Thursday 29 August 2013

Syria: What are we doing?



Posturing is what we're doing. Only it is a very dangerous game we're playing given that Russia and China are opposing what we're planning to do in Syria.

And what are we planning to do? Send a few cruise missiles in to knock out a few bits of military infrastructure. Will it change anything? Will it bring peace and democracy to that country? Or, by weakening the government side (which was winning it's own civil war) will we merely be prolonging the war and thereby increasing the suffering of its people for longer?

And who are we supporting here? Assad is a mass-murdering fuckhead - but it sometimes seems to me that this is the only way to exert any kind of control over people who view the next life as much more important than this one and who see their religious affiliations as being much more important than being loyal to the state or country in which they live.

So in Syria we're proposing to support the rebels within whose disparate group is Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. That seems strange given that we've been fighting Al Qaeda since before 911 and that we're supporting Egypt's attempts to kick out the Muslim extremists in the brotherhood from their country. And these rebels who we're proposing to support have been 'cleansing' Christian villages; they beheaded Catholic Priest Francois Murad (below left) two weeks ago. Are we sure we should be supporting this kind of extremist anti-Christian group?

I get the impression that the Yanks are really unsure about who they should be supporting in this. Their ideological stance ought to be to support Assad against the terrorists. And if they support the rebels it is much more likely that we will be creating a much bigger problem for ourselves in the future. If these idiots weren't so hell-bent on killing each other in Syria right now, they'd be plotting attacks on the West. But Nobel Peace Prize-winning Obama has painted himself into a corner with his 'red line' bollocks so he now needs to act in order to maintain his ego and his credibility.

This is worth a watch in my view - General Wesley Clark talking about US foreign policy post 9/11: 'If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail'. 

So our 'principled' approach is to retaliate because chemical weapons were used. If both sides stick to using bullets that's fine. What kind of a fucked up world are we living in that this becomes a principle?

'We don't care if you kill hundreds of thousands of your own people with bullets, but get the chemistry set out and we'll bomb you (and them, your citizens) into submission.' Yeah that'll work; well done all you Pentagon strategists.

This 'red line' thing is also interesting given that both sides obviously knew what it meant: I'm struggling to understand why Assad would use chemical weapons given that he was winning, when he knew it would bring the world's biggest military machine into the frame against him?

Surely it would be more in the interests of the 'rebels' to get chemical weapons into the theatre of battle? To stage something to that effect. We're told that Assad has the weapons (supplied by whom, we don't know) and that the rebels don't so that's your proof. But do you really think that Al Qaeda is above staging something like this? That Israel (who are gunning for Assad) might not help them to fabricate something along these lines?


If I was a rebel and knew that by doing so I'd get the might of the US on my side, I think I'd have a go at doing something like this.

But we don't know for sure. Let me just repeat that: we don't know for sure.

Either way.

Yet we're planning to bomb a country that poses no 'clear and present danger' to the West, on the basis of conjecture and probability? With no clear military objectives? With absolutely no chance of establishing democracy or the rule of law through our actions? In order to do that we'd have to commit troops on the ground and effectively take over the country and impose our laws and values on them. That's never going to happen. It didn't in Afghanistan nor in Iraq where a decade of fighting has resulted in almost no progress for ordinary people's safety, rights, laws. Women are still second class citizens in those countries and it's cost us $billions and hundreds of British and American lives.

And what of Russia and China's response? Russia will replace all and any infrastructure that our Tomahawks destroy. In a heartbeat. China will, one day soon, call in its growing ownership of the US in terms of its (the US's) indebtedness to China. Not a good enemy to be making right now.

And what of our own 'National interest'? Is Syria a threat to the UK? Does it threaten us? Even Alistair Campbell would struggle to spin that as a real issue.

And yet, and yet. We have religious unrest emerging across the globe, in Sweden, Europe more widely, Brazil, Australia, Russia (Chechnya) and many others. And we're proposing to support Muslim extremist rebels in Syria? Are we sure about this?

