Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts

Monday, 26 August 2013

Badger Cull: it is the politicians who are really sick

According some websites, the badger cull is due to start about now - a cull supposedly to drive out bovine TB, but one that will make it worse. 


The cull is sickening me to my core. There is no scientific basis, and the only rationale that I can imagine is bloodlust (or lack of balls in the face of the whip) by the coalition MPs. The idea that this was to be the greenest government ever was always a sick joke. Now killing badgers seems to be starting, it seems that the Cameron / Clegg partnership is sinking into further anti-nature territory.

People wonder at my anger towards Lib Dems in particular, this is a party that sets itself out to be cuddly and nature loving, yet they vote to kill badgers. I expect the Tories to vote against anything that respects nature, and I expect Labour to do the same. The list of how MPs voted is here.

There is little more to say, other than I hope the direct action that my fellow animal lovers will be taking will be peaceful and non-violent.

Chris Packham sets out why the cull is wrong and the RSPCA vows to fight on.Vaccination is the answer, along with better standards of farming.


Sunday, 25 August 2013

Sign the live exports petition

Please sign this petition against live exports:

We call upon the Government to cease immediately the live transport of farmed animals from British ports to continental Europe and to make that cessation permanent by appropriate amendment to the Harbours, Docks and Piers Act 1847. 

The exports are continuing from Dover and must be stopped. The government claims that it would be illegal to do so, a claim that I think is pathetic - where there is a will there is a way.

The RSPCA are calling on Dover Habour Board to let them inspect the animals, please also add your voice to that call.

Wednesday, 21 August 2013

Dover school still endorsing anti-gay legislation

I'm shocked that years after many of us fought Kent County Council's version of Section 28, the legislation that stopped teachers discussing same-sex relationships as being acceptable and normal (see below). The Harbour School still refers to Section 28 in its policy despite it being repealed in 2003, ten years ago!

The school has been outed by the British Humanist Association as one of 45 schools around the country that have these discrimatory policies still in place. The school should be ashamed of itself and I have written to their head teacher asking them to remove the section of their policy and reeducate their staff. The policy is in breach of the Equality Act 2010.

This is the text of my email to info@harbour.kent.sch.uk

Dear Mrs Baker,

Your school is one of 45 around the country that is still quoting the Section 28 anti-gay legislation that was repealed 10 years ago. I hope that this policy is a mistake and that you are taking rapid steps to change it and to educate your staff accordingly. I suggest that any other course of action would continue to be discriminatory towards gay and lesbian people - clearly illegal under the Equality Act 2010.

I would be grateful if you would confirm whether it is your intention to make these changes and by when.

Regards

Stuart Jeffery

This is the excerpt from the schools policy (as at 21st Aug 2013):

Local Government Act, 1988
Section 28 requires that -
A Local Authority shall not -
1 (a) Intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;
(b) Promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
2 Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken to prohibit the doing of anything for the purpose of treating or preventing the spread of disease.
3 In any proceedings in connection with the application of this section a court shall draw such inferences as to the intention of the local authority as may reasonably be drawn from the evidence before it.

Tuesday, 6 August 2013

Cllr Brazier accused of 'naivety' after fracking report...

...by Green Party Cllr Martin Whybrow following sight of a Kent County Council document supporting fracking in a piece on the KM website. Cllr Whybrow: "The document is a pointer of the way KCC is looking at this. I do not know what evidence there is for making these sorts of assertions and I cannot see the justification for them."

And while councillors in Kent are being fed a contaminated stream of baloney at least the Greens can still speak out against this dangerous and destructive practice unlike two children in the Land of the Free who have been given lifetime gagging orders.

Fracking has become the front line for the environmental movement.

This is the 'naive' briefing from KCC's Cabinet Member for the Environment (Tory, Cllr Brazier) to councillors:



Fracking – A briefing for Members

What is fracking?

Fracking has been much in the news recently and will continue to feature. 

