• Home
• Network
• About us
• Venues
  • Arden Arms, Stockport
  • Blue Mugge Leek
  • Lazy Trout Meerbrook
  • Wayfarer Inn Stone
  • Star Inn Cheadle Manchester
  • Swan & Rushes Leicester
• Programmes
  • for Blue Mugge
  • for Lazy Trout
  • for Stone Circle
• Discussion notes
  • for Blue Mugge
  • for Lazy Trout
  • for Arden Arms
• Notes on Chairing Meetings
• Past Discussion Notes
  • Alphabetical index
  • Index by Catagory
• Residential & Day Courses
• Contact us

 

Meerbrook Discussion notes

The discussion notes for the MEERBROOK circle will be added on this page prior to the meeting with the most recent at the top.

To print off a set of notes....

1. Select the section you want to print using your mouse
   
2. Click 'File' in the menu at the very top left of your screen
   
3. In the drop down menu click 'Print'
   
4. In the dialogue box click the button for 'Selection'
   
5. Click 'OK' - only your selected area should print off.

---

Can the assassination of a dictator be justified?
Lazy Trout Meerbrook  12 July 2010
Ideas from the “idebate” website

What is assassination? Is it lawful under international law?

If Hitler had been assassinated would the world have been a better place? What if Fidel Castro had been assassinated?

If you kill the top man do you really achieve your aim? What happens to the supporting (corrupt?) organisations surrounding the dictator?

Would any new government based on the murder of a head of state ultimately have legitimacy?

“Only if we ourselves respect human rights absolutely, will our promotion of these values seem valid to others. States that use assassination as a political weapon will soon find that others seek to turn it against them. “ Do dictators who commit genocide not disqualify themselves from this argument?

There are international powers now to remove dictators, why would you need to assassinate them?

Another alternative is invasion by international forces eg Yugoslavia in 2000. Is this a better course of action than assassination?

Who decides who deserves to be assassinated?

---

Should there be a Badger cull? And Do we need Royalty?
Notes 28 Jun 2010 Lazy Trout Meerbrook

All info from the DEFRA website

TB can be transferred to humans from raw milk. Pasteurised milk is completely safe from a TB viewpoint.
Cattle are being slaughtered at the rate of 3-4000 per month as a control measure.
Badgers are a known disease reservoir for bovine TB.
There are thought to be 310,000 badgers in the UK. There are about 10 million cows.
Vaccination of either cows or badgers is an option, but no vaccine is expected to be available until 2015 at earliest.
Culling badgers in hot spots is known to reduce the incidence of TB.
Badgers look cuddly.
How would we dispatch them?
EU law at present forbids TB vaccination of cattle.

Do we need Royalty?
from Wikipaedia
The Civil List is the sum that covers most expenses associated with the Sovereign performing of his or her state duties. It’s been £7.9M pa 1990. Only the Queen and Prince Phillip are supported by it. The other Royals are supported from income from the Duchy of Lancaster.
The section of the royal website devoted to the queen's role runs to five sentences, explaining that "the Queen is the United Kingdom's head of state," she carries out "significant constitutional functions" and "acts as a focus for national unity."
Why not have a republic?

---

Transport
Notes for the Lazy Trout Discussion Circle Monday 14th June 2010
“Ever let the Fancy roam,
Pleasure never is at home:
At a touch sweet Pleasure melteth,
Like to bubbles when rain pelteth;
Then let winged Fancy wander
Through the thought still spread beyond her:
Open wide the mind's cage-door”

        Part of “Fancy” by John Keats
When we get home, home is still the same. But something in our mind has been changed, and that changes everything. Why do we want to get about so much?
........... With the growth of trade, tracks were often flattened or widened to accommodate animal traffic. Later, the travois, a frame used to drag loads, was developed. Animal-drawn wheeled vehicles probably developed in Sumer in the Ancient Near East in the 4th or 5th millennium BC and spread to Europe and India in the 4th millennium BC and China in about 1200 BC. The Romans had a significant need for good roads to extend and maintain their empire and developed Roman roads.
In the medieval Islamic world, many roads were built throughout the Arab Empire. The most sophisticated roads were those of the Baghdad, Iraq, which were paved with tar in the 8th century. Tar was derived from petroleum, accessed from oil fields in the region, through the chemical process of destructive distillation.
In the stone ages primitive boats developed to permit navigation of rivers and for fishing in rivers and off the coast. It has been argued that boats suitable for a significant sea crossing was necessary for people to reach Australia an estimated 40,000-45,000 years ago. -  History of Transport Wikipaedia
As we learn more about the last few thousand years we see just how much we moved about. Was the world a smaller place than we are used to thinking?
What’s your favourite transporter?

Ode to oil. Let’s spare a thought for much maligned oil. What is good about the stuff?

Canals what do we know about them? First canals probably 6th century BC in Middle East. Then the Chinese 3rd century BC onwards. Grand canal 7th century AD Beijing to Hangzhou 1103 miles. Pound lock invented 10th century. The canal network enabled the industrial revolution. European canals started in Holland as a by product of drainage. Italy and France also built them but it was Britain that built the first network and by carrying freight supported the early industrial revolution. - Wikipaedia

Trains were the first really effective public transport for individuals that was available to all. What do we know about their development and what about the future?

We have been spoiled for decades by our own individual transporter – the car. Will this continue?

Will  public transport ever be the answer to individual transport?

Many countries support the push bike. Should we? And how?

Boats are  still a major mode of transport and is probably the most ancient. What makes it so successful?

---

A Greener Way of Life?
Lazy Trout Monday 17th May 2010

1) What is a greener way of life to you?

2) Food
Organic- more naturally produced? Better for you?
Waste - 15p in every £ of food bought in the UK is wasted. About one-fifth of our carbon emissions are related to the production, processing, transport and storage of food.
Food miles – cut flowers, out of season food
GM foods – what’s the problem?

3) Sustainability
Resources - such as metals, industrialisation, toxins, waste
Population -, too many, longer life, control, war, hunger
Consumerism – creates work, how will we replace it?

4) Transport
Planes – Have you heard of Plane Stupid?
End to short haul flights and airport expansion
Stop aviation advertising
A just transition to sustainable jobs and transport
Holidays - Do we have to see the world?
Cars – Don’t take my car away!

5) Energy
renewable, nuclear, use less, insulation
Can individual action really make a difference?

6) Climate change
We are probably fed up of hearing this one so let’s take it from a different angle. Will the human race adapt to virtually anything the Earth throws at us?

Gaia - "if we see the world as a super-organism of which we are a part - not the owner, nor the tenant, not even a passenger - we could have a long time ahead of us and our species might survive for its "allotted span". It all depends on you and me." John Lovelock.

