2

Hypocricy on BBC Question Time

Britain is holding a snap election on the 8th of June to determine who is going to be the next prime minister. During the campaigning period, all party leaders have (to greater and lesser extents) taken part in televised question and answer sessions with the British public. That’s what the BBC Question Time special last night was all about: current prime minister Theresa May and the leader of the opposition Jeremy Corbyn both spent 45 minutes answering questions from the British public.

What struck me about the debate is that the two biggest areas the Corbyn was challenged on were not his plans to nationalise the railways, there was just one question on scrapping zero hour contracts, no one seemed to care about his vision for social care or the NHS. What people did want to know is why he won’t outrightly condemn the IRA and why he won’t commit to sending off nukes to blow up people if  ‘we had to’.

The thing about Jeremy Corbyn is … he’s a nice guy. He has been campaigning for peace for decades and he is clearly against nuclear weapons. This should not come as a surprise. His party won’t let him get rid of the weapons, but obviously, he doesn’t want to use them to blow up entire regions and murder people.  Our nuclear weapons are there as a deterrent so I can see why it’s a little alarming that Jezebel won’t even make it look like he would use them if he had to, but he never outright said he wouldn’t use them either.  He said he wouldn’t just send them off without weighing up the situation and trying other options. Is that really so bad?

The other thing that always seems quite popular is Jeremy Corbyn’s supposed links to the IRA. He did meet with members of the IRA, as did many other members of parliament, in an attempt to create a ceasefire. People also think he supports the IRA because he spoke at a remembrance ceremony for them and because he refuses to condemn them without also condemning the violence of rival groups.

History is complicated. It isn’t always as simple as saying these were the good guys and these were the evil people. Both sides normally do terrible things and neither side is ever blameless. Acknowledging that the situation with Ireland was complicated and that deaths on both sides should be mourned isn’t the same as advocating terrorist attacks. I’m really not sure why this and nothing else seems to bother people so much.

This leads me onto my next and main point. Britain currently sells weapons to Saudi Arabia. We know this. We also know that Saudi Arabia uses those weapons in ways which most probably violate international law. We know that those weapons were used on civilians in Yemen, and there is pretty strong evidence to suggest that some of those weapons are also going to ISIS in Syria. So it just seems a bit crazy that we are so quick to jump on Jeremy Corbyn over not wanting to celebrate people dying during the troubles but we have no moral qualms about selling weapons to a country which uses them in violation of human rights and often violates the human rights of people within its own country.

Things are complicated, and I am not suggesting that the U.K should break their ties with Saudi Arabia. I just want to highlight the hypocrisy in condemning Corbyn for his ‘friendliness’ towards terrorists whilst we just ignore things like this. Judge them on their policies and their record and their actions. But if you want to judge one of them for ‘leasing with terrorists’ then take a closer look at what is actually going on before you let that be the deciding factor.

I wrote an article about this topic in more depth. If you would like to read it please go to: https://evonews.com/world-news/2017/jun/03/opinion-the-bbc-question-time-debate-theresa-may-jeremy-corbyn-and-saudi-arabia/

Advertisements
0

Should Fake News Be Banned?

https://mcxv.com/fake-news-made-illegal/

I recently attended a debate which focused on whether or not ‘fake news’ is covered by free speech.  This topic is very relevant for bloggers because if you tend to focus on news and current events, you are contributing to the discourse and you are presenting your own view of the truth, a view which may or may not be widely accepted.

Would fake news laws shut down blogs just because the powers that be don’t agree with them? Who decides what is and is not fake? And what would that mean for political commentators, Youtubers, bloggers and keyboard warriors? Before you decide whether or not fake news should be banned you first need to think about what fake news is and who defines and decides what fake news is.

