Wolrd Cup history repeats itself

A potentially equalising goal is disallowed due to the lack of goal-line technology and then Germany go on to beat England by a convincing margin. The first time as tragedy the second time as farce.

Let us remind ourselves of what the Sun was saying before the games began.



It's about up to the standard of that august publication then. Perhaps a member of the German team could be enlisted to explain the term schadenfreude.

So the British public have been let out early from their prison of national soul searching and the Germans, who suffer no such angst, are free to romp forwards to a defeat at the hands of the Argentinians.

Meanwhile there are others in a more celebratory mood.

Blog Nation: left Lib Dems

At the Liberal Conspiracy blog nation event yesterday one speaker from the Social Liberal Forum told us that the biggest threat in this Parliament will be tribalism. He continued to predicate everything on the inevitability of Parliamentary mathematics and the idea that the Lib Dems had no choice but to support the coalition.

Well, I don't agree. Like my friend Dave Osler who gave a spirited rant in response I think the biggest threat posed by this Parliament is a slash and burn economic policy under pinned by a right-wing anti-state ideology.

It's estimated that between half a million and 1.3 million people will lose their jobs, millions of families who rely on public services will find their lives harder and many people will literally find themselves on the streets - all cheerfully supported by the Lib Dems en bloc, en masse, en tribe.

Anyone who saw the beleaguered Vince Cable on Question Time this week will have seen the shonky dishonesty of the Libs Dems on proud display. He weakly tried to justify this budget as progressive and good for the poor. He claimed to have changed his mind about VAT, coincidentally at the same time as being given a cushy treasury job, even he didn't believe it.

If Lib Dems want to dissent from the party, argue against the budget and other parts of the coalition deal then they're welcome to pride of place in any campaign I'm part of, but you don't get to posture as part of the left while supporting these extraordinary measures of mass impoverishment.

The speaker told us that if we rock the boat too hard it would "jeopardise the referendum on AV." Well, big deal. AV, like FPTP, will leave millions unrepresented in Parliament and millions more massively under represented. As carrots go it's pretty rotten.

The AV referendum is the Tory strategy to prevent PR, damn right I want to jeopardise it but not half as much as I want to challenge the down right villainy of this budget.

If Lib Dems want to hang out with the left then they need to buck up and stop pretending that they're taking part in some sort of "progressive coalition". Our job is to thwart the intentions of this government, not give excuses to its embarrassed supporters.

Blog nation: it's the economy, clearly

I went to the Liberal Conspiracy blog nation event today which was, generally, very excellent and my commendations to Sunny for putting it all together. Frankly I could have done with a few less Lib Dems trying to justify their shoddy government and their shoddy budget, but that aside very good.

I missed most of what sounded like a very useful discussion on abortion rights under the Tories but one of the interesting themes that came up that I didn't miss was about how to most effectively oppose the budget cuts, as bloggers.

As always with Liberal Conspiracy there was a bit too much of a focus on 'framing' and 'narrative' for my tastes, but I'm not criticising that - it's just I find that kind of language a little bit alienating. Anyway, just to riff on the theme for a moment it seems to me that there was a kind of soul searching about whether we should be presenting things in a far more emotive way, which could be accessed by more people. Someone characterised this as a left-wing Daily Mail style.

Of course the Daily Mail tells lies and goes out of its way to be controversial for paper sales, both of which are the hallmarks of political bankruptcy and, more importantly, make it particularly ineffective at speaking to the middle ground. You really do have to be a gullible, reactionary fuck to believe everything you read in the Mail and there's no value in copying that method if we're hoping to win over those not already within our ranks.

More interestingly some people were talking about using anecdotal "stories" that help personalise the cuts and demonstrate the effect they have on people's lives. I think there is value in that, but it can only go so far. The problem is that both the Lib Dems and the Conservatives are happy to admit that cuts are painful and cause hardship - this is not contested. What is contested is whether the cuts are necessary. That's economics, not story telling - which may help illustrate your point, but it cannot be the point your making.

What we need to articulate in a more accessible form is the case against cuts, which is broadly a debate between the economics of Hayek and Keynes, certainly in the mainstream of the debate. However, in 'our' camp we have three different approaches to this question. First we have the approach that the cuts are too deep, too soon, but deficit reduction along these lines is inevitable. These people want to slow the cuts, and ensure they don't hit critical services.

Second we have those who oppose cuts as a deficit reduction measure on the basis that we can use equality and growth to combat the crisis. Savage cuts will wreak the economy, at a time when we should be investing, boosting jobs and raising extra funds from progressive taxation and schemes like the Robin Hood tax. These people argue that cuts full stop are bad for the economy, that laying people off as the dole queues grow is a recipe for a vicious cycle of decline.

Lastly we have anti-capitalists. This group steals arguments from the other two but essentially places the blame for the crisis on the economic framework itself and seeks to challenge that in a more fundamental way. Splenetic venting about bankers and fat cats is part of that, but it actually goes far further. The crisis was not caused by Leaman Brothers or Freddie Mac but the priorities of a system where profits come before people, and the millions come second to the millionaires.

Actually many people are mix of the three, but I think the categories stand.

How to find a unified voice then? Well it's not as tricky as it sounds as long as you don't expect everyone to sing from the same hymn sheet all of the time.

As of right now there are probably hundreds of campaign groups set up, formally or informally, up and down the country to defend local communities against specific cuts. All these groups will be alliances and, on the whole, they are an embryonic eco-system of resistance. Bloggers can be part of linking those campaigns, putting them in touch with each other and creating a more conscious movement against the cuts.

Those campaigns will be providing the arguments on the human cost of the cuts, these are useful for us all to remind us what we are fighting for. What that network of citizen journalists and campaigners should be doing is providing a digestible economic alternative that shows not just why cutting public services in dangerous and painful, but also why it is the wrong economic strategy. They can also provide resources, some fun some serious and weighty, that are useful campaigning tools that can be used and adapted across the country.

To my mind this approach needs to be supporting those resistance campaigns from the bottom up, rather than attempting to create a national army of clone campaigns under the auspices of a central command. I don't think that will work and it's not necessary because those community groups are already springing up 'organically'.

The left Keynsians and the anti-capitalists (I hope you forgive the crude generalisations there) can actually unite pretty easily on this and the wet left who think cuts are being managed poorly will find it harder to fit into that framework than they will when they become involved in the local campaigns to defend specific services. We can't play to the lowest common denominator so they'll just have to catch up.