---

The Defence of Infancy
Lazy Trout 10 May 2010

1. Of the various defences that might be offered to a criminal prosecution (entrapment, insanity, alibi, provocation..) that of Infancy relies on an appeal to the tender age of the defendant. The grounds of this defence are
a) the physical incapacity of the accused to perform certain
iIlegal acts because of the stage of physical development they have reached.
b) the ability of the accused to be aware of the difference between right and wrong according to their state of mental development.
2. It is usual for a minimum age to be set which a child has to reach before  they are regarded as criminally responsible. Up to that age they are regarded as infants and cannot be subject to criminal prosecution. Between that age and the age of majority  provision is made for young people to be kept apart from the adult courts and penal system by providing juvenile courts and detention.
The age at which infancy in this legal sense ends varies from state to state:
USA - for Federal crimes 10 (individual states set their own limits which run from 6-12)
Scotland 8
Iran                9 (girls) 15 (boys)
England and Wales 10

7. A Swedish case: 1994 (a year after the murder of James Bulger) Silje Redergard was killed by two 6-year old boys. Silje's mother distinguished between the boys understanding what they had done and their failure to understand the consequences. (William's story: he needed 3d to complete the payments his mother was making for a penknife. He took it from her purse, knowing it was wrong, and brought the knife home. His mother saw it - a consequence William had not thought about!).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the light of what we have discussed above how do we feel about the trial for the murder of James Bulger?

The full trial opened at Preston Crown Court on 1 November 1993, conducted as an adult trial with the accused in the dock away from their parents, and the judge and court officials in legal regalia.

The parents of the accused were moved to different parts of the country and assumed new identities following death threats from vigilantes.

In the aftermath of their arrest, and throughout the media accounts of their trial, the boys were referred to as 'Child A' (Thompson) and 'Child B' (Venables).[1] At the close of the trial, the judge ruled their names should be released (because of the nature of the murder and the public reaction), and they were identified along with lengthy descriptions of their lives and backgrounds. Public shock was compounded by the release, after the trial, of mug shots taken during questioning by police.

The editors of The Sun newspaper handed a petition bearing nearly 280,000 signatures to Home Secretary Michael Howard, in a bid to increase the time spent by both boys in custody.This campaign was successful, and in July 1994 Howard announced that the boys would be kept in custody for a minimum of fifteen years, meaning that they would not be considered for release until February 2008, by which time they would be twenty-five years of age.

On 2 March 2010, the Ministry of Justice revealed that Jon Venables had been returned to prison for an unspecified violation of the terms of his licence of release.

Bulger's mother Denise Fergus has said that she is angry that the Parole Board did not tell her that Venables had been returned to prison. Fergus has called for Venables' anonymity to be removed if he faces criminal charges over the allegations. A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice stated that there is a worldwide injunction against publication of either killers' location or new identity.

 

---

Karl Marx  - an up-date
Lazy Trout Discussion Circle   Mon 26 April 2010 
Notes based on the BBC In our Time broadcast, 14 July 2005, just after Marx came first by a considerable margin in a Radio 4  listeners’ poll on ‘your favourite philosopher’.
Everybody recommended to listen to this -  you can do so, via  google  ‘bbc,  Melvyn Bragg,  In our Time’   then,  go to archive (listen again),  philosophy,  scroll through to subject and date as above.

1.   Melvyn Bragg began by asking Francis Wheen,  biographer of Marx,  whether he’d been surprised by the above vote.   ‘Yes,  but…20 years ago,  following collapse of communism, Marx seemed to be truly dead and buried.   Now,  with globalisation issues  …he’s creeping back…  so a good time to go back to him’.    Agree?
2.   Background:   Discussion on his life focused on the fact that he was a Jew,  his father a Lutheran and the young Karl was brought up in a Catholic City.    Hence,  alienation  (a Marxist concept) was learned early on.  
3.   Student at Bonn,  an omnivorous reader of Literature… influenced by Baron von Westphalen,  father of Jenny (Mrs. Marx) -  a Liberal, cultured, enlightenment figure…   Marx’ thesis on atomism  -  ancient view/s,  materialist, naturalistic.   ‘It was a very good thesis on notions of contradiction/alienation’.
4.   Marx was ‘exhilarated by Hegel’.   From him Marx developed ‘the idea that Reason had a history’ and the dialectic (thesis – anti-thesis >  synthesis)  but adapted to historical progress.  That, followed by young-Hegelian criticism of religion led to:  ‘man is a sensuous being, dependent on others…   a communal being’. 
5.   He ‘stumbled into journalism’  and ‘discovered the real world’ from 1842 when he met Engels who ‘bank-rolled Marx’.   “One had a Wealth of Knowledge and the other a Knowledge of Wealth”.   A remarkable meeting of minds.
6.   The Communist Manifesto -  ‘brilliantly written’  at a time when there were less than 1000 communists in Germany.    Communism as ‘spectre’  (a time of hunger and great poverty)  -  ‘history is the history of class struggle, which is the motor of history.  For Hegel, the clash of ideas, for Marx a materialist dialectic – the struggle between those who hold power and those who don’t.’      Truth in this?    ‘Broadly,Yes’  said the panel… 
7.  Marx ejected from several continental European countries,  settled in England for the rest of his life. Engels as a Manchester capitalist provided his friend with much information.  Also, in the British Museum working on Das Kapital   Marx read Factory Reports, Blue Books, The Economist on child labour etc… Capitalism =  a mode of production.   Compared with former modes,  Ancient,  Feudalism…  Capitalism is immensely stronger because of the market.   Market economies are extraordinarily dynamic.   Problem – they can’t control what they do.  
8.   Looking back from where we are now:   Marx predicted revolution in the most advanced capitalist countries.  The revolution actually happened in a ‘backward agrarian country in 1917’.  The C20 communist revolutions,  had terrible consequences but ‘at one point in the C20 half of mankind claimed Marx as ancestor’.   Actually, ‘what happened was the fault of other people’.   Marx had said in the C19, of some French communists  “if they’re Marxist,  then I am not”  …  “some of those want to reduce everybody to working class conditions,  we want to raise everybody…”.
9.   So,  relevance of Marx?   ‘A method of analysis, not fixed and rigid’ …  ‘…even ideas are determined by material conditions, especially economic conditions’.   ‘Remember Clinton’s “It’s the Economy, stupid”.’    One of the participants even argued that Margaret Thatcher was ‘Marxist’ in that sense…  
10.   Now, 2009:   ‘there are ideologies behind these determinisms…’;    ‘Marx never found a way to suggest that post-capitalism could create the dynamic to match markets’;    ‘he didn’t see that capitalism could be endlessly flexible in organising a response to problems generated…’  with  ‘consumers creating new markets adapting to changed conditions’.
Beyond that 2005  broadcast, itself now history?  Consider the economic fall-out of the current financial crisis.  Take the current Reith Lectures:  ‘A New Citizenship’.   ‘Public outrage at the greed culture of market-mania and de-regulation’.   ‘We need to re-think the role of markets… develop a new set of attitudes to the planet we share’.
To be continued with session/s on The Reith Lectures?

