2013-05-24T00:42:02-04:00 Peter Martindale http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=peter-martindale Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Peter Martindale Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1363665 2012-03-19T12:52:38-04:00 2012-05-19T05:12:01-04:00

Peter Martindale http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-martindale/
The last few years has seen a slew of campaigns against alcohol consumption, claiming it should be restricted in one way or another. Statistics are banded around, apparently showing increasing levels of alcohol abuse, increasing costs to the NHS in treating everything from acute alcohol poisoning in students who had a few too many one night, to the costs of liver disease in chronic alcoholics. The costs to the police in calming drunken revellers, the clearing up after drunken incidents, the instigation of booze buses by the ambulance service, all catch the headlines.

Then the campaigners complain about Happy Hours and two-for-one deals in pubs and bars. They castigate supermarkets for special offers on alcohol. They preach to students against their traditional drinking games. They have banned drinking in parks and on buses and trains, and now even in many streets. Our traditions and freedoms are being trampled into the ground by puritans and religious bigots.

Various religions stick in their two-penneth worth, claiming that so and so saint/prophet/religious guru forbade it.

And all the time it is alcohol that is to blame. it is the devil's own work!

Now people are having to prove that they are over 25 years of age to get a drink, yet the legal age is eighteen. People who are clearly out of short trousers are being asked to prove their age. Parents are being refused the purchase of alcohol in supermarkets because they are with a child. What an affront to our civil liberties.

It is the latest hysterics of do-gooders who have seen this country irreparably damage children who have been wrenched from their parents over some spurious theory, or young people condemned to signing the sex-offenders register for the learning explorations of adolescence. It is the nannyism that has meant that discipline cannot be instilled in those a bit too wayward, by a reminding slap.

Yes it is alcohol that is to blame; that inert liquor that has no effect on its own; it requires a human to decide to pour that liquid down their throat to consume it. It is a choice they make to drink it - and their choice to decide when they have had enough to drink. But no it is alcohol that is to blame - see, the devil must be in it!

Millions of people have drunk alcohol for millions of years. A minority of them have got it wrong and end up harmed in some way. Millions have far too much to drink, and get drunk; they feel merry, and often subsequently they feel ill!- but no harm is done.

So if the vast majority of people can drink and even get drunk, without turning violent or urinating on war memorials or through people's letter-boxes or into their basements, then why is alcohol to blame?

Alcohol is not to blame. what is to blame, is the left-wing propaganda over many years, that has said that children should not be disciplined, that people should not have to take responsibility for themselves and for their actions, that etiquette, manners, and common laws and consideration should not be instilled into us all at a young age but be ignored and even reviled, that the rules by which people lived among one-another to create a civilised, respectful, considerate society, should be burned. The laissez-faire attitude to parenting, education, and policing, is what is to blame; not the alcohol. Alcohol does not make someone do stupid things: alcohol removes hang-ups and releases their underlying behaviour; so if they lack self-control and discipline, that will become all too evident under the influence of alcohol; it is their behaviour, not the alcohol's.

Imposing a minimum price, directing people to buy a case of beers to take home to drink instead of buying one or two to drink in the park, closing pubs so that the culture is changing (dangerously) from social drinking over a conversation into getting drunk at home alone, is all very retrograde and damaging.

All of the measures to restrict alcohol and to hike up the prices, once again most adversely affect the responsible people in society.

So if the government has a problem with alcoholic excess, then tackle the causes, not the pleasures.

And in the UK, we enjoy a drink. So why spoil it? If the government wants to remove the bravado of getting drunk, then remove the age restrictions on drinking, and protect our pubs: then children will grow up drinking sensibly in the company of others to monitor them.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1343090 2012-03-13T17:44:00-04:00 2012-05-13T05:12:02-04:00

Peter Martindale http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-martindale/
What a delight at the weekend, to see these birds in the garden; flipping through the birch trees and around the windows. Apparently doing acrobatics where-ever they are searching for insects to feed upon. Even the leading on the window panes give their tiny claws purchase, as they clung momentarily to spot the next fly in their vicinity or a place to hold onto on the window-frame to explore the crevices for insects and spiders, and thus enabling we humans to observe them in close-up in all their cuteness, from the other side of the window. As fluffy as a toy, and as lively as a cricket, they flit around with haste, speedily and as apparently haphazardly as Mayflies, as they hunt their insect prey.

As music has been written for the dance of the bumblebees, the wasp, and the Mayfly and the cricket, and to the crow, the magpie and blackbird, it is a real surprise that (at least to my knowledge) there has been no music written to these delightful little creatures.

With the joy of Spring in us all during this unseasonally warm early March, the tits had not a care in the world, and tiny as they are, they stole our attention from the proud cock pheasant and his harem of five. Even the pied-wagtail strutting apprehensively back and forth along the roof calling continuously, did not attract as much of our attention as did these little fluff-balls with tails. They could so easily be one of those small velour gonks given away usually with an appendage of an advertising tag longer than its body!

With a tail longer than the tit itself, these delicate creatures have quite a sophisticated community co-operation; whether huddling together in groups to keep warm in the cold, or the neighbours mucking-in to help feed one anothers' young, they are a lot more co-operative than many birds- or humans, come to think about it! Whether their appearance in the garden is a sign of their increasing numbers, or of their being driven from shrinking habitat around, I do not know; I just hope it is the former but fear the latter is probably more realistic.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1292414 2012-03-09T19:00:00-05:00 2012-05-09T05:12:02-04:00

Peter Martindale http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-martindale/ men are having babies, stopped. It is misleading, it is untrue.

As far as I have read every one of them is someone who has been born female, and then chosen to undergo various treatments to effect a sex-change to become a 'man'.

Each of the individuals concerned have been only part way through the process, and in several cases ceased to take the hormone treatment so that the process, at least in part, is reversed; deliberately so in order to have the baby: in other words their body was deliberately manipulated to stall the masculinisation and to strengthen and restore their body's female nature.

There was no operation to remove the female sex organs, even though there might have been a process being undergone to create a phallus as a part of their body. They still had their ovaries and uterus and vagina: they were biologically still women. Whatever outward appearance they may have exhibited that might have made them visually appear to be masculine, the fact remains they were still women.

Did they have functioning testicles? No. Did they still have functioning ovaries? Yes.

If they had been born hermaphrodite (which happens not infrequently in nature), then there might have been some real story, although it really would not be that sensational. A fair few people are born hermaphrodite and are operated upon at birth to decide their gender one way or the other, as appears most apt in each case.

Many hermaphrodites are born without it being obvious and might even spend most of their lives without themselves or anyone else being aware of the fact that they carry both male and female gonads. Usually only one set of gonads is in a location that makes them functional, i.e. accessible; the other set is usually isolated deep within the body. However it can thus lead to either a clear dominant gender identity in their body, or a mixture of both male and female identities.

Had these 'men' through the sex-change process they were undergoing, achieved fully functioning testicles (unlikely as this is), and had had their ovaries removed, then there might have been grounds for a story. Perhaps the uterus might have been left in situ, as any man who became pregnant would have to have some cavity that acts as a uterus, no matter how make-shift.

There is no additional 'miracle' in these pregnancies, other than the miracle that conception and birth and life is anyway. There may be a personal miracle for the individuals concerned, because they thought they had lost the ability to conceive as a result of the sex-change treatments they had chosen to have.

But as it is, these 'men' were fully biological females, whatever their preferred gender and gender ambition: it is a 'none' story. ]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1289165 2012-02-20T13:45:27-05:00 2012-04-21T05:12:02-04:00

Peter Martindale http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-martindale/
The British and Argentinians have had a good history together at times. They have much in common and ought to be the best of friends. Polo, rugby, cricket, Harrods, and tea may not be everything but they are bonds tying civilised peoples.

