Uganda fails at humanity (but they're not alone)

Really, Uganda? In 2012, you think it's acceptable to pass a law whereby homosexuality can be punished by death or life imprisonment? As a result, there have been angry calls for boycotts of Uganda and for cutting off all foreign aid.

This may sound like a perfectly reasonable response on the surface, but a more nuanced, less simplistic response would be saner - and less likely to disadvantage people in genuine need.

Firstly, let's examine an economic boycott of Uganda. It's pretty easy to boycott Uganda as a holiday destination, so that's a moot point. But what about not buying goods exported from Uganda to Britain? Will that achieve anything? Probably not. The Ugandan shilling is currently losing value and while oil exports could  boost the economy significantly, any improvements to the economy are hampered by high population growth, poor job creation and underdeveloped infrastructure.

In 2009, Britain exported £50 million worth of goods to Uganda. In return, Uganda exported just £12 million worth of goods to Britain. Basically, Britain is making more money out of Uganda than Uganda is making out of Britain. When you break it down, it looks even more paltry - in 2009, Britain bought £4 million worth of fruit and vegetables, £3 million worth of electrical machinery and £1 million worth of tea, coffee and spices. A boycott of these goods, especially the produce, tea, coffee and spices, is going to hurt Ugandan farmers more than anyone else.

Secondly, cutting all foreign aid sounds like a fine plan in theory. It is always the fallback option of the right and the hysterical whenever a developing country does something douchey. (Except, of course, when right-leaning groups are actually fine with countries expressing the sovereignty by passing homophobic laws and even offer charitable support to such things as therapy to "cure" homosexuality, but I digress).

The good news is that there are ways to continue to assist vulnerable people in Uganda while still taking a stand against the government. By giving foreign aid directly to carefully selected, non-religious Ugandan NGOs, aid can go directly to people who need it without handing cash over to the government. Or why not take a powerful stand and ensure aid goes to groups in Uganda who are fighting for gay and lesbian rights? There are plenty of groups who could use the funds to stand up to the absurd government.

But in the midst of all this, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that there are anti-gay laws in 76 countries. Yes, 76 countries still live in the dark ages and criminalise consensual sexual behaviour of a significant proportion of their populations and the rest of the world is largely silent. But, hey, Saudi has the oil, the Seychelles is a nice place for heterosexuals to go on honeymoon, who doesn't like a spot of shopping on Singapore's Orchard Road...


Image courtesy of www.kozzi.com

Burning poppies and flaming idiots

And so another Remembrance Day has been and gone. Some buffoon in a fluorescent pink costume and enormous silver horns tried to disrupt yesterday's service in Bristol before being arrested and charged with public order offences. It is unclear what point, if any, he was trying to make, apart from making a scene

And yet another buffoon, 19-year-old Linford House, posted a picture of a cigarette lighter burning a poppy. The less-than-articulate caption was: "How about that you squadey cunt". He has been arrested for  "malicious telecommunications" and remains in custody at the time of writing.

According to British law, "malicious communications" offences "[deal] with the sending to another of any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is an intent to cause distress and anxiety to the recipient."

In this instance, the "recipient" is Linford House's Facebook friends. And anyone who can see his Facebook page - it would seem his privacy settings for his account aren't particularly tight. The illiterate caption was more attention-seeking than threatening and whether his Facebook friends found the posting indecent or grossly offensive is unclear. To prove that part of the offence would require analysing the how his friends felt about it all. Perhaps they are all like-minded tools.

Perhaps some of his friends saw the posting and removed him from their respective Facebook worlds. I've defriended people over racist comments and rape apologia. Such people can say such crap in a free world and, equally, I am free to not be subjected to it. It is the Facebook equivalent of turning off the TV rather than watching something I can do without.

If you're offended by House's actions, that is your right. In a free society with free speech, you have the right to speak out in response, to tell him he is being childish and disrespectful. I have the right to write this blog posting on the matter but that right needs to exist alongside House's right to say something completely stupid.

