Category Archives: Current Affairs

Will Snowden be Trumps ‘Bin Landen’ scalp?

Cnt4_Fr53-1.jpg

We are just hours away from President-Elect Donald Trump taking the oath of office and becoming officially the 45th President of the United States.

I can only imagine how Ed Snowden is feeling right now.  There must have been a part of him which was hope for a Presidential pardon from the outgoing President Obama – alas, it wasn’t to come.  And so what now for America’s highest profile whistleblower and exile who has just been given leave to remain in Russia for another three years?

Well, like most things Russian – there is no such thing as a guarantee and if I were Snowden I’d be very very nervous right now.  The Russian’s will have obtained everything they need or wanted from Snowden and in fact, his presence there was merely Putin sticking a pin in the side of Obama.

If we enter into a thawing of USA/Russian relations, an easy win for Trump would be getting Snowden back to face the music for releasing millions of confidential documents.

Snowden has tweeted that he would rather be “without a state than without a voice” – soon, he may find himself in Russian state custody – whilst awaiting extradition back to the United States – facing the rest of his life in prison and finally losing the voice he cherishes so much.

In 2016 I spoke to the author James Bamford who has met and interviewed Ed.

 

Advertisements

Saturday Breakfast with security expert & Maritime Show 20 August 2016

Modern Slavery in the United Kingdom

human-trafficking-modern-slavery-uk-hungary-mafia-1455704113-crop_desktop

Modern slavery is the great human rights issue of our time – so said our newest Prime Minister Teresa May. In 2014, the Home Office estimated there were between 10,000 and 13,000 potential victims of slavery in the UK – just 2,340 of those were officially reported and recorded.

Jason was joined on his Monday Matters radio show by Jakub Sobik from the campaign group www.antislavery.org

Offensive Word Research: Ofcom

maxresdefault

DO NOT READ IF OFFENDED BY STRONG WORDS

Ofcom has published research exploring the latest attitudes to offensive language on TV and radio.  The report looks at words and gestures, exploring what people were likely to find unacceptable, and the reasons why they were judged to be offensive.

Live TV continues to have the greatest reach of all UK media formats, with 92% of people watching each week in 2016. Furthermore, nine in ten adults tuned into the radio, listening for an average of three hours daily.

The groups of potentially offensive language and gestures fell into two broad categories: general swear words – those with clear links to body parts, sexual references, and offensive gestures; and specifically discriminatory language, whether directed at older people, people of particular religions, people with mental health or disability issues, LGBT people, or racist language.

General and other non-discriminatory language
• For general swear words, the emotional impact associated with particular words was important. In particular, certain words like ‘fuck’ or ‘motherfucker’ were regarded as among the strongest offensive language and not acceptable before the watershed, with some respondents having concerns about their frequent use after the watershed.

• Words with clear links to body parts like ‘cunt’, ‘gash’ or ‘beef curtains’ were in general viewed in a way analogous to the more, or most, offensive general swear words. However, many respondents thought the less crass or vulgar words (such as ‘balls’ or ‘tits’) were the more acceptable before the watershed.

• Sexual references like ‘cocksucker’ or ‘prick teaser’ were typically evaluated in a similar way to the more, or most, offensive general swear words. They were seen as distasteful and often unnecessary, but acceptable if used in line with audience expectations after the watershed.

• Offensive gestures were viewed as broadly unacceptable before the watershed, but mostly acceptable after it. The ‘blow job’ gesture was the least acceptable because it was perceived as the most vulgar.

wpid-photo-16-aug-2014-1208-pm

Discriminatory language
• Unlike other forms of discriminatory language, respondents had few concerns about the terms assessed in this report that were potentially insulting to older people. These were mildly distasteful to some of the older participants, but many (of a range of ages) found them inoffensive or even, to some extent, humorous.

• Many of the words that were discriminatory on religious grounds were unfamiliar to some of the participants.  However, those who were familiar with words such as ‘Taig’ and ‘Fenian’ viewed them as generally offensive and potentially unacceptable.

• Views on words relating to mental health and disability differed greatly. Words such as ‘spastic’, ‘mong’ or ‘retard’ were seen as insulting and derogatory, and therefore viewed as being as unacceptable as the strongestracist insults, with their use requiring significant contextual justification. On the other hand, words such as ‘nutter’, ‘loony’ or ‘mental’ were seen as more commonly – used mild insults, and were therefore much more acceptable, both before and after the watershed.

• Stronger homophobic and transphobic terms such as ‘faggot’, ‘homo’, and ‘chick with a dick’ were seen as very problematic by participants. This was, again, because of the insulting and derogatory nature of the language. These words were considered much less acceptable than general swear words.

