Comments of The Day

Some excellent and informative comments today in response to Simon Jenkins Guardian piece on the British Council’s problems with the Russian authorities .

The first makes exactly the point I was about to -the blatant nepotism of it all – and it’s something the BBC in particular seems to think unworthy of notice:

magnolia

January 18, 2008 9:12 AM

In amongst all this diplomatic palarva, it just struck me that isn’t it nice that that nice Stephen Kinnock is the Head of the British Council in St Petersburg and his dad, that nice Neil Kinnock is actually the Head of the British Council and of course, isn’t it also nice that his dad used to also be the nice Head of the British Labour Party and isn’t particularly it very very nice that he also was once Head of something very very big in the EU and isn’t extremely nice that his nice wife also has a nice job as an MEP in Europe for the nice British Labour Party.

It’s always nice to see an honest to goodness working class family thriving together.

Quite.

What is the British Council all about now, after ten years of New Labour? Is it still the stuffy, elitist, worthy soft diplomatic institution many of us remember? What does it do, now, exactly?

musubi

January 18, 2008 7:57 AM

Surely the British Council got itself into this mess because (as explained already by John JT) it has been trying to have it both ways. I.e. it’s been trying to be an arm of the British diplomatic presence in the rest of the world, spreading British language and culture as PR for Britain, AND it’s been trying to get a commercial return for doing this. This paradox has arisen because of the mania (since Thatcherism) of making everything pay its own way in bits and pieces instead of being funded by those who are supposedly benefiting from it (i.e. the British people). Wouldn’t it be fun if core diplomats, military attaches etc. all had to pay their own way by generating income in the land to which they are sent! But being commercialised, the BC must also be expected to honour the income tax laws in the host country. Isn’t it just that that the Russian authorities have been saying? I’ve seen no precise rational counter-arguments to this since the matter came up some months ago, just pathetic neo-coldwarism and anti-Russianism.

If the BC can’t make enough money while honouring the relevant tax laws then it should file for bankruptcy, like any other business. Or it could/should go back to being a fully funded public institution like it was many years ago, and provide cultural services in the interests of the British stake in international understanding. Or it could be an NPO with grants from various sources including the British government and British businesses which have an interest in promoting British cultural activities in areas where they operate. Which is it to be?

Exactly.

Is the British Council in Russia an unaccountable, profit-making language school and marketing bureau that evades taxes while providing safe and well-remunerated berths for out of work, but well-connected children of superannuated New Labour hacks – or is it a legitimate diplomatic mission?

Seems to me the Russians may have a point – and as much as my first, jingoistic inclination is to point to their Stalinist tactics and demand that Johnny Foreigner be taught a lesson so let’s kick a few Rusiian billionaires out of Kenisngton, it’s a point Uk.gov needs to address.

But although it may well have a case against the British Council, it is as nothing to ours against Russia itself, which brought its internal business to our shores, conspiring and enabling the murder of one Russian agent by another with radioactive poison, thereby puttiing the innocent public at risk – and which then compoundied the offence by harbouring and protecting the murderer, by now an elected politician.

That makes a bit of ambiguity on taxes and a dose of nepotism look like very small potatoes.

Is There Video?

Romania has several of its own Mark Thomases, it seems

Journalists in Al Qaeda Airlines hoax

Two journalists walked into a Romanian airport wearing Al Qaeda Airline uniforms and put fake bombs on planes.

An investigation has been launched after the pair entered Baneasa Airport in Bucharest dressed in hats and overalls marked “Al Qaeda Airlines”.

Alexandru Cautis and Catalin Prisacaru, from the Academia Catavencu newspaper, drove into a supposedly secure staff car park unchallenged.

They put fake bombs on passenger planes before going to a section of the airport which is used by the military.

They walked around a Hercules plane being prepared for take-off before leaving, again unchecked by anyone.

They said: “We heard from people who used this airport that the security is very lax and wanted to prove it. We could have had a bazooka in our car and as much dynamite as we wanted.”

The transport ministry has now started an investigation.

Yes, I should think they have.

Love Thy Neighbour? Not In Hartlepool.

I hope this picture goes around the world and I hope people remember this face and act accordingly: I’m not a fan of summary or vigilante justice but this may be one of the most sickening things I’ve ever read.

What kind of disgusting people have we become?

Man admits sick attack on dying woman

September 19, 2007

By EMMA GREENHALGH

A MAN today pleaded guilty to urinating on a dying woman, covering her in shaving foam and throwing water over her as she lay helpless in the street.
Anthony Anderson admitted an offence of outraging public decency when he appeared before Hartlepool magistrates this morning.

The court heard how he threw a basin of water over Christine Lakinski, 50, covered her body in shaving foam and urinated on her while she lay collapsed in a doorway.

Lynne Dalton, prosecuting, said the incident was “videoed” by a friend.

The sick act happened in Jobson Street on July 26 when Christine was walking home from a friend’s house.

Both the victim, who later died, and Anderson lived in Raby Road.

More….

So what happened to the friend who stood by with the camera?

Europe Against Fundies

Of course Europe isn’t against novelty pants – but it made you look. didn’t it? Actually, the Council of Europe is directly challenging creeping creationism:

Reuters:

PARIS Council of Europe to vote on creationism next week

(Reuters) – Europe’s main human rights body will vote next week on a resolution opposing the teaching of creationist and intelligent design views in school science classes.

The Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly will debate a resolution saying attacks on the theory of evolution were rooted “in forms of religious extremism” and amounted to a dangerous assault on science and human rights.

The resolution, on the agenda for October 4, says European schools should “resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion.” It describes the “intelligent design” argument as an updated version of creationism.

Anne Brasseur, an Assembly member from Luxembourg who updated an earlier draft resolution, said the vote was due in June but was postponed because some members felt the original text amounted to an attack on religious belief.

Only minor changes have been made to the initial draft.

You can contact your MEP to voice your support for the resolution here.