I’ve fallen for it again

Every year in January, at some point, I remember I need to update the “Global military spending so far this year” calculator on the Conscience web site to reset it.  So I check the web site, see it is clearly more than a year’s expenditure, go into the code and realise I don’t need to change it.  It changes automatically.

Globally we have already spent nearly £17,000,000,000 on the military.

Countries who will have already spent more than £17,000,000,000 on their own so far this year, in decreasing spend order:

  • USA
  • China
  • Saudi Arabia
  • India
  • France
  • Russia
  • UK
  • Germany
  • Japan
  • Korea, South
  • Italy
  • Brazil
  • Australia

I’m sure you can think of your own reasons how some of those countries could be spending their money elsewhere.  Such as Australia, which is currently on fire.

Incidentally, last year Iran spent about £10,200,000,000 on their military, 2.7% of GDP, so only slightly more than NATO countries are expected to ‘contribute’.  (The term ‘contribute’ is used in the context of NATO as it is, presumably, some sort of charity.)

<Sigh>.  Starting another New Year appalled at the waste.

Export Processing Zones and ‘economic wellbeing’

In Open University module DD301 Critical Criminology we learned about Export Processing Zones or EPZs.  These are where a government sets aside a piece of land near an airport or other transfer terminal and designates it outside the normal employment legislation.  This means manufacturers can set up in that region to process goods more cheaply than they otherwise would.  It attracts business to the country and so is seen as a good thing.  Governments charge lower tax rates and sometimes pay for the building of factories.

The downside is that the legislation that is set aside is health and safety, minimum wage, working hours, rights to union membership and strike and other protections of employment rights.  Also, environmental legislation and tax collection can be set aside.  The companies can operate more cheaply because they are not competing on a level playing field; they can treat the workers there differently.

What tends to happen is that companies play one government off another to get better and better conditions for themselves and so there results a ‘race to the bottom‘ as governments compete to give the most favourable terms.  The flip side to this is that it results in the work going to those countries most willing to remove employment rights and environmental protection.  And when something goes wrong, the parent companies are rarely held accountable.  From my DD301 essay TMA02:

Collaborations occur between corporations and states for economic reasons that cause social harms, such as in the Export Processing Zones (EPZs) where developing countries are obliged to lower regulatory standards to compete for businesses to move there, resulting in people working there having fewer human rights than they would otherwise have had (Tombs and Whyte, 2010, p. 161) showing corporations have negotiating power over supranationally recognised human rights. In 2011 the International Labour Organisation described Nigeria’s eleven EPZs as “veritable theatres of abysmal disrespect for workers’ rights” (ACTRAV, 2012). One Chinese iron-foundry was found to be using slave labour but the company threatened to pull out if the information was disclosed. Slave labour was found in other EPZs and they received reports of violence by management against staff. They concluded the working practices were contrary to Nigerian Labour Law but Nigeria’s Decent Work Country Programme—set up to improve employment rights and counter human rights abuses such as human trafficking and child labour—disregards what happens in the Nigerian EPZs.

The International Labour Organisation points out EPZs often do not meet ILO required standards.  The International Labour Rights Forum highlights many instances of human rights abuses in EPZs; .  According to The Balance these include low wages, high work intensity, unsafe working conditions, suppression of labour rights, long hours, excessive noise and heat, unsafe manufacturing equipment, un-inspected buildings and no access to union representation.

When people die in large numbers in these environments, it is then seen it is high profile Western brands being produced in these conditions.  People are working in the worst conditions to maximise profits for what can be premium brands.

As the UK is in in Europe, we are protected by legislation from these conditions.  Or we were.

BBC News: “Treasury ‘to rewrite rules to favour the North’

The Treasury is reportedly planning to rewrite rules governing public spending…  It could help boost investment in infrastructure, business development projects and schemes like free ports.

A free port is a form of EPZ. and the government intends to convert ten UK ports to free ports.  Note there are no free ports in the EU because they are legally not possible.

According to The Times:

The Treasury is planning to rip up decades-old public spending rules in an effort to boost economic wellbeing in the north and the Midlands.  Under proposals being drawn up before the spring budget, ministers will reassess how officials calculate the value for money of government investments in transport infrastructure, business development and initiatives such as free ports.

Economic wellbeing‘ – what a charmingly contradictory oxymoron.  They mean ‘profitability’.  They offer ‘unnecessary checks and paperwork‘ (there go the H&S and employment checks) and ‘customs and tax benefits‘ (because we don’t have enough corporates not paying tax) and ‘liberalised planning laws‘ (such as intended to allow fracking to re-start).  The example they give of a successful free port is Miami.  How many other cities in the developed world need their own Human Rights Watch division to fight for the rights of workers in the city?

It hasn’t taken long for the government to shaft the North.  Those in the North who voted for Boris can look forward to working 6 days a week of 12 hours a day in dangerous conditions that are detrimental to the environment and contrary to EU-upheld human rights and no right to complain.

