Gordon Brown-Trousers and the Treaty of Doom

It looks like the game's up for Gordon Brown-Trousers, as far as the hated EU Reform Treaty goes.

In the run up to the last election, the Labour party promised to hold a referendum, giving the British people their chance to agree with, or oppose, the proposed European Constitution.

Before that could come to pass, "no" votes in similar referenda held in France and the Netherlands effectively killed off the Constitution, much to the relief of the British government. In place of the defunct Constitution, member states began beavering away on something to replace it.

The result was the deeply disturbing EU Reform Treaty, signed by Gordon Brown-Trousers in Lisbon just a few weeks ago. Despite extensive criticism, including a finding from MPs in the European scrutiny committee that the Treaty is "substantially equivalent" to the discredited Constitution, the Prime Minister has insisted that the two are not the same.

He has clung to the largely fictional differences between these documents, using them as an excuse to avoid honoring his party's promise to hold a referendum. After all, his thinking appears to go, if the Treaty isn't the same as the Constitution, we're not actually breaking any promises, are we? Sure, a lot of people, including other European leaders, many members of the British Parliament and most of the British population think they're the same, but so what? We promised a referendum on the Constitution and this is a Treaty. Not the same at all. Nope, not at all.

This kind of childish deception pervades Gordon Brown-Trousers' government to an even greater degree than it did Tony Blair's before him, and it just won't wash. The British people may be laid back to the point of impending horizontality, but they know perfectly well that if something looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, there's a very good chance that it's a duck, no matter what you call it.

Until today, Gordon Brown-Trousers was looking foolish and cowardly; we all know that he daren't hold a referendum because he is bound to lose, and, as was shown by his recent humiliating election climb-down, the prospect of losing is something that terrifies him more than anything else.

But, today, his situation has changed for the much, much worse. In a story that I first discovered in the Sun, and that has since been covered by pretty much all of the media, the extent to which Gordon Brown-Trousers has deliberately misled the country and, apparently, Parliament, is finally revealed.

According to the Sun, Frenchman Valery Giscard d’Estaing, who masterminded the original Constitution, said it had simply been recast to avoid a referendum in the UK. He admitted that all the Constitution's key elements remained in the Treaty, and that the format had been altered because a referendum in Britain would “obviously lead to a no vote”. He said: “In the Treaty of Lisbon the tools are largely the same. Only the order in which they are arranged in the tool-box has been changed."

So there we have it, straight from the horse's mouth. A few weeks ago, journalists at a press conference openly accused the Prime Minister of lying about his reasons for not calling a general election. Everyone thought he was telling porkies, but there was no proof, no smoking gun, nothing to show beyond any possible doubt that he had lied.

And so, instead of doing the decent thing, Gordon Brown-Trousers decided to tough it out, to insist on his version of events and stick to it no matter how pathetically, childishly dishonest it made him look. That approach is not going to help him this time.

The British Prime Minister has not been honest with his people on a matter of far greater importance than the usual political double-talk that we have come to expect from all politicians in recent years. The Treaty that he refuses to allow us to vote on introduces sweeping changes to the way in which we are governed, and even on such a fundamental point, he cannot, or will not, tell the truth.

There cannot, now, be any doubt that the Treaty and Constitution are substantially the same in all but name - the guy behind the Constitution has said so. Nor can we realistically be expected to believe that Gordon Brown-Trousers doesn't know they're the same - and if, by any remote chance, he doesn't know, then he's plainly too stupid to be in charge.

The implications are unavoidable; the Prime Minister has set about avoiding his party's promise to hold a referendum, despite an overwhelming majority of the population demanding just such a vote. In doing so, he and his ministers have asserted time and again that the Treaty is not the same as the Constitution. That assertion has now, once and for all, been shown to be untrue.

If they are prepared to lie - for that is what it amounts to - about so important an issue, how can we ever trust anything that Gordon Brown-Trousers says? In short, we can't. Even if he were prepared to make another humiliating U-turn and accede to demands for a referendum, how could trust what he said in his inevitable campaign for a "yes" vote?

