The Cull is About Killing Badgers, Not Scientific Evidence

 Image by The Green Party

The controversial badger cull trial has failed to meet its targets, so Tory logic says that the trial should be extended by three weeks in order to ensure those targets are met.

Widely condemned, the six week badger cull being piloted in West Somerset and Gloucestershire attempts to discern how effective, humane and safe a cull would be if later implemented across England. Working on a quota, those who have been granted a license to kill the badgers in Somerset are now to be given an additional six weeks to make sure they kill the right amount.

This is a ridiculous move by the Government. The trial cull has already been riddled with failure, uncertainty and inaccuracies and the questions the government want answered have most definitely been unanswered. Only a short amount of time after the cull was initiated, the Government revised their figures on the number of badgers in the area, reducing them. How can any experiment be undertaken if the full facts aren’t known?

Ludicrously, the government is attempting to blame the badgers for their failure with Owen Paterson saying that the badgers ‘moved the goalposts.’ How have they done this? By doing what nature tells them to do: responding to the weather, moving away from danger and breeding. These are hardly unexpected moves from the enemies, with scientists already having warned the Government of these complications if they were to press on with this disgusting policy.

Yet, the Government believes that this is reason enough to extend the cull, ignoring the fact that it is factors like these that help to determine the effectiveness of their trial. The Government are ignoring the difficulties that a cull faces and are only concerned with the number of badgers are killed. It is more than apparent that when this quota has been met, the Government will claim the cull a success, as they already have done despite not reaching the numbers, and will begin rolling out the programme across England on the basis of this ‘evidence.’

In addition, protest groups in the area have noted that not all badgers have been killed humanely (using the Government’s definition), with some being trapped in cages before being shot at point-blank. The cull requires that badgers are killed while freely roaming. This highlights that another of the requirements of this cull has already been failed, in a closely-monitored trial, suggesting that if it were to be reproduced nationally there would be many more instances of badgers killed by inhumane methods. Furthermore, one of the arguments against vaccinating badgers against bTB was how difficult they are to capture, but if the Government is catching badgers in cages to shoot them, then they can catch badgers in cages to vaccinate them.

The Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett, rightly called out Owen Paterson and Defra for continuously 'changing the rules' and preferring 'a scribbled on the back of an envelope, ignoring the facts approach.'

It can only be concluded that the badger cull is a dangerous move for the Government that goes against the will of the public and the expert recommendations of the scientific community. It does not fulfil their requirements and is simply a token gesture to farmers who are worried about losing a bit of capital. Hence, the Government should begin looking at alternative measures to tackle Bovine Tuberculosis, such as the vaccination, which have helped Scotland to achieve its Bovine TB-free status.

Stop the Badger Cull

 Image by The Green Party

 

The badger cull pilot project is set to begin in the UK shortly, trialling in the south-western counties of Gloucestershire and Somerset despite many calls for its cancellation. It disheartens me that the hard work of The Green Party, the RSPCA and high-street store, Lush, have been ignored by the Government. What we are seeing now, according to the BBC, is the massacre of 5094 innocent creatures by February next year. 

People will proclaim that the badgers aren’t innocent because they have spread TB to cattle across the country and cost farmers and the nation massive amounts of money, but this is to neglect the fact that these creatures are none the wiser. We, as humans, are lucky to possess the intelligence that we have – we can stop the spread of diseases and viruses using our mental capacities – but, unfortunately, badgers don’t have this same awareness. So, to treat them like they do and hold them as “guilty” of carrying TB and ruining livestock across the country is preposterous. 

It would be outrageous if we were to wipe out the entire population that carry HIV, so why should we do the same to badgers? There are other ways of tackling the problem, and these have been tried and tested. So, they cost more and harder to administer, but should these creatures pay the price for our laziness and ignorance? No. Besides, leading scientists (including the Government’s chief scientist) have argued that there is no real evidence to justify the slaughter, yet the activity goes ahead. 

