GENETICALLY MODIFIED BABIES APPROVED.

Back in September of last year, the Government launched a consultation process asking the public to give their views on the ethics of what has been termed '3 Person IVF'. At the time, I wrote a piece on the subject and commented in particular on the manner in which the consultation was being handled. Unsurprisingly, the Government carried on regardless of my views and it has now been reported that draft regulations that will allow the procedure to be introduced will be later in the year.

 

While I have no difficulty with the prevention of disease, this is surely a step too far. It is, in effect, genetic modification of human beings and will result in the creation of children who have 3 parents; do we really want this ?

 

Once again, we're being told that 'experts' are in favour of this approach but who are these 'experts' and what vested interests do they have ? When the same 'experts' tell us that we might be able to eliminate other genetic diseases by using material from 4 or 5 'parents', will we be forced down that road too ? Will children produced from these Frankenstein experiments have any allegiance to any of their assorted 'parents' or will they, perhaps, be grown in artificial wombs, thus releasing the 'parents' from having any involvement beyond the donation of cell samples ?

 

This may seem far-fetched but this is how some scientists, and all politicians, work; little by little they chip away until what seemed impossible is everyday. In itself, that is not always a bad thing but when they're messing around with the future of humanity it's another matter. Genetic modification of plants has many potential dangers that have not been explained and could come back to bite us; genetic modification of ourselves has dangers of which we cannot begin to comprehend and we allow the Dr Frankensteins of this world to proceed at our serious peril.

GENETIC MODIFICATION - WHAT IS THE REAL TRUTH ?

Governments always seem to love scientists when the scientists are telling them what they want to hear. Today, a grey-suited politician, Owen Paterson, who glories in the title of Secretary of State for the Environment, has come out of his bunker to laud the benefits of genetically modified crops.

 

Mr Paterson is claiming not only that GM crops are safe, but that they are probably safer than conventionally grown crops. It is his view, as stated on the BBC, that GM crops bring significant benefits to farmers, consumers and the environment and that the next generation of GM crops offer the "most wonderful opportunities to improve human health". Presumably the minister has derived this astonishingly positive view of genetic modification from scientists within his department, and elsewhere, who are keen for this technology to be introduced as quickly as possible, but no actual sources are quoted. What the evidence is for his remarkable claims is, therefore, unknown.

 

Groups opposed to the introduction of GM crops in this country are, of course, unhappy and claim that genetic modification is dangerous and misguided. The source of their information is equally vague and the opposing camps remain poles apart.

 

The truth is unknown but history teaches us that science has often been subverted by special interest groups for their own ends. Consequently, it seems likely that those in favour of genetic modification stand to make much money from its introduction while those opposed may have their own political agenda, unsupported by any real evidence. Only yesterday, the BBC carried a story about the extent to which major companies and scientific laboratories conceal the results of research which does not support their specific aims and objectives. Is it likely that research into the use of genetic modification has been reported any more honestly ? The obvious conclusion is that it has not been and that the full truth about genetic modification has yet to be revealed. However, the logic relating to and deriving from its use gives rise to enormous concerns.

 

While the basic technology may be well tested and quite safe, the consequences may ultimately be disastrous. Genetic modification of crops is designed to render crops resistant to pests and diseases and to give greater yields; these are all laudable aims, but one has to wonder just what impact there may be on the rest of the environment as a result. Insects do not exist in isolation and neither do diseases; if, for example, a crop is rendered resistant to aphids, the insects which usually prey on the aphids will be affected as will the food-chain above those insects. Some will say that this happens anyway as a consequence of the use of insecticides and that GM is a better option than spraying crops with nasty chemicals, but at least some aphids will be resistant to the chemicals and will still provide some food for their predators; GM will be designed to completely eradicate the aphids, thus completely eliminating an entire food chain and all of the creatures which rely on it. What the consequences of this would be can only be guessed at, but could easily be quite catastrophic. Even just increasing the yields of crops may have dangers, as peripheral plants, generally considered to be weeds, are squeezed out, thus also eliminating the food-chains which have historically relied on them.

 

Of course, some insects may gain immunity to the genetic modification and so may some diseases as they mutate, MRSA-like. We would then be in the same mess that we are today with the use of antibiotics - a never-ending battle as the geneticists, rather than the immunologists, strive to discover evermore esoteric ways of staying one step ahead of the objects of their interventions.

 

Remarkably, none of this seems to be commented on by those of either side who appear in the media and Mr Paterson appears to be utterly oblivious to it. As a politician he, of course, knows that he will be long gone by the time the true consequences of any decisions he takes become clear and he may well have benefited from directorships and other patronage from the companies and interests that he's now supporting. Goody for him.

