Rights and Responsibilities

Living in Britain we could be forgiven for taking our human rights for granted. Living in Britain we take as read our right to free speech, our right to a fair trial, our right to freedom from slavery, our right to life itself but there are many counties in the world where people do not have such privileges. Yet in Britain, while organisations like Amnesty International may campaign on behalf of those people in other countries who cannot rely on receiving the most fundamental of human rights, there are other groups who would suggest that Britain discontinue adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights. These are not all crackpot, ultra radical groups (although some are); they have included politicians of most political hues. For instance in 2007, while leader of the opposition  David Cameron said, " "It (the Human Rights Act) has to go. Abolish the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, which sets out rights and responsibilities."

Cameron was prompted to make his comments following the case of Italian-born Learco Chindamo, convicted of the murder of head teacher Philip Lawrence, but who escaped deportation on human rights grounds and this has been by no means the only case that has enraged politicians, law makers and the general public. For instance, in 2011 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) prevented Britain from deporting Abdisamad Sufi, a Somalian who was in Britain illegally and who had been convicted of 17 offences, including include burglary, fraud, making threats to kill and indecent exposure. The ECHR ruled that it would not be safe to return Sufi to Somalia, that his human rights would be infringed. In the case of another Somalian, Mustafa Abdi was awarded damages by the EHRC on the basis that his human rights were breached after his detention pending deportation having being sentenced to eight years imprisonment for the rape of a child.

Philip Lawrence (left) was murdered by Learco Chindamo.

 It is a common complaint that lawmakers appear more concerned with the rights of offenders than those of the victims and cases like those of Sufi, Abdi and Chindamo support that view. Of themselves these cases, and others like them do not however justify  scrapping human rights legislation, rather the suggest that it needs some amendment; in fact to some degree one might argue that it merely needs to be applied properly.

Behind the right wing hyperbole there are very real concerns that human rights legislation is being misused.

In 2006 the Department for Constitutional Affairs issued A Guide to the Human Rights Act and there is a key and very telling paragraph in the very first section of the guide; it says:

1.8 The first part of these Articles sets out the right and is followed by a second part describing how the right may need to be limited. For example, everyone’s interest in combating crime and promoting public health is mentioned several times as a reason why public authorities might need to limit an individual’s right. That kind of thinking is behind the statement that rights and responsibilities go together. The whole system of respecting rights works best when people recognise that and act responsibly towards others and the wider community. 

There you have it; an individual's rights may be limited in combating crime; commit a crime and your human rights may be restricted. It is telling that both this document, and David Cameron in his remarks back in 2007, mention responsibilities. This is a word all too infrequently used when human rights are discussed; indeed responsibilities are all too rarely mentioned in society these days, unless it is someone bleating about other people's responsibilities; other people's, but never their own, yet without meeting their responsibilities do people deserve their rights? Human rights are part of a contract that we have with the state, the government of the day and society as a whole. In exchange for these rights we have responsibilities; responsibilities to respect the rule of law and the rights of others.  Those who ignore their responsibilities, who infringe or ignore the rights of others, forfeit their rights. It is iniquitous that offenders seek to hid behind the very rights that they themselves have ignored or held with such little regard when they apply to their victims.

What regard did of Sufi, Abdi and Chindamo pay to the human rights of their victims? None; yet each of them, or more probably their lawyers', immediately played the human rights card when, having abdicated their responsibilities to society and committed their various crimes, they were caught and convicted. There is an old saying; "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime" which seems to no longer apply, being apparently over-ridden by the offenders' human rights.

This is not to say that I believe that we should not consider human rights, nor that we should stop upholding them, and certainly not that the Human Rights Act of 1998 should be repealed, merely that we should balance the rights that everyone, and that includes offenders, have against their responsibilities. Even Liberty, more formally known as the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), who as you would imagine, are vociferous advocates of the Human Rights Act, may say " rights are universal and inalienable in nature" but also that " Human rights and responsibilities are inextricably bound together. Rights mean little if others do not take responsibility to protect them." This is where human rights legislation could be improved; in addition to setting out our rights, it needs to specify our responsibilities and just as importantly, the consequences should we ignore them.

In some ways there is a similar issue with respect. It is sadly the case that the media have all too often to report some incident of violence and even of death occasioned because some youth (and it is normally a youth or group of youths), feels that they have been disrespected in some way and metes out some violent retribution. Respect, like rights, is a two-way street; to get respect you have to give it; respecting yourself and others is the same as protecting other people's rights by meeting your responsibilities.