Nothing this devious, power-mad Prime Minister has to say can be taken at face value in light of Valery Giscard d’Estaing's revelations, and that is simply not a tenable position for any Prime Minister to be in.

It is time for Gordon Brown-Trousers to go. Now.

Billy Seggars.

Ghosts and guesswork

Halloween is almost upon us, and the Daily Mail is getting into the spirit of things by reporting that around 37% of 2100 adults surveyed for the National Lottery believe in ghosts.

Unfortunately, the Mail doesn't explain whether this belief stems from personal encounters with something that may, or may not, be of paranormal origin, or whether it is just a general belief in something spooky.

Being of the logical, scientific persuasion, I find it very difficult to say whether or not I accept the existence, or possible existence, of something until the something in question has been adequately defined.

In this case, Wikipedia offers a helpful, if fairly broad, definition: "A ghost is defined as the apparition of a deceased person, frequently similar in appearance to that person, and usually encountered in places she or he frequented, or in association with the person's former belongings. The word "ghost" may also refer to the spirit or soul of a deceased person, or to any spirit or demon. Ghosts are often associated with hauntings, which is, according to the Parapsychological Association, "the more or less regular occurrence of paranormal phenomena associated with a particular locality (especially a building) and usually attributed to the activities of a discarnate entity; the phenomena may include apparitions, poltergeist disturbances, cold drafts, sounds of footsteps and voices, and various odours.""

I can safely say that I have never encountered an apparition of a deceased person, or anything similar to it that could not be explained by other, perfectly normal phenomena. So that's it, then? Case closed? Ghosts do not exist?

Well, maybe. Unfortunately, I can also say that over the years I have had one or two experiences that I cannot rationally explain without edging towards the paranormal, and, in particular, the discarnate entity end of the above definition.

For example, several years ago I was engaged in idle conversation with Mrs Seggars. For no particular reason that I could discern, I experienced a sudden drop in temperature and an uneasy feeling as though "someone had walked over my grave" as the expression goes. Unbidden, my thoughts turned to my favourite aunt - to whom I was very close - so strongly and suddenly that, much to Mrs Seggars' surprise, I spoke my aunt's name aloud.

The sensation passed after a few seconds, leaving me a little concerned. As I was attempting to describe the experience to a sceptical Mrs Seggars, the phone rang; it was my uncle, telling me that my aunt had just died. Needless to say, Mrs S was rendered somewhat speechless, for she had witnessed this event first hand and knew something unusual had happened.

But how to explain the observed phenomena? As a practical chap, who spends his time dealing with cause and effect, carefully putting two and two together to reach a logical, reasoned conclusion, "supernatural" explanations do not sit well with me. And yet, I can conceive of nothing in conventional science that can explain why, or how, this event occurred.

On another occasion, I was working late in the living quarters above an old Post Office, where the owner's computer required urgent attention before the shop opened its doors the next day. The room was large by modern standards, well lit and warm. My jacket hung behind the door, and I was working at the keyboard in my shirtsleeves. The only other occupant was the shop owner, sitting in full view several meters away as he watched TV.

Suddenly, I distinctly felt a hand come down on my right shoulder. Startled, I looked up and spun my chair around, expecting to see someone standing behind me. There was nobody there. The shop owner glanced away from the TV, eyebrows raised.

"I could have sworn..." I started to say, but he cut me off. "Felt something, did you, lad?" I admitted that I had, and he just nodded. "Happens a lot in here. Don't worry about it, nobody's ever come to any harm." And, indeed, I did not, but I cannot explain how this event occurred. I know the shop owner couldn't have caused it, because I could see him clearly. There was nobody else in the room, and nothing on the floor that could have fallen on me, or been thrown at me, to cause the touch on my shoulder. Again, I can conceive of nothing in conventional science that can explain why, or how, this event occurred.