But if Britain is going to start arresting people for mindless Facebook postings according to the "malicious communications" definition, the police are going to find themselves busier than ever. When I lived in the Middle East, I was far more cautious with my Facebook postings than I am here in Britain - but am I being naive?

In my own online world, I have seen postings on Facebook that are false. This happens pretty much every time someone is murdered or goes missing. The armchair detectives come out in full force. Should they be arrested for making comments that may prejudice a fair trial or are kneejerk accusations merely "banter"? This week, someone I know updated their status with a threat to set the dogs on local louts who were trespassing on their property. Would that fall foul of the "convey a threat" part of the law? Maybe, but I'm not going to have a friend arrested for blowing off steam on Facebook. When friends feel the need to share a link to some Daily Mail body shaming, I might find that offends my feminist principles but I'm not going to call the police because of the "grossly offensive" part of the law. That would be a complete waste of everyone's time.  

Then there is the annual pasting Channel 4's Jon Snow* receives for not wearing a poppy when he reads the news. I didn't realise it was compulsory to wear anything on one's lapel. Snow, who wears the poppy when he is not on air, says he is approached by countless charities every year with requests to don assorted ribbons and pins. As such, he doesn't wear any of the unsolicited adornments. Not even the poppy. As a journalist, this is an admirable stance. It is a way to appear neutral and objective. If any of the charities were involved in a scandal and Snow was seen to endorse them on TV, that is a compromise of his own journalistic integrity.

And it is hard to separate politics from pretty much any charity, including the British Legion. Indeed, it may be said that it is unfortunate such a charity needs to exist because society is not taking enough care of veterans. With any health charity, it could be argued that the NHS needs to do more or that the government needs to fund more research. And human rights charities, such as Amnesty International, cannot help but be political in the stances they take. With this is mind, it does not behoove a journalist to wear any charity-related adornment when they are on duty as an objective reporter.

It may seem churlish to say that when men and women died for our freedoms, those freedoms include the freedom to burn poppies while making mindless comments, but when you start placing your own limitations on free speech based on your own opinions and emotions, you are riding a slippery slope. If you keep sliding down this slope, you may one day find your own views curtailed because they go against the views of the masses. Or against those with the loudest voices who are masquerading as the masses.

__________________________________

* I am a little bit delighted that Jon Snow has has seen this piece and sent me this lovely tweet in response: "In truth Georgia, it was a bit of a poppy 'sit' rather than 'stand' as I was fortunately out of the country this time around."

Image courtesy of www.kozzi.com

This week's world of stupid

The week started well - I was having a great time in sane, liberal Amsterdam and Barack Obama won the US election. Then the wheels started to fall off.

The US state of California depressingly voted against a ban on the death penalty - and the County of Los Angeles voted for compulsory condom use in porn movies. It was a bizarre example of misuse of big and small government. The death penalty is abhorrent and ineffective and government should go big and step in to ban it globally. That is the only civilised solution. But how the hell did condom use in porn even end up on ballot papers? How is that something that needs government regulation and a public vote? Yes, sometimes government can be way too big. It would be far saner to ensure sex education covers the benefits of condom use as well as intelligent class discussion on pornography and its relationship to real life sex. If you think high school students can't handle such discussions, you've clearly got no idea what they've probably seen online already.

And Nadine Dorries happened again. This time, the MP buggered off to Australia to appear on I'm A Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here without telling anyone. On one hand, it is brilliant that she is currently not here in Britain. On the other hand, it is beyond scandalous that she is still accepting her taxpayer-funded salary, neglecting her constituents and abandoning her seat for important votes in the House of Commons. She further raises the idiot stakes by claiming that her appearance on a moronic TV programme will get people interested in politics and raise awareness of her views on abortion. If you are unaware of Nadine Dorries' views on abortion, you have been living under a rock. If you need to see MPs eat kangaroo testicles on TV to be interested in politics, you are too stupid to fill out a ballot paper and shouldn't leave the house without your name and address pinned to your clothes.

