It's time to remove nationality from the Olympics

The case of Aaron Cook is just bizarre. Cook is the World No. 1 at under 80kg Taekwondo and yet he hasn't been selected by the British Taekwondo selectors to represent Great Britain at next month's Olympics. He says one thing, they say another and it's made all the more complicated by the fact there seem to be about 10 organisations who each claim to be the national body for Taekwondo.



To me it makes no sense that competitors are chosen by national bodies. The Olympics should be about the best and having no-hopers from nations that, similarly, have no hope in some events belittles the events. Remember Edfie the Eagle? And Eric the Eel? Amusing maybe but do they reflect the Olympic ideal? How do such no-hopers live up to the Olympic motto: Citius, Altius, Fortius - Faster, Higher, Stronger NOT funnier, excruciating and more embarrassing.

Surely selection for events should be simple - the world's top 100 (or however many they need for a specific event) regardless of nationality. Sure, that might mean that some events are dominated by a couple of nationalities. So what? If the starting line up for the marathon had 50 Kenyans, 50 Ethiopians and no osu else what would it matter if those 100 were the best 100 marathon runners in the world? If the starters in the 100m were all either Jamaican and American what would it matter? Don't we want all the best athletes competing against each other?



And, any way, in individual sports (and even in pairs, fours and eights) why should nationality have any relevance? I know the morons who get jingoistic about such matters get all emotional about "winning gold for Britain" but why? They are winning for themselves, not for anything else. They are winning so that they can get their sponsorship deals and appearance fees over the next few years.

Even in team sports it would surely be better to have teams that regularly played together instead of teams brought together for two weeks every four years? Why not have the Olympuc football tournament competed by teams like Barcelona and Manchester United instead of the nonsense we're about to see Stuart Pearce oversee? How about the basketball and ice hockey being between the best teams not just teams thrust together by accident of birth (or grandparents' births)?

Nationalism is such a crock of nonsense. A random geographical position of a woman giving birth within artificial and random borders. Why does anyone feel pride in a nation? It's just bollocks.

I fear the forthcoming Olympics will be, as the recent idiotic Jubilee was, a chance for the right wing press to fuel xenophobia and encourage the proles to continue supporting anachronistic systems and a 19th century world view.

Nationalism has no place in the modern world. It is the fuel for hate. The Olympics needs to be above such nonsense. It is time to drop national committees. It is the for a new internationalist approach to the world and I see no reason why that can't start with sport.

Party politics is bad for democracy

I've been opposed to party politics for a long time. It leads to the nonsense of having party whips and politicians voting in parliament for a party line rather than on principle.

Yesterday's report from the Culture, Media & Sport select committee about the Murdochs and phone hacking perfectly shows why party politics is wrong. Many of the things the committee voted on were decided by a party split and had the membership of the committee been made up of a different set of MPs the reports findings could have been totally different. It seems some if those on the committee didn't listen to any of the evidence and had pre-judged the result they wanted.

I don't believe that anybody, including the whips and the party leaders, believe in every single policy that appears in a party's election manifesto, and yet they go ahead and vote the way they're told so that they can climb the greasy career pole and be considered for q cabinet, or shadow cabinet, post the next time there's a reshuffle.

Party politics isn't about doing what's right for the electorate, it's about doing what's right for your own bank balance. It's time that politics was taken back by the electorate and made more accountable, and it's time that we put back principle into politics.

Why not allow all MPs to vote for themselves? To stand on their personal strengths, beliefs and principles? Why not make politics more democratic?

Look at the nonsense in the USA, with sub-parties like the lunatic fringe called The Tea Party within the Republican Party. Parties within parties shows that democracy has failed in its current form.

I know she won't win the London mayorship tomorrow, after all election law was against her, but I do hope that Siobhan Benita does well. It would be great if she picked up a sizeable vote and maybe, just maybe, it could be the start of a bloodless revolution that changed the future of politics in this country.

COMMENT: F1 Bahrain Grand Prix

So it looks like the Bahrain Grand Prix will go ahead tomorrow despite protests in the country itself continuing and an increasingly vociferous opposition from human rights groups and left wing political parties. 

I still can't decide what would be the right thing. 

