Pubic Hair

I've recently been looking into the views of Sheikh Assim Al Hakeem, who is to women's rights as Nick Griffin is to multiculturalism, as he's speaking at Sheffield Hallam Islamic Society next week on, ahem, woman's rights in Islam. And while I could write an entire dissertation on the man's variety of views, resembling a pick'n'mix of hate, a selection box of contempt, a multi-pack of loathing, (available here http://www.assimalhakeem.net/ and here http://www.youtube.com/user/assimalhakeem) one thing that sprung out was his opinions on pubic hair.

Scanning through his videos, this gem popped up. "Eyebrows?" I thought. "Surely he doesn't have an opinion on them?"

It turns out that he does,  and also on, erm, other hair. Watch this video again, while keeping in mind that this old man shaves his balls. Go on. Do it.

That was fun, wasn't it?

Obviously Hakeem is a massive bellend, and I thought a lifetime of not seeing women, listening to music, or masturbating might have finally pushed him across the border to loopy land. So I Googled it, and lo and behold, the first result:
http://www.understanding-islam.com/q-and-a/cleansing-and-purification/pubic-hair-6386

To save you the trouble of reading it, a concerned Mulism (or an atheist pissing himself laughing) has asked for specific information on shaving the following areas: penis, scrotum, anus, Thighs - the part around the penis and scrotum and their extent as some say we need to go down till the knees [very specific??], The area in between the scrotum and the anus [This is getting pretty graphic. Once you're onto parts of the body that don't have a name, it's surely not worth worrying about?], The hips near the anus and the part further away, The part which is below the belly button and above the penis.

I'm beginning to pity this guy. He's so brainwashed that he's gone on the internet to ask a stranger which parts of his genitals he should be shaving from fear of divine retribution. Particularly when he asks if he has to start shaving from the right hand side. "Is it my right, or the right from Allah's perspective??"

Admittedly, the reply simply says he should shave his pubes in a pretty self-explanatory way "like you would remove the hair in and around the armpits." Yeah cheers, I'll just do what I do when I remove my armpit hair.

I'm a liberal. I think people should be able to believe and say whatever they want. But is it just me who thinks that people believe a deity gives a rat's (shaved) ass about their pubic hair have either been ludicrously brainwashed, are trying to manipulate others, or are in complete denial about the stupidity of what they're doing?

When Kim Jong Il died I read/heard something about the crazy stories about Kim's birth and life. An "expert" of some kind was asked whether Koreans actually believed these things. He replied that even if they don't, if you can make people say they believe such preposterous things you've dominated them psychologically to such an extent that you eliminate all resistance. I can't help but think something similar's going on here. "If we get people to shave their pubes, we get them to do ANYTHING."

UPDATE
And while we're here, I came across this http://www.assimalhakeem.net/node/3216

Basically some guy mistakenly thought Muslims have to pee standing up. I don't know where to begin...

Cartoons

Hi guys. I occasionally draw cartoons. As it turns out, I'm not a particularly good drawer or cartoon thinker-upper, but when has low quality ever stopped me from posting on here before? This is my equivalent of putting it on the fridge. (because it's where shitty drawings and stuff go, and because it's a place where only the people I live with will see it)

Dun this one recently. It's about economics or sumfin.

This is about British response to bad weather. Dun it during the snow.

Dun this one a few years ago when Rowan said we should adopt some Sharia law in UK. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7232661.stm)

This was around the same time as the Sharia thing (2008ish?) when a woman had argued she should be allowed to wear a burka in a primary school. I thought it would be funny if a ventriloquist made a similar claim, but with hindsight I should have left out Darth Vader.

I dun this one in an EU lecture the other day on the Eurozone debt crisis and have now digitally rendered it for computer. Self explanatory.

A joyous evening with the Muslims of Sheffield

It's fair to say I was rather looking forward to the "Islam vs Liberalism" debate due to be held by the Sheffield Hallam Islam Society. I don't know a huge amount about Islam and it's often hard to establish what the truth is beyond the polarised media. I have often seen interviews with moderate Muslims who have argued that Islam is a religion of love, peace and tolerance, which had led me to believe that mainstream Islam may well be in line with liberal, secular Britain much in the way moderate Christianity is.