• Racist language such as ‘coon’, ‘nigger’ and ‘wog’ were among the most unacceptable words overall; they were seen as derogatory, discriminatory and insulting. Many participants were concerned about these words being used at any time, with their use requiring significant contextual justification.

screen-shot-2016-09-30-at-09-38-06

The 9pm watershed was considered crucial
The watershed on TV (or considering when children were particularly likely to be listening, in the case of radio) was seen as a good way of striking a balance between protecting children and respecting adult freedoms to watch TV or listen to radio when they wished. It was highly valued by almost all participants.

screen-shot-2016-09-30-at-09-40-50

Unfamiliar words
Not all words were familiar to participants, and this limited the detailed feedback that could be collected on little-known terms. The least familiar words (those that were recognised by less than 40% of participants) were on the whole slang terms relating to body parts or sex, as well as some ethnic or religious slurs. These words are indicated in this and following chapters with an asterisk (*). Older participants recognised fewer words overall, tending not to recognise more recent slang terms.

screen-shot-2016-09-30-at-09-43-12

 

screen-shot-2016-09-30-at-09-44-24

‘Medium words’ were those more often employed as stronger insults, as well as some words considered more distasteful depending on how they were used. They were regarded to be potentially unacceptable before the watershed, although there was some debate among participants.

Words such as ‘cock’, ‘pussy’ and ‘minge’ were seen as significantly stronger; a number of participants described them as more graphic, vulgar, or rude. Overall, this group of words were deemed generally unacceptable before the watershed.

A participant in the survey said “Pussycat is fine but “Stop being such a pussy” puts the word in a different and more offensive context”.  

Participants agreed, however, that the word ‘pussy’ was potentially much more offensive when used as a slang term for vagina.  The words ‘beef curtains’ and ‘bloodclaat’ were recognised by less than half of those who completed the online survey.

However, among those familiar with these words, both were considered generally unacceptable for broadcast before the watershed. Participants classed a small number of terms such as ‘fuck’, ‘motherfucker’ and ‘cunt’ as the strongest and most offensive
terms in this category of non-discriminatory language. They were seen to express very strong emotions, or to be rude and aggressive insults. The cultural norms around these words meant they were less acceptable to use in front of children.

They were considered unacceptable before the watershed by the vast majority of participants. Responses to the word ‘cunt’ were particularly strong. A significant number of participants were uncomfortable with its use even after the watershed. Women were more likely to say it was completely unacceptable, based on its strong vulgar cultural associations. Some women and a few men said they were personally offended and would prefer ‘cunt’ not to be used on TV or radio at all.

 

screen-shot-2016-09-30-at-09-52-50

Sexual slurs, and more graphic sexual references like ‘cocksucker’, ‘whore’, ‘rapey’, and ‘jizz’, provoked stronger responses from participants. They were considered less acceptable because of their vulgarity, and because they were more likely to be used as insults directed at individuals. Similarly, words such as ‘slut’, ‘skank’ and ‘slag’ were seen as derogatory and vulgar, while words like ‘wanker’ and ‘dildo’ were seen as rude.

 

Discriminatory language
Participants’ in the survey suggested that their views on the acceptability of this type of offensive language on TV and radio differed from their response to the non-discriminatory offensive language and gestures discussed above. In general, discriminatory language was seen as potentially more problematic than more general offensive language.

screen-shot-2016-09-30-at-09-55-54

 

Religious insults
The majority of the words in this category were unfamiliar to a considerable number of the participants who took part in this survey. However, these words were generally problematic for those participants who recognised them. Views on acceptability also depended on perceived religious sensitivity. Many participants, even if they did not know the full meaning of the words, were wary of religious terminology because they were worried that people of faith might be offended.

These words were considered generally unacceptable before the watershed but broadly acceptable after it, based on the desire to protect religious
minorities.

Screen Shot 2016-09-30 at 09.58.45.png

Sexual orientation and gender identity
Most of these derogatory terms, relating to either sexual or gender identity, were seen as very problematic by all participants who recognised them. As a category, they were viewed as insulting, derogatory and discriminatory. As with some racist terms, many participants could not envisage how the stronger words could be used in a non-discriminatory
way.

The word ‘gay’ was debated because it has multiple meanings and is used in multiple ways. Participants considered that it was acceptable when used as a simple identifier for homosexual people. Participants also discussed the use of ‘gay’ to mean ‘not cool’ or ‘not very good’. This caused some concern as it was considered potentially derogatory. While LGBT participants found this use of ‘gay’ less acceptable than participants generally, they did not consider it strongly offensive.

