My druggy wugs, my freedom-weedom - REVISED

Time for me to eat a little humble pie. I wrote the following before reading the transcript of evidence taken by the Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee on 24 April - click here for link.

So my account of Brand's views and comments is inaccurate. We bloggers like to call mainstream journalists to account when they are sloppy, so we should be prepared for the lash ourselves when (as in this case) we cop an attitude before getting all the facts.

To set the record straight, he is now off all legal and illegal drugs and advocates an abstinence-based approach, as least for people with addictive personalities like himself. He is against methadone because it is a lazy (and sometimes lethal, ultimately) way to treat addicts. But he does think more of the money spent on arrests for possession could be more productively used in helping drug-takers off their addiction;  and when (gently) pressed, indicates that he favours decriminalisation - see his answer to Questions 259/260.

But do read the second part of the session also, in which, yes, Peter Hitchens (loathed by so many, especially the right-on) gives his well-known views - but so does Mary Brett, who has a background in education and also favours giving clearer, firmer guidance to youngsters on legality. It is not only Hitchens who sees prohibition as a valuable form of protection.

It is also interesting to see witnesses challenge the perception that drug-taking is so widespread that we may as well give up the fight - see Question 276, part of the answer to which reads:

Kathy Gyngell: ...At the moment, 2% of people sniff coke here. People, like Russell Brand, would like us to believe that this is common. It is still not common. It is common in certain circles.

Unfortunately, those circles include the broadcasting, journalism and entertainment industries, with their power to influence, persuade and mislead.

And, usefully, the Committee is challenged on whether it has a pro-drug use agenda (Question 281):

Lorraine Fullbrook: ...Are you making the assumption that the Committee are in favour of decriminalisation or legalisation?

Kathy Gyngell: I was worried that you took your terms of reference, or apparently appeared to—and I indeed wrote to Mr Vaz about it—from the Global Commission on Drugs policy, which is basically a highly financed legalising lobby. That did disturb me because, equally, they had given out—and they were widely disseminated in the press—incorrect figures about drug use spiralling out of control globally when, indeed, the UNODC shows quite clearly that it has been stable. So, that did concern me that your direction of travel may have been influenced by lobbies who are very much in favour of decriminalisation, and if that is not the case I am very happy to hear it.

I've now started in on Mary Brett's drug report (2006, updated 2012) and already I'm getting some startling information, e.g. how very much stronger skunk is than herbal cannabis of the 60s and early 70s. Having lost a friend to skunk-related depression and suicide, I'm not in favour of making the stuff easier to get hold of. Her report is here.

Finally, my apologies to Elby and others for losing their comments in deleting, revising and re-posting this piece. I'm very grateful for their time in reading and responding and I promise to try harder on the technical side next time.

So, warts and all, here is what I said originally, this morning (and over at Orphans of Liberty also):
_______________________________________________________________

I find it's easier to read than hear an argument, so I've transcribed as best I can what Russell Brand said in response to Peter Hitchens' accusation that drug-takers are spoiled rich Western kids who falsely claim that they are not responsible for their actions:

It’s nice to receive your bigotry from another medium other than the hate rag, The Mail on Sunday, from which you normally peddle hatred, insular thought, lack of love between human beings. What I’m saying, whether or not I’m selfish or wearing a hat is redundant and irrelevant. These are the kind of personal attacks, the aggressive styles that you continually adopt to vilify people needlessly. Hey what’s next, criminalise being a bit brown, is that your next policy from the Mail on Sunday? We can’t listen to people like you any more, it’s unevolved as a species.

There is such a thing as society, Peter. In spite of what Margaret Thatcher said there is such a thing as society, we are responsible for one another. If we treat people compassionately and with love, then people will benefit. People of course are responsible for their actions, you’re responsible for writing for a bigoted newspaper [applause].

It would have been better if Hitchens hadn’t prefaced his question with an insult (“the alleged comedian in the hat”) as he then has to be held partly responsible for the damagingly ranting nature of the reply.But what’s clear is that Brand is confused on the issue – at one point we’re not responsible for ourselves, later we are and then we should be responsible for others as well. The Guardian’s report of his evidence to the Parliamentary Select Committee is similarly equivocal and self-contradictory.

As to the so-called war on drugs, the Guardian's piece says:

He said he didn't think that drug addicts cared about the legal status of the drugs they were taking, or where they came from or the consequences for those involved in their production.

Not surprising, since there are usually no adverse legal consequences, in this country.
But if any full-on libertarians are reading this, maybe it's time they faced up to the fact that (as Sartre said) we ARE free, inescapably. Libertines and rake-hells just do it, they don't ask Authority to approve.