TMA02 essay references:

ACTRAV (2012) The State of Trade Unionism and Industrial Relations practice in Nigeria’s Export Processing Zones [Online], Geneva, International Labour Organisation. Available at http://www.ilo.org/actrav/info/fs/WCMS_183546/lang–en/index.htm (Accessed 10 January 2018).

Tombs, S. and Whyte, D. (2010) ‘Chapter 5: Crime, harm and corporate power’, in Muncie, J., Talbot, D. and Walters, R. (eds) Crime: Local and Global, Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp. 137-72.

A History of Britain in Numbers

A History of Britain in Numbers, Episode 2 ‘State Makes War’: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b052j579

“For a great part of Britain’s history, was the principal link people had with the state to die for it and to be taxed for the expense?”

Andrew Dilnot, chair of the UK Statistics Authority, 2012-2017

This programme was about the ‘fiscal military state‘.

18th century state spending on defence and war debt: 6 to 7% of GDP.  On all other state expenditure: 2% of GDP.  Over ⅔rds of national income was spent on defence, about the same as in ancient Rome.

During the Napoleonic Wars, %age of GDP spent on warfare: about 30%.  On everything else, about 2%.

Spending on the military during the reign of Queen Victoria, when Britain sustained an empire, 2 to 3% (about £16,000,000 in 1850, equivalent to £1,500,000,00 today).  Currently is is still 2 to 3%, but GDP has increased to about 25 times as much as it was in 1850.

 

 

 

 

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

It is being argued the British Army should not be prosecuted for war crimes committed in Northern Ireland.  The argument goes that if the terrorists can get away with their crimes because of The Belfast Agreement, then it is only fair the Army does too.  But this assumes there was a level playing field in a combat between terrorists and the Army.  Yet that is not how it was.  The Army was called in to support the police; the Army were there as a policing force.  The combat was between the loyalists and nationalists, between paramilitary republicans and paramilitary unionists; the Army were apart from them and intended to keep the peace.  As such, they are not exempt from adhering to civil, military and international laws.

It is indeed unfair that at an individual level a squaddie should be subject to laws and punishment that a terrorist is not.  But that is how it must be: the police who uphold the law must be subject to those laws.  And that includes the Army when they are the police force.  It is also unrealistic to compare the expectations of behaviour of a salaried, trained, professional soldier with a support structure and command structure to a civil terrorist operating within a totally different social environment and structure.  Yes, it is reasonable to expect the Army not to be criminal in their operations and so yes it is reasonable to expect them to be subject to punishment if they break the law, especially when they are there to keep the peace.

The state and its agents must work within the law or they are not entitled to be in their position of authority.  Unless, of course, we are to live in a criminal autocracy or dictatorship where the agents of the state can kill its citizens without fear of redress.

Because once the British Army is granted exemption from law in their operations, they will be expected to commit war crimes as expedient ways to achieve results.  And then we will be the bad guys.

 

The Lancaster Award

Another disappointment.

I was under the impression one’s level of pass at The Lancaster Award would appear on one’s degree transcript.  What actually happens is that a description of it appears on the diploma supplement and without the grade.

But let us define terms first.

  • Degree certificate – the posh piece of paper one puts in a frame.
  • Degree transcript – the piece of paper provided by the university that says what modules you did and what you got in them, plus anything else the university wants to add.  The thing some employers may ask for if they want to know the details of one’s degree.
  • Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR) – the six page long European standard Diploma Supplement which describes the degree in detail and is intended for showing to overseas universities.
  • The Lancaster Award – a university-assessed award for extracurricular activity and can be awarded as Bronze, Silver or Gold.
  • The Digital Skills Certificate – an award the university gives for completing five (or more) e-learning courses.  It goes toward the Lancaster Award.

The Lancaster university web site says the Digital Skills Certificate is mentioned on “the HEAR transcript“.  Between that and what people told me, I thought the Lancaster Award pass level would appear on my degree transcript.  So I worked hard for it and got a Gold Lancaster Award.  But it is not mentioned on the degree transcript.  Instead it got a one line entry on the diploma supplement.  I queried this and got a replacement diploma supplement with a description of the Lancaster Award, but still nothing to say the pass level.  So I queried that and was told they do not put it on the degree transcript and that they do not have the means to put the level of pass on the diploma supplement.

Likewise, the Digital Skills Certificate gets a mention in the diploma supplement but no reference on the degree transcript.

What goes on a degree transcript is up to the university.  They could choose to put the Lancaster Award and Digital Skills Certificate on there.  Putting it on the HEAR diploma supplement is worthless as employers never look at that an academic bodies would not be interested in the extracurricular activity.

It seems such a shame the Lancaster Award does not appear on the transcript, and the level of award does not appear anywhere.

Social media. Just say no.