Words like ‘bummer’, ‘fairy’ and ‘pansy’ were medium in terms of acceptability. Participants thought of these words as rather dated and not often used now in a derogatory sense. However, they were still seen as potentially problematic when
intended to insult gay people. Many pointed out that some of these words are now used in the gay community in a humorous way. This meant that they were not always used as insults, thereby complicating decisions about acceptability and making context particularly important.

Words such as ‘dyke’, ‘poof’ and ‘rugmuncher’ were seen as strong and problematic. Participants objected to these types of words on the basis of being intentionally hurtful towards LGBT people. The terms were seen as generally unacceptable except in specific circumstances. For instance, as mentioned in the debated words section, some of these sexual orientation words like (such as ‘poof’, ‘queer’, and ‘dyke’) were seen as having been ‘reclaimed’ by the people they were originally intended to insult as expressions of their identity. In these circumstances the words were not considered
offensive.

Terms such as ‘batty boy’, ‘chick with a dick’, and ‘faggot’ were seen as among the strongest language, and much more likely to be used as insults. Many participants argued these were mostly unacceptable in society in general as they are particularly discriminatory and derogatory. As a result, they were seen as potentially problematic when broadcast on TV and radio, with their acceptability highly dependent on the context. In part, participants wanted to avoid children coming across these words, but there were also powerful concerns about protecting gay and transgender people from being offended or insulted.

screen-shot-2016-09-30-at-10-05-20

 

Mental health and physical disability
For participants, the most offensive words were those such as ‘spastic’, ‘mong’ and ‘retard’. In their opinion, these were the most derogatory, and were often used in ways likely to be hurtful towards people with disabilities. As with other strong forms of discriminatory language, participants emphasised that broadcasters should be very careful when using them. They should ensure that there are good reasons for doing so, and that any potential harm and offence are appropriately mitigated.

screen-shot-2016-09-30-at-10-08-02
Race and ethnicity
Participants in the Ofcom survey had strong views about these words. Racist terms were the most unacceptable category overall because participants considered these words were usually used in a way that was derogatory and discriminatory to others. Participants thought they should normally be broadcast only in limited circumstances and in context, for example in news, drama, or documentary programmes to explore or expose prejudice.

However, participants did make some significant distinctions regarding the acceptability of words within this category. Terms such as ‘Jock’ or ‘Nazi’ were felt to be historical insults whose meaning and use had changed and softened over the years. Indeed, some Scottish participants did not find ‘Jock’ offensive and others expected ‘Nazi’ to be used mainly in educational contexts.

Although there was limited concern about the use of ‘Hun’ as a derogatory reference to German people, the word was seen as less acceptable by those familiar with its use as a sectarian insult. In general, though, these words were of limited concern.  Terms such as ‘pikey’ or ‘kraut’ were debated because some participants saw them as insulting and derogatory to specific groups – and therefore less acceptable – while others viewed them as having developed into more general insults.

screen-shot-2016-09-30-at-10-10-39

 

 

Terrorism Strikes New York

america

Having left New York less than 3 weeks after the bombs went off in Chelsea district I felt a little unnerved by what happened.  I couldn’t quite work out why, until I remembered how secure I felt as I wandered around the hot and sweaty city – confident that I was more secure here than if I was to walk around a capital city of most European countries. As someone who works in London, and who still remember the events of  7 July 2005 vividly – as I marched through the streets of London, among the thousands of commuters, making my our way home on foot – or to the nearest available bus.

But of course, these days it is foolish to believe that you are 100% safe in any country.  Those days, sadly, are a thing of the past and I as someone who even works out where the exits are in a cinemas…just in case….. (usually at the front and therefore difficult to get to) – I had assumed that being in America, far away from lines of desperate migrants trying to find safety in a European home – I’d be far away from the troubles – but I guess, the terrorists desire is that we are never far away.

Luckily the statistics around being caught up in a terrorist incident are quite good “Even if the current level of attacks continues for 80 years (which would be unprecedented), a child born today…would have only one percent of a one percent chance of being killed in one.”

PS – I loved America

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Dodgy Dave is OUT – Teflon Theresa is IN

David-Cameron-Sad-1-700x432.jpg
Former PM David Cameron

I do feel for David Cameron.  A month ago he was the PM who was quietly confident that he would win the referendum and would be at this point reshuffling his cabinet and getting on with his ‘economic plan’.

However, we now have a new Prime Minister and a new cabinet.  Gordon Brown declared his first cabinet as a ‘government of all the talents’.   With Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary and Nigel Hunt left in place to fire harpoons at the NHS – I think it’s safe to call this a government with some of the talents.

