You know something that makes me feel guilty? I live below the official government poverty line. According to the report by the Joseph Rowntree foundation that came out this morning, I am REALLY poor (we are currently surviving on just over half their minimum figure, INCLUDING rent). And yet...

I have enough to eat.
I spend social time with my friends.
I have a bath every day, with Lush bubble bath.
I have a roof over my head.
I have reliable, fast internet access and a good computer.
My daughter gets three meals a day and an education.
I have huge piles of material goods - books, CDs, DVDs - which could be considered luxuries.

I don't see this as poverty. And there are lots of people in this country and the wider world who are living in REAL poverty, and their struggle is cheapened by this definition. People know that this definition of poverty is the type used by the government, and they assume that when poverty is mentioned, that just means you only have one telly. It creates a perception that real poverty doesn't exist in the UK, and you know what? It does.

Relative poverty is not pleasant, and financially, I'm not going to pretend it isn't a struggle. But in terms of what is going on in the wider world, I am SO BLOODY LUCKY to have the lifestyle I do. I think perhaps more of us could do with bearing this in mind.

In the light of John Major's comments re: the 42 days issue, I'd like to remind everyone of one thing.

The debate before the house is not referring to the total period a person can be kept inside before they have to be released. This is, in fact, about whether or not we should have 42 days of imprisonment for people before they are even told what they are supposed to have done wrong. Once you have been charged, once the rozzers have deigned to tell you what they think you've done, you can still be kept locked up for an almost indefinite period, up to and including your trial, given the consent of the judiciary.

The sole reason that this measure has been introduced is that when the police bring charged suspects before the courts, a lot of the time the courts say this man is clearly innocent, let him go, and the government wants to stop innocent people being released because they think it makes them look soft. Does anyone have any doubt at all that the three (yes, THREE, such a huge proportion of our 60,000,000+ population!) people who have so far been kept to 28 days under the current legislation before being charged would have been allowed to be detained post-charge by a court? FFS... What sort of country are we living in when someone can be locked up for any significant length of time without even being told what they are suspected of doing? How the hell have we come to having our government piss wantonly and indiscriminately all over habeas corpus without a peep from most of us about it? I'm sorry, I'm becoming incoherent. This just makes me SO ANGRY.

Given that you can be detained almost indefinitely post-charge, do we really need to have a limit of more than a week? Or even a couple of days? America manages with a two day limit...

Today is human rights blogging day. There are a lot of human rights issues that I could blog about but I have chosen reproductive freedom simply to tie in with the Coalition for Choice campaign currently going on at LC and elsewhere.

I realise that reproductive freedom in general and abortion in particular are 1, subjects I go on about a lot, and 2, somewhat heavy going. In situations like this, the Sainted Mortimer has taken to inserting calming pictures of cute puppies. I realise that this is probably not effective for you lot: partly because some of you are definitely Cat People, and partly because I think I have come up with something that will be more effective: Pictures of cool geek furniture! The first one comes via pickwick:



Reproductive Freedom is something we tend to take for granted in the UK. We have free contraception, and we have abortion available to us, even if it is only available through the arcane and byzantine systems put in place by the 67 Act (yes, we DO still need to obtain the permission of two doctors before we are allowed an abortion; the only other thing which needs two doctors is being sectioned under the Mental Health Act. Oh the irony). Therefore when nutters like Dorries and Cardinal Cormac O'Murphy want abortion restricted, there is a tendency for those of us who quite like the status quo to shrug and say meh, they'll never change THAT... Such complacency is dangerous.



The anti-abortion campaign is getting more vocal as the internet enables any old fool to set up a website. They are propagating lies (the Hand of Hope is springing to mind) and misinformation in the hope of getting people on their side. And they must be fought. NOT with further mudslinging and misinformation, but with cold hard fact.

- any restriction to abortion rights disproportionately affects the poor and disadvantaged.
- any restriction to abortion rights means more unwanted children.

It wouldn't be so bad if most of the anti-abortion activists were not also anti-contraception. This is a special sort of cognitive dissonance. It seems obvious to me that the best way to stop people having abortions is to stop them having unwanted pregnancies. This means lots of sex education and lots of access to free, good quality contraception. We've managed the second half of that, but the first half is sadly lacking, partly due to our peculiar British attitude to sex, and partly the ability of parents to withdraw their children from sex education (and indeed, homeschool them entirely).



I do not want a return to the bad old days where rich ladies could get a sympathetic doctor to arrange something, but everyone else had hot baths, gin, and knitting needles. I do not want us to sleepwalk into having our fundamental freedoms restricted by idiots like Dorries.

