ladyjulian

I don't get paid until Monday but Minx, damn her, is having a sale. And Minx sales never last until the next payday. So I threw financial caution to the winds and invested in one of these Pearl Izumi jackets. Foul colour, but that was the only one that was both in my size and in the sale.

Generally I commute in a short sleeve base layer and windproof long sleeve jacket. That's usually all I need for anything other than mid-January cold weather, or for pissing rain. In pissing rain I have two choices: get wet, or put on a waterproof and get too hot, and dampish. My commute is just over 11km - not far enough to risk hypothermia but far enough to get uncomfortable.

I'm hoping this jacket is going to be good enough to be a windproof and waterproof all in one. If it is, then it'll be the first cycling jacket to manage both at the same time.

The National Identity Register is "up and running," according to this news article.

Residents of Greater Manchester - an area with a population of 2,562,200 according to wiki - can now apply to be on the database, along with 51 registrable pieces of information about themselves.

It's had a huge take-up of, er, 538 people, or 0.0002%.

What a rip-roaring success that is then!

According to some new research, quoted with suspicion here in the Telegraph.

[rant] Well, that's bloody obvious, innit? My brief forays into representing parents in the family courts has shown bad parenting, dysfunctional parenting, downright crap parenting, and it all has one thing in common: "accidental" children. Now there are brilliant parents who had kids by mistake (according to family history I wasn't planned, and my parents were great) but where you have parenting so bad that social services want to remove the children from the parent, there is that one common denominator: accidental kids. There are always other factors, sure, alcohol, drugs, poverty, parent's own upbringing are regular appearances, but pretty much every one that I've seen has had that child accidentally.

Lesbians who want children don't get accidentally preggers. It's months or years of spending vast sums of money on IVF, or finding a donor, which involves meticulous planning, endless discussion about who gets what sort of parental rights, if the donor even wants rights. It's legal agreements and hours of negotiations and that's before a sperm gets anywhere near an egg. One thing children of lesbian parents are never going to be is unplanned,

Secondly, the research suggests children of lesbian parents are more aspirational. Do we think this could have the tiniest bit to do with the fact that lesbians who can afford four rounds of IVF aren't going to be on the breadline?

I'm sure if they did an identical study of heterosexual parents who conceived with IVF they'd find the same applied.

[/rant]

However, the comments on Times Online are brilliant - they can't decide whether to reject the study because it's positive to gay parents, or whether to like it because it feeds into the narrative that women are genetically programmed to be nurturing caregiving yadda yadda yadda. Heh.

I read this story today about a Methodist minister in Bolton who allows his church hall to be used as a drop-in for refugees and asylum seekers, and consequently is on the wrong end of poison pen letters from people who have no idea how refugee law works.

It doesn't surprise me particularly - at my first firm, we put up snazzy signs in the window advertising our areas of work: within 24 hours there was a brick through the part of the window labelled "immigration and asylum."

It does remind me though how important the Refugee Council's two key campaigns are: Let Them Work, and Still Human Still Here.

Asylum seekers in the UK are not allowed to work - this is meant to discourage 'economic migrants' from making false asylum claims when what they actually want is a job. Unfortunately it also means that asylum seekers are compelled to claim NASS support (set at 70% of income support) which leaves them both below the poverty line and also open to accusations of 'scrounging.'

If their claims are rejected, then the NASS support ends. For those who were false claimants the easy answer is just to go home, but it's never that simple. Some people cannot establish a real risk of persecution under the Refugee Convention (where you have to show that persecution is targeted at you specifically due to your race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a social group) but cannot return because it's just too dangerous. Think Iraq. Some fear that the mere act of claiming asylum abroad will leave them open to abuse on return - China, DRC and Zimbabwe. Some simply got a wrong decision, and are waiting for further evidence to try to prove a case that has been disbelieved. What happens to them?

The government has a short answer: starve them out. With no further access to NASS support, the lucky ones will manage to stay with friends who can provide accommodation and food. Those who speak English might try to enter the black economy - risky, and exploitative. The rest end up street-homeless and desperate.

