Friday, 31 January 2020

#peoplecanseethesamethingindifferentways see Henri Toulouse-Lautrec


It is Brexit day. A coincidence.

A couple of days ago I was dealing with a situation where two sides were at odds. They were looking at the same situation and totally seeing different things. As often is the case the matter was amicably resolved by each eventually appreciating the others point of view - or at least being able to demonstrate they could see where each other were coming from and their views had been taken into account when making the decision. (which is often a vital break through) - (and not achieved in the Brexit debate which became and probably remains almost totally polarised).

Back to my story! When I was puzzling over how to play out my arbiters role I had a flash of inspiration. I would print off a copy of Henri Toulouse-Lautrec's sketch below and use it to make a point!

What do you see?




I remember a tutor using this picture on a course I did light years ago. The moral of the story - people can see things in different ways!

This picture was projected onto a big screen. Hands up who sees a stylish young lady. Half the class put their hands in the air and half the class shouted - it's and old woman (crone)!

If you study the picture of course both are there. (if you can't find both go the end!)

There is a much wider debate to have here. People genuinely can see things in different ways. However we know from life - (not least from the Brexit debate) - we can make a conscious - deliberate - often cynical - oft disingenuous interpretation to fit our pre conceived agenda - to fit our position - our argument!. Too often this is politics !!

Anyway I posted this because I remember the lesson fondly. It made me smile using it.

PS I can sense my darling daughter being totally exasperated reading this. She will be thinking dad you have never listened to the pro remain arguments in the Brexit debate - your mind was closed - you refused to see the other picture. My answer darling is I always understood (saw) the remain arguments - I just didn't agree with them (or more specifically they did not outweigh the advantages of leaving) and that is a different thing - ha ha! xxxx

Can you see both - the young woman's jaw line is the old crones big nose!

Friday, 24 January 2020

#holdingBoris'sfeettothefire and the hole the Labour Party are digging for themselves

It is understood our parliamentary system is based on an elected government and elected opposition whose role it is to hold the government to account. But to what extent is it legitimate for the opposition to oppose?

Yesterday I heard a Labour spokesperson say "Labour is going to be sure to hold Boris Johnson's feet to the fire to ensure he delivers on all the Brexit PROMISES he made."

She then went onto to say we don't think he can - which had a strong undertone of we hope he can't - we want him to fail. (he cannot be trusted to keep his promises.)

This is the hole the Labour party have dug for themselves. They seem to want their nation to fail despite the fact that the Brexit decision was the decision made by the democratic majority (many of whom were Labour voters.)

I want to make the following points :

The first is the use of the term "promises". Labour cynically use it - the liberal elite BBC use it to try and undermine Boris Johnson and the Brexit movement.

However the people know different. What Boris and the Brexit campaigners have always meant is - it is our objective, it is our best intention, if the country gets behind us it is our best expectation - we can do it. It might not work out perfectly - it will be hard - there will be setbacks but we can do it. There is a risk. The people understand this. They understand no one can offer guarantees and that Boris's so called "promises" (not a term he ever used) could only ever be a pledge to give it 110% in effort and commitment .

As an example Boris "promised" to leave on 31st October. He said he would rather die in a ditch than ask for an extension. The people understood this was a declaration of intent - of commitment - of a desire to give it his best shot. When opposition parties including a duplicitous Speaker conspired to prevent it happening the vast majority of the electorate were on Boris's side - he had kept his promise to give leave everything - but he was thwarted. He had not broken his promise - on the contrary he more than kept it in the eyes of the majority. The result at the first opportunity the electorate backed him and gave him an 80 seat majority to get Brexit done - and he has. In just a few days time we will no longer be a member of the EU. The EU will comprise of 27 countries - not 28.

So where is the Labour party now? Where are the remainers now? In a few days we leave the EU - assured - guaranteed. The so called "promise" to leave on 31st January has been delivered - ha!

Now Labour are going to hold Boris's feet to the fire - to ensure he keeps his "promises" and those made by the brexit campaigners!

