Ireland is known by many  as the home of the craic, the blarney and roguish poets, and while even the most ardent Irishman would entertain the idea of wearing a leprechaun hat on Saint Patrick’s Day, the Emerald Isle is much more than the stereotypes associated with the Celtic partyland of popular culture. Nor does the true Ireland conform to the darker side of its typecasting, as a shadowy land of drunks, violent men in balaclavas, and a culture based upon the currency of potatoes, sheep and oppressive religious figures.

In order to understand the real Ireland, one must first appreciate the reasons behind the labelling and acknowledge the factual elements within, before proceeding to unravel the complexities surrounding Irish culture and history. Only then will the disseminated pieces allow for a proper reconstruction.

But there is a hindrance, and not only from the outside world.

In the northeast corner of the island, 30 years of troubles have cast Northern Ireland as an unstable hellhole of political dogma and hard social division. Suspicion and tension still preside on both sides of the debate, while an overwhelming number of unaffiliated parties resolutely focus on the isolated disparity. And this exists regardless of the fact that things have greatly improved since the dark days of the 1970s and 80s. What remains is a tragic lack of a single voice, where sporadic terrorist attacks putrefy within the void.

By contrast, the prevailing consciousness outside the island is one of misapprehension manifested in slurs and an approach that some argue flirts with racism in an all too acceptable fashion. ‘Paddy’ has become a name synonymous with idiotic buffoonery, the ancient symbolism of the shamrock desecrated, and the history of the island projected through the veil of conquest. The problem is that it is neither localised nor restricted to everyday social banter. In February 2010, the journalist and then Director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, Douglas Murray, posted a reactionary, and some argued anti-Irish opinion piece, in the Daily Telegraph blog that prompted readers to post derogatory jokes in response.

Across the Atlantic, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg came under criticism for his alcohol-centred treatment of Saint Patrick’s Day, while in July 2011, London’s Deputy Mayor for Equalities, Richard Barnes, when discussing the cost of redesigning Euston Station, queried, ‘are they like most Irish builders, saying that it’s going to be “roughly that”?’

In 2006, The Irish Times criticised the prison newspaper, Inside Times, for printing a series of anti-Irish jokes in two consecutive editions, despite complaints being made.

The most damning example were the views expressed in the Guardian by Julie Burchill, who linked the Irish to fascism and child abuse, while commenting on the supposed ‘almost compulsory child molestation by the national church, total discrimination against women who wish to be priests, aiding and abetting Herr Hitler in his hour of need and outlawing abortion and divorce.’

This is not to say that the Irish are unable to laugh at themselves, but the humour such as that popularised by ‘Father Ted’ and ‘Give My Head Peace’ must be properly understood; it is dark comedy that exists  as an intelligent response to detractors and so must be viewed with that in mind.

In the light of this climate, it is time to challenge the misconceptions. Broken down into its basic, but by no means comprehensive components, modern Ireland can be presented in three distinct, but closely related personalities: the independent and progressive Eurozone of the Republic; the closely guarded, but highly colourful North, forever uncertain of its prescribed Westminster governance; and the shared history of scholarly prowess, accomplished artistry and globally celebrated hospitality. To an outside mind, therefore, Ireland is a complex affair and one which understandably lends itself to the simplifying process of caricature. The resulting impression of Ireland, once the balance is struck, is a land of joviality undermined by internal dispute, and due to its restrained global presence, one that can be affectionately patronised.

And herein lies the problem; the uneasy relationship behind Ireland, the Industry and Ireland the Island.

Ireland the Industry is the cartoon of Ireland, embodied in the palatable, plastic Paddy with his slow-poured Guinness, wooden pipe and flat cap. He is a jolly figure, whose friendliness is interpreted as idiocy, and his regional focus as charmingly backward. Such is the force of this prescription that Ireland has been reduced to making an industry out of the caricature, a desperate measure for a desperate situation. But this must not be interpreted as acceptance, for the pragmatist is not unfamiliar with the realist.

Ireland the Island is the proud, but brow-beaten, alter-ego of Ireland the Industry. It realises the issues that have cloaked its counterpart, and constantly battles with the problems involved. It understands that it cannot change the populist perspective of Ireland, but rather wishes to inform outsiders, and invites them to experience the real Ireland. The vibrant revival of the Irish language and celebration of Irish music, dance and arts in all forms should be acknowledged as they are things that, in theory, should be championed across the four provinces. This camp also celebrates positive treatments of the island, pointing to events such as the visit of Queen Elizabeth II in 2011, the fine historical and social commentary on the island, and the increasing efforts to effectively console the North, rebuilding relations between the communities through a celebration of cultural assets they hold as part of a common heritage as people of this island.

This article does not wish to advocate external censorship or excessive political correctness, but to consider whether the concept of plastic paddies and bar brawls is as true a reflection of Ireland, just as the painting of other nationalities by their prescribed stereotypes. Instead, consider this an invitation for both inhabitants of the island and outsiders alike to reconsider Ireland without the lazy cloak of prejudice, and to form a sustainable and fair impression of Ireland that future generations can be proud of.

Image from: http://gawker.com/5783121/stop-pretending-like-you-care-about-st-patricks-day

The birth of the modern world, as we know it, began with the notion of nationalism. In an approach to develop independence, nations were constructed and lands divided. They provided comfort and security in a brave new world and their borders; lines on newly devised maps, defined them. Now, these lines are entrenched in our dialogue and debates; we speak as if they were an unquestionable constant. Of course, there is nothing revolutionary about securing territories. It is a common event when we flick through the histories of various civilisations. Yet the ‘nation state’ remains quintessentially modern.

