British Government's Definition of Terrorism:

"Terrorism is the use, or threat, of action which is violent, damaging or disrupting and is intended to influence the government or intimidate the public and is for for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause."



Tony Blair, 12 April, 1999, talking about NATO's actions in Kosovo.

"We will carry on pounding day after day, until our objectives are secured."

Jack Straw, Former UK Foreign Secretary,

"It [the crisis in Iraq] does have to be resolved, yes to deal with Iraq, but also to ensure that the authority of the international order is maintained."

I was watching some morning TV today and was watching a mouthpiece from British Airways give his thoughts on BA returning its first ever loss. He said BA was going to "reduce its cost base". That is an original euphemism for job losses, I have to admit. He then went on to proudly boast that they have shed thousands of jobs and will probably shed a lot more.

What sort of economy have we created when you can now publicly boast you are going to sack thousands of people?

The UK is plunging towards depression if it isn't there already. And yet,despite this the major political parties are racing to the bottom in announcing how many cuts they are going to make. The lunatics are definitely running the asylum. The true unemployment rate could be closer to an unbelievable 25%. This would make it on par with the Great Depression of the 1930s which lasted almost a decade.

Interesting article in The Guardian yesterday about the police units used to conduct surveillance on 'domestic extremists' who, in most cases, have done nothing more than attend a protest or a community meeting. The police defend it by saying anyone on a database has the 'potential' to commit crimes. Based on that logic anyone who walks into a pub could be a potential drink driver; anyone who gets into financial difficulty is a potential burglar; anyone who regularly travels overseas is a potential drug mule; anyone can be a potential anything.

One sign of a totalitarian society is the paranoid fear of internal threats. MI5 even kept a file on the Sex Pistols for god's sake. Are we starting to see a sign of this in our modern 'democratic' society in the UK?

I think in a few decades our children and grandchildren will be reading about the first Great Depression of the 21st Century.

In the US, at the peak of the Depression in the 1930's the unemployment rate was about 25%. Even though the official unemployment rate is about 7-8%, the 'real' figure (which includes those who are under employed, for example) is closer to about 17-18%. In certain areas such as parts of Wales and Scotland where unemployment is worse, it would resemble the figures from the 1930's. Even the official unemployment rate for people aged 16-24 is just under 20%.

Another barometer is child poverty. The UK still lags behind other developed countries with about 30% of children living below the breadline.

The national debt in 'real' figures (which includes things such as PFI and future pension payments), according to the Tax Payers' Alliance website is a staggering £7-8 TRILLION! I don't even know how many zeros that is. That is around £300 000 per household.

Somehow the appearance of BNP leader, Nick Grifffin, on a political talk show caused a huge uproar. However, people are forgetting that we have had a very extremist party in power for at least the last 12 years.

New Labour, like Thatcher's Tories, have enthusiastically supported the extremist economic policies of Milton Freidman and the IMF. These policies dictate that every aspect of life should be left for the market to decide. Whether it is healthcare, roads, education, food production and just about anything else you can think of. The New Labour extremists have even gone even further than Friedman by privatising aspects of the military. This is one area that Friedman said shouldn't be touched. The gap between rich and poor in the UK is at its worst for almost 40 years. Real wages have been declining for at least 20 years. It is also official that most of the population were better off economically under Margaret Thatcher than right now. And that is saying something.

Then there is the extremist foreign policies. Was Bill Clinton an extremist when during his Presidency the CIA said that it was now official policy to have the right to use force to defend the United States' markets and interests? Does anyone, anywhere refer to the US as a rogue state as it was convicted of terrorism in the World Court for its actions in Nicaragua? The US reacted to the judgement by increasing the terrorism and adopting it as official policy when they ordered forces under their control to attack "soft targets" such as schools and hospitals. Back in the UK was Tony Blair an extremist for willingly cooperating with the US in the legal invasion of Iraq which has directly led to the deaths of over 250 000 Iraqis?

The BNP is not a political party. It is a racist lobby group without the white sheets. However, a sign of a civilized society is to judge ourselves the way we judge others. It is a sign of our intellectual culture that we cannot bring ourselves to do that. That was certainly true on Question Time the other night. The so-called 'mainstream' parties are no less extreme than the BNP, they are just extreme in a different way.