Yes, Bahrain has an oppressive monarchy that has violently squashed opposition and, yes, the Bahrain government is guilty of all sorts of human rights violations but should that mean a car race, organised by a private company and not representing any national teams, be stopped? I still don't understand the double standards of those opposed to the Bahrain Grand Prix.

Why speak out against Bahrain hosting a race but not China? To be taken seriously surely there has to be a consistency in outcry?

How many countries are without human rights violations?

I mean, should a nation that has beaten and kettles protestors, had five days of riots last summer during which the police lost control of many city centres, and have a proven record of institutional racism in the police be allowed to hold a Grand Prix?

Yes, in an ideal world sport should be able to operate outside of politics, particularly when the teams competing are private rather than national, but, of course, the world isn't ideal and politics circles sports events like a pack of rabid hyenas. 

I guess my biggest fear, after the idiot at the Boat Race, is that a protestor will have an "Emily Davison" moment during tomorrow's race.  Where would that leave Formula One, international sport and, consequently, this summer's Olympics?

OPINION: Budget 2012

Yesterday, George Osbourne presented his third budget to the House of Commons and today, and for most of the next week or so, the petty bickering, attempts at point scoring, and politicking goes on.

As far as I can see, yesterday's budget tinkered. There were a few good things, a few bad things and just about everything except the so-called "Granny Tax" had been leaked in advance.

Yesterday's budget can best be summed up as "meh".

There was no great innovation on the proposals. There was no vision for the future. There was no sense of a new political ideology or fiscal system.

George Osbourne may as well have stood up and said "Everything increased by inflation. That's it!"

Where are the great pitical visionaries? Why is there no desire to do more than tinker? Where I'd the politics of principle and ideology?

Yesterday's budget, once the dust has settled, will be viewed as a non-event that did nothing for the UK, its citizens, or the wider world.

The UK has become a one-party state, but a one-party state with different faces so that the proles think that change has happened.

Opposition oppose for the sake of opposing but offer no alternative and no vision for a better future. And yet, while they're busy opposing, they refuse to say they'd do anything different or reverse decisions.

We have hit a stalemate in which bland consimerist capitalism is the only choice available and it makes no difference who delivers the budget.

OPINION: Is your child fit for purpose?

Reports suggest that increasing numbers of pupils arrive at the school gate still wearing nappies, unable to use a knife and fork, incapable of changing themselves into a PE kit, and some, unbelievably, don't actually know what their name is.

How can this be the case in the UK in 2012?

This generation of semi-feral children can't be blamed but the generation of bad parents can. Why haven't they spent the time to teach their children such basic life skills? I wonder how much time these bad parents (yes, that's where they are, there's no getting around it) have spent with their offspring? Did they just ignore them as they grew up? Were the parents just too busy drinking or going out?

Sure, many people work long hours and have difficult lives but that is no excuse for child neglect. Presumably these children were being looked after by someone who might have noticed that the child was socially retarded. Or is this abuse of the youngest members of society a generational thing? In some families is it actually not the parents fault but the grandparents fault?

I think schools should require children to be able to do certain things before they're allowed to start school. I'd suggest being toilet trained is pretty fundamental but I think, before they are accepted into school, all children should be able to eat with a knife, fork and spoon; use a cup to drink (not a baby's bottle with a test); be able to change clothes without being helped; recognise their own name; be able to hold a pen/pencil/crayon appropriately; be able to sit properly on a chair... there's probably more.

Yes, if parents haven't done these things then school need to pick up the pieces but while the teacher, or classroom assistant, is busy changing some 5-year old's nappy, they're not able to give the attention the other 30+ kids in the class need and deserve. Why should one (maybe two or three) semi-feral children harm the education of the other 30+ children in the class?

And how embarrassing is it for the child when, as will surely be the case, that have that epiphany and realise they are socially retarded? And that their patents are bad parents?

It strikes me that we've had decades of social workers, social care, billions spent on people to help, oversee and identify problems in families.... we've got GPs and Health visitors who are meant to do checks on the development of children... we've got communities, neighbours, families, friends, babysitters, nurseries.... Where and why has it gone so wrong?

