I’ve not posted much for the last few days. Actually nothing as I’ve been doing a few other things so I thought I’d do a little bit of a round up of events/issues.

On Tuesday the Penguin household braved the border patrols and sneaked into the Sandwell Borough to attend the launch of the Jon Cruddas Deputy Leadership campaign. Bob Piper did a good summing up of the event and in truly photographic genius style, managed to get the backs of the whole Penguin household in the frame. I learned one thing from that; I need a hair cut.

On the serious side it was refreshing to see Cruddas talk about issues that seem to have not got the attention they deserve in recent years, primarily that of social housing. The problems have been brewing for a generation but even if the debate is finally up there where it belongs, then perhaps we can start address an issue that affects many on lower incomes.

Following on from that, and it does beg the question: “where do we get these people from”, the comments made by Margaret Hodge. Short of making a play for the Leadership of the BNP, it makes you wonder how some people get to where they are on the basis of such awful political nouse. Perhaps it’s a lack of imagination but her comments have been rightfully condemned by many as they should. If she is concerned about the gains made by the BNP in her own constituency, not helped of course by her own last rash of daft comments then she should learn at least one thing of which I would have thought someone who has got the position of being an MP should already know.

You cannot win on the basis of using the argument of the opposition. Especially when that opposition are the horrid bunch of toe-rags that the BNP are. You cannot appropriate the blame for a lack of social housing by accepting the arguments from the far-right that it’s all these naughty East Europeans invading the country. She should know, unless Barking is a very strange place indeed that migrants rarely end up in council houses. The vast majority end up in low quality private sector accommodation or the equivalent of shared dorms of workers. They’re not holed up in nice 3 and 4 bedroom council semi’s because although if they are in the UK, earning and paying tax then they should be entitled, there’s a shitload more people ahead of them on the waiting lists who’ve been there for years and short of a very exceptional circumstance, they ain’t going to be able to jump the queues.

She would have been far more productive in addressing the reasons for this lack of housing and it’s underlying causes, rather than effectively writing the BNP’s next leaflet campaign in Barking for them.

I spotted this during the week too. I just have a few thoughts on this, none of them complimentary towards Microsoft as regular readers will have probably guessed. So here’s the scenario, Microsoft want there to be a professional body for IT people in the UK because there’s too many out there doing dodgy fixes or bodged jobs on systems.

First point being that this is a bit rich given the output of Microsoft in terms of ‘good’ programming is laughable. They release software with bugs in them, highly unsecure systems and quite frankly are not the people to lecture others about high levels of competence.

Secondly, they’ve helpfully inferred that their own Microsoft accreditation programme would be very useful in assessing and registering IT ‘professionals’. Well, no it woudn’t, it would tell people that they know how to use one of a myriad of different systems available, and the poorest of those to boot. Are they seriously thinking that the UK Government would fall for what is patently an attempt to sew up the market by being supplier and effective registrar of those who work in the industry. Come on, no Government Minister is going to fall for that one. On the other hand this is IT so it’s always possible, but thankfully it appears the Government is very cool to this idea of a professional body anyway.

Thirdly, and finally, I’ll admit it, I’m a bodger. Not so much these days but in a past life of being surrounded by Microsoft’s products at work. There’s two reasons you have to bodge around with systems. It has nothing to do with your level of expertise and everything to do with Microsoft. Apart from the software they produce being unstable and a complete security nightmare at times (yes I do remember manually having to hack a rather pernicious virus of computers across the UK via remote access and manually having to do every machines registry system because none of the tools that were supposed to work did, or they allowed the machines to re-infect each other before you could isolate them) but as with everything with Microsoft, you never 100% know what you’re dealing with. I can happily mess about the registry of a system, that thing they tell you never to touch because a character in the wrong place can happily kill a machine but despite this knowledge, I still don’t know exactly how Windows works. Why? Well, because they don’t release the code, it’s all secret so at best you’re dealing with educated guesswork or previous experience. You can never know exactly what’s going on because it doesn’t get outside of a building in Redmond.

I think that’s pretty much it for the weekly review. Apart from Mrs Penguin has nicked my ‘good’ computer, I’ve spent a lot of time enjoying watching my son learn to run and I’m looking forward to my first trip to the cinema to see Pirates of the Caribbean 3 since I went to see Star Wars - Revenge of the Sith, from which you can deduce I don’t go to the cinema very often. I’ve also took advantage of the brief bit of good weather to do some of the jobs I haven’t been able to do outside or that require sunshine. Sadly this opportunity seems short-lived as it’s decidedly pissing it down again. Good night to one and all.