My hopes were dashed fairly early on. When we were waiting to go in I observed that men and women appeared to be standing separately, but didn't really think anything of it. This became more obvious when the women were admitted to the lecture theatre first by one door, and the men by another afterwards. My jaw dropped yet further upon entering the theatre, when I saw that the women were at the very back of the lecture theatre and the mean at the front with maybe 20 empty intervening rows. I am aware of the somewhat sexist nature of Islam, but had not expected to see it so obviously and explicitly in the UK, at a University, and for them to ask the female members of the atheist contingent to sit at the back too. When people in the UK talk about sexism, they mean that women are under-represented in government or on the boards of FTSE 100 companies, or that previsions for maternity are lacking. What I observed here was so far beyond that. The open segregation of men and women was akin to apartheid. I felt like a white person at the front of the bus. I have sometimes wondered if it's possible to feel genuine, pure, blood boiling anger about something that is offensive to someone other than yourself. I discovered it was as my face was red with fury even as I said down. From that moment there was nothing that could be said to convince me that Islam is a tolerant, non-sexist religion.

When questioned on this issue, the Muslim speaker Hamza Tzortzis (whose hate speech is available on YouTube) claimed that women choose to be separate. I wonder how many of the women in there felt they could possibly consider sitting amongst the men? I wonder what would have happened if they had. I'm fairly certain that, particularly if there were no outsiders there, they would probably have been told they weren't allowed, and risk ostracism. Hamza argued that if an observer came in and saw the women at the back (in a tiered lecture theatre) they would assume they were more important as a result of being higher up. This misses the issue with segregation. Irregardless of who is higher up, segregation is still occurring. And his claim that they were more important than men was severely damaged by the fact that during the Q&A only a single woman from the back of the room asked a question, and others submitted them in written form, presumably either as a result of feeling they couldn't speak in a room full of men, or because being at that back of the room meant that no-one at the "unimportant" front, where the debate was actually happening, would be able to hear them.

Hamza was questioned further on women's rights around the issue of rape. In Islam there are various rules relating to the punishment of rape victims which he was challenged on. To claim that Islam respects women, Hamza's defence was that the punishment for a rapist is crucifixion. I think that even most supporters of the death penalty would argue that crucifixion is a step too far, and that he actually cited this as his defence opened up a whole other can of worms. To add to this, he said that the punishment for falsely claiming that a woman has been raped is 40 lashings and the removal of a hand and a foot. Again, this is rather an appalling defence by the standards of most sane people.

Fortunately the issue of homosexuality was not raised until the very end, at which point it is no exaggeration to say things almost came to blows. The issue was coincidentally raised by both a Muslim and atheist questioner in close succession, albeit from extremely different viewpoints. The answer Hamza gave to the issue was a regurgitation of Christianity's popular "love the sinner hate the sin" excuse for an argument. People are permitted, he maintained, to have homosexual tendencies (he himself knows "people with homosexual tendencies who call themselves Muslims"), as long as they don't act upon them. So far so predictable. Furthermore, the necessary conditions for punishment involve four witnesses, who are not allowed to be spying in people's private property, so the offence must, essentially, take place in public. Where the problem lay was that after further questioning, Hamza used the old "if we're going to allow this, why not allow paedophilia" argument. I was too incensed with rage to be able to remember specific elements of this exchange in order report it in any detail. Needless to say the comparison drew vocal outcry from the attending atheists, who were heckled by a Muslim gentleman sat a few rows in front to "show respect". There were several more vocal and angry exchanges on the topic at which point the debate was ended.

I am frequently amazed by the determination of religious people whose religions are full of sexism, intolerance and homophobia, who are determined to package it in the language of love and peace. Hamza was, to his credit, a fantastic speaker, although his petty descent into name calling, in spite of being in front of a generally sympathetic audience was remarkable, as well as his disingenuous misdirection and lying. His speaking skills can be seen in the video at the bottom of this page.