Meanwhile, Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, and Labour MP Chris Bryant, attempted to manufacture outrage over claims that bets were taken on the appointment of Justin Welby as the new Archbishop of Canterbury. Apparently, people who knew Welby was going to be the Church of England's new leader took bets and it was likened to the ecclesiastical equivalent to insider trading. But the outrage missed the point. Why is government still involved in the appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury? Given that Britain generally does a better job of separating church and state than America, it is time to cut this particular cord once and for all. This country has grown up enough to have an openly atheist deputy Prime Minister, freedom of religion, freedom from religion and a general attitude that religious beliefs are personal.

But any chance of intelligent discussion about betting on bishops, and the Church of England's role in Britain, got lost in the news cycle in the wake of George Entwistle's resignation as BBC Director-General after an ill-starred seven-week tenure. While the BBC-bashing newspapers get away with a tiny apology on page 23 buried next to an advertisement for mail order slippers for all manner of lies, inaccuracies and ethical failures, the BBC has to go big with a mea culpa. Yet ITV gurner-in-chief Phillip Schofield thought handing David Cameron an internet witch hunt list of suspected child molesters on live TV was the way forward and he is still employed. Alarmingly, Schofield made the Prime Minister look good - David Cameron handled an insane situation well.

Yes, there was much ineptitude on the part of Entwistle over the Jimmy Savile affair, and journalism at the BBC should be held up to a higher standard than The Sun, The Daily Mail, The Daily Express, ITV and Sky News, but this is not an excuse to tear down the entire organisation. It is a time to look ahead and ensure high journalistic standards are maintained at all times in the future. As I predicted on October 23, the real victims of paedophilia are being forgotten in the midst of a frenzy to burn Entwistle at the stake. There is no joy to be had in this prediction coming true.

Image courtesy of www.kozzi.com

The radical notion of a nation that helps new mothers

Are you truly prolife? As such, are you committed to making sure every new mother has the support she needs to cope with the demands of bringing a new human being into the world? Are you happy for your taxes to help support these women? 

Or are you part of the "if you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em" brigade? Do you believe all women should carry their pregnancies to term but once they've given birth, they're on their own? No support from the state of any description? Hell, why not just ban all abortions and force women to give up their kids for adoption if they don't meet some arbitrary standard of wealth? For that is the slippery slope on which you are sliding down if that's your outlook on life.

If you are serious about reducing the rate of abortions, consider the situation in The Netherlands. Yesterday, my friend and I took her two-week-old daughter to a local authority-run clinic. Here she was weighed, advice is offered on any issues the mother may have, such as breastfeeding, and the baby's general health and wellbeing is monitored. The parents are given a book in which the child's medical records are filled in up until the child turns four. After that, the child's health is then primarily taken care of through medical staff at schools. 

Obviously, taxes help pay for this, but given the outcome is a nation of healthy children, why would anyone who professes to be prolife be opposed to this? Wanting to reduce abortion is one thing but making sure babies grow into healthy children, regardless of how much money the parents have, is not socialism gone mad. It's about as prolife as it gets. 

Then there is the amazing kraamzorg service, funded by compulsory national insurance contributions. In the 34th week of the pregnancy, a kraamverzorgster (a qualified maternity nurse) will visit the mother to discuss whether she wants a home birth or a hospital birth. With 30% of babies born at home in the Netherlands, the kraamzorg service has done much to reduce infant mortality, another prolife concept surely. 

After the birth, the kraamverzorgster will visit the mother at home, usually eight times at four hours a time, to check on the mother and baby and to assist in whatever way is appropriate on that day. My friend reported that her kraamverzorgster performed all manner of tasks, such as helping with the housework as well as offering advice and healthcare services. On one occasion, the kraamverzorgster simply looked after the baby so my friend could have a much-needed four-hour nap. If pregnant women embark on their journey from here to maternity knowing that they will be supported, that is a great incentive to carry to term, to embrace motherhood. Are any prolife people seriously going to tell me that this is a bad idea?