Centres like the one run by the Rev. Phil Mason of the original story above, or PAFRAS in Leeds, and dozens of other philanthropic ventures are vital. Some provide blankets. PAFRAS offers food parcels, and a hot meal, at their drop-ins. It's a hideous, Dickensian situation, and those who offer humanity and compassion should be getting praise, not hate mail.

I saw this report on the BBC, entitled "UK child migrants apology planned," and optimistically imagined that the PM was going to be apologising to the child immigrants currently detained in Yarls Wood.  Sadly not: he's apologising instead to the children who were sent to Australia between 1930 - 1970.  Whilst their situation certainly deserves an apology, it's pretty hypocritical for the government to be wringing their hands over one generation of abused child migrants whilst implementing policies which abuse another generation.

The Australian survivors of the Child Migrant Program might feel a sense of affinity with the Yarls Wood kids.  "Cruelty" "hardship" and "psychological damage" feature heavily in both.

Phil Woolas has repeatedly said that Yarls Wood has improved (the centre might have done; the procedures for arresting and locking up children haven't) but has never denied the truth of that damning report: where is their apology?

I was at the Asylum & Immigration Tribunal at Bradford yesterday, where they are civilised and have television in the waiting room.  Usually, if you're waiting to be heard, you're subjected to Cash in the Attic and Jeremy Kyle, but yesterday I got to watch the whole of the Westminster Abbey Remembrance Day service (thanks GSL - your inability to bring the detained clients 10 miles down the road for a 10am hearing finally came in handy!)

It was a good service.  The clergy said the right things in the right places, and the choir did a beautiful rendition of Guest's "For the Fallen."

And then it got to 11am, and the bells rang, and the choir stopped, and the AIT's tinny loudspeaker informed us that we were all doing the two minutes silence. 

The camera crew up on the telly were panning in on the grave of the unknown soldier, the wreaths, and so on, and then they did a sweep over the shiny faces of the assorted dignitaries there.  And then the two minutes were over, and they got more close ups of the shiny faces mouthing "never again," as the service went on.

It made me quite angry.  I was sitting in a room packed full of people who had been displaced and traumatised by wars which those same shiny faces bear responsibility for.  I was opposite an Afghan kid; there was an Iraqi family next to me, a group of Congolese people at the end of the row - all sitting silently to remember the dead of what was meant to be the "war to end all wars." 

What a shame the shiny ones don't have the same commitment to "never again" the other 364 days of the year.

There's a judicial review underway at the High Court, and I'm going to be fascinated to hear the outcome.

It concerns a couple who met and married at the same time as the immigration rules changed to raise the age limit for sponsorship of a spouse or partner to 21. 

It's one of the most ludicrous changes to legislation I've seen.  It was introduced, ostensibly, to combat forced marriage.

The research conducted for the Home Office concluded quite vigorously that a change in the rules to raise the age limit would not improve things, and that there were significant risks attached to a rise in the age limit: specifically, that instead of sponsoring their spouse to join them in the UK, young women at risk of forced marriage would simply be removed to another country to live in the marriage until they were 21.  The research concluded that a rise in the age limit was not supported.

So what did UKBA do in response to that?  Well, they ignored the research altogether and did it anyway, giving serious support to the contention that they were only after a drop in the number of non-EU residence applications and really couldn't give a toss about the plight of women forced into marriage against their will. 

The research did make a number of recommendations, namely that women who were found to have been forced into marriage should be entitled to stay in the UK without having to remain with an abusive spouse; that increased funding was needed for specialist support to women in forced marriages, including for specialist services such as refuges and mental health support; that funding should also extend to improving services internationally including for women's groups, helplines, campaigns and poverty alleviation programmes targeted at women. 

What did UKBA do in relation to these recommendations?  That's right, absolutely nothing.

There's a brilliant article from the Feminist Legal Journal on how the new laws are discriminatory on race and gender grounds here, which says everything I wanted to but more coherently.  What really galls me about this is not that UKBA paid out for research they had no intention of following, but that they assume that anyone watching will agree with them that upping the age limit is a reasonable way to combat forced marriage.  The issue is clearly one of female disempowerment: it must be wrong that rather than looking at ways to empower the women they seek to protect, UKBA simply infantilises them by removing their choice at all.