What semi-detached libertarians want is permission - but to ask that is to give power to another. The radical lover of freedom does what he wills and accepts the consequences - and doesn't whine for some social support safety net.

At 36, Brand is getting a little old for the role of bawling, illogical teenager, demanding autonomy and protection in the same breath. The infantile term "booky-wook" is the tell to his condition, isn't it?

Headteacher to get pay cut

The headteacher of Canary Wharf Comprehensive is to have his bonus reduced, it was revealed today. Mr Garnet's pay package had soared to £17.7 million last year, despite the school failing its Ofsted inspection.

At a meeting with the Governing Body, Mr Garnet explained that his remuneration was strictly a contractual matter, the annual bonus being linked to the size of the school's budget. Since the DfEE had pumped in huge sums to turn around its dire performance, the Head's financial reward had broken all records. The Governors have decided to review the contract.

Speaking to Birmingham Teacher & TA by satphone from his chalet in Gstaad, Mr Garnet said, "It's only fair to point out that the tax on my income will cover my staff's wages for the next two years." Asked whether heads whose schools are failing, should be sacked, he said he was on a Black Run and would have to terminate the interview, but asked us to remind his teachers that pupil reports should be handed into heads of year by Thursday afternoon.

Hanging, flogging... and caning?

Nearly 3 years ago, I was having a whinge about education going to the bow-wows, and one part was about the end of corporal punishment in schools, which some would like to see reinstated. A leader in the campaign to abolish caning was a teacher in Tower Hamlets called Tom Scott, who later left teaching and is now a theatre director.

I often say that the people who make changes in teaching often choose not to stay at the sharp end (if they've ever been there at all), and I thought Scott had been away from the chalkface for so long he'd probably forgotten the details himself.

Not so. Here's a post by the man himself, put up on the 25th anniversary of abolition (July 22, 1986). Some of the examples of maltreatment he cites there should give any fair-minded reader pause for thought. I certainly couldn't defend those teachers.

The only caning I witnessed as a teacher was of a 15-year-old who'd told me to get lost when I was urging a group to work hard and complete their CSE English assignments (in two terms - the previous teacher had left under a cloud in the summer, with his pupils having only 2 acceptable pieces of coursework out of the required 15). A senior teacher gave him the cane once on each hand, and that was the last I saw of him in the classroom. Pour encourager les autres: almost all the others ultimately got passes in both English Language and English Literature - and these were C Band children.

The school was a very large urban comprehensive, but with a tightly-run and authoritarian management. It made a difference to the life chances of many children, I'm sure, even though I think discipline alone will get you no more than 90% of potential. It also allowed teachers to teach - not everyone is a tough guy or the inspirational type who could get children to push peanuts up mountainsides with their noses, as they say.

But yes, I'm sure there were also occasions when authority overstepped the mark. I remember one youngster who these days would be quickly recognized as autistic: he'd tried to flush a teacher's handbag down the lavatory and was consistently denying it to the head and deputy head in the office. The deputy, a slick and tricky type, leaned forward and said in a friendly way, "Look, Jason [as it might be], we all know you did it. Why don't you just admit it and then you can go?" "Okay, yeah, I did do it." With a sweep of the arm, the desk was cleared of papers, "Jason" was hauled over it and given six of the very best, then released - howling fit to bust - to charge out of the office and through reception, clutching his buttocks. Where the parents of a prospective entrant to the school were waiting. They saw the flaming-arsed meteor scud past, followed by the head and deputy strolling out, laughing and swishing their canes.

All most amusing, but "Jason" had to return to my classroom, red-faced and in shock at a turn of events he wasn't equipped to anticipate. On another occasion, he'd gone with a school group to Kingsbury Water Park and noticed a fishing float abandoned in a shallow lake. Without hesitation, he undressed (in front of a mixed group of boys and girls), waded out bollock-naked to retrieve it, and then dressed again. "Jason" was just different, and in the Pupil Referral Unit where I work part-time he would now be treated as such; thrashing would teach him nothing. Autistic children need social rules spelled out to them, like a tourist learning basic phrases in Greek.

There was also something of a bullying culture among the more macho teachers. A teenager came to remonstrate with one of these, who let him into the classroom to continue the discussion, locked the door and listened to a stream of foul-mouthed abuse. As the peroration continued, he quietly interjected "you're forgetting something" from time to time, until the lad put his cursing on hold and said "what?". "The door's locked". The boy's face went white, and he fell silent.

Another teacher - a Northerner - wouldn't tolerate cheek and chinned a member of his own form registration group, knocking him clear over the desk behind. The boy reminded him of it when Sir came to make his farewell ("Now then, scum...") before leaving to teach abroad - but the kid said it with a grin: he knew there hadn't actually been any malice, it was just what the alpha male does to the naughty pup.