The problem, I think, is not an issue with "all Muslims" in the way people like to generalise. What I saw was a room full of, presumably reasonably intelligent people, who could sit in a room and, ignoring the terrible metaphysical and historical arguments, listen to someone who believes homosexuality is akin to paedophilia, and who believes that crucifixion is ever an acceptable punishment, and not only remain silent (as no-one from the atheist society felt able to do), but applaud, and, in some cases, cheer and think "this is a religion I want to be a part of". This terrifies me slightly, as these people are not crackpots like the Westboro Baptist Church that are known for their crazy views, these are people whose religious beliefs are respected solely as a result of being religious beliefs, when actually views like this are more objectionable than those of the BNP, who receive a significantly higher amount of attention from the media and politicians. Admittedly, the fact that Islam comes from a foreign culture makes it slightly less palatable to the secular Brit. When a brief prayer is said at the beginning of a Christian Union even (although it rarely is) it's relatively unremarkable to people who likely went to a Christian school and have probably been to church services in their lives. To see someone with a long beard chanting in a foreign language wrongly creates an impression of "other" which is unfair to use in claiming that Islam is more cult-like than mainstream Christianity. But if we stick to the facts, the views expressed were beyond anything I've heard before, and the segregation of men and women is an inexcusable custom. What was most disturbing about it was that the women there appeared to be convinced that by sitting at the back with their heads covered, and not being expected to speak, they weren't inferior they were just "different". This is something that can only come about as a result of brainwashing, particularly when they can see men and women harmlessly interacting with each other all around.

It's also possible to see how extremism comes about. In any group of similarly-minded people it's easy to get carried away by the fact that you all agree, and that your views are not challenged. In the atheist society, things are sometimes said or accepted without challenge that are perhaps objectionable as a result of being amongst the like-minded and the fact that nobody wants to be the sole objector. But when a group of people has already accepted that they can't sit with their equals of the opposite sex, and when lashings for someone who has told a lie is accepted as a reasonable punishment, this is extremism. And when that group believes they have a god on their side, and that they are going to receive eternal bliss in service of this god, it's not a huge leap to get violence and terrorism. This is not, of course, to say that "all Muslims are terrorists" but that any insular organisation that goes unchallenged, when they believe they have divine authority, is bound to become a breeding ground for extremism, particularly when their views are extreme to begin with. But in stead of facing up to this all we hear is denial. Whenever Hamza was questioned on the state of Muslim countries around the world, he replied that those people were not Muslims, or that they were Muslims under a dictator they didn't want. I am not about to claim that repressed people want a dictator, but the only way of not having a dictator in some form is to have democracy, a liberal principle which was not strongly touched upon in the debate, but its acceptance would entail an acceptance of a core liberal principle which would not have helped his cause. In Egypt, where a dictator was recently overthrown, the first elections has rendered an Islamists the victors. We have yet to see how this will turn out. Iran is a theocracy, under the control of Islam and its interpreters, and Saudi Arabia a country whose legal system is based on Sharia law. To deny these countries and their repugnant practices are connected to Islam is akin to putting fingers in your ears and going "la la la". Similarly, it is dangerous to argue that violent Muslim extremism is nothing to do with the Muslim community. If views like the ones expressed at this event are acceptable to even a small portion of Muslims, there is an obvious problem with extremism and potential for violence.

