The Law Isn’t Always an Ass

A 17 year old man has been arrested for sending the following tweet to Tom Daley, whose father recently died due to cancer, after Daley failed to win an Olympic medal.

He later apologised profusely, so the arrest was very heavy-handed.

At least, that’s what much of the mainstream media would have us believe.

I was all ready to post the above, but thought I’d better have a look round on the internet, to see if there was more to the story. Almost immediately I found this page.

Click on that link, and you’ll find that the apology was not at all sincere, that the abuse for which the arrest was made was sustained, and rather nastier than the original tweet, and if you look in the comments you’ll find links to screenshots that show that this person has form, including this one:

So it’s worth remembering that the stories behind the headlines are often more complicated than those headlines alone convey’

Journalists (and editors) should remember that too.

Related articles

• Police probe Daley Twitter abuse (bbc.co.uk)
• Teenager held over tweets sent to Tom Daley (independent.co.uk)
• Teenager Held Over Tom Daley Twitter Abuse (news.sky.com)
• Twitter troll aims ‘dad’ slur at Tom Daley after medal miss at the London Olympics (thesun.co.uk)
• Teenage boy, 17, arrested over hate Tweets sent to Olympic diver Tom Daley … – Daily Mail (dailymail.co.uk)
• UK teen arrested over malicious Tom Daley tweets (newstalk.ie)

More Education for Dummies

I teach, after a fashion.

Actually, what I do is work as a volunteer, in a community centre, helping people to learn how to use computers.

The people I work with want to learn, but there’s no set timetable, and I work with, usually, one person at a time, and they learn at a pace that’s comfortable for them. The atmosphere is convivial, even jokey at times, and people are free to come and go as they please.

I have had some success, of which I’m quite proud, but I would not kid myself for one moment that I could do the job a teacher does.

In a school classroom, at least half the kids don’t want to be there and, whereas I can tell people “that’s OK, we’ll try again when you’re ready”, that isn’t an option when there’s a curriculum and a timetable to follow.

And I don’t work with children. Now, I wouldn’t have a problem teaching a child to, for example, read, but the same conditions as I work in now would have to obtain, with minimal pressure on both me and my pupil, but I can’t imagine keeping order in a class of around thirty or so of the blighters. Just imagining that scenario makes me shudder.

So quite why Michael Gove thinks that the only qualification necessary for teaching in schools is knowledge in the subject being taught is a mystery.

Controlling a classroom, while at the same time encouraging the children to learn, is a remarkable skill. Even if someone has a knack for it, they still have a lot to learn, and that’s without all the bureaucracy that teachers have to contend with. While in-depth knowledge of the subject is extremely useful, it’s not the most useful asset for a teacher.

So why is Gove doing this? If I were a cynic, with a deep distrust of the ConDem government, I might suspect that it’s because too few real teachers are signing up to one of his other bright ideas, academies.

Oh wait – I am cynical, especially where this loathsome government is concerned, so that’s exactly what I suspect!

Related articles

• Michael Gove’s own experts revolt over ‘punitive’ model for curriculum (guardian.co.uk)
• Education for Dummies (neitshade.wordpress.com)
• Expert adviser to Education Secretary Michael Gove claims primary school curriculum plans are ‘fatally flawed’ (independent.co.uk)
• Michael Gove is right: we must do better (telegraph.co.uk)

Feet of Clay – The Hypocrisy at the Heart of Pharyngula

 

I used to have a lot of respect for P Z Myers, if not for some of his hangers-on at his blog, Pharyngula. Most of that respect has now been flushed away by his disingenuous and self-serving actions of the past week.

It started with a stupid thread at Rationalia entitled “Would it be immoral to rape a Skepchick”. The person who started that thread is not a misogynist, at least not consciously, which most people replying in that thread took into account. Nevertheless there was much condemnation of the “joke”, and the thread starter apologised.

Rationalia, whatever else it is, is relatively small scale, and the whole matter could have been handled “in house”, and Myers could have commented there, as he still is a member of the forum, but he instead, as the thread at Rationalis started to die down, chose to take it to his own blog, a blog which has a far wider reach than a humble forum, and stir up a shitstorm.

Even that wouldn’t have been so bad, if he hadn’t distorted the facts. Here’s Myers’ post:

I think most people reading that will agree that Pappa’s comment was unacceptable, and most people at Rationalia didn’t accept it, but Myers has condemned the whole forum membership, presumably including himself, for what one person wrote. As I’ve already said, even Pappa realised it was unacceptable, and apologised sincerely. To continue to berate him, as Myers and his baying mob do, hints rather strongly of a religious mindset, and a fundamentalist one at that.

