Social Icons

Showing posts with label Miscellany. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Miscellany. Show all posts

Friday, 5 July 2013

Home ... For Now

I'm home. The US road trip that Mrs Tyranny and I did these past few weeks was absolutely fantastic.  We drove a total of 3,480 miles, according to the odometer in our rental car.  If you'd like to see where we went, see the below image, but for more detail then you can view this Google map:

Click this link for a more detailed view of the above map
Along the way, we took lots of photographs. Over 1,400 photos.  Here's a small selection of pics (tip: if you want to see higher resolution images, click the gear icon on the photo album and choose it from the menu or alternatively select "view album on Imgur"):



Usually, at the end of most holidays, we look forward to coming back home.  But not this time.  We didn't want to leave.  For the past few years, we've discussed leaving the UK but we didn't know where we would move to.  Somewhere friendly, somewhere warmer, somewhere with a smaller tax burden, some place that was not under the thumb of Public Health nutjobs hell-bent on controlling our lives.*  Now we have a pretty good idea, so we're looking into making it happen.  Because with each passing day it is increasingly looking like we have no viable future nor opportunities in Britain.  The horrible monster that is the EU is a primary factor for wanting to leave the UK while the leaving is good (i.e. while our money is still worth something, and before it all goes tits up -- if it does that is). We could be outta here in a few months if all goes well and to plan...  I suppose we'll see what happens.

(*Public Health is infiltrated just about everywhere, and while the States certainly has issues, it is nowhere close to the Socialist hell that Britain and the EU has become, and will continue to be for the forseeable future. At least Public Health is not as insidious and dominant in the States as it is here in the UK.)

But I will continue to resist and fight against Public Health everywhere I find it. That is a certainty.

Saturday, 22 June 2013

Lessons Learnt in Las Vegas

So, I'm in Vegas.  I'm not the gambling type, nor is Mrs Tyranny.  We played some slots, came out ahead, but really... gambling doesn't do it for us.  That, and we have no idea how most of the games work -- the intricacies, the hand gestures, what to say, etc.  We're genuinely clueless about gambling.  Intrigued, but clueless. We could have used an old salt for a guide to Vegas.

But we learnt something.  Vegas casinos have the most amazing smoke extractors. You can be standing right next to somebody who is smoking and not smell a thing. The smoke dissipates immediately. There is no haze in the air; there is no lingering smell of smoke -- the air quality of the casino floors is the exact same as anywhere else in the hotels where smoking isn't allowed.  Ditto for our room, which is a smoking room. It doesn't smell at all of smoke, and we've smoked plenty in this sin bin.

It makes you wonder why this couldn't be replicated anywhere in Britain. Well, I don't wonder. I know why this hasn't happened in Britain.  It's because the anti-smokers don't want you to smoke anywhere. The anti-smokers hate smokers first and foremost -- it's never been about the health of non-smokers, because if it were, then Vegas would stand out as a prime example of smoke reduction. The technology to simply eradicate all smoke from the air clearly exists, evidently. And yet in England, Scotland and Wales, businesses owners are not allowed to have extractors nor allowed to let their customers smoke (legally) because Public Health said so, convinced our idiot politicians that people were dying from second-hand smoke. Which isn't true and never was true.  So Britons cannot smoke indoors, because the New Inquisition that is Public Health is trying to denormalise smokers.

But smoking is alive and well in Vegas. Because you can -- even the drunk muppets who don't normally smoke are smoking. And casinos have a special exemption from the anti-smoker laws here in Nevada that allow you to smoke on the casino floors -- but not in the restaurants directly adjacent to the casino.  Indeed, we ate at a restaurant that was attached to the casino and couldn't smoke at our table, but if we stood up and moved five feet away, we could smoke freely.  How absurd is that?

And that's another lesson learnt.  Everything anti-smoking / anti-smoker is utterly absurd.  We were only a few feet from the restaurant's boundaries and we could smoke. But if we sat down at the table, we couldn't. Madness.

So, that's Vegas for you.  Madness on top of madness.  We also learnt that Vegas is all about "bling" and "ass" and there is an abundance of both here.  It's a visual feast, at the very least.

Also, it's really fucking hot here, and one needs to drink plenty of water. It's been just under 100F (37C) every day we've been here. We were cold and shivering on the day we left England....

Changing the subject ... I've been looking over my blog stats, and I see that the What We Are Fighting For series of posts aren't particularly popular. I don't know why this is -- and I admit to being enormously disappointed for several reasons. But you live and learn, and you can't know what works and what doesn't unless you try. Your disdain of  history being compared to present-day aside, the posts will continue nevertheless whilst I'm on holiday -- because even though it seems you don't like them, it took me days to make them and the bonus comics, the latter I love to bits. So all 17 posts are going to be published anyway, because I think they're enormously important*, and because I'm stubborn like that, and because this is my blog.

*(I believe there is a great deal to be learnt from reading how Britain once fought against socialism. Maybe you don't, but that would be an error, in my opinion.)

Friday, 31 May 2013

Renormalise

Today is 31 May, 2013. It is "World No Tobacco Day."  Fuck 'em.

For me, today was a very, very good Tobacco Day.  The snus fairy delivered fresh snus so that I can use it when I travel to the States in two weeks' time.  You might recall that I like to travel with snus when flying, because flying sucks these days.

By complete coincidence, the hand-rolling tobacco fairy visited today as well, and "magically" I now have a gorgeous supply of 50g pouches of Belgian-bought Golden Virginia, thus legally starving the UK of the tobacco duty they so desperately want from smokers.  Because why would you pay up to sixteen or seventeen quid for a 50g pouch that you can buy for only five euros in Belgium?

This is the consequence of raising the duty on tobacco so high to "nudge" me to quit smoking; this is the consequence of the tobacco control industry's failed initiatives and legislation to "denormalise" smoking.  I haven't quit. I'm not going to quit (unless the anti-smokers take me up on my offer -- but they won't, because they need that money to figure out why everything they've ever done has failed to reduce smoking rates and likely increased them). I'm simply going to source my tobacco from a less oppressive regime. And when I can no longer do that for whatever reason, then I'll grow my own.  And if they try to make growing your own tobacco illegal, such as they do with cannabis (another massive government failure), then I suppose I will become a criminal.

More likely, I'll just leave the UK to a more favourable clime.

So, how's that for World No Tobacco Day?  Fuck 'em. Fuck all and every last one of those bastards.  Let us all now raise a two-fingered salute (or one-finger if you prefer to give these nazis the bird) to every hateful, socialist, piece of fucking shit that works in tobacco control:  you are all -- to every last man and woman --  evil, massive cunts.  I hope you all live forever.

What else should we do?

Well, Smoking Hot from the Nothing 2 Declare blog sent me a short missive suggesting that we make a video of smokers enjoying themselves, you know ... happy, partying, enjoying their life as we try to do best.  I think it's a great idea, so I agreed to make a video like this.  But we need your help to do it.  Actually, we need your photos and/or videos of you smoking to do it.

What do you think? Who wants to be infamous?  Want to be in a video that simultaneously shows how awesome we are and gives nanny two fingers?   If you do, then great!  But there's a catch.  It's a pesky legal thing, but an absolutely necessary legal thing.  OK, it's a bit more than one legal thing. And yes, it's a huge pain but it has to be done this way.  Let me explain by telling you what we're looking for exactly.