Fracking, or “hydraulic fracturing”, as you will know by now, is a process for releasing gas or oil from shale, a sedimentary rock rich in organic matter lying up to 20,000ft below the earth’s surface.  The methodology involves applying a mixture of water and chemicals under pressure to open the lateral seams in the shale and effectively push out the gas or oil.

Expert opinion is that there are extensive beds of shale under Kent and elsewhere in the UK, and substantial quantities of a hitherto untapped source of energy are there to be taken, perhaps for seventy years.  Shale gas, when burnt, has only half the emissions of coal and its use as a mainstream fuel could represent the cheapest and quickest way of making the cuts in Britain’s carbon emissions that we are committed to under international treaties.

Fracking is a violent-sounding word, and a violent process.  You will have read or heard that it causes earthquakes; well, it can cause earth tremors but generally of a low order and not significantly more than might be caused by coal mining.  There is also worry about the large amounts of water needed in the process and the possibility of pollution of groundwater reserves.  A huge amount of concern has been generated at the prospect of fracking in Britain, and what is needed is a balanced view of the impacts, weighing the positive impacts of the technology
against the negative ones. This is mine:-

Positive Impacts

·        Given the UK’s future energy demands, the responsible exploration for and production of indigenous hydrocarbon resources offers significant economic benefits that are broadly in the national interest.  Shale gas has particular attractions in that it is, relatively speaking, a cleaner, greener, high energy methane rich fuel.  It has no value if it remains locked in the ground.
·        Shale gas can be produced onshore locally and used locally, assuming an economically sustainable delivery system.
·        It will be a largely new industry, creating jobs.


Negative Impacts

·        Shale gas production routinely requires large sophisticated hydraulic fracture treatments on each well
·        Development will impact the local infrastructure and environment with massive equipment and large numbers of vehicle movements.
·        Many wells are required, the number being consistent with the intensity of activity
·        Fracking can use large quantities of fresh water.  Very large volumes of flow back water have also to be recovered and treated

The UK Government view of Fracking

The UK government is supportive of home-grown energy initiatives and whereas some European governments have banned fracking, it has adopted a pragmatic approach to the technique and has allowed some small scale tests to be carried out.  However, following some earth tremors near a site in Lancashire, government insisted on the suspension of activity pending an independent study.  The independent panel has published its findings and whilst the operators in Lancashire, Cuadrilla, have admitted causing earth tremors of up to magnitude 2.3 (2.3 is described as “moderate”), the government response is that fracking should be allowed to resume.

Q&A

Q. Is fracking a new technology? Why hasn’t it been done before in the UK?
A. No.  It’s been going on since 1946 and now produces huge amounts of energy in, principally, the United States and Canada. Fracking is an expensive process and not viable when oil and conventional gas is plentiful and cheap, as it has been until recently.

Q.  Can it really cause an earthquake?
A.  Depends what you call an earthquake.  The technique can occasionally cause earth tremors that might crack the plaster, but it is not capable of causing serious damage.  In any case, when a local problem is discovered, the danger of tremors can be designed out of the system.

Q. Doesn’t it cause environmental damage?
A. Yes, some, but then so do all extractive industries.  The problem will not be huge holes in the ground, like open cast mining, but the intrusion of the plant and installations needed to deliver the gas or oil.  With regulation and care, the effects can be minimised.

Q. What’s this business about chemicals being pumped into ground?  Aren’t they going to pollute the groundwater and poison us all?
A. Water and sand are 99% of what is used as a fluid in fracking, but water is not an efficient carrier of sand and a range of chemicals are used to make the mixture more gel-like as it is pumped into the fractures in the shale. The chemicals used are said to be those used in commonly used domestic compounds and therefore not dangerous, but the concentrations and manner of use are quite important.  Bores are carefully sealed and fracking usually occurs at depths far below that of groundwater.

