When Real Life Happens!

This was the moment earlier this evening when the terribly thoughtless people of England intruded into the lives of Prince Charles and Camilla.

The moment when Charles and Camilla's car was attacked

What an darned inconvenience for them.

Thankfully however, the two were not held up for long and managed to make it to the Royal Variety Performace on time. What a relief.

While they may be of far less importance, sadly many of the little people in London were faced with more havoc caused by both genuine protesters and thugs who turned the city into a warzone.

I spoke to Andrew Hart, who works in Kensington but made his way down to Westminster at around 6pm to watch the protests unfold from a safe distance. He likened the scenes to the Notting Hill Carnival: "From where I was standing you could see the students trying to push the police across the bridge. A lot of drunk kids and just kids being little dicks were throwing cans or whatever.

"I never saw the worst of it yet it was crazy busy. It was not what I would call a protest - more of a street festival. A lot of people were just pushed along like cattle".

The BBC's Business Secretary Vince Cable said today that the policy which is the cause of this trouble has been passed by a democratic Parliament and that the details must now be explained to the public.

While this may be true and the system of government in this country is something to protect at all costs, it has been let down by the politicians who failed to keep their promises.

It is unlikely that the Liberal Democrats will come back from this for many years, and Nick Clegg has certainly already seen his best days - but what has been damaged by the whole affair is more worrying.

When a party publishes its manifesto, detailing what it stands for and what it hopes to do, this forms the basis on how the people of the country vote. When politicians fail to keep to these promises there is little we can do - except protest.

And although putting people in danger is inexcuseable, be it the ordinary minions or the future King himself, it is certainly heartening to know that there are still people in this country who will go out and show how angry they are when they've been let down by the people they voted for.

"Appeasement" and Infant Mentality

Permit me to be brave enough to introduce a new term into the lexicon of international politics.

Liu Xiaobo - this years winner of the Nobel
Peace Prize and ongoing embarassment to China.



Infant mentality.

When one wishes to teach a young child the difference between right and wrong, one must sometimes be cruel to be kind.

Children need to learn very early that they can't always have what they want. They must realise that they need to share things with others, and that sometimes they do things which are wrong - and must suffer the consequences.

These things are instilled into children through a number of methods; not rewarding bad behaviour is important, persistance in seeing punishments and the threat of punishments through to actuality is vital, and the ongoing hope is that they will learn from those around them, rather than fight to do everything in their own, dangerous and destructive way.  

Quite which methods are used to teach these lessons varies from family to family, but the values I mention are necessary for the child to grow to be a caring, responsible and moral person.

The situation which we currently have in the world is very reminiscent of a particularly inspired episode of The Twilight Zone called 'It's a good life', in which adults tiptoe around a spoiled young child who posesses the power of a God - continually telling him how happy they are with him, for fear of suffering his wrath. People die in this episode, and the community lives in continual terror of the childs threats.

China is this monster.



"We are appeasing China, but I don't think it should be all
about trade"  - Wu'er Kaixi, Chinese dissident.



On BBC's Newsnight today, Wu'er Kaixi, one of the student leaders of the 1989 Tiananmen massacre made the comparison between modern day China and Hitler's Germany. Indeed he even brought up Neville Chamberlain's policy of 'appeasement', saying that the world today treats China in much the same way that 1930s England treated Berlin.

While this may be a startling comparison, and I fear one which may have discredited his following words in the eyes of many viewers, his reasoning is sound and he is absolutely correct.

It is important that this way of engaging with China ceases however, and imperative that countries take a much firmer stance with the impetuous state.

With Norway having bravely awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to jailed dissident Liu Xiaobo, China have retaliated in such a way as to make one think that the honour was a declaration of war. They now boast that they have stopped "the vast majority" of countries from attending the ceremony on Friday whereas in actual fact, there are only 19 countries which have declined to attend, for varying reasons, out of the 65 which were invited.

Sir Christopher Hum, Her Majesty's former Ambassador to the People's Republic of China joined Kaixi on Newsnight, saying "the [Chinese] Maths don't add up". In addition to these two, a rather obnoxious lady called Siu Siu Cao added her fragmented views, achieving nothing but appearing argumentative. Between them they talked and talked and kept everything very balanced, in a disturbingly similar way as one might see on CCTV 9 - the Chinese government's state-run English language channel. Although topics were broached which never would be on Chinese TV, the format and ultimate unwillingness to state the disturbing facts remained present.

