7 Year Twitch

Bitten, Snipes and Pintails, no not types of suits, birds. The type of birds which are attracted to wet places, specifically, the wetlands wildlife trust in Barnes, South West London.

Birdwatching is an extraordinarily delicate art. "What have you got?" I enquire gingerly of the two men stood stock still before me with their cameras rigidly poised and pointing straight at a rather ordinary looking hedge.

"A wren" says Oscar, the younger of the two, as he nurses the longest camera lens I've ever seen on it's Manfrotto tripod cradle, waiting avidly to snap that single elusive glimpse...

Suddenly a tiny brown bird pokes out of the bush and is caught in an instant, close up and beautiful in the sunlight. Extraordinary how something so everyday and unnoticeable becomes a work of art at the tiniest click of a button.

Gary Gray, the photographer who's camera snapped it tells me "You might get anything out here, you can never tell what you're going to find from one minute to the next. There are about 150 Bitterns in the UK, and 5 of them are here," he continues "it's a major thing to have here in London."

Indeed he's right. The wetlands are only a short hop away from central London, six miles from the post-office tower in fact.

Oscar tells me that Bitterns don't breed here in the UK, and that there might be more of them this year were it not for the fact that we've suffered as bad a winter here as anywhere else in Europe. Though they mostly breed in Northern Europe.

"We had some Lesser Red Polls" says Gary, "...and a Woodcock, a little bit of a rarity. In fact I've seen it three or four times over the last couple of weeks. Then there's the usual Fieldfare, Redwings and so on.., migrating birds from eastern Europe. Goldfinches, Chiff-Chaffs, Reed Buntings. I saw a curlew a few weeks back.

I thank him and make my way up to the Peacock tower, the main observation hide which overlooks the majority of the wetlands and corner a volunteer worker who fills me in on the details.

"The centre's been here for about ten years," he begins, "It was constructed with funding by Thames Water and Barclay homes and the wetland trust together."

"We depend on charity and sponsorship and money from membership to keep us going. This is an SSSI of course (a site of special scientific interest).  When we opened we registered about 120 species of birds but that has gone up to about 150 species now".

I ask him what kind of rare birds they get to the wetlands: "Last year we had a Purple Heron and a Night Heron. Egrets, and even Avocets" he replies excitedly. "The Avocets bred in fact, but unfortunately  the heron ate all their chicks one by one."

"We get kites, harriers, even an Osprey stayed here for about half an hour before it was mobbed off by crows, sometimes the gulls fight them off too. It's their profile you see. Ospreys only eat fish, but they look like hawks, so it's instinctive, the crows and gulls think they're predators."

The centre employs about 30 regular paid staff, and about 180 volunteers come to dig trenches, guide tourists and generally help out. Two years ago they welcomed over 190,000 visitors, so for all the solitude and quietness here, it's still a great attraction.

There are 7 other wetlands in the UK, but this is the only one in London, and the importance of this environmental refuge cannot be overstated, especially as the centre functions as an information hub were representatives from other cities, (recently Tokyo and Sydney) come to examine how they can set up similar wildlife preserves in otherwise urbanised areas.


Tally at the end of the day:

2 Shelduck,

17 Snipe

2 Cetti's Warblers

1 Water Pipit

3 Fieldfare

1 Bittern

1 Kingfisher

60 Redwing

179 Teal

1 Peregrine

1 Woodcock

1 Chiff Chall

7 Year Twitch

Bitten, Snipes and Pintails, no not types of suits, birds. The type of birds which are attracted to wet places, specifically, the wetlands wildlife trust in Barnes, South West London.

Birdwatching is an extraordinarily delicate art. "What have you got?" I enquire gingerly of the two men stood stock still before me with their cameras rigidly poised and pointing straight at a rather ordinary looking hedge.

"A wren" says Oscar, the younger of the two, as he nurses the longest camera lens I've ever seen on it's Manfrotto tripod cradle, waiting avidly to snap that single elusive glimpse...

Suddenly a tiny brown bird pokes out of the bush and is caught in an instant, close up and beautiful in the sunlight. Extraordinary how something so everyday and unnoticeable becomes a work of art at the tiniest click of a button.

Gary Gray, the photographer who's camera snapped it tells me "You might get anything out here, you can never tell what you're going to find from one minute to the next. There are about 150 Bitterns in the UK, and 5 of them are here," he continues "it's a major thing to have here in London."

Indeed he's right. The wetlands are only a short hop away from central London, six miles from the post-office tower in fact.

Oscar tells me that Bitterns don't breed here in the UK, and that there might be more of them this year were it not for the fact that we've suffered as bad a winter here as anywhere else in Europe. Though they mostly breed in Northern Europe.

"We had some Lesser Red Polls" says Gary, "...and a Woodcock, a little bit of a rarity. In fact I've seen it three or four times over the last couple of weeks. Then there's the usual Fieldfare, Redwings and so on.., migrating birds from eastern Europe. Goldfinches, Chiff-Chaffs, Reed Buntings. I saw a curlew a few weeks back.

I thank him and make my way up to the Peacock tower, the main observation hide which overlooks the majority of the wetlands and corner a volunteer worker who fills me in on the details.

"The centre's been here for about ten years," he begins, "It was constructed with funding by Thames Water and Barclay homes and the wetland trust together."

"We depend on charity and sponsorship and money from membership to keep us going. This is an SSSI of course (a site of special scientific interest).  When we opened we registered about 120 species of birds but that has gone up to about 150 species now".

I ask him what kind of rare birds they get to the wetlands: "Last year we had a Purple Heron and a Night Heron. Egrets, and even Avocets" he replies excitedly. "The Avocets bred in fact, but unfortunately  the heron ate all their chicks one by one."

"We get kites, harriers, even an Osprey stayed here for about half an hour before it was mobbed off by crows, sometimes the gulls fight them off too. It's their profile you see. Ospreys only eat fish, but they look like hawks, so it's instinctive, the crows and gulls think they're predators."

The centre employs about 30 regular paid staff, and about 180 volunteers come to dig trenches, guide tourists and generally help out. Two years ago they welcomed over 190,000 visitors, so for all the solitude and quietness here, it's still a great attraction.

There are 7 other wetlands in the UK, but this is the only one in London, and the importance of this environmental refuge cannot be overstated, especially as the centre functions as an information hub were representatives from other cities, (recently Tokyo and Sydney) come to examine how they can set up similar wildlife preserves in otherwise urbanised areas.


Tally at the end of the day:

2 Shelduck,

17 Snipe

2 Cetti's Warblers

1 Water Pipit

3 Fieldfare

1 Bittern

1 Kingfisher

60 Redwing

179 Teal

1 Peregrine

1 Woodcock

1 Chiff Chall

Urban Ambience 2 // Leake Street Lovers

Urban Ambience 2 // Leake Street Lovers

Urban Ambience // Leake Street Hooligans

Urban Ambience // Leake Street Hooligans

Ahh... the reason I'm really at University...