 

---

Confidence

Lazy Trout Discussion Circle Mon 12 Apr 2010
Based on Derek Tatton’s notes of 2 June 2009 see www.oddc.org.uk

The extravert's flow is directed outward toward people and objects, and the introvert's is directed inward toward concepts and ideas. Contrasting characteristics between extraverts and introverts include the following:
·            Extraverts are action oriented, while introverts are thought oriented.
·            Extraverts seek breadth of knowledge and influence, while introverts seek depth of knowledge and influence.
·            Extraverts often prefer more frequent interaction, while introverts prefer more substantial interaction.
·            Extraverts recharge and get their energy from spending time with people, while introverts recharge and get their energy from spending time alone.

1.Do you have to be extravert to be confident?

2.What is ‘confidence’? Should we, for our discussion, assume it means self assurance?

3.Where does confidence come from?

4.What conditions are required to develop confidence in – children, adults, work situations.

5.Consider professional performers, footballers, actors and how they gain and retain confidence (now often with the help of professional psychologists…)
Can we all learn something from these professionals?

6.Are there class and gender issues.  Do men tend to be more confident than women?

7.In recent times there have been many ‘assertiveness training’ courses, primarily for women.  It’s good to be assertive?

8.Is there a case for ‘strength-through-diffidence’ courses for some men?

9.In an era when ‘celebrity status’ can be attained almost instantaneously what role does confidence play here?

10.Can media celebrity culture distort and destroy real self assurance?

11.The quality of trust· What are the factors which destroy trust or confidence between individuals?

12.What factors have led to an almost total lack of trust and confidence in politicians?

13.Is it sound and sensible to encourage the attitude and approach ‘trust no-one’?

14.Are there ways in which trust and confidence may be engendered socially and politically or is that ambition simply utopian?

 

---

Faith Schools
Notes for discussion Lazy Trout Meerbrook 22 Mar 2010

The earliest known schools in England date from the late sixth century connected to monasteries.
In the early 19th century the Church of England regarded education for all children as desirable. This was not the general view at the time. Why would the Church take this stance?

What are faith schools? How are they funded?

How many are there?
Primary schools - 6,384(17504) Secondary schools – 589(3367)
Why are there fewer secondary schools?

 In 2001 ...Of these, 4,716 are Church of England, 2,108 Roman Catholic, 32 Jewish, four Muslim, two Sikh, one Greek Orthodox and one Seventh Day Adventist. Until Labour was elected in 1997, all state faith schools were Christian or Jewish.
In 2010 Jewish (38)Muslim (11)Sikh (4)Greek Orthodox (1)Hindu (1)Quaker (1)Seventh Day Adventist (1)United Reform Church (1)
What can we deduce from these figures?

In 2006 discrimination on religious grounds was prohibited by the Equality Act. But faith schools were granted an exemption: in selecting their pupils they were allowed  to prefer those of the faith adopted by the school. What the exemption did not permit was discrimination on other prohibited grounds. Why this exemption?

Are faith schools likely to enhance cultural harmony?
Polls reveal that up to 70 % of the English population do not want faith schools.
Is it likely that any future government will abolish faith schools?

----------------------------------------------------------

These extracts below sets out the thinking, of some, behind Muslim faith schools. What do we think of the points raised?

Extracts from Muslim schools: Where faith works
By DrM.Hussain(DirectorofKarimiaInstitute)
http://www.karimia.fortnet.co.uk/MuslimSchoolsWherefaithworks.pdf - for full text

There are nearly 120 Muslim schools both primary and single sex secondary. These schools do not just teach the national curriculum but enrich it through Islamic Studies, Arabic and Urdu. The school ethos is distinctly religious emphasizing the role of faith and traditional wisdom. Furthermore, a Muslim teachers present a role model who make the content of the national curriculum relevant to a Muslim child by contextualising it and Islamising it.
Why Muslim Schools?
From talking to parents, teachers and governors of Muslim schools the following appear as the main reasons for setting up these
schools:
1. To counteract the rapid assimilation of Muslims into the torrent of a secular consumer based Godless society.
2. To provide children a secure place where their Muslim identity can develop and blossom.
3. To nurture manners and universal moral values of compassion, generosity, honesty, truthfulness, courage, tolerance and forgiveness.
4. To promote pluralism in British Muslim life by teaching values of human rights to freedom of religion and speech etc.
Are Muslim schools divisive?
The meaning of separate is to be taken as the meaning of distinctive characteristics and individual special features. Just like in one house you have separate rooms, this does not mean the household is disunited.
How Muslim Schools promote the common good?
Muslim Schools contribute to the wholesome development of the child:
1. By asserting the importance of Islam and its truths. Muslim schools have clear understanding of truth and the absolute nature of religious teachings. They cannot be tampered with by public opinion poll or liberal tendencies.
2. By developing or promoting spirituality. This is the “ faith in the unseen ”, “ God consciousness ” taqwa, sincerity etc. Thus fostering a balanced approach to material and the non-material, the physical and the metaphysical. A proper spiritual development provides the electromotive force for moral action.
3. By nurturing morality or moral sense. This is the state of one’s heart and mind, which is ever ready to do good. This is the bases of compassion, generosity, integrity, honesty etc.
4. By providing clear and unambiguous responses to local and national and international tragedies, like wars and acts of terrorism.

Muslim parents are really concerned about the impact of secular education on their children. Dr Abdul Bari accurately captures the fears of Muslim parents when he says;

“ Even single sex schools within a purely secular setup have their problems. As the environment of these schools is ripe for permissive values and teaching and other staff is mixed, they can lead to an unhealthy life and double standards in a Muslim Childs life. That is why Muslim parents are not the only people to insist on the right to send their children to denominational schools.”

---

John Ruskin

ODD circle Lazy Trout 22 Feb 2010

Son of the co-founder of the company which became Allied-Domecq. Educated at home.  Went to Oxford as a gentleman-commoner. Got a forth class degree.
English art critic and social thinker, also remembered as a poet and artist. This is Amalfi- a watercolour. What do we think of this?

His religious beliefs influenced his whole being. He had poor health so travelled widely in warm countries. Notably Italy. His essays on art and architecture were extremely influential in the Victorian and Edwardian eras.
First marriage was annulled. Not consummated. His ex wife then married his friend. - Loads of gossip?
Had a relationship with Rose la Touche a young(10) Irish girl. Her pet name for him was "St. Crumpet” .- Even more gossip?

He was a prolific writer – 270 books. “Modern Painters”  five volumes written over 13 years started as a defence of Turner. Any idea why?

His critique of art was, to me, incredibly involved, for example.......

Describing Tintoretto'sAnnunciation in the Scuola di San Rocco, Venice, Ruskin begins with the spectator's experience of its realism. He starts therefore by pointing out that one first notices the Virgin sitting "houseless, under the shelter of a palace vestibule ruined and abandoned', surrounded by desolation. The spectator, says Ruskin, "turns away at first, revolted, from the central object of the picture forced painfully and coarsely forward, a mass of shattered brickwork, with the plaster mildewed away from it'. Such genre details, he suggests, might strike one as little more than a study of the kind of scene the artist "could but too easily obtain among the ruins of his own Venice, chosen to give a coarse explanation of the calling and the condition of the husband of Mary'. What do we think of this type of criticism?