It's difficult to say how mainstream the views we heard were. Apologists will always try and argue that most Muslims don't have views like this. From Christian events I have been too it has become apparent that, while some of the more objectionable views are more common than a liberal such as myself assumes, a vast number of people who call themselves Christian apply this to only a small or non-existent extent in their lives, and even those who attend church regularly often have little in common with the slavery-supporting fundamentalists I have encountered. However, my impression of the debate was that the views expressed were more common than we might assume. I estimate there to have been 150 Muslims there (it was rather obvious who they were as almost everyone there was a Muslim or an atheist and there was an obvious racial difference, as well as bearded men and headscarved women), which must be a reasonably significant proportion of Sheffield Hallam's Muslim population. Furthermore, this was not a fringe group like Synergy, a Christian group at the University of Sheffield, it was Sheffield Hallam Islam Society, which I assume encompasses the mainstream of Muslim thought. Of course it's not possible to know what every Muslim thinks, but this experience, coupled with a survey that was done a short while ago in which no statistically recognisable proportion of Muslims could be identified who agreed that homosexuality is acceptable, suggests that the problem of Islam is one that's greater than many moderate secular people, who are keen not to appear in a league with the racist EDL and BNP, are prepared to recognise.

I welcome your comments.

But don't feel obliged.

x

Elected Police Commissioners

I know, I know, it's a very exciting topic, but please try and control yourself long enough to read what I have to say.

About twenty months ago, it was included in the Coalition Agreement that this Parliament would see the introduction of elected police commissioners. The reason this idea existed in the first place is because in the wake of the expenses scandal, the Conservative Party wanted to appear to be doing something to reform politics, without actually changing anything. For this reason they decided to support recall elections for MPs, primaries and elected police commissioners instead of reforms which would have actually improved our democracy such as a new voting system, lowering the voting age or seriously pushing for an elected House of Lords.

The elections for police commissioners, it has been announced, will take place in November of this year. Autumn and Winter are famously bad times to hold elections as apparently people are less keen on exercising their voice in democracy when there's a chance they might get chilly, and one can only assume that they are being held then, as opposed to May with the other elections, to force turnout down even lower than the 40% we see at local elections. But this may not be a bad thing, as elected police commissioners is a resoundingly awful idea.

Firstly, what makes the Conservative Party think that anyone will give enough of a rat's ass about who their police commissioner is to read up on their candidates and go out and vote? Only 60% of people do this (mostly without the "reading up" part) in general elections, to choose their government, amid a storm of media hype. Drop this to the previously mentioned 40% for local elections and it begins to look likely that the miserable percentage of people who turn out to put a cross next to their party's police commissioner could sink even lower than this already very low benchmark.

And do we really want a politicised police force? The police are surely expected to be neutral enforcers of the law. How would the policing of, say, a demonstration that a particular commissioner does or doesn't support work? And what about a police commissioner being elected who favours the legalisation of certain drugs, for example. Will we then see an area of the country where drugs laws are not enforced? Police commissioners don't make laws, they are enforcers of them, which is a role that should be neutral both with regards to the people being policed and the laws being enforced.

Next comes this issue of who will be running. The first article I read on candidates was this one (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-16417374) on the BBC, which details plans of former Welsh First Minister Alun Michael to run for a commissionership. Delving into Michael's history we see that he has been a reporter, a youth worker, and spent 25 years as an MP save for a brief spell as a member of the Welsh Parliament. Not to launch into personal criticism, but I would much rather have, you know, a police officer as police commissioner. What, about a career in politics, qualifies you to run a police force? I know the same criticism could be levelled at electing governments, but it's necessary to vote for people in government as they direct national policy in a way police commissioners don't or at least shouldn't.

There's only one way I want my police commissioners to be selected, and that's by police. People who know what they're talking about in the field of policing. I don't know what this selection process should be, but whatever they do at the moment will probably be fine. Personally, I don't have a clue who the best police commissioner will be. I don't know enough about policing to judge. And, with no insult intended to my reader, most of the general public probably don't know much more than I do. I think a body of people who know everything they know about law enforcement from watching Police Academy is probably not the best source of wisdom on the matter.

 It's particularly ironic that the Conservative Party who not a year ago argued against a new, fairer, voting system based on a fictionally-constructed cost and the basis that "there's no appetite for change" are now forcing a pointless election on people. The Liberal Democrats decision not to field candidates for £5000 a pop (why so high? *cough* Tories *cough*) may be a principled stand, or cynically-motivated necessity based on the party's finances, or lack thereof, and the fact that following recent electoral performance a few lost deposits may be in the pipeline.