Ahh... the reason I'm really at University...

District 9

OK - This movie almost made me cum when I first saw it. Wanting to walk the line between broadcast journalist and film-maker, the documentary style really inspired me and made me want to up my game. The film is a seamless work of art, a feature film, shot as if it were a documentary only montaged with security camera footage, CNN style newsfeeds and lab cameras, and laced heavily with awesome CGI aliens.

This is not Cloverfield, the hammy disaster movie 'shot on a camcorder' style masterpiece of old, although it does follow the new generation of viral narrative, and despite the slightly tired ending, I still rate this as the best piece of cinema from 2009.

Enjoy:

District 9

OK - This movie almost made me cum when I first saw it. Wanting to walk the line between broadcast journalist and film-maker, the documentary style really inspired me and made me want to up my game. The film is a seamless work of art, a feature film, shot as if it were a documentary only montaged with security camera footage, CNN style newsfeeds and lab cameras, and laced heavily with awesome CGI aliens.

This is not Cloverfield, the hammy disaster movie 'shot on a camcorder' style masterpiece of old, although it does follow the new generation of viral narrative, and despite the slightly tired ending, I still rate this as the best piece of cinema from 2009.

Enjoy:

The Hurt Locker

How good was this movie? Kathryn Bigelow's latest masterpiece: "The Hurt Locker" really, truly, genuinely is a good movie. OK - it's not the best release of last year, which in my humble opinion was definitely the South African marvel "District 9" but the Hurt Locker really does deliver a powerful punch, giving a real taste of life as an army bomb disposal officer in Iraq.

The cinematography is spectacular, filmed mostly on location in Jordan, the pacing and timing of the action, and the delivery of the script all match and the direction is as good as anything in Strangedays or Point Break, better in fact, by an order of magnitude. Check it out:

The Hurt Locker

How good was this movie? Kathryn Bigelow's latest masterpiece: "The Hurt Locker" really, truly, genuinely is a good movie. OK - it's not the best release of last year, which in my humble opinion was definitely the South African marvel "District 9" but the Hurt Locker really does deliver a powerful punch, giving a real taste of life as an army bomb disposal officer in Iraq.

The cinematography is spectacular, filmed mostly on location in Jordan, the pacing and timing of the action, and the delivery of the script all match and the direction is as good as anything in Strangedays or Point Break, better in fact, by an order of magnitude. Check it out:

Chilcot Inquiry Finishes with Blair

Tony Blair completed his duty as a witness at the Chilcot Inquiry this evening at 5:10pm after giving evidence for 6 hours.

Blair began with how the 9/11 terror attacks had changed the 'calculus' for war with Iraq and went on to say "You could not take risks on this issue at all" speaking on the issue of whether or not Saddam had WMDs

He dealt adeptly with the slight 'faux pas' he made in his interview with Fern Britten when he said that regime change was the objective, regardless of the absence of WMDs, saying that he had misspoken, although retrospectively it makes perfect sense.

Blair still believes it was the right thing to do, suggesting that his decision to take military action in 2003 prevented a nuclear arms race between Iraq and Iran in 2010 certainly a possibility witnessing today's climate in Iran.

Chilcot Inquiry Finishes with Blair

Tony Blair completed his duty as a witness at the Chilcot Inquiry this evening at 5:10pm after giving evidence for 6 hours.

Blair began with how the 9/11 terror attacks had changed the 'calculus' for war with Iraq and went on to say "You could not take risks on this issue at all" speaking on the issue of whether or not Saddam had WMDs

He dealt adeptly with the slight 'faux pas' he made in his interview with Fern Britten when he said that regime change was the objective, regardless of the absence of WMDs, saying that he had misspoken, although retrospectively it makes perfect sense.

Blair still believes it was the right thing to do, suggesting that his decision to take military action in 2003 prevented a nuclear arms race between Iraq and Iran in 2010 certainly a possibility witnessing today's climate in Iran.

Nobu, the BBC and Bluefin Tuna

Last week's episode of "Britains' most disgusting Food" , which can still be watched on the BBC's iPlayer, caught the eye of the Deputy Editor of the IoS yesterday who called me into his office to ask me to make a call to the BBC to get a quote about 'why they made the decision to pixellate and disguise the identities of customers coming in to and out of London's famous 'Nobu' japanese restaurant.

Nobu draws significant ire for their decision to sell sashimi cuts of endangered "Blue Fin Tuna" , however, it's not actually illegal to order a blue-fin tuna steak there, so why the decision to pixellate customer's faces?

Unable to get a quote from the BBC, I wondered what the IoS's lawyers might say? I presumed it was a question of defamation, meaning that it would be potentially libellous to infer that some celebrity or other was immoral because of their decision to eat at Nobu. Or maybe it was a question of privacy.

The strange thing for me was that the question had even been raised in the Deputy Editor's mind. Surely it was the right decision to protect members of the public's identities in this case? Isn't that the BBC's responsibilty after all?

Apprently we don't think the same way he and I. As the consummate journalist, I suspect he wishes for a scoop against a well known animal right activist: "Jodie Marsh dines on Endangered Species" perhaps?
Or perhaps not. Turns out that it's an editorial decision, and there are really very few legal ramifications, but I suspect that if they had included people's faces they might have had to face some complaints.

Personally, I liked the silly faces they plastered on the faces to hide the random people's identities, but I also have a bit of a problem with the program "Britain's Most Disgusting Food" anyway.

It's populist rubbish. Last week his expose of a pork product which is considered inedible (in fact banned) in certain countries but is considered a delicacy in Okinawa and eaten with rice balls and sushi led him to standing outside the Food Standards Agency and holding an impromptu (and utterly ineffective) rally.

He comes across like Louis Theroux, but he's just not as funny, interesting or righteous. Just my opinion.

Nobu, the BBC and Bluefin Tuna

Last week's episode of "Britains' most disgusting Food" , which can still be watched on the BBC's iPlayer, caught the eye of the Deputy Editor of the IoS yesterday who called me into his office to ask me to make a call to the BBC to get a quote about 'why they made the decision to pixellate and disguise the identities of customers coming in to and out of London's famous 'Nobu' japanese restaurant.

Nobu draws significant ire for their decision to sell sashimi cuts of endangered "Blue Fin Tuna" , however, it's not actually illegal to order a blue-fin tuna steak there, so why the decision to pixellate customer's faces?

Unable to get a quote from the BBC, I wondered what the IoS's lawyers might say? I presumed it was a question of defamation, meaning that it would be potentially libellous to infer that some celebrity or other was immoral because of their decision to eat at Nobu. Or maybe it was a question of privacy.

The strange thing for me was that the question had even been raised in the Deputy Editor's mind. Surely it was the right decision to protect members of the public's identities in this case? Isn't that the BBC's responsibilty after all?