1.  You must own the photos/videos that you want me to put in the video.  No exceptions. Do not send me other people's photos/videos or those you found on-line, don't send me your friends' photos, don't send me the photos that your daughter-in-law took, and definitely don't send me the photos you found on Xhamster or any other amateur upload site.  I cannot use them unless they, the copyright owners, send them to me, and I will certainly check all photos to see if they exist elsewhere.  The photos and vids must be yours.  So if someone you know has photos of you smoking, then you need to ask them to send them to me.

2.  You must specifically agree to allow me to use the photos/videos in respect of this video we're making.  In effect, you are giving me an indefinite, non-exclusive, royalty-free licence to use the photos for only the video.  If you do not agree to those terms, then I cannot use your photos.  Note:  YOU still own your photos and vids, the copyrights, and everything. You're just giving me permission to use them for the video only, which will be released for free and will never make a penny.  So don't panic about these legal terms. Legal terms are designed to make the average person baulk and run away to give solicitors, lawyers and other attorneys an advantage on this stuff. To take your money.

3.  The people in your photos or vids, if they are not you, must also agree to have their likeness used in the video.  So you will need to obtain their permission as well.  I will need written confirmation from each person depicted in the photos or vids, for each individual photo or vid you submit.  Yes, I know this is a pain. I will do my best to make it as easy as possible for you by creating and providing a template to combine multiple submissions into one thing.

4.  Both the photographer and the people (models) in the photos or vids absolutely must agree to waive their "moral rights" in respect of using the photos for this video only.  What does this mean?  Well, it means that once you give me a licence to use the photos and I create the video, you cannot at some future date force me to take your photos out of the finished video because you had a change of heart about images of you smoking appearing on-line.  Essentially, it's a safety clause for me, the licensee. I will not use any photo where the moral rights have not been specifically waived. Period.

5.  Photos should be at least 800 x 600.  No smaller than that, please.  Larger is much better.  1200 x 762 or higher would be ideal, because the video will be in high-definition. Super massive photos that are so large as to have their own gravitational pull are also good.

And that's it.  In summary:

- You must own the photos/vids
- You agree to licence the photos/vids to me for use in the video
- The models in your photos/vids must also agree -- (if they don't, or they are unable to, then I can blur their image, but really... that's crap, and I don't want to have to do that, and to be fair I probably won't use the image. People who are dead cannot provide permission so they are an exception. I can use images of dead folk, but only as long as you're the owner of the photo.)
- Both the photographer (the copyright owner / licensor) and the models depicted in the photos agree to waive their "moral rights" in respect of these photos for this video.
- No tiny pics  -- photos should be at least 800 x 600.

Simple. Right?  Yeah?  Hello...  er... Where did everybody go?

Anyway.  We want cheerful photos. Fun and funny photos. Real photos of you. Sexy photos are good, too. Parties. Raves. Defying smoking bans. Whatever! Also, you can make your own artwork rather than take photos.  For example, see the stuff that Lawson Narse has made. Same legal stuff applies to your artwork -- DO NOT USE anybody's copyrighted stuff to create your artwork and drawings.  There is lots of free public domain stuff out there, though. Just be careful and make sure you can use things. In some cases, attribution may be required if you use someone else's stuff. 

Anything that shows smokers  enjoying themselves and that smoking is NORMAL is absolutely ideal. 

Because smoking is absolutely fucking normal.  That's why these public health fuckholes are so desperate to "de-normalise" something that is normal for a significant percentage (45% maybe?) of people all over the world. So on World No Tobacco Day, I say, "Fuck 'em!"  And so should you, if you want to do that. We'll counter their evil, fascist, Hitler-inspired denormalisation regime with our own liberty and freedom renormalisation video.  It's going to fucking rock!

Unless nobody sends in photos. Then it's going to suck ass.  So we need your help.

Oh, there's just one more thing. We need to do this sensibly and make it a bit easier on me. So I'm going to ask you to upload the photos to an on-line site somewhere of your choice.  I would recommend Imgur.com or even using your Google Drive account and sharing the pictures through that.  I don't want to receive any actual photos/images by e-mail. And there is no guarantee that your photo(s) will be used.

Before we go whole-hog on this idea, let me know what you think in the comments, or e-mail with concerns, suggestions, or whatever. I'm thinking that once it's kicked off properly, we'll allow for about 30 days for submissions.  And um, yeah... that's the awesome idea that Smoking Hot came up with and of course I ruined with all of this legal bullshit.  But needs must.

Let me know, please.

Yours sincerely,
Jay

P.S.:  Huge thanks to everybody who shared the last video "The Root of All Evil".  Much appreciated. If you didn't share it, why the fuck not?

P.P.S:  I may request tiny pieces of your souls for the video too, at my discretion.  But that will probably be optional.

Wednesday, 29 May 2013

Inspiration

Inspiration is a mercurial thing.  I never know what is going to inspire me or when it will strike.

I do know that I am rarely (if ever) inspired by the ubiquitous images with quotes and other sayings that unnecessarily eat up data transfer limits on the Internet. And that self-awareness subsequently inspired me. So I made this.


The irony of creating and sharing this image is not lost on me, I assure you.

Speaking of inspiration, that ranty freeman Cap'n of Lawful Rebellion is certainly feeling uninspired, and I completely understand how he feels. I cannot speak for anyone but me, but I would definitely say that most of us bloggers don't blog to be famous, or for any kind of notoriety. We blog for you, and of course for ourselves.  We hope that what we write inspires you -- gets you thinking, seeing things in a different way, or better, gets you doing something.  That last one is the toughest.

If I fail, then at least I tried.  There is no shame in failure. There is only the inexcusable shame in not doing something for fear of failing. Everybody fails. Nobody succeeds at everything all of the time. Nobody, not even The Root of All Evil (though his ego would never allow him to admit it, and if he did admit failure it would be somebody else's fault).  But if you don't like what I write, if you think my silly videos, music and images suck, then by all means let me know.  I cannot possibly know what works and doesn't work unless people say something. Yes, I'm talking to you. Take a moment and leave a comment now and then. Don't be shy - be honest and direct. I'd prefer that over silence any day.

Getting frustrated and angry because you have no idea if what you're doing makes any difference at all ... this is an entirely different thing.  I get how Cap'n Ranty feels. I feel precisely the same way most of the time.

Wednesday, 13 February 2013

Beer, Baccy and Crumpets

In case you hadn't noticed, there is a candidate in the Eastleigh by-election named Ray Hall, who is running for the Beer, Baccy and Crumpet party. I don't know anything about Mr Hall, but I love the party name. One assumes, perhaps incorrectly, that "crumpet" refers not to the actual foodstuff but rather the older slang usage -- woman. £500 well spent, if you ask me. 

In honour of beer, baccy and women then, I give you this delightful photo album comprised of 21 glorious images, all of which are certain to enrage the nannies.  If you have a favourite, let me know in the comments.




Several images were stolen (with thanks!) from the Women Drinking Beer blog on Tumblr.  Enjoy.



Tuesday, 15 January 2013

January - A Time for Prohibitionist Propaganda

Nearly all of this BBC Magazine article written by Tom de Castella and titled "Alcohol-free January: Where can you go to avoid people drinking?" pisses me off.  I read it yesterday afternoon, and tried to avoid thinking about it, but then later I saw it was the eighth-most read article as of 11:30 p.m. last night (14 Jan 2013) and I couldn't ignore it any longer.

Where to start? How about the beginning: 
 January is a time for sobriety.
Says fucking who? January is merely the first month of the year. That's it. Wikipedia fails to mention anything about January being a time for sobriety. So does everywhere else. If anything, January is the month when New Year's resolutions are broken in spades.  I've never made a New Year's resolution, by the way.  It's not that I'm afraid of failing; it's more to do with whenever I decide to do or change something, I don't feel this daft need to wait until the beginning of the next year to do it. I'll do it immediately, or maybe the next day if I feel like procrastinating. A week tops.