In October 2012, the House of Commons voted against the proposed cull but this non-binding result from the house was only greeted with a slight postponement by the Government. Acting against the wishes of the House’s members and, indeed, the population, we are seeing an act of downright betrayal from those who are meant to represent us. 

A campaign has been launched by Lush, the high-street cosmetics shop, against the cull, gathering support from customers and passers-by across the country, via organised flash mobs as in the video below. But, we have seen that, time and time again, the Government just does not listen; despite how hard the campaign is fought, and the damning evidence, unless it’s the right people pushing the buttons, it’s hard to get your voice heard. 

Unfortunately, it is already too late to save some, but it is not yet too late to put pressure on the Government. Join me and many others in saying no to the badger cull. Tweet your support using “#stopthecull”, sign the petition, stick up a poster and tell everyone you know. Let’s give those badgers back their lives.

The Not-So-Grand National

Image by Paolo Camera

The Grand National starts today and its controversial history has already been repeated with two horses already having died in the preliminary stages; one from a jump, the other from a suspected heart attack. There have been numerous attempts to make the races safer but these do not seem to be making any difference, with horses continuing to die at each race.

It is a sad state of affairs that people would accept this practice as normal and only express remorse at the death of the horses rather than the initial cruelty. Furthermore, this remorse is short-lived and only shown during the Great National and later races. The races are treated as an experience and a great day out but who treats a death as a great day out? The fact that the horse is a lesser-being, an animal, changes the very treatment and perception that we grant it; this is wholly unfair.

Ludicrously, the RSPCA have argued that the Grand National, or horseracing in general, does not amount to animal cruelty, stating that animal cruelty was when people deliberately hurt animals for their own entertainment or pleasure. But surely this is exactly what the Grand National is? Jockeys beating their horses with sticks for their pursuit of money and fame, whilst others gather to watch, bet and enjoy. And year after year, horses die as a direct result of the broken bones caused by falling at fences they are required to jump. This is a very strange opinion to hear from the RSPCA.

The attempts to make the Grand National safer every year are unsuccessful. Changing the heights and types of fence are a step forward but they are not enough. The real problem in horseracing is the pressure that jockeys are put under to win the race and the difficulty to manoeuvre the horse when all horses are so close together, taking bends and dangerous jumps. It seems unlikely that any changes will be made to stop these horses having to die.

For some reason, cruelty to animals is a frowned upon practice yet the Grand National does not constitute as animal cruelty to many in society. The decrease of a threat of a death is enough to calm some fears but this is not enough to ensure the safety of our animals. Horseracing is a horrible sport that has been normalised into acceptance.

Waging War on the Welfare State

Image by Helen Cobain

Welcome to April. At the next possible opportunity, make a U-turn.

Today is the day of the implementation of further dreaded cuts. As April arrives, we can only optimistically hope that it is some well-organised April Fool’s joke, but unfortunately we know better of a Conservative Government. Lambasted as the “nastiest” ever Government by the TUC, it is difficult to ignore the harsh effects of the benefit changes that are begin from today; from our beloved "bedroom tax” to the loss of legal aid. All of these seem set to only make the poor poorer in the name of deficit reduction.

While Iain Duncan Smith claims that they changes are “fair”, the shouts of society are in stark contrast and looking at the policies, we can understand why. Firstly, and most prominently argued, is the effects of the incoming “bedroom tax” which will force families out of social housing simply due to the number of rooms their house has. Two-thirds of the people who will be hit by this tax are disabled. People will be coerced into moving into smaller homes which may not meet their needs, in order to remain financially sustainable.

Perhaps in an attempt to pin some blame on the local councils, the Government are now offloading council tax benefits into local control (with a 10% reduction already imposed). Whilst local councils are already being forced into making cuts by the Government, there is little leeway for them to increase the spending in these areas and we are likely to see further reductions by local councils in order to meet the other demands required of them.

At the end of the month, the Universal Credit will be piloted in the area of Ashton-under-Lyne, intended to merge many different benefits together into one means-tested payments. However, this will undoubtedly reduce the amount of money that claimants will receive, pushing those with no alternatives further towards or below the poverty line. Furthermore, with the software for the pilot not yet looking ready, this reform is looking set to fail.

