Category Archives: Society

Just what is the problem the TaxPayers’ Alliance has with West Midlands Police? A wee while ago I wrote about their criticism of the force’s disgraceful plan to equip their staff with shirts. I also said that “you can consider this my last post on the TPA”, so to get out of that statement on a technicality, kindly consider this to be a mere coda rather than a stand-alone piece in its own right. Because now the TPA has swung into action once more, highlighting another flagrant waste of public money.

WEST Midlands Police has been accused of wasting officers’ time – and taxpayers’ cash – by bizarrely setting up a Twitter page for a crime-fighting sniffer dog.

Their two-year-old Labrador Smithy, who has been dubbed an internet scent-sation, now regularly posts tweets on the social netwoking site.

Writing the occasional 140-character tweet? Outrageous! This sounds like a job for the joyless fuckers at the TaxPayers’ Alliance, who opine…

It difficult to see how putting a dog on Twitter is supposed to benefit the people of the West Midlands.

The tweets aren’t even casually informative, they’re just nonsense dreamt up by a member of staff.

This silly PR stunt is a just a diversion from real police work, and with cuts being made Smithy should probably keep his nose to the ground and concentrate on the job.

Just how diverting is this Twitter account? What real police work does the TPA fear was left undone when this magnum opus was being composed:

Training went well ! but that is not the end of my handlers day; we, will still get a walk later, the great benefits of being a Police dog.

Well, that’s got to be a couple of murders West Midlands Police could have solved right there, if they hadn’t been so diverted! What about this one:

Duty time 8am till 5pm today…..I’m staying at home, as Drake is working at a football match, my fellow canine will update you later !

So now we have two dogs tweeting! What next? Three? Here’s another:

Off today and tomorrow, chilling, lapping up my growing internet following…gonna get either a new ball or bone out of this, claws crossed.

Days off? DAYS OFF? Why do police dogs need days off? Yet more public sector waste! And what’s this?

A request re a missing person please RT http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/np/coventry/news/newsitem.asp?id=1040

What’s that all about? Just as the TPA said: dreamt up nonsense that is not even casually informative. But it gets worse still when you look at this story.

Smithy’s trainer PC Terry Arnett said: “It was just something he wanted to do.

“He felt he and his team weren’t getting the praise they deserved and the next thing I knew he was tweeting.

“We’ve had to have the keyboard adapted so he can type, but apart from that it’s his way of letting people know the important work he and his pals do.”

And how much did this adapted keyboard cost? And guess who’s paying?

You know, the more I read about the TaxPayers’ Alliance, the more I’m beginning to think they are double-agents on a deep-cover assignment designed to ridicule and discredit small-government ideologues.

You’d think, the way some people are talking, that we’re all unable to step outside our front doors without seeing someone dressed in a burka (a word I fear I may spell differently each time I use it on this post). The issue of the ubiquitous burka (or burkha) – or should that be the ubiquitous issue of the burqa (or burqua) – has certainly been in the media recently. Last week, the once-reputable Allison Pearson wrote of “Burkha Rage” in her Daily Mail column; then, on Monday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy took advantage of an historic special session of the French parliament to speak of banning the item of dress; and by yesterday that story featured on both Question Time and This Week, both of which I actually managed to bother watching for the first time in an age.

The Allison Pearson piece has already been taken apart by Anton Vowl, amongst others, so I will try to be brief. Pearson opens her article with a little story.

On a train to London, a young woman wearing a burkha, with only her heavily made-up eyes peeping out, did not have a valid ticket.

Challenged by the guard, the young woman gave a litany of excuses. She had left her bag at her boyfriend’s, he had bought the ticket, she had no money on her…

My friend Jane, who was in the same carriage, noticed how the guard became nervous as the Muslim girl presented herself as an innocent in a society she didn’t understand.

Instead of issuing a penalty fine, the guard backed off, shrugging his helplessness at the other passengers.

So imagine my friend’s surprise when she got off at the same station as burkha girl and saw this ‘penniless innocent’ whip out a credit card from under the folds of her dress with which she promptly bought a Tube ticket.

Jane was so incensed she sent me a text message, explaining what she’d witnessed. It ended: ‘Attack of Burkha Rage. Grrr.’