As time moved on he wrote more and more on his thoughts on Political and  Economic theory. As well as a bit of philosophy..
He believes that all truth is comprehended visually, and to this axiom he joins the corollary that to learn anything one must experience it — see it — for oneself.  Visual truths arise in the exterior world and visionary ones in the interior one of the mind, both are matters of personal experience. What does he mean by this?

One of the many things that set Ruskin apart from others was his ability to take a seemingly trivial element of contemporary life and extrapolate it to show an important fault in society.
Do we know of any such trivial points in our society?

A visit to the Domecqs, his father's business associates, amid their Parisian elegance presented him with an enigma that demanded interpretation. As a young boy, he wondered why the Andalusians who grew the grapes for the Pedro Domecq sherries "should virtually get no good of their own beautiful country but the bunch of grapes or stalk of garlic they frugally dined on; that its precious wine was not for them, still less the money it was sold for. Familiar?

“Worship of the Goddess of Getting-on implies that they also condemn others to miserable lives, he presents a picture of their ideal that enforces corollaries or implicit points they would willingly leave out of their sight and consciousness” .

"Production does not consist in things laboriously made, but in things serviceably consumable; and the question for the nation is not how much labour it employs, but how much life it produces. For as consumption is the end and aim of production, so life is the end and aim of consumption"
How do these two quotes resonant with life today?

Ruskin believed that an “affectionate” relationship between master and operative would ultimately produce better quality and  more volume than an antagonistic relationship.
He also believed that you should pay the rate for the job which attracts good operatives not those that will do the job for less. The bad workman should not be able to offer his work at say half price thus bringing down the rightful remuneration of the good quality workmen.
Would this work?

 

---

Conflict Resolution and the Middle East
Lazy Trout ,Meerbrook, nr Leek. 25 Jan 2010 at 19-30 for 19-45 start.
based on entries in Wikipaedia.- Conflict Resolution Research, Zionism, Jewish Diaspora.

Conflict resolution is a range of methods for alleviating or eliminating sources of conflict.
Why is this not taught in schools in the UK?

What do we know of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?
Milestones in the timeline to the conflict.
1. The Jewish Diaspora. Started 8-6th century BCE
2. The Great Jewish Revolt. 66-70CE then 135CE
3. Persecution of Jews in Europe for centuries.
4. Immigration to Palestine – 1880’s onwards
5. Zionism - officially 1897
6. Balfour declaration – 1917
7. British Mandate of Palestine – 1922
8. Holocaust
9. Partition – 1947
10. State of Israel

Conflict resolution is highly sensitive to culture.
Western cultures success involves fostering communication among disputants seeking win-win. Direct expression of the issues in other culture can be seen as extremely rude and third party involvement is necessary. Which type of culture do we think Israelis and Palestinians are in?

Arbitration is one method of conflict resolution. Would this work in the Middle East?

Mediation is perhaps the only realistic route. Which country would be best to act as mediator?

The Road Map
In exchange for statehood, the road map requires the Palestinian Authority to make democratic reforms and abandon the use of violence. Israel, for its part, must support and accept the emergence of a reformed Palestinian government and end settlement activity of the Gaza Strip and West Bank as the Palestinian terrorist threat is removed.
What is it’s chance of success?

---

The Future of Museums and Art galleries
Lazy Trout ,Meerbrook, nr Leek. 25 Jan 2010 at 19-30 for 19-45 start.
based in part on entries to Wikipaedia.

1.The Royal Armouries in the Tower of London is the oldest museum in the United Kingdom. It opened to the public in 1660, though there had been paying privileged visitors to the armouries displays from 1592. Today the museum has three sites including its new headquarters in Leeds.
These "public" museums, however, were often accessible only by the middle and upper classes. It could be difficult to gain entrance. In London for example, prospective visitors to the British Museum had to apply in writing for admission. Even by 1800 it was possible to have to wait two weeks for an admission ticket. Visitors in small groups were limited to stays of two hours. In Victorian times in England it became popular for museums to be open on a Sunday afternoon (the only such facility allowed to do so) to enable the opportunity for "self improvement" of the other - working - classes.
What use are museums and art galleries?

2.In the months preceding the 2003 Iraq war, starting in December and January, various antiquities experts, including representatives from the American Council for Cultural Policy asked The Pentagon and the UK government to ensure the museum's safety from both combat and looting. Although promises were not made, U.S. forces did avoid bombing the site. More than the odd bomb fell on hospitals.
Why are we so protective of ancient objects?

3.Government statistics show that over 50% of UK residents have visited a museum or gallery within the last year.
Why are they so popular?

4.The main museums and art galleries are expensive to run.
Should they be free?

5.Most of the funding for big museums and art galleries is by taxation.
Is this right? How else could it be funded?

6.Many, many objects are displayed in countries which are not the country of origin. Eg the Elgin marbles.
Will this be a serious future issue for the Ms and Gs?

7.The Staffordshire hoard has concentrated the geography even more. Many people are after it, even the Pope and of course London.
Should the Pope get it?
Should London get it?

8.It always feels that London gets more than its fair share of Ms and Gs and the big exhibitions also seem to go to London.
Should there be an accelerated exit from London?

9.There are many small commercial specialised museums and galleries.
Will these continue to multiply?

10. Interaction with exhibits seemed to start about 50 years ago in the Science museum.
Is there enough interaction?

11. Technology is developing incredibly quickly. The internet seems to affect everything.
How will technology affect the future of Museums and Art galleries?

---

Hunting Right or Wrong?
Lazy Trout 7-30pm for 7-45pm Monday 18 Jan 2010
Some ideas taken from the BBC website and Gary E. Varner's book In Nature's Interests? Interests, Animal Rights and Environmental Ethics

Hunting has been carried out for millennia in Britain, predating the formation of the United Kingdom itself. Hunting was a crucial component of hunter-gatherer societies before the domestication of animals and the dawn of agriculture.
Hunting is natural why is it controversial?
During the last ice age, humans and neanderthals hunted mammoths and woolly rhinos by driving them off cliffs. Evidence of this has been found at La Cotte de St Brelade on the island of Jersey.
Were humans responsible for the demise of the Mammoth? Does it matter?
In Britain, hunting with hounds was popular in Celtic Britain before the Romans arrived, using the Agassaei breed. [2] The Romans brought their Castorian and Fulpine hound breeds to England, along with importing the brown hare (the mountain hare is native) and fallow deer as quarry. Wild boar was also hunted.
If a species is not native does it make it ‘fair game’.?
Why are foxes vermin and badgers not?

It has been suggested that their are three types of hunting...
·            Therapeutic hunting: Hunting 'designed to secure the aggregate welfare of the target species, the integrity of its ecosystem, or both'
·           i.e. hunting that is biologically necessary to prevent overpopulation or damage to other animals, plants or elements of the environment
·            Subsistence hunting: Hunting 'aimed at securing food for human beings'
·           Sport hunting: Hunting 'aimed at maintaining religious or cultural traditions, and re-enacting national or evolutionary history, at practicing certain skills, or just at securing a trophy'
Are some acceptable and others not?