So I urge you, come November, not to vote in this hideous masquerade. Personally I will be spoiling my ballot. If we can force the turnout levels even lower than the pitiful number our overlords are surely expecting than perhaps the whole idea will be scrapped.

_________________________________________________________________

Update
Since writing, this story has come to my attention http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-16627270#TWEET64805 . A police officer is facing disciplinary measure over tweeting in a personal capacity about police funding. Apparently this is prohibited as it may "undermine public confidence and bring discredit on the service". And just what will happen to public confidence in police when their local force is constantly under partisan attack from politicians eager to win votes? If a single police officer being openly political is a bad thing, it's surely even worse for a commissioner?

_________________________________________________________________

Update
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-16978613

2011-2012

Originally, I was going to mark the New Year, and the first anniversary of this blog, my dear reader (singular), with a review of the past year, and a brief summary of anticipated events in the year to come. However, as a result of my unanticipated and surprisingly enjoyable night out I have decided instead to write a commentary of said night out, in the hope that a reflection on this social nucleus of our time: the nightclub, can prove more revelatory than a tedious recounting of global events from the year passed. A kind of written time capsule, captivating a moment in time to be preserved for the future. The 80s night of blogs.

My evening began in a fashion that suggested worse things to come. While enjoying an Indian takeaway with my mother and grandmother is not inherently a bad thing, at this moment in time I had not any substantial plans for the evening ahead, and when a minor conflict broke out over whether or not my grandmother should return home to get a jar of chutney, or pay 60pence for one from the takeaway (for which price, she maintained, she could purchase two jars elsewhere) I saw my final hours of 2011 stretch before me like a Penrose staircase.

However, a small coup emerged upon my sudden texting, once full of curry, by a friend of mine who was, at that moment, parked outside. Obviously, I couldn't leave fast enough, and leapt in his car before he could push the front seat forward. But once again my hopes were dashed, as we went to the home of someone I didn't know for some awkward four person predrinks, to which I had taken no drinks. After an hour or so of trying desperately to get a kick from hyperventilation, we left for a bar known as a tavern. Now pubs are not my favourite places, and the prospect of one that considers itself to be so authentic as to refer to itself as a tavern certainly does not fill me with joy, nor did the five pound double spirit and mixer. Add to this the DJ who only had the ability to press "pause" on one song and "play" on another, while failing to remember which song he had played only minutes earlier, and you begin to see the reason for my pessimism. However, I was out of the house, in the company of other human beings, so it was already one up on both the year before and my own expectations. Furthermore, I saw a number of people who had been in the year below me at school, but are now somewhat fatter than me as a result of having ballooned, which gave me a smug sense of superiority which, again, was an improvement on last year.

Following a brief interlude in which I attempted, unsuccessfully, to redirect the course of the evening of the direction of one of Norwich's few homosexual establishments, we proceeded to the biggest nightclub of the fine city know as Norwich, via an off-license. However, upon arrival, the length of the queue became apparent to us, and to me as an ill-prepared non ticket bearer with just 50 minutes until the clock struck midnight, I realised my fate appeared to be spending my first minutes of 2012 in a queue to get into a nightclub containing unpleasant people lined up like sardines, sipping on beverages even Midas wouldn't fork out for.

Then came the first piece of true fortune I experienced that evening. For those of you who know me in person, you will know that meeting new people is not something I engage in with enthusiasm, particularly people I expect to only see on on occasion. However, as a result of being suitably intoxicated, I had, through no fault of my own, pre-emptively engaged in conversation and formed acquaintance with someone I did not previously know (he said we had spoken on several occasions, but as a result of suffering from an extreme form of social amnesia I had no recollection of this), who also had neglected to purchase a ticket for admittance to said nightclub. At this point I was fully expecting to end up walking from queue to queue until the sound of the jubilation at a new, unblemished year filled the streets from the packed danceries, at which thought I struck upon the fitting analogy of Mary (of the Bible) going from hotel to hotel but nowhere letting her in. However, I don't have enough sex for the Mary analogy to work. It then dawned on me that this was the first time the story of Jesus's birth had occurred to me over the holiday season, and that it's odd that its only modern relevance is as an analogy for nightclubs. I digress. We abandoned our friends to the club that was more packed than the average tube train and departed to the road know as "Prince of Wales" where all the other nightclubs of any significance can be found.