A retired colleague did his teaching practice in a school in (I think) Reading, somewhere around the late 60s. His class was a mixed bunch, with the yobbos ensconced at the back. But one made the mistake of taking out a newspaper and reading it behind the upraised lid of his desk. A mistake, because my friend is of Irish descent and has fully inherited the wrathful warrior gene. Leaping forward with a roar of rage, the trainee teacher smashed down the lid, which broke in two pieces across the head of the boy, who fell back stunned in his chair. There was no trouble from that class again.

Pre-World War I, my great-grandfather was a schoolmaster in an East Prussian village (paid for his services partly in firewood etc). He taught the children of agricultural labourers, dairymen and so on - tough kids in a tough time, and unlikely to appreciate the value of literacy and general knowledge. But great-grandpapa was built like a brick shithouse - once, when a man had disagreed with him, he'd suspended his opponent one-handed by the collar outside an upper-storey window until there was a meeting of minds. My ancestor started each day giving all the kids a whack - girls as well as boys. They all learned to read and write, and this might well have saved the lives of a number of the boys when the call-up came, as they would have been given office jobs instead of being sent out to absorb the enemy's bullets.

Quite a different world, and no Professor Challenger will find his way back to it.

Is there any halfway house between the hard ways of the past and the barrack-room-lawyer children of today? Should a civil whack on the hands be allowed again? Or is it all too fraught with difficulty?

Meantime, I shall not be so quick to judge people like Mr Scott.

How will we stay rich?

Not many of us feel rich, but that's partly to do with who we have around us. Compared to most of the world, we are hugely well-off.

Let's make the comparison a little fairer. What matters is not only how much money we have, but what we can buy with it locally: this is known as "purchasing power parity" (PPP). So, here is a graph of the GDP per person (in PPP terms) of the most populous nations on Earth; I also include bars for the European Union and the world average (click to enlarge):

The vertical axis is in multiples of world average GDP: 11,800 US dollars. You see that the USA is four times as wealthy, Germany and the UK three times, and even Italy and Spain are doing terribly well, for now. Until recently, Greece (not shown) wasn't far behind Italy.

My question is, what's keeping us there?

If these countries were a series of locks on a canal, and all the gates were opened at the same time, you'd expect a lot of turbulence and then a settling-down to a uniform level throughout. We have world trade, so why shouldn't national wealth average out across the globe?

It is perfectly possible for neighbouring countries to have extreme disparities in per capita income - here's the two Koreas, separated only by a demilitarized zone around the 38th parallel:

Clearly the economic divide here is largely owing to very different economic and political systems. North Korea may not really be a threat to the world, but it's certainly a threat to its own unfortunate citizens, 150,000 of whom are kept in labour camps in scarcely believable misery. So yes, that inequality can be maintained given sufficient vigour and brutality on behalf of its rulers, who must continue to oppress because they have a tiger by the tail and a moment's weakness will finish them.

At $1,800 per capita, North Korea is far from the poorest country, according to the CIA World Factbook: Bangladesh, Kenya, Zambia and 30 other nations (mostly African) have less, bottoming out with the Congo at $300 (i.e. spending power about 82 cents a day).

But what, other than military dictatorships and civil and international war, accounts for some countries' failure to rise, and what prevents our own standard of living from falling?

Do we work harder?
Are we cleverer?
Are we - will we remain - better educated?
Do we have better and wiser rulers? Do they rule in the nation's interest?
Do we have special knowledge that nobody else can duplicate?
Is our basis of industrial skills thriving?
Are we using our human resources - our talented people - to best effect, in the best sectors of the economy?
Is it easy for our enterprising people to start up and run businesses?
Can we trust our money, and our banks?
Can we live forever off our patents - will they always be ours, and their validity accepted everywhere?
Are we blessed with inexhaustible natural resources?
Are we militarily strong enough to dictate terms of trade and hold everyone else down?

Not enough "yes" answers to the above, I fear.

How will we stay rich?

Not many of us feel rich, but that's partly to do with who we have around us. Compared to most of the world, we are hugely well-off.

Let's make the comparison a little fairer. What matters is not only how much money we have, but what we can buy with it locally: this is known as "purchasing power parity" (PPP). So, here is a graph of the GDP per person (in PPP terms) of the most populous nations on Earth; I also include bars for the European Union and the world average (click to enlarge):

The vertical axis is in multiples of world average GDP: 11,800 US dollars. You see that the USA is four times as wealthy, Germany and the UK three times, and even Italy and Spain are doing terribly well, for now. Until recently, Greece (not shown) wasn't far behind Italy.

My question is, what's keeping us there?