This is why you need health and safety

This is why you need health and safety at work. What is it with racing and sadomasochism? First we had Mosley with his extended spanking and dungeon settings and now the owner of RPM Motorsport, an ex-motorcycle racing champion Robin Mortimer has been found dead at an S&M club in Belgium, 'Torment Towers'.

Two women, Mistress Lucrezia and Mistress Juno, have been arrested although it looks like the authorities do not suspect that they meant to kill him, which only really leaves the possibility that some sort of violent session got out of hand and was not conducted in a safe manner.

According to the prosectution he may have choked on a rubber ball or died after taking an anaesthetic designed to prolong sadistic sex sessions. Legalised brothels and proper health and safety legislation and it's all so much safer.

Is there something about petrol or high speeds that encourages this sort of thing - or is it just a coincidence?

Who are we?

I was at a very interesting play last night which explored some ideas about who we are. At one point there was a discussion about whether your sexuality is anyone else's business. Obviously, as long as your not hurting anyone else, the answer is no, but this is not a majority opinion as there's always someone ready to pronounce on who should and should not do what.

The borders of 'normal' are constantly being policed to make sure transgressors feel our wrath. The fact that these borders shift over time does not make them feel just as immutable, just as timeless - even though such an idea that they are not constantly shifting is patently absurd.

During my sociology degree I'd have called this a question of 'norms' and 'deviance', in other words what we take to be normal standards for society and those who deviate from it. One of the interesting things about this is that things like murder or suicide are seen as great taboos and far from normal behaviour while, in reality they are literally everyday occurrences that have 'rates' that can be statistically measured and effected.

That's why they use the term 'norms' rather than 'normal' because breaking norms is normal, if not the norm.

So why do some people feel that the fact that some people are gay, for example, is any of their business. Why get angry about adult consenting behaviour that has no bearing on your life? Why do people get violently attacked, even killed, for daring to go about their daily lives without shame?

I think a large element of this is the way we define ourselves, which you might think of as a very individualist act, but it is in fact a social one. So much of who we are is bound up with others. Where we work, say, or who our family is, our position in the community, our academic achievements or friendship networks. Even those aspects of ourselves that feel very private are in fact inevitably bound up with social categories. A private writer of poetry is still perpetuating a socially created category, and using learned forms to articulate their emotions.

In fact I'd go so far to say that we define ourselves in relation to other people, often unconsciously and we have a tendency to categorise and formalise what is really quite fluid. We might think someone is 'sexy' or 'brainy' or 'witty' or 'emotional' but will also recognise that this is just one part of that person, more complex than a label and often a part that may be hidden under the surface in different circumstances.

When we dig into these ideas they become difficult, but they rarely create problems as we rub along in our daily lives.

These boxes that we put others in help us to place ourselves, to define ourselves. A box with firm and clear edges finds it more easily fits when stacked with others. It's safer that way because you don't have to define yourself anew everyday and when you find yourself in a social situation it isn't a terrifying venture into the unknown because everyone is meant to stick to the rules, even though they don't.

So if you start blurring those edges, redefining sexuality or stepping outside of the normal dress code or ways of speaking then you're doing something extremely scary. You're changing the rules. If your sexuality has fallen out of the socially accepted box then what's to stop mine doing the same? My ideas about myself are challenged and by being 'different' you challenge the whole basis of the shape of society when you wear lipstick with your goatie beard.

Those edges of what is acceptable isn't just socially policed, that policing itself helps define what is and is not acceptable and sometimes gets produced even when no deviance has actually been exhibited. If gay people are beaten up if they are open about their sexuality it reinforces where the line is. The bigots are not just unhappy about other's behaviour, they actively want to create, through their bigotry, what kind of world we live in.

Thuresday's football pieces - happy now?

Well, England beat the Slitheen team and most commentators agreed that England's performance was a little bit less mediocre than on previous occasions, as this typical piece of defending pictured no doubt demonstrates.

• Political prisoner Mumia Abu Jamal writes on vuvuzelas.
  
  
• Martin's blog takes issue with some scientific explanations of the difference between fans.
  
  
• Paul Watson meanwhile finds one Nigerian miss to be baffling to science.
  
  
• The question for England fans now is who do you want to be beaten by? Germany in the next game or Argentina in the round after that. Exciting.
  
  
• Oh, and do check out Radio Four's Look Away Now, which is pretty good for a topical sporting comedy.
  

Wednesday's football pieces

Today's the day that sorts the wheat from the chaff, and we've certainly seen a lot of chaffing recently. If England are able to start scoring some goals they might be able to get into the next stage, but that looks like a big if at the moment as the players seem to be wearing the weight of several worlds upon their shoulders.

• Spotted this on Indymedia. Bend it like Imperialism.
  
  
• Lewisham's News Shopper declares Anyone but England.
  
  
• They wont like the BBC's "rousing" spur to the England team, featuring Brian Blessed.
  
  
• WDM weigh up the ethical differences between England and Slovenia.
  
  
• Reading the Maps gives us reasons to support Argentina.
  
  
• Stuart Jeffries looks at the trouble with the French. The rows continue and are becoming more racist by the hour, as major sponsors withdrew support for the team, the BBC reports soul searching, which is a new euphemism on me.
  
  I guess this is to be expected as the French interior minister (Home Secretary) has been convicted of racism and they are debating a veil ban in Parliament soon. The deep vein of racism in French society is playing itself out on and off the pitch.
  
  
• CNN see the competition as a clash of logos and the NY Times looks at the financial goals some have of the Cup.
  

A fair budget from a progressive government

Chancellor George Osbourne told us that this was a "fair budget" from a "progressive coalition" and I agree. Well, I agree as long as by "fair budget" we mean one that makes the most vulnerable destitute and homeless and by "progressive coalition" we mean shower of shits.

Last night I attended the Camden protest rally the cuts outside the town hall, a protest that was mirrored in dozens of other places across London and the country (Hove, Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh (pictured), Parliament Square, Bristol, Portsmouth, and many others, add your report link in the comments). I think once people begin to realise the extent of the attacks we will see more and more of this sort of thing.

It was not a surprise that this was a cuts budget although I think the scale of the cuts has only really begun to sink in now it's been formally announced. Osbourne may have let the banks off lightly and reduced corporation tax but public services are in deep, deep trouble.

A two year pay freeze for public sector workers earning more than 21k and a minimal raise for those below that line, raising the pensionable age, part privatisation of Royal Mail, education cuts of 25% over four years, in fact all departments, except international development and health, will be expected to cut their budget by a quarter in this time. Bloody hell, that's not trimming the fat it's sawing off the arms and legs.