I’m still not sure if it is an act of pure genius putting Boris in charge of Britain’s diplomacy with the world or an act of pure insanity. But whatever happens Boris won’t be boring.  I’m not even sure if he will be in the job all that long.   He has to work alongside eurosceptic MP David Davis whose ego dwarfs the EU, but who has been given Secretary of State for Exiting the EU – working alongside brexiteer and other ego-phile Liam Fox, the new Secretary of State for International Trade.  These three will find it hard agreeing to seating arrangements around a table – never mind the intricate policy and political details of how we leave the EU.  Fun times ahead.

I understand why Theresa want’s to keep Jeremy Hunt in place.  His nose and hands are already bloodied with his back sore and scarred with the numerous whippings and fist fights he’s had with the NHS.  The Government seem to be determined to push through a new contract on Junior Doctors.  Why get a new minister’s hands bloodied and bruised – better to let Jeremy slug away in Health and then get rid of him when all the damage is done – bringing in a clean pair of hands to try and smooth things over later.

o-BORIS-JOHNSON-570.jpg
Boris Johnson reaching out…

Corbyn Sacks Labour’s main Remain speaker

image.png

The one person who came out strongly for Labour’s EU Remain campaign – and Corbyn sacks him? Everything about Corbyn stinks. He demands loyalty – yet never showed any himself.

Jeremy claims a majority mandate – yet can’t persuade Labour people to vote for him. He blames the media for not getting his message across – yet when you read them they are muddled and confused! He claims to be a conviction MP yet can’t even provide a convincing narrative to defend himself when challenged to account for his actions by members of the public. #labour is not working under Jeremy Corbyn.

When you see Jeremy being interviewed, rather than being friendly and a man if the people – he comes across as sticky and irritable.  Even a Corbyn friend feature by Vice news showed how Corbyn cannot stand when things go wrong – but won’t take responsibility when it does. He blames anyone but himself.

His days are numbered and if Labour don’t dump this disaster – the voters will, come the next election. Can we get our Labour Party back?

Almost half of us experience a ‘life crisis’

x750c21bbedc3403cbd3db3e500e51a8c07883db01296125152.jpg.pagespeed.ic.vcen-fgqc6.jpg

Almost half of us experience a ‘life crisis’

The Open University urges us to pursue our dreams:

· Unfulfilled dreams and ambitions top list of ‘life crisis’ causes

· A fulfilling career and taking up interests key to overcoming ‘life crisis’

Almost half (44%) of the British public have either had or are going through a ‘life crisis’, a poll recently commissioned by The Open University reveals today. To help people restore their personal balance, The Open University is urging people to discover their ‘Plan P – their ‘Passion Plan’ – and realise their unfulfilled ambitions.

However, it’s not just those midway through their lives who have suffered a ‘life crisis’ and need to re-ignite their passions. Almost a third of those surveyed (29%) have been through a ‘life crisis’ between the ages of 18 and 30, suggesting millennials are particularly susceptible.

When asked what factors caused their ‘life crisis’, a lack of career fulfilment and unfulfilled dreams topped the list. To combat this, 39% said embarking on a new career would help solve their issues and 24% said learning something new would have the same effect.

Whilst over two thirds of those surveyed wish they spent more time pursuing their personal passions, 27% don’t think they have time to do so, with long hours of work and social pressures swallowing up free time. One in ten of those surveyed do not have any personal passions or interests outside of their career, however 41% said that taking up a new interest or hobby would help address their ‘life crisis’.

65030e9d-54ca-4b99-823d-06de47786635_full.jpeg

As a result, The Open University is today urging people to explore their interests by learning something new or pursuing further study in order to address the issues associated with their ‘life crises’, start realising their ambitions and to discover their ‘Plan P’.

Clare Riding, Head of Careers and Employability Services at The Open University said: “Almost two fifths (39%) of people cited embarking on a new career as a solution to their ‘life crisis’ so whilst finding a career you love can be challenging, it is also deeply rewarding. Taking time to explore your interests, both in and out of work, will help you to realise your career ambitions and will support you in finding the role that’s right for you.”

campbell_1560020a.jpg
Alan Campbell Olympic Rower

Alan Campbell, Olympic rower and Open University student said, “As an athlete there will come a time that you can no longer compete at international standard, so there has to be something beyond sport. Not only this but in a high pressure, competitive career such as elite sport, you need to have other passions that keep your mind alert and focused outside of work. Rio 2016 will be my last Olympics but this isn’t a year of endings for me, it’s a year of beginnings too. I will complete my BA (Hons) in Leadership and Management with The Open University this year and can’t wait to see what new journey this will take me on.”