 

I don't know exactly how safe GM is or will be in the future, but I do know that its true potential effects have yet to be explained to the public at large. Until that happens, I will remain implacably opposed to its wide scale introduction and everyone else should remain so to.

PUT NHS MANAGERS IN PRISON WITH THE BANKERS !

Bankers being the lowest and worst form of human life, a committee set up by the Chancellor has proposed that those responsible for any future financial catastrophes should be sent to prison; this would, presumably, be after they'd spent some time in the stocks and been dragged naked round the streets of London for everyone to throw eggs or rotten tomatoes at.

 

At the same time, yet another shocking NHS revelation has come to light. Not only has there been an unusually high rate of infant deaths at the Furness General Hospital in Cumbria, but the Care Quality Commission, the supposed watchdog of NHS quality, has suppressed a report into the issue due to its potentially damaging effect on itself. It seems that the report was critical of the Commission and its regular inspections of the hospital, presumably suggesting that the Commission should have noticed the hospital's failings and told them; it's said that the report was actually destroyed by some CQC 'senior manager', though no one has been named. 

 

To me, there is a bit of a disparity in all of this. The actions of a very few senior bankers may have been disgraceful and some were probably illegal, but no one died; a number have lost their jobs and titles and some may yet go to prison, though that's problematic. In the NHS, we have seen a similar catalogue of failures around the country though no one seems to have suffered the public ignominy meted out to the bankers; this, despite the facts that it's quite likely that we have so far seen only the tip of an enormous iceberg and that at least hundreds if not thousands of people may have died prematurely as a direct result of the failings.

 

In the banking world, it seems that once a problem is uncovered, it's difficult for the perpetrators to hide. However, in the NHS, there's a culture of buck passing which has to be experienced to be believed. The bureaucracy which has been built up over decades is self-sustaining and more interested in protecting itself than in resolving problems; this is a direct consequence of its position in the public sector, with all of the attached political aspects.

 

Today's news stories prove this in stark terms. Bankers who live and work in the private sector and are easy to vilify have been roundly condemned, again, while no one is quite sure where the blame for the recent failings in Furness should lie. Is it the Trust or is it the CQC; perhaps it's the DHSS ? The current head of the CQC has apologised for its failings but I've seen nothing from the one man who should surely be out of a job, the head of the NHS in England, Sir David Nicholson.

 

Nicholson has now presided over umpteen NHS catastrophes and yet still seems to be supported by the Government. The Chief Executive of the Trust of which Furness hospital is a part, was allowed to resign last year, presumably without any effect on his pension and certainly without any suggestion that he should go to prison, even though people died unnecessarily on his watch. Why is this ?

 

I'm no supporter of the bankers who've made such a mess of things and have no problem with some of them losing jobs, titles and even their freedom. However, I fail to see why the likes of Sir David Nicholson seem to be immune from similar treatment; they are, after all, being paid by the taxpayer and are failing repeatedly in much more damaging ways. Their incompetence and negligence is killing people and, if anyone should be in prison, it is they.

USA ESCALATES SYRIAN CONFLICT.

With the civil war in Syria becoming ever-more nasty, that most democratic and peace-loving of nations, the United States of America, has announced that it is now going to provide direct military support to the so-called 'rebels'. This move has, of course, been inevitable and it was only a matter of time before the assorted 'hawks', including our very own 'Boy David', convinced the US President that this action was essential. How the situation develops over the coming days and months has now become the question.

 

The West invaded Iraq because, according to reliable intelligence reports, Saddam Hussein had nuclear capabilities; Tony Blair was all for it but, on that occasion, it was the US President, George W Bush, who led the way as the people of the UK weren't so keen. Although subsequent events proved the people to have been right, our leaders took us into a protracted war which ended up with thousands dead and the overthrow of a dictator, which is what Bush and Blair had wanted from the beginning. That Saddam had, in fact, not had any nuclear capability and the intelligence was either mistaken or deliberately falsified has never been satisfactorily resolved. Saddam ended his days, dangling ignominiously at the end of a rope.

 

With the smell of cordite in their nostrils, the west, led by the USA and UK, then rounded on another of their 'hate figures', Muammar Gaddafi, in Libya. This started as a civil war with western support and ended up with the West supplying arms and bombing Libyan targets; fortunately, western troops were spared from real conflict but the aim of getting rid of Gaddafi was achieved. He was butchered on camera and the West celebrated.

 

Now we have Syria, another Islamic dictatorship though one which has, historically, not been particularly opposed to the West. However, for reasons of their own, many of the Syrian people have become unhappy with their leader, Bashar-al-Assad, and have launched a civil war. The West, in its wisdom, has decided that Assad is the villain and also decided that he must go; they may be right but is it actually any of their business ? The Russians, for reasons of their own, don't like this western attitude and have been supporting Assad but, again, is it any of their business either ?