But if they are not going to allow intelligence to guide them but instead rhetoric and become stupid from a desire to impose their imperial ambitions on another people and another country, then a few reminders are in order. The Argentinians are behaving like nineteenth century colonialists in claiming the Falkland Islands from an existing status quo; most state boundaries were settled long ago, including Argentina's; are they now to tear-up the borders of all South and Central American states, and demand new ones?

1) They have greater claim to their neighbouring country Uruguay, than they do to the Falklands. They have fought over Uruguay and previously parts of it have been part of Argentina. Is Argentina going to invade and claim Uruguay or others of its neighbours?

2) Argentine politicians must be pretty desperate for what? to continue to claim the Falklands. Any sensible Argentine statesman would have declared an end to any claims they have on the Falklands, and so have lifted the psychological burden their ongoing claim makes upon the country and people of Argentina, and with it the worry it must give their neighbours as to whether they will be the next to be invaded. Spiritually it has to be better for Argentina to drop such a spurious stance, and move on and develop, instead of holding their people in a backwater.

3) Argentina doesn't even have the remnants of a claim. hat Spain perhaps first found the Falklands and therefore Argentina as the biggest country in Spain's ex-South American territories should thus be the heir to them is flaky; for one thing Spain is not dead but very much still exists! If any country might conceivably have a claim to the Falklands, it would be Spain herself. Spain dropped any claim long ago.

4) Not even Spain claims the Islands, so Argentina certainly has no claim on them.

5) If proximity is the argument, then Argentina beware, as on that basis the USA should be claiming all of South America - and that I do not advocate.

6) Remember, most of the 'Argentinians' who are sabre rattling about the Falklands, were not even Argentinian themselves at the time they relate the claim back to.

7) Are we to now have the spectacle of Argentina championing the USA declaring Cuba to be its fifty-first state, to join New Mexico and California and other states that some Latin Americans seem to think should be part of them instead but which are firmly part of the USA?

8) Maybe the Argentine stance on the Falklands is to somehow salve their guilt that of course they are themselves the colonial oppressors of the indigenous Indian populations of the South Americas, who have no claim on the Falklands. If the immigrants to Argentina wish to continue to claim the Falklands, then the indigenous peoples of the Americas, have a stronger call to claim their lands back.

If the Argentine government continues to seek control of the Falklands instead of concentrating on making Argentina a great country, is it any wonder that Argentina flounders in and out of political and economic quagmires? If Argentina is not self-sufficient spiritually in itself then how is having the Falklands going to release it? And if they think the prospect of oil with solve Argentina's ailments, then history has many times proven that the black gold brings with it many problems.

It saddens me to see such a great people as the Argentines and their beautiful country to be degrading themselves pursuing a spurious claim against their neighbour. I would like to be able to champion what a great nation they are too but unfortunately there has not been a great statesman come forward from amongst the Argentines with the integrity to renounce all claims to the islands.

Imagine if there are the rumoured reserves of oil; whilst Argentina prolongs its own agony with a claim on the Falklands, then she will not benefit from it. The UN cannot possibly support such a claim as it would open the way to tearing up all boundaries around the world and to total chaos and world war. If Argentina drops its claim on the Falklands, then imagine the prosperity that that would bring to Argentinians: the jobs that would be created in Argentina that would result: Argentina is best placed to benefit from a Falklands oil industry; the ships which would need servicing, the chance of the oil being refined on its shores, the workers the country could supply. But how can any of this come the way of the Argentine people whilst there is any claim on the Islands? Argentine politicians are denying prosperity to their own people by declaring that Falkland flagged ships cannot enter her waters. Imagine the fracas if 'Falklands Oil' cannot do business there because of the insistence on the name 'Malvinas'. How can Argentines have jobs on the islands whilst their country still lays claim to the Falklands? It is ordinary Argentines and Argentinian business that will lose out and suffer if their government continues the charade of a claim, just as the Argentine fishing industry loses out now and has for the last thirty years because of stupid politicians ensconced in luxury in Buenos Aires.

It is about time Argentine politicians stood up and said that it is not in Argentina's interest to maintain a claim on the Falklands. It is about time that Argentine politicians stopped raising the hopes of the Argentinian people and conning them that there is a basis for a claim. Is there a politician with such integrity somewhere in Argentina?

The Argentine people should have the intelligence and dignity to drop all claims to the Falklands and so to benefit from improved relations and trade, or for ever be complaining about the state of their own country and what might have been.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1287858 2012-02-19T16:31:40-05:00 2012-04-20T05:12:01-04:00

Peter Martindale http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-martindale/
If a willing buyer can be found for the General Motor's remaining European business in these increasingly harsh economic times, then General Motors would be doing well to sell. Obviously they cannot sell to an entity that would put the intellectual property at risk, and that rules out the most significant sources of liquidity currently available. The chance of finding a willing buyer, though, when there is such political interference from German vested interests, makes such prospects very slim. A new owner who views the Vauxhall-Opel business in its own right, rather than as an adjunct to another brand, could make a go of it: this would give the best hope to the company, let's hope a buyer is forthcoming.

The danger with GM restructuring its European operations is that, although the Ellesmere Port manufacturing plant in Britain was generally considered to be safe in any re-structuring, it is not anymore, and Luton certainly is not, and could easily be one of the plants to be closed if the company does not sell. Another, or two, plants in Europe would also be at risk immediately, and others in the future. General Motor's European operations in the last sixth of a century has had a disastrous cost on the company. General Motors has an eighty-five year record in Britain and Europe, and for much of that history was very successful, but that is the problem, sentimentality is over-ruling good business sense. So desperate is General Motors to retain market-share that it is clinging onto mere statistics that boost its grandiose appearance, rather than being smaller and more profitable. Although there are some circumstances where it is worth having loss-leaders, it is not sensible in an entire market place, on the scale in which General Motors is doing it, or for so many years. Whatever plants close now as a result of restructuring would be unlikely to arrest the losses and prevent the eventual inevitable further closures.

That General Motors is making a loss now is all the more worrying, in what could be considered the peace before the onslaught on competitiveness in the car manufacturing industry, as the Chinese are about to flood the European market with their cars, making General Motor's losses even greater.

If plants are closed as part of the restructuring plan currently under consideration, then there must be a political backlash. Any closure would mean permanent loss to the industry, and a further degradation of manufacturing in this country. The loss of a manufacturing plant to the British car making industry overall, would be disastrous as it would further erode the critical mass which makes the component supply industry viable, which in turn makes the British car manufacturing industry itself viable. This would, ironically, be at a time that the Government is promoting an initiative to strengthen the supplier industry, in order to keep both it and vehicle manufacturing viable. General Motors say they have kept the Government and the unions appraised of the restructuring plans, it will be shame upon such politicians if that includes downgrading any of General Motor's operations in the UK.
The problem is going to be the vested interests of German unions, politicians and industry, and the fact that the European Union is weak on fairness: all of Britain's industries have seen that there is not a level playing field in Europe; General Motor's ongoing losses now are clarion to that..

If General Motors does not sell to a suitable buyer then the chances are that in just a few years, Vauxhall Motors, one of the few remaining British car marques, will follow a long list of illustrious names, and will be no more. ]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1266011 2012-02-09T13:45:47-05:00 2012-04-10T05:12:01-04:00

Peter Martindale http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-martindale/ to build on the land thus freed-up. Oh dear, environmental awareness certainly escapes Boris!

About four years ago, I had read, (when the late Sir Simon Milton became Mr Johnson's Deputy Mayor), that Boris Johnson "first" floated an idea to put Park Lane into a tunnel (but without buildings above). At the time, I read this with interest, as it was a proposal I had first put to my then colleagues, including Simon Milton, in 1990, when I was the Westminster City Councillor for Mayfair and Soho ('West End Ward'). It would have restored more than six acres of trees and grass back to Hyde Park, and reduced traffic noise and pollution in the park, and separated through-traffic from bicycles and local traffic. It had thus been to my pleasant surprise when I had heard that Sir Simon had taken the idea with him to the GLA.