I had a Facebook account.  I used it for researching for my undergrad degree: war crimes, arms industry, connections between religious cults and weapons (that is scary); end-timers; the plethora of arms in the USA and its consequences; mass shootings; historical political revolutions; why people believe what they do.  History, psychology, just war theory, religious extremism, politics.  But when I got critical of the NRA and arms industry and using facts to counter their arguments in their own groups, my Facebook account got blocked.  Weird.

I created another Facebook account for my postgrad study.  Similar subject areas, but used it in particular for eco stuff.  Having noticed some trends in how organised trolling is done, I started outing some trollers, in particular in Greta Thunberg’s feed.  There are scores of them posting the same memes and every account has one picture, one post on the wall, a home town and a university.  They may have many friends, all with the same structure.  Anyway, after a couple of days of showing these accounts were all interlinked and behaving in the same way … my Facebook account was suddenly deleted.  No reason given.

I created another Facebook account for personal use.  Real me, real photos, real location and history.  Again I noticed the trends in trolling and posting.  For example, have a look at Boris Johnson’s feed and watch for a few days.  As soon as he posts anything, there is an instant, fast and steady trickle of near-identical posts using the same memes over and over.  These are obviously created by a script.  But it gives an effective impression of genuine support and others are drawn in.  Any programmer or script kiddie should be able to see how the algorithm works.  And just time the rate of comments and likes – see how there is a linear degradation of the rate as would be expected as the comments increase in number.  And with the next post it starts again.  Almost all the posts and likes on his feed are created by one or more bots.

Anyway, I just posted something expressing my view on a social issue on a local group.  The abuse started within seconds.  The respondents were really nasty, and each had fakes bits to their profile so they could not be identified.  Cowards.  I’ve had that before but this was fast, nasty and furious.  And in a page that has been very quiet for months and my post was on-topic.  Very odd.

I’ve had enough of Facebook.  I think it serves no good but enables an awful lot of bad.  And trying to use it for good is not appreciated by Facebook.  Some of what goes on is vicious, some dangerous, much deceiving and some downright sinister.  It does not make me happy.  I won’t be back there.  I’ve seen enough.

Adventures in jobseeking

There are all sorts of scammers out there preying on jobseekers.  People who sell CV writing services, people selling finance, people selling careers advice and so on.  They used to get one’s details by trawling CVs on Monster.com for telephone numbers.  This is new: someone has direct access to the DWP data.

Two days ago I applied for JobSeeker’s Allowance online.  This morning I logged into Universal JobMatch for the first time in a long time.  It seems they have changed IT provider for this service and, annoyingly, all my previous searches and CVs have disappeared.  Does it not dawn on the twats who arrange these contracts that millions of people are inconvenienced by this sort of sloppy transfer of services?  Hours and hours spent crafting tailored CVs and tweaking the searches so they work just so, all wiped out by someone saving a few quid by not specifying the existing data gets carried across.  Universal JobMatch is supposed to be a service to citizens, not a punishment for being unemployed.

Anyway, the phone just rang and they hung up as I got to it.  Number: 01709 263618.  So I did a search for that and – how odd.  Other people have had the same experience.

“Sunday afternoon saying works and pensions. Very pushy but was involved in dinner so did not go to phone to speak. Think a scammer that has got info from jsa application. Rang number back out for service lol 01709 263618”

 

“Yeah this has got to be some kind of jsa scam, Called claiming to be from dwp about a recent claim after 25mins discovered they needed to confirm account details. Says it all.”

 

“Just back from JSA’s local offices. Phone rang and I ignored it because I did not recognize the number. I think it some sort of phone phishing about PPI that I “have forgotten I had” or some “tax overpayment” or something. Same old tricks!!”

 

“again with the other comments, this number rang within mins of me completing a JSA application no one on the end, not sure how a pishing site can get details off a government web site with all the GDPR stuff”

 

“Same experience as other people, completed online application for JSA and later the same day received call from this number. No voice message left and when attempted to call back unable to contact. Will be blocking”

So the data on either the JSA system is not secure.  I wonder who it has been outsourced to?

I have submitted my dissertation

Yesterday I submitted the dissertation for my Master’s Degree in Conflict Resolution and Peace Studies.  If it gets a pass, I shall have an MA,  If it fails, I do not know what happens next.

Seven years ago I researched peace sector jobs and they were all asking for an MA in Peace Studies; it is the entry-level qualification for the sector.  So if this passes, it is the end of those seven years of academic work.

An inconvenient atom bomb explosion

Spoken in the House of Commons in 1952:

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of further information available, he will order a new inquiry to be made into the dangers to bird and animal life on the Monte Bello islands before the atom bomb explosion is carried out there.

No, Sir.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the recent answer he gave in the House on this question was more picturesque than accurate? Is he also aware that the leading Australian ornithologist has said that there are at least 20 different kinds of wild birds on these islands, and is nothing to be done to prevent this bird life from being blasted out of existence?

Every effort will be made to inconvenience them as little as possible.

hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1952-07-24/debates/665c1db3-fb2e-4991-9e7d-e3c3bd1c11f5/AtomExplosionMonteBelloIslands