Then we have things like cuts to swimming, cuts to disability benefit, freezing child benefit and reducing eligibility for child tax credits, freezing council tax, very low housing benefit caps, 10% cut in housing benefit for those on benefits for more than a year, stricter regime for single parents. This is not cool.

It's the VAT hike to 20% that's likely to cause the strongest ripples across both left and right as it hits families hard and adds the tax burden on those who are deemed too poor to pay income tax.

While the Lib Dems appear to have won a concession on cider duty it may well be a double bonus for those who voted for the Lib Dems because not only does Clegg and co get to sit at the big table, they get cheap booze to chug in the shop doorways once they've been laid off and thrown onto the streets. Good times.

Additional material.

• The Guardian's full budget coverage.
• Caroline Lucas on the budget.
  
• Left Foot Forward looks at the responses in Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland.
• Richard Osley spots that Dappy (from NDubz) cannot support cuts in benefits.
• Two Doctors imagines what the Lib Dems might be thinking.
• Johnny Void on housing benefit reform.
  
• Raphie de Santos says a cuts based economy will fail.
• Nick Pearce thinks it is incredible to call this budget fair.
• The SSP alternative budget.
  
• Bright Green Scotland has the budget A-Z.
• HarpyMarx gives the Labour left response.
  
• Jane Watkinson thinks the Lib Dems may be starting to wake up.
• Disability funds run dry.
• Michael Meacher looks at the myths behind the budget.
• Lib Con asks how we should respond.
  

Bits, bobs and the other

A few points of interest;

• Anti-immigrant laws coming in in Nebraska. Disgusting.
  
  
• Alice Bell on citizen science and specialisms. Interesting.
  
  
• New Zealand Green leader in a fist fight. Ding, ding!
  
  
• In case you missed it, the four candidates for Labour Mayoral candidate. Ken-tastic.
  
  
• Four refugees discuss Britishness. Salutory.
  
  
• Tube strike today. Don't forget.
  

Dave Prentis wins UNISON General Secretary election

As the hyper-cuts budget is announced it would be easy to overlook the election of the General Secretary of one of Britain's largest unions, and one whose members will be bearing the brunt of the public service bonfire. Who leads the union in this crucial time is extremely important.

The incumbent Dave Prentis, who Cameron took the trouble to slag off the other day, won the votes of 67% of the 216,116 people who cast a ballot (14% turnout, which is pretty standard). A fairly ringing endorsement of a union moderate who has been able to make the right noises in the press but has also taken a hard line approach with the left in the union, including some extremely dubious expulsions.

His two challengers were both from the left. Roger Bannister of the Socialist Party won an impressive 20% of the vote and Labour Party member Paul Holmes won the remaining 13% for the 'United Left'.

The result is no surprise given that Prentis was nominated by a whopping 371 branches, 11 regional councils, 7 service groups and the National Executive Council (compared to Bannister's 31 branches and Holmes' 52 branches) but the size of the opposition is significant, as is the fact that it all came from the left of Prentis.

It's also interesting that Prentis has seen his support among members decline from the 77% of the vote he received five years ago, with the left increasing it's share of the vote (last time round Jon Rogers, also a left Labour Party member stood as the United Left candidate).

2010 candidates			2005 candidates
Dave Prentis	145,351	(67.3%)	Dave Prentis	184,769	(75.6%)
Roger Bannister	42,651	(19.7%)	Roger Bannister	41,406	(16.9%)
Paul Holmes	28,114	(13.0%)	Jon Rogers	18,306	(7.5%)
	216,116			244,481

It's interesting that in both elections Bannister was put under a great deal of pressure by the 'United Left' to stand down in favour of their candidates who on both occasions received more branch nominations but less support from ordinary members.

Quite rightly in my view the Socialist Party understood that they had the better placed candidate among members, even if the United Left was able to mobilise a certain layer of branch officers. On both occasions it was seen as the height of sectarianism on the part of Bannister not to step down, and on both occasions it turned out that it was the United Left that was in fact speaking to a more narrow section of the membership.

At no time did the United Left seriously consider stepping down in favour of Bannister despite the fact that such a move could bode extremely well for a more coordinated approach to elections and campaigns at other levels of the union. Such as it is the different cliques of the organised left in the union are still at daggers drawn and will, therefore, remain unable to win a majority influence.

However, the good news is that 32.3% of the union's membership who voted opted for a fighting union that takes on the government cuts agenda head-on. Whether that one in three can be translated into victories in the public sector depends not just on UNISON members but the wider movement as a whole.

Tuesday's football pieces

The English press has been in hog heaven with a hapless England team to eviscerate, a gormless John Terry standing up for honest speaking (honesty being his most famous trait) and Wayne Rooney having the gall to complain about the fans when he should have been lashing himself with sharpened twigs.

They also get to repeat, ad nauseum, "at least we're not France". You see whatever ructions there have been in the England camp we haven't had people sent home and a player revolt that left leading players on the benches - a hoo ha that is widely seen as leading to their dismal performance that, as of today, ensures they couldn't clear the group stage.

However, it's the racism of the thing that should interest us. The complaints have mounted that the French squad, and in particular the black players, are not patriotic enough and do not represent France. They don't even sing the national anthem at the start of the game. This led to one poll yesterday saying that 75% of French people hoped that the squad did *not* win today's crucial game.

Well, I guess there'll be dancing in the streets of Paris tonight then. Now for the round-up;

• The Mail has an odd story implicating Rooney and Terry in the killing of kangaroo babies.
  
  
• I'm a great fan of David Zirin, the American sports journalist, who has responded to Terry Eagleton's remarks that if we are to gain any social progress we'll have to abolish football.
  
  
• Sunder Katwala claims the left is winning the cup.
  
  
• Kasama says that the World Cup draws out the difference between the South Africa that could have been and the South Africa that is.
  
  
• John Foster says that the USA has finally learned to embrace and despise football.
  
  
• Charlotte Gore looks at the players' pay and motivations.
  
  
• Derek Wall says that the media have censored the protest of Argentinian players.
  

Is it the Jews?

Sorry about the blogging gap, I've been enjoying the sunshine and pretending not to be a nerd. However, if I hadn't been out I wouldn't have picked up a fascinating "Christian" leaflet from a man who was very keen to tell me that he'd written it himself. I restrained myself from saying "You don't say" as I admired the clip art party balloons and point eight size font.

Anyway, I only got a chance to read it just now and, as you can imagine, the quality of the content was of the highest kind. I'm not referring to the piece on back which, with classic British deadpan, declared that before Adam ate the apple "there were no weeds" or that the author had "seen articles that suggest the existence of gay animals". Glorious.