T he description of Pappa as a “professional fundraiser” is odd too, coming from someone whose blog carries so many advertisements. Pappa’s invitation to contribute to the running the (non profit) forum is directed at members of that forum.

Myers is also a member of the Rational Skepticism forum, but can’t be bothered to get information first-hand from there either, at least not until after he has already made his mind up:

What many of us at RatSkep were saying was that the Jack Rawlinson that we remember isn’t the kind of person that would say things Myers alleges were said on his blog by someone using that name, and we were expressing surprise. Nobody was defending any comments; we hadn’t even seen them!

It could easily be a different person using that name, and that happened in the same comments thread:

(What the fuck is it with the words “free thought” in the title of a blog? It’s like the kiss of death.)

After a challenge from the “real ” voxrat, here was Myers’ reply:

Note the graceless lack of apology!

Finally, if you claim that some subjects are off-limits to comedy, you really ought to be careful of the jokes you make yourself.

Portrait Of A Serial Thug

The acquittal, on Thursday, of P.C. Simon Harwood, of a charge of manslaughter, has raised several questions. The video footage of his assault of Ian Tomlinson is seen by many as conclusive proof, yet Harwood wasn’t charged with the lesser offence, which meant that when the manslaughter charge was dismissed by the jury, Harwood got off scot-free, at least as far as the criminal court was concerned – civil proceedings may yet ensue.

Another issue is that Harwood has an appalling record of indiscipline, including one incident in 2001 that would have seen him sacked, and possibly prosecuted, had he not resigned as a police officer before a hearing could be convened.

He didn’t stay unemployed for long, resigning on a Friday and starting his new job on the following Monday as a civilian employee of the same police force.

He later joined another force, and eventually transferred back to the Met, where he continued to accrue complaints of “heavy-handedness”, culminating in the death of Ian Tomlinson in April 2009.

I understand completely that previous unproven accusations should not be put before a jury, but the problem here is that those accusations are unproven partly through incompetence, and partly through deliberate obfuscation. Harwood avoided punishment by resigning, then was able to claim innocence because nobody had proved him guilty.

Police officers do a very difficult job, and should be defended from frivolous or malicious accusations, but they shouldn’t be allowed to duck responsibility for misbehaviour, particularly at the cost of somebody’s life.

I have known many coppers over the years, and the overwhelming majority have been decent people who want to serve the public good.

People like Simon Harwood who play the system do them no good at all. Every time a police officer gets away with something on a technicality, the bobby’s job gets a lot harder.

In the UK we have policing by consent, which relies on public trust. That consent may be withdrawn if the police are seen to be unaccountable.

Related articles

• UK News: ‘Questions remain’ over cleared Pc (walesonline.co.uk)
• Pc who pushed Ian Tomlinson acquitted of manslaughter (theweek.co.uk)
• PC Simon Harwood repeatedly accused of excessive force against public (guardian.co.uk)

Tesco Cruelty – Not Just for Chickens

If someone breaks something in a shop, particularly a large shop with a big turnover, it is common practice to clean the mess up and write off the loss. If it’s something like wine or spirits, the customer might be charged for the broken item. If the customer appears to be drunk, they may be ordered to leave the store.

Unless they become violent, that is all that the shop staff, including security guards, are permitted to do. Even if the customer is belligerent, any unwanted contact is assault, and in such circumstances the police should be called. Even the police have to be careful about using force as, if it is determined that it is unwarranted, that is also assault.

Very little of this applies to disabled campaigner Jules Clarke who, on Wednesday, was forcibly ejected from his local Tesco store in Manchester, by security guards too stupid to understand the limits of their powers of arrest. (They are the same as those of anyone else who doesn’t carry a warrant card, only valid if you are absolutely certain of a conviction.)

I’m not exactly sure of Jules’ condition, and in any case I’m not medically qualified. Suffice it to say it involves extreme tiredness, which looks, to the wilfully uninformed, a little like drunkenness.

At the till, before paying, Jules dropped a bottle of wine. He was then physically thrown out of the store, in part because one of the security guards could smell booze. After a bottle of wine was broken. Such stupidity must take a special effort.

Jules was left bruised and battered, not just physically, but mentally too. If such an attack can happen in a famous store like Tesco, what place could be safe?

Tesco have a remarkable talent for courting bad publicity, from Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall‘s campaign about cruelty to chickens to Tesco’s involvement in the government’s workfare scam. Tesco like to ignore such complaints, presumably hoping the fuss will just die down, and this seems, so far, to be the approach they are taking with Jules.