The first club we came across was ideal. All year round it's deserted, as its total size is little more than an average-sized living room, and they attempt to lure you in with free entry and cheap drinks. New Year's Eve, I assumed, would be a different story, yet I was pleasantly surprised to find it full enough to be lively, but with no queue and free entry and cheap drinks still intact. I suppose the exact same reasons that no-one goes there all year round apply even more on New Year's Eve, as it's not a place many people would choose to spend time, let alone at a time such as New Year's Eve, where many photos that will eventually end up on Facebook will be taken. Nevertheless, a good time was had by all. All I heard from one of my friends who made it in to Sardineia was a text just after midnight reading simply "Grapes news tear". I assume that meant he was having a good time. Or a stroke.

After the "ball had dropped", the DJ clearly decided the greater portion of the club's clientèle were too intoxicated to be able to use self-invented dance moves, so elected to play a series of dreaded "routine" songs. I can cope with the macarena, and the YMCA, while frustrating when everyone looks at me and thrusts me into the middle at its playing, is just about bearable. However, one song that knocks the cheer out of the cheeriest cheerleader is "Saturday Night". This particularly annoying track has a routine that I have never been able to master, and needing to tie my shoelace during the Cha Cha Slide (two hops, anyone?) was frankly a health hazard.

Following that, for only the second time in my life I was forcibly thrust to the front of a conga. This isn't as fun as it sounds, when one is left with responsibility for the happiness of thirty drunkards. It is also surprisingly difficult to get rid of a conga. You try walking away. It's like trying to lose your shadow. If your shadow was a line of thirty overweight girls in clit-length mini skirts. Furthermore, this was the first conga I had been in since the release of the Human Centipede, and I was suddenly horribly aware of the similarity. At least if my film-induced fears came true I was at the front.

Eventually, after much of this sort of malarkey, I left the club in search of something that can be loosely termed "food". Even if there's a rapture, at least I won't be hungry. On the way home I was asked for directions to Nando's, and instilled with the goodwill of a thousand drunkards I offered my best guess, and waved in a general direction other than the one I was travelling in. If that's not good citizenship, what is?

There's a lot of criticism of nightclubs, drinking and youth culture in general, and New Years Eve should be the worst example of this. However, as I looked around I didn't see immoral sin or antisocial behaviour, I saw complete strangers linking arms to Cotton-Eye Joe, acquaintances hugging at midnight, and people buying drinks for their peers without any care paid to reciprocation. 2011 is over, and was good (For personal reasons. Globally it was a shitter.). 2012 sees the Olympics, some sort of royal thing, and the possibility of a Mormon President. It's all down hill from here.

I thank you, my dear reader, for a year's loyalty, and I look forward to getting 7 people accidentally stumbling upon my blog a week for years to come.

Headline of the Year

Throughout 2011 I've been keeping track of headlines and news stories that stand out for all the wrong reasons. Admittedly, I've forgotten to keep an eye out for most of the year, but here is what I got:

Firstly, the story that gave me the idea for this.  I confess to being a closet cheeky girl fan, so when I read the headline

"Cheeky Girl cautioned for shoplifting in Cheshire"

I was naturally taken-aback. What's so beautiful about this is that at first glance you think a non-entity has been caught shoplifting in a cheeky manner, which I find to be a pleasing image. It's also funny because they have to refer to her as a "Cheeky Girl" because no-one would know who Garbriela Imiria is, and because the Beeb found an excuse to dig out an old photo of Lembit. Plus, any BBC article that feature the words "Ms Irimia and her twin sister Monica had four top ten hits between 2002 and 2004. Their debut single Cheeky Song (Touch my bum) sold 1.2m worldwide." is funny.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-12142242