Then again, isn't it the purpose of science to FIND explanations for things that are unexplained? Accepted scientific method is to observe first and reach conclusions later; it is the mistaken province of unimaginative "scientists" to assume something cannot exist because science cannot explain its existence. Rather, they should start with the assumption that an observed phenomenon must exist in some shape or form, and then progress to determining what it is and how it works. NOTHING is inexplicable, it is merely, as yet, unexplained.

So, do I believe in ghosts? As per the standard definition of chain-clanking, head-carrying, vengeful spectres, NO. But, based on my own experiences, I believe science has some work to do. Some form of communication apparently existed between me and my aunt at the instant of her death. What was it? How does it work? Might not something similar be responsible for other phenomena that might otherwise appear to be of "supernatural" origin?

Of course, there have been reports - usually difficult to verify reports - of ghostly goings-on for centuries, and still science has yet to come up with anything more than reasons why such things do not exist. Maybe, in many cases, science is right. And, in fairness, it is difficult indeed to tell the difference between hoaxes, errors and events genuinely in need of investigation.

Also, it may be that other branches of science have yet to evolve far enough to provide the necessary clues that will allow these events to be understood. Just as someone from the 15th Century would have struggled to understand, say, a CD player, we may be lacking vital information that would easily explain such phenomena if only we knew what it was.

In order for that understanding to come about, we need to stop thinking in terms of spooks and spectres, and start thinking analytically. The good old fashioned ghost story might be an entertaining diversion on a long winter's night, but it doesn't advance our knowledge beyond that of our ancestors. With open eyes, an open mind and rigorous scientific methodology we have the potential to figure out just about anything. Shouldn't we be using that talent to lay to rest the biggest ghost of all - that of our own superstitious ignorance?

Billy Seggars.

Italian Government Report Blames Aliens For Mystery Fires

"Aliens were responsible for a series of unexplained fires in fridges, TV’s and mobile phones in an Italian village, according to an Italian government report," according to the Telegraph, the Daily Mail and the Scotsman.

All of these stories refer to the peculiar events in the Sicilian village of Canneto di Caronia, where, in 2004, electrical appliances - and, apparently, other things - began bursting into flames of their own accord. The fires continued even after the village's electricity supply was cut off, and one of the independent boffins drafted in to investigate reported that an unplugged electrical cable went up in smoke before his (presumably astonished) eyes.

Of course, these events are old news, but I've been following the story with mild interest since it first made the headlines in 2004. Now, following an investigation ordered by the Italian government, a team of scientists, engineers and military experts apparently believe that the fires "caused by a high power electro magnetic emissions which were not man made and reached a power of between 12 and 15 gigawatts."

In a leaked interim report, the team reveals that the most likely cause of these emissions was "aliens". The report also makes references to a possible UFO landing close the village, saying "burnt imprints which have not been explained were found in a field."

Francesco Mantegna Venerando, Sicily’s Civil Protection chief who coordinated the report, said: "This is just one possibility we are also looking at another one which involves the testing of top secret weapons by an unknown power which are also capable of producing an enormous amount of energy."

Aliens? Secret weapons? Unknown power? Good grief! Now don't get me wrong here, I've nothing against the concept of extra-terrestrial life. It's a damn big universe, stuffed with billions and billions of stars, many of which appear to have planetary systems. The idea that, out of all those suns, our small, insignificant yellow star should be the only one to have provided the ideal conditions for life to have evolved seems incredibly unlikely.

But just because life has probably evolved "out there" doesn't automatically mean that it's coming here - or has been here already. Of course, it doesn't automatically preclude that possibility either, but I must confess to being a little sceptical of the UFO conspiracy theories that seem so common these days.

Think about it. On average, there are several thousand reports of Unidentified Flying Objects every year. By the time you've weeded out the genuine errors, the cranks, the commonly misunderstood astronomical phenomena etc., you're left with maybe a couple of hundred reports each year that cannot be identified and remain unexplained.