But, as usual, what I want isn't what matters. What do YOU lot want?

First things first, happy birthday briargate!

Secondly, we just got in from a nice pub lunch and a long dog walk with our two dogs and our friends and their two dogs. And this inspires a poll.

Poll #1159124 Dog walking Etiquette
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All

You have a large, aggressive German Shepherd dog, and you wish to stand and chat to a friend for half an hour or so. Where is the best place to stand with your dog?

View Answers

?In your house, with all the doors and windows barred
2 (15.4%)

In a deserted field, where it can run and play while you chat without upsetting other dogs.
10 (76.9%)

in the middle of the narrow footbridge over the beck that pretty much everyone entering or leaving the park with a dog has to cross
1 (7.7%)

If you chose option three, was this because you are...?

View Answers

stupid
7 (53.8%)

ignorant
5 (38.5%)

aggressive yourself, and think that having a big dog that causes trouble makes you look hard
6 (46.2%)

a complete twat
11 (84.6%)

a special snowflake to whom all the normal etiquettes of dog ownership do not apply
5 (38.5%)

Between the guy on the bridge and the other guy who just would not let his poor spaniel off the lead to play when it desperately wanted to in case its pedigreeness was sullied by our dogs' mongrelosity...

* headdesk *

Thirdly, the first of a bunch of things I want to link to today, here's an American data set about abortion. Yes, it's an American data set, but our stats are closer to the American ones that the rest of Europe, so it's worth looking at. Some of it I find quite worrying - like the number of women going for an abortion who hadn't used contraception at all (46%) as opposed to those who had had contraceptive failure - but some of the reasons given to the why have you come for an abortion question are quite interesting. I think it possibly gives ammunition for both sides, but the main thing that comes out of it for me is the woeful amount of properly used contraception. Education, education, education, you guys.

Fourthly, and on the same subject, Why I Am An Abortion Doctor. The tone of it is distinctly North-American-continent but, again, it's worth reading from a UK perspective too. I can understand why people are disquieted about abortion. I am disquieted about it. I am unlikely to ever have an abortion, because of my disquiet. But that's my choice. I would never force that choice on somebody else. Abortion is a difficult enough decision to make, without adding Slippery Elm Bark complications and back street abortionists to muddy the waters further.

Fifthly, Ten Things Every Adult Should Know. Definitely not for the easily offended (the title of the website should be a clue to that one), although it would probably do the easily offended good to read and inwardly digest...

Sixthly, PeeZee and Richard Dawkins have a good laugh about some silly creationists who tried to misrepresent them on film and then ban them from attending the film afterwards:



Seventhly, a step by step guide on How to Pack Up and Leave LJ without losing anything you don't want to lose, should you ever actually want to.

Eighthly, lastly, and shamelessly copied from innerbrat, Mitch Benn on Grammar:

I know there's a rule about starting sentences with "but", but screw it, it just means you end up starting them with "however", and since "however" at the beginning of a sentence just means "I really wanted to start this sentence with 'but' but I'm not allowed" , and everybody knows this, then frankly you may as well just start with "but", so I just did

&hearts Gotta love the big geeky fella.

So, this morning I read this. Yes, it's written and funded by folks with an agenda. Yes, there are flaws in the analysis and the data is mostly from 2001/2002... But it's still troubling me.

I really, honestly, don't care what consenting adults get up to, as long as it doesn't hurt any bystanders. What's troubling me is that it looks very much like bystanders are getting hurt.

Camden’s female rape rate per 1000 for 2001 was three times the national average, and 12% of these were aggressive, causing mild to moderate injury. Comparing the rape and indecent assault figures for 1999, before the establishment of Spearmint Rhino and Secrets Holborn, Finchley Road and Euston, and 2002:
- Since 1999 rape of women in Camden has increased by 50%
- Since 1999 indecent assault of women in Camden has increased by 57%

Now, obviously correlation =/= causation, but...

My first instinct would be to say that if prostitution was legalised then you wouldn't have all these horny young men who have just been titlated by something they can't have looking for someone to assault... But if prostitution is as rife as the report makes out then that's not the solution, is it? And i don't give a flying fig if one of the girls in Spearmint Rhino gives customers a blow job for a bit of extra money, if she's doing it of her own volition... But what if she's not?

I don't like strip clubs and lapdancing clubs. I really don't. I think they are tacky and demeaning both to the staff and the customers. But I recognise that my views and my own life experiences may colour my perceptions, and thus am not going to condemn anyone who works in or frequents strip clubs. I also recognise that demand for such is never going to go away because most men (and some women) like looking at pretty naked girls. I just wish there was some way of making sure that everyone involved on the business side is doing it because they want to, not because they are forced to. And I really wish I could get those rape figures out of my head.