 

The 'opposition' in Syria seems to be disparate groups of rebels, each with their own axe to grind; which, if any, is capable of forming a government or leading a united country is open to question. The US government has now determined that the Syrian government forces have been using chemical weapons, a conclusion which they say is based on undeniable evidence; are we back to the world of "dodgy dossiers", I wonder. Whatever the evidence, the USA is using it as grounds for a significant increase in its military involvement in Syria's internecine conflict, though exactly what the involvement will be has yet to be stated. Will they simply arm the rebels and if so, which rebels ? Will they launch assaults from outside of Syria or will they actually send in troops ? The only thing we can be sure of is that we're in for yet more bloodshed and Assad's will be in there somewhere.

 

What will 'Boy David' do now that he appears to have got his way ? Can we expect British troops to be deployed ? Will our cash-strapped nation spend more money that it doesn't have on supporting Syria's opposition ? Having tasted 'Victory' in Libya, is Cameroon now convinced that being a 'war-time' Prime Minister is his passport to re-election in 2015 ? If so, he is surely horribly mistaken.

 

Assuming that Assad does go, what will replace his regime ? The opposition groups include some allied to Islamic terrorists such as Al-Qaeda while others have their own specific battles to fight; the chances must be that any future government will be no more stable than the current dictatorship and, quite probably, less amenable to the West. As with Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan changing the ruling junta is unlikely to do much to improve the lot of the people or to create pro-western nations; the blatant imperialist approach of the self-righteous western powers must, in fact, be much more likely to achieve the opposite outcomes.

 

Given the recent history of western involvement in the Middle East, yet more sabre-rattling is something of which we should all be fearful. The trouble is that without a major war to fight somewhere, the more militaristic nations are constantly on the lookout for anywhere where they can send their forces to get a bit of practice, or to undertake a 'proxy war' between each other. For the last couple of decades, this has been the fate of the Middle East as East and West have vied for control; where will it all end ?

POLITICIANS LINE UP TO DECEIVE US.

Yet another Member of Parliament has been caught accepting money for favours, this time being the senior Conservative, Tim Yeo. It's not the first time Mr Yeo has been in trouble either, for back in 1994 he had to resign his ministerial post after being discovered to have fathered a 'love child' despite having spoken vociferously on the subjects of broken families and single parents.

Notwithstanding that his latest bad behaviour has been captured on film, Yeo is denying that he's guilty of any wrong-doing. Many might simply see this denial as the typical conduct of an MP 'caught with his trousers down', though I couldn't possibly comment. What can't be denied is that the filmic evidence appears pretty damning and one is left wondering whether the man is simply stupid or is so arrogant that he was just flattered by the approach made to him and couldn't resist the offer of money. Either way, his political career may well be over.

While Yeo was digging a great big hole for himself, William Hague has been trying to convince us that we have nothing to fear from the snoopings of GCHQ, the Government's communications' monitoring service. It's been reported that GCHQ has cooperated with American security services in monitoring various people and organisations, though no real details have been given. When Hague was interviewed today, he gave a typical politician's response, admitting nothing and claiming that GCHQ invariably acted within the law; he did not specify what law that was and did not deny that GCHQ cooperated with the Americans. He left open the whole question as to whom they may be monitoring but simply smiled and said that ordinary people had nothing to fear from their actions, a wholly meaningless statement.

So there we have it, MPs being deceitful as usual. It seems that they have forgotten what the truth is and forgotten that they have a responsibility to the people who elected them; instead they arrogantly assume that they can get away with almost anything and run the country in any way that they like. Isn't it time that the people let them know differently ?

FIXED PENALTY NOTICES ARE A DENIAL OF JUSTICE.

Day-by-day, our liberty is reduced and we become more of a police state. Our traditional right to a properly constructed trial when accused of any criminal offence is being eroded and our ability to present a defence is being taken away.

 

There has been much discussion in recent times about the introduction of so-called 'jury-less' trials, when a judge would sit alone and pronounce on the evidence presented, and the Government is pressing ahead with plans to remove a defendant's right to appoint a solicitor of his or her choosing; in future, it's proposed that the state will 'provide' appropriate legal support from a panel of 'quality assured' lawyers. This will inevitably lead to a poorer service for defendants and, quite probably, to a huge increase in miscarriages of justice.