All too few people are willing to meet their responsibilities and their obligations, to respect other people and their rights. Too many people believe they have rights without responsibilities and when everyone has rights but no one has responsibilities, anarchy follows.

The Last Dinosaur

There is a social convention that we do not speak ill of the dead so it was unsurprising that following the premature death of National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) leader Bob Crow at the age of just 52, those who had disparaged him in life came to praise him in death. 

Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin said: "He made an important contribution to the debate around the future of rail services in this country." Mayor of London Boris Johnson said : "He played a big part in the success of the Tube and he shared my goal to make transport in London an even greater success." While Mr McLoughlin's words are neutral in tone and may be damning Bob Crow with faint praise, Boris Johnson's remark is at odds with his comments during the recent dispute over ticket office closures when he said that he could not negotiate with Mr Crow while he (Crow) was holding a gun to Londoners' heads. Whilst one might not have expected Boris to maintain an antagonistic stance towards Mr Crow after his death, his remarks were nonetheless surprisingly fulsome; it reminiscent of the comedy sketch in which one politician is maligning an opponent, only for that opponent to drop down dead, at which point the diatribe segues seamlessly into an eulogy.

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, and a Muppet.

It is of course appropriate and decent that (with a few exceptions) we do not vilify someone in death no matter what we thought of them in life, as difficult as it may be. Even the most obnoxious and intransigent of opponents was still a human being with friends and families whose memories of the man ought not to be sullied; it is after all a difficult enough time for those family members, colleagues and friends without the scoring of cheap points against someone who can no longer answer back. Not that Mr Crow had any qualms on that score, however. On the death of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher he said that he hoped she rotted in hell. Whilst this was insensitive and crass, disregarding of those who cared for Mrs Thatcher and might better have not been uttered, regardless of what he thought, at least one could not accuse him of hypocrisy.

Bob Crow's tenure as general secretary of the RMT was marked with a number of disputes with London Underground (LU). Whereas many people feel that the withdrawal of labour should be the last resort in a dispute, one always had the impression that for Bob Crow it was the opening gambit. Certainly more disputes between LU and the RMT ended with strike action than in most other industries and while it is undoubtedly true that Mr Crow had the best interests of his members at heart, this did not extend to the workers in industries who were affected by his members' walkouts. Businesses threatened with bankruptcy as a result of transport strikes were dismissed as ‘casualties of war’ disregarding the fact that the collateral damage might include ordinary workers and union members just like his own.

Bob Crow has been called a dinosaur; indeed in an interview shortly before his death, he was called one by Jeremy Paxman, to which Crow retorted that "they were around for a long time," but in the end he was a dinosaur; he was very much the last of his generation. The days of the firebrand union leader, presiding over strikes and work to rules of the type Britain saw in the 1970's, when power cuts, uncollected rubbish and the three day week were commonplace are now gone. The days when Britain was dubbed "the sick man of Europe" are behind us and the union reforms introduced by Mrs Thatcher's government mean that there are now few areas of industry and commerce where trade unionists can hold companies or the country to ransom. The downside of the union reforms has been that the pendulum has swung perhaps too far from the unions to management and while no one would deny management's right to manage it is equally true that without union opposition there are many industries in which workers' rights, be they pensions, security of employment and other terms and conditions have been seriously eroded. RMT members continue to enjoy benefits that many in other industries do not, but of course the rail industry is a very different animal to manufacturing or finance. Rail bosses do not have the weapons of outsourcing or offshoring open to say, banking or insurance. Unlike in a private concern where union demands may be tempered by the realisation that immoderate requests, if won in the short term, might in the long term bring the company to its knees and ultimately lead to members becoming unemployed, railway workers know that whatever their demands their jobs could not be shipped off to India or Malaysia and that the government could not allow their employers to fail. Had Mr Crow been leader of bank workers, or shop workers or those in some manufacturing industry, he might have found the benefits he won for his members more difficult to come by.

The right wing press were critical of Bob Crow's January holiday to Brazil just three days before the first of the union walk outs, which struck me as somewhat desperate; they almost made much of the fact that despite his generous salary, reported to be £145,000, he continued to live in a council house. Famously he said that he had been born in a council house and would die in one. As a former member of the Communist Party of Great Britain, his continued residence in social housing, when he could quite obviously have afforded to buy his own property, struck me as being at odds with the socialist doctrine " From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

For London's commuters in particular, and for LU bosses as well, it will be interesting to see who succeeds Bob Crow at the RMT and whether they have the will, the power or the mandate to continue in a similar vein. Transport for London (TfL) have announced that they have advertised a £16bn contract to introduce driverless trains on the Piccadilly, Central, Bakerloo and Waterloo & City lines by the middle of the next decade, which Bob Crow had already said "would not happen." This because of safety concerns despite the proven track record of such systems in many European and Asian countries and in North America. Whoever takes up the reins at the RMT will doubtless have to take up the cudgels with TfL on that one. The fact is that driverless trains already run on parts of the London underground network; the extension of them to other lines is a logical step.

