To many people, it will just be a formality, having already received unconditional offers, or just from actually being smart and doing revision. For people like me, results day could go either way by a narrow margin. Who knows maybe I’m somehow one of those few who pulled an amazing grade out of their arse despite doing mediocre throughout the year.

Not likely.

If I do somehow manage to scrape 280 UCAS points from god-knows-where, then that means I’ll be off to Aberystwyth to study Computer Science & AI, whilst working a job on the side, as well as my doing work as Deputy Campaigns Officer and Governor for Pirate Party UK – Although thanks to SLC that should perhaps be “I’ll be off to Aberystwyth to work whilst studying on the side”, since they’ve managed to screw up my loans application, meaning I can’t even afford accommodation.

Pictured: SLC's patented sorting system

All that aside, studying Artificial Intelligence at Aberystwyth will be amazing, as they are at the forefront of research into robotics, and artificial intelligence. The university’s work on projects like ExoMars is what drew me to apply, all the other things like the scenery are just a bonus.

And if I don’t get in, I’ll instead be moving to a nowhere 6 miles north of the nowhere in which I currently live, and working there instead.

Oh well.

]]> http://andrewtindall.com/2010/07/29/3-weeks-to-go/feed/ 0 http://andrewtindall.com/2010/07/20/yes-to-av-poster/ http://andrewtindall.com/2010/07/20/yes-to-av-poster/#comments Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:40:00 +0000 AndrewTindall http://andrewtindall.com/?p=151

Click for .svg

‘Yes To AV’ Poster for http://www.takebackparliament.com/sites/takebackparliament/index.php/blog/wanted-posters-to-win-the-yes-campaign/

UPDATE: Here’s another -

A second poster, showing the majority of MPs with less than 50% support

Under the AV system, voters rank the candidates in preference order. If no candidate achieves 50% of First Preferences, then the candidate with the lowest first preference share is eliminated, and the ballots for that candidate are redistributed according to the next preferences. This is repeated until one candidate finally has 50% and is duly elected.

Whilst this isn’t proportional, a majority system is still preferable to a plurality system as it means that on average the least-bad candidate wins, although you’re still going to disagree with them. It also means that the divided left, and minor parties, who are vastly under-represented in all levels of government, would stand more chance of gaining a seat.

Regardless of outcome of the referendum, it is likely that the Conservative Party, and those opposed to reform, will use it to quell desire for proportionally representative electoral reform for a generation – as if AV is supported, they will likely say we already have it, and that the cost of successive reform creates excessive cost that would ultimately hit their beloved private sector; and if it’s rejected they’ll claim that there isn’t the public appetite for proportional reform. All arguments that I reject, since AV is barely a stepping stone towards a fairer electoral system, and the democratic deficit is far worse than the financial one created by gross under- and de-regulation of the private sector.

Ideally, I would rather we adopt AV+, AMS, or STV, but in the absence of these options on the referendum ballot, and the potential of losing our one chance for electoral reform for a generation, I will be supporting the introduction of the Alternative Vote.

Still have exams next month for all my subjects, though – and provided I don’t fuck them up, I’ll soon be moving from:

Bransgore

to

Aberystwyth

Here’s hoping I get in…

Originally he was charged under Criminal Law Act 1977 for a bomb hoax, however the CPS decided there wasn’t sufficient evidence for this, and instead opted for the rarely used s127.

But just what did Paul Chambers do? He tweeted a joke. A crap joke, but a joke all the same.

“Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week… otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!”

For this, he now has a criminal record, and faces a £1000 fine.

Just to be clear, here, a British citizen is now a criminal for making a completely non-serious comment on twitter. This is yet another example of the ridiculous restrictions we have on freedom of speech in the UK, joining the growing list of heavy-handed offences such as Incitement, and the infamous Libel law; as well as yet another example of the erosion of our liberties under the authoritarian New Labour party.

Keep checking #twitterjoketrial for updates, and possible link to a whip-round to pay for his fee.

Julian claims he wants “respect for the truth“. He also claims that there is an elevated risk of HIV transmission via homosexual contact. This is why he voted against lowering the homosexual age of consent on 22 June 1998. (you can see his full, shameful, voting record on gay rights at theyworkforyou.)