Shooting, trapping, stalking, with dogs, poisoning – all ways to kill animals. Are some more acceptable than others?

Hunting with dogs
The case that hunting with dogs is not ethically wrong usually includes some of these points:
·           being hunted by other animals is a natural part of the life of wild animals
·           hunting with dogs provides a very quick death - quicker and more painless than the death that many animals would otherwise get.
·            animals are not left injured - they either escape or are killed.
·           hunting is necessary to protect agriculture and the environment from animal pests or overpopulation.
·           hunting is as humane, or more humane, than other methods of controlling wild animal populations.
Non-moral arguments include these points:
·           hunting provides human employment.
·           hunting preserves Britain's cultural traditions.
·           hunting provides sport and pleasure to many people.
What do we think?

Views from John Newall

“Part of the problem is that we live in what has become an urbanized society 
with very little contact with the country and that, inevitably, has altered 
people's views of things. But there's little reason why the urban majority 
should dictate to the rural minority what it should or should not do. A 
shepherd might look upon an urban dweller with a family pet which is kept 
imprisoned in the house all day, friendless and contactless, as being 
cruel, while his working dog has a richly fulfilling life but he could 
hardly call for legislation to require dog-owners by law to exercise their 
pets twice a day for a minimum of x minutes, could he?”

“Nature itself is the hunter and the hunted. 
It always has been and always will be. Man is a witness to this fact, not 
the creator. All dogs or hounds are descended from wolves which hunt in 
packs. The fact that Man organizes these packs to hunt an animal which was 
the wolves', hounds', dogs' age-old prey is immaterial to that prey. The 
prey does not take a stand and say, even to itself, "Man is wrong to have 
organized this hunt after me", it just sees its predators and attempts to 
hide or flee as it always has done.”
A different slant – sooooo?

---

Art and Culture
Lazy Trout ,Meerbrook 14 Dec 2009 at 19-30 for 19-45 start.

Based in part on notes ‘Culture is Ordinary’ by Derek Tatton used at the Blue Mugge.
Also in part on a paper by Christopher L. C. E. Witcombe, Professor of Art History in at Sweet Briar College in Virginia, http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/artartists/artartists.html

1. What do we mean by Culture?

2.Terry Eagleton spoke about the ‘creatureliness’ of human beings (our bodies determine quite a lot) but
“Because we have language … we can become truly universal beings doing all sorts of astonishing things which aren’t possible for moles and badgers.   They can’t get outside their own bodies as linguistic animals can…   let’s face it,  because they lack culture they’re extraordinarily limited.  I mean, they can’t even construct a nuclear weapon….  That…is the point, the very powers that enable us to create also enable us to destroy… it is hard to have Tennyson without Trident’.                                                                      Discuss

3.TE goes on to argue that since Williams death (20 years ago) there have been several key developments:   ‘culturalism’  (what does that mean?)   and 'movements like revolutionary nationalism and various ethnic conflicts where culture becomes the very idiom in which political demands are framed….   You could define culture in this sense as that which people are prepared to kill for.  Or, if you prefer, to die for…'                                  Discuss

4. What is Art?

5. When did art start?
Both the notion of "art" and the idea of the "artist" are relatively modern terms.
The idea of an object being a "work of art" emerges, together with the concept of the Artist, in the 15th and 16th centuries in Italy.

6.How did Art become distinguished from the decorative arts and crafts? How and why is an artist different from a craftsperson? ‘Fine Art’?

7.Art in the latter half of the 20th century has deliberatley placed itself beyond the limits of control. Today, art historians and critics -- we might call them the art police -- throw up their hands in dismay in the face of contemporary art.
Anything is art now?

8. Why do we have art? What purpose does it serve?

9. Is art too commercial?

---

  The Teenage Years – Best years of your life?
ODD circle Lazy Trout Meerbrook 30 Nov 2009

1.Teenage 13-19  years. Adolescence/puberty ?? -??

2. What was good about your teenage years?

3. What are the good things about teenagers?

4. The bodily changes.......

5. Tell, Sell, Consult/ Participate. How do adults know when to start to consult

6. A school in the USA starts classes later for teenagers. Do we cut enough slack with teenagers?

7. Risky behaviour is seen by adults as being a 'bad' thing, but for the teenagers there are many rewards. By pushing boundaries they are developing their identity as well as showing off in front of friends. There are suggestions from recent research that some bad teenage behaviour could be a sign of a healthy personality.
Are teenagers programmed to rebel?

8. Whether they're just thinking about it or doing it, sex takes up a lot of a teenager's time. This new, unknown territory is a cause for concern, excitement and exploration.
How much strife does this cause? How much joy?

9. Teenage pregnancy?
10. Spots are the bane of teen life. Just when teenagers are most sensitive about their looks they suffer an outbreak of zits.
11. Social networks like facebook. Programming the video. Is the rate that parents get left behind accelerating?

12. There’s about 4-5% teenagers in the UK. Should teenagers get the vote? 

 

---

  Buddhism -  why has it captured the spirit of the age?
ODD circle Lazy Trout Meerbrook 16 Nov 2009

Notes based on the BBC In our Time programme with this title, March 2002 and also the BBC website>Religions>Buddism. Thanks to Derek Tatton for the ‘In our Time’ part of the notes.

1.  ‘Two and a half thousand years ago, in Northern India, a young man meditated on life and death;   Siddharta Gautama > The Buddha, taught that we have not one but many lives.  We are constantly re-born in  different forms…’  We are bound ‘to the cosmic treadmill of death, decay, rebirth, and suffering from which the only escape is Nirvana…’
What do we know about Buddhism and what would you want to add to the brief summary above?   
2.The Four Noble Truths contain the essence of the Buddha's teachings. It was these four principles that the Buddha came to understand during his meditation under the bodhi tree.

These truths are all about suffering. The Buddha was high born. Why would he consider that life and rebirth were just a string of suffering?
3.The Buddha never intended his followers to believe his teachings blindly, but to practice them and judge for themselves whether they were true. Is this different from Western religions?
4.Karma has implications beyond this life. Bad actions in a previous life can follow a person into their next life and cause bad effects. Teachings about karma explain that our past actions affect us, either positively or negatively, and that our present actions will affect us in the future. Is this the big stick like judgement day in western religions?
5.Someone who reaches nirvana does not immediately disappear to a heavenly realm. Nirvana is better understood as a state of mind that humans can reach. It is a state of profound spiritual joy, without negative emotions and fears. Someone who has attained enlightenment is filled with compassion for all living things. It also means that you will not be reborn but quite what happens after death is not defined. Realistic rather than optimistic?

6. Buddhism quickly became established in SE Asia but now, two millennia later there are 376 million followers world wide, almost 5 million Americans call themselves Buddhists,  there are around 200,000 in Britain and Buddhism is one of the fastest growing religions in the West.                        Why?