In the last century, when lines became insufficient, we began building ‘walls’. The Berlin Wall represented an ideological dispute across our continent. Erected in August 1961, it was a menacing division within Germany’s capital. The concrete and metal grill covered fence ran the total length of 155 kilometres and towered almost four metres above the ground. It was matched with significant manpower to prevent any would-be climbers; its three hundred watchtowers manned by seven units who routinely patrolled the board with guard dogs.

Sadly, we never shed our terrible past. Even since the collapse of the Berlin Wall, walls have persisted as a useful devise to bring order to ‘troubled’ zones. In Israel, a theological jumble, we saw the propping up of the Gaza Strip Wall. Two years later, Yitzhak Rabin, remarked, “we [Israel] have to decide on separation as a philosophy. There has to be a clear border.” The Israelis were not alone. On August 29^th, 2008 the U.S. Department of Homeland Security decided to construct 190 miles (310 km) of pedestrian border fence and 154.3 miles (248.3 km) of vehicle border fence across its Mexican border.

Another century, another continent and another wall: ‘Fortress India’ now imposes another terrifying border control policy. Controlling territory from potential terrorist threats has become an imperative for this growing nation-state and, in turn, it has sought to tighten control of its Bangladeshi border. According to Odhikar, the Bangladeshi-based human-rights organization, the Border Service Forces have killed over twenty Bangladeshis and wounded over fifty so far this year. More shockingly, Human Rights Watch have confirmed that over the last decade, a total of 930 Bangladeshis have been killed.

I can hear the famous words of poet laureate, C. K. Williams who wrote:

“…we raised ever more walls, even walls
that might fail: Jericho shucked from its ramparts
men, women, old, young, all slaughtered
What did it matter? We believed still in our wall.”

Echoing C. K. Williams, I wonder: why do we still believe in our walls? Perhaps, it is the great curse of seeing nationalism flourish. Indeed, as we have seen, for a nation state to succeed it must provide stability. At its most basic, a state must reassure its citizens of land, resources and opportunities. Unfortunately, these rarely come in abundance and the fear of inadequacy requires the state to reassert itself; manifested through aggressive rhetoric, politics or armed retaliation. Walls are potent by providing the ammunition for these three to ingredients to fester; yet, walls also expose the nation-states unspoken fragility. Collectively, we tremble and submit to political insecurities. This is a great tragedy because, whether metaphorical or literal, walls will never resolve our conflicts and those who believe in striving for change must now speak up to abate this great fragility.

Luckily, this has already begun in regions like Israel with the support of organisations such as ‘JustVision’, which looks to “increase the power and legitimacy of Palestinians and Israelis working for non-violent solutions to the conflict”.

Art perceptively understood the power of walls and their strain on humanity. It has at least allowed me to start unearthing the fragility of the nation-state. The key lessons we should draw from the past (if at all possible) is to continue to question our defences, our status quo, and never fear proposing ideas that challenge our political pretensions. Always remembering the words of Frost’s ‘Mending Walls’:

“Before I built a wall, I’d ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out
And to whom I was like to give offence”

Photo Credits: Muhammed Muheisen/Associated Press

It gave a warm reminder of how this translation infused so many masterpieces from the works of Shakespeare and Tennyson to the words of Martin Luther King. What he said was also a timely focus on its value, along with an appreciation of the long list of idioms and phrases composed within it that are still in use today.

His speech was also a strong reminder of Christian values that have shaped Britain and made it one of the safer places in Europe for people of other religions. He proudly declared Britain a ‘Christian nation’ and rightly so, a point difficult to argue, when the 2001 census found that 70% of Brits would consider themselves Christian. After all, the talk of falling attendance to regular church services are no reflection of a person’s religiosity, which can only be self-defined and a matter between themselves and their deity.

Surprisingly though, when Cameron began to talk about the Christian values of Christian Britain he opened by quoting Margaret Thatcher and then listed a rather vague, all encompassing, list of words starting with ‘Responsibility’.

Odd, considering he had  spent the earlier part of his speech extolling the wisdoms to be found in the lines of the Bible. Anyone listening would have been expecting a few quotes from the great book, giving a strong indictment of some of society’s deep, underlying problems, but the quotes were not forthcoming and the examples he used were randomly chosen and lacked depth.

One wonders why he chose to focus on the ‘on-going terrorist threat from Islamist extremists’, when the number of those recorded attacks in Europe have dwindled to just one in the last year, and yet he chose not to mention that far-right and separatist groups accounted for nearly 200 attacks over the same period.

This was all the more strange when you consider ‘terrorist’ activities are far less of a danger to the lives of Brits than the liquid terror available on so many shop shelves. Perhaps Cameron could have mentioned that if all terrorist attacks, from all spectrums, are accounted for over the last 15 years, it equates to some 10,000 lost lives, which is less than the amount of people killed in that time on Britain’s roads through drink driving alone, let alone the hundreds of thousands who perish from alcohol-related illnesses. The speech could have been a platform to challenge this and remind Christian Britain of  one of The Bible’s lesser known quotes: ‘Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise’ (Proverbs 20:1) or a dozen other references on the same issue. Alcohol abuse is a bigger terror to British society than international terrorism could ever be.

Cameron then found a whip to crack against another unpopular group: The Bankers. He mentioned a lack of ‘responsibility’ leading to a flawed ‘moral code’ which ultimately ‘allowed some bankers… to behave with scant regard for the rest of society.’ Could he not have been more forthcoming and mention the long held Christian position of usury and interest being inherently anti-Christian: “If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him” (Exodus 22:25). A few rogue bankers may have blindly toppled the tower, but it was built on nothing but anti-Christian interest in the first place.