I think the impact constant anti-social behavior is often underestimated. I think a lot of people could relate to some of the behavior displayed on the Panorama report, even if it is far less dramatic. There is even a new term, NFH, or Neighbors From Hell which has entered the lexicon which suggests it is a common problem.

It is always the victims that have to put out. The perpetrators get visits from the council, they get warning letters, more warning letters, more visits. The behavior might die down temporarily by which time the process goes back a few steps. At a previous address I once complained about a neighbor living in a council house only to be told by the guy from the Housing Office that I was the only one complaining, implying that I was exacerbating the situation. I suggested to him that I had to work to pay a mortgage to be able to live in my house whereas my neighbor stays at home all day, bored and pays far less. Shouldn't they be even more stringent in how council tenants, in particular, behave? He reluctantly agreed.

Something else which aggravates anti social behavior is the pack mentality. A lot of this type of aggressive behavior would be reduced if people where moved around and integrated rather than 'dumped' together in area where they congregate and cause trouble. Aggressive people own their own can be far less aggressive.

Alcohol is a big factor. This country definitely has a problem with alcohol. It is obsessed with it. When some relatives from Australia came out here about 18 months ago they couldn't believe their is a chain of shops called 'Bargain Booze'. Wouldn't we be horrified if we sent our kids to get some bread and milk from the local shop called 'Crack House' or 'Opium Den' or 'Bong Joint'? Are we surprised when we see very young kids drinking alcohol when it can be bought cheaper than a soft drink? We shouldn't be.

Thee question is whether we want to get control of our communities back or not.

Watched the BBC Panorama report on displays of racism and anti-social behavior on an estate in Bristol. The displays of racism broadcast were quite disturbing but it could have been in a lot of places around the UK. I think that it is also just a part of the wider problem of what is called 'anti-social' behavior.

This type of behavior is symptomatic of the new social 'underclass' that I feel has got very little to do with wealth. Traditionally class structure was based on wealth. Working class, upper class etc. Wealth is definitely a factor in level of health and educational achievement, for instance. Class nowadays is more influenced by social or cultural factors. If the stereotypical young 'chav' won he lottery would they invest in an art collection or would they just buy more expensive alcohol?

However, from what I can tell in my job as a teacher who has dealt with a lot of kids similar to those seen on Panorama, is that we are creating a generation of unsociable, un-aspirational illiterates, who never venture further than their local and who can not even begin to understand the concept of people looking different. The ambitions of lot of kids I have seen in schools is just to get a good mobile to play with and get as drunk as possible by the end of the week. I remember watching a report on the BBC about the fake kidnapping of Shannon Mathews in Leeds lsat year. A police officer was talking about the first line of enquiry in a kidnapping case is to speak to members of the immediate family. He said that this usually involves about 20 people. In this particular case he said it involved about 200 people!

Most behavior is learnt and we have to break the cycle. There are a many reasons that contribute to dysfunctional classes and behavior. I believe a major culprit is the educational system. Most schools only concentrate on the students who get them good exam results. Schools should ultimately be places where we try to improve people and equip them with the skills to be better people. They fail miserably in my opinion. Most teachers do a fantastic job but the educational system is not fit for purpose.

Another culprit is the economic rationalism (or the economic irrationalism as I like to call it) that's been in place since Thatcher and continued with even greater gusto by the Blair/Brown partnership. Their economic policies have destroyed much of the social fabric of the country. So much so that UNICEF ranked the UK bottom of 222 European countries in the quality of childhood in 2007. Another survey last year had similar results.

There is an element of moral panic in all of this but to say it is all a fabrication is also wrong. Racism an anti-social behavior didn't just arrive yesterday. The football hooligans and National Front thugs didn't disappear so is it any wonder we have a lot of ignorant thugs standing in groups in front of shops and on street corners?

According to a survey conducted by uswitch.com the U.K. has the lowest quality of life compared to 9 other European countries. They concluded that:

Best quality of life can be found in France and Spain.

