Chris Grayling is right to deny ‘airbrushing’ crime statistics. To ‘airbrush’ something is to hide small, minor defects beneath a more attractive veneer – ‘violent Photoshop attack’ might be a more appropriate metaphor in this case.

Tom Freeman has the detail including links to the Mark Easton pieces that prompted the story.

Framing something as a ‘threat to freedom’ seems to be a technique used to suppress any further discussion; take this sentence from an editorial in the Telegraph today on the Pope’s opposition to the Equality Bill:

“The legislation poses a threat to the freedom of religious expression and faith
because it seeks to tell the churches how to run their affairs and whom they can
employ”

It’s far from clear what’s actually under threat – religious expression & faith or free reign in employment practices? Surely the former is entirely undiminished and under no threat whatsoever (churches remain free to express themselves however they wish and believe whatever they wish) and the bill simply makes clear that that freedom doesn’t absolve them of the need to adhere to law when employing people. Where’s the issue?

The ambiguity in the sentence is, of course, there to serve the argument – “I don’t want to hire gay people” sounds far less noble than “my freedom of expression is under threat” but you’d have to be pretty dumb to fall for that argument.

My son, 4 years old in June, has a box of crayons with around 150 different coloured crayons. He knows his reds (apples & fire engines) from his blues (the sky and Daddy’s car) and I’ve often wondered at what stage in his development would he recognise the connection between red and scarlet or sunset orange, let alone when one was called for above the other.

I’m no nearer to answering that question having read this article but I do know my great, great grandson may actually need hired storage space just to contain his drawing materials.


(Hat-tip Arts & Letters Daily)

Michael Marra "Green Grow the Rashes"

I expect this will generate a lot of heat and very little light in the days ahead. Speaking about the two brothers sentenced to indefinite detention at Sheffield Crown Court for torturing two other kids David Cameron says:

"I don't think it is right every time one of these events takes place to say that it is just some isolated incident of evil that we should look away from and forget about. Are we going to do that every time there is a Jamie Bulger or a Baby Peter or a Ben Kinsella or a Gary Newlove or what has happened in Doncaster? We shouldn't. We should ask about what has gone wrong with our society and what we are going to do about it"

Exploiting one awful crime for political gain and tarring an entire generation because of the actions of a tiny minority? Or a timely observation about something deeply wrong with our society and how it functions?

I don't know but I'm willing to bet whatever side people do come down on it's the opposite one they took in 1993 when Tony Blair, in response to James Bulger's murder, said this:

"We hear of crimes so horrific they provoke anger and disbelief in equal proportion. These are the ugly manifestations of a society that is becoming unworthy of that name."

Post Hiroshima and Nagasaki the scientists behind the atomic bomb were understandably anxious about how their work might develop and what mankind might do with the awsome power now in its gift.

To further discussion they launched the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the cover, designed by the wife of one of the scientists, feature a clock design showing a time of c.7/8 minutes to midnight; a bleak visual illustration of the fears that nuclear power gave rise to. This became known as the Doomsday Clock and has been updated 18 times in the last 60 years, each time calibrating exactly where 18 Nobel laureates think the world is in relation to final annihilation. You can read the timeline here.

Anyway the most recent adjustment - a few days ago - was in a positive direction (to 6 from 5) and here's how it was recorded in the bulletin:

"IT IS 6 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 2010: International cooperation rules the day. Talks between Washington and Moscow for a follow-on agreement to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty are nearly complete, and more negotiations for further reductions in the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenal are already planned. Additionally, Barack Obama becomes the first U.S. president to publicly call for a nuclear-weapon-free world. The dangers posed by climate change are still great, but there are pockets of progress. Most notably: At Copenhagen, the developing and industrialized countries agree to take responsibility for carbon emissions and to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius."

Before you arrive at an informed opinion on any particular topic you can normally apply a very crude test to get a feel for the issue - look at those already lining up on either side of the debate and you'll get a feel for what's really at stake.

I call this the 'Union Test' because in my experience as soon as I learn that a union have 'expressed concern' or came out against something you can bet that it's probably worth pursuing. So, I'll reserve proper judgement on the Tory education proposals until I've read them in full but on the basis of the details reported they seem straightforward, sensible proposals. The General Secretary of the NUTs intervention just confirms it:

"Being 'brazenly elitist' could mean being brazenly exclusive of those potential teachers who through no fault of their own have had a tough time in achieving the necessary qualifications"

Words fail me. It gets sillier still:

"While qualifications are obviously necessary, being a good teacher is not dependent on academic ability alone. Good subject knowledge is not the same as the ability to engage with young people; they are wholly different skills. Both are necessary"

They are indeed but those with the former and not the latter (God know I had a few of those) could probably scrape whereas those with only the latter are no bl**dy good at all.