The Netherlands also offers 16 weeks of maternity leave on full pay, which comes from the General Unemployment Fund. This is funded by contributions from employees and employers. It's not the best scheme in Europe but it is a hell of a lot better than many other supposedly civilised nations. 

On top of that, fathers have a right to paid paternity leave to attend the birth of their child, two days off in the first four weeks of the baby's life and paid time off to register the birth of the baby. For mothers and fathers who have worked for their current employer for at least a year, they can take a specified amount of non-paid parental leave to care for biological, adopted or foster children with a six-month period in the first eight years of the child's life.

The abortion rate in The Netherlands is one of the lowest in the world at 8.7 per 1,000 women aged 15-44. Interestingly, studies have shown slight increases in abortion rates among women from migrant backgrounds, from cultures where there is often shame associated with being pregnancy out of wedlock or where contraception use may be discouraged or access to information on contraception restricted. This is a stark contrast to the famously open attitudes to sex of the Netherlands. 

It is a common catchcry of conservatives that migrants should embrace the values of their adopted country. In the case of the Netherlands, migrants who embrace decidedly non-conservative Dutch values of openness about sex, comprehensive sex education and easy access to birth control and abortion, can expect to enjoy the benefits of a low abortion rate and low rate of teen and unplanned pregnancy. A lack of stigma surrounding motherhood outside of wedlock is another reason why the abortion rate is low. There is a lot to be said for not slut-shaming women who have sex without a marriage certificate.

And when women of all backgrounds in the Netherlands are pregnant, they can enjoy living in a country where their choice to carry to term is respected and supported beyond the foetal stage. It's not about the government making choices for women, as if women are somehow too stupid and helpless to know what is best for their bodies. It's about creating nations where women can easily make their own choices, whatever those choices may be. That's why prochoice nations are truly prolife.  

Image courtesy of www.kozzi.com

A quickie from Amsterdam...

I am in Amsterdam to catch up with friends, most notably a very dear friend and her new baby. But last night's activities were decidedly un-kid-friendly, as my friend Justin and I wandered the red light district and stumbled upon the Erotic Museum. Although when I say "stumbled", it was more a case of spotting a big, red neon sign, bursting out laughing after a few Bokbiers and striding right in.

Anyone who thinks that the sexualisation of society is something new created by the "liberal mainstream media" or MTV or Rihanna or Madonna or by the "gay agenda" needs to visit this place and get some perspective. Sex is not something new and neither are its consequences or its explicit depictions.

Walking by the prostitutes in windows is an odd experience - there are women who I am sure have been trafficked and there are women who are clearly enjoying their work. Keeping it all right there where you can see it is, however, a good thing. As the scent of marijuana wafted through the night air and some of the most stunning women I've ever seen touted for business in full view of the street, it pays to remember that this is a country with extremely low rates of teen pregnancy and abortion. If ever anyone needed proof that keeping sex a secret is a stupid idea, I highly recommend visiting Amsterdam. But, sadly, the people who need to understand this message probably aren't interested in taking the trip.

In bed with David Cameron? Who cares?

The winner of today's Non-News Story of the Day prize is the Daily Mail. Normally, this would be because they have tried to pass off "mildly-famous-woman-wears-dress-that-journalist-describes-as-"daring"- even-though-it's-not-1954" as "news". But they win the prize today for even more pitiful reasons. The deluded journalist, Simon Walters, is labouring under the misapprehension that revealing the content of texts between Prime Minister, David Cameron, and ex-News of the World editor, Rebekah Brooks, is somehow explosive.

It's about as explosive as a fart in the ocean. Instead of anything remotely hard-hitting, we are privy to lame texts about a feisty horse of Brooks' that Cameron rode, and a gushy message from Brooks telling him his speech made her cry twice and that she will love 'working together'. The inverted commas are hers. But this punctuation is enough for an outbreak of nudge-nudge-wink-wink.