Next:
It's the only time of year in the UK when a lot of people bond over not drinking.
No it isn't.  Ever hear of Alcoholics Anonymous? They do it year-round. Although membership statistics are hard to discern, the Plymouth AA site estimates about 40,000 UK members. That's "a lot" of people, who are bonding over not drinking.

Oh, this is a good one:
Those responding to campaigns like this can face a tricky month. Nobody wants to avoid socialising for a whole month, but with the British mania for social lubrication it's hard to avoid temptation.
OK, who ever said you have to avoid socialising in order to be sober?  And "British mania for social lubrication"? That makes it sound like every last one of us belongs in AA.  This is confusing the "traditional" pint with mates with mania -- and that's asinine.
Occasions that seem to have no particular connection to drinking are still alcohol-laden occasions in British society. Sport's associated with health, but how many people gather for a game of five-a-side football and hit the bar immediately afterwards?
Big deal. So do a lot professional athletes after a game.  Yet people aren't drinking whilst they're playing sports ... most of them, anyway.  Is it a fucking crime to have a pint or two after a match?  Perhaps a little something to help ease the pain of being kicked in shins for an hour? C'mon, give the people a break.
Five-a-side centres typically have a bar to cater for this desire and Carling launched a 2% beer for the post-football drinkers.
Sounds like a good business plan to me -- why let potential customers take their business elsewhere? And, oh my god, a 2% Carling for the post-football drinkers!  Ooh, those clever Big Alcohol people targeting the vulnerable post-football drinkers. That'll be their undoing, certainly.

In the "What you reading fer?" category: 
Book club usually means drinking. Many base themselves in pubs and even a Sunday lunchtime meeting can still mean endless glasses of cheap white wine.
I did not know that book clubs gather in pubs or that they were "alcohol-laden" events. Those that do gather in a pub probably do so because the pub is the traditional meeting place in most villages, towns and cities (again, excepting smokers these days).  It's been that way for centuries.  But this: "Endless glasses of cheap white wine."  Really?  Are you certain that "endless" is not a bit of an exaggeration, Tom?  Endless?  Fuck me. Endless. Who knew?
It's possible to turn a drink down, especially if you have religious dispensation. But for everyone else, eyebrows may be raised if one is not driving, pregnant, or on antibiotics.
Oh, noes! Not the raised eyebrows! How could anyone ever show their face in public again after being subjected to a raised eyebrow. Mortified, they'll likely hang themselves and make the news. There is almost a hint of conspiracy there, too.  It's all a sinister plot to get you to have a drink. Everyone else is drinking. If you don't, then you're not one of us, you're one of them.  It's all very Body Snatchers.

Indeed:
There's a rounds culture once you get there. You are buying into the collective.Anyone abstaining is sending a message to the group. "If someone opts out from the group it's almost like a rejection," says social anthropologist Kate Fox, author of Watching the English. "Others will get drunk and silly and the one opting out will look on a bit pious and disapproving." 
Well, there is that.  Of course, you can still buy a round for your mates even if you're on the tonic water with lime.  In fact, if you're worried about how others might perceive your abstinence, you can fib and tell them that your drink is a double gin and tonic.
So what can the alcohol abstainer do without becoming a hermit? Lobby group Drink Aware suggests karaoke [...]
Heh. You could, but do you really want to? The only time I ever did karaoke was in 1991, in Japan, and we were all absolutely thrashed, which I understand is the preferred Japanese method.  I think most people only ever attempt karaoke after a few drinks, because that's when you feel like a rock star the most.

While we're on the topic of suggested things to do whilst sober, these gems appeared in the BBC article in the sidebar:
  • Ride around on London Underground, where alcohol has been banned since June 2008
Are you fucking kidding me?  Ride around on the Tube. We only take the Tube when we have to take the Tube. Why the hell would we willingly subject ourselves to being sardined with a bunch of people who have just come from the pub?  Think this one through, BBC.  Think it through...
  • Visit Fitzpatrick's in Rawtenstall, Lancashire, UK's last temperance bar, serving wide range of cordials
There's a reason why it's the last temperance bar in the UK.  I'll give you one guess.
  • Rave at Breakin' Out in Wales, alcohol-free music festival (2012 headliners included Tinchy Stryder)
To begin, let's set aside that it's in Wales (and why am I not surprised at all by that?). Let's also avoid asking the question: who the fuck is Tinchy Stryder? (Sorry. I asked it anyway.) And this is the real important bit, it happened last fucking year, in September!  Ain't nothing planned for this year yet, certainly not in January, when "a lot of people" want to bond over not drinking, apparently. Way to be timely, BBC and Tom.

The BBC's idea of a good time? Jeez.


There's plenty more in the article to sneer at, but I've covered enough.

It comes down to this: If you don't want to drink on a night out, then don't. You don't have to be pregnant or on antibiotics to say no thanks. You don't need to make excuses.  The only person you need to answer to is yourself.  Articles like the above from the BBC often reinforce the warped agenda of the prohibitionists, that you are all victims and helpless addicts, unable to take control of your life, or that there is something inherently wrong about the British way of life and you.

It's sad that there are those who seek to destroy British culture and traditions in the name of paternalism and socialism.  They want you to feel ashamed for who you are and the things you choose to do.  But you don't need to feel ashamed because you want to have a pint (or "endless glasses of cheap white wine") and a fag. Before the smoking ban, the heart of almost all communities was the pub and it was a natural place to meet up even if you were going somewhere else. The anti-smokers ripped out that heart and stamped on it.  Now some of the same people have moved on to alcohol control. And they won't be satisfied until every last one of us is forced to conform and adhere to their beliefs.

I don't believe that Britain has a drinking problem. The one problem we do have is that we lack the national will to once again round up all of the puritans, march them up the gangway, hoist anchor and ship them off to another country where they can torment each other with their misguided religious beliefs and leave us in peace to live out our lives as we see fit.

Maybe history will repeat itself...  one can only hope... for really rough seas... and a bit of scurvy, too.

UPDATE:  I've just seen that Frank Davis also wrote about this article, which you can read here.  It gave him the creeps, too.

Tuesday, 23 October 2012

Battle of Ideas

I have been quiet the past few days because I was lucky and privileged to attend the Battle of Ideas at the Barbican on Sunday, for which I owe many thanks to several people for making it happen (you know who you are).  Others have already blogged about the sessions, covering everything I would have written about, so if you want to know what it was like, check out these pages:

Tom Paine's "Compulsion Works" over at The Last Ditch is an excellent write-up of the events.

Angela Harbutt provides her views on a day well-spent here at the Liberal Vision blog.

And Dick Puddlecote reports on what he saw that day -- and the sad truth is that the True Believers in Public Health honestly believe you are incapable of raising your own children or making your own decisions.

So please do go read all of those accounts for truly valuable insights into the minds of the Public Health zealots' quest to save you from yourself, no matter how great the cost to taxpayers, the costs to society, and the even greater costs to people's lives -- all of us who are affected by legislation that seeks to dehumanise and denormalise everyone who does not subscribe to the gospel of Public Health.

I thoroughly enjoyed the sessions that I attended, and it seemed to me that the majority of the audience in attendance at the sessions were not aligned with the Public Health movement, which I take as a good thing

But the absolute best part of my day was getting to meet many fellow freedom fighters for the first time (most are in blogroll at right, and the few that are not shall be added shortly).  Without exception, everyone I met was awesome and really impressed me -- these are some of the nicest and smartest people I have ever had the privilege to meet.  Everyone was utterly gracious and kind.  It's safe to say that we all had a great time up at the pub, and pints of beer kept magically appearing in my hand.  Really fantastic and genuine people all around -- so do not believe anyone in Public Health or the Tobacco Control Industry who says otherwise.