Breaking: The Commons has just defeated the 'go to war' vote. Thank Goodness. Not sure it will change much, but I hope it does stop this madness.It certainly makes Cameron and in particular Hague look pretty idiotic. Good.



Thanks for reading.  


Saturday 24 August 2013

What, exactly, is going on?

Do you ever read about governmental decisions and policies that seem to jar with your view of the world? Policies on things like immigration or energy that seem to have no relation to the needs of the country or the wishes of the electorate? I have to admit that I sometimes look at decisions that have been taken supposedly in my name, and wonder what the fuck is going on.



It sometimes feels as if I am completely out of touch with what's going on and that I have missed some really important, fundamental decision that is now shaping our world. And because I have been programmed from a young age to trust our politicians to do the right thing for our country, I often shake my head, sigh and think that it must be me who's out of touch and that there must be some method in the madness that I perceive. It cannot really be as damaging as I perceive it because we have these clever, trustworthy, responsible people that we voted for at the helm. Don't we?



But I do still have that nagging doubt. That feeling that there is some secretive and frankly sinister power at work here. It conjures up a vision of some sort of Bond villain stroking a white cat; someone who is in control of our lives for their own ends rather than our benefit. Someone or thing that seems to be pursuing an agenda that we haven't been told about but that will, nonetheless, change our lives taking the form of much greater control over us 'pawns' instead of being run for our benefit and values.



That's quite a scary thought, I think you'll agree? It sometimes feels to me, that we're sleepwalking into an unknown future over which we have no control.

Anyway, it's called ICLIE.

And it's real.

Founded in 1990, the ‘International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, ICLEI became ‘ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability’ in 2003 when it gained a broader mandate to address sustainability issues on a global scale. And by 'sustainability' it doesn't just mean green or 'renewable' energy or furthering the environmental agenda, but in terms of wealth redistribution, moving people into cities, encouraging immigration. Effectively it is a key part of the creation of a single word government under the auspices of the UN and its Agenda 21initiative. 



It is anti property, against local accountability of politicians and decision-making, it seeks to establish a single global organisation that controls all key aspects of our lives from food production to planning and development, land usage and personal access to open spaces (even your own garden), employment, housing provision, property and ownership of assets and wealth.

Karl Marx and his mate Vladimir Ilyitch Ulyanov would blush at the scope of its ambition. And then they would grin like Cheshire cats because it is essentially a Marxist, Communist doctrine, only turbo charged.



'Yeah yeah', I hear you say. Another conspiracy theory. 

But the thing is, this organisation is represented within 1,200 cities around the globe. Its policies are being enacted in these places, invariably without the knowledge of local citizens. 

So it's a foreign problem then; why should we give a shit?

As Sven Goran Erikson might say: 'Well'. The reason why we should give a shit is that the UK is the 6th largest funder of ICLIE in the world; the European Union is 4th (so we pay twice) and the following UK City Councils are ICLIE members who pay annual dues thereby signing up to operate within the ICLIE principles of sustainability in all its forms:
  • Birmingham City Council
  • Bristol City Council
  • City of Glasgow
  • Craigavon Borough Council
  • Greater London Authority
  • Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council
  • Leicester City Council
  • Newcastle City Council
  • Royal Haskoning (Associate Member)
  • Woking Borough Council


 I follow this stuff quite closely, particularly in relation to the AGW (man-made climate change) scam, but I'd never heard of ICLIE until this week. Yet it's here and it's real. Every US president since 1992 has signed up to ICLIE following the Rio protocol of that year. But this is no longer simply a climate change issue; this is now about Agenda 21 and the creation of a single world government, run on Marxist lines. A number of US cities and states, whose citizens have found out about this bollocks, have kicked ICLIE out of their local government system. But in the UK it's secretive, sinister growth and spreadig influence continues.



So it's not a guy with a white cat, but it is real, sinister, undemocratic and we're paying for it. Still unsure? Ask yourself this: If this is a good thing, why don't we all know about it? Why haven't we been consulted, informed, involved in it? Why is this all going on out of sight and behind closed doors?