Via von_geisterhand (again): Penn and Teller's Bullshit has an episode on profanity (which really does contain lots of swearing) in which Penn Jilette and his silent partner give idiot pro-censorship types just enough rope to hang themselves. If you've got half an hour to spare this fine Sunday, have a skeg at this, (especially if you're the anonymous commenter from my last post who felt the need to censor him/herself on the word "bloody". Assuming you've found the font size setting on your browser, and can read this, anyway). Watch for the cute little doggie in part one.

Part one:



Link: http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=ojEpASQi_7o

Part two:



Link: http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=C61mC-d8vFA

Part three:



Link: http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=20EPn4hOrR4

von_geisterhand says in their post:

One slightly more philosophical point that does not get covered in this is that those who wish to limit the range of your verbal expression are essentially trying to also limit the range of your emotions and ideas. If this sounds a little bit like the efforts of the government in "1984", that is because it basically is. An emotion/concept/idea which cannot be expressed in speech will find it very hard to spread in the population.

Penn does obliquely refer to this, if not explicitly. Lots of the talking heads skirt around it too. Really, what it boils down to is this: a state which says that you cannot use some words because they might offend somebody is garnering power that it should not have. If you don't like the words that someone uses, tell them you don't like their words. This is the beauty of free speech: if EVERYONE has it then nobody can force you to not be heard.

In this regard I completely agree with Rowan Atkinson, and what he said when he was campaigning against SOCPA and the Racial and Religious Hatred Act. He said that in my view the right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended. The right to ridicule is far more important to society than any right not to be ridiculed because one, in my view, represents openness - and the other represents oppression. And he's completely right. Completely and absolutely correct.

I have things that offend me, everyone does. Religious fundamentalists offend me. Hazel Blears offends me. The BNP offend me. But I don't want to ban any of those things. I want to debate them. I want to drag them kicking and screaming into the full light of day and make sure everyone can see their flaws, their inconsistencies, their lies, and their stupidities. I abhor the "no platform" stance lots of people take to the BNP. If you don't allow the BNP to speak publicly, you give them power. Paranoid tinfoil hat wearers will see this censorship and say to themselves Well, there must be something in it, or They wouldn't be trying to shut them up. The proper response to people like the BNP is to let them spout their illogical claptrap in public, pick out all the logical inconsistencies, hold them up for everyone to see, and then point and laugh.

Freedom of speech is important. It's important for big things like racism and homophobia and sexism, but it's also important for little things like the right to say "fuckety bollocks" when you stub your toe without fear of being arrested. To curtail the right to swear in public because somebody might get offended is to erode our right to protest, to express our feelings, to engage with society in a meaningful way. So next time you hear someone swear, don't bemoan the decline and fall of civilisation. Be glad that you live in a society where people can freely express ideas, even if they are ideas that other people don't like.

It's a beautiful thing. You cunts.

Some time ago puddingcat pointed me towards the excellent pc_bloggs, which is the anonymised blog of a serving female police constable. I don't always agree with pc_bloggs, by any means, but even when she says something I disagree with I can see how she got to the conclusion she did and she is cogent and intelligent. She also provides a valuable insight into modern policing which all of us, male or female, can benefit from reading.

Today's post? Today's post is one that I think should be disseminated as far as humanly possible, so this is me doing my bit. It's called The Truth About Rape. Go read it.

I'm a big fan of the requirement that people should not be convicted without good evidence, and that it's better for a guilty person to go free than for an innocent person to be imprisoned. I believe passionately in the rule of law, and the jury system, and all that good stuff. I hate myself for typing the following, but type it I must.

Most rapes are not stranger rapes. Most rapes are between people who know each other. Most rapes involve a perpetrator and a victim, and no other witnesses. No CCTV. Nothing. It's the perpetrator's word against the victim's. If the proper standards of evidence are in force, and all else is equal, in this situation it's entirely proper that the perpetrator is acquitted. Because the other option is diluting the principles which protect us all, in all circumstances. Rape is a horrendous, horrifying ordeal. No person should be forced to perform sexual acts against their will. But that's not a reason to lower the standards of evidence for a conviction, because that would be the thin end of the fattest wedge of all.

Oh, and the first person to say you wouldn't say that if you'd ever been a victim of sexual violence yourself!... Well, let's not go there, shall we?