Kaixi, however did note something which he called 'the Dalai Lama' affect wherein: "If you offend China over a forthcoming visit [of the Dalai Lama], you can actually see a measureable [negative] affect over what happens to trade [in your country] over the next few years".

It is this childish behaviour from China which warrants the term 'infant mentality'. It is not difficult to hear a whining child's voice exclaiming "If you don't do what I want, then I'll do something bad to you!"

Although for many decades, China has longed to have a native winner of the Nobel Prize, now that it has finally happened and was most certainly not to the government's liking, they have decided that they have no respect for the award at all, and will most likely put all records of their previous admiration for it into Orwell's 'memory hole'.

A demonstration in Hong Kong last month

And, like a true child who was told they couldn't have another cookie from the jar, they sneaked up to the shop and bought their own.

The 'Confucious Peace Awards', was hastily dreamt up by the Chinese government as a way of clawing their way into a faux 'Chinese' appreciation of peace. These awards are almost certainly only a way of galvanising further nationalism amongst the masses in an attempt to show their people that, while many don't have enough to eat and suffer from unimaginable hardships, anything 'the West' can do, they can do too (but, as is often the way with the Chinese, usually missing the point entirely in the process).

And even funnier than this immature and laughably petty act? They've already awarded it to Lien Chan, former Taiwan vice president who they said had "built a bridge of peace between the mainland and Taiwan" - which in other words actually means 'helped us to facilitate the gradual and inevitable claiming of the island by the Chinese government'.
Peace indeed.

The awards committee said that the prize was created to "interpret the viewpoints of peace of Chinese [people]"

What a bone chilling thought...

For all Nobel's faults, I still undoubtedly prefer Norway's 'viewpoints' on peace to that, thank you very much.

As Kaixi said on TV earlier while discussing the bullying of other countries by China:

"thats not the conduct of the rest of the world"

Indeed, it's the conduct of a small child who has much to learn, and needs very much to be punished occasionally - not pandered to.

Chinas place on the world stage very closely mirrors the effects of it's own 'one-child' policy.
The country, like the single offspring of it's families, is spoiled, selfish, petty, and greedy.
And the 'West' only encourages it. 

Free Speech has a number!! 88.80.13.160

‎"We should always look at censorship as an economic signal that reveals the potential power of speech in that jurisdiction." - Julian Assange

PRETTY much the most exciting thing happening in the world right now, is the fallout from the release of more than 250,000 US diplomatic cables. The founder of the website that released them is on the run, and the debate rages as to whether or not Wikileaks should be allowed to continue in it's mission.

With the main wikileaks website having been shut down, the IP address, 88.80.13.160,  is now being publicised as the best way of accessing the leaked material. Indeed it has now become the 'number of free speech'.

If you are struggling to be sure of your own opinions on the dangerous whistle-blowing phenomenon, you're not the only one. Most of the world is currently wrestling with exactly the same question - a moral question in fact, as all the best ones tend to be;
    If you have access to documents which expose political or corporate wrong-doing, should you publish them, even if doing so puts national security and international diplomatic relations at risk?

On Friday, The Guardian secured an online chat with Julian Assange, founder of the controversial Wikileaks website. As web-chats go, this one was particularly enlightening, and the variety of questions fielded to him were suitably chosen.

I had begun to lose faith in such methods of interaction after participating in the BBCs recent online 'chat' with Ai Wei Wei, in which the moderator embarassed those of us taking part by actually submitting the question "what is your favourite Dim Sum" to the famous Chinese artist and dissident - as if that was somehow relevant to the discussion on human rights which was taking place.

Thankfully Assange was not insulted in such a way, and the replies he gave left us in no doubt as to his reasons for maintaining the terrifying website which gives governments nightmares. Unfortunately, with this particular debate, merely understanding both sides of the arguement offers no help when it comes to placing yourself on either side of the divide.

Few can doubt the necessity for greater accountability, especially amongst governments - elected bodies - which massacre thousands in our names.