Donald Trump believes that the mainstream media deliberately lies about him and his fans. The public has, to some extent, always been dubious of the mainstream media but the rise of independent news outlets seems to be fuelling this distrust. Facebook and Google are clamping down on fake news. People are being implored to actually research the facts before they share a meme. Fake news is very relevant to a world where basically anyone can be a journalist and users alone decide what will go viral, but is fake news detrimental to or in fact supported by free speech?

I have written an article about whether fake news should be banned, the definition of fake news, the difference between interpretation and facts, and whether or not fake news should be banned. The article was published on MCXV, an independent news website which allows contributors to make a small profit based on a number of views they get. Is this the kind of website which would be targeted by anti-fake news legislation? Take a look and let me know what you think!

0

The tragic case of Dylan Seabridge and why home education is not the problem

In 2011 an eight year old boy named Dylan Seabridge died of scurvy. This was undoubtedly a tragic and utterly preventable death which was caused by this child’s parents failing to feed him properly and then misunderstanding his condition as ‘growing pains’, something they continued to maintain even after the child’s death and post-mortem exam. Even though this happened over four years ago, the story appears to have re-emerged last week and most of the coverage is now centered on the fact that the eight year old boy was home educated. This has raised concerns with some people, who say there should be stronger measures taken that would give the authorities more power over  home schooled children, with all home educated children being listed on a ‘register’, presumably with the occasional compulsory check up.

A lot of sources are reporting that the child was ‘invisible’ to the authorities because the child was home educated, even though it has recently come out that the child was known to the authorities for a year before he died. Concerns were raised by two people, a teacher and a lawyer and the education officials visited Dylans home, but were turned away by the parents. Apparently there were no further attempts to see the child. According to some of the press coverage, as the child was home educated under ‘current law’ they had no legal right to demand to see the child, and therefore he ‘slipped under the radar’ and they could take no further action.

As far as I understand, parents are not legally required to have regular check ups with the social services or education offices, and they can refuse to allow the education officers to see their child (as these parents in question did). However, the education authorities do have the power to take things further if they decide to do so.
According to http://edyourself.org/ , a website which offers legal advice and information to home educators: “Under paragraph 3.16 of the Government Guidelines, it states that “if it appears to a local authority that a child is not receiving a suitable education it may wish to contact the parents to discuss their ongoing home education provision. Contact should normally be made in writing to the parents to request further information. A written report should be made after such contact…stating whether the authority has any concerns about the education provision and specifying what these are…
Paragraph 3.16 of the Guidelines goes on to say that if a local authority considers that a suitable education is not being provided and the parents, having been given a reasonable opportunity to address the identified concerns and report back to the authority have not done so, the authority should consider sending a formal notice under section 437 before moving on if needed, to the issuing of a School Attendance Order.” Paragraph 3.5 – which only applies after it seems there may be a problem, and not from the outset – does not say that the authority “must”contact parents or even that it “should”, rather that it “may wish” to do so.
The concerns were voiced by a lawyer and a head teacher, who were worried because Dylans mother was mentally ill and as the child was home educated they were presumably unsure she could provide a suitable education for her child. The information above shows that whilst the local authorities did not have to pursue the matter, if they were concerned about the child’s education and the parents were not able to provide assurance, they could have gone on to issue a formal notice and if necessary involve the social services. I personally don’t believe that would have saved the child’s life, but they did have that power if they had chosen to use it. To say they had no further power because the parents refused to let them see their child is wrong. They did not have the obligation to take it further, but they did have the option to do so. http://edyourself.org/ also has another section of interest to this case. According to them: “4.7 The welfare and protection of all children, both those who attend school and those who are educated at home, are of paramount concern and the responsibility of the whole community. Working Together to Safeguard Children states that all agencies and individuals should aim proactively to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. As with school educated children, child protection issues may arise in relation to home educated children. If any child protection concerns come to light in the course of engagement with children and families, or otherwise, these concerns should immediately be referred to the appropriate authorities using established protocols.  Government’s Home Education Guidelines

