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 seem to collect these. Why can't I find a few that pay though! I have just been elected a director of the SE² Partnership Limited (Social Enterprise South East) which takes over from a SEEDA funded project supporting and promoting social enterprise in the South East region.

There has been a bit of a spat at the Euro-parl about whether some amendments to the "Telecoms Packet" (how romantic, is that like the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Packet Company's packet?) that I encouraged readers to respond to a couple of days ago.

One of the movers of one of the offending amendments has, according to the BBC, said...

What a fuckwit. I doubt there has ever been any piece of legislation in any legislature which was claimed not to have "innocent intentions". But in a month when his own party has been moaning about, amongst other things the use of RIPA in ways for which it was not intended, surely the extension of "innocent intentions" into overbearing surveillance and so on should be obvious.

If there are drafting issues that permit an interpretation of a law that increases surveillance then the lawmakers should protect against it. The world is littered with "innocent" laws that have been interpreted to allow more sinister applications. A Tory, if committed to small government, should know this and not continue to protect his corporate sponsors.

Can anyone point me to a Euro-parl equivalent of "Public Whip" so I can determine if any of my supposedly liberal Euro-reps agreed with this Tory tosspot?