All Change

Well I am changing. Not a great deal of change, just a new job in a new place. Not moving out of Manchester, but moving into Manchester. Exciting!

Quite looking forward to it. Apparently I am going to be on the 8th floor. Scary! I'm not a great fan of lifts, but when needs must.

What more can I say? Not a great deal. My bloggs have truly become quite dull haven't they?? I must improve.

Here is a promise; I will improve my bloggs from here-on-in!!

The 56th State?

Yellow school busses; an increase in shiny metal; ghetto language; changes to the English language and political correctness. What have all of these got in common? A move for us to become America’s 56th State.

Not a new idea I can assure you. Margaret Thatcher was seen as being in bed with the Americans; but what for Tony? We are increasingly seeing our society move away from everything “British” towards everything new, bold, brash and without class. Yup (Americanism), we are becoming more like America every day.

Enjoying a little commercial television yesterday evening I watched an advert for George clothing. Children singing, in tune I may add, to a fantastic hit by Queen; that all British group. The problem being they are in a school buss whose livery was yellow with stick-on flashing lights.

Why do our school busses have to be depicted in such a manner? Why are they yellow and look exceptionally similar to those of the Yanks? Is there a need? Not really. The only justification I can see is that the once Yorkshire born company, ASDA, is now part of the American corporate Wal-Mart. Therefore we must succumb to their vision of Britain.

Walking along the road the other day I saw a wonderful sight. A Hummer followed by a Dodge. It is true to say that the American car market is in trouble and hence we see an increase in American designed vehicles on our roads. I appreciate Ford is American, but as European as pomposity.

Why do we need to see 3 litre, poorly designed and terribly engineered cars on our roads? We don’t.

The changes we have seen to nursery rhymes is ridiculous and yet we are employing people to make changes to ba-ba black sheep to ba-ba rainbow sheep. What is a rainbow sheep?

This is not the first time, however, that the nursery rhyme — written in 1744 satirising the taxes imposed on wool exports — has fallen foul of political correctness. In 2000 Birmingham City Council tried to ban the rhyme, after claiming that it was racist and portrayed negative stereotypes. The council rescinded the ban after black parents said it was ludicrous.

What has happened to the spirit of being British? It is changing to being American-British!

Do we need saving though?

I don't thing so. Where is this hype coming from? The media; be-it television, newspapers or the radio. This is where the change is coming from and not from the common man, women, child and dog on the street. But we do, I feel, need to take stock for what is happening to us in this country. Remove the hype of political correctness and the need to sound like an American from the media and hey-presto back to normality. Well as much as it can be in Britain.

...and into the car!

Following my previous ramblings, we have purchased a new car!

No longer will I be the victim of a train door beating or the tattered ruin of a wet man in a suit. Dry, comfortable and happy I will be.

We have purchased a nice Peugeot car. It is diesel and exceptionally economical. We are very pleased with the purchase.

When my fellow commuters see me smiling on the M60 on Tuesday morning, please wave and cheer as I am one with you now!!!

Off the Rails

I have recently read Dr Buckley's logg. Not a typo.

For those of you not in the know, Paul Buckley is a close friend of mine. However, Dr Buckley has unfortunately slightly hit on a sensitive subject. Public Transport and the wonderful system that is the Metrolink.

I was recently quoted in Insider Magazine for the problems I have been experiencing following an unfortunate episode; the casualty of transgression.

As a consequence I have resolved to using community haulage for a period of 10 months. I have under no circumstances received such ferocious management at the behest of a conglomerate.

The hollow attempt entertained by narrow councillors to hearten the rail user from their secure carriages are excruciating. What gain is there to a commuter to use public transport? Let me enlighten you.

I live in Sale, South Manchester. My workplace is Stockport, South East Manchester. We have one car which is used to thrust my better half to Preston on a daily basis. I have resolved to using Manchester’s deplorable tram network and a rail system. The costs related to this are exorbitant. Let me illustrate:

Car - Running cost PCM £79

v

Public Transport - To travel 3 stations £110

Where is the advantage?

It is therefore a no-brainer that we are now purchasing our second car.

If you can encourage me to use the public transport system once again, please ensure that it is cost effective, clean, regular and comfortable.

Until such time as passenger transport executives appreciate the problems, I shall persevere with the new car.

Sleeping

I have to admit to being exhausted today! Any reason? Unknown.

A favourite website of mine at the moment in time is Roll on Friday. Link is attached. I know it is a little bit, how shall I say, legal. But it is funny.

Interesting news today in the world of Law. Freshfields, MAJOR law firm in the South of England lost 30 of its partners this week. How worrying?? Very for them.