I agree that it's not just the parents' fault - so many others in our complex social network should be able to identify that there is a problem and for every child arriving at school unable to go to the loo properly there's a whole web of people who have failed but, surely, the bulk of the blame lands at the feet of the parents?

Bad parents are a niggling cancer on our society. Their actions, often their inactions, cast an ever longer shadow on the face of our civilisation. Their abuse of their poor patenting, which is really just a form of child abuse, causes problems for everyone including their own children who they fail to give a fair chance in life.

Something drastic needs to be done to stop bad parents, to bring a halt to generations of bad parenting, do that this cyclone of social destruction is ended.

In the meantime, I'd support any government who introduced minimum requirements to allow a child to start mainstream school and a clamp down on the various institutions that should be spotting these problems and doing something about it.It's time we made sure all children arrived at school fit for purpose.

OPINION: Funding of Political Parties

A report commissioned by the government has recommended that:

1. Donations from individuals should be restricted to £10,000

2. Donations from trades unions should be restricted

3. An increase of £23 million pounds (roughly 50 pence per taxpayer per year) should go into state support of parties

Obviously, the Tories object to (1), Labour object to (2) and, because they think the public won't like it, all three of the big parties object to (3).

But why, having commissioned a report, are they allowed to ignore its recommendations? Isn't that anti-democratic?

Personally, I'd limit all donations, outlaw the political levy that the unions do and remove state support for the corrupt system of party politics.

COMMENT: Basil D'Oliveira and the rebel tours to South Africa

I hope, on the day that Basil D'Oliveira's death has been announced, the members of the two English rebel cricket squads of the 1980s and 1990s to South Africa all hang their heads in shame.



Personally, I find it deeply objectionable that many of them are now used by the BBC and Sky to commentate or given "expert" insight into matches. These men are a disgrace to the human race. Their treachery and greed will not be forgotten.

The 1982 Rebel Squad:
Graham Gooch (captain), Dennis Amiss, Geoffrey Boycott, John Emburey, Mike Hendrick, Geoff Humpage, Alan Knott, Wayne Larkins, John Lever, Chris Old, Arnold Sidebottom, Les Taylor, Derek Underwood, Peter Willey, Bob Woolmer.

The 1990 Rebel squad:
Mike Gatting (captain), Bill Athey, Kim Barnett, Chris Broad, Chris Cowdrey, Graham Dilley, Richard Ellison, John Emburey, Neil Foster, Bruce French, Paul Jarvis, Matthew Maynard, Tim Robinson, Greg Thomas, Alan Wells, David Graveney.

If there were a hell I'd like each of these men to rot in it.

OPINION: We shouldn't get a warm glow from telethons

Yesterday, the BBC's Children in Need set a new first day fundraising record raising £26 million from all sorts of activities. Lots of praise has followed from celebs (all very keen to promote their latest book or song) and online in places like Twitter.

But, really, isn't it a disgrace that, in 2011, telethons are seen as a normal way of raising money for things which ought to be there, provided by the state?

Let's put it into a bit of context. £26 million is considerably less than the £40 million cost of the civil list (money given to the Queen) each year and, when put into contrast with the £202 million total cost of the royal family, it makes you wonder what 21st century Britons' priorities are. Why not scrap the irrelevant and anachronistic monarchy and use that money to fund hospices, youth centres, medical research, etc.

Then let's look at taxation. We (Britons) seem to expect everything without paying more tax. This is moronic on a level that only George W Bush could equal. We NEED to pay more taxes in order to find essential services - and it's not simply a case of the rich paying more, we all need to pay a bit more. In return, we'd have a better society. Doesn't that make sense? Isn't that what the majority want?

If every tax payer in the UK paid an extra one pound per week in tax (hardly enough to bankrupt anyone) it would raise over £2 BILLION pounds each year. Yes, I'll say that again, £2 BILLION - that makes yesterday's £26 million seem rather pathetic doesn't it? It shows how greedy and selfish many Britons are.

But, of course, Children in Need's trump card last night was to keep repeating that all monies donated would go to UK-based projects and charities. Yes, the xenophobic, if not racist, card. Nigel Farage must have been grinning to himself all day.