Sleep well (if you're not already).

You can find more here, here, here  and here if you're interested.

Thanks for reading.




Is the BBC doing the job of national broadcaster or pursuing its own agenda?



It's getting scary.

Values one used to hold dear. People you believed in, trusted, valued. Arbiters of the truth, that most sacrosanct of things. Purveyors of facts. Impartial advice and news. The things upon which your view of the world, your opinions, rested. The national broadcaster. Impartial and true. Unblemished, untarnished. Above all (and these are the absolute keys for me) credible, reliable trustworthy.

Truth. The foundation stone on which one can build one's life, one's views, one's attitude, one's actions, one's way of life and one's belief system.

I'm not talking about religion here, but I could be. This is, if anything, even more powerful in terms of influence. Actually that is a ridiculous comparison. Religion is not in the same league in the UK as the BBC. Good old 'auntie'. Provider of entertainment and for most people, the biggest influence in their lives in terms of communication and their perception of the world around them. From what to cook and eat, to who's shagging whom in the sleb world, to what's right and what's wrong.

Who we should bomb. Who we should vote for. Propagating the man-made climate change scam and that our membership of the EU is vital to our future prosperity.

Then there's the in-house scandals and cover-ups. Paying people to gag them. stopping them from spilling the beans about miss-management or illegal practices. Wasting our money on failed projects. Paying people off with extraordinary amounts of our money. Harbouring paedophiles operating for decades while working at the BBC. And it is clear that colleagues knew about it. (see above).

And pursuing people via the courts for non-payment of the license fee, when actually the BBC has broken its contract with viewers through its obvious lack of impartiality.


I know the arguments about taking risks on programmes. Brilliant stuff like the News Quiz or I'm sorry I haven't a clue or 'from our own correspondent' or The Archers (all Radio 4) simply wouldn't get made if the only criteria was commercial success. Radio 3 a bastion of the arts and classical music simply wouldn't exist without the BBC's unique funding system.


And I do have some sympathy with these arguments. The alternative is endless cheap crap telly, with Big Brother and all the utter mindless crap that we are subjected too these days. A particular favourite of mine, Test Match Special, probably wouldn't be justified on purely commercial grounds.

I have often argued in defense of the BBC. Saying that what it has given to us and to the world is high amongst the best things that Britain has given to the world.

But the fact is that the BBC has become a biased organisation that seems increasingly to be pursuing its own agenda these days. It seems to be peopled by smug lefties who have no experience of the real world and who seem to think that they know best, that any opposing views are unworthy of consideration.

It's clear to me that the BBC needs to change. To reassert it's founding values of impartiality; to give us the facts instead of putting forward its own views on major issues. It needs to come clean about the scandals that it is currently drowning in. It needs to be much more transparent and much more even-handed in its news coverage. It needs to investigate climate change properly instead of telling us that the science is settled when it clearly is not. Sorry to harp on about this (AGW) but Tony Blair described it as the biggest single issue facing mankind and we are, in my opinion, being duped and paying massively in higher green taxes as a result.And the BBC is complicit, indeed it is leading the way in allowing government to raise ever more tax revenue from 'Green energy' when there is very little evidence that it is justified in doing so.


If it doesn't do this, and soon - reestablish its credibility and its stature as a world-leading provider of truth - then it will fail, be broken up, lose its unique funding system and disappear as a major global media player and world influencer. That would, in my view, be a great shame because it does some things brilliantly and we'd be poorer as a nation and as a world without the BBC.

But unless it throws off this yolk of leftist bollocks, this Agenda 21 complicit approach, this current unquestioning 'establishment' bias (by which I mean Whitehall and the EU, Agenda 21, Common Purpose etc), it will deserve to be changed. Probably beyond recognition.


Unless it becomes, once again, something that we can be proud of, it will disappear in its current form. I'm hoping that the BBC is starting to recognise this threat and that it will do something about it, to save itself rather than continuing to think it is above the law and above its original charter values. If not, the above programme (which is one of the best things it does) will seem to have an ironically apt title.