7. Buddhists believe that nothing is fixed or permanent - change is always possible.  There is no belief in a personal God.  It is not centred on the relationship between humanity and God.  The path to Enlightenment is through the development of morality, meditation and wisdom.’        Discuss

8. ‘No self - no problems’   
One of the participants in the BBC discussion, when challenged by Melvyn Bragg about Buddhism’s emphasis on the individual’s own development  - and therefore not interested in social development… responded:   “… when you don’t have a strong ego you are better able to help others - there is a social ethic in Buddhism”.  Discuss

9. “Tibetan art is largely anonymous and this custom of artistic anonymity is grounded in the Buddhist belief in working towards the elimination of the individual ego… The work ceases to be the property of the artist when it leaves his studio. Discuss

10. Zen…   ‘give up logical thinking and avoid getting trapped in a spider’s web of words….’  ‘…sends us looking inside for Enlightenment.  Discuss

11.   Some quotes: 
“Of the ten virtuous acts spoken of in Buddhism, four are verbal:  do not lie, defame others, speak offensive words, or engage in frivolous conversation.”
“When we feel responsible, concerned and committed we begin to feel deep emotion and great courage”.
“The true essence of humankind is kindness.   There are other qualities which come from education and knowledge, but it is essential, if one wishes to be a genuine human being and impart satisfying meaning to one’s existence, to have a good heart”.                                                                           The 14th Dalai Lama               

“Every morning, our first thought should be the wish to devote the day to the good of all living things”           Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.                                                                                                                                                                                              Discuss

 

---

Cooperation versus Competition
Lazy Trout Meerbrook Monday 2 Nov 2009 19-30 for 19-45hrs start
Based on http://www.charleswarner.us/articles/competit.htm and http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/sq/Serenity.html

Life is naturally competitive. Do we agree?

"There are a lot of reasons to worry.  Some of the standard ways that people once learned to cooperate - home, churches, communities - are not operating as they did a generation ago.  Teaching young people how to cooperate does not receive the appropriate level of interest."

Do we teach our children cooperation?

Is there a gender difference?

“A bit of healthy competition hurt no-one”. “We can’t all come first.” “Win at all cost”  Why are only winners lauded? In effect why do the losers laud the winners?

Business is innately competitive. Do only competitive people succeed?

Is our society cooperative or competitive?

Which type of society is best ?

Research shows that in general we feel healthier in cooperative environments. More ideas are generated. Outcomes are in general better.
What are the down sides of cooperation.?

Was it right to introduce competition into the NHS in the 1980’s?

 

---

Do Animals have Ethics?
Lazy Trout Meerbrook Monday 19th Oct 2009 19-30 for 19-45hrs start

Based in part on notes called ‘Apes and Ethics’ from a symposium by Margaret Somerville who is Samuel Gale Professor of Law, Professor in the Faculty of Medicine, and Founding Director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University, Montreal.
http://www.artsandopinion.com/2009_v8_n2/somerville-3.htm

Before we look at animals ethics we need to examine what we mean by ethics.

Values, Morals and Ethics. What are the differences between these 3?

Values are the rules by which we make decisions about right and wrong, should and shouldn't, good and bad. They also tell us which are more or less important, which is useful when we have to trade off meeting one value over another.
Morals have a greater social element to values and tend to have a very broad acceptance. Morals are far more about good and bad than other values. We thus judge others more strongly on morals than values. A person can be described as immoral, yet there is no word for them not following values.
Ethics tend to be codified into a formal system or set of rules which are explicitly adopted by a group of people. Thus you have medical ethics. Ethics are thus internally defined and adopted, whilst morals tend to be externally imposed on other people.  
What is an ethical dilemma that immediately comes to your mind?
Why is it worthwhile to be ethical?
How have we determined good and evil?
From the notes of the symposium.....
Recently, I participated in a round-table discussion, Apes or Angels: What is the Origin of Ethics?, at McGill University. It was billed as honouring the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection.
The issue on the table was whether the ethical system that underlies "our unique social and economic system . . . that leads us to rely on the support and co-operation of other individuals, largely unknown to one another is simply the result of evolution through natural selection and a more advanced form of the social co-operation we see in animals, or are "our social behaviour and the ethics on which it is based uniquely human and owe nothing to the processes that govern societies of ants or bacteria? Our bodies may have evolved, but our ethics requires another kind of explanation."

In short, are ethics and morality in humans just one more outcome of natural selection through evolution or do they have some other origin?

My co-panelists included world-renowned evolutionary biologists; distinguished academics specializing in researching the relation of economics and evolutionary biology; an anthropologist with expertise on co-operative behaviour in apes and monkeys; and a global leader in the field of evolution education, whose expert witness testimony in the U.S. federal trial on "biological evolution, education and the U.S. constitution," contributed to the court ruling that the teaching of intelligent design in high-school science classes was unconstitutional.

I was a loner as an ethicist and, possibly, the only person who thought that humans were not just an improved version of other animals in terms of ethical behaviour.

First, we discussed whether we could say animals had a sense of ethics. My co-panelists referred to research that shows primates perceive and become angry when they can see they are not being treated fairly -- for instance, one gets a bigger reward for a certain response than another. They explained animals form community and act to maximize benefit to the community, including through self-sacrifice. They proposed these behaviours were early forms of ethical conduct and that it was relevant in tracing and understanding the evolution of ethics in humans to know when these behaviours first appeared, in which animals, and at what point on the evolutionary tree.

This approach reflects a range of crucial assumptions: First, that ethics -- and one assumes morality, as ethics is based on morality -- is just a genetically determined characteristic not unique to humans. Genetic reductionism is a view that we're nothing more than "gene machines," including with respect to our most "human" characteristics, such as ethics. What do we think?

We probably have genes (that might need to be activated by certain experiences or learning) that give us the capacity to seek ethics. (We can imagine these genes as being like a TV set: We need it to see a telecast, but it doesn't determine what we see). I propose, however, that ethics consists of more than just a genetically programmed response.
Ethics require moral judgment. That requires deciding between right and wrong. As far as we know, animals are not capable of doing that. There's a major difference between engaging in social conduct that benefits the community, as some animals do, and engaging in that same conduct because it would be ethically wrong not to do so, as humans do. Why are animals not capable of distinguishing between right and wrong?
My colleagues believed ethics were not unique to humans. Definition is a problem here: If ethics are broadly defined to encompass certain animal behaviour, they are correct. But if ethics are the practical application of morality, then to say animals have ethics is to attribute a moral instinct to them.
My colleagues' approach postulates an ethics continuum on which humans are just more "ethically advanced" than animals -- that is, there is only a difference in degree, not a difference in kind, between humans and animals with respect to having a capacity to be ethical.
Whether animals and humans are just different-in-degree or different-in-kind ("special" and, therefore, deserve "special respect") is at the heart of many of the most important current ethical conflicts, including those about abortion, human embryonic stem cell research, new reproductive technologies, and euthanasia.
Do humans deserve special respect?
Princeton philosopher Peter Singer is an "only a difference in degree" adherent. He says we're all animals and, therefore, giving preferential treatment to humans is "speciesism" -- wrongful discrimination on the basis of species identity. Animals and humans deserve the same respect. What we wouldn't do to humans we shouldn't do to animals; and what we would do for animals -- for instance, euthanasia -- we should do for humans.
MIT artificial intelligence and robotics scientist, Rodney Brooks, argues the same on behalf of robots. He claims that those that are more intelligent than us will deserve greater respect than we do.
 Would you specially respect a clever robot?
In contrast, I believe that humans are "special" (different-in-kind) as compared with other animals and, consequently, deserve "special respect."

