Randomly Selected Article or Link

Everyone seems to be trying to analyze what caused the death of Rhys James, and what can be done about it. More police, punishment or reward for parents taking more responsibility, compulsory community service, blah, blah, blah. I can categorically state that none of this matters. Rhys was killed by government policy, particularly on drugs, that creates an ideal environment in which organized crime can flourish and drag into its sphere of influence vulnerable youngsters...

In the Independent today Camila Batmanghelidjh of Kids Company provides some insight gleaned from her eleven years of working with dislocated children:

This is not what David Cameron refers to as anarchy; it is nihilism. It is an absence of values in which the notion of society, community and responsibility has been eradicated by violence. Every encounter with adults for these children has been toxic. Instead, the lives of these children and young people are about survival. They are, in their own words, "lone soldiers" who come into contact with those who will facilitate violence.

She goes on to describe how the lack of services and support is filled...

Who steps into this void? Imagine three concentric circles. In the first stands the drug dealer and gangster, a remote-control businessman who leads a criminal network. In the second stand our lone children. They are recruited by the dealer, initially by riding around on their bicycles providing information. In the third circle are children who imitate the violence.

And I might add, when a family has already been tainted with drug use and abuse and parental contact with authority is as a result become something to fear, lest one's relatively innocent personal habits turn one into a criminal, what reference point do these children have? I leave the solution up to you to discover. Take out the inner of those concentric circles Camilla talks about and the whole structure of criminal influence collapses...

To me, Rhys Jones died because of government and international policy which is not only failing to stop addiction (even if that were a valid aim of public policy - see "On LIberty"), but encouraging and subsidizing organized crime. Legalize now to stop these government sponsored deaths. Does any party have the true grit to deal with this, or are we going to be forced to accept intrusions like this horror or total breakdown like this in the vain attempt to fight a war that cannot be won?

I had to roll one up just to steel myself to read this: University announces smoking ban

Newcastle University is banning smoking anywhere on its campus from next year.

Staff and students are being warned if they want to smoke after 1 January 2007, they will have to leave the university site - not just buildings.

Now, I don't know Newcastle University at all. I presume it's a city centre type affair where it won't be too much of an inconvenience to step onto the public highway (until smoking is also banned there of course). Though I know they have an agriculture department and the policy applies on the university's farms which probably will mean a long walk to the roadside.

But no doubt this will come to us all eventually. Here at Brookes we have a policy that says not only is there no smoking in the university buildings, but also, in theory, not within five meters of outside doors or windows.

I am a good smoker. I always stub my cigarettes out and put the butts in a bin, if there isn't an ashtray. I can't stand the habit of just chucking it on the floor as you get to the door - often not even stamping it out - that seems to go on a lot around here.

And I always stand the requisite five meters from buildings if at all possible. The nearest spot to my office has a huge plane tree that provides as good cover as any umbrella or bike shed for most of the year, but elsewhere you can usually find some eaves or something to stand under that don't infringe the five meter rule. But I have to say that from watching other smokers I am if not the only one, in a tiny minority that give more than one hoot about people coming and going at entrances or working in offices with not terribly well fitting windows that always let in a little unpleasant whiff if someone's smoking outside.

So, fellow smokers, especially those here at Brookes, the only way in my opinion to delay this fascist onslaught is to abide by the quite reasonable rules we already have. Mind you, the university could take greater steps to ensure people know what those rules are. At the moment it is up to occupants of offices for example to print off a little petulant looking poster and stick it in their window. It doesn't look terribly official and it looks like the occupants are being a bit petty if you don't already know the rule.

But maybe the attitude is "why spend any money publicising the rule when we could spend the same simply banning smoking on site altogether".

Let's hope they don't want to extend it to one's own space in halls of residence.

I don't suppose they were referred to the local DAAT (Drug and Alcohol Action Team), or SMART (Substance Misuse Arrest Referral Team), nor will the "formal warning" likely include a Drugs Testing and Treatment Order (DTTO). They're unlikely to have a probation officer who needs to send their details to the Employment Service to get their benefits stopped, but what the hell - they've got off basically...

...one rule for the few, and one for the many. Britain's drugs laws...useless, counterproductive and deadly...but usually only if you are poor.