Apprently we don't think the same way he and I. As the consummate journalist, I suspect he wishes for a scoop against a well known animal right activist: "Jodie Marsh dines on Endangered Species" perhaps?
Or perhaps not. Turns out that it's an editorial decision, and there are really very few legal ramifications, but I suspect that if they had included people's faces they might have had to face some complaints.

Personally, I liked the silly faces they plastered on the faces to hide the random people's identities, but I also have a bit of a problem with the program "Britain's Most Disgusting Food" anyway.

It's populist rubbish. Last week his expose of a pork product which is considered inedible (in fact banned) in certain countries but is considered a delicacy in Okinawa and eaten with rice balls and sushi led him to standing outside the Food Standards Agency and holding an impromptu (and utterly ineffective) rally.

He comes across like Louis Theroux, but he's just not as funny, interesting or righteous. Just my opinion.

Social Suicide

Wanna pull the plug on your alter ego? "Improve your relationship, get rid of Stalkers!" Check this out: something I've not seen that passed my desk today "Web 2.0 Suicide machine" advertises itself thus: "Make the switch to a web 2.0 free life" "Stop Self-Procrastination!" "So many people you don't care about" "Unfriending has never been so easy"

Blessings and love to all my social network buddies, never fear, I'm not planning on committing social suicide till I'm married, settled and sick of it all, but that doesn't mean I don't think about it sometimes.

This website allows you to delete your myspace/facebook/twitters/blogs etc. at the click of a button and I for one definitely need something like this to bury my past, but on the other hand, I cherish the various stuff I've put up on the web over the years, it's my journey, and I'm kind of tickled by the idea that my alter ego which lives primarily in my imagination and on the web is sort of disposably immortal, in fact, it always makes me wonder what happens to deceased people's facebooks.

Do they live on for posterity? Is there an afterlife facebook? A graveyard for people's online profiles? Come to that, if there isn't one, why the hell not?

Did you ever see that film "Things to do in Denver when you're Dead"?I love Andy Garcia in that film, I remember learning that he proposed to his wife on the day he met her (in real life) after watching that film. Respect Andy. Anyway, he makes his money in the film by shooting videos of old people, leaving messages for their loved ones for after they die.

Hmm... that gives me a business idea... ... ah fuck it. I'd rather not get involved in another hair-brained web-video scheme! I think I'll leave that to the business masters of the world.

Anyway, web suicide, DO IT!!

Social Suicide

Wanna pull the plug on your alter ego? "Improve your relationship, get rid of Stalkers!" Check this out: something I've not seen that passed my desk today "Web 2.0 Suicide machine" advertises itself thus: "Make the switch to a web 2.0 free life" "Stop Self-Procrastination!" "So many people you don't care about" "Unfriending has never been so easy"

Blessings and love to all my social network buddies, never fear, I'm not planning on committing social suicide till I'm married, settled and sick of it all, but that doesn't mean I don't think about it sometimes.

This website allows you to delete your myspace/facebook/twitters/blogs etc. at the click of a button and I for one definitely need something like this to bury my past, but on the other hand, I cherish the various stuff I've put up on the web over the years, it's my journey, and I'm kind of tickled by the idea that my alter ego which lives primarily in my imagination and on the web is sort of disposably immortal, in fact, it always makes me wonder what happens to deceased people's facebooks.

Do they live on for posterity? Is there an afterlife facebook? A graveyard for people's online profiles? Come to that, if there isn't one, why the hell not?

Did you ever see that film "Things to do in Denver when you're Dead"?I love Andy Garcia in that film, I remember learning that he proposed to his wife on the day he met her (in real life) after watching that film. Respect Andy. Anyway, he makes his money in the film by shooting videos of old people, leaving messages for their loved ones for after they die.

Hmm... that gives me a business idea... ... ah fuck it. I'd rather not get involved in another hair-brained web-video scheme! I think I'll leave that to the business masters of the world.

Anyway, web suicide, DO IT!!

Anonymous Fame: Big In Albania

Charlie Winston's a name you probably haven't heard of, but charged with the task of hunting down celebrities who are surprisingly famous in other countries, and being provided with the names 'Norman Wisdom' and 'David Hasslehoff' I drew a predictable blank.

David Hasslehoff is famous in Germany as a pop-star. He's also a chronic alcoholic. Remember that awful moment when his daughter posted a video on youtube of him drunk out of his mind trying to eat a cheeseburger?

Norman Wisdom was awarded the key to the city of Tirana in Albania .

According to Wikipedia "Wisdom is a cult icon in Albania, where he was the only Western actor whose films were allowed in the country during the dictatorship of Enver Hoxha. He is known as "Mr Pitkin" after the Gump character from his films. In 1995, he visited the post-Stalinist country, where to his surprise he was greeted by many appreciative fans including the then president of Albania, Sali Berisha. On a visit in 2001, which coincided with the England football team playing Albania in the city of Tirana (of which Norman was granted the freedom in 1995),[11][12] his presence at the training ground eclipsed even that of David Beckham.[13]"

Felicity Cloake in the Daily Mail cites these examples as well as Kevin Costner, who's big in Turkey with his band "Modern West", Chris De Burgh who's big in Iran and Sharon Stone, who apparently was awarded for her 'services to world culture' (although knowing the French it was probably just a joke).

Charlie Winston though is a British musician who is virtually unknown in the UK, yet pulls tens of thousands regularly at concerts in France. He's had chart hits there, and is generally loved and adored, but walking around London he is unnoticed, and unknown.

Anonymous fame is a bizzare concept given the interconnectedness of the modern world, don't you think? However, I suspect it is increasingly common as people have more and more facets to their lives, more and more access to different cultures and are revered in different places for different things. It reminds me of an old school friend of mine who once claimed he had a cult following in Japan after taking job as an agony uncle in Sugar Magazine. 

I suppose what really interests me then, is secret celebrity. Ever feel like the stars who bask in the media limelight are faking it? Elton John for example, who's really called Reginald Dwight, is probably only known for his scholarship on east african migratory birds in higher academic circles. His contemporaries are no doubt aware of his 'alter ego' as a superstar musician, but prefer to act as if it is a vicious rumour in polite company referring to him lovingly as 'Our Reggie who likes the birds'.

But secret lives are interesting aren't they? If there's scandal or rumour about someone, the ganets of the media are always quick to delve and research, quick to find that aberrant picture, to point the finger of blame and laugh with maniacal hysteria at the freakish phenomenon they've discovered.

That's why I loved reading George Micheal's recent interview in the Guardian where he more or less said that when he was discovered as a cottager he felt dirty and ashamed, that up until he was forced out of the closet  he felt like he was living a lie, straight for the media and the hordes of adoring fans, but with a  guilty despicable secret, and further, that now he's blissfully happy: he can smoke a joint, go onto Hampstead Heath for a shag, and generally be himself without worrying all the time about a fake image constructed for him by some overzealous media/music autocrat with a hard-on for profits.