The clock's ticking for the BBC in my opinion and there's not much time left to save it.

Thanks for reading.

 


Tuesday 13 August 2013

UKIP fruitcake test - a response

Here's a UKIP 'fruitcake' test in the Guardian. And my equally light-hearted response. Probably best if you read the Graun piece first otherwise you might think my responses are a bit extreme. Not much offense intended. But some obviously.

1. which is most likely to make you cry

0  Treading on an upturned plug
0  The death of a dog in The Archers
0  Stupid fucking pseudo surveys in the Grauniad

2. In your view, which of these best describes the ideal circumstances for a child to grow up in?

0  Any stable and loving relationship
0  A family that has more benefit money to spend on fags and special brew the more children it has
0  A family in which one or both parents work

3. Which measures would you prefer to use to limit immigration?

0  None, immigrants are more likely to vote for Labour
0  A controlled system where qualifications including relevant and needed skills, the ability to speak English and an agreement to adopt our laws and beliefs rather than relying on the state for hand-outs prevails
0  None, build mosques and Islam-only schools, allow non-British communities to be formed and local indigenous people to be excluded from parts of the UK including parts of our capital city.

4. If you had to lead Britain into war with any country which one of these would you choose?

0  Syria as part of a misguided UN initiative which would see the global community supporting Al Qaeda-backed rebels who use chemical weapons and commit atrocities including wiping out entire Christian villages.
0  Iran to remove the growing threat of nuclear proliferation amongst people who believe that this life is unimportant in comparison with the afterlife promised in the Qu'ran.
0  Spain, over Gibraltar

5. What do you think is most likely to be the cause of climate change?

0  The need for scientists to secure international funding
0  The desire of governments to be able to levy higher taxes on individuals
0  The desire to try to establish a single global government

6.  Which statement best describes your attitude to maternity leave?

0  Both parents should be paid in full to take time off after they have had a child. As long as they like. This facility should also be extended to people who adopt children. A child should enable them to take the rest of their lives off and the small business for whom they previously worked should be forced to make their salary payments forever.
0  Parents should be able to take a few weeks (mother) off work and have the position held open for her. The father should be able to take a week off but then go back to work. If that is not acceptable, they should not have a fucking kid in the first place.
0  Every child should be guaranteed three A* grades at A' level regardless of their IQ

7. Which of these comes closest to your opinion on the role of the British state?

0  Raise taxes fairly and reduce taxes for the lowest earners
0  Pay public sector employees to do non-jobs like diversity coordinator and waste around 50% of their budgets on non-essential crap as well as giving themselves above-inflation pay rises for years even when the rest of the economy is struggling
0  Create a system in which there is one CCTV camera for every 11 people in the country and give peerages to anyone who donates more than a small amount to a political party - except UKIP of course.

8.  Which of these policies would you prefer to see applied to gay marriage?

0  A government that makes gay marriage legal by introducing and passing legislation rather than just talking about equality and gay rights
0  Religious groups who do not wish to conduct gay marriages should be allowed not to do so
0  Bullying activists for this and other issues including feminism should be quietly but firmly told to shut the fuck up unless they're prepared to listen to the desires and beliefs of other groups including the silent majority of people who are not in the least bit interested in their one-way street of fucking 'rights'.

9.  In general terms which description of the effects of British Empire comes closest to your view?

0  A mixed bag of historical actions that made the UK prosperous sometimes at the expense of other countries, but that was the prevailing practice at the time and should not be second-guessed hundreds of years later by some leftard writing for the Guardian
0  Introduction of democracy and concept of fairness to many parts of the world which has seen many countries develop peacefully and on the basis of equality rather than the anarchy that is currently wrecking many parts of the world
0  Something to be ashamed of like all good Guardian readers

10.  What relationship would you like to see between Britain and the EU?

0  Ever closer political and cultural union which is supposed to increase prosperity and mutual understanding but which actually ruins the lives of most young people in southern Europe and creates division amongst different peoples and will, ultimately see the whole of Europe as a single homogenised state with the same food music, culture and heritage throughout - or perhaps more likely, will see another European war.
0  Amicable trade at a safe distance - good grief a reasonable option in question 10!!
0  We should hand over all control to unelected Eurocrats based in Brussels and Strasbourg who obviously know what's best for us from where they are.