Can you relate to this? When there are major sporting events like the football or rugby world cups sweepstakes are often held at places of work and in pubs and clubs. Names go into a hat and participants draw a team (country). If the drawn team wins the ticket holder wins the sweepstake. The ticket holder is in a dilemma. They hold a ticket for France - but France are playing England - who do they want to win?

This is the situation remainers are in - this is the situation the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats are in. But it is far worse. To be proved right - to gain political advantage - they want Brexit to be a failure. They want to be able to say Boris is a liar and a cheat - he is untrustworthy - he has not kept his promises - he has not delivered!

Clearly some remainers are so perverse they will seek to make Boris's job as difficult as possible. They will carp and crow. They will seek to undermine. They will collude with the other side when negotiating trade deals. They in effect want poor outcomes for the UK - for their nation - and then they will be happy - they would have been proved right!

This is a very sad state of affairs. Who would want to be them? What a negative way to exist. What a destructive existence. What are they really trying to achieve? Who are they really trying to help?

Many remainers - democratic remainers, acknowledge that the dye is cast. The decision was democratically made to leave. They did not agree with it - but it has happened - the nation has spoken. They realise it is now up to everyone to make the best of the path we have taken - to be constructive - to embrace the challenge - to help make it work and they will.

I have used the simple analogy before. Where does the family go for their holiday? Cornwall or Scotland. The family have a vote. They agree Scotland. Do the members who wanted Cornwall try and sabotage the Scottish holiday and make it as difficult and as miserable as possible or do they make the best of it despite their initial reservations!?

What are the Labour party going to do? Are they going to sulk, drag the country back - revel in failure - or are they going to make the best of Brexit in their nations best interest - despite their reservations?

Labour are in a hole. They need to stop digging. There is no future for them otherwise. They will never get reelected if they continue to make Brexit more difficult - because the people voted for Brexit despite the inherent risks. The people want to be free - self determining - to be able to trade with whom we want and to be able to control our own borders. The Labour Party would be wise (and mature) to get on board and put their nation first.Then they might win again. (there is no hope for the Liberal Democrats!)

.


Sunday, 12 January 2020

#Woke - wokeness - a pejorative term? What does it mean?

Woke and wokeness is a term I seem to be coming across more and more. In the main it seems to being used in a pejorative sense - in the way of "snowflake" and "snowflakery".

What does woke mean? I think I know but I am going to do some research. This what I found out :

Woke - an adjective - alert to injustice in society - especially racism - ie "we need to stay committed and stay woke".

Urban Dictionary - Woke” refers to being in a state of awareness: “Being Woke means being aware. Knowing whats going on in the community” specifically relating to racism and social injustice.

My obvious question - what's wrong with that? Surely this is what we should all be doing?

Well here are some negatives.

A “woke society” tries telling us what we’re to say and think. Social identity groups determine what’s racist and discrimination. Blame is attributed to white (especially straight) men, or Christians and conservatives, who are actually being discriminated against. But no one is woke to that!

And worse, “woke” has led to a victim mentality that justifies using bullying, violence, riots, Antifa, lying, and sadly today anti-Semitism. Anyone can escape responsibility from wrong doing by claiming to be a victim of something . . . anything! Even though they’re often the initiator of the offensive action.



Or what about colleges not admitting students with the best grades and qualifications, but meeting race and gender quotas. And why isn’t anyone “woke” to the fact that college professors are now almost exclusively liberals discriminating against conservatives? Where’s the unity and equality there?

“Woke” schools are factoring in “Adversity Scores”  to SAT scores.  Where you live or what your parents do, race and gender, or perceived “privilege” undermines hard work.

Did you wonder why some of the Democrat presidential candidates are talking about reparations? That’s part of the “woke” movement too. Even though you had no part in sins of the past, somebody’s gotta to pay, so it might as well be you! Even though many paid the price already with their lives.

Corporate blaming, instead of individual responsibility, has become the “woke” norm. Group think rules.