Friendly workplaces are less innovative

A boss shoutingWork friendships can contribute to a lack of creative diversity in the office, according to new research from Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University.

‘Relational capital and individual exploration: Unravelling the influence of goal alignment and knowledge acquisition’, a paper that examines the double-edged sword of friendships between colleagues, has revealed that work friendships discourage employees from challenging ‘group think’.

Tom Mom, along with co-authors Pepijn van Neerijnen, Patrick Reinmoeller and Ernst Verwaal, demonstrate that by aligning themselves, employees become less likely to innovate away from the established and accepted ‘norm’.

The researchers examined 150 respondents within large R&D departments of three Fortune Global 500 firms, gauging whether their accounts of personal friendships affected individual creativity, in information obtained from their colleagues.

image

Tom says: “Of course, having a network of friends at work is a positive circumstance, both personally and professionally. Not only does this enable innovation and creativity through increased knowledge exchange, but being able to trust one another and speak candidly opens doors to growth. Business development has always been huge priority for firms and the focus has recently shifted to maximising individual employees’ outputs. By taking measures such as cross-sectional working, mixed training exercises or even the rotation of teams, managers can ensure that they reap the positive benefits of work relationships without slipping into the trap of over-familiarity and goal-alignment.”

He adds: “This also highlights the very real need for companies to increase diversity at board level in order to combat ‘group-think’, which would ultimately hinder innovation. Steering away from having a standardised business ‘identity’ – even if that may seem counter-intuitive – is a necessity in protecting from a herd mentality.”

 

Jeremy Hunt Petition reaches 310,000

Watch Jeremy Hunt squirm as he listens to letters from junior doctors
Watch Jeremy Hunt squirm as he listens to letters from junior doctors

A petition which calls on the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt to face a vote of “no confidence” has reached more 310,000 signatures.  

The petition which was created by Graham Hillman centres on claims that Mr Hunt is “destroying all staff morale in the NHS & will cause recruitment issues”. 

The momentum behind the signatures comes just days after Mr Hunt was widely criticised for his decision to “unilaterally” impose a new contract on junior doctors which redefines “anti-social” working hours.  However the British Medical Association (BMA) claims an “eleventh hour” offer has been made by the Government and the BMA’s chief negotiator Sir David Dalton will present the offer to their committee in the coming weeks.

Let us hope this offer is one that includes phasing in new contracts which tie into additional resources.

There is not a single person I have spoken to who does not think that the aspiration to 7 days is a good idea. The facts around 11,000 deaths at the weekend have not only been misrepresented but as I commented on before, Mr Hunt (whilst wearing an NHS badge) refused to deny that the deaths were the result of junior doctors not being available at the weekend.  This is a monstrous dereliction of actual facts which are far more complicated than Hunt alludes to.

NHS Strike

Even the NHS’s medical director Prof Sir Bruce Keogh distanced himself from the Health Secretary’s rhetoric by reiterating a view held by many in the healthcare profession that “the weekend effect” cannot be accurately used to measure how many people die avoidably on Saturday or Sunday.

There is no doubt that a move towards 7 days is a good idea and one that will benefit patients in the long run.  BUT if Jeremy Hunt thinks he can bully the health profession into providing a 7 day service by twisting their hours and taking even more from them then he is unbelievably naive.

I personally think that Jeremy Hunt is nothing more than a careerist and political opportunist, of the worst kind, who’s current motive is not to improve our health system but is, in fact, to get this supposed 7 day NHS up and running so he can sit grinning at the cabinet table pontificating about how he has delivered the Prime Minister’s promised  7 days manifesto pledge.

However, at what cost?  The NHS struggles with 5 days.  How can it cope with 7? This change is not being done by adding more resources – but by stretching and pulling the already tight service – to the point where it is already beginning to snap in some places. Jeremy Hunt is putting his political ambitions  ahead of patients and doctors and I think it is shameful.

Jeremy could have had us all on his side by saying that he wanted to create a 7 day service and he will start the process by launching a nationwide recruitment campaign for more doctors and nurses and other healthcare professionals to enable it to happen.  He could of engaged the public and professionals by being seen to do things the right way. However, he didn’t. He isn’t close enough to the Prime Minister or Chancellor to get the funds required.  So instead, he has been forced into spreading the jam over a much bigger piece of toast.  And guess what – there isn’t enough jam…and he knows it.

It is for this reason that I believe Jeremy Hunt is not worthy to continue in his role and why I signed the petition.

The petition can be found by clicking here….

Screen Shot 2016-02-17 at 22.08.18