Q. Are people right to protest?
A.  People will always protest against change but fracking can produce substantial quantities of energy fuel, possibly enough to meet Britain’s needs for decades at a time when other options are running out and our reliance on foreign suppliers is increasing.  There is no reason to assume that it cannot be a safe process.


Q. What’s the position in Kent?  What’s KCC doing about it?
A. Operators require a licence from DECC first, but KCC is the Mineral Planning Authority and can give planning permission for onshore exploration and development of underground resources. 
The East Kent drilling project that was granted planning permission in 2011 (Coastal Oil and Gas)is only for the initial exploratory borehole.  If this borehole exploration proves successful further development of the resource would require a full planning application and Environmental Statement. The operators have (verbally) stated that development of the resources here would probably not involve fracking. There is also an extant permission for exploratory work at Cowden, Tunbridge Wells, but this is for oil.  Shale may lie below, so permission for fracking may eventually be sought.

Q.  Yes, but what’s the authority’s view of fracking if people think there are serious environmental issues?
A. Emerging policy in the Kent MWDF Core Strategy at Strategy and Policy Directions stage (May 2011) stated,
“Policy CSM7
Oil, Gas and Coal Bed Methane
Planning permission will be granted for proposals associated with the exploration, appraisal and development of oil, gas Including shale gas and natural gas development and underground coal seam gasification subject to:

·        Development taking place in appropriate locations where the proposals do not have unacceptable amenity or environmental impacts
·        All environmental impacts being controlled to ensure there is not a significant effect upon sensitive receptors
·        Exploration and appraisal operations are for an agreed, temporary length of time; and
·        The drilling site being restored to a satisfactory standard and after-use.

Policy will evolve as the industry does.


Q. So it’s the next big thing, is it?
A. It could be very important in Kent, bringing jobs and a range of other benefits to the economy, and of course, a measure of energy security.  However, the timescales are hard to anticipate. What you can be very sure of, is that if fracking becomes a mainstream source of energy, it will be heavily regulated to make it as undamaging and safe as possible.  The mistakes and environmental damage that has given it a bad name elsewhere (polluted drinking water and flame from the bathroom taps!) have resulted from bad practice in other countries and are unlikely to occur in the UK.
 

Monday, 24 June 2013

Protestors not welcome in UK

Protesting about elitism and the establishment clearly makes you a hardened terrorist who should be banged up and then deported in the eyes of Teresa May.
Trenton Oldfield is facing deportation after disrupting the Boat Race protesting about elitism in this country. Unfortunately for him he is Australian and the Home Office are refusing to renew his visa. He is married to an British woman and has lived here for 10 years.

He received a 6 month sentence for the protest - a sentence that I find hard to accept given that the protest was non-violent. Perhaps the country never really left the Victorian era?

There is an e-petition here and more from the Guardian here. Let's try to overturn this affront to peaceful protesting.

Sunday, 12 May 2013

Homelessness in Maidstone

It is very clear that 'official' homelessness statistic are pretty flawed but they probably do tell a bit of a story. The story in Maidstone is that we have a problem, that the problem is growing, that Maidstone has the second highest level of homelessness in Kent and that the local council is failing people.

The Kent Messenger is reporting again about the numbers of people living in tents in and around town, this time in a local cemetery but we know that Cuckoo Woods also has an encampment. The council's response: to start thinking about a new housing strategy that reduces the number of affordable homes being built and increases the number of executive homes.

We need a council that is prepared to meet the homelessness challenge head on. That means:
  • identifying places of safety for people
  • focusing on new homes on those in need
  • providing support for those who are suffering under the benefits decimation of the Lib Dems and Tories
  • helping people into work
  • not evicting people who can't afford the bedroom tax
Time for the council to wake up and help people.