'Submit' as the Grauniad would obviously like us all to do; to increased state control and reduced freedom to the point where working and thinking for ourselves comes to be seen as ridiculous.


Monday 12 August 2013

Whose home does charity begin at?




You might think, on the face of it, that this subject/headline is a bit silly.

Obviously, (you might argue) charities are established and then raise money to help good causes, to help the needy, to help fund stuff like medical research and things like that, which would otherwise not receive proper funding.

Well that's all good then, as you were.

Except that I don't think it's quite as simple as all that - and if you're honest, nor do you.

You see Charitable status can be achieved by all manner of organisations from wildlife campaigners to village hall committees, political affiliates to think tanks. The Cup Trust charity, for example, established to 'improve the lives of children and young adults' donated just £55,000 to charitable causes out of an income of £176 million, whilst, at the same time securing £46million in 'gift aid' and its 'doners' claiming £55 million in charitable giving tax relief. Now that's just a scam, pure and simple and it is not the only one out there, but I wouldn't want to tar all charities with that same brush by any means.

However,  it seems to me that many - not all but many - charities exist mainly to provide some kind of philanthropic profile for their founder and, in many cases a pretty damn good level of remuneration for the CEO and management team, which is paid irrespective of how much 'good' is actually being delivered on the ground. The telegraph reported this week on the high levels of remuneration enjoyed by senior executives at many leading charities - salaries and bonuses that seem to increase at a rate that is well above inflation, whether or not the charity delivers higher levels of funding for good causes.

Add to this somewhat questionable scenario the fact that charities enjoy beneficial tax status and you might even begin to think that all is not what it seems and most certainly not what you have been led to believe.

This situation also creates an inequitable position on the high street and has, in my opinion, contributed significantly to the slow demise of many town centres in the UK. The traders who are trying to eke out a living as a business, with no special tax facilities are being undermined by the charities who are tax exempt and who, in addition, get most if not all of their 'product' or 'stock' for nothing in the form of donations. The poor business retailer also has to pay his staff and for the goods he sells and he doesn't have a national advertising campaign of a 'good cause' with which to entice customers into his shop.

In addition the charity doesn't seem to need to make much of a song and dance about how much it actually gave to it's chosen good cause.  They talk about 'we raised over £x million for left handed emus last year making a major contribution to the survival' etc. The fact that of the £x million raised only a small percentage actually found its way to the cause is never revealed. Nor is the CEO's yacht or skiing arrangements for the coming winter. The Telegraph opined that the UK's top 14 charities were betraying their donors and volunteers by paying the chief execs too highly.

Maybe I'm being too cynical. There are clearly some outstanding charities out there which raise fantastic money for good causes and whose contributions to things like medical research (especially cancer related work) have been amazingly successful and valuable to the whole of society.

But do we really know where all the money goes to or how it is allocated or distributed? Do we have any idea whether the donations represent value for money in terms of the donation we made? Take the BBC's Children in Need or Comic Relief: Are they really about good causes or are they more about securing high ratings for television programmes? They seem to raise tens of millions of pounds - and set new records every year regardless of our economic straights - and yet they show stuff being done in Africa that probably costs a few thousand pounds - for a new well or water treatment system or school building etc. All very worthwhile but for £37million?

And some of the tear-jerking ads for donations to help poor lost puppies (for example) seem to me to be pretty cynical - I can imagine some poor old ladies being moved to send money they can't really afford on the basis of these ads, when the charity is more about paying a CEO a great salary than poor little Rover and Scamp.