In 1990 I had got the Grosvenor Estate to agree to fund half of the cost of the works. Unfortunately, most of my colleagues lacked vision and were daunted by it, saying it was too big a project for them to envisage! Thus 22 years have been lost during which people could have been benefitting from it.

In 1996, two engineering firms had then picked-up the idea and were going to apply for Lottery funding: however, the costs they proposed were so much higher than the original scheme, that it is perhaps not surprising it did not happen.

If the Mayor of London is to implement the Park Lane Tunnel, then it must be as per the original scheme to restore the extent of Hyde Park, and not to build on at all; not housing, not cafes. We must not allow it to become yet another open space lost to development.

Although the project was stand-alone in itself, it was designed to be able to extend the tunnel the length of the Edgware Road running north to outer London (thus unclogging the town centres along its length, such as Kilburn and Cricklewood, and south past Victoria Station along the congested Vauxhall Bridge Road , and creating a new tunnel crossing of the River Thames, and potentially south to unclog the roads of Lambeth and beyond.

The model could have become extensive in all directions under London which would have created quieter, safer streets, whilst improving traffic flow, instead of 'traffic calming' measures which cause delay and inconvenience and expense to businesses and people alike.
I emphasise though that the Park Lane tunnel is but a small project.

It is to London's loss that it was not implemented - and still should be.

Other transport projects I was proposing around the same time, were to create conduits into which all utilities would run, so as to end the need for digging up roads and causing traffic chaos each time either a new utility needs to go in or an old one needs repairing.

I also advocated that all building projects should have excess parking spaces created underground so that on-street parking could be removed, so as to free-up road space for wider footpaths, cycling and trees. The current Westminster City Council parking debacle would never have happened had this been implemented.

That these have not been implemented yet, means that London is over twenty years behind where it should be on modernising its infrastructure. - Twenty years of a property boom when developers would have gladly donated to new infrastructure projects, have been squandered.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1138843 2011-12-09T10:06:29-05:00 2012-02-08T05:12:01-05:00

Peter Martindale http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-martindale/
The supposed success of the German economy, is at the expense of being human; Germans are working hard, in an almost mechanical manner with little in the nature of outside interests, and are paying some of the highest food and consumer goods prices in the world. (As in most countries, the real cost of living has to be considered rather than the official statistics). This is the basis of the superficial stability, but underlying it is economic weakness as it is not sustainable, certainly not in the current world economic situation, without restructuring Europe to push German manufactured goods onto the populations of other European countries, giving them little choice, and shielding German and French manufacturers from competition. The new Europe will have a raft of protectionist measures against imports, and even more quotas and restrictions, and permitted 'zones' and 'regions', to prevent other countries in Europe from having their own manufacturing bases that could threaten French and German interests.

Furthermore, it has been achieved on the withheld stolen funds of countries the Nazis invaded and raped: Greece, Ukraine, Poland, Slovakia, etc have never received their due reparations: for example, the entire Greek gold reserves were sequestrated by the Nazis and today are sstill considered part of Germany's property! These should be paid now to their rightful owners, which would mean those countries being spared the economic hardship and failure they are currently facing. No need for a new stricter Europe then....

Poland, Slovakia, Austria, Ireland, and the Baltic, and Scandinavian countries of Europe are in for a shock which will see their countries allocated permitted businesses and production quotas they have to reach, and their peoples reduced to surfs.

The model is akin to both that of the ex-Soviet Union or that of the Third Reich: the Slavs and others considered labourers; Poland you are the bread-basket, take up your hoes and be proud to lose your freedom and suffer for the European cause! And Spain and Portugal, you were not allocated a role in the Third Reich, ah well, no income for you then.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1128550 2011-12-04T20:30:00-05:00 2012-02-03T05:12:01-05:00

Peter Martindale http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-martindale/
Synagogues and mosques, Meeting rooms and temples of various religions will also be affected, particularly by the increased weekday parking restrictions: Friday night prayers and gatherings require deliveries of the infirm and food just as for the churches, and their social work continues around the clock. This includes essential services to the homeless too; oh but wait, Westminster is the council that wants to ban homeless people from the street and ban food deliveries and soup kitchens that try to alleviate some of their suffering and difficulties even to survive!

Elderly and infirm and families with children will no longer be able to continue their commitment and attachment to the West End; the lifeline of visiting family and friends will end for many.

The only opportunity for visitors to residents of the West End, is frankly Sunday because of free parking: family life and residential amenity will be severely degraded by the City Council's proposed charges.

You might have noticed that Chinatown is at its busiest on Sunday, as this is the traditional family day fro the Chinese community to go out together for a meal. London Chinatown, one of the most successful in the world, has had to fight hard to survive hefty rent increases by greedy landlords. This could be the blow that makes it no longer worth the effort and lead to a move to a better-served destination.

West End theatre is a British success story that is part of the generator of the tourist industry. A significant number of actors, technicians, ushers, and paying theatre-goers alike, would be inconvenienced to the detriment of the economy of London. For theatre-goers, the trains simply do not run late enough.

When previously the Westminster councillor for the then West End Ward of Mayfair, Soho, and Chinatown in the 1990s, I insisted on 24hr residents' parking, to enable residents to be able always to find parking. Other wards did not opt for this, they now have a problem. I also maintained that free parking in the evenings and on Sundays (and preferably Saturday afternoon too), was essential for both business and theatre survival, and for the needs of residents to have visitors. Colleagues twice tried to impose parking charges late into the evenings and on Sundays on (my) the West End Ward. My late ward colleague and I resisted it: as the proposal was purely for raising finance just as now. That that was the motive then, is proof of the purpose now.

Unfortunately when the last Labour Government introduced cabinet style local councils, this significantly harmed and reduced democracy and the influence of ward councillors, who have been sidelined now.

It is unheard of that Cllr Lee Rowley, the architect of the disastrous parking proposals, recently visited a colleagues' ward and tells the public, at the public meeting in St George's Church Hanover Square, to vote out the councillors if they don't like his policies!
Not surprisingly then, there is now a campaign growing to this end conceived from these stupid parking proposals. Clearly we do indeed need independent candidates to stand for election across the borough.

Westminster Council is justifying the parking proposals on the basis of congestion, yet I have not heard mention from them that current congestion and any parking shortages are the result of the inordinate amount of road works and construction works going on at the moment, due to the mad dash to finish before the Olympics and before the property market collapses, which has distorted the figures.

Councillors Barrow and Rowley say they will reverse the new measures, if they prove not to work: this means that the costs of implementation and decommissioning of the policy will be wasted money: clearly the councillors who vote for it and council officers who propose and implement it, should be made personally liable for the costs.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1113928 2011-11-26T07:10:32-05:00 2012-01-26T05:12:02-05:00

Peter Martindale http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-martindale/ Evening Standard,

I was appalled to read the 'Standard' article, "It may be fake, but it works" of 17 August 2011. Is this how environmentally irresponsible the Evening Standard really is?

Fake plants are a blight across London, an insult to the eye and intelligence, offensive to environmental awareness. The Capital over, window boxes, and tubs, hanging baskets, and borders have been invaded by fakery, evicting verdant life-giving growth to attempt to assuage the need to be seen to be environmentally friendly, yet failing hopelessly. It is an attempt to con passers-by that herein resides a responsible caring person.

First, whether made of moulded plastic or woven, largely made from oil products, these are polluting in their manufacture. Second, as a result they also continue to emit low levels of toxins as people are all too familiar with from plastic food containers. Third, and more importantly, they occupy space that could be used to grow real plants, growing beautifully and having a benefit on the environment. Fourth, and equally important, it is not just the loss of plants but also the obstruction of habitat for nature.