Excellent article today from Ian Birrell in the Independent about the importance of language in preventing hate crime.

Reading it I was taken back to The Great Hi-Viz Jacket debate on a forum that no longer exists.  This was before I'd even heard of the concept of privilege, and the topic was whether it was okay to refer to a hi-viz jacket for cycling as a spacker-jacket.  At the time I was moderately on the side of 'not if it offends people' but couldn't quite put my finger on why it wouldn't be okay if it was said outside the hearing of those who might be offended.

A few years later (yes, it's been that long, for anyone reading who remembers the epic thread on the subject) and I'm slightly more aware of privilege: where I have it, where I don't, and why language is such a major part of privilege.  If that debate was reignited (and please gods, let's not) I would be quite firmly in the camp of 'definitely not okay,' and better able to articulate why not.  Using gay, spacker, retard, lame, gurl, and other words to mean 'rubbish' only reinforces the narrative of inferiority.

Besides which, it's possible to come out with perfectly colourful insults without resorting to terms which reference race, sex, ability or orientation.  So if the individual I called a frothingly ignorant asshat reads this, I'm sure s/he realises I was in no way using the phrase in a way that was designed to cause offence. 

A new initiative from CTC:  Stop SMIDSY.

SMIDSY is of course the acronym Sorry Mate I Didn't See You, the mantra called cheerfully from inside a car as you pick yourself up from the floor and wonder if your forks are still intact.  It's the chirp that accompanies a 'genuine accident,' one in which the motorist didn't chance his luck, or not bother to check his mirrors, or floor it in the hope of getting past you in time.  Known to police as "looked but failed to see," these are some of the most common traffic collisions. 

Of course, SMIDSY is also often called by those who didn't see because they weren't looking.  Or didn't see because they were too busy on the phone, changing the radio station, lighting a fag or unwrapping a cheeseburger.  Or who didn't see because they didn't check their mirrors before pulling out for an exasperated u-turn, or to grab a just-seen-it parking space, or to change lanes at the last minute.  And to that end the CTC are hoping to record 'near misses' in order to change the political will to penalise bad driving. 

This month's Evil Tabloid Monstah, Vanessa George, has admitted to abusing six children at the nursery where she worked.  Experts say they are too young to be scarred in any way by what has happened.  The public want her shot.  Eight children a day are killed or critically injured by cars on the roads of the UK, dead or scarred for life, by members of that same public.  How can these things be simultaneously true?

At the moment, bad driving is seen as a fact of life, an act of the traffic gods, and it's that which needs to change.  Why should anybody be allowed to propel a ton of metal through a busy shopping street or residential area whilst simultaneously trying to read a map or reprogram the SatNav?  Why is it accepted that if you want to cycle or walk across a road, you are taking your life in your hands and the onus for safety is deflected onto the vulnerable? 

And it is:  just look at the comments on the Guardian's report on Stop SMIDSY.  But... cyclists disobey the law too!  But... they run red lights, Miss, I saw him do it just now he did!  The verdict there seems to be that  unless cyclists as a body are beyond reproach, it's okay to endanger their lives.

Short message to the Grauniad's commenters:  a closed mouth gathers no foam.

But srsly?  The bad behaviour of a few means that cyclists as a group deserve no protection from bad motorists?  Bad road behaviour is not a zero-sum game.  If there is the political will to deal with the most dangerous item on the agenda: bad driving, then the roads will be a more pleasant place for everyone - not just cyclists, but other motorists too.  At the moment, the implicit message is that cyclists somehow deserve to be knocked off their bikes as punishment for being in the way or doing something which the driver believes to be illegal (filtering, chaps, is not illegal.)  That tells me Stop SMIDSY is long overdue.

I've got a little friend riding on my pannier rack for the evening.

Another helping of “journalism” from Jan Moir.  Reading it is rather like eating cold lumpy porridge – unpleasant even if you’re desperate.