Last night, this article appeared on the BBC website and by mid-morning today, it was gone again which seems a rather short shelf life by their standards but it raises some interesting points.
Apart from it being a rather poor piece of journalism compared to the usually high standard of the BBC, it begs more questions than it answers, shows none of the usual background information on which it is based and ranks, quite frankly among the kind of crap you’d expect to read in the Daily Mail.
Let’s run through the information that it gives us. £100million spent on translation and interpretting in the UK. Note the UK bit for later reference. Of this, local authorities spend £25million, NHS Trusts £55million and the courts/police, £31million. There’s also a link to another article in the see also section on this page that adds another 0.3million to the courts/police if combined and £8.5million spent by the Immigration and nationality directorate.
Right, quick bit of maths for the Beeb:
£25million
£55million
£31.3million
£8.5million +

= £119.8million

OK, so what have we learned so far? The Beeb’s a bit crap at maths. However, as I started to type this post I only just noticed the inconsistency in their figures and that’s not the reason I started in the first place.
What this article raises is by it’s very inference, the use of quotes used, it is aiming the debate that it seeks to develop in a very certain direction. One that perhaps they might have either deliberately or inadvertently done.
So let’s analyse it. There are four quotes in the article and two examples. First up are the ever wonderful Ruth Kelly and Phil Woolas:
“She [Ruth Kelly] has already made clear that public services need to give far greater priority to promoting social cohesion and shared values rather than supporting separateness and we are examining the issue of translation in this context.”

He added: “But it is essential that we study this issue carefully first as there may be situations, such as access to medical services, where it is important that provision is made in other languages.”

I’m going to come back to this ’social cohesion’ statement a bit later. But pretty much it’s clear that the view of Ruth Kelly that people should learn English should they wish to interract with or use public services.

Next up, a Bangladeshi woman:

Speaking through a translator, a Bangladeshi woman who has lived in the UK for 22 years and does not speak English questioned this spending.

She said: “When you are trying to help us you are actually harming. Even before we ask, all we have to do is say hello, they are here with their interpreters. We just sit here doing nothing and we don’t need to speak in English at all.”

Again, people should learn English.

Finally, there’s Trevor Phillips, saying something reasonably sensible for a change:

The former head of the Commission for Racial Equality, Trevor Phillips, claimed that the cost of translation was simply a feature of globalisation.

He said: “Translation is not a disincentive. It allows them to get access to services while they learn English. Translation is a way of helping people in transition into integrating into our society.”

Then there are the two examples:

The BBC discovered that Peterborough Council translates details of its refuse collection service into 15 languages.

Meanwhile, Islington’s NHS primary care trust in London is providing a Turkish woman who has lived in the UK for five years with one-to-one sessions to help her stop smoking translated into her own language.