The U-turns and amendments of the Government on planned policies have simply demonstrated how ill thought-out their work is. With regards to the “bedroom tax”, it is a sorry state of affairs that the public and Labour must point out how the policy would disproportionately impact the elderly, disabled and military families, before the Government can realise what is wrong with their policies. It changes little though and many policies continue to pass through the Houses and into legislation without being properly scrutinised and surrounded by public and opposition doubt of their practicalities, effectiveness and, most importantly, impact.

However, the welfare system is far from perfect and its reform is not a topic we should just shy away from. There are things about the system which are fundamentally unfair; for example, that some families can be better on benefits than if they worked, but the battle plan of the Government is waging war on the wrong side. Rather than ensure that companies pay their employees wages which make living comfortably possible, therefore ensuring that people on benefits do not have more money than their working counterparts, they are simply reducing the amount of money they dole out to help those in real need of help.

The fiscal year of 2013/2014 will definitely hit hard, and those who need the most financial support will see it unfairly dwindling away whilst their rich counterparts receive a tax break. It is unfair, it is harsh and it is ill thought-out but these are reforms we will be forced to suffer the consequences of, simply so that we try and get rid of those minus signs in our bank balance.

Prime Minister's Questions - 6th February

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

The day after a vote that Diane Abbott argued proved that “the arch of history bends slowly, but it bends towards justice”, Prime Minister’s Questions unsurprisingly did not show any criticism for the policy of same-sex marriage, a fantastic decision to moving towards equality in society shown by many members of all parties across the house. The debate swiftly moved into one on the ‘bedroom tax’. Cameron refuted claims that it was a tax, instead dubbing it a benefit. Miliband shook this defence off effectively, questioning the case that paying £25 more a week due to Government policies is not considered a tax. Rightly, it was raised across the Labour benches that this policy would hit those with disabled members of their family hardest. Cameron, again, seemed unable to defend himself, reversing questions towards Miliband. After criticisms almost amounting to corruption of the PM, Cameron accused Miliband of wanting to be the “fairy godmother” to trade unionists. One Labour MP cynically asked whether the recently discovered remains of Richard III had been declared fit to work by ATOS, receiving laughs and cheers from around the house, even from Cameron. Yet, in the midst of the IFS’ announcement that they expected the Government to borrow £64 billion more than expected, what really resounded was Miliband’s description of the PM as “weak, incompetent and totally out of touch”

Prime Minister’s Questions – 19th December

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

It seemed like some festive cheer was in the air this week as it took a good few minutes before the battle of statistics began – it even looked like Cameron and Miliband were just going to stand there agreeing with each other for a while as they talked about various military topics. We finally got a glimpse of what Cameron’s “Big Society” is when he shouted about the fantastic hard work thousands of volunteers are offering to food banks around the country; Miliband has now captioned the scheme as for “feeding hungry children in Britain”. Cameron seemed unable to defend himself against Miliband’s attacks on the Tory’s cuts calling them “out of touch” with families and saying that the richest were getting a tax reduction. According to Cameron, Miliband has nothing else to offer this Christmas. Other Labour MPs gifted the Tories with their own panto with some new Christmas movies – the Grinch Who Stole Christmas starring the Chancellor, the Muppets Christmas Carol starring the Lib Dems and It’s Not A Wonderful Life for the Poor starring Cameron. There was a shout of “can we have a vote?” from a Tory MP as one Labour MP gave his season’s greetings to the Speaker. One final attack from Labour saw a suicide note that blamed the Government’s reforms of the Disability Living Allowance. However, the impending end of the world never managed to make it onto their agenda. Let’s hope they’ve got a secret plan for the survivors up their sleeves.