An "insider" is quoted in the story as saying: "These new texts are of no great significance."

And he or she would be correct. There is nothing new here but that hasn't stopped a fresh tide of speculation and not just from Mail's obsessive online commentators. They are now speculating on the state of David Cameron's marriage and drearily opining that his wife, Samantha, always looks so unhappy. Cue a fresh load of gossip as to whether Cameron and Brooks are more than just friends, including tweets about Brooks staying at Chequers, minus her husband, when Samantha Cameron was eight months pregnant.

Firstly, we've already heard tales of Brooks attending a pyjama party with Sarah Brown, wife of ex-PM Gordon Brown, Brooks telling Cameron that "lol" is text-speak for "laugh out loud", not "lots of love", the socialising of the Chipping Norton set, and the farce of Cameron admitting he rode an ex-police horse that Brooks owned. How he kept a straight face while admitting to riding the horse and expressing sorrow that the poor creature was no longer with us is a mystery to all.

We already know that Cameron and Brooks have a close friendship, regardless of whether anything of a sexual nature has ever happened or not. They are both complicit in feeding not only their own lust for power, but also the megalomania of the Murdoch empire.

Secondly, any new information that has emerged on this gloomy, cold Sunday only serves to remind us that, apart from Brooks losing her job, nothing has changed. Jeremy Hunt's inappropriate dealings with Murdoch in regard to the BSkyB takeover bid when he was Culture Secretary have done his career no harm. He has been promoted to Health Secretary despite that appointment being about as suitable as casting Miley Cyrus as Hedda Gabler.

There is already enough evidence of the grubbiness and outrageous inappropriateness of Cameron-Brooks relationship without any need for speculation about any more intimate goings-on between the two of them. It is completely irrelevant. It's nobody's business. Cameron did not run for office on a platform of outlawing adultery. His sex life is not in the public interest, unless it involves children, animals or a lack of consent. There may have been inappropriate pillow talk, there may not. There has certainly been inappropriate conversations between Cameron and Brooks via text and socially without getting into bed.

We must not let schoolyard gossip get in the way of what has really been going on and that is, quite simply, that for too long, successive governments have been too busy getting too close to journalists.

Not only are we getting governments who are not focused on doing what is best for Britain, but we are getting a media that is not good at keeping government accountable. If anything, the Daily Mail, by running this story, has created a distraction from real issues, such as welfare cuts and the future of the NHS. It is better for the conservative agenda to have everyone wondering out loud if Cameron and Brooks ever slept together than to let the masses get too angry about what is happening to this country.

Image courtesy of www.kozzi.com

Britain remains proudly prochoice

I am pleased to report that today is a great day to be a woman in Britain. Health minister, Anna Soubry, has announced that the government no longer plans to undertake a consultation on abortion counselling - more accurately, that would be the counselling that women undergo before deciding if they want to have an abortion or carry an unplanned pregnancy to term or, in some cases, before terminating a pregnancy where there are serious foetal abnormalities. "Abortion counselling" is shorthand for what can be a complicated process.

It was Nadine Dorries' bizarre idea to ban abortion providers, such as BPAS and Marie Stopes, from providing such counselling. Never mind that their counsellors are accredited by the British Assocation for Counselling and Psychotherapy and trained to go through all options with the women who come through their doors. Dorries instead seemed convinced that forcing all women who want counselling to seek it elsewhere would not only reduce abortion, but would also reduce late-term abortions. This would cause many women to delay an abortion because of the additional hurdle of finding another counsellor and attending another appointment. How this would reduce late-term abortions is a mystery to anyone who can count off the weeks of the first trimester.

The even better news is Soubry's announcement that ministers would look at recommendations into an inquiry into unwanted pregnancy that is being held by a cross-party group of MPs. This would be the inquiry I blogged about on October 17, the inquiry that has received scant coverage from the mainstream media. It seems the din of Dorries is more newsworthy than an inquiry which is looking into the causes of unwanted pregnancy, the abortion rate and how mothers who didn't plan to be pregnant are faring.