If these countries were a series of locks on a canal, and all the gates were opened at the same time, you'd expect a lot of turbulence and then a settling-down to a uniform level throughout. We have world trade, so why shouldn't national wealth average out across the globe?

It is perfectly possible for neighbouring countries to have extreme disparities in per capita income - here's the two Koreas, separated only by a demilitarized zone around the 38th parallel:

Clearly the economic divide here is largely owing to very different economic and political systems. North Korea may not really be a threat to the world, but it's certainly a threat to its own unfortunate citizens, 150,000 of whom are kept in labour camps in scarcely believable misery. So yes, that inequality can be maintained given sufficient vigour and brutality on behalf of its rulers, who must continue to oppress because they have a tiger by the tail and a moment's weakness will finish them.

At $1,800 per capita, North Korea is far from the poorest country, according to the CIA World Factbook: Bangladesh, Kenya, Zambia and 30 other nations (mostly African) have less, bottoming out with the Congo at $300 (i.e. spending power about 82 cents a day).

But what, other than military dictatorships and civil and international war, accounts for some countries' failure to rise, and what prevents our own standard of living from falling?

Do we work harder?
Are we cleverer?
Are we - will we remain - better educated?
Do we have better and wiser rulers? Do they rule in the nation's interest?
Do we have special knowledge that nobody else can duplicate?
Is our basis of industrial skills thriving?
Are we using our human resources - our talented people - to best effect, in the best sectors of the economy?
Is it easy for our enterprising people to start up and run businesses?
Can we trust our money, and our banks?
Can we live forever off our patents - will they always be ours, and their validity accepted everywhere?
Are we blessed with inexhaustible natural resources?
Are we militarily strong enough to dictate terms of trade and hold everyone else down?

Not enough "yes" answers to the above, I fear.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content.

News from tomorrow

201*

The Eid Agreement has been successfully concluded, thanks to the crucial intermediation of a former United States Senate leader.

202*

Mr Abu Hamza has been appointed Deputy First Minister for Wales and Mr Abu Qatada has been elected President of the Al-Qaeda Party. Although Al-Qaeda retains a policy of abstentionism towards the Westminster Parliament, it receives allowances for staff and takes up offices in the House of Commons.

The security service reforms proposed by a former senior Conservative politician have now been implemented. The police Oath of Service no longer includes a pledge of loyalty to the Monarch, and the intelligence services are now required to recruit a proportion of their employees from violent subversive domestic political factions.

203*

In his memoirs, Mr Cameron pays extensive tribute to Hamza and Qatada, saying they were "supreme masters of the distinction between tactics and strategy" and were "an extraordinary couple".

The former Prime Minister continued: "Whether you like them or not, and no matter how strongly you disapprove of their past actions, they had courage in abundance."

Anders Breivik: the view from the street

In legal terms, it would seem that the case of Anders Breivik is as uncontentious as it is possible to be. Politically, the picture is more confused and misleading.

Guilt

He intended to kill, and did kill. Under English law, that defines murder.

Insanity plea

As I understand it, you can have a personality disorder and still not be mad. That is, you can be answerable for your actions, even if they proceed from abnormal motives. Breivik's meticulous planning and prolonged rehearsal demonstrate his ability to control and order his behaviour.

Breivik  does not consider himself insane, any more than John Bellingham did. The excuse he is using, that of self-defence, is arrant garbage but a defendant can try any argument he likes in a court of law. What is more debatable is the decision by news media to let him use the court as a global public address system, but I'll come to that in a moment.


Sentence

Reportedly, he wished to do more than he had done, and would do it again. On that basis, and given the unavailability of a death sentence, he should be imprisoned for the term of his natural life as (a) a punishment for his crimes, (b) a warning to others and (c) a safeguard for society.

Reportage and implicit political agenda

So, why the nightly TV reporting of his case?

It could be simply because the case is sensational.

Or (and it may not be so) it could be because it's a useful stick with which to beat the Right. If the latter, the message is, he did these terrible things because he is a racist, therefore anyone who opposes unrestricted immigration etc should be tarred with Breivik's brush.

Counter

The Right could answer, this simply shows the importance of what are supposedly traditional family values. Breivik is the child of divorced, f*ckabout parents. Their failure to serve their child's development, in preference to servicing their own pleasures, led ultimately to the terrible events in Oslo and Utoya. As John Lennon said of Hitler, what if he'd been told he was loved, all his life? As a part-time teacher of special needs children, this has resonance for me.

Gut feeling

We shouldn't be getting this blow-by-blow coverage. Even the BBC news pointed out tonight that some Norwegian newspapers have chosen not to feature it on their front pages.

It was a crime, he should be punished, and discussion of tangential matters should not be stifled.