This time, she’s not gaybashing, she’s bleating that she would have said exactly the same thing about a heterosexual bloke, hints darkly that her freedom of expression is being stifled by a mob of gayers, and basically, it’s all so unfair.

Let’s ignore, temporarily, the way that she manages to repeat the offence (the “sleazy” lifestyle is now merely “louche,” and the fact that the couple brought a friend home has now developed into a full blown shagathon.)

The freedom of expression point ("Can it really be that we are becoming a society where no one can dare to question the circumstances or behaviour of a person who happens to be gay without being labelled a homophobe?") is just whining.  No, you can question his behaviour as much as you like, it’s just that where you see ‘questions’ where nobody else does, other people might express themselves just as freely as you did. 

But it struck me that she might have a point in saying she would have been just as spiteful and salacious over a heterosexual singer’s death.  After all, she has form for wallowing in other people’s misery.

Particularly on the subject of civil partnerships.  She says she’s on record as “supporting” them, but what did she actually say?  Before the icing was even dry on the wedding cakes, she was already breathlessly waiting for the first round of gay divorces:

Is it too soon to point out that I can't wait for the first of the high-profile gay divorces to start happening?

And it’s not just divorce that appeals to Jan.  No, what she likes is a really good death.  Before Jade Goody had even died, Jan was hovering around like a vulture ready to pick at the carcass.  As Jade’s terminal cancer wore on, Jan’s sympathy extended to sniffing that it was a “good career move” that “wrapped her in a cloak of respectability and public affection.”  Yeah, I bet Max Clifford recommends cervical cancer to all his clients.  But even that’s not enough for the ghoulish Moir.  No, she pecks at that last little snippet of juicy meat on the bones, with “the terminally ill Goody will die as she has lived; viewed through a lens for public vilification and mockery.”  Don't just twist that knife, Jan.  Pull it out and lick it clean.

Or how about the tragic rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl?  Surely that would be a carrion feast too far for even Jan?  Nope, Stacey Lawrence was fed into the Moir Machine, and it turns out to be her mother’s fault for “letting a monster into the heart of her family life.” Never mind that the facts pointed towards this being unforseeable.  Jan wants a scapegoat, and the grieving mother will do just fine.

So maybe that was the most honest thing Jan Moir has said about her venomous little article.  It would have been (nearly) the same if it had been a heterosexual man who had died.  Because getting beak-and-talons into the rotting flesh of an unforeseeable tragedy to pull out the still-warm entrails of victim-blaming and premature censure is exactly what she does best.

In this post, I grinked Islington on the subject of installing a whole load of speed humps in a traffic free street which runs parallel to the appalling Essex Road.

I've had a response.

Dear Mr Norman

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REF No: 28351

Thank you for your information request, received on 25 September.

You requested the following information: 

1.  How many pedestrians have been killed or seriously injured (KSI) as a result of an incident caused by, or involving, collision with a bicycle on Douglas Road South in the period 2006 - 2009?

Details of KSI stats on Douglas Road are unavailable as it is not a public highway. 

2.  How many pedestrians and cyclists have been killed or seriously injured (KSI) as a result of an incident caused by, or involving, collision with a motor vehicle on Essex Road in the period 2006 - 2009?

 There have been a total of 7 KSIs on Essex Road between 2006 and 2009 involving pedestrians and cyclists.  None of the injuries were fatal.

3.  What was the net total cost of installing the new speed humps on Douglas Road South ?

The net total cost of installing the speed humps on Douglas Road South was £6,750.  The speed humps were installed during following several meetings with the Tenants and Residents Association and other residents from this area. During the discussions, it was mentioned that there had been a number of near misses and potential H&S impacts regarding cyclists and kids using the area.

It was "mentioned"?  There were "near misses" and "potential H&S impacts"?  And for that, they've made the whole of Douglas Road South inaccessible not only to bikes but also pushchairs, wheelchairs, electric scooters and the elderly, and pushed the problem back out onto Essex Road?

Really, the only answer to 'cyclists on rat runs in Islington' is to address the terrifying roads and myopic drivers there.  But that might cost slightly more than £6k.