So what do we have, a majority saying that people should learn English, two examples involving a council and a PCT in England, one involving a ‘Turkish’ woman. A Bangladeshi woman supporting the learn English brigade, obviously rolled out so it’s a nice ethnic supporting the viewpoint instead of a white member of the public because the Beeb wouldn’t want to be accused of promoting prejudice and intolerance would they?
Now lets put this into context, and perhaps it shows up a little more about those who produce such an article and indeed those who have responded to it by what they omit to clarify and the area they focus on.
Firstly, there’s naughty, always politically correct Islington’s NHS primary care trust who are paying for a translator to help a Turkish woman quit smoking. Note, she’s Turkish. Also note, it doesn’t say she’s got an interpretor on hand during these sessions, merely ‘translated into her own language’ which as anyone who has done these quit smoking sessions knows; everyone has one-to-one sessions and the ‘translation’ could equally be as little as some leaflets or notes.
Then there’s Peterborough Council that translates details of its refuse collection service into 15 languages but doesn’t actually mention which ones. There’s the Bangladeshi woman, note Bangladeshi, who’s chipping in about it.
The reference from Trevor Phillips is skewed towards this being an issue of globalisation, by definition meaning people moving to the UK to work or sponge off benefits depending on whether you’re a Daily Mail reader or not.
Finally, there’s Ruth Kelly banging on about ’social cohesion, shared values and combatting seperateness’, presumably we’re back on to the whole integration of immigrants again. Yes, that’s it, these bloody foreigners coming to our country, can’t speak a word of English and we’re expected to pay through the nose for translators so they can use our services - it’s a Daily Mail journalists wet dream of an article.
Except one thing, and this is the problem with the article. The facts aren’t exactly made clear. Yes, there’s some division into costs for different departments but there’s bugger all to explain which languages exatly we are talking about here. Are we going down the media line of it’s all those bloody Poles coming to our country again?
Or, it’s all those asians and their big families coming over or are already here, want their own communities and don’t want to integrate with the natives? For which the Government line now appears to be, yes Tony’s said it, Ruth’s said it, so it must be policy, that all these minorities have got to ‘integrate’ although ‘integrate’ is a bit of a strong word to use, so we’ll call it ’social cohesion’.
Now just for the record, I personally believe in the multi-cultural society, not as it is sadly seen to be these days as a by-word for segregation thanks to it’s misinterpretation by the media and today’s politicians, but more in the manner in which it was seen in the 1960’s. That we as a society accept that there are cultural differences between people, but that melting pot of ideas when mixed together produces something truly special, which despite it’s detractors, I still think is one of Britain’s true strengths. (a while living abroad makes you appreciate this)
However, and in whatever phraseology is being used, be it ’social cohesion’ or ‘integration’, the road we seem to be heading down is not one of mutual respect and drawing our strengths from our differences but one of, ‘if you want to live in our country then you’re going to have to assimilate to our practices and customs even though we haven’t got a clue what they are in the first place, oh and bloody speak English you thick foreigners’.
Back to the problems with the article, and this leads out of the lack of clarity of the sources used and costs involved. Which languages are we talking about, because, there’s this place, you might have heard of, it’s called Wales. Where they have their own language, unsurprisingly, it’s called Welsh. And you know what? For the last fifty odd years we’ve been promoting this language to the extent of having all the road signs, public documents and a legal right to conduct any business with a public body through the medium of Welsh all to the ends of promoting Welsh culture and identity.
So now I take it that we’ve changed policy on this, forget all the translation and equal status, sorry, all you Welsh have got to learn to use only English now because it’s costing too much. Of course not, and here’s the hypocritical bit.
Only around 200,000 of the whole population of Wales actually speaks that language however it is afforded such high status although in my view rightly so. However when we’re talking about translating stuff into Urdu, Turkish, Polish, or any other language, hang on, that’s different. Which by definition means that there are value judgements at work here which on the one hand seem to imply that some people must learn English as the primary means of interacting with official bodies but at the same time encouraging the promotion of another language for culturally motivated reasons. Oh, and lets not forget other minority celtic languages and Cornish either.
There was a phone-in on the radio last night on this issue, I’m not sure which one as I was in someone elses car at the time, although presumably it was Radio 4 which featured the age old argument that, ‘if people want to come here then they should learn English first’.
Right, let’s have that as a policy, that before you can reside in the UK you must pass an English language test, can’t pass it, then you can piss off.
You see, this is a valid policy, because us Brits are so conscientious about learning the local language before we settle in other countries. Every single ex-pat currently residing in Spain is fully fluent in the language, same goes for those in Greece, France and indeed in every other country that some of our countryfolk decide to move too. No doubt even PragueTory is fluent in Czech.
Oh, bugger, that’s it, the glaring hypocracy in this argument. For all the demands of the usual right-wingnuts for others to learn English before they settle on our island, there’s all those other right-wingnuts planning on buggering off to live in the sun of Spain where they will eat English food, drink English beer in English styled pubs called the George & Crown with other English people. So for those who are banging on about this, how about if Spain, Greece or France decided they’re sick of people coming to their country who can’t speak the language and put a precondition of fluency of the local lingo into residency entitlement?
There is of course, a higher moral issue to this. Are we suggesting that people should be excluded from access to public services on account of a lack of English language knowledge. Yes, English language courses should and indeed are freely available across the country for those who want to learn it. Should we encourage those who come here to learn the language, of course we should, as much as we should encourage our own population to pick up other languages. Learning another language is both intellectually stimulating, culturally enlightening and promotes understanding between people. But hang on, that’s a high moral principal there, forgot that, this is British politics.
This however isn’t just about language, it’s about the whole issue of cultural identity but that can wait for another post.

I spotted this little gem today in the Guardian. Forget the main section of the article, it’s the bit about the Tories calling for a ’statement today from the home secretary, John Reid, on the safety of Russian citizens in the UK’.
Now this is presumably in response to the death of Alexander Litvinenko who as far as I can tell isn’t a Russian national, having successfully applied for British citizenship so perhaps there is some other reason for this call for a statement. Perhaps the Tories have turned over a new leaf and are truly concerned about the safety of immigrant groups in the UK. Or, they simply made a slip-up and showed that whether or not you’ve got a British passport then in their eyes you’ll always be a foreigner.
I was then drawn to exactly what was the point in asking for an official statement from the Home Secretary on this subject, and indeed, how exactly a comprehensive response could be formulated. Is there a special arm of the police that deals solely with the protection of Russian citizens, or indeed for every other nationality that resides in the country, fully kitted out with an army of translators, specialists and producing reams of data on how they are protecting foreign nationals in the UK? If this isn’t the case then surely it would seem the Tories think there should be as they seem so concerned over the issue.
This is of course the same party that not to long ago criticised the amount of money spent by Police Authorities to employ translators because of the number of immigrants living in the country, but of course that was just a cheap swipe at johnny foreigner and what a drain on society they are, the Tories are now the huggy feely party of British politics and have obviously changed.
Note: When I first penned this article, the following section was not in the Guardian article: ‘Although police are resisting calling their investigation a murder inquiry, senior MPs are openly using the term. The shadow defence secretary, Liam Fox, said it was unacceptable for any UK citizen to be murdered inside their own country, while the Foreign Office minister Kim Howells has reportedly spoken of a naturalised British citizen “murdered on British streets by foreign nationals”.’
Perhaps the Tories spotted their slip-up and had to do a bit backtracking. However the point remains, the Tories asked a silly question not designed to aid understanding or supply information but simply for the point of asking it.
Equally, if their intention was to ask specifically about the case involving Mr Litvinenko then they should come out and say it, not hide behind vague terms. It should be given the response that it deserves, simply, that our legal, judicial and law enforcement agencies are there to protect everyone within their jurisdiction and is not aimed at any one particular group in society and in individual cases as it would presume this is what they are really after, then the response should be; it’s a matter for the police to deal with and investigate, oh and how the hell am I supposed to know if the police and secret services don’t.