The education officers have to give you a notice and give you some time to prove you are providing a satisfactory education, and if you do not then they can refer you to the social services. As far as I am aware, if the social services were concerned about child abuse (which would include neglect) they had the power to take the same actions they would with a child who attended school. The social services don’t seem to have been directly involved with this case, perhaps because the education authorities decided there was no cause for further concern, but if they had been they would have had the power to take further action if they deemed it necessary.
The idea this child was ‘invisible to the authorities’ is clearly untrue as the authorities visited his house and therefore clearly knew he existed and were, at least momentarily, concerned for his welfare. The idea they had no power to take action as he was home schooled is  incorrect, because as the information above shows it was within their power to take further action if they had decided to do so. They did not have the obligation to do so, but if they had been unduly concerned they had the option to issue the parents with a notice and, if they did not receive a satisfactory response, get the social services involved. This was within their power, but they did not choose to take to exercise it.

There has been a lot of controversy regarding the social services in resent years, with cases like Baby P highlighting the clear failure of the social services to save a child’s life where they had the opportunities to do so and real cause for concern. Now, I don’t think any of us who do not work in the social services sector can fully appreciate how hard it must be to investigate these cases, and to toe the right line between taking enough action and not unduly interfering in a family’s life, both of which can cause a backlash if done incorrectly. There is an uproar if they fail to see the danger a child was in in time, and rightly so, but there would also be an uproar if they tore a family apart without adequate evidence that it was necessary. These are human people, and the ultimate fault must still lie with those directly responsible for the abuse i.e the parents/carers.
I do not feel that home education is really the issue here. There have been documented cases of children who went to school who were obviously being abused, which was either missed by the school or reported by the school and yet still was not adequately dealt with. The terrible case of Daniel Pelka comes to mind, as this child was also described as being ‘invisible’ to the professionals despite the fact he attended school. This child was starved and beaten at his home, became severely underweight and died as a result in March 2012.  It has been reported that the child arrived at school with visible bruises and was seen scavenging for food; a teaching assistant described him as a ‘bag of bones’. This was another tragic and preventable death, and it was said that because English was not the child’s first language (he was Polish), he lacked the ability to speak up about his treatment and his parents may have used it as an excuse not to cooporate.
I would not blame the school for this, as it appears teachers did report it. However, I would say that this case weakens the assumption that if Dylan Seabridge had gone to school it would have made a difference in the tragic outcome of his death. Scurvy is, as far as I am aware, not immediately noticeable or easily identifiable by a non medical professional. If he had attended school there may have been concerns about his welfare, but I am not sure the school would have been able to identify what was wrong. They may have alerted social services, but this does not mean adequate action would have been taken.

The parents are still have been intimately responsible for the child’s welfare regardless of his education. The sad and horrible fact is that some parents do terrible things, whether it be neglect their child, not feed them a healthy diet, or even physically abuse and starve them. Child abuse is a real concern for our communities and authorities, and I agree there should be an over-view of how social services treat different cases and that they are fully aware of the powers they have and what action to take in which instance, although clearly it is not a simple issue with a one answer fits all solution. What I would say though is that home education is not the cause for concern, and it is not to blame here. The authorities appear to already have authorization to take action against home educating parents if they believe the child is being abused or not receiving a satisfactory education. I would maybe suggest that rather than leave it to the authorities discretion,  if they have valid cause for concern that the child is not being educated and/or is being abused they would be required to take further action rather than simply have the option to do so, but that would require a change in wording and a requirement that they use the powers they already have, not a change in the law.  If they are concerned, they already have the power to take action. Registering all home educated children on a database would not change the rights that the authorities already have, but it may be a stepping stone to allowing more state interference in the education side of home education.