Funny then, that Elton John is still so keen on saving his soul from drugs, AIDS, and general licentious debauchery, especially now that we known about old Reggies' prediliction for 'Bird Watching'.

Japan is of course famously a place where celebrities make it big in rather unusual ways. Arnold Schwarzenegger for example, in those now infamous energy drink commercials almost instantly will provoke our memories into recalling Bill Murray's role in "Lost in Translation", advertising Scotch whiskey on Japanese TV, and being hopelessly lost as to why he's there.

Japan is just one of those places where celebrity gets routinely taken out of context but it's always oddly appropriate, like Richard Gere advertising hair-care products, we all know nothing ever goes out of style in Tokyo,  that is, unless it goes out of style in Tokyo first.

So who else is worthy of note with regard to this? Not Ruby Wax, although I'm sure she's not famous in the States, or Cliff Richard, who doubtless isn't famous in the States either, but what about the hordes of American morons who aren't famous here? Aren't we glad of that too!


:)

Anonymous Fame: Big In Albania

Charlie Winston's a name you probably haven't heard of, but charged with the task of hunting down celebrities who are surprisingly famous in other countries, and being provided with the names 'Norman Wisdom' and 'David Hasslehoff' I drew a predictable blank.

David Hasslehoff is famous in Germany as a pop-star. He's also a chronic alcoholic. Remember that awful moment when his daughter posted a video on youtube of him drunk out of his mind trying to eat a cheeseburger?

Norman Wisdom was awarded the key to the city of Tirana in Albania .

According to Wikipedia "Wisdom is a cult icon in Albania, where he was the only Western actor whose films were allowed in the country during the dictatorship of Enver Hoxha. He is known as "Mr Pitkin" after the Gump character from his films. In 1995, he visited the post-Stalinist country, where to his surprise he was greeted by many appreciative fans including the then president of Albania, Sali Berisha. On a visit in 2001, which coincided with the England football team playing Albania in the city of Tirana (of which Norman was granted the freedom in 1995),[11][12] his presence at the training ground eclipsed even that of David Beckham.[13]"

Felicity Cloake in the Daily Mail cites these examples as well as Kevin Costner, who's big in Turkey with his band "Modern West", Chris De Burgh who's big in Iran and Sharon Stone, who apparently was awarded for her 'services to world culture' (although knowing the French it was probably just a joke).

Charlie Winston though is a British musician who is virtually unknown in the UK, yet pulls tens of thousands regularly at concerts in France. He's had chart hits there, and is generally loved and adored, but walking around London he is unnoticed, and unknown.

Anonymous fame is a bizzare concept given the interconnectedness of the modern world, don't you think? However, I suspect it is increasingly common as people have more and more facets to their lives, more and more access to different cultures and are revered in different places for different things. It reminds me of an old school friend of mine who once claimed he had a cult following in Japan after taking job as an agony uncle in Sugar Magazine. 

I suppose what really interests me then, is secret celebrity. Ever feel like the stars who bask in the media limelight are faking it? Elton John for example, who's really called Reginald Dwight, is probably only known for his scholarship on east african migratory birds in higher academic circles. His contemporaries are no doubt aware of his 'alter ego' as a superstar musician, but prefer to act as if it is a vicious rumour in polite company referring to him lovingly as 'Our Reggie who likes the birds'.

But secret lives are interesting aren't they? If there's scandal or rumour about someone, the ganets of the media are always quick to delve and research, quick to find that aberrant picture, to point the finger of blame and laugh with maniacal hysteria at the freakish phenomenon they've discovered.

That's why I loved reading George Micheal's recent interview in the Guardian where he more or less said that when he was discovered as a cottager he felt dirty and ashamed, that up until he was forced out of the closet  he felt like he was living a lie, straight for the media and the hordes of adoring fans, but with a  guilty despicable secret, and further, that now he's blissfully happy: he can smoke a joint, go onto Hampstead Heath for a shag, and generally be himself without worrying all the time about a fake image constructed for him by some overzealous media/music autocrat with a hard-on for profits.

Funny then, that Elton John is still so keen on saving his soul from drugs, AIDS, and general licentious debauchery, especially now that we known about old Reggies' prediliction for 'Bird Watching'.

Japan is of course famously a place where celebrities make it big in rather unusual ways. Arnold Schwarzenegger for example, in those now infamous energy drink commercials almost instantly will provoke our memories into recalling Bill Murray's role in "Lost in Translation", advertising Scotch whiskey on Japanese TV, and being hopelessly lost as to why he's there.

Japan is just one of those places where celebrity gets routinely taken out of context but it's always oddly appropriate, like Richard Gere advertising hair-care products, we all know nothing ever goes out of style in Tokyo,  that is, unless it goes out of style in Tokyo first.

So who else is worthy of note with regard to this? Not Ruby Wax, although I'm sure she's not famous in the States, or Cliff Richard, who doubtless isn't famous in the States either, but what about the hordes of American morons who aren't famous here? Aren't we glad of that too!


:)

Is Blair Guilty?

Down to business:

I've always been of the opinion that Blair was guilty of lying (even before he lied about WMD) and I've always been a typically liberal anti-war type, not willing to believe that war in Iraq was ever particularly justified.

Over the years however, I've learned a lot about Blair's reasoning for going to war, and he's always  consistent, and always dodges the question about 'did he lie?' by arguing his moral reasoning for committing British troops.

What do you think? Does his moral reasoning pardon him for supporting false claims about WMD? After all, Saddam gassed tens of thousands of Kurds, oppressed and totured his own people, was aggressive towards both Iran and Kuwait, and would have certiainly taken the opportunity to buy nuclear technology from Noth Korea, Pakistan and India (AQ Khan etc.) or rogue elements in Russia and China if given the chance.

Saddam was a limited threat, one who was for the most part contained, so was the decision to remove him the right one? What have we been left with instead?

For the thinking person, one who does not have a definite opinion either way, these are troubling questions, because our democracy is generally regarded to pursue action by a consensus of the majority, and in this case, we appear to have been willingly hi-jacked by a smart talking lawyer with a penchant for trickery and deception. Like the devil, can Blair ever be stopped from doing as he wishes?

In fact, I've never met anyone who was pro-war in Iraq. That's the rather strange thing about it. Moderates and liberals we all are apparently, but when one looks into the real reasoning for going to war in Iraq, it actually appears to be rather sound.

We didn't have to go, we didn't particularly want to go, but if we hadn't gone, it would have caused a huge rift with the Americans, whose policy schizophrenia (aka 'American Exceptionalism') has got them caught between total isolationism and imperial world dominance. It's uncomfortable for them as a pseudo 'unwilling superpower' to have to defend freedom and democracy in an old complex world, that's beyond their sight and beyond their immediate reach, and how much more dangerous would they be without the steadying and guiding hand of the UK, an 'old world' power, empire, and friend to the middle east.