If you watch the 'Collateral Murder' video, filmed from an Apache helicopter gun-sight, released by Wikileaks and showing the unprovoked slaying of a number of Iraqis along with a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers, it is very hard not to be extremely thankful for the process which, through WL, brought such an injustice to the world's attention.

The video can be found here:



The 'Collateral Murder' leak - an example of why Wikileaks is important

http://www.collateralmurder.com/

For those who witness atrocities such as this to be able to safely 'leak' such footage to the world without fear for their own safety is a service that Assange provides and the importance of which cannot be over-stated.

The website was the recipient of the 2008 Economist Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression award and took home the 2009 Amnesty International human rights reporting award, and yet Assange is unlikely to be up for a nobel peace prize any time soon.

 Wikileaks has released more classified intelligence documents than the rest of the world press combined, which rather than making him a hero, has put Julian Assange right at the top of many countries most wanted lists.

His current lifestyle is reminiscent of a Hollywood spy film, with reports from those that have been in contact with him in recent days claiming that he is continually on the move, checking into hotels under false names and "changing mobile phones as other men change shirts."

Many claim that, through making sensitive information available, Wikileaks has placed the lives of many who rely on diplomatic security in danger, and that those who work for the mysterious website have blood on their hands. Indeed it is difficult to see how diplomacy itself can function as we know it when the threat of publication hangs over every cable, document and conversation.

Whilst the odd unpleasant remark about Berlusconi or Prince Andrew can be laughed off, it would be fair to say that making public information regarding the current situation in Korea is irresponsible and potentially catastrophic.

It is also worth noting that absolutely none of the ongoing 'cablegate' affair has been reported by media in China - a country which has suffered heavily from the hemorrhaging and whose silence on the matter can be seen only as an indication of their embarrassment.
The Communist-in-name-only superpower was exposed in cables detailing American fears of Chinese cyber-warfare, complaints from Britain, India and Japan of Beijing's aggressiveness and African anger at China's coercion in aid-for-resources deals. Though not at all unexpected there were also revelations that cyber attacks on Google, which led the internet giant to leave the Chinese mainland, actually originated from within the Chinese government's Politburo itself.

 One thought repeated throughout the internet at the moment is that the time and investment that governments are suddenly putting into censoring Wikileaks highlights a far more troubling point than the content of the documents themselves:  "All the censoring of WikiLeaks is more alarming than the actual content of the leaks. It only further justifies WL's actions," reads one widely distributed comment.

And if our governments are happy to lecture China, North Korea and Singapore on the wrongs of censorship, then how can we stand back and watch as Julian Assange is vilified for merely providing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth....?

Indeed, I think that the threat of being censored to such a degree by our own elected officials scares me more than the threat of sensitive documents being in the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

As Assange deftly moves to keep the documents online - even posting massive encrypted files titled 'insurance' on bittorrent sites - he writes during The Guardian's webchat that he sees the attempts to shut him down by the US as a good sign:

"The west has fiscalised its basic power relationships through a web of contracts, loans, shareholdings, bank holdings and so on. In such an environment it is easy for speech to be "free" because a change in politics will rarely lead to any change in these basic instruments. Western speech, as something that rarely has any effect on power, is, like badgers and birds, free.

"In states like China, there is pervasive censorship, because speech still has power and power is scared of it. We should always look at censorship as an economic signal that reveals the potential power of speech in that jurisdiction. The attacks against us by the US point to a great hope, speech powerful enough to break the fiscal blockade."



The most exciting modern debate in international security and censorship continues...

   



Are Wikileaks hands stained, or does Assange's mission highlight a
serious lack of transparency in governments around the world?

"....do you believe everything you read in the paper?"

IF THE above masthead doesn't frighten you, it really should.

Unfortunately we wake up today to the horiffic news that the English language version of China Daily will henceforth be sold on shelves in the UK.

As of today, if you so wished, you could now go down to the newsagents, skip past The Guardian, ignore the poor old Independent, hurry quickly past The Sun and decide instead to read your news directly as the Communist Party of China gives it to you.




China Daily: Europe costs £2, has a print run of 25,000 in the UK

 and is on sale at a number of outlets, including WH Smith.

  So, should you decide to become a regular reader, what changes are you likely to see?