Shabby.

Dear David,

I read your contribution to the debate about improving road safety for pedestrians and cyclists.  I read the Hansard notes, and I read the Chairman's comments which say that while the UK is ranked 5th out of 24 countries for road deaths per 100,000, it drops to 17th out of 24 when that figure is restricted to child pedestrian deaths.

I'd like to invite you out on a bike ride, David.  Come out with me and my cycling friends, and you'll see that the majority of cyclists are perfectly law-abiding.  We don't jump red lights.  We don't ride down the pavement, and we certainly don't speed.

Speaking of speeding, I was quite surprised to see you describe cyclists as riding "like bats out of hell" - not once but twice!  You said that in relation to cyclists outside the Houses of Parliament and on country roads near you.  Now, I know that the speed limit outside Parliament is 30mph and on country roads it's usually 60mph.  Motorists routinely drive at or near the limits.  I'm sorry, David, but there's no way you can say cyclists ride "like bats out of hell" when they're probably not even doing half the speed limit in either area.  We cyclists just don't have the engine power for it - even on a club run (or battalion, as you prefer) the fast group would barely average 20mph.  Yet curiously, you don't seem bothered by cars coming past you at 30mph, or 60mph.  That's normal, isn't it?  You're accustomed to it.  They have a right to hurtle past; we just have a bloody cheek.  But realistically, David, you know which is the more dangerous - don't you?

Now, these battalions.  While we're out on our bike ride, I'll happily explain to you the etiquette concerning club runs.  I ride with a club from time to time:  it's sociable, and there's a camaraderie you can't get riding by yourself.  No club would ever ride so badly as to put a pedestrian, another cyclist, a horse rider, or themselves in danger.  I challenge you to find an instance where a club run has knocked over and killed a group of pedestrians, as happened when a motorist with bald tyres took out the Rhyl club run like skittles.  I'd challenge you to find an instance when a club run has harmed so much as a rabbit:  we have a vested interest in not doing anything dangerous, because if we hit something, we'll come off too.

And your local club runs do call up so that you're aware of their presence, don't they?  You'd rather they used a bell, a whistle, or a horn.  Would you really?  Wouldn't the frantic ringing of a bell, the impolite blare of a horn, irritate you just as much as the voice?  Most cyclists will call out - it's more immediate and more human than a bell, and a voice doesn't scare horses like a bell does.  A call is infinitely better than just moving out and coming past without warning.  There's no better alternative, other than not going out - and I can assure you, David, that we would bridle just as much at the suggestion of missing our early-morning bike rides as you would at the suggestion that you don't take your grandchildren walking.

I'm glad that you take your grandchildren out for walks in the countryside.  I hope that like me, they grow up to appreciate the beauty of the landscape on a brisk, chill Autumn day, or the feel of the sunshine on their skin in summer.  I love the outdoors.  It's why I'm a cyclist.  And you said in your Hansard diatribe that "they [cyclists] are the ones who might knock over my grandchildren."

But they're not, David, are they?  In a debate about how many child pedestrian deaths there are on the roads of the UK, how could you get it so wrong?  Nearly three thousand children died or were seriously injured on the roads of Britain in 2008.  None of those were caused by cyclists.  There is a menace out there threatening children on our roads; it's in a heavy metal box with an engine.

You see, David, this isn't a "cyclists vs motorists" debate.  The cyclists you condemn for being "irresponsible and arrogant" weren't turned into idiots by their mode of transport.  They're selfish, and they're idiots, and they will be selfish idiots whether they're on foot, on a bicycle or in a car.  They're the people you see who push their way onto a bus to get on first.  The ones who won't give up their seat for older people on public transport.  The ones who get drunk and noisy when they fly.  The ones who use hand-held mobiles, park on double-yellows or disabled bays because "they'll only be five minutes," drive through red lights and call it amber, park on the pavement, speed in residential areas, moan about 20mph zones and go through at 35 anyway. 

Those are the people who are a danger to your grandchildren, David.  And if they do ever hurt a child, it won't be on their bicycle.  It'll be in their car.