The points he mentioned are an attempted distraction or denial of deeper issues and he needlessly brought the idea of ‘Islamic’ ‘terrorism’ back on to the agenda a year after communities, police and other agencies have managed to bring  ‘Islamic terrorist’ attacks down to one and death count down to zero. Why would he pour such cold scornful water on all their hard work and show the ‘passive tolerance’ towards the underlying issues that plague society, like excessive alcohol consumption and the entirely flawed banking system, to name but two? This is akin to complaining of a drafty window when your roof is shattered.

If Cameron really wanted the ‘moral code’ of society to change with or without faith as a ‘push in the right direction’ perhaps he should take ‘responsibility’ as Prime Minister and clearly prioritise what the Kingdom’s problems are and then tell that to the British public who are deserving of the truth. It is not the big bad banker, or the ghost of Bin Laden under the bed, but the needed overhaul of a system that’s surely losing its post-war socialist heartbeat to a capitalist pacemaker that can flat line at will.

In essence Cameron should see to the real needs of the people first, then tuck them in and tell them some of those exaggerated ghost stories he seems to be so fond of and know so well.

Photo Credits: http://www.signsofthetimes.org.au/items/the-story-of-the-king-james-bible

So let me bring you up to “speed” (excuse the pun) with what has occurred recently. Scientists at CERN, the particle accelerator facility in Switzerland, found that on sending neutrinos from Switzerland to Italy, they reached there in a time scale of about 60 nanoseconds (a billionth of a second) faster than they should have. This is theoretically impossible, given that the ultimate known cosmic speed is that of the speed of light, which is around 300 million meters per second, or 186, 000 miles per second.

What’s wrong with that, you may ask? Well, nothing at all really. The only slight thing would be that it would contravene the maximum theoretical speed limit found by Einstein, proving the theories of relativity which we have followed for the best part of a century, as redundant, or at best, requiring slight modifications. Suffice to say that this has not been done yet, and no one has been able to challenge Einstein’s theories so far.

Such theories have served us tremendously, allowing us, amongst other things, the GPS system and the CRT in TV’s. This would not have been possible had we not taken relativistic effects into account. This result alone would also bring into question most other areas of modern day physics.

Firstly, it must be said that even though this is the second time these results have cropped up, they have not been entirely verified yet. Even if it does happen again in Switzerland, the tests would still have to be repeated, and the results corroborated, in places like Japan and the US before any meaningful implications can be drawn.

But before we jump to any weird and fanciful conclusions, let’s look at some of the seriously bizarre implications it would have for our understanding of causality itself. If the results are to be taken to be accurate, then this would automatically imply that the effects of events can take place before the event has actually occurred, i.e. the effect would precede the cause, and that in this very instance, the neutrinos were actually travelling back in time – something that would seem counter intuitive and illogical.

This automatically creates a paradox, as particles traveling close to the speed of light would require infinite energy, hence, setting up the idea for time travel to be possible. It also has to be said that faster than light travel (FLT) has not been proven to be impossible from a mathematical point of view, and usually requires hypotheses like the distortion of space-time, and existence of multiple dimensions, far more than the four-dimensions known to us.

So you should now see why this result would appear to be all the more important to verify, and why the eminent physicist and popular scientist, Professor Jim Al Khalili, has called for patience and restraint until we get to the bottom of things.

There is no doubt that if they are found to be accurate, and that’s a big IF, then obviously that would have serious ramifications for our understanding of the universe and how it operates. It would bring into question our current knowledge of reality as we know it, and send us back to the scientific drawing board – again, and this would make it one of the most profoundly important discovery of at least the last century, if not more, as Professor Brian Cox has said on the BBC.

Remember, this is not the first time that we have had to question our previously held notions. This is the very definition of science and the quest for knowledge within it. It is not a dogmatic discipline in which we stick to principles even when studies have proven otherwise. Many would say that this in essence is the very difference between science and religion.

Remember when many centuries ago, Galileo’s telescope vindicated the Copernican idea of heliocentrism, earning him the epithet “the father of modern science”, despite the immediate ramifications it had of him falling out of favour with the ruling Church. He is the one we still remember with reverence. His battle with the politicians of his day, is the very fight of, and for, science. In refusing to accept previously held notions without proof, he managed to bring about the existence of the scientific method, one based on inductive reasoning and logic.

Also Thomas Kuhn, the American historian and philosopher of science, who coined the famous phraseology, “paradigm shifts” in reference to competing theories of scientific knowledge ‘outdoing’ each other, as in the famous case of Einsteinium physics superseding Newtonian mechanics on the larger scale, proves that we shouldn’t be afraid of moving to newer paradigms, if that is indeed what is happening here now.

The only thing needed now for CERN to overshadow the rest of the gloomy news that pervades our airwaves and to get the rest of the population forgetting about who’ll be winning X-Factor this Saturday, would be also to claim that the so-called Higgs particle (God particle), for which the $9 billion LHC experiment was initially set up to find, doesn’t exist at all. Given that this was the main objective of one of the costliest scientific experiments of our age, this will be a shocking discovery.

CERN’s main goal was to address some of the most pertinent fundamental questions of our age and to check whether some of our best theoretical ideas about it are indeed correct. So if anything, even merely verifying whether the speed of light can be surpassed or not, would still be a major achievement in helping to advance our understanding of some of the fundamental laws of nature itself, providing further insight into some of the deepest philosophical questions about the world we inhabit.