The RNLI - what I would consider to be a great and worthwhile charity, one that saves lives at sea - has a marble edifice of an office block in Poole that JP Morgan would be proud of. Just saying.

So are charities there to fund good causes or to provide a philanthropic profile for their founder or to allow a CEO to command a high salary? To some degree, I would argue that many of them are about all of the above but we're only told about the first one.

What charities are mainly about, it seems to me, is making people feel good about themselves: Actually if we have given money to a charity we feel better about ourselves regardless of whether that money is properly, effectively and efficiently used for the purpose we are led to believe it is for. And that's where our involvement and interest ends. We bung our fiver in the pot, it's a good feeling, we've helped someone somewhere who's worse off than ourselves, what's not to like? But it takes a lot of fivers to pay the £100,000 plus salary of the CEO before even a cent gets to the needy. Typically, the Mail called then 'fat cats'.

And that is an issue as far as I am concerned. I think there's at least an element of conning going on: conning volunteers and donors whose time and money is clearly not going to the needy cause but into the pockets of administrators and managers. I'm not saying that it's easy to run an organisation that supports good causes; nor am I saying that these good people shouldn't be paid for their time. What I am saying is that some of these organisations are more about lining the pockets of people than delivering aid to the needy. There should be more transparency. More information about the costs and remuneration involved when we make a donation. Why not get retired successful people to run these things? People who often want to put something back? Instead of making the charitable sector a high value career option? I'm not sure the different motivations involved in these two options stack up in the name of 'charity'.

You could argue that making people feel good about themselves by giving some money to a good cause is a good enough reason for many charities to exist. And it is true that a lot of good is done by charities. Life saving work in many cases. But some do seem to be using the 'not for profit' or '3rd sector' thing as a way of gaining a financial advantage regardless of what it actually does. Some, like the National Lottery seem to me to be taking a load off Government, relieving it of the need to properly fund stuff that it should be funding.

The Red Cross, Medecin Sans Frontieres, Macmillan, The RNIB, Blind Dogs for the Guides (!) are all brilliant charities whose work is exactly what it should be. There are many, many others, particularly working in the field of health, that are equally worthy of our support. But some, like Greenpeace, for example, are using 'free money' in the form of donations to fund highly politicised campaigns, without really telling us what they're using it for. Gorgeous George has also used charitable status to raise funds for Palestine. Not an issue for me per sé, but it is when he takes advantage of tax benefits but does not 'bother' to file its accounts. The Charity Commission is currently investigating, but I'm sure Mr Galloway is not alone in playing the system in this way.

I would, finally just mention my unease at the often aggressive behaviour of collectors, shaking buckets in font of you when you're going into a supermarket for example. I am obviously grumpy enough to ignore these tactics, but I think many people will feel intimidated by these people and feel obliged to make a donation under their pressure. That's not a good thing in my opinion.

I think the sector needs tightening up in terms of qualification for charitable status and in terms of transparency about executive remuneration and actual good work delivered on the ground.

The generosity of British people is amazing: Compared to anywhere in the world, it seems to me that we give more, sympathise more and actually deliver what we promise, to causes all over the world. That makes me proud to be British and the difference between charitable aid and the 'overseas aid' monies we give via the DfID to countries like India, China, Brazil and Argentina (hardly Bong-Bongo land) is that it is targeted at specific needs rather than (often) going straight into the back-pockets of corrupt officials.

But this generosity will wane unless we can get some proper reassurance that what we are giving is being properly used and making a difference. I think that is the challenge for the Charity Commission. I hope it is successful in weeding out the 'system-players' from the genuinely brilliant charities. At the moment some seem to be using the system for nefarious reasons and some seem to be taking the piss along the way. This has to stop.

Thanks for reading.


Tuesday 6 August 2013

LabDonalds?

Those clever scientists at the University of Maastricht have created a beef-burger that has no relationship whatsoever with a living animal. One wonders if they've ever heard of McDonalds.