The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu makes a valid point when he says "Good governments govern well only when there is a strong opposition. Good governance requires strong opposition and fair representation." This is equally true of employers and their relationship with trade unions. Bob Crow might have tipped the balance too far in favour of the workers and where unions have been too powerful in the past we have seen the excesses and problems that this has caused, but equally employee rights and conditions will often be eroded by employers who do not have to face union negotiators seeking to protect the rights of their members and with the strength to do so; there can be no doubt that Bob Crow did just that. For the sake of all concerned however, strong opposition still needs to be reasonable opposition and in many ways it would be difficult to describe Bob Crow as having been reasonable in his negotiations with employers.

Whatever you opinion of Bob Crow, I've no doubt that public sector workers who have been offered a below inflation pay deal this year probably feel that they would have done better with someone like him batting for them.

Eat, Drink...and Be Miserable

"Eat, drink and be merry," they say; don't eat, don't drink, be miserable more like.

I really don't know what I should eat or drink anymore. The media is full of a constant stream of health advice that one day suggests that something is good for you but the next that it is bad for you. I realise that this is exciting news for The Daily Mail and The Daily Express, whose front pages are rarely without some story on the benefits or risks to health of one thing or another, but to us ordinary people, well it is thoroughly confusing.

Take coffee for instance. Coffee can improve energy levels, helps burn fat, lowers the risk of developing Type 2 Diabetes, can protect against Alzheimer's disease and dementia, may lower the risk of Parkinson's disease, can protect the liver, lowers the risk of liver and colorectal cancers, does not cause heart disease and may lower the risk of having a stroke and is the biggest source of antioxidants in the Western diet. On the other hand there is evidence to suggest that it may contribute to ulcers and irritable bowel syndrome; that it may cause heartburn, may adversely affect the performance of your kidneys and is potentially carcinogenic.

Then there is wine, which can promote longevity, reduce the risk of heart disease and of Type 2 Diabetes, strokes, cataracts and colon cancer and can slow brain decline. Conversely, wine can apparently significantly increase the risk of mouth or throat cancer, can cause liver damage, corrode brain cells, and cause impotence and birth defects.

Next up we have sugar and salt, both of which have been in the news recently and have come in for a thorough pasting from the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Department of Health (DoH) respectively.

The WHO have warned that we should cut our sugar intake to the equivalent of five teaspoons per day because studies show that diets high in sugar are linked to diabetes, kidney disease, cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's and premature ageing. But on the other hand, sugar is essential in providing our bodies with energy, is proven not to contribute to the risk of diabetes if consumed moderately  and contains minerals and nutrients that we all need. Who do you believe? The problem with the WHO idea that sugar consumption be limited to five teaspoons or less per day is how on earth do you do that? Every day I drink at least six cups of tea; each one contains a teaspoon of sugar. I have tried drinking tea without sugar and I simply cannot do it. I could switch to coffee because I take that sans sucre, but I can only realistically enjoy one or maybe two cups of java a day before the caffeine gives me the jitters.

Refined, white and deadly

So let us say that I either stop taking sugar in my tea, or more realistically stop drinking it at all. As alternatives most soft drinks are out of the question as a can of Coke has seven teaspoons of sugar and a large glass of orange juice has five.  Hang on, I can make a smoothie with an orange, a banana and some blueberries; perhaps a bit of ginger to pep it up. No, sorry that is the equivalent of thirteen and a half teaspoons right there in one go. So, that's me drinking nothing but water today then.

So what's for breakfast? Some cornflakes (two and a half teaspoons) and some semi-skimmed milk (negligible). Wow, that's something. Now, lunchtime and a cheese sandwich is only one teaspoon! Whoopee, this is easier than I thought, half the day gone and I've only got to three and a half teaspoons, I have a whole teaspoon and a half left! And that's where it goes wrong. Some fresh pasta, broccoli, carrots and peas in a tomato sauce is four and a half teaspoons. I'm over the limit now, so no crisps or chocolate as a treat later...and I still can't have a cup of tea.