Grrr indeed. Now, to me this seems to be a straightforward case of common-or-garden fare-dodging, an activity that I suspect cuts across all demographics and which many of us have engaged in to some degree. I know I have; in my cash-strapped days on the dole my favoured technique was to simply stare out of the train window as the guard approached in the hope that he would mistakenly assume he had already checked my ticket, something that worked a surprising number of times. That said, fare-dodging is wrong. No question. What I can’t see, though, when reading this story, is how the fact that this particular fare-dodger sported a burka is in any way relevant, other than the assertion that “the guard became nervous as the Muslim girl presented herself as an innocent in a society she didn’t understand”, a questionable claim that seems to be undermined by the previous statement that “burkha girl” had issued a “litany of excuses” to try to escape paying, all of which suggest a definite au-faitness with British society in general and what is expected of one when boarding a train in particular.

Now, it is increasingly a good idea at such a juncture to point out I am not bandying about any allegation of racism here, lest I am accused of closing down debate on such an important matter. However, I also feel it is important to call things as you see them and that to hide behind euphemism can render any debate worthless, and so I do hope Allison Pearson and others will allow me to be suspicious of the motivation behind choosing to define the term “burkha rage” by illustrating it with an incident in which a burka itself, while present, appears to play no significant part; or indeed any part at all. While it would be wrong to jump to any obvious conclusion and cry “racism”, so it would be wrong to prematurely exclude the possibility that an element of racism may be present. Otherwise, Pearson’s friend’s story could just as appropriately be about “Hush Puppies Rage”, “Timex Watch Rage” or “M&S Underwear Rage” if we were to discover that these items too were worn about the person of the protaganist in this tale, and for all it would matter. Anyway, Pearson assures us that at the end of the day her friend Jane “is not a BNP voter.” No? Well, perhaps she should be.

Meanwhile, Sarkozy’s suggestion that – were he to get his own way – the burka would “not be welcome on the territory of the French republic” because it oppresses woman is similarly stupid; a piece of logic so daft that debunking it shouldn’t really need doing. Sadly, based upon the reaction of much of yesterday’s Question Time audience to the issue (not to mention that of Michael Portillo following on This Week) I’d better had. As I see it then, there are two broad groups that any potential ban on the burka is going to affect. On the one hand there are those women who choose to wear the burka of their own free will; here, the government will be instructing people on what they can and cannot wear, a bizarre state of affairs. On the other there are those women who are forced to wear the burka, trapped as they are in some form of domestic subservience; they will perhaps welcome being freed from the tyranny of having to wear the burka, but will still, all other things being equal, remain trapped in that same form of domestic subservience. So why fucking bother?

If, then, the intention of such a ban is to empower women who are stuck in an abusive relationship, then it seems to me to spectacularly miss the point. There are many, varied and complex ways that we can assist people in such situations that I can and will readily support. In any event, however, the empowerment of women didn’t appear to be a concern of many of Sarkozy’s supporters in the Question Time audience last night who seemed far more keen on fighting other battles. “When in Rome…” complained one opponent of the burka who, in the interests of ensuring a free and open debate, may not be racist. Perhaps he feels that Muslim interlopers should adopt indigenous methods of domestic oppression? There are plenty to choose from. Another audience member decried the fact that politicians refuse to debate this issue for reasons of political correctness, apparently oblivious to the fact that he was a member of the audience of a political debating programme featuring a debate between politicians on the very issue he complained no one would talk about. I wonder if he gets similarly confused and incensed when he hears the likes of Nick Griffin complain about a political correctness that means that only the white, native population of this country is discriminated against in being denied the opportunity to form their own exclusive organisations; perhaps so much so that he has considered taking the opportunity to join Nick Griffin’s BNP, an exclusive organisation formed exclusively by and for the white, native population?

If so, then perhaps he can take Jane along.

I have just come across this article from this week’s Sunday Telegraph reporting the results of a survey of 100 primary schools across the country regarding which play, if any, they are putting on this Christmas. If true the results are pretty shocking, as they reveal that “only one in five schools are planning to perform a traditional nativity play this year” celebrating the birth of Jesus. Yes, that’s twenty percent.

Now, many people will respond to this news with understandable anger; for myself, I just find it very sad and disappointing. I’m no militant, not by any stretch of the imagination, but I really do think that it is in all of our interests if we can join together and try to promote the true meaning of Christmas.