So, again huge thanks to everyone I met for being excellent company on Sunday night.  It was my pleasure to meet all of you.


Tuesday, 16 October 2012

People

I think too much.  That's my problem.  I wonder how much easier or simpler my life would be if I could shut off that annoying, critical thinking facility that truly forces me to scrutinise every thing I hear or read.  What if I could be ignorant to everything but my own immediate needs?  What if I didn't care about anyone or anything but me?  Would I be happier, more sated with life?  I don't know. All I do know is that thinking gets me in trouble.

That's not to say that I'm versed in all subjects of life here on this planet, because certainly I am not -- not even close.  There is so much I do not know and will never know.  Sometimes it's because I haven't learned something because I do not have time to learn it.  Other times it's because I can never know.

Consider this:  I'm white -- my heritage is French, English, Scottish, Irish, and a trace of Native American (from one of my great-grandparents, I'm told). I'm a proper mutt, and clearly my family got around the genetic block a little bit, but then again, not so much really. So I grew up and went to school as a white kid, in an area that was 95% white. I've lived my entire adult life as a white guy.  I can only ever know what it's like to be white.  Because I cannot be anyone else.

No matter how much I read about other cultures, no matter how often I talk about race issues with my friends who aren't white and what's it like for them, indeed no matter what I do, I can never fully understand or appreciate what it's like to be black, hispanic, asian, oriental, or from any other culture or "race" including Native Americans.  It's an impossibility, and any white person who thinks they do understand this is fooling themselves.  You cannot know because you have to live it to truly and fully understand it.

Sure, I can try to make assumptions about what it might be like to be from another culture, yet I suspect these will be false and incorrect. I can draw comparisons to my own experiences and assume what someone else might feel, but I can't really know even if its spelt it out for me.  Certainly, I can learn about someone's culture and I can learn what is acceptable and what is not. I can get by on that much -- I really have no other choice. I can certainly feel for people's crappy situations, but that's an emotion, not an understanding.

The very best I can do is to be what I believe is a decent person and treat everyone equally, on an individual per-relationship basis and learn how that person wants to be treated and treat them that way.  In that regard, that's how I've lived my entire life.  Getting down to brass tacks, the only thing that matters is how we treat each other, regardless of culture, heritage and race. Because I don't think in terms of race. I think only in terms of how you treat me as an individual.

And I think (this is the part where my mind gets me in trouble) that some people too often class someone's actions as racist when in fact it is fear of different cultures, ethnic or religious, or simple ignorance.

You cannot hate something you do not know or understand. You might fear it, because it's unlike anything you do understand, but to instinctively hate it? No, I think that's an impossibility.  You can choose to ignore something, too.  It is true, however, that you can be taught to believe in something, or taught to hate, or both at the same time. You can reject all that you have been taught, too.  You can also choose to embrace anything that is different from yourself and your views and accept the things you see for what they are, or in the case of people, who they are.

Furthermore, I accept that that personal experiences will greatly affect how we interpret and interact with the world around us. For instance, a person who was assaulted by someone of a different culture or race could very well conclude, quite incorrectly, that all people of that culture and heritage are of the same violent ilk.  Logically, we know it's utter bollocks to believe that, but I think something entirely different is likely to be at play here.

We have these big brains in our skulls, which should help us work out if what we think or feel is irrational, and yet our basic instincts for survival, for avoiding pain or harmful situations, predominate our decision-making processes, at times for the worse in respect of personal relationships.  A woman who is raped by a man may conclude that all men are rapists (or at least "potential rapists"). It's not remotely true that all men are potential rapists, but truth in this instance doesn't matter to the woman who was raped. What could matter to her most is never being raped again (note: I have no experience with rape issues at all, and not being a woman I cannot possibly know what matters most to woman who was raped -- consider it a hypothetical statement, please).  Her conclusions about all men may be illogical, certainly reactive, but I think that's how our brains are supposed to work, so that we can learn from the terrible things that happen and make sure it never happens again to us.

In fact, I think all animal life on this planet works precisely this way.  Because it has to, else nothing would survive for very long. If every time I hear a bell ring and someone smacks me in the face, eventually, and I hope fairly quickly, I'm going to start ducking or covering my face when I hear bells ring.  I don't know, though, and maybe I'm wrong. I can accept that my views are incorrect, because I'm not an expert on life, the universe and everything.  I'm only expert in understanding me, and I reluctantly concede that I may not even be expert at that.

Still, I believe there has to be a difference between racism and eugenics -- the Master Race line of thinking that the Nazis idealised -- and just not getting on with a culture that is different from your own because you don't understand it or don't want to understand it. One is based on an idea, and the other is likely based on personal identity or, in the larger sense, belonging to a group.

I almost wrote here that I understand racism because I've experienced it many, many times, but truth be told I'm not certain that is what I actually experienced.  I lived in Japan for a time, and there were several bars and other establishments that would not let me enter simply because I was not Japanese. They were Japanese-only clubs. "No gaijin allowed."  On what basis they decided that particular policy is a mystery to me. Did some British or American servicemen once tear up the joint, or too many times perhaps?  It's possible; it's even likely.  Yes, I was excluded on the basis of my nationality, but was that a racist decision or was it something else?  I'm not sure because I don't know how they came to that decision.

Likewise, I've been refused entry to pubs and clubs that cater to a black crowd. One of these incidents was particularly hilarious to me because my band was playing in the club that night and the doorman didn't believe that I, then a 21-year-old skinny white kid wearing Dr Martens and plaid shorts, would be in a blues and soul band. The doorman was pleasant enough about it, but he wasn't letting me in. I don't remember his exact words, but I remember the look on his face said to me, "Kid, you ain't got no business in this place."  I had to wait outside in the car park until our guitar player, who was the only black guy in the band, showed up and gave the doorman the low-down.  Yet a wonderful thing happened.  We owned the club that night -- this tiny place which could comfortably hold 80 people at best was packed with 200 people, and everyone in there was dancing and had a great time, including me.  There was no stage -- we played in corner of the dance floor, and people were dancing all around us, sometimes chatting us up while we played.  One of my fondest gigs, to be honest.

When I look back on that time, I wonder if the doorman was being racist or was there something else at play? One could argue that I didn't belong in that club because I was white, but I don't think that's a good argument. If I was white and there to cause trouble? Better. Indeed, you could make a compelling argument that some dickhead white guys came in there more than a few times and fought with the black customers, and that the management had decided to keep all of the white guys out in order to preserve the peace and the business.  I really don't know the reason. Maybe it was racism. Or maybe it was something else.

My very first "best friend" came when I was aged eight or nine.  His name was Mark, and Mark was black.  He was one of three or four black kids at my school. I never gave his skin colour much thought because the reasons I liked Mark had nothing to do with race.  We both liked the same things. The same cartoons. The same sports. A little later when we were about ten or eleven, we liked the same girls, so long as those girls also liked the stuff we did, and I think there was exactly one girl who did, which caused a little bit of contention between us.  Anyway....