Let's be generous and assume that half of them really are alien space craft - that's about 100 per year, or slightly less than one every three days. Now, these alleged aliens obviously aren't all that keen on making their presence known to the world at large or they'd just set their ships down outside the White House and say hello - or, perhaps, destroy it.

So, their alleged presence here is essentially covert. Yet they are spotted every three days or so. Hmm. Either they are INCREDIBLY unlucky, and always manage to choose a spot where there is someone around to see them, or the number of sightings is such a small proportion of the true number of largely unobserved visits as to be statistically insignificant and within their acceptable margin for error.

Neither of these positions is entirely satisfactory; even I'm not THAT unlucky, and the idea that there could be hundreds, or thousands, of alien craft buzzing around all the time raises difficult questions like WHY? Not for the purposes of invasion, obviously - with so many of them around, and technology advanced enough to get them here, I can't see any reason for them to wait, yet we don't appear to have been conquered either. Scientific observation is another common theory, but how many observers does it take to do the job?

Overall, I'm not convinced. Yes, maybe, occasionally the odd alien craft might take a passing interest in this small planet. But hundreds, or thousands, every year? No.

That said, there's an awful lot of serious scientific effort and interest going into the task of looking for indications of extra-terrestrial life, and even more popular interest in UFOs. Shouldn't a story like this, apparently backed by solid, serious, slide-rule-wielding propeller-heads be getting a little more attention than it has?

If it's true - or even partly true - it's something that we all should worry about. Quite apart from the sheer wonder of discovering that we're not alone in the universe, the concept of real aliens with the power to destroy electrical devices at will is more than a little disturbing. Powers like that could blast human civilisation back to the stone age with ease - how much modern technology can you think of that doesn't require electrical power, either in its use or manufacture?

And even if the alternative explanation of some unknown power testing super-weapons is true, that's equally worrying. If there's even a shred of evidence to back up these conclusions, this should be international, front page, breaking news; EVERYTHING pales into insignificance when compared to either of these possibilities, and it's a damning comment on human nature that folks are happily reading about almost anything else today.

We need to know one way or the other - is it true, or isn't it?

Billy Seggars.

Naked Ambition - Web Cam Sex Job Storm

"A Jobcentre has provoked outrage after it was found to be advertising for women to strip for web cams on Internet sex sites for £8 an hour," according to the Daily Mail.

The Daily Mail isn't a bad newspaper, as they go, but it does have a tendency to scramble for the moral high ground, even if it has to heap up a lot of dirt to stand on first. This story continues in typical DM fashion, with much wailing and outrage, not to mention a quote from Tory MP Anne Widdecombe, AKA Doris Karloff. Now THERE'S a babe I'd happily pay £80 an hour to keep her kit on!

And, as is often the case when the Mail is frothing at the mouth, it misses the point entirely. Clearly, there is demand for folks who are willing to disrobe on cam and act out clients' fantasies - the company involved wouldn't be paying the models £8 an hour if there weren't. This means there are folks out there (probably, though not necessarily, of the male persuasion) who want to watch these clothes-shedding birds, and are willing to pay for the dubious pleasure.

Have you ever used MSN Messenger? Yahoo Messenger? AOL Instant Messenger? If you have, you will know they all have the facilities to handle video chat. Or, in other words, anyone with a webcam can, if they wish, allow any other user of the software, anywhere in the world, to see them, live on cam, with or without their clothes, for free.

In view of the obvious demand for naked folks on cam, isn't it better that those who would wish to view such things use an appropriate service, where the performers are guaranteed to be adults who have a complete understanding of what they are doing for their £8 an hour? The alternative is that the "clients" will wander around the free messenger services looking for someone to show them what they want to see.

The world being what it is, they will surely find some exhibitionists, somewhere, who are more than happy to flash their cheeky bits from the comfort of their own rooms for free, just for kicks. And, you might think, that would be fine. But, in their quest for someone of that ilk, they're bound to bother a great many other folks who would, on the whole, rather not indulge a voyeur's fantasy.