It always amuses me that most of the people talking about “white privilege” are white themselves. And they have high-paying privileged jobs on television or in government. Have they looked in the mirror lately? Worse yet is when they apologize for being white as if they had any control over the color of their skin. No one does. It’s how God made each of us.

Anyone who apologizes and changes their position to whatever they think the crowd wants, has no character or guiding  beliefs.



Or another term thrown around recklessly is “male toxicity!” Satan would love us to demean men and make them ineffective in our society, in our homes, in our churches. And what exactly does that mean anyway? Are we now going to blame white men for all the troubles of the world?



And that’s really the heart of this woke movement. Let’s blame someone, anyone, instead of uniting in making our society better. The media and progressive mantra is: let’s divide on contrived issues. Let’s keep unrest, disunity, upheaval, and pit the American people against each other because that sells. That intimidates. That creates hate, misunderstanding, injustice, anarchy, tension division. That makes news. That deceives people. That gets votes.



The woke movement is trying to police what we can say by forcing on us ‘inclusive language’ prohibiting the use of male and female pronouns and even the word ‘mankind.’ Microsoft is introducing a new “AI-powered [artificial intelligence] online tool designed to improve user’s writing by offering inclusive language replacements.” You can read more about this in the article “Microsoft wants you to use approved political speech—this is a real threat to our freedom.” The heading in FOX News was “Microsoft’s insidious AI Scheme to make you ‘woke’ another word for socially correct determined by liberals.”

Instead of trying to attach moral value or injustice to social groups, let’s value the lives of individuals because every group is comprised of unique individuals.








THE right has been having a bit of a chuckle these last few days over a new book called Woke: A Guide to Social Justice. The book, by comedian Andrew Doyle writing under the pen-name Titania McGrath, mercilessly satirises the Left’s online umbrage brigade, the permanently offended, those who have taken on the role of policing thoughts and words to the point of absurdity.

As a liberal-leftie, I’ve been laughing too, as these people need mocked. They are an impediment to everyone who actually cares about tackling sexism, racism and homophobia. These people make good causes look ridiculous, they alienate when they should be persuading, and they turn liberalism – which I hold dear – into something stupid.