Mark had this joke about black people that he use to tell all the time to anyone new that he met, and when I think about it now I know that if anyone said it today, it would be branded "incredibly offensive." Or "insensitive." There would be gasps of horror, cries of inappropriateness, and any kid who would dare tell this joke these days would be suspended from school. Likewise, adults who tell the joke will likely lose their jobs, or maybe in Australia or Britain they would be arrested for being racist.  But back then we used to laugh and giggle at Mark's joke, like kids do.  It wasn't offensive, and not because it was the black kid who told the joke so that made it OK kind of thing.

Fair warning, dear readers: I am going to write the joke below. I am fully aware that some truly sad people out there, in Australia and Britain no doubt, will complain that it's racist and and offensive and I will have yet another takedown, but screw it -- I'm telling you a true story and you need to understand what the actual joke was in order to ken what I'm on about.  If you can't deal with that, I would humbly suggest voluntarily leaping from a great height to end your miserable, pathetic and humourless life. Just a suggestion, really.  Because it's a joke, people. And some jokes, like this one, quite often hit home with the painful truth of what so many are unwilling to face.

The joke went like this.
Mark would hold up both of his hands and say:

"Why are black people's palms lighter than the rest of their body?"

Dramatic pause, murmurs of I dunno. Mark would then turn and face a wall and put both hands on it.

"Because they all had their hands up against the wall like this when God spray-painted them black," he'd say.
That's the joke. Is it really suspension-worthy these days? Arrest-worthy? I hardly think so. But then I always think too much. I don't know who would be more offended by it -- those who actually experience racism or those who perpetrate it and feel guilty about their actions. My guess would be the latter.

Of course, I know now that the joke had more to do about the endemic racism and race profiling in the police forces, but as a young kid I really didn't understand that aspect of it. That was way above my head.  I laughed back then because the idea of people being spray-painted by a god was utterly absurd, even for an eight-year-old, and of course one's cartoon-brain kicks in and that made it funny to me.  I have to also wonder if Mark fully appreciated the scope of his joke. I don't know, but I'd bet he did.  In the summer when I was twelve, Mark's family moved away and I've never heard from him since.

A year or two later, I had a brief summertime girlfriend who was black, but in all honesty I never thought about her skin colour, because we had grown up together and she was a friend. When I was sixteen and seventeen, I dated a Korean girl.  I also fell in love for the first time at seventeen with a Chinese-Hawaiian girl.  At nineteen, I got engaged to a different woman, whose parents were bigots and racists, and it was the very first time I had ever met anyone openly racist. I despised my fiancée's parents. It strained our relationship. Fortunately, our engagement ended when I went to live in Japan (which may be why I chose to go to Japan).  There I dated several Japanese girls, and to this day I'm still trying to remember how we got past the language barrier.  My Japanese was horrible at first. The relationships were a funny mix of sweetly humorous misunderstandings and an intense curiosity about a culture I could never fully understand but really wanted to know better.

After Japan I was in America and there I dated a number of other girls (as you do when you're young and you play in bands), and one I had fallen for was Mexican-American. Again, I didn't really think about her heritage -- I just really liked her.  But I also remember a conversation I had had with someone around that time, who asked me, "Don't you like white girls?"

Well, yeah, I did. I liked all women. Race, culture -- what did that have to do with anything?  But then I started thinking about it (because I think too much) and realised they had a point. I looked back at most of my ex-girlfriends and realised only a few had been white. I had not considered this at all before.  I briefly entertained the notion of being racist against your own race. Was that even possible?  I suppose anything is possible, yet I did not feel this applied to me. No. I liked white girls too. I was certainly not prejudiced against white girls. But the truth was, I liked people who were different than me even more, so I was more likely to be attracted to girls who were not white.

I also came to understand that I'm not alone in this preference for things outside of my own culture. In some regards, it's built in to all of us.

For instance, Americans hear a British accent and say, "Oooh! You're British. How wonderful to meet you! I just love your accent. It's awesome! Say something. Oh! Say it again! Hey everybody, come over here, we got ourselves a Brit! Listen to that accent! Go on, say something. Isn't that great? I love it. By the way, have you ever met the Queen or Prince Charles?"

Whilst Britons hear an American accent and say, "Is that a Canadian accent I detect there, mate? No? Oh, terribly sorry. You're American. Gotcha. And em, sorry about that, mate -- Canadians get a bit tetchy if you ask if they are American. Safer to ask if you're Canadian, you know since Americans don't get offended by that, but the Canadians...Good christ.  By the way, you didn't vote for Bush, did you? No? Fucking tosser, that man. Right, then. Lovely to meet you."

Speaking of voting. The Americans are having an election in November. I'm sure you've heard almost nothing about it.  I gotta say that I'm truly disinterested in all things political, except that I think we should vote them all out to end the career politician corruption thing.  Churchmouse Campanologist has been ringing some bells about the Obama/Romney matchup for a few weeks now. Well worth checking out. Seriously. Do. I hope to cover the election in a different post later this week, but read CC's for a primer.

If I had a point to this post -- and I'm not certain that I do any longer -- it would be that some things aren't necessarily racist. Sometimes it's "culturalist."  I think it depends on intent, primarily.  We are too quick to categorise something as racist when it is merely ignorance, or something far more sinister: Class-ism.

Humans are tribal, group-oriented beings. We instinctively yearn to be part of a like-minded pack of similar beings, some kind of group identity to associate ourselves with and feel like we belong to something greater than ourselves and for our survival.  Politics manipulates and exploits that human yearning magnificently, to our great detriment.  Likewise, the Public Health and The World Is Doomed Because of Mankind's Carbon Emissions Global Warming religions do the same. It is no coincidence that anti-smoker / anti-drinker / anti-everything prohibitionists align themselves with the Green and Global Warming movements. It is all much for muchness to them, different but with the same end result. Save everyone from themselves. It's about power and control. And that's why politicians embrace it.

Some of us, however, do not require any sort of group to identify with in order to feel fulfilled. These peculiar people recognise our greatest strength lies within our individuality and differences, an acceptance of all people for who they are and how they act and treat others, not the colour of their skin, or what religious beliefs they hold, or where they hail from.  I try to be one of these people.  I should also add that I love your imperfections, for these are things that make you special and unique. I do not want to change you into some idealised version of a human, because then you wouldn't be the person I loved.

Right. This epic post is ends with this observation:

I can trace almost every great evil inflicted on the populations of the world throughout all eras of human existence to a groupthink, hive-mind, propagandised crusade for an unachievable construct of perfection or an ideal existence for a particular group of people.

Perhaps if we just let people be themselves, perhaps if we stopped trying to control others by forcing a set of beliefs upon them, the combined sum of our imperfections and differences would result in a much more perfect world than we can possibly imagine.

Or not.

Worth a go, I think, for the craic.

Sunday, 23 September 2012

Generations

I've just read this opinion piece over at The Student Journals web site titled "Plain packaging on cigarettes won't help."  Written by Michael Allen, who is studying politics and international studies at Warwick, the article attempts to make the case against plain packs by asking whether we should allow a paternalistic government to intrude on our lifestyle choices and by drawing comparisons to fast food and alcohol ads.

While I am delighted that Mr Allen believes plain packaging "won't help" reduce smoking rates, and I am very pleased to see honest, factual statements such as "No one starts smoking because they like the look of a cigarette packet," some of the opinion piece irks me for regurgitating some of the Public Health religion's propaganda as though these were facts. They are not facts, although I understand the point Allen is making with the comparisons. I have no desire to make an issue out of the inaccuracies nor blame Allen for possibly believing in some of it. Nevertheless, I decided to blog about this when I read these lines near the end of the opinion:
Young people are becoming more and more savvy when it comes to advertising. They can see through the obvious marketing ploys that were effective on the generation before them. 
I know what he means to say: Kids aren't stupid, and we don't need to patronise them and assume they're easily swayed by marketing practices. We don't need to overprotect them. I just don't think he said it right.