About two years ago, I submitted an article, complete with photographs, to you, highlighting the spreading scourge of fake plants defacing our city and harming the environment. You did not publish it. Yet you publish today an article actively encouraging this destructive behaviour.

Fake plants are for fake people who are too lazy, or too mean, to tend the real thing; yet are there to give a false satisfaction to their ego; deception masquerading as good intention. That companies, in particular, resort to such practices, is particularly offensive.

That your journalist encourages your readers to resort to such damaging idleness is bad enough. That she praises the Berkeley Hotel for having kitted out its entire sun terrace in fakery, and expounds it as 'idyllic', is disgraceful. To add insult to injury, she then enthuses that there is a tape recording playing of the very bird song that fake plants prevent from existing in reality. Real birds, real plants usurped by a shameful con: gleefully promoted. The decline of our song bird , bee, and butterfly populations is of national concern. Yet your paper proposes creating more areas that are dead to them ecologically. Every little ecological space in a city such as London is precious to provide corners where song birds can claim territory. The hotel is a shameful sham pretending to create a natural environment. How much better that it had used the space to create a real environmentally friendly space, with real vegetation, a real habitat for real birds and butterflies, which is easily attainable in London.

Any location where a plant can grow, should have real plants only. The range of suitable locations, whether inside or out, has much increased, as even once-dark corners have become light enough, with the increasing trend to use more lighting, particularly halogen or fluorescent. Sure, an area that is necessarily concrete such as a path or a roof can look better with a carpet of fake grass, but this should not be used as an excuse not to grow a lawn where a little effort could achieve that - especially by those such as large hotels...!

Human existence, and particularly modern life, requires 'necessary' environmentally damaging behaviour, such as the use of motor vehicles, which we, quite rightly try to mitigate; we should be careful then, not to add utterly avoidable environmental damage that is just not justifiable. I would rather someone cause justifiable pollution by taking an aeroplane, than unjustifiable damage with fake plants.

You gleefully propose causing unnecessary environmental damage and eyesores in this context, yet would be the first to tut-tut in other contexts: it all rather flies in the face of your save the bee campaign.

Those who resort to fake plants display an uncaring attitude, and callousness towards the planet. Your next campaign should be to get all of the fake plants across London replaced with the genuine article: to give to our children the delight of song birds hopping around tubs and borders, pecking for food: How much more of a community would it reveal, as people share cuttings from favourite plants, or if the current trend in hermetically sealed windows (and lives), was occasionally prised open and the snip of scissors and secateurs heard as caring people trim and shape their window-box box-hedging, with an occasional nod to neighbour or passer-by?

Yours faithfully,
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1113507 2011-11-25T18:22:49-05:00 2012-01-25T05:12:01-05:00

Peter Martindale http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-martindale/
Now, maybe, the West is learning: Iranians have said for a long time that they do not want assistance in deposing their regime, only that they want the West to cease supporting the regime: The West has been appeasing and collaborating with the Mullahs despite the atrocities inflicted upon Iranian people, and the regime's continuing preparations for aggression against the world! This is largely because there has been reluctance amongst governments internationally to put principle and lives before profit; they do not want to save lives at the expense of losing business and influence!

For many years, one group of Iranian refugees have provided the West with intelligence on the Iranian regime, including first alerting them to the nuclear energy and weapons programme. Those allies of the West are in a refugee camp in Iraq, known as Camp Ashraf.

Camp Ashraf and its inhabitants have Protected Status under Geneva conventions. Yet every single country and larger political entity on the planet is failing its obligations under the Geneva Conventions: even the UN. There is a binding international legal obligation on all countries to protect such people.

The government in Iraq is under the control of Iran and there is a signed accord between the two to eradicate Camp Ashraf and its residents in the coming weeks.

Now that we are out of Libya, which was not a threat to the West, maybe focus should urgently be applied to a far more serious problem; Iran.

The USA and Britain still have powers and obligations to enter Iraq to ensure it does not slip into becoming a security issue for the world: it has already. America has legal obligations to enter Iraq now, and to secure the safety of Camp Ashraf. Immediately thereafter, UN forces should be located at Camp Ashraf with full combative powers to protect the residents.

The world has known about the danger for two and half years: since the first murderous attack on the camp by the combined forces of Iran and Iraq.

There has been plenty of warning of the proposed massacre of the refugees, as several attacks have taken place and there is a public statement from Iran-Iraq.

It will be utter disgrace on the UN , USA, and the West if another Ashraffi dies. They are our friends and allies.

Obama has no focus and has proved to be a light-weight; he has let the mullahs pull the wool over his eyes, it was he at their behest who removed American military protection from Camp Ashraf, he has let them trample over the agreements that American soldiers signed with every one of the residents of Ashraf, he has supported Iran in trampling over the lives of American soldiers who fought to free Iraq, and insult their memory. It was he who ordered the withdrawal of USA troops from protecting camp Ashraf refugees.

Will he ever prove himself as a world class statesman? He can start now by immediately ordering American troops back to protect these refugees. In the meantime Britain must act within the UN to get troops there. Are Messrs Hague, Cameron, and Clegg up to the job?

Applying sanctions now is necessary but too late to take effect to save the inhabitants of Camp Ashraf. Blood will be on the hands of Western politicians if the international community does not immediately act to protect Camp Ashraf.

The Iranian regime knows that the destruction of the Camp and its residents spells the end of the Iranian freedom movement for years to come. And the West have despicably used these refugees in recent years as pawns in the policy of appeasement towards the mullahs in order to secure oil and technology trade.

After all the posturing on the 'Arab Spring' in the Middle East and support for removal of friendly governments who are making changes towards democracy, why do Clegg and Cameron and Hague want to ignore Iranians and bolster the aggressive regime with its declared intent to wreak havoc?
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1080930 2011-11-07T20:47:10-05:00 2012-01-07T05:12:01-05:00

Peter Martindale http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-martindale/
Of course the ideal is for free university education to still be available. But the reality is the global economic situation does not enable that; and no it is probably not due to a few bankers but is due to crime and socialism having permeated many government systems having created a massive civil service and every citizen having unrealistic expectations of what the 'state' (i.e. their fellow citizen tax-payers) should provide: quite simply it is a system where the books don't balance and never can.

The Student Loan Scheme covers the cost of tuition fees and living costs. Poorer students may be eligible to receive grants as well. The loans only become payable after studies are completed and income has risen above a pre-determined level. If the loan has not been repaid, then after 25 years it no longer has to be repaid. This seems fair under the circumstances.

In many countries the fees are considerably higher than here (or at least in proportion to average incomes), yet it is accepted that one has to pay for what one wants, and paying for education is a good investment.

I can think of friends who, 25 years ago, enrolled on courses then not part of the universities' funding scheme and so they had to pay the full cost of the course and living costs. [ These courses (e.g. osteopathy) are now included. ] They had no choice but to fund these with ordinary bank loans, so they were graduating with £40,000+- debts, back then. There was no luxury of waiting to pay this when a particular salary point was reached; it had to be paid.

In general, people do not think twice about running up credit card debts of £5,000-, or of taking a loan for £20000 for a car, or a mortgage for a £100,000 or more. Yet there is all of this furore over £40,000 of investing in your own education and future, and via a loan that if you cannot afford to repay it, will be cancelled!

It demonstrates an abject lack of intelligence or common sense: to be protesting about cuts due to the state of the economy but costing the country money in policing that protest, and if there is any violence then damage costs taxpayers and homeowners and businesses alike, and so damages the economy further. These 'student' protesters surely don't deserve a university place.