All in all, it was probably the toughest decision any head of state would have to make, particularly for an elected politician whose attained his position through intellectual merit, hard work and unparralled enthusiasm and energy  ie Blair, rather than being born into power or having it conferred by 'divine right'.

We do however, as strange as it seems, still have an Empire though, a Queen, a Commonwealth, and in fact, the crown has rather more historical context in which to put our 'intervention' in Iraq into.

The UK public is generally sold on the idea of it being a 'war', but that's not really the case. It was an intervention to stop Saddam becoming powerful again, and removing him was the final blow to a country who had been starved, beaten, jailed and rattled for 15 years, and it only makes sense in terms of the century old conflict between the British Empire and Iraq, the centuries old emnity betwen the French Empire and the British Empire and the new struggle between the Euro Zone and the American Empire for global economic dominance.

Remember Saddam's decision to only sell Oil for Euros? Undermining the US Dollar as the reserve currency of the world after Bretton Woods? Saddam sided with the Euro against he US Dollar, and the UK, not being part of the Euro, had to make a choice whether to support the Dollar or the Euro. We chose to back the Dollar, and it's no wonder France wouldn't support us in Iraq.

Supplying Saddam with billions of Euros or Dollars was out of the question, but no wonder that the French and the Americans fight like cat and dog. The fact is that the Americans are still trying to hold onto their dominance even though the Euro-Zone has surpassed them as the number-one world economy, and thus the new super-power. For all the talk of the rise of China, the facts speak for themselves.

In fact, if anything the French ought to have gone into Iraq, as the Euro can only really be underwritten in Dollars.

Am I straying from the point? I don't think Blair's guilty of doing anything more than bending the truth. He's done too much good, is pushing too many worthy agendas to be locked up. He's relinquished state power, did not actively pursue the role of European President and has shown his capacity to be humble in the face of great power, so I say no. Blair is as guilty as any of us for our vanity, self-interest or hubris, but should he be tried as a war criminal? No, I don't believe so.

Is Blair Guilty?

Down to business:

I've always been of the opinion that Blair was guilty of lying (even before he lied about WMD) and I've always been a typically liberal anti-war type, not willing to believe that war in Iraq was ever particularly justified.

Over the years however, I've learned a lot about Blair's reasoning for going to war, and he's always  consistent, and always dodges the question about 'did he lie?' by arguing his moral reasoning for committing British troops.

What do you think? Does his moral reasoning pardon him for supporting false claims about WMD? After all, Saddam gassed tens of thousands of Kurds, oppressed and totured his own people, was aggressive towards both Iran and Kuwait, and would have certiainly taken the opportunity to buy nuclear technology from Noth Korea, Pakistan and India (AQ Khan etc.) or rogue elements in Russia and China if given the chance.

Saddam was a limited threat, one who was for the most part contained, so was the decision to remove him the right one? What have we been left with instead?

For the thinking person, one who does not have a definite opinion either way, these are troubling questions, because our democracy is generally regarded to pursue action by a consensus of the majority, and in this case, we appear to have been willingly hi-jacked by a smart talking lawyer with a penchant for trickery and deception. Like the devil, can Blair ever be stopped from doing as he wishes?

In fact, I've never met anyone who was pro-war in Iraq. That's the rather strange thing about it. Moderates and liberals we all are apparently, but when one looks into the real reasoning for going to war in Iraq, it actually appears to be rather sound.

We didn't have to go, we didn't particularly want to go, but if we hadn't gone, it would have caused a huge rift with the Americans, whose policy schizophrenia (aka 'American Exceptionalism') has got them caught between total isolationism and imperial world dominance. It's uncomfortable for them as a pseudo 'unwilling superpower' to have to defend freedom and democracy in an old complex world, that's beyond their sight and beyond their immediate reach, and how much more dangerous would they be without the steadying and guiding hand of the UK, an 'old world' power, empire, and friend to the middle east.

All in all, it was probably the toughest decision any head of state would have to make, particularly for an elected politician whose attained his position through intellectual merit, hard work and unparralled enthusiasm and energy  ie Blair, rather than being born into power or having it conferred by 'divine right'.

We do however, as strange as it seems, still have an Empire though, a Queen, a Commonwealth, and in fact, the crown has rather more historical context in which to put our 'intervention' in Iraq into.

The UK public is generally sold on the idea of it being a 'war', but that's not really the case. It was an intervention to stop Saddam becoming powerful again, and removing him was the final blow to a country who had been starved, beaten, jailed and rattled for 15 years, and it only makes sense in terms of the century old conflict between the British Empire and Iraq, the centuries old emnity betwen the French Empire and the British Empire and the new struggle between the Euro Zone and the American Empire for global economic dominance.

Remember Saddam's decision to only sell Oil for Euros? Undermining the US Dollar as the reserve currency of the world after Bretton Woods? Saddam sided with the Euro against he US Dollar, and the UK, not being part of the Euro, had to make a choice whether to support the Dollar or the Euro. We chose to back the Dollar, and it's no wonder France wouldn't support us in Iraq.

Supplying Saddam with billions of Euros or Dollars was out of the question, but no wonder that the French and the Americans fight like cat and dog. The fact is that the Americans are still trying to hold onto their dominance even though the Euro-Zone has surpassed them as the number-one world economy, and thus the new super-power. For all the talk of the rise of China, the facts speak for themselves.

In fact, if anything the French ought to have gone into Iraq, as the Euro can only really be underwritten in Dollars.

Am I straying from the point? I don't think Blair's guilty of doing anything more than bending the truth. He's done too much good, is pushing too many worthy agendas to be locked up. He's relinquished state power, did not actively pursue the role of European President and has shown his capacity to be humble in the face of great power, so I say no. Blair is as guilty as any of us for our vanity, self-interest or hubris, but should he be tried as a war criminal? No, I don't believe so.

Tracing Child Soldiers

“War violates every right of a child – the right to life, the right to be with family and nurtured and respected”, (Grace Machel, UN, 1996).
The challenge today is to locate a female child soldier from Uganda, Liberia, The Sudan, or any of the other troubled warzones from which they might have fled, as a refugee to the UK and talk to them about their experiences.

According to http://www.child-soldier.org/ : "Over the last ten years, two million children have been killed in conflict. Over one million have been orphaned, over six million have been seriously injured or permanently disabled and over ten million have been left with serious psychological trauma."

That's a whole hell of a lot of damaged kids, and war touches every part of a child's life and development. Often uprooted from their homes and communities, refugeed, ophaned, subjected to sexual abuse and exploitation, they might be victims of trauma, exposed to violence, deprived of education and play, or conscripted to fight with the minimum of basic training.

As citizens in a warzone they may have no access to adequate shelter, food or medical attention, Children are frequently the lowest priority in war and because of their fundamental vulnerablility are often the most impacted by it.