...That Sgt. Pepper told the band to play that the Representation of the People Act which gave women the right to vote in the UK came into force (as flagged up by the ever-readable ros_scott in this excellent piece). It seems almost unbelievable to me that it was less than a hundred years ago that women were fighting and dying for my right to vote. See how far we've come? And yet how far we've still got to go... Thankfully women like Ros and Shami Chakrabarti and others are there, pushing the boundaries for the rest of us.

---

The joy of Super Tuesday? It's a great day to release bad news and hope that nobody will pick up on it. Obviously, the ex-CIA guys have already admitted waterboarding; but now we have it from the horse's mouth. Yes, for the first time, the head of the CIA has publicly admitted that they have used waterboarding, which as we all know is torture, and he totally by coincidence did it today...

People in glass houses shouldn't have baths throw stones, and I know that our government participated in extraordinary rendition, and did lots of other reprehensible things to suspected terrorists, but honestly? If you're going to criticise other countries for this sort of shit, don't do it yourself. That goes to my government, as well as the one across the water.

---

jesus_and_mo have taken on the cause of Sayed Pervez Kambaksh in their own inimitable style. There's also a FaceBook group, obviously.

Seriously, what shames Islam more? The fact that this dude read an article about his own damn religion and was impressed enough by it that he distributed it to others? Or the fact that three Islamic judges sentenced him to death for it? Islamic Human Rights My Arse.

---

The definitely-not-sainted-'cos-he's-an-atheist PeeZee reviews The Complete Idiot's Guide to Prayer. The entry in itself is cuttingly hilarious, but the comments are a slice of pure fried gold. Give yourself quarter of an hour and read through them. Might get a bit wearing if you have religion, mind.

So I shall just mention that 28 is no age at all, and I am a bit freaked by the fact that he was two years younger than me... And then move on to the good news.

Firstly, as reported by D-notice and Mat, the ECtHR have ruled that banning gay adoption is illegal in the EU. HURRAH!

Secondly, a serious nail in the coffin of ID cards. Double HURRAH!

Starting to feel a little bit antsy about the possibility of Honeymoon in San Francisco after reading this. Previously I had laboured under the comfortable delusion that as I am white and speak only English I would be less at risk of this kind of thing (unlike some of my fellow British Citizens), but if it can happen to a blonde Icelander who's just gone to do Christmas Shopping in New York...

The thing is, I know that there are vast swathes of Americans who are against this kind of blanket xenophobia; I know that there are Americans who read this blog who are appalled by such flagrant breaches of their constitution and are working hard to make sure they stop happening; I also know that lots of people do go to visit the US without this sort of thing happening... I have wanted to visit San Fran for a long time, and Mat has been before and assures me it's beautiful. I have friends in the US that I'd like to wave at as I fly over, and maybe meet some of the ones I haven't yet met...

But the seed of paranoia and fear has been sown.

:(

Mister Mat and I went to see the film adaptation of Stardust last night. I was a little bit apprehensive, even though lots of people had assured me it was excellent, because I do so worry about books I love being turned into films. I need not have panicked. I think, TBH, there were too many things I enjoyed to list them all, and not much that I didn't. I caused giggles when ( SPOILER! ) by cheering happily. I loved ( SPOILER! ) and Michelle Ppipppipppipfer was ( SPOILER! )! I might, possibly, have cried a bit. And there might, possibly, have been soppy squeezing of hands and snogging in certain bits of the film. Yes, I very, very, very much enjoyed it, although it was a tiny bit slow in places, and not as good as the book (obviously). I am firmly of the opinion, however, that it will be this generation's Princess Bride. And am SOOOOOOO glad it wasn't a complete bastardisation of a book I hold dear *coughcoughHogfathercough*

Then, when we got home, we watched TimeCrash. So. Much. Win. I don't think anybody is going to knock Moffat off the top spot of Who writers. Well, not until they finally give Joe Lidster a crack at the main show, anyway. I could list all the joy-making lines from that, but really? Click the link and go watch it. I am kind of sad that Tennant's heartfelt line ( SPOILER! ) will never be delivered in similar fashion to Old Sixie, because he needs it more than The Wet Vet, who knows the affection with which he is held by fandom, but that was tempered by the amusement of having to explain to Mister Mat exactly why ( SPOILER! ) was so funny.

---

Oh all right, a little bit of politics. Apparently, in Saudi Arabia, being gang-raped fourteen times isn't enough punishment for breaking the law on associating with unrelated males. But, of course, the main news is that the girl's lawyer has had his licence to practise taken away. That's much more important than the fact that she's been sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in prison for allowing herself to be raped.