Woke, of course, means someone is “awake” to discrimination, that they see what the rest of us narcoleptics cannot. Not only is the word “woke” utterly toe-curling, it’s also the height of arrogance. Those who call themselves “woke” have taken two very important words, “social justice”, and ruined them. Social justice should be something to celebrate, but the Woke have made a mockery of the idea in their pursuit of ideological purity.
So I’ve enjoyed lines in Woke like: “Being woke is actually much easier than people think. Anyone can be an activist. By simply adding a rainbow flag to your Facebook profile, or calling out an elderly person who doesn’t understand what non-binary means, you can change the world for the better. Indeed social media has now made it possible to show how virtuous you are without having to do anything at all.”
The book does not set out to mock victims of discrimination – ethnic minorities, the LGBT community, women, the disabled – it mocks the self-appointed arbiters of morality, who often come from positions of privilege themselves. As Titania says in Woke: “I learnt early on that my private education and frequent family holidays to Montenegro and the Maldives were merely a ruse by which my parents could distract me from my oppression.”
There is a silent majority of liberals who have been working their entire lives to make the world a better place when it comes to sexism, racism and homophobia. They do not need to be lectured on what it means to be a progressive by someone whose idea of activism is a hashtag.
There have been some egregious examples of Wokeness – each one undermining the idea that social justice is a good thing, through absurdity and puritanism. Jamie Oliver was accused of “cultural appropriation” by Labour’s Dawn Butler MP for making “jerk rice”.
“Your jerk rice is not ok,” she tweeted (of course it was on Twitter). “This appropriation from Jamaica needs to stop.” In a country where racism scars the lives of countless people, this is what a public figure saw as one of the big issues of the day.
Steve Martin, the comedian, was publicly shamed after the death of Carrie Fisher when he wrote: “When I was a young man, Carrie Fisher was the most beautiful creature I had ever seen. She turned out to be witty and bright as well.” There was outrage at his slightly clumsy, but loving, tribute. It was irrelevant that the pair had been friends for decades.
During the early stages of the MeToo movement, Matt Damon was attacked for saying “there’s a difference between patting someone on the butt and rape or child molestation. Both those behaviours need to be confronted and eradicated without question, but they shouldn’t be conflated.”
Just a few days ago, the gay Tory MP Nick Boles was subjected to a woke Twitter storm when he shared a tweet about an interview Labour MP Jess Phillips had given. Boles wrote: “There is something about @jessphillips that I find irresistible. I would walk over hot coals for her. And yes she would be a great Prime Minister.”
The Woke deemed him a creepy predator. Ms Phillips had to come to his defence saying she couldn’t believe how “awful people are being” over two MPs from different parties being “nice to each other”. Mr Boles responded to the attacks saying that he was “wondering how I’m going to explain this to my husband”.
I could go on with this list and fill the entire paper. This selection is simply examples which have stuck in my mind – there are many less egregious and many much more egregious. And, of course, you could accuse me of cherry-picking, but let me assure you that there are plenty of cherries to pick.
I’ve spent much of my life laughing at the excesses of the right-wing, and justifiably so. From Tory MPs lecturing Britain about morality in the 1990s caught in some sex scandal, to the pompous privileged idiocy of George Osborne telling Britain to tighten its belt while he tries to take the silver spoon out of his mouth, the right needs mocked. The Alt-right is absurdity made flesh, and Brexit is literally a sick joke – so point and laugh.
Equally, the tyranny of the Left’s thought police needs mocked too. I don’t mean that “political correctness” needs mocked – like “social justice”, the words ”politically correct” have been debased by ideological purists who have no idea what liberalism means; who damage the causes they seek to further. Political correctness just means “try to be nice, try to act decently” – that’s a good thing. It doesn’t mean staging a witch-hunt over nothing in order to show how superior you are.
The Woke suffer from an intellectual deadness which runs through society today – they lack nuance, they cannot compromise, and their narcissism makes them zealots. Just as it doesn’t make you an anti-Semite to criticise the policies of the Israeli government, it doesn’t make you a monster if you cook jerk rice. Do we really need to explain these issues in 2019?



Wednesday, 8 January 2020

#Halal & Kosher slaughter of animals in the UK

Let me be clear from the outset.

Firstly I believe we are all equal under the law.

Secondly - you are free to pursue your religion as long as it does not contravene the law.

I strongly advocate that whenever there is a clash between law of the land and religious belief the law must prevail. This is the legal position in the UK and rightly so - but is it being upheld in practice?

In the UK we have made great strides to reduce/prevent animal cruelty and standards have greatly improved in farming conditions and the transport and slaughter of animals.

However we seem to be regressing particularly because of the effectiveness of the Muslim minority in their demand for "halal" slaughter. It appears that "halal" is becoming mainstream with companies like Nandos claiming all their food is halal compliant.

Here are the special rules downloaded from the UK governments web site regarding halal and kosher slaughter.

Guidance

Halal and kosher slaughter

How to legally carry out religious slaughter, including how to restrain and bleed the animal.


You must stun all animals before you slaughter them unless an animal is being religiously slaughtered for halal or kosher meat.
You must meet all of the following requirements for halal and kosher religious slaughter:
  • it must take place in a slaughterhouse (abattoir) approved by the Food Standards Agency (FSA)
  • it must be done by someone who has a certificate of competence (CoC)
  • the slaughter must be done in a way that follows Jewish or Islamic religious practice
  • the meat must be intended for consumption by Jews or Muslims
You can only carry out religious slaughter of:
  • cattle (and all bovine animals, including calves)
  • sheep
  • goats
  • birds (chickens, turkeys, ducks, guinea fowl, geese or quails)

Requirements to slaughter for kosher meat

To perform shechita (Jewish religious slaughter), you must:

Requirements to slaughter for halal meat

You must be a Muslim to slaughter animals for halal meat.