Photo Credits: Image from http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-particles-neutrinos

The company has been commissioned to produce a specialized decorative wrap for the Olympic stadium.  Members of Parliament from across the political spectrum, former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone, and leading human rights groups including Amnesty International have expressed dismay at the London 2012 Organising Committee (LOCOG)’s decision and rumours have circulated regarding a possible Indian boycott. In protest to the deal, thousands of survivors of the disaster burned effigies of the chairman of London 2012, Lord Sebastian Coe, on Friday. A larger group of protestors blocked five of Bhopal’s train lines on Saturday 3 December, the 27^th anniversary of the disaster, in the face of fierce police beatings.

Gross negligence on the part of the Union Carbide Corporation, now a wholly owned subsidiary of Dow, culminated in a fatal explosion in a pesticide factory on 2-3 December 1984, releasing 40 tonnes of highly toxic gas which laid waste to one of the poorest regions in India.

As a result of the disaster, over 20,000 people have died, with the toll ever increasing owing to a lack of willingness on the part of those responsible to clean up the polluted site and the absence of compensatory funds for victims’ medical bills. Over 120,000 Bhopalis continue to languish with horrific injuries; methyl isocyanate – the main offending gas – ravaged central nervous systems, eyes, digestive and respiratory tracts, initiated spontaneous abortions in expecting mothers, and caused wave after wave of severe congenital abnormalities in the children of affected parents. The tragedy disfigured both those that clinged on to life on that fateful night, as well as those born decades later. An alarming array of cancers are today rife in the region today, largely owing to continuing wide scale environmental damage. Thousands of tonnes of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals remain abandoned in the old plant, seeping into basins from which locals are forced to extract drinking water.

Ken Livingstone has warned of a ‘crisis of legitimacy’ for the 2012 games over the Dow deal. Stressing that the ‘soul of the London Games’ is at stake, he added weight to calls for an abandonment of the package, which will be discussed at an Olympic Committee meeting on 5 December. Joining Mr Livingstone, 24 MPs, led by Labour’s Barry Gardiner and including former sports minister Tessa Jowell, have signed a petition asking Lord Coe to scrap the deal.

In a statement Barry Gardiner said; “when Dow accepted the award of the Olympic Wrap commission, their UK Managing Director bragged about Dow’s ‘strong commitment to sustainability’. This makes a mockery of the word, and is a stain on the ambitions of the Olympics. In no sense does Dow meet the high ‘environmental, social and ethical’ standards demanded by the Olympics and I urge LOCOG to think again to protect the Olympic legacy for Britain.”

For years both Union Carbide and its parent company have shown callous disregard for victims. Union Carbide famously engaged in a media blitz in the aftermath of the catastrophe denying the toxic effects of the gases, even though internal documents showed that they had labelled them ‘ultra-hazardous’. When they were forced to publicly accept this truth, they continued to deny any wrongdoing on their part. Fantastical conspiracy theories were instead peddled, including the insistence that it was an isolated incident involving a disgruntled former employee. In true Union Carbide fashion, Dow persists in its refusal to release the ingredients of the gas. This information is vital if medical practitioners are to appropriately treat the survivors and new victims of the disaster. .

Dow, backed by Lord Coe, stated in response to the recent uproar that it ‘never operated the plant’, having only bought Union Carbide in 2001. This overlooks the basic legal fact that liability transfers; a company cannot simply sell its way out of a mess. Union Carbide’s burden is today ultimately Dow Chemicals’. It certainly seemed to understand this fact when it purchased US companies caught up in asbestos litigation.

Another old defence regurgitated by Dow this past week involves its pointing to Union Carbide’s $470m settlement in 1989, stressing that the matter is now resolved. What it fails to tell us however, is the fact that even those victims lucky enough to receive anything were handed out the equivalent of seven pence per day. Moreover, we aren’t informed that this settlement was imposed upon the people of Bhopal by the state following a backroom deal between Rajiv Gandhi and the then Reagan government, bringing us to another ignoble aspect of Bhopal’s tragedy – that of Indian hypocrisy.

Though government affiliated sources in India have complained about the Dow Olympic deal – Chief Minister of Bhopal, Shivraj Singh Chauhan, has called for an all out boycott whereas the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) have spoken of ‘conveying concern’ to LOCOG – sadly, such opinions are hardly government policy. Even more disappointingly, it is rarer still for such outrage to materialise from upper echelons as a result of the government’s own role in the ongoing tragedy. Indeed it is the very same government that continues to block legal recourse for victims via its rotten judiciary, in what is the longest continuing stretch of cases in Indian history. Though lofty statements are often made in purported solidarity with affected people, the fact remains that to date, the government has refused even to supply clean water to the affected areas, let alone adequately punish individuals directly culpable.

Such hypocrisy has a long tradition. In the aftermath of the disaster, the Indian government saw to it that victims were excluded from the compensation process following highly suspect legal manoeuvring, trampling its very own constitution in the process. Tragically, pieces of legislation such as the Bhopal Gas Leak Processing of Claims Act (1985) snatched away the right of victims to make individual claims. As to why the government behaved in such a way against its own people is no doubt linked to the little known fact that it owned approximately half of Union Carbide’s shares at the time of the explosion; desperate not to be judged a joint tort-feasor, it ran away from the crime scene. It also feared a dip in foreign investment, were it to come down heavily on Union Carbide, a fact compounded in 2010 by leaked emails showing the US Deputy National Security Advisor Michael Froman threatening Indian officials: ‘the US is hearing a lot of noise about the Dow Chemical Issue… I think we want to avoid developments which put a chilling effect on investment’. Such concern for investment is likely the reason for which Tessa Jowwel was last week snubbed during her visit to India; perceived a potential trouble maker owing to recent anti-Dow remarks, her platform to speak at an official gathering was withdrawn last minute.