Well, for example, no longer will the Dalai Lama be known as 'Nobel Peace Prize Winner'. In this publication (available from all good newsagents!) he will be known as a 'terrorist'.

THIS is the official website of the publication, which as you will note neglects to mention anywhere either the ongoing crisis in Korea or the recent revelations about China from the Wikileaks documents.

As both of these stories are of massive importance to China and Europe, you would think that a newspaper calling itself 'China Daily Europe' would carry them.

But of course, China's newspapers are no ordinary publications.

In fact, as you would expect, the headlines are all unanimously positive about China:

China fueling European economic recovery!

Companies unfazed by new taxes!

Royal engagement excites Chinese!

Chopsticks becoming a popular gift!

Chinese train breaks speed record in trial use!

But does this matter? Afterall we have been able to read propaganda from all around the world for as long as it's been written, and many have been checking what news is being invented by Chinese State News online for years anyway.

I personally feel, however, that with this new step forward for Chinese media, we in England may be taking a giant leap backwards.

I have been shocked by those who are blaming the UK press for FIFA's decision not to award England the 2018 World Cup. Some seem to think that exposing corruption and operating a free press should be secondary to appeasing the bent FIFA executive committee members(!)

That a reminder of such media power by Sepp Blatter influenced them in their vote is a testament to the strength of our media. Friday's comments by The Sun writer Neil Custis on the free press should remind people of what is important: 

"We have a free press in this country" he said, "In Russia the 'free press' involves somebody who critiscises the regime, enters a lift and doesn't come out the other side."

Speaking about the controversy surrounding the failed bid, Custis added:

"I am proud in this country that we have a free press, I am proud that people like myself can speak like this, I am proud of what we've done in the papers this morning, critiscising this outrageous scandal."

So, how does picking up state-run Chinese propaganda at the local news stand fit into this free press that we supposedly have?

I understand the argument that if we stop publications such as this from being sold here, we too are controlling what the British people read. But I disagree.

There can be nothing gained from trusting the words printed by the Chinese government. Everything written within the pages of CDE will have been done so solely to benefit China through the manipulation of its readers.

This is not the media that England has grown to be proud of. This is not the type of material we should be educating our people with.

In short, for shops such as WHSmith to stock publications such as this is a disgrace.

If anyone is interested in what it's like to work in China at the China Daily, they would do well to read the following blog: http://leakingstatesecrets.blogspot.com/

and now... a different kind of weather warning.

Many in England are worried about the weather.



The blanket has finally hit Portsmouth too



Images of cars and houses blanketed by snow surround us, and the old "they deal with it fine in Europe" conversation is getting thoroughly explored once again.

But while most are concerned about the extent of disruption caused by the rather thoughtless weather, it is likely that many in government will be grabbing at this opportunity as fast as their smooth hands will allow them to.



Linda Norgrove, killed by the US



What better time for William Hague to announce the outcome of an investigation which found that aid worker Linda Norgrove was indeed killed by a grenade thrown by a US special forces soldier sent to rescue her. With most people tuned into travel reports, hoping their children can get back from school safely - or indeed out in the snow playing with their kids - it is unlikely that most would have heard the news.



Students are angered by Nick Clegg's lies





So too would they have missed the announcement that December 9 will be the date of the all-important MP vote to decide whether or not University tutition fees will increase - a point which continues to anger students into staging protests around the country. 



And if that wasn't enough, it seems that today was the right time - as half the country battles it's way through the snow and slush - for IPSA to annouce details of MPs expenses for the first time since the general election.



David Cameron will no doubt be concealing more
inconvenient truths under the blanket of snow.



The reason for doing so becomes clear when you see the response it gained during a debate in the house of commons. Click HERE.

It was heavily criticised for costing too much, taking MPs time away from their constituents, favouring wealthy MPs and doing very little, if anything, to improve transparency.

Considering the anger that MPs expenses have caused in recent years, it is not hard to see why this would have been discussed today - when most of the country isn't listening and have other things to worry about.



Parliament itself partially concealed by the convenient arrival of snow -



While we are very lucky to enjoy the freedom that we do here in the UK, it is always worth remembering that 'distractions' are not illegal - and a convenient helping of weather chaos can certainly have its advantages there.

Next time you are listening to the radio for updates on the road, make sure to listen to the rest of the news too...