 

Added to this assault on our justice system, it's also been announced that, with effect from 1st July, the police will be empowered to issue many more 'fixed penalty notices' for a range of supposed driving offences and that the scale of such penalties will also rise dramatically. The published rationale behind this move is that it will render swifter justice and will take pressure off of the courts; the reality is that drivers will be subject to highly arbitrary judgements by the police. The vast majority of transgressors will escape any penalty as their offences simply won't be seen, while the unfortunate few who are noticed will be landed with fines and penalty points against which they will have no real opportunity to mount any defence. The position of the police as accuser, judge and jury will place defendants in an impossible position; failure to accept a fixed penalty will result in a court appearance and the certainty of an even greater penalty, given that the word of a police officer is always accorded greater weight than that of the defendant in such cases.

 

One has to wonder why it is that our supposedly libertarian lawmakers believe such an approach to enforcement to be any kind of justice. The police are already empowered to issue fixed penalties for offences such as using a mobile 'phone while driving and failing to wear a seatbelt; why not wearing a seatbelt should be a criminal offence has always been a mystery to me as the only person in danger is the offender. As for using a mobile 'phone whilst driving, the introduction of this as an offence seems to have had no effect whatsoever on its incidence and drivers of every kind of vehicle can be seen breaking this particular law every day of the week and in great numbers; there simply aren't enough police around to do more than catch one offender in many thousands, which makes this law, along with other similar ones, largely unenforceable and utterly unjust.

 

Given the obvious and serious shortcomings in all of this, the planned increase of fixed penalty fines for a range of offences from £40 to £100 is surely inexplicable. The intention to widen the range to include 'offences' such as 'hogging the middle lane' which might, in future, be treated as being as serious an offence as 'tail-gating', is ludicrous. What criteria will police use when deciding that a particular driver is 'guilty' of such an offence ? Will they simply be encouraged to increase conviction rates by having an occasional campaign against motorists unfortunate enough to be on the road on every third Thursday, or every Friday 13th ? How long will it be before offenders are simply identified from the use of cameras ?

 

This is not justice and it is not right. Laws that are not fully enforceable are bad laws and it is not for the police to determine guilt or innocence. The extension of this power to them is a frightening step further along the path to an authoritarian police state and should be opposed at every turn.

BALLS ROBS PENSIONERS WHILE CLEGG PRATTLES.

Politicians must be the most corrupt and self-serving people on the planet.

 

Today, Ed Balls, the man who, along with Gordon Brown, destroyed our economy, has announced that a future Labour government would remove the 'winter fuel payment' from wealthier pensioners; by 'wealthier, Balls means anyone paying the higher rate of tax, currently 45%. Admittedly, there was a time when earning enough to be taxed at the higher rate was a clear signal of wealth, almost riches; today, it's a 'privilege' that's been extended to millions of people, most of whom would certainly not consider themselves wealthy.  

 

When Balls and his pals introduced the 'winter fuel allowance' it was intended to be a 'universal benefit', that is, everyone would receive it, regardless of wealth; given that all taxpayers contribute towards it, the wealthiest by far the most, it would actually seem a little unfair to do anything else, though this is what Balls is now proposing. One has to wonder what other 'universal benefits' might be in his sights; perhaps 'wealthier' pensioners will find their free television licences, bus passes and even their state pensions in jeopardy before very long. Balls knows very well that such a strategy is likely to find favour with his own socialist supporters while losing him no votes at all, as the wealthier pensioners have probably already decided to vote for Ukip and wouldn't have voted for him anyway. This is nothing other than an electoral ploy, designed to win him votes from his mean-spirited and die-hard supporters.

 

While Balls is busy trying to rob pensioners, Nick Clegg has popped up with the usual parliamentary claptrap that comes out whenever some MP or Peer is caught doing something that they shouldn't. This time, an MP and 2 or 3 Peers have been stupid enough to let themselves fall for a lobbying 'sting', accepting payment for supporting specific policies and asking questions in parliament. All of the guilty men have either resigned their party 'whips' or had them withdrawn, and the media has been a-buzz with discussion about what should now be done to prevent parliamentarians from being so naughty. Clegg is intent on creating a register of lobby groups, though what this would achieve is a mystery, and has been prattling on about being determined to ensure that 'anti-sleaze' measures go ahead. Having made this one of his main priorities 3 years ago, nothing has yet happened and one can have little confidence that anything will actually happen now. Nonetheless, Clegg no doubt believes that gullible voters will mistake rhetoric for action and so will see him as being the type of good politician who deserves to be re-elected.

 

It would seem that MPs and Peers have 2 aims in life : to make as much money out of being in Parliament as they can, and to get re-elected. To these ends they will say anything and do anything, with little regard for the truth or for ethics and morality. The one thing that they don't do is represent their constituents with any enthusiasm, if at all.

 

Vote Ukip.