What is this that we also frequently hear, that graduates expect a job guaranteed just because they sat for a degree? Why? Get out into real world - making use of a degree is not necessarily having a job relevant to it but in being able to apply the lessons of education learnt. To study for betterment not for salary, was the philosophy: - the current demands show that the protesters do not have ideals but greed.

If they were going to protest, why was there so little protest when Tony Blair and the Labour Party first ended free university tuition in the UK in 1998 by introducing fees for the first time, or when they upped it to the present level of £3,000- in 2004? It demonstrates that these are politically motivated protests.

Student protesters of the 1960s and 70s at least had the ideal that they wanted to study for study's sake -for the pure idealistic principal of education: did they expect a job at the end of it? - Frankly, no.

It is irresponsible of organisers to go ahead, knowing that there are elements intent on attaching themselves to the demonstrations in order to cause trouble. It is doubly so that they are encouraging school children to join the protests and potentially get caught up in troubles. Furthermore, they should be encouraging children to study, not abscond from school to satisfy the organisers' ego trip of having organised a big protest.

If students want a real cause to complain about, then it is the extortionate cost of student accommodation charges. These are generally not funding the university but large property companies which have been in cahoots with university authorities and have offered "to provide" student accommodation - at a very lucrative rent or P.F.I. package for themselves. How can a £100 per week average rents (£150- per week in London) be justifiable, for a study-bedroom in a university hall of residence (even if sometimes arranged as six bedrooms around a dedicated open-plan living area to form a 'student flat')? That is what makes the cost of studying unaffordable. Now we're talking about something to justifiably go and protest about! ]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1064044 2011-10-28T13:20:15-04:00 2011-12-28T05:12:01-05:00

Peter Martindale http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-martindale/
International laws and agreements are invoked, yet no change in activity or knowledge has taken place: only the international view of that regime.

It has become a predictable and fickle routine: for years the leaders of a country are hailed as friends and heroes for keeping the country stable and out of the hands of extremists and their investment around the world is openly welcomed and positively courted, then suddenly they are pariahs and accusations of having raped the country are made; their assets frozen and seized "to be returned to the people"!

In reality nothing has changed, only external political circumstance has changed, causing a change in the west's perceived view of the internal circumstances of these countries. The poverty in the investing regime's country has been there at the time of every investment made, it is not something which has developed later. If Western governments are going to seize assets then why do they not have the integrity to refuse that investment in the first place: - silly question!

Invariably some of that money is spent on luxury foreign homes, purchased at headline busting price tags. The superlatives abounding and record high prices being set are unnerving many, certainly many English and probably other, Westerners, too.

The luxury, the extravagance, once to be celebrated, suddenly is making people feel uneasy. It should not be so; success should be welcomed and the benefits for all of those who have it splashing it around should be a source of celebration for the jobs and widening prosperity it creates; - but that feeling is not there right now.

Whether you are Chinese or Arab, Russian , Ukrainian, or Indian, or whatever, there is concern that, much as we need it here; (boy, and we do!), that money should be helping the lot of your fellow countrymen. The ordinary fellah in your streets at home would truly appreciate what even a fraction of that money can do in a village. Buying a home in London or USA is a wonderful way to use and enjoy your wealth, but must it be the grandest, the most luxurious, most expensive home, setting yet another new high price?

I hate to see people, anyone, being ripped off: but the prices being paid for property is just not sustainable. The impression of irresponsible and reckless expenditure does you no favours, not in the eyes of people here, nor I suspect in your own countries - hence the current round of rebellions in North Africa and the Middle East. The Western economy is not strong enough to support the rents or re-sales that would be necessary to justify your expenditure. Furthermore, not only does it appear to be poor money management and an inappropriate use of funds when there are troubles and poverty around the world, - especially back home - but it is now adversely affecting the property market for the British ( or Americans, or French, or Maltese, or ... wherever) to buy in their own country. Such excesses have gone from being gratefully received and admired, to being resented both in the recipient country and in the source country of the funds. This profligacy and frowned upon excess, applies to Western movie stars and other celebrities too, but they don't have the perception that it is embezzled money they are using.

Governments - indeed all politicians - in the West are not even being responsible to their own citizens; to counsel them to stop paying the ridiculously high amounts changing hands. Less likely so then to foreign investors. Not one of them have I heard warning even ordinary people that they should not be buying property now at a time of exceptionally low interest rates, if they have not calculated that they can still afford to pay the mortgage should the bank rate increase ten-fold (yes, one thousand percent) or more as it could very easily very soon as is needed to curb inflation. For you to pay stratospheric prices for a property is fine if it is worth it but, frankly, all sectors of the property market are stupidly inflated and unsustainable.

Estate agents and advisers are gleefully persuading you to pay extortionate prices - and they get their fees as a percentage. Your vanity purchases of mansions and penthouses aside, even the 'investment' purchases are highly suspect. Many of those 'agents' benefiting most are the ones you have retained to act on your behalf but who are badly advising you to pay through the nose for a purchase! Western property companies are paying high prices to make it look like the property industry is booming, knowing full well that they can flip it quickly to you at an inflated price; there are no qualms there to refuse your money. Off-loading it onto you, funds their lifestyle very nicely thankyou but you will be left holding the white elephant. Investment purchases of blocks of flats, office buildings, and shopping centres and commercial units, your investment in any of those can only succeed if inflation in the West sky-rockets: and there is just not the money in the global economy to go round at that level. It cannot happen: short-term maybe but it will collapse.

I would urge caution and circumspection on any millionaires, oligarchs, milliardaires or (although as yet there are none, other than in American corruption of the language) budding billionaires: for the world is a very disturbed place at the moment.

Western governments, these days, do not have the integrity to advise you to spend your money wisely and frugally, or especially not to take it elsewhere! They will this morning push you to sign the contract and this afternoon push for your assets to be frozen. They are very short-sighted. Just be wary please: we need you to be around for a long time spending steadily and surely, not deposed, gaoled and bankrupted.

Cameron, Obama, Sarkozy, et al do not have the sense to say to you that apparently extravagant investing is not sensible right now.

Reckless and profligate, or wise and business-like, which adjective do you prefer to be accounted by? So do yourselves a favour, even if it removes a favour from us; just tone down your spending, to calm the calls that are ringing around the world for riches to be taken away by force. Be sensitive to what is going on around you: the French revolution was the most unjust horror and unnecessary blood-letting of modern Europe pre Hitler and Stalin, and the guillotine achieved nothing worthwhile, the effects of that unnecessary blood-thirstyness is still affecting the psyche of France to this day, but there are those today lusting for blood to be spilt today.

Bloody revolution is not good for anyone, and certainly not for the world. There is a stupid irresponsible 'romantic' view that somehow it is. This is encouraging bloodshed and taking us backwards through the centuries before the civilised norms of behaviour we have grown to love and appreciate. Encouraging revolution just encourages the same to happen again the next time people are disgruntled due to their lot not being good, their lucky star having deserted them, their having failed to get off their backside to work, or the global economy having gone bust - as now. It is not good for your country for you to be overthrown; stability is important; what is needed is for you to change your habits, your modus operandi. Profligate spending is giving people the excuse to call for your downfall, (falsely, as they already have an agenda, but it may just be the lever that is allowing them to act).

At the fall of the Ben Alis of Tunisia we immediately hear of immense wealth in foreign bank accounts to be seized. In Egypt there were figures of seventy thousand million pounds put on the Mubarak fortune in foreign realms. For the Ghadafis of Libya, similar sums. When these amounts are first quoted, they are immediately believed in the home country and the world at large to be true. Each has had the funds frozen, as has Khordokovsky in Russia, as has ex Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, as have many Chinese officials - who, generally, have also suffered execution for it too. There are calls for the funds of Berezovsky and others to be seized. As to how these funds were acquired in each case, here is not the place to judge, that should be by evidence and if needs be in courts of law. How the money is spent is a key to how it is viewed. Be sure it was fairly acquired.