It cost £250,000 to produce one 5oz. 'patty' and the technology will, according to its producers, solve the world's food crisis, save the environment from climate change and be good for animals, especially cows.

Thank goodness for that. We should all rejoice. They can now build a big 'fuck-off' lab in the 'desolate' north of England and have the rest of the country sealed, underlaid and carpeted. We won't need fields anymore or grass, silage, cattle feed, pigs or sheep (tweek the scientific formula surely?) or farms, markets, wildlife even. Maybe we can put a roof on the place and live dry, temperature controlled, hermetically sealed, clinically safe, indoor lives unaffected by the elements.

Just a couple of very small, almost insignificant, flies in the ointment if I may Professor Post (University of Maastricht)?

You say, 'Livestock production is not good for the environment'. I'm not quite sure I understand that. Do you mean that cow's farts (CO2) have an impact on climate change and are causing an increase in global temperatures? Don't worry old chap, they aren't - you should know that you're a scientist.  The climate hasn't been warming for more than 15 years now and besides, volcanoes produce more CO2 every year than man, or animals, have produced over the whole of the life of the planet. 

Perhaps you mean that the creation of neat, tidy fields - the agricultural countryside of much of Europe and the developed world - for efficient arable and livestock farming is bad for the environment? Promoting as it does the hedgerows and other wildlife habitats that mean we have such a strong, diverse and thriving ecology. It's not exactly a laboratory environment I agree, but do you really think we want and need that?

You also say, 'livestock production is not good for animals.' Well clearly you have a point in terms of it not being particularly good for the poor animal that is being converted from a living being into a burger or other form of meat product. Do you think, if that wasn't the case, that this animal would exist? Do you think there would be an endlessly growing population of cows and other hitherto agricultural livestock roaming unfettered around our new (carpeted) landscape? Is it preferable for an animal to have a relatively short but happy, looked after, well-fed, comfortable, stress-free life (and one which serves a purpose) or none at all? There is no third alternative. If they weren't produced to help feed the population, the only place you would find a few cows, sheep, pigs etc, would be in zoos. 


Anyway these are moot points really aren't they? Because despite the ITV (and other media) coverage featuring quotes from vegetarian groups (we might eat it if it's not from animals); from agricultural bodies, animal welfare groups etc., the fact is that you would not be able to give these burgers away for free in the UK or the rest of Europe (except perhaps in the worst-hit areas of poverty created by the EU in the south of the continent).


Food needs to be labelled - by law as per the EU directives of recent years. That's a bit awkward for you isn't it? Maybe you could call them 'Science Burgers' and get a few geeks (as well as Greeks) to buy them? 


Monsanto and BASF giving up on their efforts to secure licenses for GM crops in Europe because GM simply will not sell here, just a couple of months ago, must also have been a blow, but you were committed to this PR thing by then I guess.

But hold on. There's Africa, where people are starving - maybe there will be a market for your Lab-Burgers there? But it's not about solving the food shortage problem really is it? If we wanted to, we could, as a race or as a world, easily feed everyone from what we already produce. We could help people to become sustainable in food production in Africa, so that they wouldn't need food aid every few years. If only they'd stop shooting at us when we did. And if only our elected Governments would stop arming these people.

It might involve taking out a few fuckwit dictators, like Mugabe for example: President of a country that was a prosperous, food exporting success story 30 years ago and is now a basket-case with 95% unemployment because of the actions of this fucking idiot dictator who has no concern whatsoever for his people and who 'buys' or bullies his way to favourable, corrupt election results, and to whom we still send aid.

It might involve people eating less meat than they do now - eating more healthily in fact, but the availability of Lab-Burgers is not going to solve the world's food issue. And that's not really why you've produced them is it? You have produced them to prove you can, commercial interests will be, erm, interested because it might provide a way to exploit people and to control the markets for the product. Like Monsanto and BASF were trying to do. It's abut profit not solving a humanitarian problem. As usual.

Now if you could convert bullets and weapons into burgers you might be onto something. 


























Thanks for reading