Traditionally, we have used the idea that humans have a soul and animals don't to justify our differential treatment of humans and animals in terms of the respect they deserve. But soul is no longer a universally accepted concept.
Ethics can, however, be linked to a metaphysical base without needing to invoke religious or supernatural features or beliefs -- it could be of a secular "human spirit" nature or, as German philosopher Jurgen Habermas describes it, an "ethics of the human species." I propose that ethics necessarily involve some transcendent experience, one that humans can have and animals cannot. Instinctive?
And I want to make clear that we can believe in evolution and also believe in God. The dichotomy often made in the media between being "atheist-anti-religion/pro-evolution," on the one hand, and "believer-pro-religion/anti-evolution," on the other, does not reflect reality. Evolution and a belief in God are not, as Richard Dawkins argues, incompatible. Agree?
The argument that it's dangerous to abandon the ideas of human specialness and that a moral instinct and search for ethics is uniquely human, was greeted with great scepticism by my colleagues, who seemed to think that only religious people would hold such views. Dangerous?

To conclude, how we answer the question, "Do ants have ethics?" -- that is, does the behaviour, bonding and the formation of community in animals have a different base from that in humans -- is of immense importance, including because it will have a major impact on the ethics we hand on to future generations.
So we hand them on do we?

 

---

Long Life and its Effects
Lazy Trout Meerbrook 5th Oct 19-30hrs for a 19-45hrs start.

Life expectancy at birth in the UK has reached its highest level on record for both males and females. A newborn baby boy could expect to live 77.2 years and a newborn baby girl 81.5 years if mortality rates remain the same as they were in 2005–07.

Females continue to live longer than males, but the gap has been closing. Although both sexes have shown annual improvements in life expectancy at birth, over the past 25 years the gap has narrowed from 6.0 years to 4.3 years. Based on mortality rates in 1980–82, 26 per cent of newborn males would die before age 65, but this had reduced to 16 per cent based on 2005–07 rates. The equivalent figures for newborn females were 16 per cent in 1980–82 and 10 per cent in 2005–07.
Why do women live longer than men? Do we take this into account enough when we or governments forward plan?

Life expectancy at age 65 – the number of further years someone reaching 65 in 2005–07 could expect to live – is also higher for women than for men. Based on 2005–07 mortality rates, a man aged 65 could expect to live another 17.2 years, and a woman aged 65 another 19.9 years.

Within the UK, life expectancy varies by country. England has the highest life expectancy at birth, 77.5 years for males and 81.7 years for females, while Scotland has the lowest, 74.8 years for males and 79.7 years for females. Life expectancy at age 65 is also higher for England than for the other countries of the UK.
Why should England be better?
 
Within Europe the UK is only mid table at best. The USA is surprisingly poor. Infant mortality figures have a few surprises too. So???? Can we equate wealth to longevity?
What about culture, Religion or political leaning?
Around the world life expectancy varies enormously. Andorra 83.5 Swaziland 32.6 years.
Can we foresee a  time when this variation is not so marked?

Populations are ageing  around the world. Can we afford to get old? Healthy life expectancy v life expectancy?

You often hear young people say they are paying for an older persons pension. Is it true? Will the ageing population bring social unrest?

The old were once considered to be wise. Where did it all go wrong? Should the older generation get a publicist?

Can older people program a video recorder?

Grandparents are enabling both parents to work in many households in the UK. Many children say their grandparents had a great influence on them. Is this a good thing?

Throughout the world human numbers are increasing dramatically. Life expectancy is part of the equation. Can the World afford our living longer?

---

Appreciation of a poem on death then a discussion on Euthanasia

Lazy Trout Meerbrook on Monday 21 Sept 2009 19-30hrs for a 19-45hrs start.

Appreciation of a poem on death by Dylan Thomas

Do not go gentle into that good night

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on that sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Dylan Thomas

Euthanasia and Dignitas based material from the BBC website Religion and Ethics > Euthanasia pages.

“And a certain woman threw an upper millstone upon Abim'elech's head, and crushed his skull. Then he called hastily to the young man his armour-bearer, and said to him, "Draw your sword and kill me, lest men say of me, 'A woman killed him.'" And his young man thrust him through, and he died.”
Judges 9:53-54

There's a more famous case at the start of 2 Samuel, where the seriously injured King Saul orders a young soldier to kill him, rather than let him be captured alive. When King David heard what the young soldier had done, he had him executed; to show that euthanasia was equivalent to murder, and that the defence of superior orders was valueless.

Euthanasia from the Greek meaning “good death”.

The Dignitas clinic is in Forch, near Zurich, Switzerland, and therefore operates under Swiss law, which, since 1940, has permitted assisted suicide provided it is done for altruistic reasons. It can be doctor-assisted hastened death, or non-doctor.

Only the state of Oregon, the Netherlands and Belgium permit physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill, competent adults, but it is for residents only, and there are strict rules.

If euthanasia was made legal it would be abused. – what do we think?

It is not illegal to commit suicide why should euthanasia be forbidden?

You would not let an animal die in pain why should humans?

As human life is sacred only God has a right to end it.

Voluntary, non-voluntary, involuntary euthanasia. Do we know the difference?

Nowhere allows euthanasia for people with mental problems. Why the distinction?

Where does “Do not resuscitate” fit in all this?

---

Thatcherism
Lazy Trout 7-30pm for 7-45pm Monday 7 Sept 2009

Margaret Hilda Roberts was born in 1925 in Grantham, Lincolnshire. She went to Oxford University and then became a research chemist, retraining to become a barrister in 1954.
Married Dennis Thatcher, a wealthy businessman, in 1951. Became MP 1959. First women PM from 1979 –1990.

Other than the obvious do we think that Mrs Thatcher was different from the rest of the post war Prime Ministers?
If so why?
"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation." Margaret Thatcher, talking to Women's Own magazine, 1987
What do we think she meant about society?
What do we like or dislike about this statement?
Thatcher’s crusade against socialism was not merely about economic efficiency and prosperity but that above all, “it was that socialism itself — in all its incarnations, wherever and however it was applied — was morally corrupting.” Indeed, Thatcher’s lasting legacy was to change forever the nature of the British left, so that even when a Labor government decided, in effect, to nationalize the banking system — as it did in October 2008 — it did so not to replace capitalism but to save it. “THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE” Why Margaret Thatcher Matters by Claire Berlinski
Do we think socialism is morally corrupting?