Spend - and be seen to spend - that money where it is needed on development such as water supplies, schools and hospitals in the backstreets and byways of your heritage. I am not saying do not still make philanthropic gestures elsewhere too, including London as that has a ripple effect benefiting the wider world too, but it should be philanthropy not luxury and not assets that will not be able to perform as well as you have been led to believe. Sure, buy a flat in the world's capital cities but make sure it is modest by everyone's standards. What is it that each of the main Islamic religions say, whether Judaism, Christianity, or the followers of Mohammad, as they predominantly agree in principle?

Do not give your detractors the ammunition they need to bring you down. Maybe I should have written this as more timely during Ramadan, but now is just as good a time to start with philanthropy and agricultural improvements so that all are fed and clean. Thereby you promote brotherhood between all your peoples, including harmony between you and them.

Although not all of those with riches to invest in the West are involved in their home politics, the principle is the same; be seen to be doing charitable works in your home country first.

Pouring money into the property industry is not constructive. Huge price tags of millions of pounds are often not value for money, nor are the grandiose refurbishments that often follow the purchase. Exhorbitance in acquiring a property is more about ego to say "I can afford to have the most expensive", than about making a sensible acquisition. Spend modestly in property but generously in creating jobs for staff, by commissioning works of art - including landscaped gardens, etc, and buying luxury goods to boost industry and the artisan, and yes, sports teams: but here again not in the excesses of modern soccer player salaries and transfer fees. These are the traditional ways that the rich would be the engines of economic recovery and growth in times of economic trouble in history.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1034018 2011-10-26T20:37:24-04:00 2011-12-26T05:12:01-05:00

Peter Martindale http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-martindale/
Private health insurance; there is something immoral when premiums increase with age and become prohibitive at the very time of life when private health care is most needed. Furthermore, for the insurers to say someone in their late seventies who needs several replacement joints, therefore has a chronic condition is cynical. Give them the replacements and they will not have a chronic problem; deny them the surgery, and they will have a chronic problem! The attitude to age in this country is appalling; largely driven by insurers who think that people are decrepit and irreparable beyond the age of forty and past it by retirement!

As for much of the exasperating health and safety farce that prevents schools and youth clubs providing sport and adventure for children, it is often the edict of insurers that they will not provide cover for it, that denies those growing up the life experiences that would help them grow and develop. Such is the destiny, too, of many community events.

The very high cost of car premiums is a factor that is driving more youngsters to risk driving without insurance: it then becomes a vicious circle of premiums rising higher to cover the costs of the uninsured! The insurers are creating the very problem they bemoan!

Now the insurance lobbyists have won the argument to persuade this and the previous government, to allow the insurance industry to be given carte blanche to run rings around the British public, under the guise of self-regulation, and to sideline no-win no-fee legal actions, which have proved essential to get justice, particularly when a case is against an insurance company which otherwise behave abominably to the detriment of the individual up against them.

The so-called compensation culture is a bit of a myth.
Well done to the Dowler family who spoke out to up-hold CFA (conditional fee arrangements), without which they would have been unable to fight their case to win compensation.
It is essential that we must continue - and even extend - cfa, legal aid etc; without which , anyone who has had to go through the process without a solicitor knows too well that claimants are bullied and worn down by insurance companies and put at a huge disadvantage.
Claims firms are an asset to helping people get treatment and compensation.

Where organised accidents take place, that is a criminal act and those involved should be prosecuted accordingly, but the innocent should not be persecuted and disadvantaged by the removal of the no-win no fee facility.

It should be remembered that it is the insurance industry themselves who have been selling the details of accidents to the accident claim companies that publicly they criticise.
Removing the payment of referral fees from solicitors to referrers, has not reduced the problem; for they were ahead of the government and claims companies merely now check the accident database and use victims 'phone numbers to hassle them direct; so the legislation, - not untypically of bad legislation and government interference -, has made the situation worse!

One of the biggest scandals of the insurance industry, is their attitude to personal injury and the degree of care that they should provide (or lack of it).

It is essential that treatment and rehabilitation is provided promptly, otherwise there is a knock on effect on life and income etc. The insurers here begrudgingly provide the minimum to get someone back to work; that minimises the claim against the insurer. However, they shamefully have no interest in returning someone to their recreational -and importantly health benefiting activities - such as sport.

For many people, participation in sport, even just at a recreational level, is important. Keen recreational sports participants in other countries receive much better provision; eg, in Austria sn injured member of the public would be sent for three or more weeks of intensive residential therapy, followed by longer term treatment for as long as it takes to get them back to the level they were at. Not doing so bodes future health problems and increased costs falling upon the NHS social security systems.

However in Britain this is not so; Allianz is an example of the typical poor practice here. They know in their home country what has to be provided, but here they choose to treat Britons as second rate and write them off with the minimum of treatment. They will find excuses using someone's age that there must have been hidden problems that have manifested and use them as not their responsibility.

Age and wear and tear are not an issue in other countries. Why here?
We are supposed to be in the EU and benefit from equality of treatment, yet it is not working for us.

Shame on Association of British Insurers that they have not got their members to adopt the best of practice from the EU or elsewhere, and so to stop treating the British like second class citizens.

This has a massive impact on British sport. When the keen recreational participants in sport do not receive rehabilitation and so cannot return to sport, so the pool of talent from which the elite teams draw is diminuished. This is, of course, particularly pertinent in this time of GB hosting the Olympics. Rectification of this should be made a key outcome of the Olympic year; to change this despicable state of affairs

The ridiculous thing is that it would be more cost effective (and public relations effective) for the industry to provide excellent medical treatment from the outset without quibble. The insurance industry bemoans the legal costs it currently incurs and blames that cost for a large part of the increase in insurance premiums the public has to pay. But if the insurance industry got its house in order, removed its bureaucracy, it could provide better care at reduced cost on the back of the reduced legal costs. The insurance industry is incredibly inefficient and wasteful currently. Furthermore, the more speedy and efficient and effective provision of medical treatment required would reduce the claim for damages by shortening the losses to the individual. What is more, I tend to believe that most people are not actually after damages at the outset; they want effective treatment, but it is the frustration and annoyance with the insurers systems and behaviour that drives them to seek damages too. The reality is that the injured party rarely gets recompensed for the consequential losses of the insurer's bad faith. If the insurance industry gets its house in order, it will be better for all involved.

Insurance premiums and profits are quite high enough but are swallowed by large corporate costs and shareholders,- not to cover insurance. There was a time when most retail insurance trade was provided by provident or benevolent societies, i.e. not for profit, and so to the benefit of members.

Member of Parliament Jack Straw, has been criticising the insurers for selling accident details to various organisations in a way which ups the cost of premiums. The MP has described the insurers as "parasites". He is fighting hard but must up the ante.

Whether assessing private medical insurance or injury claims, the criteria utilised for the impact of age and wear and tear, is out of date: The insurance industry thinks as if 60 is old and the person is about to die. Fifty years ago, someone reaching forty frequently did have chronic problems, and few actually reached retirement age even at all let alone in good health or with many years to live! Now joint replacements in the 70s is medically worthwhile and cost effective because it is expected the person will have many years still to live. It is ludicrous that insurers get away with not covering treatment for injury over 40 as say its result of wear and tear, - or demand and inflict invasive examination to try to prove otherwise.

The health and safety madness is also stifling industry and recreation and learning, by the demand for risk assessment and then the subsequent refusal to cover by insurers. This has also increased the burden of costs on the tax-payer by increasing the costs on local councils and businesses who have to assess the risks.