I mean, it’s not difficult, the clue is in the word, isn’t it? Christmas? As in, err, Father Christmas? Heard of him? Now I’m not too sure who this Jesus bloke is, but I don’t see any reason why he should hijack our perfectly good celebration of commercialism, indulgence and the-telly’s-not-quite-as-good-as-it-used-to-be-when-we-were-kids-is-it that more or less keeps the economy spinning. We really must fight to get this massive 20% figure whittled down.

Perhaps this “Jesus” can get his own festival at some other time of the year, rather than gatecrash our party; just as long as it’s well away from our other great celebrations, like Halloween or Burns Night. Sometime in the Spring would be good, that is if the powers that be can actually get their heads together and nail down a single, definite annual date for the thing.

Anyway, for what it’s worth, here is my own survey, which I can absolutely guarantee you is a complete waste of your time. Enjoy.

Please select the one statement below that most closely corresponds with your point of view

Leaving Borders bookshop on Saturday, I turned on my heel when the headline on the front page of the Evening News caught my eye, and reaching the newsstand I read

‘Cool Cash’ card confusion
Ciara Leeming
3/11/2007

A LOTTERY scratchcard has been withdrawn from sale by Camelot – because players couldn’t understand it.

The Cool Cash game – launched on Monday – was taken out of shops yesterday after some players failed to grasp whether or not they had won.

To qualify for a prize, users had to scratch away a window to reveal a temperature lower than the figure displayed on each card. As the game had a winter theme, the temperature was usually below freezing.

But the concept of comparing negative numbers proved too difficult for some. Camelot received dozens of complaints on the first day from players who could not understand how, for example, -5 is higher than -6.

With that, having read enough and with my misanthropy suitably sated, I left Borders and walked the short distance to my car, where after a brief bout of weeping I drove off and thought no more of it. My thanks, then, to Chris at qwghlm.co.uk who managed to read on further than I did; I now realise that things were even worse than I had feared.

Tina Farrell, from Levenshulme, called Camelot after failing to win with several cards.

The 23-year-old, who said she had left school without a maths GCSE, said: “On one of my cards it said I had to find temperatures lower than -8. The numbers I uncovered were -6 and -7 so I thought I had won, and so did the woman in the shop. But when she scanned the card the machine said I hadn’t.

“I phoned Camelot and they fobbed me off with some story that -6 is higher – not lower – than -8 but I’m not having it.

“I think Camelot are giving people the wrong impression – the card doesn’t say to look for a colder or warmer temperature, it says to look for a higher or lower number. Six is a lower number than 8. Imagine how many people have been misled.”

Where to start? As Chris says, the phrases “Camelot…fobbed me off” and “I’m not having it” leap out, as does the assertion that “people have been misled”; but that’s not all. That the shopkeeper was allegedly as equally baffled is a cause for concern, while the politician-like diversion of stating that “Six is a lower number than 8” – true, but in this case irrelevant – is almost impressive in its own way. Of course, in her defence it is said that Tina “left school without a maths GCSE”, but I’m pretty sure “numbers” are still covered in the national curriculum at some stage; it’s not as if Camelot were expecting people to do quadratic equations on the hoof.

Now it is worth saying at this juncture that we should be careful about what has been attributed to this poor unfortunate. Newspapers have been known to bend the truth at times and so we should perhaps be wary about relying on direct quotes that may well have been edited (or made grammatical); far better to stick to the facts as far as we know them. But one fact that is particularly nagging at me is that it appears that only the M.E.N. has covered the story, there’s nothing in the national press. Why? Could the answer lie in the fact that our interviewee is, in that immortal phrase, “from Levenshulme”? In which case I think we have reached the end. Here is someone so ignorant of the most basic mathematics (which is lamentable enough), who then compounds the offence by stubbornly refusing to accept and learn from her error, who though wholly in the wrong still complains to the company and is subsequently offended when pointed in the direction of a simple arithmetic truth, and who finally responds to this outrage and injustice by going to the papers!

If these were the actions of one solitary moron we could laugh it off; so why aren’t we laughing? It is enough surely that “Camelot received dozens of complaints on the first day” that the game came out; but that knot of dread we feel in the pit of our stomach is because we fear this is symptomatic of something much bigger, and much, much worse.

Some things make me feel stupid, some things make me feel old; University Challenge usually majors on the former, as questions I don’t understand are answered by students who do, and then some. But on Monday it managed to do both, and the guilty party was the one round that normally cheers me; the “music round”, where I can usually knock off the starter for ten and the supplementary questions with aplomb. Ha, I mutter to myself; you kids may look pretty smart when the matter is one of quantum physics, but your floundering ignorance when presented with a series of album covers from the New Wave Of British Heavy Metal reveals your feet of clay. While I may lose ground on the swings, I can at least gain some on the roundabouts.