Then there is the aspect of blame. Child soldiers who survive bear a tremendous burden for their communities, suffering the scars for a lifetime.

Tracing Child Soldiers

“War violates every right of a child – the right to life, the right to be with family and nurtured and respected”, (Grace Machel, UN, 1996).
The challenge today is to locate a female child soldier from Uganda, Liberia, The Sudan, or any of the other troubled warzones from which they might have fled, as a refugee to the UK and talk to them about their experiences.

According to http://www.child-soldier.org/ : "Over the last ten years, two million children have been killed in conflict. Over one million have been orphaned, over six million have been seriously injured or permanently disabled and over ten million have been left with serious psychological trauma."

That's a whole hell of a lot of damaged kids, and war touches every part of a child's life and development. Often uprooted from their homes and communities, refugeed, ophaned, subjected to sexual abuse and exploitation, they might be victims of trauma, exposed to violence, deprived of education and play, or conscripted to fight with the minimum of basic training.

As citizens in a warzone they may have no access to adequate shelter, food or medical attention, Children are frequently the lowest priority in war and because of their fundamental vulnerablility are often the most impacted by it.

Then there is the aspect of blame. Child soldiers who survive bear a tremendous burden for their communities, suffering the scars for a lifetime.

Fuck off Apple

My initial reaction to the release of the Apple iPad is one of disappointment, and watching the promotional video of Apple execs scratching their own backs about 'how it just feels right to surf the internet with an iPad' is truly cringeworthy.

You know, I'm sure they're absolutely right, I'm sure it is wonderful for the less than one percent of the world's population who will use one, but don't you just get to the point where you hate this kind of crap, just because it's so damn smug about itself?

It's an insanely expensive way to read books and it eats battery so I doubt it'll be much fun to travel with after a day, much like iPod's awful battery life, honestly if I have to listen to any more about how great email is on the iPad I'm going to throw up- I mean jeezus, who gives a f**k???

Oh no... pinch open your photos.. share them with friends by 'flipping your iPad over'... oh wow.. it's such a great way to watch video... blah blah blah.... multitouch means you can touch it in ways it's never been touched before... what a load of self-indulgent WANK.

 There's honestly nothing about the iPad that doesn't make me want to shove it down Steve Job's throat till he chokes.

I have to say that having owned an iphone for two years now, I think I'm finally ready to give it up. It is still the coolest gadget I've ever had, but it's so damn temperamental and it constantly frustrates me, in addition to the fact that I just don't use the functionality it offers me anyway. 

I'm guessing that the same will apply to the iPad - it will be a 'wow' on functionality, but ultimately a disappointing and largely irrelevant piece of kit that can be gone without, cool as it might appear to be at first.

One thing that I am looking forward to however, is the possibilty that I might be able to interact with my real software applications like photoshop, illustrator and final cut through a fully enabled touch-screen.

I've always liked the idea of interacting directly with the media I'm manipulating, but to be honest, I'd rather do it on a computer which also has power, and preferably a keyboard too.

I am, of course, disapointed then that this new gadget isn't a folding book style, like the macbook (or indeed any laptop) with two touch screens, one which can be manipulated as any kind of customizable keyboard, and the other a screen which can be interacted directly with, but maybe I'm behind the times?

Fuck off Apple

My initial reaction to the release of the Apple iPad is one of disappointment, and watching the promotional video of Apple execs scratching their own backs about 'how it just feels right to surf the internet with an iPad' is truly cringeworthy.

You know, I'm sure they're absolutely right, I'm sure it is wonderful for the less than one percent of the world's population who will use one, but don't you just get to the point where you hate this kind of crap, just because it's so damn smug about itself?

It's an insanely expensive way to read books and it eats battery so I doubt it'll be much fun to travel with after a day, much like iPod's awful battery life, honestly if I have to listen to any more about how great email is on the iPad I'm going to throw up- I mean jeezus, who gives a f**k???

Oh no... pinch open your photos.. share them with friends by 'flipping your iPad over'... oh wow.. it's such a great way to watch video... blah blah blah.... multitouch means you can touch it in ways it's never been touched before... what a load of self-indulgent WANK.

 There's honestly nothing about the iPad that doesn't make me want to shove it down Steve Job's throat till he chokes.

I have to say that having owned an iphone for two years now, I think I'm finally ready to give it up. It is still the coolest gadget I've ever had, but it's so damn temperamental and it constantly frustrates me, in addition to the fact that I just don't use the functionality it offers me anyway. 

I'm guessing that the same will apply to the iPad - it will be a 'wow' on functionality, but ultimately a disappointing and largely irrelevant piece of kit that can be gone without, cool as it might appear to be at first.

One thing that I am looking forward to however, is the possibilty that I might be able to interact with my real software applications like photoshop, illustrator and final cut through a fully enabled touch-screen.

I've always liked the idea of interacting directly with the media I'm manipulating, but to be honest, I'd rather do it on a computer which also has power, and preferably a keyboard too.

I am, of course, disapointed then that this new gadget isn't a folding book style, like the macbook (or indeed any laptop) with two touch screens, one which can be manipulated as any kind of customizable keyboard, and the other a screen which can be interacted directly with, but maybe I'm behind the times?

1977 and all that...

January 3 – Apple Computer Inc. is incorporated.
January 20 – Jimmy Carter succeeds Gerald Ford as the 39th President of the United States.
January 27 – Record company EMI sacks the controversial United Kingdom punk rock group the Sex Pistols.
January 31 – The Centre Georges Pompidou is officially opened by French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing.
February 18 – Prog 1 of 2000 AD, is launched (issue dated 26 February 1977).
February 28 – Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom opens the New Zealand Parliament.
March 8 – The Australian parliament is opened by Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia.
April 1 – Hay-on-Wye declares independence as a publicity stunt.
April 8 – The punk band The Clash's debut album The Clash (album) is released in the UK on CBS Records.
May 17 – Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom commences her 1977 Silver Jubilee tour in Glasgow.
May 25 – Star Wars opens in cinemas and subsequently becomes the then-highest grossing film of all time.

June 5 – The first Apple II computers go on sale.
June 26 – Elvis Presley performs his last-ever concert, in Indianapolis, Indiana's Market Square Arena.
August 16 – Elvis Presley, the king of rock and roll dies in his home in Graceland at age 42. 75,000 fans lined the streets of Memphis for this funeral.[1]
August 19 – Groucho Marx Dies
September 16 - T.Rex frontman Marc Bolan is killed in an automobile accident.

October 28 – Never Mind The Bollocks Here's The Sex Pistols is released in the United Kingdom.

Adidas Men's Forest Hills 72 Tennis Shoes were originally released in 1977

The Tennis shoes feature a ventilation system designed by NASA.

You can buy them today for £67.22

1977 and all that...