Insurance industry policy is directly damaging the environment, through their obsession that trees might fall or the roots cause damage to buildings - or someone might drive into it! Trees are not disposable inconveniences to be cut down and replaced; they are essential as constants for our ecology and wider environment. It is their being very established that is essential to Nature. All of the major insurance companies make environmental impact statements and stewardship claims, yet glibly demand the felling of trees; their environment statements should be challenged.

Furthermore, felling a tree suspected of causing root damage, causes worse damage as the roots die and the ground is left with voids, and heave results as the ground swells nearby due to the increase in water present that is no longer evaporated off by the tree. So frightened are insurers of a tree falling, that they demand its demise at the slightest sign of fungus on the surface, yet this may never damage the tree or at least only after a long time. Often the relationship between tree and fungus is a symbiotic one. In fact every tree is 'infected' by fungi and indeed in many cases relies on this symbiotic relationship to extract nutrients from the soil, and even for communication between trees. Either the insurers are failing to employ ecologists to advise them, or they are deliberately causing damage to the environment.

The insurance industry is costing the people of this country dear. It is time for a major shake-up.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1029547 2011-10-24T19:48:04-04:00 2011-12-24T05:12:01-05:00

Peter Martindale http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-martindale/
Although the official inflation rate may be around 5%, everyone but the most out-of-touch politician knows that, the reality is that inflation on essentials is far above that. Many basic foods in the super markets have risen as much as fifty percent, cheaper eggs a hundred percent. Home energy is up almost twenty percent, car fuels similarly, public transport also. Even some 'economy' food ranges introduced by the supermarkets have been achieved by making them of inferior quality, so masking the real increase in price. Many aeroplane tickets are up by close to a hundred percent. Cotton clothes, home rent, and basic electronic and electrical goods, washing 'powder', are up about 20%. One wonders just what, apart from unsustainably low interest rates and mortgages, is keeping official inflation figures suppressed.

The argument that the pound must be kept weak to boost exports is a fallacy.The days when Britain was "the workshop of the world", have long since gone. Then we produced many of the raw materials and the components, as well as the finished product, and the machinery to produce it all. Now, most of our exports are assembled out of imported components and the few raw materials we use are also imported. Having a weak pound makes the component cost too high, so making the export cost high.

Furthermore the costs of imports are rising. Particularly of items from China and India, where, as I have always argued will happen, wage inflation is massive as workers covet Western lifestyles and living standards...This is true of raw materials, components and complete products. It is also true for foodstuffs.

The weak pound is fuelling inflation which in turn is fuelling wage increase demands. These wage increases are further pushing up costs making British exports less competitive. To increase interest rates now will strengthen the pound, hence reduce the cost of imports, and quell inflation and dampen wage demands: otherwise the upward spiral will accelerate.

So much of our food is now imported instead of produced here. British agriculture is capable of much more, but unfair restrictions imposed by Europe and the disastrous agriculture and property policies of the Labour governments for the last thirteen years, with agricultural land prices vastly inflated by trophy estate buyers and speculators for development, so the consumer is now suffering the consequence with high food prices. Although the introduction by supermarkets of some budget ranges, particularly of processed foods, has hidden the true increases in food prices and affected the overall rise in food price inflation, the massive rise in the costs of some foods is stark; most notably fruit and vegetables (whether fresh, frozen or juice),pulses, nuts , oats and bread, eggs, milk and cheese, honey and sugar, juices and pop.

The alarming announcement of another package of quantative easing smacks of a panic measure because for some reason there has become a mental block amongst politicians and economists against increasing interest rates; largely because of their obsession with the property market.

The argument of further repossessions in the property market is both real and spurious. However, most people will have bought their property with a mortgage before the interest rates fell so low; they had therefore taken out their mortgages affording higher interest rates. Anyone who has taken out a mortgage since rates fell this low, should have had the common sense to realise that rates will rise and so only have taken a mortgage having calculated that they can still afford it when interest rates rise to more usual levels; if not they were irresponsible - as are the politicians and economists who have failed to warn them of this.

It is also necessary to increase interest rates to calm the insane prices still being paid for property. I have not heard a single politician act responsibly and tell people to stop paying these inflated house prices. To the contrary, they are talking of kick-starting the property market and encouraging people to buy! By so doing, they are leading people to get into negative equity! The constant suggestion by politicians and economists alike, that rising house prices and sales are an indicator of an improving economy, is fanciful in the current state of affairs! Raising property prices and sales right now are an indicator that the faults in the economy are still there and we are heading towards a bigger catastrophe.

A rise in interest rates will give savers, particularly pensioners, an income again from their savings, and so boost spending. It is essential too, so as to lower the cost of imports and so alleviate the pain on Britons by lowering the cost of food and energy at the very least.

So, interest rates must rise five percent immediately to support the currency and ease the pain for British consumers and manufacturers alike.

David Cameron has said that it is necessary to focus on fighting the fire when the house is burning; he would do well to do so instead of ego trips of interfering in Libya and elsewhere during which he has taken his eye off the ball of the British economy. He would also do better to concentrate on the mess in the British economy than criticising the Eurozone , much as he must keep an eye on it as far as it affects Britain. Inflation is running amock. Monetary policy may be supposedly the responsibility of an independent Bank of England, but right now the Bank and the Government must work together to increase interest rates.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1027468 2011-10-23T18:01:04-04:00 2011-12-23T05:12:02-05:00

Peter Martindale http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-martindale/
Western leaders have shown themselves inept and totally lacking in leadership. Leadership would have led to peaceful change to bring about democracy and freedom, not the abomination we are creating by meddling yet again, as before in Iraq and Afghanistan and Georgia and Sudan, and now Libya and elsewhere.

For regimes to change, regime-change is not a necessity. They can reform just as the West has been built... it is what has given the West its stability that is admired internationally more than has the 'democracy' it endorses. The West is depriving countries of peaceful evolution, by importing bloody revolt and regime change.

There are an alarming number of rabble-rousers in Western governments, bent on causing trouble to satisfy their own egos.

The handling is lamentable for the tragedy it has inflicted on the people, with unnecessary loss of life and destruction of homes, infrastructure and livelihoods.

There are far too many Government members and soap-boxers alike who went straight from university to politics without growing up and still behave like student malcontents, calling for the overthrow of regimes in countries they have comprehensively failed to understand, and behaving in a most unstatesman-like manner.

Western commentary on the Middle East and North Africa is simplistic, as if the circumstances are the same in every country; they are not. Indeed it is rather insulting to those countries how the West sees them as all the same.

It is a nonsense to suggest that for most people there, the Arab Spring is about democracy; the basics are more important to them; the fundamentals of life that all-too-comfortable Western lefties and do-gooders are out of touch with. They are also forgetting why the situation exists in each country, which is often by Western design by agreement for oil (Kuwait) or strategic advantage (Egypt), or Western meddling (Sudan). It is true in many cases that had there not been the corruption, then there might have been more food reaching the people.

Sadly the introduction of democracy does not necessarily mean the end of corruption. Certainly in Libya the fight is mostly about freedom and democracy and against corruption and persecution, but in Egypt it was for jobs and poverty that predominantly the middle-classes took to the streets on behalf of the poor fellaheen. Often the belief is that with democracy prosperity automatically comes; of course the reality is that that does not follow.