At the moment, you only notice the daft minority of bikes doing something stupid.  When you're riding yourself, you'll begin to notice the phantom choir, that phalanx of cyclists patiently waiting at red lights, carefully checking behind them to move out, signalling turns.  Please, drop the animosity.  That rant about cyclists, now permanently etched on Hansard, just looks absurd in the context of actual danger on the roads.  So come out for that bike ride, David.  You say you've got a bike.  Dust it off, and we'll take you out to see life on the other side.  We can even let you have a go on a recumbent - you might like it. 

See you up the road,

Julian

Background to the letter:  in a debate about improving road safety for pedestrians and cyclists, and specifically, in response to a question about how to improve the current level of child pedestrian deaths (where the UK is ranked 17 out of 24), Mr. Curry had a little rantette about badly-behaved cyclists.  Apparently the best way to keep our children safe on the roads is to stop them speeding outside Parliament.  I daresay he felt justified at the time, but written down it really does appeal to my sense of the absurd.  The transcript of the debate is here, and Mr. Curry's rantathon is about a third of the way down.

The relevant bits are here; I'll cut it as it's rather long, but it's also very informative.

 

( Burbling bottomgravy about badeeeevil cyclists )

The thing that gets me is how he manages to be so wrong.

Firstly, cyclists can't go like bats out of hell.  We'll let the Darth Vader imagery go, those who see the appeal of lycra tend to be those who realise how uncomfortable cycling more than a few miles in a suit can be.  But the speed limit outside the Houses of Parliament is 30mph, and on little country lanes is 60mph, and no cyclist, no matter how fit, could get up to either of those speeds in either of those places.  A car would come past at 30mph, or 60mph, and he doesn't think that's unsafe.  No, it's the cyclists "speeding" that upset him.  Most cyclists wish they could speed - apart from a very few Olympians, we just don't have the engine power for it, I'm afraid.  Epic logic fail.

Secondly, I'm willing to bet that a frantic ringing of a bell, or an almighty blast from an AirZound, would make him significantly more pissed off than a call from a voice.  He's not arguing that he doesn't hear them, just that he dislikes their chosen form of communication.  Bless.

Thirdly - and I've said this before - you can't ride on the pavement and through red lights at the same time.  You just can't.  It's not possible.

Fourthly, the exit from the Houses of Parliament isn't on a blind bend; it's built on a square.  If he was hit by a bicycle there, I would bet a pound to a pinch of shit that it was because he stepped into the road without looking.  Unless cyclists have acquired some sort of beam-me-up ability to just appear from nowhere - which would admittedly be awesome, but would ruin the point of riding anywhere - he cannot have looked. 

Fifthly, cyclists who do run red lights / hop on the pavement / ride the wrong way down one-way streets and so on (and yes, of course they exist) are just selfish twunts.  They're selfish twunts on their bikes, they're selfish twunts who push little old ladies out the way to get on the bus first, they're selfish twunts who get drunk and noisy on an airplane, they're selfish twunts in their cars.  They're the ones yammering on their mobile whilst parking in the cycle lane, amber-gambling, and speeding in residential areas.  Quite frankly, if we can't cure them of twuntdom then I'd rather they were on bikes than in cars.

Finally, his call for someone to "think of his grandchildren" just makes me very, very sad.  This debate was opened to find out why it is that children the age of his grandchildren are being disproportionately mown down by motorists.  The UK is fifth out of 24 countries for road traffic deaths per 100,000 overall, but drops to 17th when the figures are restricted to child pedestrian deaths.  

There is a very real risk to David Curry's grandchildren.

It's not from the cyclists.

Green-inking, that is.  On the basis that the more people complain, the more likely advertisers are to withdraw their pots of gold, I've added my two-pennorth.

I have no delusions that the PCC (chair: Paul Dacre) will censure the Mail (ed: Paul Dacre).

Jan Moir's spiteful article

The Daily Quail's parody

Charlie Brooker's take

My submission to the PCC:

Article 12 - discrimination

Moir's article very clearly makes a link between homosexuality and death.