Here's why: Young people of all generations have been able to see through obvious marketing ploys. My generation (which is Generation X) was equally savvy in our youth -- we were not fooled nor tricked by advertising and marketing techniques any more or less than Allen's generation is now. Perhaps some kids were deceived, just like some young kids today may be. My parents were Baby Boomers and they were no more susceptible than I or you.  Any assumption that a particular generation is somehow better able to see through advertising techniques is incorrect and misguided



Thank you, Bill. Well said. :)

Many teenagers and some young adults believe that older adults do not understand what it is like to be young. I may have believed this too, I suppose. It is the one of the great follies of youth to believe that you are somehow different than those who came before you and that nobody outside of your generation can possibly understand what it's like for you. Yet adults do understand exactly what it's like. They may not know (or care to know) what the latest popular teeny trends are, or who the coolest teeny bands are these days, but adults know what it's like to be a kid because they were once kids. I know, unbelievable.

When we were young, a lot of us thought we knew everything about everything. Our heads were filled with ideals about saving the world, fixing this national crisis or that international crisis, or becoming rich and famous actors or musicians. We went to schools, colleges or universities and we believed what our educators told us about the state of the world, only to find out later through hard-earned life experience that some of those educators deceived us. Truth be told, we didn't know squat about how the world really works, of course. We probably still don't know much more if we were being honest with ourselves. 

I suppose our only advantage is that the older we get, the more perspective we gain and the better able we are to make informed decisions. Well, some of us perhaps, and obviously not enough of us do. And yes there are some adults who think that kids today are somehow totally different than how we were like. They aren't. Not really. Kids will be kids. It is the great folly of adulthood to believe that each new generation is somehow less prepared for life.

Times change, attitudes change, marketing techniques change to suit current interests and demographic profiles, and technology certainly changes.  But the growing up part hasn't changed at all. We all went through it, and with luck some of us possibly learned a little along the way. 

We always knew that companies were trying to sell us their crappy products with their bullshit advertising. In reality, we ignored the ads (but we liked the funny ones because they made us laugh), for many of the kids of my day just wanted the same stuff that other kids had, particularly the popular kids. We rebelled and often disregarded the advice adults gave us, just like previous generations had done. We knew that smoking had risks. We knew that drinking had risks. We knew that drugs had risks. We certainly knew that fast food and fizzy drinks were not the healthiest food choices we could make. We did not care.

David Bowie explained it well enough in his song Changes way back in 1971, the year I was born:

And these children that you spit on
As they try to change their worlds
Are immune to your consultations
They're quite aware of what they're going through

Today's kids, they are products of the environment that adults create for them, for better or worse, and these kids are just as smart or dumb as we ever were.  I think it's a mistake to believe otherwise.

Monday, 10 September 2012

Steve Taylor - An Incomplete History

Please note: This is an off-topic personal interest post, which has almost nothing to do with the usual topics and people covered on this blog.  The only connection is that the subject had tweeted about the Hands Off Our Packs campaign and this brought him to my attention. I dug deep into this man's background and discovered that he has quite a history. Since then I've been following this man's story very closely. He is not a nannying tyrant like those usually featured on these pages, but I believe the story is worth writing about, so I'm writing it.  I have no affiliation or interest in any of the charities mentioned below.


On 7 September 2012, Steven (Steve) Paul Taylor, a.k.a Steve Taylor Corps, was sentenced to jail for 16 months for defrauding the League Against Cruel Sports charity (LACS) for nearly £15,000. He is expected to serve about 8 months in jail.  This is not Steve Taylor's first criminal conviction for fraud, but we will come to that later.

Steve Taylor first came to my attention on 27 June 2012.  On Twitter he had sent a tweet panning one of the Hands Off Our Packs campaign videos, although it's not clear which film he meant. I was a bit surprised that anyone who had a social marketing and public relations business called "Incredibly Social" would publicly tweet this:


It seemed rather anti-social to me, so I replied back to that tweet (which is below).  What followed next was a quick search on who this guy was and a series of tweets between Taylor and me. Unfortunately, he deleted most of tweets before I could save them, and what I have saved is a bit limited and does not show the entire conversation. Nevertheless, it was his smugness and arrogance that irked me enough to look into who he was. And what I found was quite revealing.

My first port of call was to check his website (which is no longer accessible and was so short-lived that not even the Wayback Machine had time to archive it) for contact info for a full name, but despite a claim on his site that he was a member of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, nowhere on his site did he give his full name. That was odd. My next stop was to look at the domain registration of his web site.  So I did a WHOIS lookup on IncrediblySocial.net and found it registered to "Taylor Corps."  The administrative contact was listed as Steven Taylor.  Gotcha.

Before we go further, here are the saved tweets I do have, with explanations, and while I admit it is a bit petty, I hope it shows you why I became interested in Taylor's background:

The first tweet exchange. Note the #smug hashtag. This arrogance prompted me to look into his background.



The second exchange, after a quick search. I found two articles about a Steve Taylor under investigation for defrauding to different charities. I wasn't sure if it was him, but his reply almost confirmed it.
Links:
Sacked League Against Cruel Sports worker held in fraud probe - BBC News Surrey (21 November 2011)
Prisoner charity focus of fraud inquiry - TES Newspaper (15 September 2006, updated 11 May 2008)

This tweet received no reply, but at this point I was thinking that perhaps Steve Taylor was astroturfing for one of the usual suspect charities, like ASH, BHF, or CRUK. Turned out he wasn't, but we'll get to that.

Our  third exchange, me taunting him a little. Very likely I would have stopped here if he admitted who he was, but he didn't. I have a suspicion (based on that the tweet came from his Blackberry and the #ttfn - ta ta for now tag) that he was out at the pub and a bit drunk by this point.

Our fourth exchange. This is the last tweet I had saved before he deleted all of his tweets. I wasn't really planning on blogging about him, I just wanted him to admit who he was.

I also found this tweet on Twitter, which I retweeted. Evidently, somebody (I do not know who this is) was unhappy with Steve Taylor as far back as March 2012:


From here I do not have any more of Taylor's tweets to me saved, which is a shame. But I had noticed that Taylor's company, Incredibly Social, had done some social media and web site development for some businesses.  So, a bit inebriated myself by this time, I tweeted to one of them, only to find out that Steve Taylor was managing their Twitter account on their behalf:

I don't have the reply to this saved, but Steve Taylor said it was he managing the account, that I was dumb, and that I should call the pub directly.
After getting Taylor's response through the pub's account on Twitter, I tweeted:


The reply I got from Taylor was that I was merely the Twitter equivalent of gravel on the motorway. He deleted that tweet to me, but he re-wrote it and tweeted it again (note: I have only just captured this tweet, and Taylor has since changed his Twitter name at least twice - his latest Twitter name is @leaguesteve):

OK, so now you see how all of this came about.  Yes, a bit petty all around.  I was quite "pished" by this point, and I went to bed. When I woke up the next morning, all of Taylor's tweets to me were deleted.

Undaunted, a bit hungover, and still unsure if Steve Taylor had been astroturfing for the likes of ASH or other charities (which was my original mission to find out), I restarted my Internet search into his background.

If Taylor had any links to ASH, CRUK or any other charity that is actively campaigning for Plain Packs, I couldn't find any trace of them on-line.  The closest link to any "cancer" charity that I could find was the Michelle Harby Foundation, for which Steve Taylor had been the secretary.

Who registered their domain? Steve Taylor.