The poverty and suffering experienced by British children is nothing in comparison to the poverty and suffering of children in the Third World but, oh no, Children in Need, unlike Comic Relief, is only helping the children in a country who can well-afford to eliminate poverty and suffering affecting its own children overnight.

Anyone who watched the hours of inane nonsense last night shouldn't feel a warm glow but a deep embarrassment that they, like me, live in a society that puts greed and self above caring for others and sharing resources.

Any good Prime Minister should be embarrassed that telethons like Children in Need are providing essential services in a nation that can easily afford to fund those services, but I wonder if Cameron cares. I'm fairly sure he doesn't. Not do the vast majority of politicians in Westminster.

The time has come for a new Britain, with new priorities and an egalitarian outlook. If there is any compassion in this country then last night should be the last ever Children in Need. Sadly, I doubt it will be. There are too many who just don't care.

Remember, £1 per week from every taxpayer would raise over £2 BILLION pounds per annum. Imagine, with that as a starting point, how quickly the UK, and then the rest of the world, could be transformed.


_____

See also: http://pimpmycadence.blogspot.com/2011/10/i-don-want-to-give-to-charity.html

COMMENT: The UK is still a medieval country with modern nick-nacks

Most living in the UK would say that it is a modern nation, with modern politics and freedoms, with a modern world view and with a modern outlook.

I'm one of those who disagree.

I think the UK is still little better than a medieval country with a population that is being conned.

Yes, we don't have an absolute monarchy but the monarch and heir to the throne are given vetoes over new laws. Elected officials bow down to the Royals who have done nothing more to be given their position of privilege than pass through a particular vagina.

We still have umpteen unelected peers in the House of Lords, including umpteen unelected bishops, who oversee what laws are passed. The bishops ensure that the church has a voice way beyond the size of the nation's "faith community". Quite why any superstition is given legal powers is beyond me.

The UK has a large aristocracy, headed by the Royal Family, for whose benefit society is organised. "The Establishment" isn't just a silly Hale and Pace joke but a real strata of society who look down on the rest of us while they reap the benefits of passing through various birth canals or licking up to the right people.

Don't be fooled by our democracy - it is tokenism. It is a fraud. It is electing different flavours of the same crisps.

And then there's the UK's foreign policy. Surely it's to just me that sees recent involvements in Afghanistan, Iraq and, in particular, Libya as nothing more then modern day Crusades - spreading "our" way of life because "we" know best - oh, and, of course, oil!

Commentators and newspapers often look at other nations and refer to them as "third world" or "medieval" in the way things are organised - the UK is hardly different. Yes, in the UK we have a wealth and have developed in many ways - the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution enabled this, plus the evils of the Empire which, thankfully, has now ended - but this is nothing more than a generous dose of blusher on the bad skin of our society.

The UK needs fundamental change: we need a genuinely democratic system of government; we need to remove the powers of the Royal family (and their numerous hangers on and yes men) completely; we need to stop the insanity of religion from imposing it's nonsense to the rest of use; and we need to have a more sensible, caring and grown-up world view.

The UK is ready for change. Stop being conned!

COMMENT: It's been three months since the riots... have any lessons been learnt?

Three months ago riots erupted in London and spread across the country causing millions of pounds of damage and many injuries to people, but, in that time, what has really happened?

Sure, politicians have expressed concern at the fact the riots have happened, they've pointed fingers, blaming one group or another, hundreds have been up in court and many have received punishments - but what has been done to prevent a repetition next week, next month or next year?

To me it seems like the government (and opposition) have virtually forgotten about the riots. They may well be inquiries happening but, let's be honest, by the time that reports, the riots will be history, last week's chip wrappers.

I know it's difficult to do anything about the riots without establishing the causes but why not act on some of the suggestions?

Many rioters already had criminal records - let's make crime less attractive, increase sentences, stop releasing prisoners who are considered likely to re-offend. I'd hold that no-one should be released if they are considered to be at risk of re-offending.

I'd support the Tory policy of three strikes and you're out. I'd make it two.

Many argued that the riots were a result of poverty or unemployment. Personally, I think this is a minor factor, it's an excuse. yes, they may be poor and they might not have work but how many are genuinely doing something to try to rectify that? How many are doing voluntary work or getting work experience?