They have relayed an apology of sorts, via Twitter, but they didn’t seem very sincere to me. They also replied to someone commenting on Jules’ plight with these words:

Please be assured that everyone is welcome to Tesco and we take fair treatment of all of our customers seriously

Fine words, but that was their position before the attack on Jules, so why should anyone believe them now?

The trouble is (from their point of view) people, including disabled people, are much better connected these days, and news that would once be tucked away in local papers now spreads like wildfire.

I found out about this on Twitter. So will all my friends. And their friends. And their friends. And so on…..

Some of them are Tesco customers. For now.

See No Evil, Hear No Evil – Talk Bollocks

I’ve noticed a couple of times on Twitter someone claiming that the mere act of reporting that people are committing suicide after losing some or all of their benefits is irresponsible, and that suicides will increase as a result. Now, in the Telegraph, Brendan O’Neill adds the slur that those of us who care enough to even notice are exploiting “such psychologically disturbed behaviour for political ends“.

His “reasoning” seems to be that suicide “ is not a rational response to having your benefits cut” and we therefore can’t link the deaths to the cuts.

Of COURSE suicide isn’t rational, that’s the point we’re all making! Vulnerable people are losing money that they can ill afford, are often in danger of losing the very roof over their heads, don’t know where their next meal is coming from, and are increasingly desperate about their future, until it all becomes too much for them.

Keeping quiet about suicides doesn’t slow down the rate, however. It just keeps them hidden, and better off people, who don’t rely on benefits, can smugly pretend there isn’t a problem.

O’Neill ends:

” These campaigners approach working-class and less well-off communities through the politics of pity rather than the politics of solidarity, and consequently have a tendency to view “the poor” as vulnerable, at risk, irrational, on the cusp of suicide, and in constant need of care and largesse from the do-gooding state. Poorer communities would be far better off fighting against such Victorian-style pity-politics than against Cameron’s welfare reforms.”

Not everybody is vulnerable in terms of mental health. On the other hand, poverty is a vulnerability in itself, since one increasingly needs money these days to obtain any kind of justice. Even a small reduction in benefits can be devastating.

Something that  Brendan O’Neill probably cannot, or will not, see, ensconced as he is in his ivory tower.

Related articles

• Brendan O’Neill is a knob (wordpress.com)

Education for Dummies

Michael Gove with backer Edmund Lazarus

It seems not a day goes by without the government being involved in some sort of sleaze, usually the “news” that they are being funded by vested interests.
So it is today. The Independent today has another example. Michael Gove has strong links with Edmund Lazarus, one of the founding partners of a City private equity company, Bregal Capital, which set up private schools company Cognita (itself currently embroiled in a pension fraud and commercial espionage scandal) in 2004. Several donations were made while Gove was Education Spokesman while the Tories were in opposition.
Gove returned the money Lazarus gave him, and there is no suggestion that either either of them have done anything illegal, but once again the government gives every appearance of acting on behalf of their chums.

Related articles

• Private school chain faces Michael Gove inquiry on whistleblower claims (guardian.co.uk)

The Importance of Trivia

This picture was put on Twitter today, with the comment “Very disappointed by @sainsburys sexism: since when are science/history/astronomy ‘men’s’ interests?”

Notice that there are magazines for artists, scientists, history buffs, and more. Once upon a time, when the world appeared to be in black & white, these were the preserve of men, but we aren’t living in the 1950s anymore.

Quite soon, there was a reply from a man who said something about how it happens the other way about (I can’t remember what his example was, but it’s not difficult to imagine one, cookery for example) and ended with “so what?”
So what indeed? Isn’t this all very trivial? Aren’t there more important things to worry about?
Well yes, in a way that’s true, but I’ve never understood the argument that we shouldn’t concern ourselves with a problem if there’s a more serious problem to worry about. Why not address both?

Besides, the trivial nature of this particular problem cuts both ways. It would not be prohibitively expensive to fix, just throw out the sexist signs and arrange magazines by genre; motoring, sci-fi, cookery etcetera. Let people decide for themselves what their interests are, don’t tell them what they should be based on gender.

And the cumulative effect is considerably greater than any single “trivial” incident. The drip-drip effect of casual sexism is more corrosive than blatant misogyny because it goes largely unnoticed, so shining a light on it, though it may well attract mockery, can help undermine the greater bigotry.

I was alerted to this topic on Twitter by someone with the username “@EverydaySexism” – well worth a follow. See also their website everydaysexism.com.

 

Related posts:

• Tesco Retro  (vagendamag.blogspot.co.uk)