It had a great style to it that tickled me. For instance "Adam and Eve were naked year round. With "The Fall" began the fashion industry." Brilliant.

More seriously though when the lead article claimed that there is a "group [who] gained control of the economy, industry and military of most of the world over generations" that we have to watch out for. Don't worry though because you'll be able to recognise them as "God himself has a hook in their noses". Oh. Does he.

He then goes on to remind us of Habakkuk's thoughts on the "sins of Israel" and how God punished the sinners by using the Babylonians (pictured), even though they were "even more wicked than Israel."

He then points out, apropos of nothing, that Hitler was also a wicked man just like those Babylonians who God used to work his will. We need, he goes on, "radical surgery" to cure society's ills, otherwise "evil International Bankers" will wreak a terrible hurricane upon us.

Obviously he's done us all a great service by bringing to our attention this horrid bunch who control everything, especially the banks, and have hooks in their noses, but who can they be? They aren't named, which is inconvenient. Hmmm, they exemplify the sins of Israel and we might need someone a bit like Hitler to sort it out, even though Hitler wasn't very nice - like the Babylonians.

No. Can't think who it might be he's referring to, but I do feel slightly ill about being quite so friendly to him earlier. Quite some moral trick though, to say that being evil is to do God's work and that good people tend to stand idly by when there is God's work to be done, which makes them evil and they will be punished.

Saturday's Football pieces - oh dear edition

The England team's pitiful performance last night leaves it in need of a decisive win on Wednesday, against the only team in the group that has so far won a game. If that wasn't pressure enough the weight of the press (tabloid and respectable) must be suffocating as not a kind word can be found about the team they are supposed to be supporting.

One fan took it on himself last night to burst into the team's dressing room to give them a piece of his mind, which is generous as he didn't have much to spare for himself. Good hearted I call it. He was most likely only able to get through security because it's on strike.

Meanwhile Wayne Rooney is taking up much of the column inches as he decided to publicly rebuke fans for being less than supportive of the national team. Fans responded with drivel like "He's paid millions to be a role model and I've come a long way for this so I expect him to win all the games he plays in and behave himself while thousands of people heap scorn upon him as he sees his World Cup dreams dashed."

Basically I'm with Wayne on this one. England fans and the press do everything they can to demoralise their team. If you want working class footballers to reply to the boos and hisses with a smile and a bland salute then you'll be waiting a long time for that. Good on him. You can't win games with all stick and no carrot.

• Disgracefully the Vuvuzela has been banned from Cardiff. That's Welsh culture you're messing with!


• Those who risk their lives to watch the Cup in Somalia.


• The strikes have spread to half the venues where cops have replaced stewards.


• The Guardian argues that football banning orders are out of control.
  
  
• The Algerian team psyched themselves up for the game by watching Battle of Algiers.
  

Some more misc.

At the risk of over "link dumping" I'm also aware that what with these daily World Cup round ups everything else is getting rather sqeezed. Well, we can't have that can we? No.

• This little interactive tool explaining the orbits of the planets is lovely.
  
• Christopher Ecclestone reveals why he quit as the Doctor. Shame, I thought he was good.
  
• Gabrielle Mokake is under the threat of deportation to Tanzania, where he hasn't lived since he was nine. Sign the petition here.
  
• Last night around fifty people were deported to Iraq, surely this has to end?
  
• Gregor Gall explains very slowly why laying people off is bad for the economy.
  
• This little video made me cry, you have been warned.
  
  

Coalition wobbles?

Perhaps there's trouble in paradise? A liberal and conservative party starting up a marriage of convenience and yet under the strain of a tough economic climate they've started to bicker and stopped talking to each other over breakfast.

One partner wants a laissez faire partnership where the market is free to screw who it likes, the other wants a more traditional arrangement where frugality and responsibility with the public purse is the order of the day. On the face of it they agree in cuts and budget constraints but the tensions beneath the surface start to break out with a harsh word here and an off message briefing there.

The ink is hardly dry on the German coalition government's agreements and already there have been huffy resignations, bad news at the polls and talk of early elections to sort this mess out once and for all.

The German economy may still be one of the most robust in the EU, but it is no longer in a position to simply bail out other economies or fulfill its traditional duties of Europe's banker. This is causing international tensions as well as internal ones with France's Sarkozy making pointed remarks about Merkel's government.

The left has smelt blood and is pushing the coalition to take the plunge and call a new general election. It's certainly not an option either partner would take willingly as it would be seen as a major defeat, but if the working relationship between the parties and, crucially, within them has broken down to such an extent that they can no longer run a viable government then there may well be no choice.

It couldn't happen here though. The Lib Dems and Tories have found a very comfortable working relationship with each other and have, possibly to their own surprise, found each other more than natural allies in government, particularly when the Lib Dems are such accommodating partners. No early election for us I reckon.

Friday's football pieces - bumper edition

• Caron is jolly excited by the way we all got to pay for Boris to go to the World Cup. Super!
  
  
• Andy has spotted a useful round-up of the African blogosphere's reaction to the Cup.
  
  
• Paul Sagar asks whether the England squad need better incentives.
  
  
• Fatima Asmal wonders whether all of South Africa is feeling the fever.
  
  
• David Bond declares that this is the most boring World Cup in history, and we haven't even finished the group stage yet!
  
  
• Paul Mason explains what bank regulators could learn from football referees.
  
  
• The ongoing coverage of from the Watson brothers at back of the net is most enjoyable.
  
  
• The London Progressive Journal has two Cup related stories. One moaning about the way advertisers have treated it like one long sales pitch ("pitch" - get it!) and the other discussing nationalism and hype.
  
  
• Sunder Katwala explores whether we should consolidate our patchwork of useless 'national' teams into one, easily managed useless British team.
  
  
• The Church Times notes that the Vuvuzela is Africa's "revenge on the West". (h/t Splintered Sunrise)

Thursday's football pieces

• Claude ponts out that England's goalie has done immigrants a favour.
  
  
• Mark Steel is thinking of turning Japanese.
  
  
• Sunder Katwala thinks that the left is falling behind n the World Cup.
  
  
• Little Richardjohn wants the sounds of the crowd not the bleating of the commentators.
  
  
• Red Pepper looks at the stadiums and their value.
  
  
• Terry Eagleton says that football is the dear friend to capitalism.
  

Doctors to break confidentiality

I was disturbed to see the news that doctors are to be given leeway to break patient confidentiality. The BMA has agreed with the police to share patient information where gun owners suffer from mental health problems.

I'm uneasy about this on a number of levels, whatever benign thinking lies behind the idea.