Slaughter for Qurbani

The same rules apply if you’re slaughtering an animal for Qurbani (Udhia) as for any type of halal slaughter.

Things to check before slaughter

Before you slaughter any animal (including birds), you must check the knife is undamaged. It must be sharp and large enough for the animal being slaughtered
For any animal, you must keep the back-up stunning equipment close to the restraining equipment so that it can be used immediately when an animal:
  • experiences avoidable pain, suffering or agitation
  • has been injured

Restrain and slaughter cattle

You must restrain the animal upright in an approved restraining pen before it’s slaughtered.
The FSA must check and approve your pen before you use it for the religious slaughter of cattle.
If the FSA or a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) minister has previously approved your pen to restrain cattle for religious slaughter, you don’t need to get new approval. If you modify a pen that’s already been approved, you must get it approved again.
You must only put the animal in the pen immediately before you’re ready to slaughter it, to avoid unnecessary stress or discomfort for the animal.
You must make sure your restraining pen:
  • is kept in good working order
  • is checked and maintained according to the manufacturer’s instructions
  • doesn’t cause any avoidable pain, suffering or injury to animals
Restraining pens for cattle must:
  • effectively restrain an animal
  • have a head restraint
  • have a support to take the weight of the animal during slaughter
  • permit only one animal to enter
  • confine an animal without discomfort
  • prevent an animal from making any large movements forwards, backwards or sideways when it’s restrained

Restrain and slaughter sheep and goats

To slaughter a sheep or goat, you must:
  • restrain animals individually
  • use mechanical restraining equipment
  • only kill one animal at a time
  • only put an animal in restraining equipment when you’re ready to kill it
You must ensure that restraining equipment is:
  • checked and maintained according to the manufacturer’s instructions
  • only used in the way described in the manufacturer’s instructions

Restraining methods you must never use

You must never restrain an animal by:
  • clamping or tying its legs or feet
  • severing its spinal cord
  • immobilising it with electrical stunning equipment or any device that gives an electric shock
  • suspending or hoisting a conscious animal

Bleeding

For any animal (including birds), you must use:
  • a hand-held knife that’s sharp and large enough for the animal you’re slaughtering
  • rapid, uninterrupted movements of the knife

Cattle, sheep and goats

You must cut both an animal’s carotid arteries and its jugular veins.

Birds

You must cut both carotid arteries.

Check for unconsciousness and signs of life

After bleeding any animal (including birds) and waiting the required amount of time, you must check that the animal is unconscious. Check the standard operating procedures for your slaughterhouse to find out how to do this.
After you bleed cattle, sheep or goats, the animal must not be moved by either you or your equipment until the animal is unconscious and you’ve waited at least:
  • 30 seconds for cattle
  • 20 seconds for sheep or goats
After you bleed a bird, you or your equipment must restrain it and wait at least:
  • 2 minutes for turkeys or geese
  • 90 seconds for any other bird

Signs of life

You must wait until the animal is dead before the next operation, eg removing the hide or plucking, can start. If you detect signs of life, you must stun and kill the animal immediately using a method in your slaughterhouse’s standard operating procedures.
You can find more information in European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) guides on monitoring for unconsciousness and checking for signs of life for:
Published 15 October 2015 

Several points immediately arise for me having read this :

1) It is almost certain animals are suffering more under this method than by stun before slaughter used for the majority of our meat.
2) To comply the slaughter has to be carried our by a Muslim or Jew. This irritates given the thrust of our laws is equal opportunity regarding gender, race, religion or orientation.
3) The meat resulting must be for the consumption of Muslims or Jews. How does this square with Nandos?

The public are increasingly unhappy with the way minority religions are undermining mainstream society in the UK by insisting on special concessions under the law.

I for one will be campaigning to continue to insist we maintain and improve animal welfare standards. I do not believe animal cruelty can be justified by religious belief.