I think the basic concern lies in the idea that home educated children could be ‘locked up’ from the outside world and have no interactions with people outside of their family and thus it may be easier to abuse them as no one would ever hear about it, but in reality this isn’t what happens, nor was it the case here. Dylan’s parents were known to several people who reported their concerns, so clearly they were not unknown to anyone outside of their family.  The vast, vast majority of home schooling families go outside regularly; to museums, art galleries, parks, home educating events and clubs, friends houses, historic buildings etc. There is a vast and active home educating community all over the world, it is not a collection of anti social individuals who never go outside. You may say that a compulsory register could help save the few home educated children who may have abusive parents, and should not affect the majority of families who home educate to the best of their ability and do not neglect their children, but the fact is that there is a genuine cause for concern which has nothing to do with abuse. If being registered means the authorities can come and inspect your ‘progress’ on a regular basis, parents may be concerned that this would allow the authorities to dictate how their children are to be taught, and popular methods like autonomous home education may not be deemed ‘appropriate’ as there is not a universal way to test it, even though it can and does work well for many children. As the authorities already have the power to tackle abuse, I see no reason to put extra measures onto home education in itself, or to say that home education is in itself to blame. These parents are to blame, the authorities who did not take action and then tried to cover it up by saying the child was un-known to them (even though it has since come out that he was) are partly to blame as well. But the majority of responsible home educating parents are not to blame. I hope the full report sheds further light on all that happened in this tragic case, and I hope the powers that be use their common sense and look into this case properly before taking any measures that could harm the innocent and do nothing to help children who are actually at risk.

Further reading:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/12114339/Social-services-warned-about-boys-health-a-year-before-he-died-of-scurvy.html

http://www.cps.gov.uk/wales/news_and_views/dylan_seabridge_death__charges_against_glynn_and_julie_seabridge_dropped/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-24106823

http://edyourself.org/articles/socialservices.php

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/22/concerns-raised-about-boy-who-died-of-scurvy-a-year-before-his-death-leaked-report

http://edyourself.org/articles/FAQ.php

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dylan-seabridge-concerns-raised-welfare-7222922

http://educationalfreedom.org.uk/information/social-services/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3410742/Concerns-raised-boy-s-welfare-year-died-scurvy-aged-eight.html

http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Home-Education-And-Your-Legal-Rights

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24107377

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24107377

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/22/concerns-raised-about-boy-who-died-of-scurvy-a-year-before-his-death-leaked-report

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-23349527

3

Prostitution should be legal in the UK

I just read an article on the BBC about Amnesty Internationals recent claim that prostitution should be decriminalized, which has been attacked by certain celebrities and female rights groups who are concerned that prostitution harms the sex workers concerned. According to the Guardian, “The women’s groups and anti-trafficking campaigners opposing the Amnesty motion start from the premise that most prostitutes are victims who sell sex simply to survive.They argue that human trafficking and prostitution are inextricably linked.”

Now, to me this doesn’t really make sense. Firstly it seems to assume that all prostitutes are being human trafficked, which is not the case,  secondly not all (or even the majority) of prostitutes are victims or doing it against their will (although this is more likely if prostitution is illegal), and thirdly all of the problems they seem concerned with are problems because prostitution is illegal, not problems of prostitution itself. Making something illegal does not eradicate it, it does not stop people doing it, but it does drive the industry underground and allows criminals to control the trade and exploit the workers. I am not sure how common human trafficking is,  or how much of the sex trade it controls (I would say its a far smaller amount then many people assume, but I could be wrong), it does not just concern prostitutes (slavery and forced labor is still practiced by human traffickers), and human trafficking is and should always be illegal as it is a despicable form of slavery. However, human trafficking and prostitution are not the same thing. In a legal and regulated sex industry trafficked prostitution would be reduced, partly because customers would be warned about legal and illegal prostitution and the penalties could be made more severe for the illegal kind, partly because it would simply be easier to go to a licensed sex company than a illegal one, and partly because the newly legal sex industry would be able to raise awareness and victims would have more legal options. If there is a legal distinction between consensual prostitution and human trafficking we can start to effectively tackle the latter without putting the former in danger.