Let's not forget that the trigger for the riots was a march about the death of a known drug dealer and criminal. Is there simply a criminal underclass who refuse to take part in society? Is there a completely feral strata of society?

It's scary how quickly, when looking a the riots, you get back to people who are opting out of mainstream society, operating for themselves by any means and the involvement of organised crime underpinning this class of society.

Drink and drugs are also a major factor in the poor behaviour of many in our society. This needs urgent action and a significant increase in resources for the authorities to clamp down on the illegal trade.

I'm sure some rioters simply joined in because it seemed fun, they didn't think ant the effect of their actions.

Three months might not be long but I am concerned that, in Westminster, those running our society are being ostriches and hoping that the problems will just go away.

If nothing is done soon 2012's riots could well be worse. 2012 could be the year of total anarchy.

50 Years of PMQs

Today marked the 50th anniversary of Prime Minister's Questions in Parliament.

Here's a Top 5 PMQ moments from 2000-2009.

OPINION: Eurozone Crisis - my solution

I guess I'd best come clean... I'm not an economist! I think my bank manager would go into shock at the idea of me offering financial advice to anyone else, let alone a complete continent!

Today, yet again, we have a crisis meeting of governments in Brussels to try to sort out the latest hiatus in debt. This time it's not only Greece but also Italy that are cussing concerns.

How many times will this happen before Europe's governments accept that something more substantial needs to be done? How much more tinkering will we have without actually coming up with a proper solution?

Surely we need a cure, not just a band aid?

There are very few countries, if any, that aren't in debt to some extent. The situation is a nonsense. The fear is that today's "comprehensive solution" will only solve things for a few weeks, maybe into the new year.

I have a radical solution I'd like to suggest. It requires governments to take back control of international finances and put banks back into a support role.

My solution:

* All repayments need to be suspended. Stopped would be a better word.

* No more interest should be charged.

* Countries have what they have.

We then look at the matter internationally. Let's stop the nonsense of the Little Englanders (and probably Kleine Deutschen and Peu le Français) who only see national interest. That is the politics of the past. It is no longer 1939!

I'd also outlaw inflation - I've never seen the point or value of it. Things are worth what they are. Is there any benefit to inflation?

Nations should then be given 12 months to devise a truly international, co-operative fiscal policy. An international economic policy that works for everyone's interest, that will mean that we don't get in this mess again.

It might be that, alongside the international fiscal policy, we do have a single-currency - I see that as a label and not essential to begin with - but we agree that x number of pounds is worth x number of dollars is worth x number of Euros, etc. We outlaw currency trading and exchanges that drive up and down currencies.

I expect this would require the immediate nationalisation (internationalisation?) of all banks.

Ideally, this would be a global agreement - all countries involved.

Third World Debt would be cancelled - so many problems in the Third World are caused by interest repayments - and there would be funds transferred from wealthier nations to less worthy on a per capita basis.

If I were President of the World, a position I'm happy to accept we're it to be offered, I'd take this further. I would also suspend all business debt repayments and all personal debt repayments - and cancel them.

Let's start again - wipe the slate clean.

Money is a notional thing. It is worth whatever we say it's worth. Debt is, similarly, a concept that can cause hardship and chaos and, therefore, needs to be eliminated.

It's an extreme solution and, sadly, there are too many idiots, xenophobic and greedy interests involved in finding a solution that will result in this whole mess rumbling on for months, years, decades.

Let's start again. Let's think differently.

OPINION: I don't want to give to charity

In the last couple of years it's become almost impossible to walk through any town centre without being approached by chuggers.

No sooner do you log into any form of social media without reading someone asking for a donation for a walk or swim or skydive or Himalyan trek or something else to raise cash for some worthy cause.

The Royal Mail must make a fortune from the amount of junk mail from charities asking for regular payments to a variety of causes and daytime television viewers are bombarded at most ad breaks with requests for "Just £2 per month".

And if you dare check your emails you'll always find someone doing something exciting for charity.

It's soon going to be the season of the charity shopping catalogues... ' Tis the season to be generous.