Could this be the end of the road for Dorries and miscast Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, trying to drop the time limit from 24 weeks to 12 weeks? Given I've already pointed out why that idea is idiotic, I really hope so.

Unfortunately, the adversarial shenanigans of politics, such as Tories versus Labour, Lib-Dems versus Tories and Nadine Dorries versus pretty much everyone, are considered sexier than a sensible inquiry that involves the cooperation of the three major parties.

If Nadine Dorries is at all serious about lowering Britain's abortion rate, it would behoove her to support this inquiry, carefully consider the recommendations, which are expected to be released before Christmas, and start looking at this issue from a whole new perspective. Instead of Dorries' unique brand of evidence-free hysteria, it is time to look at the issues surrounding unplanned pregnancy armed with facts, statistics and an open mind.

Like it or not, access to birth control and open, shame-free, dogma-free sex education are widely considered to play a big part in the low teen abortion rate in Germany and the Netherlands. Trying to prevent the unplanned pregnancies in the first place is a far saner approach than Nadine Dorries' arse-backwards dream of making life harder for pregnant women in difficult situations.

Image courtesy of www.kozzi.com

Exterminate the annoying minutiae

My apologies. You'll have to bear with me today. I am tired, I am in denial over a cold that is about to attack my throat and nasal passages and I am in the throes of PMS, even though the Daily Mail says a woman doctor says there's no such thing so clearly I am just a narky bitch. There is plenty of idiocy to fume over - the suggestion that denying disabled people minimum wage is a good idea, for example - but I've had one of those days where I need to vent about stupid first world pains nonsense. And then I will feel better, get some perspective back, and resume normal Rant Mistress transmission.

Here, in no particular order, is a list of things that make me go "Gah!".

- Wearing tights under shorts. You might put this get-up on and think: "Yeah! I am one foxy lady!". I will see you and think two thoughts. Firstly, do you not know if it's hot or cold outside? Secondly, you are surely percolating a minging yeast infection in there.

- Self-checkouts. Frankly, I am not convinced these bastard wannabe Daleks are actually denying people employment because it is nigh-on impossible to use one without requiring the help of a human. Today, a member of staff had to verify that it was OK for me to buy an 80p box of "restricted"cold and flu tablets. Just in case I was on the verge of becoming London's lamest drug dealer. And of course the infernal machine told me that there was an "unexpected item in bagging area". Yes, my groceries. How very unexpected. Now, if there was a bespectacled aardvark playing a ukulele in the bagging area, I might believe it. Also, depressingly, I am only ever asked for ID to buy wine these days by these machines.*

- Kids trick-or-treating in the pub last night. Yes, the pub. A particularly rowdy Irish pub where grown-ups go to drink booze and check each other out and listen to a bloke called Wayne Devine sing "Dirty Old Town". I found myself morphing into a pearl-clutcher, demanding to know where the parents were and contemplating telling them to get off my damn lawn too.**

- People who take James Bond too seriously. It is because of these very people, the ones who have actually read the books and form very strong opinions on why Daniel Craig is true to the narrative, that I maintain that the best Bond was eyebrow-acting, double entendre-peddling Roger Moore.

- Toddlers on scooters on busy high streets. Parents of Britain (and, in particular Wimbledon Broadway)! There are very sound reasons why we don't let kids drive cars - they are too small and they have not got the required spatial awareness or motor skills required to be in charge of a motorised vehicle. As such, they also haven't got the required spatial awareness or motor skills to accurately control a bit of metal on wheels down footpaths full of people with traffic running alongside them. Let them ride scooters in the park. One day a kid will scoot right off the footpath and under a bus. And the parents will probably blame the council.***

- Women describing food, such as cake, as "naughty" or "wicked". No. A child who did a poo in the bath is "naughty". "Wicked" is the witch in the Wizard of Oz. Or for true wickedness, look no further than Robert Mugabe. As long as you're not having cake for every meal, you can probably enjoy that damn slice of cake without feeling like you're the culinary equivalent of a genocidal kitten drowner. Also, some people don't have any food. Go check your privilege.