But this week was slightly different. Sure the premise was the same; a short clip of an easily identifiable song – in this case The Smiths’ “London” – and eight clueless geniuses staring out time, waiting for Jeremy Paxman to move on and ask them a simple one on the early history of the Ghaznavid Dynasty, or something. That minor obstacle overcome and the music round duly recommenced.

Only this time I couldn’t take it in, I was still reeling from the starter question. Let me restate what I have just said; not one of the students knew “London” was a song by The Smiths. The Smiths! Students! And The Smiths! I thought they were inextricably entwined. I thought the terms “Smiths’ Fan” and “student” were synonymous. When I was at college not only would almost every student have instantly recognised the band, but also around 20% of them at any one time would have had Louder Than Bombs on their Walkman at that precise moment. What has happened to the youth of today?

So that made me feel pretty old; but I feel even older the more I think about it. After all, in the contestants’ defence the last proper Smiths album was released in 1987; that means that for some of today’s university students The Smiths will occupy the same space in their consciousness as The Beatles do in mine, and I grew up considering The Beatles to be ancient history. Worse, to my kids The Smiths will be seen as a band that split up way, way before they were born; they will view them from the same perspective as I view Buddy Holly. Now I reckon I would still recognise just about any Beatles or Buddy Holly song thrown at me on University Challenge, even while I must hold my hands up and admit I haven’t memorised the periodic table by rote; but I think that’s beside the point. It doesn’t make me feel any better. It still makes me feel old. Perspective? Too much fucking perspective.

But perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised; perhaps today’s students are a different breed entirely? That’s the way it seemed the last time I knowingly entered what I believed to be a student pub, one Sunday afternoon a couple of years ago during my short break in the Cotswolds (and environs.) Back in the day you could instantly spot a student bar by the profusion of black cotton and Doc Martens, the vast array of Goth gear; but not here. Instead I reckon I must have clocked more navy blazers and tweed sports jackets in that half-hour in the pub than I did during my entire three-year stint at Bradford University. I even overheard students making arrangements to meet up later for something called “supper”. It was weird.

Then again, perhaps that was because the pub in question was The King’s Arms in the centre of Oxford. I don’t know, I don’t know; it’s possible that representative it may very well not be.

“There is no such thing as society”, Margaret Thatcher once declared, and people are still getting worked up about it. Chris Dillow points to a few posts taking Thatcher to task for her statement, but personally defends her by stating she is expounding methodological individualism. Norman Geras refutes this by asserting that there is two-way causality, while Daniel Finkelstein feels that to him, as a situationist, Thatcher’s statement is profoundly unhelpful. I have only the vaguest inkling what the hell they’re all going on about, so I will tackle this in the manner I know best; for me the line is just an example of Thatcher jibbering nonsense.

Why? Well on one level there is clearly such a thing as society, because the Oxford English Dictionary says so. Thatcher was pretty iconoclastic, but even she never tried to overrule the OED; she wouldn’t dare (who would). There is also a Wikipedia entry on “society”, where an online community has somehow collaborated to create an article that, funnily enough, doesn’t appear to refer to Margaret Thatcher at all, almost as if society itself doesn’t acknowledge her.

Society, ultimately, is just a word, and it can only exist if it is useful and means something; and it does. For example, I think it is true to say that British society is less racist now than it was twenty years ago; you may disagree with me, but even if you do you still understand what I mean. It is a generalisation for sure, I am not saying that society is one homogonous, anti-racist blob and that there aren’t individual racists out there – we all know of colleagues, acquaintances and professional footballers who are – but it is still a useful shorthand and an example of how the word can be of relevance.

And do you know who agrees with me? One Margaret Thatcher. Of course she does. Otherwise, why does Wikiquote record that she stated in 1984 that

I came to office with one deliberate intent: to change Britain from a dependent to a self-reliant society — from a give-it-to-me, to a do-it-yourself nation. A get-up-and-go, instead of a sit-back-and-wait-for-it Britain.