Next up is this gem from 11th January. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12160874
The article itself is rather boring, simply because the entire story is explained by the glorious headline:

"Italian man shot in head sneezes out bullet and lives"

Oh, BBC, thank you for spending our license fees so wisely.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12160874

Now we move on to an article posted to Facebook by a friend of mine. The peculiarity of this story is matched only by the peculiarity of its headline: 

"Chainsaw wielding pyjama man attacks tree in dead of night"

If the purpose of this is to entice you to read the article, it certainly succeeds, as it leaves the reader with so many questions I actually thought reading this headline had sucked some information from my brain. It refers to "pyjama man" like this is a common expression, but frankly it just made me think of Banana Man. In case you can't be bothered to read the whole thing, it features this: "One resident, who declined to be named, said: “He was in his pyjamas. I just rang the police.""

http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/local/8789587.Chainsaw_wielding_pyjama_man_attacks_tree_in_dead_of_night/

We're onto the 20th of January now, and with it comes this headline: 

"Live chicken thrown at KFC staff in Nuneaton"

One of the many fantastic things about this headline is that whoever wrote it thinks "in Nuneaton" is relevant and interesting enough to the common reader to include in the headline. It's also great because it contains the sentence "The RSPCA is now looking for a new home for the hen, which it has named Mrs Sanders." No comment needed.

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-12240558

The Guardian now, with a headline that I found interesting, if not side-splittingly hilarious.

"Third of Zimbabwe's registered voters are dead"

And to think, in the UK only 60% of living people can be bothered to vote.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/21/third-zimbabwe-registered-voters-dead?CMP=twt_fd

The next one should be of interest to followers of wacky Jacqui (or iffy Smiffy, depending on which you prefer). It's the kind of headline that makes you check the date isn't April 1st.

"Jacqui Smith to investigate porn trade for the BBC"

The article includes the line "Ms Smith's earlier brush with the porn industry..." which I'm sure is designed to conjure an unpleasant image in the head of less savoury-minded readers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12316131

We're in May now, and another headline that just seems to have been created using a random word generator on hallucinogenic drugs.

"Severed head of patron saint of genital disease on sale"

Why is there a patron saint of genital disease? I have no answer. But the article does helpfully tell you when and where the auction is taking place, in case a 17th Century head relating to genital disease tickles your fancy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-13522546

You think our Deputy Prime Minister is crazy? What about this:

"Teacher Mohamed Ibrahim quits for Somalia deputy PM job"

What's more bizarre is that the article provides absolutely no insight into why a teacher was appointed to the Government.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14853043

Former Norwich MP Ian Gibson once claimed that inbreeding was a cause of heart disease in the region. He survived that particular scandal. Unfortunately this teacher did not meet the same fate.

"Teacher Suspended Over 'Inbred' Locals Slur"

I wonder how inbred your pupils have to be for it to be legitimate to say it.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/teacher-suspended-over-inbred-locals-slur-122624662.html

Lastly, but by no means...leastly, this absolutely terrific headline:

"Man jailed after trying to turn faeces into gold"

What's interesting about this is that it's actually misleading. Reading the headline alone, one is instilled with a sense of sympathy for the hapless gentleman involved. Surely it's not a crime to attempt faecal alchemy? Alas, it transpires he was actually imprisoned for setting alight to a block of flats, while attempting to turn his shit into gold. And of course, the article includes some beautiful lines, such as "In his ruling Judge McFarland told Moran: “You were attempting to make gold from human faeces and waste products. It was an interesting experiment to fulfil the alchemist’s dream, but wasn’t going to succeed.”" 

Erm...I'm not sure turning faeces into gold is the alchemists dream. He is also described as a man of "considerable intellectual ability". Right, before or after he set fire to some flats trying to TURN HIS SHIT INTO GOLD???

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/man-jailed-after-trying-to-turn-faeces-into-gold-.html

Hope you enjoyed this. Sorry I forgot about this for most of the year. I will try harder next year. My personal favourite is probably pyjama man. How about you?