Right. I'm done. I will be ranting about actual issues next week sometime. But now I must go make up the guest bedroom and guzzle some of those restricted cold and flu tablets. Or sell them to some random kids on the streets, who knows?
_____________________

* A woman with poor eyesight, who struggles to recognise 10p coins, who works at the Tesco Express in South Wimbledon, was the last real person to ask me for ID. That doesn't count.

** Yes, I am a non-parent who is berating parents on this occasion.

*** See above. And deal with it. I'm grumpy today.

Photography by Paul McMillan

Airline food: it sucks but it's not oppressive

A hysterical press release has just landed in my inbox. The less-than-snappy headline is: AIRLINES TAKE NOTE! YOUR FULLY LOADED CARBOHYDRATE MEALS ARE NOT SUITABLE TO THE EVER INCREASING NUMBER OF WOMEN TRAVELLING IN YOUR PASSENGER CABINS!

Like most stupid press releases, this one is the result of a survey. According to maiden-voyage.com, "the business travel network for professional women" (who clearly don't care about the virginal undertones of the website's name) and inflightfeed.com "dedicated to highlighting pre order and buy on board airline meals" (whoever wrote this press release only has a passing relationship with punctuation), "76% of women surveyed feel that airlines are not doing enough to cater to their needs."

The survey of "professional women around the world" aimed to find out what women really want from airline meals. Personally, I'll take "edible and with free wine" but clearly I am a carb-guzzling, alcoholic failed female. The 76% of furious women surveyed felt that airline food is too carbohydrate-heavy and "suited more to male consumers". I travel a lot and I can honestly say I've never felt gender-oppressed by airline food. I have endured airline food that is tasteless, bland or boring, but I haven't sat there fuming about gender discrimination because the food sucks.

This whiny 76% (and I'll make an exception for anyone with special dietary needs because I'm not a complete bitch) win today's prize for Ultimate First World Pains Complaint. Crap airline food isn't a gender issue. Airline food pisses off people equally, regardless of gender. It's not just women freaking out at carbs, it's diabetics, coeliacs, vegans, Muslims who want halal meals, Jews who want kosher meals, people with allergies, parents of fussy eaters, grown-up fussy eaters, people with tastebuds...

Sure, there may be room for improvement with the food on many airlines, but some perspective is required. If you are travelling by air for business, you are probably well-paid, have a rewarding career and your standard of living is probably pretty good. You are probably aware that plenty of airlines allow you to pre-order meals and you surely must know that even if you don't have special dietary needs, you are perfectly entitled to ask for a special meal, such as a diabetic meal, if you think it might be healthier. Hell, I'm a committed carnivore but if my bowels are quaking at the prospect of an airline chicken salmonella festival, I just ask for the vegetarian option. I assume that if you are a professional woman who travels regularly for work, then you are not a complete idiot.

The airline food experience is usually no more than three meals, depending on how long the flight is. Indeed, in this inane press release, one Nikos Loukas from inflightfeed.com explains why airline food is not Michelin star cuisine: "Airlines tend to look at passenger demographics on each route to work out what will be offered on their buy on board menus."

Exactly, Nikos. And this demographic analysis would equally apply to food served by airlines as part of the cost of the ticket too. Airlines have to feed a large number of people, they want to do it in a cost-effective manner, they need to serve food that tries to appeal to a broad range of people. Airlines are not charities, they are not airborne detox retreats, they are not able to easily offer every single passenger exactly what they want to eat.
 
Worldwatch Institute estimates that only 5% of the world's population has travelled on an aircraft. So if you are part of the fortunate 5%, you might want to check your privilege next time you start feeling oppressed because the airline is serving too many bread rolls.

Image courtesy of www.kozzi.com

Jimmy Savile's victims and other sticks for bashing the BBC

Are allegations that the late Jimmy Savile has abused many innocent children worth investigating? Yes.