But isn't this five teaspoons a day a bit arbitrary anyway? The much vaunted "5 A Day" initiative in which we are all encouraged to eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day is a fairly random amount and in any case five bananas would be equivalent to 35 teaspoons of sugar; how can I square my fruit intake with my sugar consumption? It is apparently irreconcilable.

Baked beans, one of your five a day but all five teaspoons of your sugar allowance.

What about salt? Everyone knows that salt is not good for you, don't they? The DoH have started a drive to cut salt levels in food and it is difficult to disagree when you see just how much salt (and sugar for that matter) that most processed foods contain. And of course salt is linked to hypertension, abnormal heart development, osteoporosis, kidney disorders, dehydration and digestive diseases. On the other hand though, salt stabilises irregular heartbeat, balances sugar levels, prevents gout and some forms of arthritis, helps kidney processes, strengthens bone structure and maintains muscle tone. Salt, like sugar is an essential part of our diet but only, like so many other things, in sensible quantities.

Two of the key factors in maintaining a healthy diet are balance and the incidence of processed foods. Processed foods like the supermarket ready meal and the takeaway abound in salt, sugar and various artificial additives. While the occasional frozen lasagne or takeaway kebab aren't going to make you instantly keel over and expire, a constant diet of them might. A diet laden in sugar intake from fizzy drinks, biscuits, cakes and sweets is not going to keep you healthy but a special treat now and then is not going to be harmful. There is a world of difference between the sugars that occur naturally in fruit and the refined, white and deadly stuff that processed foods contain. Not that one may consume any amount of foodstuffs with naturally occurring sugars of course, if for no other reason than that acids and sugars in fruit may still cause tooth decay.

Reducing our consumption of things like salt and sugar are particularly difficult in that these are "hidden" ingredients in many foods. Yes, the label on the packet tells you how much salt and how much sugar there is in a serving, but do we ever sit down, read the labelling and calculate how much we have already consumed that day and therefore whether or not we really ought to eat that last slice of pizza? No, we do not. What we do (or at least what we ought to do) is take a holistic approach, ensuring that our diets are well balanced and not over burdened with foods and drinks that may be harmful. As the saying goes, moderation in all things.

 While salt and sugar are very much flavour of the month as far as food evils are concerned, it is very likely that next month another study will show that we should reduce our intake of carbohydrates, or of proteins, of potatoes or past, of red meat or eggs. Eventually we shall become so scared of the contents of our kitchen cupboards, so scared that a killer lurks in our fridges that we will be reduced to living on fresh air if it were not for the fact that fresh air is a killer because of the levels sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and lead.

The killer in your kitchen.

Frankly all of these health stories are so contradictory, so arbitrary, that I have little faith in them and prefer to trust my own judgement. I know too much sugar is bad for me, but moderately consumed it is essential. Same goes for salt and some types of fat. The diktats of the WHO or the DoH, well intentioned though they are, are unlikely to have an effect on the sort of person who eats nothing but takeaways and who is a stranger to fresh vegetables while those who will take notice are probably already complying to some degree anyway.

The next time there is a health story that suggests that I should abstain from something or significantly reduce my intact of something I'm going to take it with a large pinch of (metaphorical) salt...after all, metaphorical salt can't be harmful.

3G Pitches - The Debate Goes On

When I wrote about 3G pitches last September (see http://rulesfoolsandwisemen.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/3g-or-not-3g.html).  I said that the advance of technology meant that artificial surfaces were now much more grass-like now. In the 1980's the unnatural bounce and the likelihood of players getting carpet burns brought these sort of pitches into disrepute but now the increased use of 3G pitches is inevitable. By the by, in referring to 3G pitches I think it better to use the term artificial surface or artificial pitch rather than plastic which has only negative connotations and is used by their detractors as a put-down.

The most high profile club with an artificial surface in English football are Maidstone United, currently riding high in the Ryman League Premier Division. They may well find themselves in a promotion place at the end of the season but at present would be denied the opportunity to go up to Conference South due to the Conference's position on artificial pitches. In January this year Conference clubs met to discuss and vote on the proposal that artificial surfaces be allowed in their league. The vote, fairly predictably, was not in favour. This, together with the Football Association's ban on artificial surfaces in FA Cup after the qualifying rounds would have appeared to be a major setback for Maidstone United, a club who have made great strides in recent years. After their decline from their Football League position in the late 1980's and having folded in 1992, the club reinvented itself and now regularly attract gates nearing 2,000 and are heavily involved with the local community. They run disabled teams and soccer schools; their 3G pitch enables more extensive use of the stadium than would be possible with a grass surface and while the Ryman League has suffered over 500 postponements this season due to the monsoon conditions the country has endured, Maidstone have not surprisingly been able to play all of their home games.