Surely he must have based this vote on evidence, right? Given his desire for the truth, and that nobody would just unfairly discriminate against a section of society due to their preferences, it must absolutely be the case that, at the very least, in 1998, homosexuals were at more risk of contracting of contracting HIV, right?

WRONG.

Since 1997,  there has been a higher rate of HIV transmission from hetereosexual contact, than homosexual contact.

Line Graph showing HIV transmission routes in UK (source: http://www.avert.org/uk-transmission-route.htm )

As you can see, from 1997 onwards, heterosexuals have been at greater risk than homosexuals. Which means even back when Julian Lewis voted against gay rights, his opinion was wrong. And it’s still not true now, indeed, it’s not even equal risk. Heterosexuals, based on recent figures from the Health Protection Agency, have a 44% chance of acquiring HIV through contact, as opposed to 2000 less homosexuals, with a 43% chance.

So, Julian. There’s my respect for the truth. Where’s yours?

In response to the first enquiry, from Left Foot Forward, I outlined the event as I recalled it bearing in mind I did not take notes, as I was not expecting anything to come of the encounter. Whilst the statement contains paraphrasing due to lack of notes, it was written only shortly after the event, and is as accurate as can be expected, and almost any omitted details weren’t relevant to the points discussed, or relevant enough for me to remember them. As such, I disagree with Julian Lewis’ claim that what I have said was “both incomplete and inaccurate”. Although there was one thing I neglected to mention – that he said his vote against civil adoption was about the child’s rights not those of the civil partners’ (as if somehow a homosexual family is detrimental to a child’s welfare?).

In my statement, I mention that he compares the risks of homosexual sex to fighting in the armed services. A point he clarifies and confirms (so much for inaccurate?) in a response to pinknews – “When it comes to legalising practices that involve serious risk, I believe the higher limit should apply. This is the reason we no longer allow 16 and 17-year-old into front-line situations in the Armed Forces, for example.”

To this I repeat the question asked of him at the hustings, and I invite Julian Lewis to point to scientific evidence proving that homosexual sex involves a level of risk so much greater than that of heterosexual sex, that a higher age limit should apply.

Below is a copy of the statement as sent to the Lymington Times

Brockenhurst College, on Monday, where this week all the New Forest East candidates are coming in for a Q&A session separately.

firstly, in his “presentation” on defence, he was talking about how it’s ridiculous to vote lib dem because they want to fully scrap trident and all deterrents, to which i corrected him as it’s non like-for-like replacement. he kept insisting that if we don’t have nuclear weapons, we are at greater risk, and that the liberal idea of disarmament is ridiculous. He said exclusively using cruise missiles would lead to world war 3 due to other countries believing them to be nuclear warheads when they were not.

Then, in the Q&A session, he would constantly drift off topic into areas he’d pre-prepared, such as how voting lib dem results in another 5 years of brown. how there’s only two real choices – LAB and CON. He said that coalition governments never work, pointing to 1960s Germany, and that the party in 3rd place percentage wise shouldn’t have such a large say (despite our current system still allowing those in 3rd to have more seats, as seen when the recent poll with the LD on 33% is calculated)

Questioned on his gay rights votes, he continued his claims that homosexuality/anal sex alone poses risk of HIV/AIDS, and that is why he still opposes gay sex at 16. Someone put it to him that it is no more dangerous than any sexual activity, to which he insisted on proof, but when asked to do the same – over 10 years after he already made up his mind, he said he didn’t have figures and it would have to be a project to find them. He then made a comparison that gay sex is as big a health risk as being a soldier, and that they don’t let people fight in the army until the age of majority, so why should gay sex be allowed at 16 if fighting in a war isn’t. He also said “I know it’s cliché, but… some of my best friends are gay”

When it came to expenses, and his votes against transparency and reform, he quickly spun it to suggest his private members bill that prevents the publication of MPs Addresses from FOI Requests was a good thing, and that “in this state of heightened terror” it was unacceptable to have 646 insecure addresses available to the public. He then said that the publication of his expenses (including £119 for a trouser press that he explained at the time of the scandal as needed “otherwise [he'd] be up all night ironing”, and an attempt to claim £6000 for a floor), was purely because the reporter from the telegraph had a personal vendetta against him, as the journalist had been opposing the MPs Addresses legislation Julian Lewis pushed through.