You will no longer find any mention of Steve Taylor on the foundation's web site -- it has been scrubbed completely, which is fair enough. 

To find out more on Steve Taylor's past involvement with the Michelle Harby Foundation, you have to rely on local news reports, the foundation's Facebook page and a few other sites:

Foundation honours mum - This is Devon (1 March 2011)
Facebook Wall Post indicating Taylor is a trustee of the charity  (22 May 2011)
Michelle charity launch - This is Plymouth (25 May 2011)
Love of music and the beach shared and remembered through the Michelle Harby Foundation - The People's Republic of South Devon (2 June 2011)
Memorial trust award first award - Cornish Guardian via This Is Cornwall (21 Sept 2011)
Michelle Harby Foundation Facebook wall photo shared with public
Scholarship is foundation's first award - Plymouth Herald via This is Cornwall (23 Sept 2011)
Twtrland Profile Page indicating Taylor (@stetay) is secretary for the foundation

Steve Taylor - @stetay
Image via Twtrland.com

Anyway, I could find no link between Taylor and ASH or between the Michelle Harby Foundation with other charities. One is left to presume that Steve Taylor was not astroturfing on behalf of anyone, nor was the charity advocating on behalf of other charities' campaigns. No, one presumes Taylor was just being an arse by tweeting his opinion to Hands Off Our Packs.

But who is this guy? I wondered. What is his story?  I was quite interested to find out. This was no longer about his slight at Hands Off Our Packs. I felt oddly compelled to find out all I could about this guy, for no particular reason other than he irked me the night before.  Not web stalking, more like investigating. Interestingly, one of the first things I noticed was the Guardian reported that Taylor is the nephew of Lord Clark of Windemere. Wow.

Anyway, I knew he was under investigation for the LACS fraud thing, which I'll cover more near the end of this post.  For the moment, however, let's focus on the other story, about the Prisoner Education Forum charity investigation. How odd that here are two very different charities that this guy worked for and there were accusations of fraud for both.

Here's how TES, a teachers' network organisation, reported it (emphasis added):
Police have launched a fraud investigation into a charity which campaigns for better education for offenders.

The Forum on Prisoner Education was wound up over the summer after its yearly budget of £150,000 ran out in less than five months. Steve Taylor, its director, and a former prisoner, quit in May.

Police in east London, where the forum was based, confirmed they are investigating a complaint relating to possible fraud at the charity, but declined to comment further.

The forum has failed to submit any accounts to the Charity Commission since its registration three years ago.
Mr Taylor, 30, told FE Focus that he was not aware of any police investigation and that he had not been involved in any fraudulent activity, but there had been overspending. 
Oh? So Steve Taylor was a former prisoner. Interesting. OK. OK. Picture becoming clearer.  TES goes on to say (emphasis added):
Mr Taylor has revealed in a newspaper article that 10 years ago he served four months in prison for an offence of deception.

He became involved in prison campaigning after the death of a friend in custody and he says trustees of the charity knew about his conviction and supported his appointment.
Right. Had to track down that article then and go back farther. I believe it might have been this one from the Guardian in 2001 called Interviews: Prisoners on their life in jail, written by Steve Taylor of course:
Steve Taylor, 24
Sentence: four months
Crime: deception

I spent some of my sentence in Armley jail in Leeds which is a hellhole. You spend 23 hours a day in your cell. You get books out of the library that have the last 20 pages missing. You get visits if the officers can be bothered. You get mail when they can be bothered. It's just a warehouse for people.

Fortunately I spent most of my sentence in HMP North Sea Camp which is an open prison. The buildings are a mess but the way it's run and the resources available are fantastic, and it's probably got the lowest re-conviction rates of all prisons. You've got to work because if you refuse they take you back to the local prison; there's a big farm which supplies the prison service with food and an excellent education department where I worked as a tutor, teaching basic skills to inmates who couldn't read or write.
If you read that article in full, the last paragraph talks about what it's like being gay in prison, how those who are openly gay may be housed with the sex offenders. Taylor said "[t]here really needs to be some policy movement in that area."

Here's another article -- a kind of diary written by Taylor for the Guardian in 2000 called Chain Reaction, which begins with:
Through a mixture of my own naivety and stupidity, I spent a short time in prison, and was released in February last year to be "tagged" at home. This meant that I had to stay at home between 7pm and 7am seven days a week for two months. Maybe my diary of that period might offer some insight of what is to come for Jonathan Aitken, who is now serving the last two months of his sentence under "home detention curfew".
Evidently, prison life helped to mould Taylor's future careers as director or trustee with various charities. He worked on a youth crime campaign for the National Children's Bureau, and then became a member of Howard League for Penal Reform and the British Society of Criminology.  His first proper charity role was likely with the Howard League for Penal Reform, a campaigning charity, for which he worked until about 2006.  Taylor is also credited as contributing to a 2002 documentary called "The Experiment" as part of an ethics advisory group.

The BBC reported on Taylor in its article "How drugs end up behind bars" in 2002 (emphasis added):
Ex-prisoner Steve Taylor, a trustee of the Howard League for Penal Reform, says there are two main reasons that drugs filter in from the outside world.

"Prison authorities are not always as cautious as they could be in checking for drugs; and in some cases they are not going to be because drugs calm prisoners down. It does the guards a favour to deal with people who just vegetate."
In 2004, Taylor also joined the Forum on Prisoner Education organisation (FPE), a pressure group charity where he became its Director and from where he lobbied ministers of Parliament. For instance, here's a link to a Memorandum of Evidence that Taylor wrote for MPs about prisoner education.  He also advocated for Internet access for prisoners. Then in 2005, Taylor was awarded the Longford prize for his ""outstanding contribution to social and penal reform."  The Independent reported Taylor's achievement in December 2005, but Taylor didn't feel up to discussing his past:
During the two years that Mr Tayor has headed the Forum on Prisoner Education pressure group, he has appeared regularly in the media, given evidence to Parliament and produced a widely praised report calling for inmates to receive unrestricted access to the internet.

In addition, he tours jails giving practical advice to inmates on gaining qualifications as a route out of crime.

Mr Taylor, 29, who declines to discuss why he was jailed, said: "It's important to me that we spend as much time as possible talking to people on the ground to see what we can do to help. I have to make sure we're in the real world. I can't be bothered with hypothetical carrying-on about abstract issues."
By all appearances then, it seemed that Taylor had certainly turned his life around after his brief stint in prison, and things were definitely looking up for the young man. He had political influence and direct access to MPs.  He was honing his media skills and was often quoted in various news sources regarding penal education.  TES called him a "staunch defender of offenders' right to learn" in this article in 2005:
Mr Taylor has been an outspoken advocate of the work of prison lecturers, once being quoted as saying: "No one comes into prisoner education for the money. People do it because they want to make a difference to people's lives and communities."

The forum has been a regular critic of Government prison policy, citing the size of the jail population, which it says has increased at the same time as a reduction in the amount of education for prisoners, increasing their chance of reoffending.

While being open about serving time in prison, he has been reluctant to speak about it - pointing out the charity believes everyone should be given a second chance after their release.
Steve P. Taylor - Writer/Activist
Image via www.evi.com "facts about Steve P Taylor"

But Steve Taylor's time advocating for prisoners' rights was not to last.  As previously noted above, the FPE ran into "financial difficulties" and closed down in 2006. Taylor denied any involvement in fraudulent activity, and it's unclear what the findings of that investigation were. Internet searches have revealed nothing more on the matter, but perhaps I missed something.  Furthermore, the Howard League for Penal Reform's annual report for 2005/06 indicates that Taylor was no longer a trustee of their charity from June 2006 (PDF).