So her “one deliberate intent” as prime minister was to change the nature of something she didn’t believe in? I suppose she subsequently could have changed her mind – the “no such thing as society” quote was made three years later – but a quick search of her archives reveals over a thousand recorded instances where she referred to “society”, most recently in 2003, when she said

The wonderful thing about a free market is that it allows people to pursue their own interests and at the same time automatically advance every one else’s interests. As Adam Smith taught, it is not through the benevolence of people, but through their intelligent self interest that society as a whole becomes wealthier.

So does she think that the free market improves the wealth of something that doesn’t exist? Clearly not. So if she does accept the validity of the term “society”, what was she wibbling on about before? Tell you what; let’s have a look at what she actually said.

I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation.

And it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—”It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it”. That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people: “All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!” but when people come and say: “But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!” You say: “Look” It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!” There is also something else I should say to them: “If that does not give you a basic standard, you know, there are ways in which we top up the standard. You can get your housing benefit.”

But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.

For me, this in not really an attack on the concept of society; rather Thatcher’s target is those people who have stopped viewing the welfare state as a safety net but have instead chosen it as a way of life, and see it as an entitlement without any obligation. I think she is saying that people have a responsibility to look after themselves if they can and that the existence of government doesn’t absolve you of this responsibility, but she also states that we should help others; it’s just that even where government can help it is only able to do so because of other individuals who fulfil their responsibilities, and that these entitlements and responsibilities are a two-way street, which is why you can’t have one without the other. If she believes that people look after themselves first, then this is largely because we do. If we can ignore that infamous, stupid line, then I don’t actually think she is saying that there is no such thing as society at all, just qualifying what society is or should be about; she is not so much refuting the idea of society as defining what it is. And if I have accurately summarised what she is saying, then in many ways I agree with her, which makes me feel quite sick.

I think it is also important to remember where she made these comments. This was no prepared landmark speech to a conference drafted by a team of writers, but an off-the-cuff remark in an interview with Woman’s Own. She probably never even thought that the “no such thing” line would be seen as a rallying call to self-interest by the right, or viewed as an assault on the concept of community by the left, it just tripped off her tongue on the spur of the moment. I doubt it was meant to be taken that much to heart, and she probably never imagined we would be still be discussing it now, twenty years on, although I am sure she is chuffed to bits that we are. I’m not sure she ever really thought – or thought out – the idea that there is no such thing as society; but if you say “there is no such thing as society” then it isn’t too surprising if people get the impression that that is what you think.

Remember who we are talking about here, remember what we know of her; the woman’s a fucking idiot, to put it mildly. She was making a valid point, but expressed herself appallingly badly, so I don’t think we should be dancing on the head of a pin arguing about exactly what she meant in this instance and whether she was right or wrong. Let’s just try and forget about her shall we; because as a society we’re better off without her.

What is the state of the nation’s youth? Permanently legless, apparently. That is why the Chief Constable of the Cheshire Constabulary has suggested raising the age limit for purchasing alcohol to 21 years; no doubt a real concern for today’s pissed up 16 year olds, especially as many shops already operate a voluntary code whereby they only serve those who look over 21 in the first place. Are the kids much worse than in my day? Perhaps, but one tragic case doesn’t make it so, and Peter Fahy’s comments seem to me to be more about deflecting and pre-empting the inevitable criticism he knew his force would face for failing to be all places at all times and to prevent anything bad from ever happening.

But drink does cause its problems, otherwise why are Friday and Saturday nights the busiest times down at your local A&E? I’m sure that the problem of drunken idiots causing violence is more down to the perpetrators being idiots rather than drunken; yet even idiots are still able to restrain themselves from caving in someone else’s skull while sober, more often than not. It is the whole drink/idiot combination that creates the problems.

Most of the proposed solutions – raising the legal age, increasing the price of alcohol, preventing drinking in public – seem over the top to me, unfairly hitting the majority of people who drink in moderation, or who even when plastered are only a danger to themselves. But one of Fahy’s comments, lamenting that parents are abdicating their responsibilities, seems more on the money. I was particularly shocked to hear one young lad on last nights Ten O’clock News, who, when asked if changing the drinking age limit would be effective, replied

it would make a lot of difference to young teenagers these days, because parents are giving them the money which is, like, alcohol these days, you can buy a four pack of Stella for a tenner, easily.