In general there has been a lack of knee jerk responses to the Cumbria shootings from the political establishment, despite the fact that the press felt unable to stop itself from page after page of unseemly rubber necking coverage for day after day. This proposal however could have serious implications.

The BMA has said that "Where doctors know that a patient has a firearm and, in their view, as a result, presents a risk of harm to themselves or others, both legally and ethically, this information can be disclosed without consent."

Part of this new move means that the gun ownership register will be linked up (in some way) to patient records where all medical records of gun owners will be 'flagged'.

There are two key problems with this in my view. Firstly, it could well prevent gun owners from seeking help from their doctor, actually increasing the probability that they will pose a future risk to themselves or others. If the consequence of having mental health problems will be that police officers, who are not properly trained in these issues, are informed that you are a public risk it's a fairly large disincentive from telling your doctor about your problems, not to mention the unpredictability of the actual response of the police when given this information.

The intention may be that doctors only inform the police in the clearest possible circumstances (although this is not explicitly stated) but it is introducing an onus upon doctors to correctly identify when mental health issues are likely to lead to murder or suicide and when they will not - which is a heavy and impossible responsibility.

The second point is that many services find it difficult to get people to come forwards and give confidential information. A slippage in confidentiality creates a problem for every service that relies on the public having absolute confidence that information they give will go no further because it means that there is a redefinition of our terms taking place.

Confidentiality ceases to be an absolute, where a patient or service user can confide information without things going any further, and turns it into a grey area where, generally, no one will be told but sometimes they will be. That's socially dangerous and could well undermine the ability of the mental health services to do their job.

Why Lord Tebbit is wrong, as always

Norman Tebbit, his wife (pictured) were victims of the 1984 IRA Brighton bombing of the Tory Party conference, an event which, no doubt, has had a profound personal impact on their lives. It is understandable that he feels aggrieved at having been blown up, who wouldn't.

However, he is wrong to say that if there is an inquiry into the Bloody Sunday killings then there should also be an inquiry into the Brighton bombing, and indeed every other death at the hands of the Republican movement.

He says that "The victims of Brighton are no less important than those of Londonderry. They should not be treated as second-class victims... Some victims, the peace process seems to imply, have superior rights to others."

This is interesting because he spent most of his career treating the people of "Londonderry" as second class citizens and has rarely, if ever, expressed sympathy for the victims of Bloody Sunday. More to the point though I'm not sure it follows that giving justice to those shot dead by British soldiers that day does, somehow, downgrade the status of other victims of the troubles.

It does however say quite a bit that Tebbit is unable to hear these victims get sympathy without somehow implying that this sympathy is an insult to others. It never works the other way round does it?

When the Brighton bombings come up does he feel obliged to say "We must also remember that there were victims on the other side too who must feel terrible." Not a bit of it. You're more likely to hear the Generals and officers who are currently busy muddying the bloody waters to point out when some media sycophant points out that many soldiers were professional and restrained in their job that "we should not forget that others were murderous psychopaths just looking for any excuse to bully, victimise, torture or even murder someone if they could get away with it."

However, there is a very good reason why Bloody Sunday needed an inquiry and the Brighton bombing does not - and it has nothing to do with how "worthy" the victims of the two events are.

Patrick Magee, who was released under the Good Friday Agreement, was personally responsible for the Brighton bombing. He admits this, and it is uncontested. He did this under the instructions of the Provisional IRA who, at the time, said "Mrs Thatcher will now realise that Britain cannot occupy our country and torture our prisoners and shoot our people in their own streets and get away with it. Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always. Give Ireland peace and there will be no more war."

All the key facts around the Brighton bombing are uncontested and the political reasons for the bombing are clear and open. We can argue about whether the bombing was "a good thing" or not, although I doubt there are many these days who'd be willing to defend it, but there is no cloak of secrecy around the events.

Unlike the IRA the British State was never clear and unequivocal about what had happened or why. The victims were lied about. It was said they were armed, that they were rioters, that they had petrol bombs, that the British soldiers were returning fire. None of this was true, but all of it was repeated as truth in the British press while dissenting voices, who knew the truth, were silenced.

That is why the events of Bloody Sunday required an inquiry - the uncover the truth that had been denied in all the official accounts. The victims of the Brighton bombings know the truth. It does not make them second class victims as Tebbit claims just because the state never took the trouble to smear and denigrate those who'd been killed.

Wednesday's football pieces

• The New Statesman takes a look at the lilting nuance of the vuvuzela.
  
  
• They must have been watching the way the professionals play them.
  
  
• BBC website about why have the Cup in Africa and then insist it's too African.
  
  
• The Guardian tells us that goalies are basically misfits
  
  
• Disgraceful detention of Dutch fans for wearing cloths with logos from non-sponsors.
  
  
• After the ITV cock-up the Independent reminds us the ads have spoiled the fun before.
  
  
• Mark Steel has a great time denouncing the not so free market of the World Cup.
  
  
• Lastly, I enjoyed this letter from Eddie Dougall, "The incessant noise of the South African vuvuzelas is a disappointment: it is still possible to hear the non-stop comments from the pundits and commentators above it."

Bloody Sunday

Something I never thought I'd ever hear a Tory, or Labour, Prime Minister say; "What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong." He went on to make clear that every person who was shot and killed by the paras that day was innocent, unarmed and a victim of injustice.

Cameron then apologised for the killings and seemed to accept the report's finding that some serving soldiers had lied under oath about their actions on that day. The victims have been exonerated of all the slanders that were told about them after their deaths. The government has taken responsibility for the actions of its armed forces. Extraordinary. The PM's full statement.

The reaction of the families was extremely moving. There seemed to be a real feeling that some kind of healing had taken place, and whatever happens next I'd like to thank Cameron for being so clear and unequivicol in his statement on the findings. Kate Nash said "My brother William. We know he was innocent, we've always known. Now the world knows." Some of families reactions.

This has been a victory for the victims and their families, even if it's a victory that took decades to long to come.

Eamonn McCann, who was there on the day, has been a long and active campaigner for justice. He said that “The responsibility for Bloody Sunday doesn’t simply rest with those on the ground, it rests with the senior officers who sent the paras into the Bogside in full knowledge of what was likely to happen. When people talk about prosecutions I think it would be unfair if they were made to carry the entire burden of guilt. There are people more culpable than them.”

Bernadette Devlin, who was also a leading light in the civil rights movement and witnessed the events said that "As a member of parliament at the time, I was denied the right to give parliament an eyewitness account. The home secretary, Reginald Maudling, lied to the House and the media willingly collaborated in uncritically repeating the government misrepresentation. In what was considered gross overreaction and disgracefully violent behaviour, I crossed the floor of the House and hit him.