He also expressed support for the Whips Office as it presently works.

Anticipating contact from Julian Lewis’ office himself regarding the matter, I would like to say that every part of my original tweet holds true. At the hustings he was scaremongering by suggesting the only choice was Vote Tory, otherwise it’s 5 more years of Brown, as well as the claims that nuclear disarmament would potentially lead to war. He is corrupt by any standard definition, as evident through his expenses claims and opposition to increased expenses scrutiny, as well as voting against reforming Parliament to be more democratic. He is paranoid, as he claims anti-FOI legislation is a good thing due to ridiculous claims of risk of terrorism, something I’d more often expect to hear from New Labour, and strongly fought against the publication of his ‘home’ (whether it be his first home, second, or his Southampton flat) address, and he is evidently homophobic, voting against gay rights on numerous occasions, justified by shocking unsubstantiated claims. Indeed, I wonder if he’ll put forward a bill in the next parliament to increase the age of consent for sexual intercourse among the black population, given claims that they are also more likely to pass on HIV? Or would racism be one step too far for this out-of-touch politician?

I guess I should probably write a blogpost soon, but oh well.

The controversial bill would see the death of public wi-fi, houses being disconnected on allegation of copyright infringement – with them having to prove innocence by paying for an appeal after the fact, photographers and works creators having work taken and exploited by industry without consent, or as one MP put it (in an endorsement of the bill!) – “putting creativity before freedom” – despite the fact the bill mentions not once the content creator or artist, and instead refers only to the rights holders – most often record labels or publishers, not the artists who created the works.

Understandably there has been outrage over the bill itself, and the government’s insistence on passing it without true scrutiny and debate: Over 20,000 letters and e-mails to MPs, over 35,000 signatures on the Number 10 petition against the bill, 100,000s of tweets, campaigns against the bill from consumer groups, business groups, ISPs, the  public, and the Pirate Party; concerns from the JCHR and the Law Society of Scotland that the bill breaches human rights, one of the  most discussed topics on social media worldwide, even on the day of the declaration of the election.

Guess how many of our great ‘Representatives’ turned up to the debate today?

Democracy In-action

To begin with, approximately 40 – about 5% of MPs; and as the speeches became more impassioned from both sides of the debate, the numbers dwindled and dwindled; down to just 9 at one point. So that’s hundreds of thousands of complaints about this bill, and the people who claim to represent us instead follow their vested interests and only turn up, on this last chance at democracy, if their private sector allegiances benefit from the bill. Democracy is dead.

The Digital Economy Bill has been a perfect showcasing of the corruption and undemocratic nature of 20th Century politics. It starts with a promising White Paper, proposing investment in telecoms infrastructure and reviews of law; then the unelected Minister in charge has a nice little trip on a media oligarch’s yacht; meanwhile other unelected officials have words with the out-dated distribution industries they work for and represent, having them draft law on their behalf; then the government tries to downplay the rights issues in the bill, even when challenged by their own commissions on human rights; then the opposition parties attempt point scoring by saying they oppose the bill, all the while supporting it and actively engaging in the corrupt activities surrounding it; and then, despite all public outcry and dispute from business and academics, the bill is passed without any real scrutiny or debate.

Everything about Parliament and the way it works revolves around these corrupt, undemocratic models, and voting for the 3 main parties at the upcoming election on May 6th isn’t going to change that. We need massive political upheaval and reform, and we need it now. So when you go to your polling station, I urge you to ignore LIB-LAB-CON, and instead put a cross besides any of the other candidates, be they Green, UKIP, Pirate, Jury Team, TUSC, BNP, Socialist, or Independent. If we can achieve a more representative Hung Parliament, then we have a basis to bring politics kicking and screaming into the 21st Century.