It is difficult to know where to start here, isn’t it? Can this be true? Is this lad representative of the youth of today? If so, is his generation rubbish at arithmetic or just poor at exercising their consumer choice? Four cans for a tenner! Where does he shop? Even Thresher wouldn’t dare charge that much, even for the reassuringly expensive wife-beater itself. I don’t know whether to refer him to a maths teacher or to trading standards; or perhaps just direct him to a shop with Booze in the title where he will find that buying four Stellas for a tenner is even easier than he thinks. Indeed, he will see that he can either receive a cool six quid in change, or better still, take them up on their rather splendid 12 for £10 offer.

I don’t consider myself a great ideologue – I don’t know, you may well disagree – and I don’t really approve of ideologies, but I do of course have my own set of beliefs and a sense of morality that could be described as such. I am implacably opposed to the idea of private education for one thing; it seems a basic and fundamental inequity in society that the rich can buy better schooling for their offspring, and if it were in anyway practical I would like to ban the practice. But…if I could afford to, and I was faced with the option of sending my children to a private school or putting them through a state school that I felt was so poor that it would severely hamper their prospects, then I would choose the former over the latter. I wouldn’t deny the charge of hypocrisy, what I would say is that whatever my own personal beliefs, the future of my children is more important than any ideology I may subscribe to.

This thought – that there is a time and place for ideology – popped back into my mind when reading about the current debate surrounding organ donation. Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer, has called for a change in the law regarding organ donation so that we have a system of “presumed consent”; rather than “opting in”, so that you have to be on a register for your organs to be used after your death, you have to “opt out”, so it is presumed you are happy for your organs to be used unless you specifically state that they can’t. This has caused a stir; over at Stumbling & Mumbling, for example, a number of commenters have objected, arguing that the proposal violates our rights to do with our bodies as we wish, even after death, and that this is another example of the overarching state. One commenter even says that should this proposal come to pass he will opt out of it, whereas currently he opts in to the voluntary scheme.

But are those opposing the plan reacting ideologically rather than looking at the issue pragmatically? I take it that they all have an aversion to a domineering state and value our human rights, which is fair enough. But human rights are not just abstract concepts to be debated; they are there for a reason, for our benefit. In this case, since there is a clear opt out suggested, and as long there are safeguards in place that ensure any database is properly maintained, that relatives wishes are respected, and that where there are doubts about the prospective donors identity the organs are not used, then I can’t see anyone’s rights are being violated.

And in concentrating on the issue of human rights have the opponents of the move instinctively assumed their position out of ideological reflex, while losing sight of the reasons for this proposal itself; which is simply to reduce the shortfall in the number of organs currently available for donation, so to save the lives of some and to improve the quality of life of others? Even if you do feel that a policy of presumed consent violates our rights, is it such a violation that it trumps the rights of other people to live? Can it be said to be proportionate? I don’t suggest we just jettison a belief in human rights on any occasion that someone sees some benefit in doing so; each instance should be viewed on its merits and it is right to question any proposals. But in the case of organ donation, I wonder if the opponents of presumed consent are reacting on a theoretical level to what they see as an assault on our rights, rather than looking at the issue itself and at what our rights are there to achieve. I wonder if ideology has made them lose their perspective on this occasion.

There may be some good arguments against presumed consent; The Economist last year reported that although Spain already has this policy, it has only “pushed up supply a bit” – which itself suggests that there has been no mass body snatching by the state in that country – and that it has not solved the supply problem. The Economist’s solution with regards kidneys is to allow people the right to sell one of them; this has happened in Iran, so eliminating their waiting list for the organ (they don’t offer a solution to the shortage of organs for heart transplants, though.) My initial reaction, perhaps because of my own ideological position, is to reject the suggestion; but if, as is claimed, the surgery is safe, and if it is true that with proper regulation screened donors with one kidney actually live longer than the average person with two, then why not? Shouldn’t it at least be considered, whatever the understandable concerns?

But perhaps there is a another, simpler way to solve the donor shortage for those who so hate the state interfering in our lives. When the law requiring people to wear seat belts in cars was first introduced I remember Doctors at the time commenting that they were seeing a reduction in the number of suitable organs becoming available for transplant, as people who would have previously died in road accidents were surviving, so denying the world of their organs. Well, doesn’t the seat belt law, and indeed the requirement to wear a crash helmet on a motorbike, infringe our civil liberties? Don’t we have the right to wear what we like when driving as long as it doesn’t affect others? If so, and if these laws were indeed repealed, would the likely increase in fatal road accidents that resulted perhaps provide us with all the organs that we so clearly need?