Very short blogg today.

Israel; off the Rails?

Recently, serious widespread human rights violations and humanitarian catastrophes have vexed the world and prompted new international responses. Communities from a developing world order are encouraged to ensure that the principles of peace and security are upheld, and to resolve conflicts and disputes by means of discussion and negotiation. The fundamental background of international law is to ensure that this principle is upheld.

Since the atrocities of 11 September 2001 the principles of collective peace and security have taken on new meaning. Threats to international peace and security are no longer from obvious threats of military activity. The task of international law is to ensure that the threats posed from terrorist groups do not compromise the enshrined principles of collective peace and security.

A result of unilateralism and recent reactions to terrorist activity has seen a tendency prevailing amongst many of the world’s most powerful states to take action with little or no regard or respect for the sovereignty of their neighbours. Recently we have seen a recrudescence of such behaviour.

The concerns are that precedents may have now been set which, if left unchallenged, may result in a destruction of the principles of international law; collective peace and international security.

The main presumptions against the use of force and protection of the sovereignty of states were enshrined in United Nations Charter. Here it was concluded by Ruth Wedgwood, ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind’.

The central and underlying purpose of the UN Charter can be found within Article 1. The three main purposes of the organisation are ‘[to] maintain peace and international security, [to] develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights of peoples’ [and] to achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights’.

Yet what we have experienced since 11 September 2001 is a new world order. A regime of acceptable use of force; a systematic breakdown of accepted international principles to protect the people of the world from dominant states with the intentions of spreading their ideal into other cultures and worlds.

Unfortunately I live within one such state. The British government is quite keen on the principle of use of force. However, can force be justified against a sovereign state due to terrorists residing therein?

The main presumptions against the use of force and protection of sovereignty are given within the United Nations Charter, Article 2 paragraphs 1 & 4. Here it is stated ‘the Organisation is based upon the sovereign equality of all its members’ and ‘all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations’

Not only is the use of force against another state prohibited by the Charter, it is also a peremptory norm in customary international law.

A.L. Goodhart argued that the restraint on individual states using force to resolve international disputes was wholly ‘contingent on the ability of the United Nations to take effective measures to maintain international peace and security’. It is not clear as to whether the United Nations has been able to fulfil its role to date.

Clearly the UN has not been able to fulfil its role regarding the Iraqi conflict and is showing its lack of authority in the current conflict with Israel and Lebanon. The maintenance of peace and security has been clearly undermined.

The general rule of prohibition of the use of force between states has been seen to be eroded away over time, to an extent that it has now been eroded away beyond recognition. The use of force by States against others since the creation of the UN charter has shown that Article 2(4) has little or no effect.

This is a sad time that we are living in which may result in us descending, over time, into anarchy!

gG

The first day!!!

The day started quite well, for a Monday! The weekend had been productive; visiting friends in London and worrying what car I should buy at the Motor Show.

Unfortunately I think Mr Bank Manager may have had issues with me for writing a cheque in favour of Mr Bentley in a nice black colour. I had traveled down on Friday with Dan. The journey was exciting; I'd never used the M6 Toll before.

Admittedly I was against the idea at first, I pay road tax already why pay for the use of another road privately? However, the clear shimmer of dark tarmac and the illuminescent white stripes on the road made it quite stimulating. So much so that the accelerator on the fiesta was to the max with a vain and yet delusional hope that the car would at least exceed 80! It did. I was proud!

London was its usual. I enjoy my visits: the people; the sounds; the smoke; the noise; the offensive attitude of a race of people who feel the north has nothing to offer. Sigh!

Yet none of this was to darken my spirits; I was with good friends and I couldn't have been happier.

As with all things, it had to come to an end. Not wanting to brag, however, the journey home to Manchester was somewhat quicker than the descent to London. "Just a little over 2 hours and 30 minutes" expressed Dan.

I am certain that his tone was somewhat tainted with annoyance as I had clearly not obeyed all known speed limits and perhaps had not been overly considerate to my fellow road users.

However, it is still Monday! With all the trappings that it had to offer.

A bright start to the week ahead. Work was its usual, frustrating negotiations with people who always seem to know better. That is the problem with under sexed egotists. The day started at a mild 8am and it seemed to end at 7:30pm. That’s only slightly harsh! The same room since 2:30 with the same people procrastinating. Oh it was fun!

A lift from the office from a doting better half and a wonderful meal already selected, prepared and served with everything a tired and weary worker could expect.

Ah well. All that is left is to stave off boredom while watching the inane life experiment that the world calls “Big Brother” and then bed; only to start another day again!

There has to be more than this????

gG