'He who does not know the truth is only a fool. He who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a criminal.

Both issues I want to mention today relate to Afganstan, the title is a quote from Bertold Brecht but quoted in this instance by Malalai Joya, a young woman from Afghanistan.

She is under constant threat of assassination, for speaking out against the regime, She was elected to their parliament, and thrown out for saying things the other members didn't like.

Malalai is desperately trying to bring to the worlds attention the fact that while fighting against the Taliban, we are replacing them with a group that is just as bad and that commits just as many atrocity's to it's own people as the Taliban did - women are still half human to them, only fit for keeping house and sating their husband's lust.

The fools form the title, are the people of the west, the Criminals are the people that know the truth but are still waging the war and claiming that it is a bright new democratic future.

"He who fails to learn from History is destined to repeat it" is an old adage, but one we can see at work here. The Warlords are as bad as the Taliban, and if we aren't going to clean up properly, we will just be going back in a few years to start again.

Our government likes hiding things it doesn't think we should know from us, when the courts issued an order for the cabinet minutes regarding the war in Iraq to be released, the home secretary vetoed it, proving that our ministers think they are above the law.

At the same time that they are failing to support the Afghan people they our sending our boys out to die and get injured, and then appealing against a court decision to give them reasonable compensation. They claim that soldiers should only be able to claim for the initial injury, not any complications that arise from it!!!! The complications wouldn't be there if they hadn't been injured in the first place.

What an insult to our Men in the field, knowing that they will have to fight for any compensation, and that if the MOD doesn't like the decision they will keep the process going leaving the men to struggle with out any money. The courts shouldn't have to be involved at all, we should be happily giving appropriate levels of compensation to our men, and taking in to account any complications that arise form their wounds.

These are just further examples of a government that is sat in our midst like a cancer spreading out to corrupt all they encounter.

I was thinking of posting today on the need to improve democracy - following a live discussion by the independent newspaper - but another story close to my heart has show up.

It starts off as a nice romantic story, couple meet on holiday, couple stay in touch, she comes over from Canada to visit, they fall in love, and get married. Sounds wonderful till the government gets involved.

The Canadian girl who is 19 was in the uk on a 6 month visitors visa, so they had to apply to the home office for permission to get married, this was granted, but the home office lost their photos, so the wedding ended up happening a few weeks after her visa expired.

As a result she would have to return to Canada and enter on a spousal visa - shouldn't be a big problem, except that the government recently brought in an age restriction on spousal visas of 21. This was done, despite their own study saying it was a bad idea, and only 1 in 6 of the girls it was supposed to protect thinking it would help. Yet another case of the government claiming it is right in the face of overwhelming evidence that it isn't (just look at the current military helicopter situation)

The effect on the couple is that the girl has to return to Canada and cannot return to live with her husband in Britain until she is 21. The government considers this a mere inconvenence for them, to be seperated for the first 18 months of their marriage and as a result the case dose not count as severe enough for individual consideration (if this doesn't I don't know what would . . .)

They do have another option they can live together and work in europe, in any country in the EU besides Britain, his home country.

This is close to my heart, as my wife is American, and we had lots of hoops with the governments crazy immigration police to try and get her over here.

I hope that the publicity will cause the government to rethink the policy for this couple and hopefully the next government will bring in more sensible laws.

Until then the law abiding will suffer, whilst those prepared to flout the law have a far easier time of it.

Having to steal to eat

I have just read a concerning article over a court case in the town I live in. An unemployed man, who had had his passport and other vital papers stolen from him was taken to court for stealing £12.54 in food and drink from Asda. At the time of the theft he hadn't eaten in 4 days . . . .

He was found guilty and fined £50 and told to pay Adsa a £15 surcharge for the goods.

The court case isn't what bothers me most - people cant been seen to be allowed to get away with theft, what ever the reason. The part that concerns me is that in our society we have a situation where someone needs to steal to eat. How can our government claim to be tackling poverty, when situations like this still occur.

There should be some way we can feed the homeless and poverty stricken victims of modern society with out them having to resort to theft. Even if it's just a can of discount beef stew in a disposable bowl (that would cost at most 15p per person). In 2008 there were just under 100,000 homeless according to government figures (which hide large numbers of people). That is under 5.5 million pounds per year to give a hot meal to each one every day - that is only 1.5 million over what the Prime Minister spent on travel last year.

The government has spent a fortune on it's digital britain report - concerned about getting high speed broadband in to every house in the country - shouldn't it be more important to get food in to every mouth in the country first?

Extreme Surveilance

Yet again our Government is embarrassing us, using the powers brought in to prevent terrorism for mundane matters.

This time, it is not only has it embarrassed us, but it has also insulted the soldiers whose lives are risked every day in Afghanistan. The MOD has sent a letter to all our wounded troops, saying that they may use surveillance techniques to check on their claims.

Are the people doing this doctors, are they trained in what the limits produced by a certain injury are - No, they are Military Policemen, who are being ordered to snoop on their collogues.

These boys have put their lives on the line - and been wounded doing so, and in return they are treated like criminals.

It makes me think back to the old man on Britain's' got Talent who was a break dancer. He had trouble walking, but when he was dancing no sustained pressure was put on his legs - so he had a form of exercise he could do. The Governments reaction to this was, as he can dance, he cant be disabled so they cut his benefit . . .

These a just the latest examples of a government out of control, and making decisions on subjects they know little about but that have a profound affect on peoples lives . Power needs to be returned to the people who understand the subject, local people who understand local issues rather than damaging mandates being sent out by Whitehall to the army of unnecessary bureaucrats that have been put in place to police bad policy.

I can only hope that the next government shows more insight and takes steps to fix some of the incalculable damage the present government, and the conservative government before it has caused.

If we get a hung parliament, then the Liberal Democrats will be able to have some voice in policy making and then some sanity will return to Westminster.

Authors and Children

Today has already had several disturbing reports in the news,

One started last night with several prominent authors complaining about having to be vetted to visit schools. Whilst all are in agreement that children need to be protected - they point out that they would not be left alone with children and there would be no familiarity as they would be visiting at most once a year.

Government ministers though will not have to be vetted it appears.

This shows even more signs of the governments view that people are guilty until proven innocent and will add to the growing mistrust between the generations. Unfortunately we live in a country where the governments idea of a solution is to have everybody spying on everybody else so rather than having community that look to help each other, and watch out for their children we end up with one where adults are afraid to help a child that is in trouble - for fear of being accused with being a paedophile.

Should the Liberal Democrats obtain more power, they would move to solve some of these issues - for starters the bill of rights they propose would permanently set the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in the statute books. Along side with policys to improve comunity cohesion and for civil rights adults will be protected as well as children and that can only benefit us all.

Should Men be able to Sue over false accusations of rape?

There was an article in the Independent today, that leaves me in a quandary. It involves a man suing the woman who accused him of rape - as he has just been acquitted.

Independent Article

Understandably the women's rights groups are up in arms about the possibility of this happening, and the effect it may have on women coming forward after being raped - something that could become a serious issue.

From the other side, what happens to a man when he is accused of rape is almost as psychologically scaring as being raped - with the added side effect of anyone knowing that you were charged with it asking did he or didn't he.

Finding a line between the two may not be possible, to protect women and make them feel safe to bring charges against their attacker and at the same time protect men against false charges.

In the long run I think the only option may be to block any legal proceedings against the alleged victim but to keep the man's identity secret until he is convicted. Though far from perfect, it may be the only way to keep rapists off the streets - and though the occasional false allegation may harm some men - that is better than leaving predictors on the streets and at least the innocent would have a trial by jury to fall back on.