January 3 – Apple Computer Inc. is incorporated.
January 20 – Jimmy Carter succeeds Gerald Ford as the 39th President of the United States.
January 27 – Record company EMI sacks the controversial United Kingdom punk rock group the Sex Pistols.
January 31 – The Centre Georges Pompidou is officially opened by French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing.
February 18 – Prog 1 of 2000 AD, is launched (issue dated 26 February 1977).
February 28 – Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom opens the New Zealand Parliament.
March 8 – The Australian parliament is opened by Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia.
April 1 – Hay-on-Wye declares independence as a publicity stunt.
April 8 – The punk band The Clash's debut album The Clash (album) is released in the UK on CBS Records.
May 17 – Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom commences her 1977 Silver Jubilee tour in Glasgow.
May 25 – Star Wars opens in cinemas and subsequently becomes the then-highest grossing film of all time.

June 5 – The first Apple II computers go on sale.
June 26 – Elvis Presley performs his last-ever concert, in Indianapolis, Indiana's Market Square Arena.
August 16 – Elvis Presley, the king of rock and roll dies in his home in Graceland at age 42. 75,000 fans lined the streets of Memphis for this funeral.[1]
August 19 – Groucho Marx Dies
September 16 - T.Rex frontman Marc Bolan is killed in an automobile accident.

October 28 – Never Mind The Bollocks Here's The Sex Pistols is released in the United Kingdom.

Adidas Men's Forest Hills 72 Tennis Shoes were originally released in 1977

The Tennis shoes feature a ventilation system designed by NASA.

You can buy them today for £67.22

Florence's Machinations

Florence Welch and her band: "Florence and the Machine" recently secured three Brit nominations and yesterday received a "South Bank Show Award" for her album "Lungs".

Welch, 23, beat the electropop artist "Frankmusik" and London outfit "The XX". The award was presented by Pulp's Jarvis Cocker at the Dorchester hotel in London.

Florence's Machinations

Florence Welch and her band: "Florence and the Machine" recently secured three Brit nominations and yesterday received a "South Bank Show Award" for her album "Lungs".

Welch, 23, beat the electropop artist "Frankmusik" and London outfit "The XX". The award was presented by Pulp's Jarvis Cocker at the Dorchester hotel in London.

Un Prophete

Part One


Part Two


Review to follow:

Un Prophete

Part One


Part Two


Review to follow:

Police Facebook - Rise of the Police state?

Last year saw a new initiative from the local metropolitan police force in Kingston Upon Thames which centres around the popular social networking site "Facebook".

Charged with launching a facebook page, the station is to operate a new public group which then acts as an outreach project to the local community, in the different wards in the borough. Churches and church groups, Universities, students, schools, school teachers, children and parents are all being encouraged to join the group to enrich dialogue and reduce crime, particularly by identifying criminals and potential criminal suspects through their own social networks.

It's an innovative but predictable (some would say inevitable) approach to the idea of a Big Brother society, but it's the kind of activity that has the potential to get to the heart of troublemaking behaviour very quickly, and is proving to be effective for the force as a whole.

Data-mining, public records and intelligence on the ground has made huge leaps in the last few years but critics worry that the increasing amount of surveillance in the UK, which is already the most highly surveilled country in the world is getting 'out of hand' and could lead to the kind of 'Minority Report' thought-police who have the power to arrest and detain someone suspected of being 'about to commit a crime'.

With the advance of psychological profiling one might think that the police would be on the verge of identifying (for example) potential rapists, muggers and thieves through what they reveal about themselves online, and in fact a whole raft of policing initiatives already exist for this purpose, but confront the Kingston police directly about the potential abuse of privacy and they go very quiet, perhaps not surprisingly.

A new era of privacy of the individual has been ushered in under the European Convention on Human Rights, following the Max Mosley case in 2007.

tbc

Police Facebook - Rise of the Police state?

Last year saw a new initiative from the local metropolitan police force in Kingston Upon Thames which centres around the popular social networking site "Facebook".

Charged with launching a facebook page, the station is to operate a new public group which then acts as an outreach project to the local community, in the different wards in the borough. Churches and church groups, Universities, students, schools, school teachers, children and parents are all being encouraged to join the group to enrich dialogue and reduce crime, particularly by identifying criminals and potential criminal suspects through their own social networks.

It's an innovative but predictable (some would say inevitable) approach to the idea of a Big Brother society, but it's the kind of activity that has the potential to get to the heart of troublemaking behaviour very quickly, and is proving to be effective for the force as a whole.

Data-mining, public records and intelligence on the ground has made huge leaps in the last few years but critics worry that the increasing amount of surveillance in the UK, which is already the most highly surveilled country in the world is getting 'out of hand' and could lead to the kind of 'Minority Report' thought-police who have the power to arrest and detain someone suspected of being 'about to commit a crime'.

With the advance of psychological profiling one might think that the police would be on the verge of identifying (for example) potential rapists, muggers and thieves through what they reveal about themselves online, and in fact a whole raft of policing initiatives already exist for this purpose, but confront the Kingston police directly about the potential abuse of privacy and they go very quiet, perhaps not surprisingly.

A new era of privacy of the individual has been ushered in under the European Convention on Human Rights, following the Max Mosley case in 2007.

tbc

Child Soldiers

How many Child Soldiers are there in the World today and how have the figures changed over the last ten years?

Warchild estimates that 300,000 child soldiers are fighting in the world today, and says that child soldiers are  used by rebel groups fighting governments and vice versa.

Child soldiers are not always combatants, but may be engaged as porters, cooks and spies within the army or militia. Most child soldiers are abducted into the fighting forces, some are also volunteers or are volunteered by their parents.

"Up to 40% of child soldiers are girls who are used as sex-slaves for the male combatants".

Warchild is the charity which works with former child soldiers in Africa, especially Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). They help to reintegrate former child soldiers back into society and the community. They provide education and skills training to young people who have none as a result of war.

They provide these links to  teaching resources ,their Facebook page, and a website in which people can get directly involved called "Angry Mob ".

"The International Rescue Committee" provides education, skills and leadership development for young people, care and reunification services for separated children, and protection and support for former child soldiers."

For women, the dangers of armed conflict go far beyond the violence of combat. They risk human rights violations, suffering and death that can and should be prevented.

"Worldwide, over 40% of reported sexual assaults are perpetrated against girls aged 15 or younger."

The International Rescue Committee works comprehensively to save women’s lives and promote their rights in war-shattered countries, refugee camps and communities that are rebuilding.

They estimate 20 million children are uprooted as a cause of war each day, that they lose their parents and friends and often have to take on the roles of protecting and caring for younger children, whilst missing out on the opportunity for education. 

IRC believes that education is a right of refugee and displaced children and work to provide education programmes, school revitalisation and teacher training to ensure that the vital opportunity to learn isn't lost.

Their first education programmes started in the 1980s to set up schools for 40,000 cambodian refugee children in Thailand. In 2007, more than 317,000 young people were learning in IRC supported schools and the IRC trained 10,000 teachers. They take mentoring of children very seriously in an attempt to help guide them into becoming more responsible members of society.