Obesity and the Food Tax

It has been one of the biggest dilemmas since they found out smoking is actually really bad for you. What do you do about people choosing deliberately unhealthy lifestyles, who then burden everyone, even those who look after themselves, by costing the NHS a lot of money?

With the announcement this week that 40% of British adults are expected to be obese by 2030 this problem is bigger than ever. No pun intended.

What has been proposed is a tax on "unhealthy" food similar to taxes on cigarettes. But herein lies the problem. Eating is not the same as smoking, for several reasons.

Firstly, the vast majority of smokers are regular smokers, due to the additive nature of nicotine. This means that when you put a very high tax on cigarettes, you generally punish people who are putting their health at risk. This isn't the same with food. Everyone enjoys foods that have a high calorie content or that are high in fat sometimes, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with eating these things in moderation, or not in moderation if one does sufficient exercise or has a naturally high metabolism, so by putting a high tax on them you are punishing everyone, not just those who eat specific types of food in excess.

Another argument often used against smokers is the dangers associated to passive smoking, which creates health problems associated with smoking to people who aren't bringing it upon themselves. It's impossible to passive eat (unless you're being fed intravenously, I suppose), making it a self-regarding action on which imposition is much harder to justify.

It is also enormously difficult to define what constitutes an unhealthy food. On the clichéd news report I just watched on this they showed footage of chips and burgers in a similar way to someone who advocates the death penalty citing Hitler or Saddam Hussein as an example. What is more difficult to assess is, for example, a ready meal which includes some vegetables but also has high salt content, or dairy products, which are high in fat, but can also be an excellent source of calcium and are often crucial to vegetarian diets. Furthermore, if we try and price the poor out of buying typically "unhealthy" foods, but don't put any effort into educating people, it's likely that they will continue to consume the same foods anyway. Fast food takeaways and ready meals already work out more expensive than home made food and fresh fruit and vegetables. The problem is to do with education and culture, not price.

This brings me on to another point. Those who support measures to try and change the way people consume to make them healthier are generally (but not always) on the left, and are similar voices to those who oppose indirect taxation for impacting on the poor to a greater extent than on the rich. However, taxes on food or cigarettes or alcohol do the very same thing, effectively saying it's fine to be unhealthy as long as you can afford it.

So what is the solution? The answer is, there is no easy solution, which is why we end up with bad ideas like taxing "unhealthy" food. A lot of it has to come from education. I'm a firm believer that parents should have to take responsibility for teaching their children about things like nutrition and cooking and that it shouldn't be the job of the education system. However, we now live in a culture where an alarming number of parents clearly don't share this view, needless to say that many don't have that knowledge themselves so are unable to pass it on. Education appears to be the only way to change people's habits without hiking up taxes in strange places. I also feel I should point out that I was not a fan of the awful and patronising "Change 4 Life" campaign that was mercifully ended just over a year ago.

Changing the laws on advertising junk food to children may also help. It's much harder to tell adults what to eat in a liberal society, but the need to guide children's decision making is much more widely accepted, and if children learn about healthy eating, they are more likely to stay in good habits late in life.

But education will only work in the longer term. The problem facing us immediately is one that cannot be fixed in schools. Changes in lifestyle are resulting in greater pressure on our health services which costs everyone, not just those who choose to keep in a bad state of health. I think that a solution to this would be a kind of health MOT. Every couple of years everyone should have to have a brief health check-up on general health and fitness. People who are obese, or heavy smokers or drinkers, should be given time and support to improve their health or face being automatically placed at the bottom of NHS waiting lists. Those who are consistently in a good state of health should have to go less often. This scheme would probably (this is a big assumption) save the NHS money as people seeing a doctor regularly would result in early diagnosis diseases, and the improvement of the health of the general population as a result of the support and education they would receive would also be in the long term financial interests of the NHS.

This probably sounds a bit too radical and is no doubt full of flaws, but we have a big problem in this country, and making people pay more for for foods which the majority enjoy responsibly seems to be difficult, unfair, and quite probably ineffective.