As Nobel laureate Milton Friedman wrote in 1953 in his Essays in Positive Economics, theories can be based on any assumptions, however bizarre. As Reagan noted, "an economist is someone who, on being shown something that works in practice, wonders if it would work in theory".

a theory that Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher sold us. It is called "supply-side economics", and it claims that economic growth depends, first, on the rich (not the poor) being rewarded with tax cuts; and second, on markets being freed from regulation.
What do we think now?
On the occasion of the 25th anniversary of Mrs Thatcher's inauguration, BBC conducted a survey of opinions which opened with the following comments:
To her supporters, she was a revolutionary figure who transformed Britain's stagnant economy, tamed the unions and re-established the country as a world power. And we think?
Together with US presidents Reagan and Bush, she helped bring about the end of the Cold War. She did?
But her 11-year premiership was also marked by social unrest, industrial strife and high unemployment. Perhaps?
Her critics claim British society is still feeling the effect of her divisive economic policies and the culture of greed and selfishness they allegedly promoted. Selfish nous?

The privatisation of nationalised companies has seemed to go down well. Do we agree?

Have you noticed we don’t have wage or price freezes anymore?

Towards the end of the 1980s Margaret Thatcher, and so Thatcherism, became increasingly vocal in its opposition to allowing the European Union to supersede British sovereignty. In her famous 1988 Bruges speech, Thatcher declared that "We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them reimposed at a European level, with a European super­state exercising a new dominance from Brussels. Are we with her on this?

 Thatcher won her three elections not because the public embraced a moral crusade from the right but because she was seen as being closest to the center, in contrast to an unelectably left-wing Labor Party. STEPHEN POLLARD editor Jewish chronicle
True?

All in all was she good for the UK?

---

 

Why are we in Afghanistan?
Lazy Trout 7-30pm for 7-45pm Monday 27 July 2009
Based to an extent on Afghanistan’s lost Decade by Paul Rogers. Prof of Peace studies University of Bradford. www.opendemocracy.net/article/afghanistan-s-lost-decade

British forces are not new to Afghanistan. In the 1800’s Afghanistan was sandwiched between British India and the Russians to the North. Britain had allied with the Afghan ruler Dost Mohammed. He had united warring Afghan factions after seizing power in 1818, and seemed to be serving a useful purpose to the British. But in 1837, it became apparent that Dost Mohammed was beginning a flirtation with the Russians. The British invaded and took Kabul. Installed a puppet ruler, Shah Shuja,  and intended to leave but 2 brigades had to remain as the puppet was not powerful enough to rule unaided. Subsequently in 1841 the Afghans revolted and after a truce the British were allowed to leave. 4500 troops and 12000 civilians left to march the 90 miles to Jalalabad. Only one arrived. The tribesmen had ambushed them in a mountain pass. Soon after all British troops were with drawn from Afghanistan.

The soviets too had a bad time in Afghanistan. Why did USSR go into Afghanistan?
This conflict killed over one million Afghanis and about 15000 Soviets and lasted from late 1979 to 1989. There followed a complex civil war which culminated with the Taliban taking Kabul in 1996 and the rest of the country by 2000. In 2001 they showed their ignorance and intolerance by blowing up the 1700 year Buddhas of Bamiyan. What makes a modern regime act so insanely?

The present conflict started in Oct 2001.  The aim of the invasion was to find the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking al-Qaeda members and put them on trial, to destroy the whole organization of al-Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban regime which supported and gave safe harbour to al-Qaeda. The United States' Bush Doctrine stated that, as policy, it would not distinguish between al-Qaeda and nations that harbour them.

Did you agree with this?

Why did the UK get so involved?

There have been great achievements since 2001. Presidential and parliamentary elections were adjudged successful; six million children including many girls banned from education by the Taliban are back at school, 4.5 million refugees have returned home, while economic growth has been strong. But for two years there have also been signs that beneath the veneer of progress in the big cities, large parts of the rest of the country are sliding back towards the anarchy that afflicted Afghanistan during the 1990s and gave rise to the Taliban.
Why don’t we get out and leave the Afghanis to it?
Casualties and troop numbers by country

USA	750	57000
UK	188	9000
Canada	125	2800
Germany	33	4500
France	28	3000
Spain	25	1200

The rest of Europe will not deploy in the south leaving USA, Britain and Canada with the worst of the fight.
Why is Europe so reticent ?

Pres Obama it is believed does not think the war can be won. His objective now is to break the Taliban enough to bring them to the negotiating table. Trouble is the Taliban seem to be getting stronger not weaker.
If we can’t win it why fight it?

Does anyone know how exposed we are to terror attacks? How does the war reduce this threat. How does the war increase this threat?
Why have we not learned that  we can no longer easily occupy middle east countries?

Do aggressive policies lead to aggressive consequences?

Why don’t we really stick to defence it never did the Swiss any harm.
Can we afford to police the world?

---

English nationalism
Lazy Trout 7-30pm for 7-45pm Monday 13 July 2009

The Venerable Bede, a monk writing around 730AD, implied that England was a nation around that time. He referred to the Germanic peoples – Angles, Saxons and Jutes – as English. This excluded the Britons, Scots and Picts.
England has been an unconquered nation with stable borders since 1066.
English nationalism has ebbed and flowed and in the 20th century was not a strong movement. This appears to be changing.

Saint George is the patron saint of England. What do we know about him?
What date is St George’s day? Is he a saint to be proud of?
Would you celebrate St George’s day?

Until recently the English on the whole have seen themselves as British first English second. How do we see ourselves?

Devolution has changed politics in the UK. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own assemblies. Each one has different powers.
It is said that regional policy is just a way of spreading money from the south east to the rest of the country. Why do we have regional policies?
Why did we have to go as far as devolution?
Has devolution been a success?

English MPs can not vote in the Scottish parliament but Scottish MPs can vote on English matters in the UK parliament.
Should we have an English assembly?

Should the North East for example have an assembly?

From a BBC programme in 1999

Jack Straw has described the English as "potentially very aggressive, very violent" and will "increasingly articulate their Englishness following devolution." Jack Straw is worried that nationalism will manifest itself in violence and wants a positive English identity created which will beat off the unpleasant side. 

William Hague says: "English nationalism is the most dangerous of all forms of nationalism that can arise within the United Kingdom, because England is five-sixths of the population of the UK." 
Also "Once a part of a united country or kingdom that is so predominant in size becomes nationalistic, then really the whole thing is under threat,"

Are we really such a threat?

Samuel Johnson of dictionary fame said “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
George Orwell wrote that nationalism was one of the worst enemies of peace. He defined nationalism as the feeling that your way of life, country, or ethnic group were superior to others. These types of feelings lead a group to attempt to impose their morality on any given situation. When those standards were not met, more often then not, war would result.
In contrast he stated that patriotism was the feeling of admiration for a way of life etc. and the willingness to defend it against attack. The obvious difference between the two is that while patriotism is a passive attitude, nationalism is aggressive by nature.
What do you think?

---