The IRC registers separated children and removes them from harm's way and traces their families. They first started doing this in Thailand in the 1980s for Cambodian refugees. In Sierra Leone and Liberia, they have reunited 4,500 children with their families.

The IRC provides immediate protection, heathcare and emotional support to children who have escaped from armed forces and promote community child protection committees and other local partners to provide sustainable and lastig support to vulnerable children.
You can sign up to recieve website updates from the IRC here.

In Northern Uganda, approximately 20,000 children have been abducted to fight in a local Uganda militia called: "The Lord's Resistance Army" (LRA).

One girl who was abducted and forced to fight for them said she was made to kill a boy who tried to escape, saw another boy being hacked to death for not raising the alarm when his friend escaped, was beaten  when she dropped a water container and ran for cover whilst under fire.
She was trained for a total of 35 days by the LRA before being sent to fight the government army.

Over the last ten years hundreds of thousands of child soldiers have been killed in conflicts, and they're frequently killed whilst carrying out tasks other than fighting.

They are forced to engage in hazardous activities such as laying mines or explosives, as well as using weapons. Child soldiers are usually forced to live under harsh conditions with insufficient food and little or no access to healthcare. They are almost always treated brutally, subjected to beatings and humiliating treatment. Punishments for mistakes or desertion are often very severe. Girl soldiers are particularly at risk of rape, sexual harassment and abuse as well as being involved in combat and other tasks.

So where recruitment may lead to sex slavery, young girls abducted by rebel forces are commonly divided up and allocated to soldiers to serve as their 'wives'. A case-study from Honduras, prepared for the Machel report, illustrates one child's experience of joining armed groups:


"At the age of 13, I joined the student movement. I had a dream to contribute to make things change, so that children would not be hungry ... later I joined the armed struggle. I had all the inexperience and fears of a little girl. I found out that girls were obliged to have sexual relations 'to alleviate the sadness of the combatants. And who alleviated our sadness after going with someone we hardly knew? At my young age I experienced abortion ... In spite of my commitment, they abused me, they trampled my human dignity. And above all, they did not understand that I was a child and that I had rights."

It is difficult to reintegrate demobilized children after a peace settlement is reached. Many have been physically or sexually abused by the very forces for which they have been fighting, and have seen their parents killed, sometimes in the most brutal manner, in front of their eyes. Most have also been led into participating in murder, rape and other atrocities. These children have no skills for life in peacetime and they are accustomed to getting their way through violence.

Child Soldiers

How many Child Soldiers are there in the World today and how have the figures changed over the last ten years?

Warchild estimates that 300,000 child soldiers are fighting in the world today, and says that child soldiers are  used by rebel groups fighting governments and vice versa.

Child soldiers are not always combatants, but may be engaged as porters, cooks and spies within the army or militia. Most child soldiers are abducted into the fighting forces, some are also volunteers or are volunteered by their parents.

"Up to 40% of child soldiers are girls who are used as sex-slaves for the male combatants".

Warchild is the charity which works with former child soldiers in Africa, especially Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). They help to reintegrate former child soldiers back into society and the community. They provide education and skills training to young people who have none as a result of war.

They provide these links to  teaching resources ,their Facebook page, and a website in which people can get directly involved called "Angry Mob ".

"The International Rescue Committee" provides education, skills and leadership development for young people, care and reunification services for separated children, and protection and support for former child soldiers."

For women, the dangers of armed conflict go far beyond the violence of combat. They risk human rights violations, suffering and death that can and should be prevented.

"Worldwide, over 40% of reported sexual assaults are perpetrated against girls aged 15 or younger."

The International Rescue Committee works comprehensively to save women’s lives and promote their rights in war-shattered countries, refugee camps and communities that are rebuilding.

They estimate 20 million children are uprooted as a cause of war each day, that they lose their parents and friends and often have to take on the roles of protecting and caring for younger children, whilst missing out on the opportunity for education. 

IRC believes that education is a right of refugee and displaced children and work to provide education programmes, school revitalisation and teacher training to ensure that the vital opportunity to learn isn't lost.

Their first education programmes started in the 1980s to set up schools for 40,000 cambodian refugee children in Thailand. In 2007, more than 317,000 young people were learning in IRC supported schools and the IRC trained 10,000 teachers. They take mentoring of children very seriously in an attempt to help guide them into becoming more responsible members of society.

The IRC registers separated children and removes them from harm's way and traces their families. They first started doing this in Thailand in the 1980s for Cambodian refugees. In Sierra Leone and Liberia, they have reunited 4,500 children with their families.

The IRC provides immediate protection, heathcare and emotional support to children who have escaped from armed forces and promote community child protection committees and other local partners to provide sustainable and lastig support to vulnerable children.
You can sign up to recieve website updates from the IRC here.

In Northern Uganda, approximately 20,000 children have been abducted to fight in a local Uganda militia called: "The Lord's Resistance Army" (LRA).

One girl who was abducted and forced to fight for them said she was made to kill a boy who tried to escape, saw another boy being hacked to death for not raising the alarm when his friend escaped, was beaten  when she dropped a water container and ran for cover whilst under fire.
She was trained for a total of 35 days by the LRA before being sent to fight the government army.

Over the last ten years hundreds of thousands of child soldiers have been killed in conflicts, and they're frequently killed whilst carrying out tasks other than fighting.

They are forced to engage in hazardous activities such as laying mines or explosives, as well as using weapons. Child soldiers are usually forced to live under harsh conditions with insufficient food and little or no access to healthcare. They are almost always treated brutally, subjected to beatings and humiliating treatment. Punishments for mistakes or desertion are often very severe. Girl soldiers are particularly at risk of rape, sexual harassment and abuse as well as being involved in combat and other tasks.

So where recruitment may lead to sex slavery, young girls abducted by rebel forces are commonly divided up and allocated to soldiers to serve as their 'wives'. A case-study from Honduras, prepared for the Machel report, illustrates one child's experience of joining armed groups:


"At the age of 13, I joined the student movement. I had a dream to contribute to make things change, so that children would not be hungry ... later I joined the armed struggle. I had all the inexperience and fears of a little girl. I found out that girls were obliged to have sexual relations 'to alleviate the sadness of the combatants. And who alleviated our sadness after going with someone we hardly knew? At my young age I experienced abortion ... In spite of my commitment, they abused me, they trampled my human dignity. And above all, they did not understand that I was a child and that I had rights."

It is difficult to reintegrate demobilized children after a peace settlement is reached. Many have been physically or sexually abused by the very forces for which they have been fighting, and have seen their parents killed, sometimes in the most brutal manner, in front of their eyes. Most have also been led into participating in murder, rape and other atrocities. These children have no skills for life in peacetime and they are accustomed to getting their way through violence.