Also published on Redbrick

Prime Minister’s Questions – 12th December

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

The house just couldn’t keep quiet this week and with that came a feeling of having returned to a classroom of schoolboys. Even our infamous Speaker couldn’t get the house to shut up, so there was a constant jeering, perhaps more annoying than the vuvuzelas of the 2010 Football World Cup. Cameron and Miliband referred to each other as bullies and there certainly was some use of catchphrases. Red-faced Cameron was asked if he had “wrecked a restaurant recently” whilst confidence-lacking Miliband had his shadow chancellor attacked as a bully who couldn’t take it in return. It was an elongated and highly repetitive argument of welfare cuts and deficit reduction over welfare increase and increased borrowing. Where Cameron tried to take a Robin Hood angle, Miliband shot him down, stating that the Tory donors stamped their feet and got what they wanted. Cameron shortly replied that if it weren’t for the Labour donors, Miliband wouldn’t be in his position. Neither side won – there was just simply bulldozing of either side’s policies. Other MPs ravaged the PM with questions on the “snooper’s charter” saying the Government would do more spying than their media friends in Wapping, whilst others showed off their historical expertise in asking whether the Government were going to repeal the Magna Carta of 1297. Scottish MPs showed off and asked whether the Government would be copying them in their successes, whereas Northern Irish MPs asked the PM to condemn the violence in Belfast. Wales was quiet this week.

Why So Anti-Love?

Image by Guillaume Paumier

Laws differ across the world and the sentences awarded to those who break them differ even more. But the “crime of homosexuality” is perhaps one of the most controversial. As the UK and the US seem to have same-sex marriage on the agenda, countries like France and Uganda appear to be heading in the opposite direction.

Despite a Tory back-bench rebellion extremely likely, the overwhelming support for same-sex marriage in the Commons and Scottish Parliament will guarantee that it will pass into law and the rights for LGBT people in Great Britain will be massively increased and put on a par with heterosexual rights. But it’s questionable as to why society can be so divisive in the first place; after all, surely the concept of love is equal among all, so the accessibility to affirming that should be too. Anti-homosexuality simply doesn’t make sense.

Thus, recent events in France and Uganda seem utterly preposterous. Hollande, France’s President, is rightfully pushing through a bill through parliament that will allow both same-sex marriages and adoption for same-sex couples. Yet, despite this being one of Hollande’s key election policies, seventy thousand took to the streets of Paris in protest and one thousand mayors signed a position in opposition. Perhaps the most ludicrous of suggestions (also raised by Lord Carey, ex-Archbishop of Canterbury) is that same-sex marriage could lead to polygamy – obviously all gay people cheat and want to marry lots of people at the same time. Love between two people of the same sex isn’t equivalent to love between two people of opposite sexes – gays need a lot more to satisfy their desires. Ridiculous!

Meanwhile, in Uganda, the Speaker of Parliament has despicably announced the “Christmas gift” of passing anti-homosexuality legislation. Otherwise known in the media as the “Kill the Gays bill”, the bill allows for the death sentence for those who commit the crime of so-called “aggravated homosexuality” or life imprisonment simply for being homosexual. Hence, options for gays in Uganda are either to live a heterosexual life, to hide their homosexuality or to seek asylum in another country. I’m sure you’ll agree that none of these options would be particularly appealing to you – why should you have to adapt your life, and hide your inner emotions, in order to escape imprisonment or death?

At present, only eleven states in the world allow same-sex couples to legally marry. Ten European states have a constitutional ban on it altogether. Same-sex marriage legislation began to pass through legislatures in the early 2000s – hopefully we can see more of this in the years to come.

Quit Badgering Me

Image by Fred Dawson

It’s not a good year for farmers. With exceedingly wet conditions (even for British records) crop harvests are at a low and fruit and veg prices are at a high. Beekeepers are reporting a 72% drop in harvested honey and bees are on the life-support equipment that is sugar syrup. So you can understand their anger with the execution of 26,000 cattle after they were infected with Bovine TB from urine and faeces last year.

It’s only common sense that there would be some suggestions on how to tackle the problem then, and of course, a conflict of opinion. We either vaccinate the badger population or cull them. Treatment or murder? Life or death? The Government has opted to provide a pilot project of culling, drawing in cross-spectrum criticism whilst regional Wildlife Trusts will pilot a vaccination scheme. Gloucestershire and Somerset will play host to the 6-week cull trial, whereas Shropshire and Cheshire will pilot vaccinating. I’m certain there’s an obvious better option of the two.