The worst can be found in the UK and Ireland[1]

Depressing: UK workers can expect to work 3 years longer[2] and die 2 years younger than their French counterparts[3]

Cost of living: consumers in the UK are paying above the European average for fuel[4], food[5], alcohol[6] and cigarettes[7]

Health and education: the UK’s spend on healthcare[8] and education[9] is below the European average. Only Ireland and Poland spend less on healthcare, but Ireland has more doctors and hospital beds and Poland has more beds than the UK[10]

Longer life: Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden all enjoy longer life expectancy than the UK[3]

Retirement age in the UK has dropped, but it is still the 4th highest in Europe[2] UK enjoys highest net household income[11], but workers in the UK get lowest holiday entitlement in Europe[12].

It's only going to get worse.

Be scared, very scared!

The political genius that is Peter 'Mandy' Mandleson has decided to sell a wheelbarrow load of public assets that will be lost forever to private hands to help fill the coffers. Like anything else that is privatized they will be sold for next to nothing to some dodgy company or consortium with a very poor track record. Sales are always just a one off.

I might be way off but wouldn't it be better to tackle the issue of tax avoidance which costs an estimated £6-13 billion (probably much more) PER YEAR? Some companies are getting away with paying as little as a 2% tax rate because all the profits are exported overseas quite legally to tax havens. For those lucky enough to earn average or below average wages we have to pay rates of 20%+. How fortunate we are.

Gordon Brown has embarrassed himself yet again with his abandonment of the rules of expenses. He forgets to mention that it was he that changed the rules in 2004 to make it much easier for MP's to claim expenses for far more things. Can anyone believe a word that comes out of his mouth?

I found the recent controversy regarding the racist remark made by someone on Strictly Come Dancing rather interesting. For me it highlighted the huge divide between classes in the UK. When the reality TV contestant Jade Goody made exactly the same remark she was labelled uncouth and so on. When an upper class male says the same thing it is almost laughed off. So if you say a certain word and you are from a working class background you are racist but if you say the same word and from "better stock" then there is no problem.

David Cameron has gone to that old faithful, tried and tested policy of 'benefit reform'. More affluent voters love this to be dredged up every now and again as it appeals to their prejudices. Since those sort of constituents have no experience or any idea about being on benefits, it is much more of a concept to them. So if you put more people into training then an avalanche of new jobs will appear out of nowhere and suddenly the unemployment situation will be solved. These jobs are just waiting to be filled. I might be way off and I certainly don't hold a PHD in economics but if you want to decrease unemployment wouldn't you better off trying to create more jobs? Politicians know that re-training will do very little for the short term. But it certainly makes the job stats look better.

I was so chuffed to hear Brown's emphasis on anti-social behaviour in his speech in Brighton today. It is so good to hear that the leader of a government which has presided over the highest ever inequality in wealth; a society which even in official terms is worse off than in Thatcher's years; a deficit which in real terms runs into the trillions; almost 3 million unemployed (of which I'm one and in real terms will be much higher); advocating the use of tax havens to their rich buddies; sacked 16000 staff from Jobcentres since 2004 who are now having to be re-hired because of the high unemployment; approving rules in 2004 which led to the rules on MP's expenses which has caused so much controversy; etc etc. I'm so glad that they will now be concentrating on noisy neighbours!

Ed Balls has just announced a 5% reduction in the education budget. He uses phrases such as "wage discipline" and "restraint". Why weren't these terms used when bailing out the banks which are still gorging themselves? I wonder if similar logic will be applied to London 2012, Iraq and Afghanistan? Schools are already using unqualified staff to teach so what next? I've got an idea. To start with if you scrapped OFSTED and ESTYN you would save around £15 million. Then schools would not to waste money on consultants telling them how to pass inspections. You could scrap academies which the government has recently stated they are committed to rolling out. You could scrap PFI schemes in education where there is a library full of evidence showing that these schemes cost thee taxpayer far more money than the public sector. I think any parent should be veery concerned at these worsening developments and get in touch with their local MP to demand that their children be ALWAYS taught by qualified staff and that education is too important to suffer budget costs at the same time we are building future white elephants for London 2012.