The Gallagher Stadium, home to Maidstone United and their 3G pitch.

When the Conference voted against allowing artificial surfaces, Maidstone co-owner Oliver Ash was quoted on the club website as saying, "We will continue to campaign for 3G to be allowed higher up the pyramid, while the first team will push for promotion for the Ryman Premier Division. If we were in a promotion position come the end of the season we are very confident we would be allowed to go up on 3G.” At first sight this seemed difficult to reconcile with the decision the Conference had made. Perhaps Mr Ash was taking solace from the FA document, " Third Generation Football Turf Guidance[1]" which stated that they were considering changing the standard code of rules so that leagues would not be allowed to refuse the use of 3G Football Turf pitches provided they meet the required performance standards. Even so his statement seemed overly optimistic...until this week.

On Tuesday it was announced that the FA have decided to revisit the debate on artificial surfaces after a meeting chaired by FA chairman Greg Dyke and including former Manchester United chief executive David Gill. The twelve person committee agreed unanimously to abandon their “grass-only” policy. This paves the way for games in the FA Cup competition proper to be staged on 3G pitches and increases the pressure on the Conference and indeed the Football League, to re-examine allowing their clubs to use artificial surfaces. The FA ban on the use of 3G surfaces for cup ties after the Fourth Qualifying has been mooted as a factor in League clubs not voting in favour of their use. With that ban removed clubs like Wycombe Wanderers, Torquay United and Burnley, who all expressed an interest when Maidstone ran a conference on 3G surfaces, may explore the possibility of ripping up their grass pitches.

FA chairman Greg Dyke. 

Knowing how slowly the wheels grind at FA headquarters and given the fact that the Conference ban on 3G pitches is still in place, Maidstone may still find their way blocked should they win promotion this season, but with the FA stance changing, they could have a case to challenge the Conference's position.

Opposition to the use of 3G pitches normally comes down to one of three arguments. The first is sentiment; football has always been played on grass and people still want to play on it. At one time I would have held a similar position but my mind has been changed in recent months. As I have often noted, resistance to change is inevitable - sometimes it is nothing more than prejudice and with artificial pitch technology now so far advanced from thirty years ago, resistance is largely based on just that...prejudice.

The argument that artificial surfaces provide clubs who use them with an unfair advantage may carry more weight; certainly Maidstone have lost more times on their travels than at home this season (they are unbeaten at home in the Ryman League), but that argument can equally apply to teams who have a grass pitch depending on the quality of it, or as back in the old days when Barnet and Yeovil Town had notoriously sloping pitches, some other unusual quality.

A common site this season at many a ground in non-League football.

It is fair to say that the possibility of more injuries would be a more coherent argument against 3G pitches, but even that is not proven . Simon Barker, Chief Executive of the Professional Footballers Association, said " It is our member’s view that they would much prefer to play on a good quality natural turf pitch than any other surface,"  and he is concerned about increased likelihood of injury. One takes his point except that there are any number of poor quality grass pitches around and about, especially below Conference level that would be much more dangerous and likely to cause injury than an artificial surface. A study by Jay H. Williams, Emmanuel Akogyrem, and Jeremy R. Williams, " A Meta-Analysis of Soccer Injuries on Artificial Turf and Natural Grass," found that the risk of injury on (artificial) turf was 10-14% lower that on grass.[2]

I referred earlier to the fact that over 500 matches have been postponed in the Ryman League this season; some clubs are trying to shoe-horn half their season into the last fifty days of the season. Clubs in the Ryman League (and a number of other leagues) are steeling themselves for the prospect of playing four games a week every week between now and the end of the season. Incidentally, clubs at this level, whose players generally have full time jobs and therefore sometimes have to take time off work to travel to away matches in midweek, and in any case have to play after a full day's work, just shrug their shoulders and get on with it. They may moan a bit, but they get on with it. Compare this with Premier League clubs, whose players' full time occupation is playing football; not working in a factory or an office and playing in their spare time, but playing football for a living, yet who go into fits of the vapours at the prospect of having to play twice in three days now and again!

---

[1] http://www.thefa.com/my-football/football-volunteers/runningaclub/yourfacilities/~/media/28C08936D04B4A67B64CF168B72843AE.ashx

[2] http://www.scienceofsocceronline.com/2013/06/injury-risk-artificial-turf-vs-natural.html