Humanely, there is little defence of a culling scheme, a process which simply involves hunting wild badgers and shooting them indiscriminately. Expected to cost the taxpayer around £100,000 a year, the process is supposed to use less time and resources than a previous vaccination scheme which still resulted in £500m being spent to control the disease over the last 10 years. So, it is plausible that the cull proposal would be massively beneficial to farmers’ livestock and the taxpayer alike.

But is this an argument of quality or quantity? Why do people buy organic foods in the supermarket? Is it hypocritical to be using these ethical food sources whilst supporting the cruel act of a cull of another species?

Of course vaccination has its own costs and complications, but surely that’s something you would sacrifice and admit and then get on with it, for the sake of both cattle and badger? And surely life itself is invaluable – we shouldn’t underestimate that. Besides, experts argue that the cull which actually increase the chances of TB being transferred from badger to cattle, that it will cost more in the long run, it’s inhumane and that there is no concrete proof that the TB is always directly transferred from badger to cattle, rather than cattle to cattle.

I hope that this pilot project proves unsuccessful and ultimately costly, or better, that they decide to cancel it and continue on the vaccination program. After all, Scotland never culled their badger population and they were declared TB free in September 2009, so we can certainly achieve that same result.

Also published on Redbrick

No Means No

The discourse of rape has been on many tongues lately; from high-profile politicians to celebrities to liberation groups, there has been controversy over the definition of term. The National Union of Students (NUS) found itself in this position last Wednesday, when a motion on the subject was proposed by the Women’s Campaign.

Heavy media coverage of the allegations against Julian Assange has ensured that the issue remains in the spotlight. The Wikileaks founder is alleged to have raped and molested two females in 2010, but has successfully sought asylum in the Ecuadorian assembly on the premise that he believes he will extradited to the USA for separate offences relating to the aforementioned website.

It’s a case which has sparked wider debate and dispute in the public sphere, bringing the definition of rape under scrutiny. Todd Akin, a supporter of USA Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney, said that women can prevent pregnancy in “a legitimate rape” and, thus, conceiving a child is rare. Furthermore, George Galloway, Respect MP for Bradford West, ludicrously referred to a man inserting his penis into a sleeping woman as “bad sexual etiquette”. Thankfully, these comments sparked global outrage, but in many circumstances, compassion and understanding was offered to both rapists and those who spoke of rape as above, so-called rape apologists. The usual, shameful excuses were trotted out; that women put themselves in provocative situations via dress or body language, and that rape is excusable if the victim is in a relationship with the perpetrator.

Consequently, the NUS Women’s Campaign called for no more, presenting a motion to the NUS’ National Executive Council (NEC) calling for the long-standing no-platform policy (which previously only covered fascists) to be extended to cover rape apologists. However, several NEC members (including Aaron Kiely, NUS Black Students’ Officer) proposed an amendment requesting that the NUS support Assange’s request for a guarantee from the Swedish authorities that he would not be extradited to the USA. It was also argued that the no-platform policy should remain as it is, due to the unique threat fascist pose to liberation students and democratic structures. That six NEC members left the room in tears over comments made in the debate is indicative of its severity and the issue’s importance.

Mercifully, the motion passed with twenty four votes to six. Kelley Temple, NUS Women’s Officer said that the “NUS believes that there is a culture of undermining rape victims and rejects attempts to glorify, joke about or dismiss rape. The motion passed confirms that NUS shall not offer a platform to speakers who are rape deniers of apologists, or support events where such individuals speak.” Aaron Kiely was unavailable for comment.

This is great step forward for the movement, but also for culture in general. It is fortunate that the array of ignorant comments made throughout the past few months has at least led to one progressive piece of anti-rape legislation. No means no, and there are no exceptions.


(as published on Redbrick at http://www.redbrick.me/2012/10/97237/)