This is how badly Maidstone is doing on homelessness. The figures are the 'official' figures per 1000 homes - clearly the real figure is much higher:


Ashford 0.84
Maidstone 0.69
Medway UA 0.60
Thanet 0.52
Dartford 0.51
Gravesham 0.43
Dover 0.35
Canterbury 0.31
Swale 0.29
Shepway 0.26
Tunbridge Wells 0.21
Sevenoaks 0.21
Tonbridge and Malling 0.16

Sunday, 14 April 2013

Homelessness, young people and squatting in Maidstone

This afternoon I met with the group that were evicted two days ago from the disused library having moved in after it has been left unused for the past 12 months. They are a great bunch of people who need somewhere to live and want to live communally, growing food and sharing it. They decided to make use of a building that Kent County Council no longer wants for a library but seems to have done nothing else with.

They were in need of a home, sofa surfing and the like, so they decided to set up a squat / commune. They didn't break in, the building was not secured. They were not damaging the place - why would they, they wanted to live there - they were looking after it. But KCC had different ideas, clearly the thought of young people doing something useful was too much for them and they sent in the bailiffs to turf them out.

To add to this the abuse suffered at the hands of the bailiffs was unacceptable. This is what Lorna Crease wrote about the eviction on Friday:

"so perhaps not many people respect the occupation of the old Maidstone library, under Section 6... but I'll be honest, fuck you. I watched today as people lost their home after bailiffs BROKE IN and told them to leave, in the rain at 7 in the morning, because they want to knock the building down. I watched as their possessions and very existence were disregarded as even remotely human or worth anything, and I heard myself as they were referred to as "junkie crackheads". I heard raised voices and saw sadness and anger, and I realised in that moment that we are trapped in a system which cares for nothing but money, demonises the homeless and anyone who doesn't fit the middle/upper-class ideal, and that if we're going to help ourselves and make changes, we have to do it OURSELVES. the power is still somewhat in our hands, and we need to learn to stand up and use it, before we're manipulated into an existence where we have no rights left whatsoever" 

So we have a group of young people, keen to have a roof over their head and to look after themselves and a property. There is a property that was well used and liked as a library until KCC decided that libraries are best placed out of town where older people and people with pushchairs can't get to and promptly closed it. A property that has been empty for a year now and has no sign of becoming anything else. It is clear that these people should be allowed to look after the building.

Maidstone Borough Council have no time for young people needing affordable homes, they are about to cut the 40% requirement for affordable homes in new developments down to just 15% which is disgraceful.

In London, there is a company that uses squatters to mind buildings until they are sold and then provides the squatters with the next building to mind. Job creation, home creation and a simple solution - great stuff but too much for Kent.

There is a growing problem of homelessness in Maidstone. Anyone who visits the town centre regularly will have seen a significant rise in people sleeping in doorways - and these will be the tip of a sofa surfing iceburg. Maidstone Borough Council needs to take urgent action to ensure that there are affordable homes available in the town, not cutting the number of them.

Monday, 8 April 2013

Youth Police Commissioner tweets

Seeing the Mail on Sunday headline that slated Paris Brown, Kent's new Youth Police Commissioner for her tweets, left me feeling that the Mail should first look at its own messages and then consider what 14 year old public and grammar school kids are tweeting before laying into to a working class girl.

Perhaps the Mail should consider the stones it is throwing at Pagans and Europeans in this morning's headline. Their comments are clearly designed to promote religious hatred and xenophobia. Perhaps someone should complain to Kent Police about that? The Mail's hatred towards everyone who is not white, British, Christian and middle class is sickening.

Of course Paris's tweets were wrong - very wrong. She claims they were done when she was 14 and were part of youthful boasting. Paris has unreservedly apologised and was clearly very remorseful - I doubt she will repeat the mistake. She has been appointed to give a youth voice to policing and she needs to get on with the job now.

And I think we should be grateful that Ann Barnes didn't give the job to a posh kid that wants to go into politics. The police need to know what it is like to be a teenager living in today's world of youth unemployment and segregation - especially in Kent - not an aspiring career politician taking a break before going to Oxford to read PPE.