"I did not call for a public inquiry, did not welcome the Saville inquiry and only testified to respect the wishes of the bereaved families. I regret none of those things, but challenge the view that it was an expensive waste of time, energy and money. Had Bloody Sunday been no more than a violent and disgraceful overreaction or unlawful behaviour on the part of a few "squaddies" or overzealous commanders, it would not have required the British government and its military to create the complicated labyrinth of lies and deceit which has taken hundreds of testimonies, thousands of pages, millions of pounds and 38 years to unravel."

The Irish Independent has a useful key facts piece on the report. You can read the entire report here.

Tuesday's football pieces

More bits and pieces from the World Cup I thought people might be interested in. I should point out I'm not necessarily endorsing any of the opinions in these links, but I do think they are worth a look - otherwise I wouldn't link to 'em.

• There's an interesting Mum's Net discussion on the relationship between football and domestic violence.
  
  
• Olly Zanetti asks whether those who shun flags are just snobs.
  
  
• Talking of snobs the BBC (also) may be looking to purge them from our screens.
  
  
• The Guardian is having fun at the moment. Check out their lego re-enactment of Saturday's game.
  
  
• The Sauce looks at slum dwellers who are facing eviction during the Cup.
  
  
• Peter Guest tells us not to patronise Africa. It was great even before the World Cup.
  

Prisons round up

• Norway's liberal jails. Time.
  
  
• What have prisons got to do with justice? Jock Coats.
  
  
• Do prisons need religion? Guardian.
  
  
• Police pay out to protesters they illegally detained. Guardian.
  
  
• What do the Tories plan for prison places? Left Foot Forward.
  
  
• Lastly, a quick reminder of the excellent Ben's blog, Britain's only blogging prisoner.
  

Monday's football pieces

• The riot police break up Durban wages demonstration. AP.
  
  
• In defense of the vuvuzela. Hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooonk. Anton Vowl.
  
  
• But Fifa is considering banning the vuvuzela. Guardian.
  
  
• The world cup is not xenophobic. Robert Sharp.
  
  
• Why I love the world cup. Random Blowe.
  
  
• World cup good, athletics rubbish. Reuben.
  
  
• I was surprised to read this World Cup analysis from all round good guy Paul Mason.

Football pieces, Sunday

• Madam Miaow speculates "the only thing worse than watching a team sport is playing one".
  
  
• The New York Post has a sober account of yesterday's match.
  
  
• Beansprouts has more personal, touching, reflections on the Cup.
  
  
• Links magazine looks at the economic price to South Africa's workers.
  
  
• ITV has apologised to viewers after they cut away from England's first goal of the cup in order to sell us shit. One viewer imagines what 1966 would have looked like in their hands.
  
  
• Talking of naked capitalism... it's outrageous that free condoms are forbidden from stadiums because Durex is a sponsor. In fact the sponsors have completely crowded out local vendors who are entirely excluded from the games. This is particularly off because of the pre-World Cup fuss made about prostitution, a discussion which has almost completely disappeared.
  
  
• This is a really fun little gadget from the Guardian. It's the twitter action replay, with time line, from all the various games. I've checked out a couple of examples and it works brilliantly as well as being slightly mesmeric. Do check it out.
  

Bring on the clowns

We all know that Latin America is a hot bed of Communism. So much so that the very bastion of conservative comedy has been infected. Yes, the clowns are on the march in El Salvador.

The demonstration of one hundred professional clowns and their supporters included fire-eating, tricycling, sitting in the road and, of course, a quick break for prayers was in response to the fact that a man had been shot dead by two clowns after he had refused to give them money.

One banner read "real clowns are not criminals". A clowns union spokesman (yes, you read that right) told Sky News "If the criminals can get hold of police uniforms imagine how easy it is for them to get hold of a clown's outfit."

The union is calling for clowns to be issued with official documents which they can show members of the public to show they are "real" clowns. The clowns are concerned that their livelihoods depend upon the public (like buskers) and that any ill-will shown towards them may cost them their ability to put food on the table.

Football pieces

• Mike Maqusee in the Guardian explains how to enjoy football more by being unaffiliated.
  
  
• Reading the Maps discusses why we should support the New Zealand team.
  
  
• Liam is only interested in the singing.
  
  
• Charlie Brooker vents against patriotism.
  
  
• The Morning Star has a piece on how football helped to bring down apartheid.
  
  
• Richard Osley stares in horror at John Barnes.
  

What is Schwarzenegger playing at?

Interesting news has come out of this week's US primaries (a process which selects the parties' candidates for the major elections later this year). In California Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger has come to the end of his allotted time as governor and will soon be passing on the baton.

You might assume that he's automatically endorsed the Republican nominee. Not so. You see there's a problem because the Republicans have selected a Tea Bagger, one of the new right and follower of Sarah Palin, whose politics are decidedly at odds with Arnold's more moderate Republicanism.

Meg Whitman, the former CEO of eBay, was personally endorsed by Dick Cheney, and her selection was greeted with glee among the right-wing commentators.

According to her website she plans to create two million new private sector jobs in California by 2015 using targeted tax cuts alone, including abolishing capital gains tax. She's either a genius, a fool or a liar - or perhaps a bit of each. Of course, while she's creating jobs with her magic beans she'll also be laying off state workers with her proposed $15 billion cuts in public spending.

However, I'm sure this kind of conservative economic plan is not what's putting the current governor off. Rather it's her social conservatism that has him worried. Her anti-immigration stance, her pro-death penalty approach to law and order and most of all her approach to climate change.

It's her threat to suspend climate change legislation that has particularly smarted the current governor. He's been passionate about the need to tackle climate change and reduce our emissions and, in difficult fiscal circumstances, he has tried to carve out a strong reputation on the subject. This put him at odds with many in the party and saw the oil industry lobby hard against his proposals, a fight which, to his credit, he won. Now Whitman threatens to undo all the fruits of what was a colossal political fight.

It's no wonder Schwarzenegger is unwilling to leap to endorse her, and has even started saying nice things about the Democratic candidate. Could he really be preparing to endorse the opposition in order to save his legacy?

She will be facing a heavy weight opponent in former Democratic governor Jerry Brown (who was nick named "Governor Moonbeam" for his supposedly left-liberal approach). His main claim to fame as far as I'm concerned is that The Dead Kennedys ditty "California Uber Alles" is actually sung from the fictionalised perspective of Jerry Brown during his time in office. How cool is that?