Labour heavyweight Keith Vaz stated on Thursday, “this is not the right kind of sponsorship for the world’s greenest Olympics”. Eyebrows have also been raised by Conservative MP Louise Mensch. Lord Coe however disagrees:  ”I absolutely stand by our procurement process and Dow was by a distance the most sustainable solution to our wrap and we are comfortable with that.”

No doubt a huge number of people worldwide would be able to testify as to Dow’s commitment to sustainability: perhaps survivors of the spraying of Dow-manufactured cancer-spreading Agent Orange and flesh-incinerating napalm responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia as well as the decimation of massive swathes of forest; families, perhaps, of victims of Saddam’s chemical experiments in Northern Iraq; inmates, possibly, experimented upon by the company in Philadelphia during the 1960s with the deadly chemical dioxin; maybe even those born in the aftermath of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, for which Dow produced several ingredients.

Equally arrogantly, Sebastian Coe has attempted to convey calm by playing down fears of a boycott. After reminding the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee that he bears the all-important qualification of being “the grandson of an Indian”, he alleged that the risk of a boycott had never been apparent. This, he thinks, makes everything alright. The biggest tragedy for his Lordship’s ilk no doubt would be a lack of Indian players in the Olympics and the accompanying negative PR. Sadly, his comments have been compounded by statements from the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) confirming that although opposition is rife it won’t be withdrawing from the games; a turn of events that has attracted the ire of campaigners.

The campaign before us however, must go on. As Londoners it is imperative that we make noise about this issue, write to our MPs, and email organisers. We cannot allow London 2012 to be brought in to disrepute by Dow’s blood stained fabric shroud. The spirit of the great games cannot be flogged for the sake of a deal bringing in 0.08% of the Olympic budget. Not to project our voices would be to silently condone the death and disability suffered by thousands from the Bhopal disaster so far, and many thousands who face the same fate in the years to come.

Photo Credits: Bhopal.net - http://bhopal.net/blog/2011/08/12/dow-tarnishes-the-image-of-the-olympics/

The financial predicament of British universities is something many of us are very familiar with. Following the government’s cuts on education, particularly in the Arts and Humanities that has jeopardised Britain’s global competitiveness, British education is in the throes of a crisis that only the exclusively educated cabinet appears inexcusably immune to. Coupled with an extraordinary hike in fees, education has been all but rendered the luxury commodity of the wealthy as in generations past. It has led many to question the value of an expensive qualification that, in the economic climate of the past few years, has too often failed to even guarantee a job.

Many, particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds, are now forced to question whether to go to university at all, both at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Others, like myself, have turned our sights abroad to the well-funded United States, signalling the beginning of Britain’s own “brain drain”. Those who cross the pond can enjoy the benefits of a commercialised system where affluent, world class institutions are able to offer superior levels of financing for their students, which British universities can only aspire to. They offer generous funding opportunities for postgraduate study and scholarship programmes for undergraduate study, which include sports scholarships. University facilities are often quite remarkable, even including large scale sports stadiums.

I am no advocate of the privatisation and commercialisation of something I consider a basic human right. But I do believe there are a few lessons to be learnt from the system of higher education in the States. Most universities in the US hold a remarkably strong and commercialised sports culture. While education should not be subject to commercialisation, I believe sport is a different matter. Athletics is one of four major categories alongside Academics, Quality of Life and Cost that US universities are comparatively ranked on. Universities take their position on sports leagues as importantly as they do academic leagues, with over $1 billion being directed towards sports scholarships for talented young players if they portray athletic promise. Competitions are taken very seriously, drawing thousands to the stadiums and securing viewership and coverage comparable to Britain’s Football Premier League. Games are shown on major sports channels, including ESPN, and played live on screens at restaurants, cafes and bars. Tickets for games aren’t cheap either: starting at $70 for a basic seat. The more affluent attendee can book luxury booths (yes, the university stadiums even have these) with exclusive views, VIP service and quality catering. The whole thing is an exceptionally commercialised affair, drawing on the remarkable loyalty US universities determinedly nurture in their students. As far as such athletic competitions at universities go, it is expected that they draw some attention, but certainly not on quite such a scale. Why all the fuss?

The games attract thousands of students, both locals and alumni. In the case of the latter, many fly in from across the country for the game, bringing their wallets and chequebooks with them to donate to their beloved institution and encourage the coveted athletes. The significant attention received also draws major corporations to sponsor the games. It is a substantial source of revenue, and sports scholarships are given to those students whose athletic prowess promises to draw further commercial success and revenue from alumni attendees, donations and sponsors. Just as students of academic prowess are valued for their contribution to improving the institution’s academic success, so students of athletic ability are valued for their contribution to athletic success. The level of attention and commercial success the games achieve is astonishing. This, combined with the powerful attachment students hold towards their institutions that lead them to donate in the millions.

It strikes me we’ve missed a trick in Britain. Those of us who have been through British universities will probably fail to recall any significantly publicised university game, apart from the back page of student newspapers, let alone keep track of them following graduation. Many of us, unless actually involved or a keen athlete, will barely know a university team even exists. Publicity is minimal, teams are low profile and games are relatively muted. Loyalty exists, but not quite at the level it reaches in the States. Less still are translated into significant financial donations. Sports scholarships – something that in the current exorbitant fees climate many students could benefit from – are non-existent. In the absence of a commercialised sports culture, there is no call to sponsor a student who will not draw an audience and generous donations as they do in the US.