* headdesk *

Still, kudos to the lawyer for saying that the behaviour of the court is illegal and unIslamic. Not that it will get him anywhere.

There has been much discussion of late about dear Mister Cameron's speech regarding rape and how it's time to get tough on it. And, although he makes some good points, some of his underlying nastiness and misogyny made me so unfeasibly angry that I am feeling homicidal urges. While, as a good liberal, I cannot condone some of the authoritarian overtones of the tips given in this men's rape prevention leaflet (OMG you mustn't make sexist jokes! Because if you stop making sexist jokes it will stop you having sexist thoughts!), I think they have it bang on when they say that:

[r]ape prevention is a men's thing, because men can make rape stop. Immediately. Right now. Rape will stop when men who rape stop raping.

This contrasts sharply with Dave's true blue Tory undertones, when he says that society has become increasingly "sexualised" over the past decade, during which time treating women as sex objects has become viewed as "cool". Rape is not about sex in and of itself, Dave. Rape is about one person using sex to exert power over another person (typically man over woman, but not always). Rape is not caused by or increased by women having the freedom to dress how they like or go out drinking with their friends. We've all had that email, haven't we? The "if a woman is drunk, don't rape her" one? And yet some people still seem to feel that the concept of the fault being with the rapist rather than the victim is contentious (see the comments in the entry linked). Some people seem to think that it's OK to blame someone else for their consciously chosen actions. I consciously chose to rape this woman, but it's OK, because she was wearing a short skirt; this is the root of the problem, right here. Rape is caused by some men (not all men) having the view that women are lesser beings, and that they have the right to do what they like to them. Rape is caused by some men thinking that lesser beings matter much less than their own gratification or hang-ups, or anger. Raped isn't caused by the lack of consequences for the rapist (we all know the statistics on this one: one in four women experiences sexual violence over her lifetime, only a quarter of rapes are reported, of those which are reported, only one in twenty will lead to a conviction...), but it certainly doesn't make a rapist think twice about his actions when he lives in a society which still expects women to be passive worshippers of the almighty cock, and is surprised when we are not. The vast majority of rapes do not lead to the rapist being being punished partly because we live in this sort of society, but this is not, by a long shot, the only problem.

Now, given the nature of our legal system, as Bob Piper says, it is always going to be the case that where rape has happened between two people who know each other, with no other witnesses, it is going to be very difficult to prove consent or lack thereof beyond a reasonable doubt; and that is, unfortunately, how the majority of rapes happen. It's not the guy in the Flasher's Mac leaping out of the bushes, it's the friend who won't take no for an answer, or the boyfriend who wants to win an argument by physical prowess or the husband who uses sex as a way to keep his wife in line.

All of this seems to have escaped our Dave. He seems to be under the misapprehension, held by a lot of authoritarians, that sexual freedom leads to more sexual violence. Rape has always happened, and happens under even the most sexually repressive regimes (it's just that in those regimes it's even MORE acceptable to blame the woman for it). And while educational initiatives such as teaching children in compulsory sex education lessons might have an impact (and is an idea that I approve of wholeheartedly), continuing to place the blame for rape on the shoulders of the victims is bloody stupid, and contributes to the one in two young men [who] believe there are some circumstances when it's okay to force a woman to have sex.

So, yes, C- must try harder. Which is not good. OTOH, it's better than an F, which is what Dear Old Uncle Gordon gets, because the Labour have been stripping funding from rape crisis centres and not discussing this at all. And as for the party of my fiancé, they haven't even talked about rape since 2003, and even then it was with a focus on stopping innocent men being convicted rather than how we can prevent it in the first place (which is, actually, something I am bang behind, but a topic for another post perhaps)...

---

Oh, and while I'm being all feministy, innerbrat does a fine dissection of sexual prejudices in the reporting of scientific studies, and the BBC uses any excuse to post pictures of Nigella's cleavage. Actually, the wording of that article amused me greatly (because if you don't laugh, you'll cry). It starts off being about how there appears to be a correlation between waist/hip ratio and smarts, but quickly descends to being all about how curvy women may/may not be more attractive to men. Because women can't be discussed as valid creatures in their own right, only with reference to how useful or attractive they are to men; this is, as we all know, not even a woman's primary function, but her only function...

NB: any links which may have been in the original entry are no longer there. Sorry.

( Originally Posted 10th December 2005 )

NB: any links which may have been in the original entry are no longer there. Sorry.

( Originally posted 5th December 2005 )

NB: any links which may have been in the original entry are no longer there. Sorry.

( Originally posted 29th October 2005 )