She says "it is not disrespectful" to suggest that the fact that Mr. Gately and Mr. Cowles took a friend back to their home was in some way sleazy or tawdry.  It is disrespectful.  Straight people bring friends home frequently - only with gay couples is there an assumption that something "wrong" is happening.

She then says that it "gives the lie" to the idea that civil partnerships are "happy ever after."  In her total non-apology, she later said that she only meant that CPs were just as "problematic" as marriages.  Well, yes, death of one partner does tend to be problematic.  I don't think the "gay activists" she scorns ever claimed we were immortal.

I am gay and a gay activist.  I have a direct interest in this and found it personally offensive.  I look forward to hearing from you.

Yesterday saw me, C. and Phil doing the Richmond Riverside Run - 10km of flat riverside path. 

It was well organised, considering how many people were there, with a very efficient registration area, a bag-drop and drinks station.  There were about a dozen portaloos and still a giant queue!

We got there at about 8.45 for the 9.30 start, and shivered in the freezing cold for a little while before doing some stretching. 

It was timed with RFID chips embedded in an ASBO tag round the ankle.  Heading off, Phil and C. soon sped into the distance.  The first turn was only 1km away, which meant that the group hadn't really spread out much and there was a bit of a bottleneck.  I was in with the slowcoaches and we all had to walk a bit because there just wasn't room to pass anyone.  That was soon done and we headed back in the other direction, past the start and kept going until about 6km where there was another turn for the last 4km back to the finish.

Things I have learned:

C's GPS probably was accurate.  5km seemed a long time coming.

Being at the back with the other first-timers is nice.  There was quite a lot of chatting and camaraderie between those of us who just wanted to get round and weren't concentrating on a PB!

Having someone to chat to actually made me slightly faster.

There is a giant psychological boost in turning round and being on the last bit.

As there is in having a fabulous view.

I now know what "finding a rhythm" is about.  From 6km to 7km I felt like I could have carried on forever.

I really, really should have got that bloody knee sorted out a long time ago.

When I get tired I get less efficient.  I know this because I was sporadically kicking my ASBO tag.

Slowing to a walk for a few paces just makes it hurt more when you start again.

There is always someone suffering more than you.

Full English is the manna of the gods after running.



I finished in 1:13:17, which I'm very chuffed with (or, "net time" 1:12:26 according to the website - don't know what that means, presumably that takes off the minute it took me to get to the start mat?).  C. managed 1:01 and Phil, the speedy little git, 49:19.  I was 626th out of 672, i.e. Not Last.  Given that I am so much Not-A-Runner I'm really pleased. 

I'm in a little world of ache today.  I think I want to go for a very gentle Autumn walk, kick some leaves and play on the swings to stretch out.

(Well, this has temporarily taken my mind off Iraq.)

US judge refuses to marry mixed-race couples.

In excusing his obvious bigotry, he offers "their children might be bullied" (yeah, by asshats like you) and "but some of my best friends are black..."

This is what Speak You're Branes described only the other day as "opening with the classic Kuntz Defence" and that's such a good description that I feel it my duty to spread the phrase as widely as possible.

On which note, I also feel obliged to share Trans Bingo, which made me lol and also engages with the obvious problems posed by hardened adherents of the Kuntz Defence.

Further to yesterday's post where I mentioned the sudden detention and proposed removal to an undisclosed destination of a number of Iraqi nationals, they were removed yesterday.  An eyewitness reported in the Independent describes the use of excessive security, handcuffs, and it being "like watching the footage from Guantanamo."  The Guardian reports that they should never have gone in the first place.

Apparently the Iraqi authorities agree - they were all sent back to the UK and have arrived back today.

There's a test case coming up where the issue of whether southern Iraq is safe for anyone to go back to at present will be decided.  I don't suppose UKBA will do the sensible thing and suspend removals until the outcome of that case, so we're back to the ludicrous position where an Iraqi FAS's safety depends on whether they're able to get a lawyer or not.  With the legal system for immigration overstretched and underfunded, that's not guaranteed.