The American universities’ sport culture is something I believe we, in Britain, can and should learn a lesson from.  Drawing on the combined passion for a sport and loyalty to an institution, this is an opportunity for British universities to strengthen the bonds with current students, retain the attachment of former students and secure financial gain for their ailing institutions. These funds can then be directed to reducing tuition fees to affordable levels, financially supporting disadvantaged students and funding the research that renders our institutions the world class centres of learning they are. And for those of us who have sought our fortunes elsewhere, it may finally provide an opportunity to come home.

Image from http://espndeportes.espn.go.com/caribbean/?page=caribbean&topId=1426084&site=10

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), commonly known as drones, are aircrafts piloted remotely using wireless technology. Most military drones are fairly small and used over distances of a few kilometres for intelligence and reconnaissance purposes. Over the past few years however, we have witnessed the rapid rise in the use of armed drones such as the Predator and the Reaper by US and British forces, to launch attacks at great distances, while the operators sit safely in air-conditioned trailers over 7,000 miles away. It is not just the US and the UK that are using drones: Israel too has used armed drones to launch attacks in Gaza; Italy has been using drones over Libya; and it is estimated that over forty other countries are now trying to buy or develop their own drones.

While supporters of unmanned systems like drones argue that they are, in effect, the same as piloted aircrafts, others are beginning to see that by removing one of the key restraints to warfare – the risk to one’s own forces – unmanned systems seem to be making armed attacks much more likely. What is clear is that this year alone US forces have been engaged in armed conflicts in six separate countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan), something that many military experts are saying would not be possible without the use of drones.

Drones are also eroding legal and human rights. In Pakistan and Yemen for example, the CIA are using drones to undertake assassinations of individuals placed on a so-called “high value target” list. The high-profile targeted killing of US-born cleric Anwar al-Alwaki in September is just the latest example. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have condemned such killings and the UN Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial killing has repeatedly called on the US to justify the use of drones to target and kill individuals under current international law.  Although the UK has never officially confirmed that it operates a High Value Target list, it has hinted that it does so, and a recent presentation at an MoD conference in Cardiff told the delegates to assume, “that a HVT list was agreed and maintained.”

As well as targeted killing, drones are being used to deliver what the military call ‘persistent presence’. Without on-board pilots, drones are able to loiter over a particular area for hours, days, and even weeks, enabling weapons operators and intelligence analysts back at base to scrutinise particular areas, looking for ‘targets of opportunity’. It is suggested that this way of using drones is leading to high civilian casualty rates, and it is perhaps easy to see why. With young servicemen and women subjected to long hours of boredom whilst in control of lethal technology, mistakes are bound to be made. While the secrecy surrounding the circumstances of drone strikes makes these allegations difficult to prove, a NATO enquiry into an attack on a convoy in Afghanistan in February 2010, in which 23 civilians were killed, reported that drone operators had “downplayed” the presence of civilians as they wanted an attack to go ahead.

Earlier this year the British MoD has admitted for the first time that it had killed Afghan civilians in a drone strike in March 2011. Responding to a parliamentary question about the deaths, David Cameron said, “I do not think that the answer is to turn our face away”. Unfortunately the Prime Minister was not suggesting that we would of course face up to our responsibilities to these innocent victims, but was, rather predictably arguing that we cannot turn away from drone technology; as he put it, it is “taking out” the bad guys.

In the US too, officials argue that drones are efficiently and carefully taking out only the ‘bad guys’. John Brennan, a former member of the CIA and currently a senior counter terrorism advisor to President Obama, has been mocked in the mainstream press for arguing in response to questions about drone strikes in Pakistan that, ’for the past year there hasn’t been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, [and] precision of the capabilities that we’ve been able to develop’. Those claims were shown to be patently untrue by the excellent research work on drone strikes in Pakistan by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. The BIJ, working with local researchers, journalists and lawyers in Pakistan, have uncovered hundreds of civilian deaths including those of more than 160 children, in drone strikes in Pakistan over the past seven years.

Military planners are also pushing for greater autonomy for drones and other unmanned systems. Some are even arguing that the autonomous systems themselves will be better at making the decision about when and where to fire weapons, than humans. Gordon Johnson, formerly of the Joint Forces Command at the Pentagon, commenting on the growth of robotic systems, suggested that; “They don’t get hungry. They’re not afraid. They don’t forget their orders. They don’t care if the guy next to them has just been shot. Will they do a better job than humans? Yes.”

Many in government and the military may see drones as the ‘perfect weapons for a war weary nation on a tight budget’, as one journalist recently put it. They are much cheaper than traditional piloted aircrafts, they enable the military to undertake armed attacks at little or no risk and their use is more easily kept secret. However both the military and the drone industry recognise that a major obstacle to the continued use of drones – in particular their use for non-military security and surveillance purposes – is the ‘public perception’ of drones. They recognise, as they put it, that the public has a ‘natural scepticism’ about the use of unmanned drones. It’s no coincidence then that we have seen a steady rise in stories about how drones and other unmanned systems could potentially be used for good purposes such as search and rescue, wildlife monitoring and environmental surveys; the idea of the ‘killer drone’ needs to be overcome.

A bleak future of armed autonomous drones waging war around the globe is seemingly just a short step away. The time has come to have a serious debate about how to prevent such a future and ensure that drone technology is used for good not ill.