In Saudi it may be about religious liberalism. In Bahrain Iran is pushing to gain territory. In Yemen poverty and corruption; in Oman very little - more a case of getting caught up in the mood to demonstrate; in Syria Israel wants the regime overthrown; in The Lebanon against Israeli aggression and Hezbollah terrorism; in Jordan the Muslim Brotherhood are active; in Kuwait Iran is supporting Iraq in pushing to gain the territory; in Qatar nothing!; in Sudan it is about Western governments seeking control which has resulted in lack of representation; in Morocco an attempt by the West to overthrow the monarchy against the majority wish, in Egypt poverty for the masses and remember the Muslim Brotherhood is always just beneath the surface, in Libya a need for democracy, in Algeria religious insurgents at western behest but as the country stabilises democracy can increase providing the West stop meddling this long 'civil' war has led to a shortage of housing and jobs etc which is what provoked the riot, but these have since fizzled out, in Iraq it is about security, terrorism, corruption, food ,and jobs, in Tunisia lack of jobs, in Palestine for freedom from American and Israeli oppression; Even these brief thumb-nail summaries of suggestions are over simplified but they make the point that the failure is once again with Western 'intelligence' and discarding the centuries of diplomatic knowledge available to them. Overall any domestic element is about food, poverty, healthcare, jobs, corruption, police brutality, but the protests have become generalised against a range of issues and frequently not about revolution and regime change and are often supportive of their governments: some just seemed to feel that they ought and to take part in the celebrations! In many cases it being more akin to a carnival than a protest against anything. This the West fails to report, choosing instead to report the demonstration and allowing the suggestion that it is anti the government in the particular country.

But in all this turmoil was orchestration from Western quarters, as has been demonstrated in the source of the first calls for protest through electronic social media technology. This was confirmed by the calls for revolt in Arab countries being encouraged by social media suppliers but them blocking the same calls by Palestinians against Israeli oppression. It is also confirmed by the lack of protest in the Sudan; overthrow of the regime would not be in America's game-plan as that would prevent the further break-up of the country.

Why now? In reality nothing has changed, only external political circumstance has changed, causing a change in the West's perceived view of the internal circumstances of these countries. Perhaps the problem is a new American President whose proposed abandonment of his predecessor's policies is to interfere even more!

<<>>

: Contrast this with UAE, for example, where there is neither democracy nor freedom but there is prosperity: that is not to say that there are not low-paid and poor but there is not the poverty of hope or opportunity, similarly Qatar which has a fledgling democracy. Although there were rumblings in Oman, Kuwait, The Lebanon, Jordan, Morocco, even Saudi Arabia, - none of which have democracy or even significant freedom, there was no appetite amongst the people for change - the push for which was coming from outside the country.

There has been much emphasis that the use of modern technology was what enabled the co-ordinated uprisings, sure it was intensively utilised but I would suggest people look at the 1919 revolt in Egypt to see how just as well organised and speedy the communication and implementation was in the absence of instant messaging, social networking websites, etc.!

When one considers the low turn-out for elections in Western countries, then the importance of democracy to people is put into context against their needs, e.g. food, health, security, freedom, fairness, jobs, prosperity. Democracy is in reality a lower consideration but its prevalence is elevated as it is symbolic of anti-corruption anti-poverty, and for fairness. So much the same is true for other people in other countries.

When, therefore, 'democracy' is discussed in the context of the region, great care should be taken. If one used the simplistic American view, Arab countries are at fault because the rulers of the country are of a religious minority. But governing a country should not just be about religious minority versus religious majority: if that is so then America, currently with a president who was a Muslim is a country being run by a religious minority in oppression of the religious (Christian) majority, or perhaps as he is of coloured skin ( a minority in the USA) ruling over a white majority!: - you see the fallacy - and danger-of the arguments being used about the Middle East. When factions are very pertinent in a country then introducing democracy can pave the way for disaster as the roles reverse and suddenly the minorities become oppressed, as in Iraq. Similarly, if one talks of religious freedom, then France which allows religion in private but not to be expressed in religious symbols in matters of state or public realm is, in a simplistic argument, no different from Sunni dominated Saudi Arabia allowing Shias to worship privately but not to bring their sect into public office. It is certainly no different from Israel's repression of all non-Jewish majorities, whether on religious or supposed ethnic grounds, until they had imported sufficient Jews to then have numerical dominance, but it is still no different to their repression of Palestine today; the remaining Palestinian ruled territory may in theory have its own government but life in the region is utterly controlled by Israel. And for many years, Palestinians have been calling for that repression to be thrown off and to be allowed "democracy" and freedom but it has been against international (a.k.a. USA) policy to assist the majority to be freed from minority rule and oppression. It is not pc to say it but it illustrates again the danger and the hypocrisy with which the West is playing in the 'Arab Spring' .....

Every militant (- or evangelical) ideologist believes they are liberating people from unjust establishment ideology and policy. Let's face it, Islamic fundamentalists say they are liberating people by overthrowing governments too. They see their system and laws as more just than any other. Is it not flaky then for the West to use force to overthrow for example Ghadafi but say that it is wrong for the Taliban to overthrow the regime in Afghanistan?

Freedom and fairness are paramount, democracy is beneficial too, but overthrowing regimes whether by words encouraging rebels or by bombing infrastructure, is not the way to go about it in the twenty-first century.

Calling for the overthrow of minority regimes by the majority on 'democratic' principles is what led to the genocide in Rwanda, that Rwanda was not too badly run does not enter into the argument; there was poverty and it was perceived (as directed by a particular Western country's agenda) by the majority to be caused by the minority ruling classes as a deliberate act of oppression.. It is the same mantra, ironically, that is used when many of the same advocates for change in the Middle East, call for in the overthrow of financial regimes and government arrangements argued by some to be controlled by Jewish bankers. It was Hitler's argument too; the Jews (minority) are controlling the finances and repressing the country as a whole, he claimed. The 'democracy' argument is simplistic and dangerous. Each case has to be seen in its own reality.

The reality is already setting in; of the reckoning of bloody revolution; there is an infirmity of nations born of bloodshed, the truth is there is unlikely to be real democracy or freedom for a very long time as a result of the violence and bloodshed. - And, as I have written elsewhere since the beginning of the so-called Arab Spring, it was all, perhaps, unnecessary:

What the West should have said is along the lines of ,"we hear you, now go home and we will work with you and your government to effect meaningful peaceful change." - not by whipping up revolution and bloodshed.

That bloodshed, instability, and resentment is leading, inevitably, to distrust and social breakdown making future government more difficult; instead of change to freedom having been built by the people together internally, which would have built trust within the country and the cohesion it needs. Just because the USA and France were formed out of mass murder dressed up as egalitarian revolution and liberty, seems to make them have to justify their own bloodshed by inflicting it on other countries' development too. It is not a pre-requisite of change: it is regressive not civilised nor enlightened.

What sort of leaders has the West got, that its foreign policy will inevitably lead to deaths? Shortly after his election, it was said that David Cameron sees himself as more Tony Blair than Margaret Thatcher, well now we had proven what to expect. And so it is also with Barack Obama, who had promised a total change from his predecessor's policies in the region, but has inflicted more of the same.

Making reckless statements that encourage protest that unleashes revolution which they then cannot manage or mitigate other than by sending in military support leading to even more bloodshed and destruction, as in Libya today, is not very intelligent. -even less so when it results in new regimes even more unpalatable than the one just deposed: This is especially true of Iran which is backing militant cells within marginalised Shia majorities throughout the Arabian states: just as the USA is - America is again doing the Ayatollahs' bidding, assisting Iran to have control over the whole Gulf and further afield!

Egypt has had its revolution but the reality that there can be no overnight improvements is causing discontent, and protests are starting again.

Each time Western leaders encourage rioting in foreign countries they are also telling discontents in their own countries that it is okay to resort to violence. The lack of consideration for the consequence of opening their mouths is derisible.

When the dust settles, then there will be a reckoning over the West's interference; diplomatic alliances will be re-evaluated: regimes which only a moment ago were our allies and darlings have suddenly been stabbed in the back by the international community. The Arab Spring may be a very different one from the one glibly hailed by the likes of Sarkozy and Clegg, Cameron and Obama. The West may just have achieved what the Arabs themselves have been unable to achieve amongst themselves for centuries; the united Islamic caliphate across the entire region and beyond, that has been the West's biggest fear for a thousand years.
]]>