Both Democratic and Republican primaries were evenly matched with 1.7 million people voting in each with Brown the runaway favourite for Democrats (84.1%) and Whitman more controversial among Republicans (64.2%).

Of course she still won a strong victory over her Republican opponents, which is a good job seeing as she used $80 million dollars of her own money just to secure the nomination, a sum which exceeds the combined spend of Republicans and Democrats on the entire 2006 Gubernatorial race. Astonishing.

Schwarzenegger spoke to the Washington Post telling them that "You're assuming I'm going to endorse the Republican". The Post went on;

"The governor did say he could change his mind "and endorse someone 14 days out. I don't know." ... he pulls back a little and suggests it's likely he would endorse Whitman -- if he endorses, that is. But he also said in the session with the editorial board that Brown had done some good things and some bad things during his two terms as governor. Schwarzenegger didn't elaborate, but the mere fact that he had a nugget of niceness for the Democrat two days into the general election is stunning. I can't wait to see how the party elders in California and here in Washington react to this."

Of course he may well end up endorsing his Republican successor, but can you imagine that happening here? A Labour or Tory MP explicitly refusing to endorse fellow party members standing for election. It speaks to the growing split in the US right between a vocal and, frankly, moronic Palinite movement and more traditional Republicans who are often less theological in their approach to climate change, gay marriage and not bombing foreigners.

The Democrats have got a good chance of beating Whitman who is likely to polarise Republicans without winning many friends in the Democrat camp, but Whitman still has her billion dollar fortune to draw on so if they want to save California's climate legislation they better make sure they take her seriously.

Tweet of the day

Spotted this one earlier which kind of summed it up for me.

mrmarksteel Great that Diane Abbott's in leadership contest for variety - black, female and left-wing. If only she wasn't also fucking hopeless.

It's going to be a long old Labour leadership contest, with the winner decided at the end of September, so my advice is.... don't get too excited too soon. It's a marathon not a sprint.

Dutch election: far right gains

The Dutch election yesterday saw an increasing polarisation of society and a dangerous shift that benefits the far right.

Although the right only moved forwards by 3 representatives (now 83 out of 150 in total) this is made up from five parties and there was a shift inside the right vote away from the more moderate Christian democrats, with the most shocking gains being made by Geert Wilders 'Party for Freedom' who went from 9 to 24 seats in one fell swoop making them the third largest party.

This is extremely worrying as the Party for Freedom is unashamedly anti-Muslim and anti-immigration. the fact that the three explicitly Christian parties all lost seats to the other two parties of the right might indicate a more general growing secularism, opposing both Islam and other religions, but this should not obscure the fact that Wilders' party is a clearly racist organisation, however they like to dress up their proposals.

The Labour Party and Socialist Party between them lost thirteen seats (3 and 10 respectively), which mainly appear to have been lost to the liberal Democrats 66 (who went from 3 to 10 seats) and the Green Left (who went from 7 to 10 seats).

I've put together this little chart of the new political make up of the Dutch House of Representatives, which I hope is helpful. Click on it to enlarge.


Quick explanation of chart:

The Party for Freedom is in black and the centre right parties in blue. The Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA), Christian Union and Reformed Political Party are all Christian parties who all lost vote share to the far right and the more secular VVD.

I've put Democrats 66 in yellow and in the middle although I'm aware that politically this is slightly more complex and they could well go in with the blue team ideologically.

The two center left parties are in red and the Green Left and the Party for Animals (!) in green. The fact I've placed the animal people on the far left does not denote that they are a bunch of commies, I just didn't know where else to put them, and next to the Greens seemed sensible.

Bits and bobs

• Bright Green Scotland has a round up of union news.
  
  
• War on Want has an interesting campaign against supermarkets.
  
  
• NCADC, the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns has cleaned up their web site.
  
  
• People and Planet have published their university Green league table.
  
  
• Odds tracker can't spell Oona, but other than that they predict the next London Mayor.
  
  
• Just a reminder that They Work For You will track what your MP is getting up to, or you can even track subjects. It's a great resource, and with all these new MPs there may well be people, like Caroline Lucas, that you'll want to follow.
  

King Livingstone

Good to see that Diane Abbott is on the ballot paper for Labour leader after a number of MPs who wont be voting for her backed her candidacy, in order to ensure that the contest was not simply between white men in suits. They may well get a shock if she does well though, but tough.

However, while the hoo ha continues about whether someone left of the center gets to lose the leadership to the Miliband franchise there is a far more important selection taking place inside of Labour. Namely, who is their best shot at winning the London Mayoralty where, in contrast to the national picture, it is the left who are ensconced in the arms of the establishment and the right who are the plucky outsiders raring to put some 'fresh ideas'.


As things stand right now it's going to be a Oona King vs Ken Livingstone stand-off with the winner to be decided at the Labour caber tossing contest late September. I'm interested not just because I'm a nosy beggar, but also because a) I live in London and so I'm curious as to who hopes to rule over me and b) we get a second preference in the Mayorals which, last time round, the Green Party officially recommended using for the Labour candidate.

This was the first time that the Greens had made a public recommendation on the second preference vote (you can see some of the joint leaflets in this campaign pic from 2008) and, while I know from first hand experience it made some sort of difference, it's not something that we gave away easily.

If Labour select Ken I'm confident we'll repeat that happy experience, but if they select some bomb loving politician-for-the-sake-of-it then I doubt London Greens would be shy about publicly critiquing the lack of progressive credentials in Labour candidate and we may well have a less supportive stance.

The two hopefuls are like chalk and cheese in many ways. King spent her time in Parliament as an ultra-loyal speak your policy machine while Livingstone has been a thorn in Labour's side for decades.

King has always been eminently ignorable and defeatable while Livingstone is a formidable customer, who walks the walk and is able to defeat real opponents both internal and external. He took on all comers, including Labour's Frank Dobson, to win the Mayoralty in the first place. His medal cabinet is unique in British politics, King on the other hand is "fresh" and essentially untested.

Labour MP David Lammy is backing Ken saying that "Above all, we need a political heavyweight. In 2012 the euphoria of the Olympics may well be tempered by the harsh realities of everyday life."

GMB union leader Paul Kenny is backing Ken saying “I am totally confident that with Ken elected as London Mayor in 2012 our transport, social housing and employment needs will once again receive the attention that London demands.”

Alternatively Oona says of her candidacy that "We can’t kid ourselves that we can beat Boris Johnson by using the same rhetoric or policy platform that failed last time. We need fresh new ideas. We need an honest conversation with London based on our values and aspirations – that’s what this site and my candidacy is about."