OK OK, I lifted the headline direct from Unity over at Ministry of Truth. For one main reason. Apart from it being another excellent article from Unity, there is one area which he touches on, that of the countries Romania and Bulgaria that are due to join the EU at the start of next year but deserves a little more elaboration.
The figures used in his article and indeed by the Express in their pointless headline that Unity takes apart are derived from the workers registration scheme introduced by the government for those East European countries that joined the EU in 2004. At the time I was of the opinion that such a registration system was discriminatory, treated other EU member state’s populations as second-class citizens and I still hold those views today. However when it comes to having such controls and registration in place it is rather useful that such statistics can be derived to prove the myth that the country isn’t indeed flooded full of wasters after our paltry benefits but actually they’re here to work and are contributing financially to our society. Not to mention keeping the buses moving in the West Midlands where I believe 1 in 10 drivers are now Polish.
What is also notable to mention is that when the registration system came in, there were significant numbers who signed up who were already in the UK without proper visa accreditation, presumably working in the black economy without working rights and all the protection that is offered to those officially working.
Now before we start going down the line of naughty foreigners working in the black economy, lets get one thing straight. So far as unregistered work is concerned I’d hazard a good guess that unlike what the Daily Mail et al would like us to believe, it’s not foreigners that are responsible for the vast majority of activity on the black economy but our own indigenous population. From that friend of a friend who’s an electrician who’ll do some wiring work for £20 cash to that bloke down the pub who can get you the latest film on DVD before it’s released or a hooky version of Windows XP. So before we start pillorying johnny foreigner lets not forget we’re the worst perperators of this practice.
That said, it is important to note that there were indeed people from these countries already working in our country, unregistered, not paying tax and at risk of severe exploitation. I’d also hazard a good guess there’s some Bulgarians and Romanians somewhere in our country doing the same thing right now.
So that leads me on to my main gripe. Our Labour Government, sadly gripped in a contest of who can be the ‘toughest’ on whichever group the right-wing press decide deserve a good linching this week, is looking likely to restrict workers from these two countries coming here, unless of course they’re the ‘type of worker we want’ ie. dentists, doctors, profesionals etc. If you’re an unskilled labourer who would quite happily work hard, sorry but you’re not welcome. So lets flip the coin for a second, we are Bulgaria or Romania, this big country that’s a hell of a lot better of than us is saying that they’re happy to cream off our most educated workforce that cost us shitloads of money to train in the first place but we can keep all the uneducated unqualified ones because they don’t want riff-raff like that in their country.
Apart from this being completely insensitive to these countries and potentially leaving them facing skills gaps in essential services, it’s also two-faced and not worthy of the high moral principles that I believe our party should seek to attain.
What it will mean when these countries join the EU is that those who want to come here to work but can’t get access legally will just slip into the black economy as a fresh influx of easily exploitable labour by unscrupulous employers. Oh, and they won’t be paying any tax either. In some respects it’s sad to see the Government take such a weak position and ultimately ill-informed. Anyone with a fair bit of knowledge of these countries might tell you that they are much more cultural alligned with southern European countries like Italy or Spain where there are already sizable migrant populations and if anything, that’s where the vast majority of these people will be heading, not to our little wind-swept island.
Equally, for all those Brits who are currently or planning in the future to pick up a cheap holiday place in Bulgaria (apparently it’s very popular at the moment, big dacha’s with a few acres going for £15,000) you might be running out of time. You see in Bulgaria, if you’re not a national or resident, to own a property you must first register a company there which officially owns it. Problem is, the Bulgarians might be looking at restricting this and work entitlement for us Brits. What goes around comes around heh?