For a short time, there was even a Wikipedia page about him, mainly about his writing career (he wrote a book). But that page was deleted in early 2009. Curiously, but most likely unrelated, the one person who voted to keep Taylor's entry on the site has been banned for sockpuppetry.

At some point in 2009 or earlier, Taylor joined the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS). The earliest references I can find date to June 2009, where he appears on Iain Dale's Diary, and October 2009, where he appears in the press as LACS's head of campaigns and communications. Perhaps he genuinely believed in the charity's mission, or perhaps he desired to make use of his PR background and previous charity and campaign work.  Whatever his reasons, LACS certainly had political influence at Parliament, and Taylor's previous experience dealing directly with MPs would serve him well in his new role.

Indeed, by now Taylor had mastered the art of the sensationalised blurb, for here in respect of five men arrested for hare hunting, he is quoted by the Wiltshire Tiimes as saying:
“Hare coursing was banned by the Hunting Act. People who want to bring it back say it is pest control but it is a blood sport

“Some hare coursers suggest muzzling the dogs so that the hare doesn’t get eaten, but the problem is that the greyhound, or dog, causes even more damage to the hare with the force of the dog. It is a horrifically cruel sport and we would welcome Wiltshire Police taking a hardline approach on it.” 
A few years later, upon release of a campaign video spoof for LACS, Taylor said:
"The film's a bit of fun but it makes an important point. The hunters are the only group of criminals in society who flirt with this idea that they are in some way victime (sic) of the law, rather than transgressers (sic) of it."
To my regular readers, no doubt the tone of these statements sounds a lot like the rhetoric of the tobacco control industry's spokespeople. It is a learned skill.

In fact, the skill of firing off letters of complaint demanding retractions or corrections at the media is a classic PR tactic, which Taylor employs here in 2010:
A report on the ‘thriving’ population of Irish hares on Oyster Island featured at approximately 39 minutes into the above programme. In the voiceover, the reporter says that, in hare coursing “…the dogs are muzzled to minimise injuries, and after competitions, the hares are released back to where they came from.”

We believe this to be inaccurate and misleading and would like to see an urgent correction on a future edition of the programme.

[...]

In the interests of accurate and balanced reporting, we would ask you to correct these errors as a matter of urgency.

Yours sincerely
Steve Taylor
Head of Campaigns & Communications
Earlier setbacks forgotten, and notwithstanding a minor issue of censure with the Charity Commission, it would seem that things were looking for very good for Steve Taylor once again.  But things took a turn for the worse for Taylor again in November of 2011.  LACS dismissed Taylor for gross misconduct. From the press release dated 17 November 2011:
Steve Taylor, a member of staff at the League Against Cruel Sports has been dismissed for gross misconduct following a disciplinary investigation concerning expenses claims.

The disciplinary papers have been handed to the police and the Charity Commission has been informed as the member of staff concerned has previously worked for other charities.
This was followed up the next day by Guido Fawkes, clearly enjoying a brief moment of irony. And a few days later with Steve Taylor's arrest on suspicion of fraud.

On 2 April 2012, Taylor was charged and accused of one count of fraud by false representation. Then in June, the Plymouth Herald (via This is Plymouth) wrote:
A SALTASH man accused of defrauding an anti-hunting organisation is to appear at Crown Court next month.

Steven Taylor, aged 35, was arrested last year.

Taylor, who worked for Surrey-based charity the League Against Cruel Sports, was released from the charity following a disciplinary investigation centring on expenses claims.
[...]
He appeared at Guildford magistrates court yesterday where his case was committed to Guildford Crown Court on July 27 for a plea and case management hearing. He was granted unconditional bail by Guildford Magistrates.
And a little over a week later, Steven Paul Taylor came to my attention on Twitter, which you have already read above.

One thing I did not expect to happen was that Taylor would plead guilty at his hearing. I figured he would plead his innocence and take the matter to a proper trial.  But he did not, and I have no idea why.  So he had a little over a month to get his affairs in order before his sentencing on 7 September 2012.

During this time I checked up on his tweets occasionally.  When he slagged off a small business's web site map (much in the same way he panned HOOPs), I couldn't resist a jab at him:


So am I going to write to Mr Taylor?  Here's my answer to him on that:

OK, yes, my tweets were a bit petty.  Besides, my handwriting is terrible, and it would seem HMP High Down doesn't have Internet access for prisoners. If only Taylor had succeeded in that campaign I could have sent him a tweet or something.  Perhaps everyone deserves a second chance, or even a third and fourth chance to make things right. I sincerely hope that Taylor has finally learnt his lesson.

In closing: on 7 September 2012, Steve Taylor was sentenced to jail for 16 months. It is expected he will serve about half of that.

***[[ Update 18 November 2012:  for a minor update on this post and to learn of Taylor's first fraud conviction, see also this post. ]] ***

Thursday, 6 September 2012

The Game

Dick Puddlecote's recent blog post, titled "Democracy Does Not Equal Freedom," has led to me thinking about the world we live in.  Just a little bit.  If I thought too much about it, I might actually be spurred in to action. And wouldn't that be something?  Anyway, I figure if you come to my blog, there's a 99% chance you've already read DP's post, but if you haven't, it's well worth your time. 

One line DP wrote particularly stands out for me:

"Democracy destroys altruism in governance and replaces it with naked self-interest backed up by a tyranny of the majority."

It's a great line. I agree with it in principle, but with sincere apologies to DP, I would gently and slightly modify it to:

"Democracy destroys the remote possibility of altruism in governance and replaces it with naked self-interest backed up by a tyranny of majority."

When altruism does reluctantly rear its head, it's nearly always to protect the survival of one or many whilst sacrificing your own chances of survival. In other words, you need to unselfishly risk your life or well-being to ensure that others will survive. Altruism is most often an instinctual reaction requiring little or no conscious thought or decision making.  And this, in my view, describes no politician that I know of. This does not mean that politicians are inherently duplicitous or even bad people. They are simply self-serving, like most of us are.

Any person who willingly enters the political arena initially out of genuine concern for others will be corrupted by the system as a matter of course.  Once the game begins in earnest, politicians fight for their own survival in the arena, and we citizens become their pawns -- sacrificial gambits on a geographical chessboard to further the politician's career.

When a politician utters "we must protect people from" whatever genuine or imaginary harm, what he or she is saying is: "I seek to convince you that I am genuinely interested in your well being, so long as this action does not hurt my political career."  They may indeed have genuine concern for some harmed group; there may even be sympathy. But this is not altruism.

Altruism cannot exist in any system of governance. Politics does not reward altruistic game players.  These concepts are incompatible.

Politics is a game of a million compromises and trade-offs. For the politician to win a victory for one battle often requires a sacrifice in a different battle. This is not altruism. It is advantage and leverage via the mechanism of compromise. Ideals must be abandoned, perhaps temporarily, and promises too often are broken.  Few politicians will survive in the arena with their integrity intact or unscathed.

There are far too many players in the political game; there are hundreds of thousands more standing on the sidelines awaiting their turn, with a near limitless amount of moves that can be played to effect control.  Ultimately, it is a game that can neither be won nor lost. It is a game of ego and power, of foolish bravado and insincere gestures. It is entirely a human construct and it is our greatest folly.

Yet with all the attention the political game receives, for all its players and its scandal-hungry spectators, it pales in comparison to the greatest game of all:  The game of life.  It has only one rule, and that rule is to survive.

Eventually, we are all sacrificed in the game of life, irrespective of how we played it.