I teach part-time. Along with many other schools the youngsters are encouraged to take part in charitable events, there's a 6th form organised charity Christmas Fair, each school house has its own charity. Pupils are told it's good to care for others and raise money for charity and, yes, I have taken part and done my bit. I've written songs used for Comic Relief and Children in Need events, I've swum stupid numbers of lengths or municipal pools and I've donated to friends and family who have (or currently are) saving the world/caring for the sick/etc.

But why?

Isn't charity fundamentally wrong?

When I think of the causes I have donated to over the years I am shocked that the vast majority of these causes isn't fully funded by central government.

Think about it.... Cancer Research, the Royal National Lifeboat Institute, the Stroke Association, Marie Curie Cancer Care.... The list could go on and on and on.

There are some charities that I don't support too - as a pacifist I don't ever donate to the Royal British Legion and its younger doppelgänger Help for Heroes - both of which I think go beyond caring for injured personnel and end up glorifying war. Something I find abhorrent. But, if we as a nation do send young men and women overseas to fight, the state should provide the cost of care.

So why don't we? Surely, in a modern, civilised society all the charities I've just named, and many more that I haven't named, should have no need to exist because everything they do should be funded by the state.

Is it a sleight of hand by governments dating back decades?

As far as I can see it's simply a way of keeping taxation lower than it ought to be.

Instead those who care more or are directly affected by a particular "issue" choose to pay a tax by donating to charity.

Governments keep taxes lower and wash their hands of responsibility of a huge swathe of things.

Personally, I'd rather pay more in taxes and see lots of these "good cause" charities go out of business.

Charity should be for extras.

Charity should not be for basics.

Whoever stands to be PM in 2015 (or sooner should the coalition fall apart before that), they'll have more chance of getting my vote if they said they'd increase taxation and take responsibility for many of the basic and fundamental things which are currently done by the charitable sector.

In the likely absence of political will is there another solution?

Yes.

We should make 2012 the Year of Charity - and the best thing we should all do, to support the most essential charities, is spend 366 days not donating to any of them and forcing the government to take its responsibilities seriously.

So, next time, before you put your hand in your pocket to give to a flag day or sponsor your work colleague stop and think - is this seething the government should be doing? If it is maybe you'd do the cause more good by NOT donating.

OPINION: I don't want to be British

It's not an anti-British thing - I don't want to be labelled as any particular nationality.

Earlier today I posed a question on Twitter and Google+:

Do you HAVE to be a nationality?
Is it a technical requirement?

The responses were, pretty much, what I expected.

Yes.

Some, with experience of living in different countries, told me their British passport/nationality made life much easier if there were problems.

So, is travel and identification the only benefit? It seems it may be the case.

I'm not trying to avoid taxation (I'm more than happy to contribute my fair share in whichever territory I happen to be domiciled), and I'm not trying to evade the law (I think it is right that there are laws to protect individuals and groups throughout the world).

It's just I don't want to be labelled as being British (or French, or American, or Chinese,or wherever).

My nationality was an accident of birth. In early April 1965 my mother happened to be in London at the moment I decided it was time to venture into the world. Yes, my mother is British and has, I suspect, never considered changing that. But why, because of choices my mother made before my conception, should I be given a tag of nationality.

One person responding to my post on Google+ claims that I could be free of nationality from birth had my mother had the foresight to to follow in the footsteps of Amundsen and Scott and go to Antarctica.

Even then, I would be expected to chose a nationality and not remain an international neutral

I despise nationality.

I watch international football or rugby or athletics or whatever for the quality of the sport not to cheer on others whose mothers made similar choices to my own.

I refuse to sing the British "National Anthem" - God Save the Queen is an awful dirge asking a non-existent deity for special attention for one person - it has very little to do with the real world or nationhood - but even if it was I'd find it distasteful and unpleasant.

Ultimately, nationality is about prejudice and division. It is the reason we have racists like the BNP and UKIP. It why we have wars (alongside religion) and it is why we have world divided by wealth.

I want us all to live together in peace and harmony, sharing knowledge and resources, and striving for a better future for everyone.

I don't see why I should be forced to be British with all the historical evils that carries.

I want a UN passport.

I want the right to be a citizen of the world.