Today brought the news from Phil Woolas, the baby-faced Minister for Immigration, best known for (allegedly) claiming for tampons on expenses and being horribly humiliated by Joanna Lumley on national television, has a New Rool for asylum seekers.

A person who claims asylum must do so either (preferably) at their port of entry, or at Croydon in person.  If their claim is considered and rejected they become a 'failed asylum seeker' (FAS) and are meant to return to their country of origin.  Some do.  Some don't.  Some can't - those from Somalia and Zimbabwe can't be returned by UKBA, and those from Iran and Sierra Leone tend not to be accepted by their home authorities without certain (impossible to get) documents.

For those who can't, one way to avoid horrendous limbo - because of course they're not allowed to work, or they risk prosecution - is to keep trying to get new evidence to prove their claim.  Or sometimes, the situation in their country of origin, or the caselaw on it here, changes.  At that stage they can submit a fresh claim for asylum.  We deal with quite a lot of these.  They generally take the form of : get the new evidence, translate it if necessary, write long representations, send it all in to UKBA.

The New Rool says that those wanting to make a fresh claim will have to attend in person at Liverpool.  Not having any money (see: not permitted to work, above) is not a good excuse, fresh applicants will be forced to attend in person.

Woolas gave a long explanation for this, which is mainly about "information gripping."  No, I have no idea what he means by this either. 

I can see the purpose of seeing first time applicants in person.  They need to be fingerprinted, interviewed, and assessed for accommodation.  Their identity needs to be verified (for that small minority who entered legally on their own passport.  Few refugees are able to do this safely.)  

But why on earth should further correspondence, which is all that a fresh claim actually is, have to be done in person?

The answer is almost certainly: because UKBA will detain anybody who has the temerity to make a fresh claim, refuse the claim in days and get them on the next flight home.

Cynical?  Well, possibly, but then I've spent today dealing with a huge number of Iraqi FAS claimants.  Having changed the fresh claim rule yesterday, by sheer coincidence Iraqis are all now getting removal directions.  The removal directions just say they're going back to Iraq (well, duh) but not how, or where to.  And that's pretty bloody crucial when you're dealing with a country as horribly fractured as Iraq: an area where a former Baathist will be safe is probably not the same area as where a suspected US collaborator will be safe.  There's no hard-and-fast rule, so setting removal directions without saying where to is potentially unlawful.  We can't get the detained clients to Liverpool.  So I've spent the day writing judicial reviews.  The High Court, deluged with Iraqi JRs, has turned off its fax machine.  It's "Carry On Asylum Seeking," but with a potential body count at the end.

Idly browsing through Speak You're Branes today, I found this emetic of bile, a collective of unhappy fascists who dislike the oppressiveBBCnustatemedia "censoring" the news.  The blog spews out paranoid hatred like a drunken fresher splattering his kebab over the gutter.  The theory is that the x-ray (yeah, I know they're not actual x-rays) machinery at Heathrow is likely to be unwelcome to those who aren't keen on strangers viewing their naked bodies.  And who do we know that doesn't like being naked?  Yes, that's right, it's the Muslims (or "Muzzies" as this chap rather weirdly calls them).  So in a hypothetical future of x-ray machines, the hypothetical unhappy Muslims will win a hypothetical court case and be able to stroll through airports like bloody first class passengers while the rest of us heathens are forced to bend over for the rubber glove.  Or something.  And this - which hasn't happened and tbh I don't think is likely to - is an OUTRAGE.   So outrageous in fact that Mr. Vance had to reach for his caps lock key.

Better than the mad hypothesis though are the comments beneath.  I loved Tom Tyler's comment so much that I'll reproduce it here, so anyone reading can laugh like I did.

I tell you, the people of the UK have had a belly-full of "Islam-this" and "Islam-that", recently. Our patience is wearing very thin. Take care you don't push it too far, because when we explode, we bloody well explode.

Obv, I missed the memo to the People of the UK telling me my patience is at an end with a phenomenon I hadn't even noticed, but shurely the explosive Mr. Tyler is simply proof positive that the x-ray machines are needed?