I want to talk about the e-petition. There are so many holes in the concept of a petition that calls for the population not to reach 70 million that it’s hard to know where to begin. Firstly, and most importantly, the petition is based on a false premise. It says that according to official figures the population is predicted to reach 70 million by 2029. However the Office for National Statistics does not make predictions for the future; it makes projections based on current trends. Why is this small nuanced difference important? Well, because previous population predictions, using then current trends, have proved wildly inaccurate. For example, in 1965 the official projection was that the UK would possess a population of 75 million by 2000 when it in fact it was just under 60 million, a not-so-small difference.

Daily Mail readers were spitting out their cornflakes up and down the country back in August when they read the headline “Immigration up 20 %”, with Sky News adopting a similar line. However on closer inspection it becomes apparent that this statistic was patently wrong. In 2010, the number of immigrants coming to the UK was 575,000 and in 2009 it was 567,000 – a measly 1.4 per cent rise which would barely make page 23 of the Daily Express. But why let the truth get in the way of a good headline? And where does this mythical 20 per cent figure come from? As the graph from the ONS illustrates, the level of immigration has been relatively stable since 2004. It was net migration (the number of immigrants minus emigrants) that increased by 20 per cent in 2010.

This is a hugely important difference as the government has direct control over the number of people entering the country but little influence over the number of people leaving. The fact of the matter is, the rise in net migration is more to do with a fall in emigration, not a rise in immigration. So, really, if David Cameron and the coalition want to lower net migration then they should probably try and encourage more people to leave the country (although with the current economic conditions and austerity measures you’d be forgiven for thinking that that was exactly what they are trying to do!).

This negative press attention contributes to a growing resentment towards immigration. We often read that immigrants are a drain on our resources – ironically, accused of being lazy benefit scroungers and, simultaneously, “coming over here, taking our jobs”. From an economist’s perspective it’s worth pointing out that there is no finite number of jobs in our economy and our economic system is fluid, governed by the laws of supply and demand. One job for an immigrant does not equal one less job for a Briton. That particular migrant is going to pump his or her wages into the economy every month whether to buy food, clothes, pay for dentists or any number of things that people spend money on. A research piece by UCL shows that newcomers from Eastern Europe paid 37 per cent more taxes than they received from public services, compared to the average Briton who paid in 20 per cent less than they received. To put it into simpler terms, immigrants are not a drain on the welfare state – they are helping to pay for it. Not to mention all the migrants who help provide public services be they doctors, nurses, cleaners or other service provider. In a country with such a rapidly ageing population like Britain, we need to grow our workforce to help pay for those who have retired and are living increasingly longer lives. If we stop letting immigrants in, then who is going to make up the numbers?

The UK is undoubtedly one of the richest countries in the world. With every additional worker we will become richer still. If the prediction of 70 million is realised we may well surpass Germany as the largest economy in Europe. Yes, there are certain infrastructure issues with a growing population – more houses have to be built, more schools, hospitals, and so on – but with an increase in working population, there is also an increase in tax revenue to help pay for it. That is the intrinsic nature of development. Surely, we’d prefer building more schools to meet local needs, rather than closing down current ones because there are not enough children being born.

Instead of focusing on an arbitrary population figure, or legislating against  factors that really can’t be controlled without strict birth planning policies, a much more constructive debate would be about what criteria we should set for those entering the country.

There are many reasons why I will not sign the No to 70 Million e-petition. Chiefly because I believe that we’re in a much better position as a country, economy and society with immigration than we would be without it. I don’t know what Britain, as a country, would be like with no outside influence and hopefully, I’ll never find out.

Photo Credits: Andy Rain/EPA

These questions may seem like a joke, and they partly are, but, unfortunately, I think I’m also being serious. We have turned into a nation of smartphone addicts, and the affliction is starting at a younger and younger age. Just last week, my three-year old nephew taught me how to buy Angry Birds on the App Store (after which I wasn’t allowed to play it because I wasn’t as good as him).

This revelation, of course, isn’t new or unique, but as a firm advocate of real life conversations I feel I need to speak up. However, to improve the horribly pretentious tone I seem to have adopted, I’m going to go ahead and admit that I’m completely guilty of everything I have just mentioned. I will do just about anything to avoid talking on the phone to anyone. Even my mum calling me makes me nervous; the trick is to keep the phone always on silent so that when I text back saying ‘OH EM GEE I’m SO sorry I missed your call, my phone was on silent!’ despite the fact that I watched my phone ringing. I don’t know why but I have an irrational fear of talking on the phone – most likely due to my irrational fear of awkward silences.  After discussing my phobia with my friends, I realised that the population is comprised of two kinds of people: ‘callers’ and ‘texters’.  Apparently, I’m a texter.  Thankfully, this is all I have to admit since declining the procedure to have my iPhone surgically attached to my hand (which was offered free with the purchase of my 10,000^th app).

However, it’s not all bad. Thanks to instant messaging in the palm of our hands, multitasking has finally been extended to both genders. Having an exclusively one-on-one conversation with someone is a thing of the past, what with BBM calling every 3 seconds and an email alert every 4, you can converse with up to 6 people at once. This new modern world sounds great! Or so it seems. Unfortunately, the person physically sat in front of you will become awkwardly forgotten – left mid-sentence by you and your over-enthusiastic Blackberry. That’s right BBM, I’m blaming you.