Many people still seem to think that all prostitutes are female victims, and it is often assumed they are addicts who sell sex to fund their habits, and it is widely assumed that sex workers are miserable, poor and desperate people who need to sell sex to survive. This is true for some and for some abuse is a very real thing. This is more so because there are no regulations against abuse, and because the trade is far more likely to be run by criminals engaged in a variety of other activities if it is illegal, but there will always be risks concerning paid sex, we cannot pretend this is not the case. However, it is also not the full story. If you watch any tv documentary which has interviewed sex workers and punters, you will see that there are women (and men) who are prostitutes by choice, some who enjoy what they do and who make a pretty good wage doing it. It does not have to be considered immoral, sinful or tacky, prostitutes often offer more to their clients then just sex, and catering for the individual client and being able to give them a good experience actually requires a degree of skill and intuition. The moral questions around prostitution have clouded the issue, and it is the male and female sex workers that suffer because of it. The sex trade is the oldest trade in the world. It has occurred throughout history and it will continue to happen until our species is extinct. It also occurs in other animals, Chimpanzees (our closest hairy relatives) have been known to trade sex in exchange for another reward. Regardless of if you think it is a good thing or if you would use a prostitute or be one yourself, you have to understand that making it illegal will not make it go away, but it will keep the trade underground and, as long as it is illegal, male and female sex workers will remain in danger of exploitation and abuse. Some sex workers already have pimps and agencies that look after them (as much as they currently can) and they have safety procedures that they follow, but some do not have that luxury and even where they do the illegality of their situation can still be dangerous. Some work on the streets,  and some are exploited by criminal organizations. They have no safety guarantee, they have no guarantee that safe sex will be practiced and they are at risk to being raped and attacked. All these problems could be solved with a licensed sex trade, where they would largely work out of regulated brothels with alarm bells, security and enforced rules. The procedure would also be safer for the clients, again in light of STD prevention and licensed venues, as there are dangers both ways from picking up a stranger on the street.

I am not an expert. I have read several books (check out Brook Magnanti, the author of The Secret Diary of a Call Girl books and The Sex Myth) and watched documentaries on the subject, all of which paint a different picture of prostitution than that which is often assumed. It may be hard to accept that some people do enjoy being a sex worker, and that some take pride in being good at their job, but these people do exist and they are not as uncommon as you may think. Even if someone didn’t enjoy the sexual aspects of the job and was doing it for monetary reasons, this doesn’t necessarily mean they are victims and need to be saved, or that they are unhappy. Not everyone loves their job, but it doesn’t mean they hate it either, and even though it is more of an issue where someone’s body is concerned, it is also their choice to do what they want with their own body, and it is up to them if they want to sell it and who they sell it to. There are risks, both emotional and physical, which are still a concern regardless of the legality of the job, it is not a job for everyone and people would have to consider whether they could handle the complications being a prostitute would add to their life, but this does not mean it  should be illegal. You would probably need to attend an interview where the realities are explained to you before you could become one, and if it was legal you would be able to leave if you decided it was no longer something you wanted to do. I’m not trying to say it would be totally safe and that no one would be abused if it was legal, it will never be perfect and there will always be problems, but making it legal would be an improvement. If it is regulated, if it does have security and if the workers do have legal rights it will improve the situation.  I personally fail to see how having sex with a stranger you pick up in a bar is any more safe or ‘better’ than being paid to have consenting sex with a consenting adult who for whatever reason chose to pay for it.  If prostitution was legal, it would be up to the individual to choose whether they wanted to do it or not, you wouldn’t be forced into it and you would be able to receive support if you needed it. I’m not saying it would be perfect, but it would be better.

I believe that moral judgement are all very well, but it will not change the reality of the situation. It really doesn’t matter if you think its morally wrong, because it is going to happen regardless. We cannot, and I believe we should not, place morals or opinions ahead of safety. You cannot get rid of it, but you can make it safer for those involved, and I hope the UK will wake up soon and see this. I do not think decriminalizing it is enough, it should be legal.

The article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-33850749