It's nice to hear she's going to single-handedly overturn Labour's entire policy platform, but her website gives little indication of in what way she intends to this. Does she mean she's going to reverse policy on transport and the congestion charge? Will she issue all Brazilians with bullet proof vests on the tube? What?

You see, for me, this selling point of freshness (and its related diversity) just doesn't work. Oona's politics aren't fresh at all. In the context of British politics it's always been Ken who has brought forward strong, new ideas and he continues to explore new ways of concretely improving London. Fresh and empty are not synonymous with each other.

Londoners like outsiders and, in general, I think they like the way Ken clearly loves the city. He's given his heart and soul to it for forty years or more. Where's Oona been in the five years she was out of Parliament? She just doesn't have the political grit required for the job as far as I can see and I suspect most people will see her candidacy as fuelled by personal ambition in a way quite different from Ken's ambitions that have always been tied to taking the hard road in politics.

The final argument against Ken is that he lost the last election because Londoners were 'sick off him' and that he was 'rejected' by London, but the facts tell a very different story. Year on year more Londoners voted for Ken at each successive election, despite the fact that 2008 saw Labour's vote slump across the rest of the country - something that was astounding feat for a Labour candidate.


Ken didn't lose the election Boris Johnson won it, taking Steven Norris' 28% in 2004 and turning it into a whopping 42% of the vote. Anyone who's going to overturn that level of support, particularly when Boris has not horrified most voters in the way he has us lefty politicos has got to have a proven track record of winning hard battles. Oona does not have that.

It's not that the Greens agree with Ken all the time, far from it, but he's a serious politician who we can work with on friendly terms and with whom we genuinely do share a great deal of political ground. The same cannot be said for King whose track record of coalition building does not extend beyond the Iraq invasion.

It's good that there's a choice and quite rightly I don't get a vote in Labour's selection process, but I will get a say in whether the Greens recommend a second preference for Labour in 2012 and that rests entirely on who they pick as their candidate.

What's going on (naked edition)

Why don't people just keep their clothes on for heaven's sake. Oh well.

If you're at a loose end you might want to take your loose ends on the World Naked Bike Ride which meets at 3pm Saturday 12th June by the Achilles Statue in Hyde Park, which is near Hyde Park Corner tube.

You don't need to be naked to go, but it only seems polite.

If all this peace and love is not to your liking you might like to take part in giving the master race a piece of your mind. The UAF and others are organising against the racist EDL marching through Tower Hamlets. This Sunday (13th) at 7pm there is a rally at London Muslim Centre, 46 Whitechapel Road, London E1 1JX and then next week on Sunday 20 June, Assemble 11am, Stepney Green Park, march to Altab Ali Park, Whitechapel.

Then there's the question of the health service, you might like to go to the Keep Our NHS Public AGM, Saturday 12th June 10 for 11am, Somers Town Community Centre, Ossulston St, NW1; Link

Sadly, at the same time is the COMPASS "A New Hope" Annual conference which has a range of blinding speakers at it. Saturday 12th June, Institute of Education, lots of speakers including Caroline Lucas, Hilary Wainwright, Paul Mason, loads more.

If sitting in stuffy rooms is your thing then there are even more conferences the week after. The pick of these would be the Morning Star Conference, Saturday 19th June from 10am Bob Crow, George Galloway and co. Congress House.

Alternatively you might like to assist the democratisation of this backward little island with the good people from Take Back Parliament. On Sunday 13th June at 2pm there will be a democracy picnic and flower laying. Victoria Tower Gardens, Adjacent to Parliament, London, SW1A 0AA

Thinking further ahead on Saturday 10th July at 2 p.m. there will be a protest against nuclear waste being transported through London. Victoria Park, Cadogan Gate entrance, Cadogan Terrace, E9. Nearest station Hackney Wick, March to Stratford Station.

Beautiful urban foxes

There's a mini-tabloid storm brewing against urban foxes because, apparently, a fox wandered into someone's home bit a couple of kids for kicks and then wandered off again. The papers do not record whether the fox's friends filmed the incident on their mobile phones, or whether the fox had arrived in London from Poland in a secret compartment in a lorry.

Whatever the ins and outs of the case, and let's assume it's all true, this would make it an extremely rare occurrence.

The Guardian tells us that "Vulpes vulpes has long fascinated and repelled us", which is news to me. Who is this "us" who have long been "repelled" by beautiful urban foxes? Bed wetting Guardian journalists no doubt.

The article ends with a list of ways of "off foxing the fox" which are basically a number of ways of moving the fox into your neighbour's garden.

Thankfully the Guardian's eco-wing has a better article by the sainted Terry Nutkins which a) casts doubt on whether this was a fox at all and b) reminds us that foxes not go out of their way to harm humans, the harm is purely a one-way process. Well worth a read.

The BBC reports that the authorities went and found a fox and killed it in retaliation but they also quote a fox expert, John Bryant, who says that a fox attack of this kind makes no sense what-so-ever.

Whatever really happened in this case I'm concerned that, in typical knee jerk fashion, we may be facing a reprisal fox cull which will make no one any the safer but do yet more to purge our cities of some of its most delightful inhabitants.

n.b. I wondered whether foxes ate rats in order for me to make a case that they were useful, but wikipedia seems to think they mainly eat insects and worms, but whether we can trust this source or not I don't know as it doesn't even mention their main diet, discarded kebabs.

Six blogs of interest

Half a dozen blogs I've not linked to previously.

• The Refugee and Migrant Forum of East London blogs what it says on the tin.
  
  
• Adam Pogonowski is one of our new Green Party councillors. He blogs rather well.
  
  
• Crooked Timber is a well established group blog that I've been reading for some time.
  
  
• Pippa Crerar blogs for the Evening Standard.
  
  
• An Australian left of centre group blog Larvatus Prodeo (h/t Hackney Pippa)
  
  
• I may or may not have linked to Left Foot Forward, so consider this a double check.
  

Sunday selection

• It appears that industry lobbyists helped draw up the Food Standard Agency's report on GM. That was helpful of them. Guardian.
  
  
• Are the media institutionally biased in favour of Israel? Splintered Sunrise takes a look.
  
  
• Questions about how to response to The English Defense League continue. Bob from Brockley has some thoughts.
  
  
• The war film that shocked Denmark. Guardian (again).
  
  
• Coalition reneges on plans to scrap NHS data base. Independent.
  
  
• It seems that the UK's religious education has been officially criticised as 'inadequate' as one in five teachers were "unsure of what they were trying to achieve in the subject". Sounds like healthy skepticism to me. BBC.