Do any victims deserve compensation as the result of an investigation? Yes.

If anyone still alive is found to be in any way culpable, should they be held to account? Yes.

Could the BBC have handled this appalling situation better? Yes.

Was it inappropriate to run Jimmy Savile tributes when allegations of abuse were widely known? Yes.

Was the original dropping of the Newsnight investigation into Jimmy Savile wrong? Yes.

Has George Entwistle had an excruciating time in front of incredulous MPs today? Yes.

Is this whole sorry saga a good reason to try to bring down the BBC? No.

The Jimmy Savile story is a sick gift for the likes of Sky News and the Daily Mail. It is the perfect stick with which to bash the BBC. It is easy for right-wing commentators to demand to know why we pay our licence fee and, in the case of Sky News this morning, interview an alleged victim of Jimmy Savile's abuse. It was a hard-to-watch attempt at sensitivity that only served to cause an obviously upset grown man to become tearful on live television. 

Liberalism has also come in for a beating. Melanie Phillips wielded that stick this week in a column for the Daily Mail blaming the "liberal left" for encouraging the sexualisation of children and how this created the culture that allowed Savile to allegedly abuse children. Her evidence is the now-defunct (and, yes, very wrong) affilliation of the Paedophile Information Exchange with the National Council for Civil Liberies (now known as Liberty), and the "liberal left" allowing kids to see sexualised images such as Rihanna gyrating in music videos. Yes, that'd be the images left-leaning feminists have been criticising for years while the Daily Mail has no compunction in running them on a daily basis. Phillips is referring to images that are used so that music company owners, capitalists of the highest order, make money. Hardly beacons of the left. 

Phillips continues her string of non-sequiturs with a spot of BBC-bashing. By running a documentary 10 years ago about children as young as 11 being preoccupied with "fancying each other" and exposing the parents and teachers who encouraged such behaviour, this was evidence in the mind of Phillips that the BBC was part of a culture of sexualising children. But she provides no context and her column collapses with the flabby conclusion that "paedophile bogeymen [arise] from a grossly displaced sense of personal responsibility". 

In Phillips' world and that of her disciples, a documentary on the BBC that exposes bad parents and teachers is somehow an example of the BBC's left-wing bias and paedophile-enabling. Except that stories condemning parents and teachers are the kind of thing that keeps the Daily Mail and its ilk ticking over. Witness the hysterical coverage of Jeremy Forrest, now charged with abducting one of his students, complete with large photographs of the 15-year-old at the centre of the story, for example. Or any opportunity to slag off single parents, drunk parents, parents dressed inappropriately, benefits-scrounging parents, celebrity parents...

The BBC is constantly under attack for left-wing bias and the Jimmy Savile story has been used to further push that tired barrow. Whoever says that clearly has never seen Andrew Marr in action or watched the other week as Jeremy Paxman mercilessly skewered up-and-coming Labour MP Chuka Umunna. 

Yes, folks, this is the organisation that broadcasts such extreme left-leaning programmes as Songs Of Praise, Antiques Roadshow, Top Gear, Homes Under The Hammer, Bargain Hunt, The Great British Bake-Off, New Tricks, Nigellissima, Strictly Come Dancing, Don't Tell The Bride, Great British Railway Journeys, Be Your Own Boss, Midsomer Murders and the Formula One races that haven't been lost to Sky. If ever there was a collection of programmes that will inspire militant revolutionaries storm Buckingham Palace, demand the overthrow of the Queen and barbecue the corgis, that'd be it.

Instead of using the Jimmy Savile affair to try and portray the BBC as nothing but a taxpayer-funded pack of lefty, decadent paedophile enablers, how about focusing on what justice can be achieved for the people who are making the horrific allegations. In the midst of the agendas of noisy people who would like to see the BBC torn down, the real victims are the people who could end up being forgotten. 

Photo by Pink Sherbet Photography