested. Five, ten or??
MPs must put their names on the proposal for a vote of no confidence. If the vote was to force a Minister or Deputy to give up their office and the vote was not carried then the MPs who proposed the vote will each be fined three [?] months salary. If the vote was to force an MP to resign and it was not carried then the MPs who proposed the vote of no confidence must resign.
If the vote to force an MP to resign was carried and the MP concerned then wins the resulting by- election the MPs who proposed the vote of no confidence must resign; they can, however, contest the resulting by-elections.
The question as to whether such votes of no confidence are carried by a simple majority or by some other numerical amount is open to discussion.
To be continued with End Party Politics Two. Frederick W Gilling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)