Right next to instant messaging are self-service machines in supermarkets. In theory, these are very quick and convenient (though apparently the majority of London’s population do find the concept of ‘something unexpected in the bagging area’ very confusing). The other obvious advantage of self-service, apart from the lack of judgement of what you are buying, is the avoidance of talking to the cashier. I didn’t realise how much I did dread this until I found myself waiting in the longest self-service queue so that I wouldn’t have to take my headphones out and tell the cashier that I will never want cash back. Combine this with three years of learning how to expertly avoid the gaze of every single person in a packed tube train, and you have a successfully isolated individual in one of the world’s busiest cities. But at least I have 420 Facebook friends.

One mustn’t forget that BBM, iPhones, and other similar devices, aren’t a substitute for human interaction, and ‘facebook stalking’ isn’t a substitute for actually getting to know someone. Like sliced bread, smartphones and wireless internet are some of the world’s greatest inventions, and like sliced bread, they save us lots of time and effort. So let’s use this time wisely and have a nice cosy chat with a friend – one at a time though.

In my lapel buttonhole I’ve worn a red poppy all week. All of my colleagues have done likewise. That is not unexpected. I serve as Dean of the Royal Air Force College. Unlike nearly all my RAF College colleagues, I am also a Muslim. I chose to embrace the faith of Islam because of its powerful spiritual truths, its emphasis on peace and justice, its racial and ethnic inclusiveness and its charitable spirit towards the poor and needy. And despite recently suffering a hateful Islamophobic tabloid newspaper attack and having received hate mail occasionally from English Defence League types, I simply love being a Muslim. Interestingly, the tabloid “rag” that attacked me did so by using the same basic argument as that of the haters from the EDL. Islam’s values, they insist, are not compatible with the West’s.

Every now and then I also receive criticism from Muslims who naively chastise me for remaining in my job. How can I live with my conscience, they ask, when I am involved in preparing young men and women to fight overseas for Britain? Ironically, the argument of these Muslims is identical to that of the Islamophobes: Islam’s values, they insist, are not compatible with the West’s.

I reject this argument. I consider it equally unsustainable when it is made by Muslim-haters and by Muslims. I consider the values — the assumptions that should form the basis of all ethical behaviour — of both the West and the Islamic world to be strikingly similar.

Both sides fail to see the compatibility of their overarching values. They focus on the failings and shortcomings of “the other” and ignore the fact that, for all humans everywhere, higher values are aspirational in nature and, sadly, never actually practiced by everyone in their own communities at all times. The corruption in both the Western and the Islamic worlds are testament to this. So are the jail inmate populations in both.

Yet no one in either sphere would deny that it is better to have higher values than not to have them, even though the frailties and flaws of human nature rob societies of the ability to function ideally according to their values. Individuals and communities function best, in my view, when they follow the type of clear moral codes found in holy scriptures, but the defects and shortcomings of human nature do not plague only atheists. They trouble everyone. Even those of us, irrespective of where we live, who choose to follow what we believe are God’s rules.

This brings me back to the poppy. I recognise that all communities make mistakes because, after all, they are composed of imperfect humans, some of whom serve as imperfect leaders. Sometimes these all-too-human leaders take their countries to war.

Have all of the West’s wars been perfectly just? Have Britain’s? No, they have not. Have all Islamic wars been perfectly just? No, they have not been either. Both the West and the Islamic world have strict codes governing the morality of warfare, an activity which both identify as being the most destructive of all human actions. Readers might be interested to learn that the Western moral code governing warfare is — again, at a conceptual and aspirational level — strikingly similar to that found within the Qur’an and the Sunnah. It is merely expressed differently.

I am often frustrated by how seldom Western states and Islamic states get things absolutely morally right when they go to war. Moral slips are sadly too frequent. Yet, aware of the unparalleled evils of the Third Reich and other deviant regimes which once chose to set aside morality in war, I remain convinced that it is far better for states to have moral codes governing wars (however idealistic in nature) than not to have them.

Yes, these moral codes governing war are aspirational — much like our wider societal values — but state leaders and armed forces nowadays do try, with varying degrees of commitment and effort, to follow them. In recent decades I have seen some wars waged by Western states which followed the Just War code with commendable strictness. I have occasionally personally questioned the commitment to that code by leaders who have initiated other wars rather more recklessly. I have also seen the same broad range of moral indiscipline in wars initiated by, and sometimes fought between, Islamic states.

What, then, of the soldiers who serve in good faith and perish and suffer in those wars of varying justness? I take the view that the safety and security of the state and its citizens is a solemn and heavy responsibility and that the soldiers, sailors and airmen who choose to risk their lives to protect their compatriots therefore deserve great thanks. War is unquestionably a frightening, bloody business. It is no easier for westerners than for Muslims. For everyone who enters military service believing in the rightness of defending their communities and their values, war remains a cruel and unpalatable activity.

I wear a poppy to offer my respectful thanks to those soldiers, sailors and airmen who died while trying to preserve our country and the wider cause of world peace. They included tens of thousands of Muslims, by the way. I thank them all. Have our servicemen and women sometimes died for wars with political goals that I would personally disagree with? Yes. Should their sacrifice be forgotten, devalued or insulted as a consequence? No, it should not.

With quiet reflection we should see “Poppy Day” as a sad and solemn day of commemoration. We should remember the fallen without adding our judgements of the political circumstances that led those men and women into the horror of war and ultimately, lamentably, to their deaths. There are 364 other days in the year when we can and should peacefully demand that our governments, in whatever country we live (Western or Muslim), desist from any behaviour that falls short of our values. On our national remembrance days, however, we should focus our minds on the human tragedy: the deaths of those who fought for us and the pain of their loss to their bereaved families and friends.

Photo Credits: Getty Images