And, whether or not the voyeur deliberately seeks out minors, some of the folks they pester will inevitably be under 18. That's a huge and unacceptable risk, and it seems to me that it's much better to accept that some folks want to watch babes getting naked on cam, and that some babes are happy to get paid for obliging, and then let them get on with it without disturbing anyone else.

Of course, that's too logical for the Daily Mail and the folks who have contributed quotes to the story, which goes some way to showing just how out of touch they are. This sort of thing goes on all the time. Prevention is impossible, even if it were warranted; a degree of control, by means of a legitimate business with appropriate regulation, is not and should be encouraged.

Billy Seggars.

Missing Moggies

Dastardly deeds are afoot in Bramley Crescent, Southampton. According to the Daily Mail, a disgruntled local resident is stealing their neighbours' cats and may be dumping them at least 25 miles from home.

Apparently, the evil catnapper is a bit brassed off about the miscreant moggies going wee-wee and poo-poo in their garden, digging up their flower beds and generally getting on their nerves.

Fair enough, I can understand how other folks' pets can occasionally be a bit of a pain. But there my sympathy ends. To steal - for that is what it amounts to - a treasured pet, for whom the owner obviously cares deeply, is cruel, heartless and evil. The distress caused, both to the owners and, in some cases, their children cannot be justified. But what about the animals themselves?

At least one of them is ill, and needs constant medication. Its chances of survival without that medication are slim. But even this wicked person's more healthy victims must be suffering some degree of fear and distress. Yes, I know, cats are independent creatures. Even so, to do this to one is unfair and inhuman.

Despite my disinterest in the fate of snails and other may-soon-be-extinct sob stories, I am, broadly, an animal-friendly kind of person. I LIKE animals, and have occasionally gone a long way out of my way to help one in distress. Over the years I have come to various conclusions about people too, one of which is that anyone who is unkind - or worse - to animals is not a very nice person. If they will be unpleasant to an animal, they're just as likely to be unpleasant to their fellow humans, too.

My theory seems to be proven yet again in this case, as the cat thief doesn't seem to care that the distress they have caused to the missing cats is reflected back onto their owners.

Fortunately, the perpetrator doesn't seem to be very bright. In fact, I'd suggest that, as well as being unpleasant and cruel, they're dumb as gravel. For, as the Daily Mail reports - and even helpfully reprints - the thief has written to the distressed owners explaining their reasons for stealing the cats.

Apart from the writer's obvious inability to express themselves adequately, the letter contains a number of clues. Assuming that they're not deliberately planted red-herrings, it really shouldn't be difficult to track this person down:

• They live in the Bramley Crescent area (not necessarily on the Crescent itself) with their family, and have done so for many years. So a swift examination of the electoral role might be in order - newer residents can be excluded.
• Their residence is somewhere on the map referred to in the letter. I haven't seen that map, but it must narrow things down a bit! If anyone would care to clarify the map referred to, I'd love to see it.
• They, and apparently their relatively immediate neighbour, have young children - older children are perfectly capable of avoiding "cat poo" on their own! So long-time residents with children who live next door to someone with children, then. Or, perhaps, long-time residents with grandchildren who live with them, or visit frequently.
• They like "(Very Welcome") birds, so look for bird tables and other assorted ornithological paraphernalia. Membership lists for organisations such as the RSPB might be a good place to look, too, although that might be a little hard to find.
• They like "expensive shrubs", and have a garden. Presumably, such a garden would be fairly well tended and would look reasonably smart - suburban jungles need not apply. A look at Google maps, in Satellite mode might be handy.

There is much, much more to be derived from the letter - it's a veritable goldmine for anyone with the time and patience to identify this evil-minded individual.

I wish the residents of Bramley Crescent every success in recovering their pets and in locating the criminal who has so wickedly taken them away. They probably won't get more than a slap on the wrist in this permissive era, but the resulting publicity and vilification from society in general might be worthwhile - Britain is still a nation of animal lovers, and someone who would do this isn't likely to find much goodwill wherever they go.

Billy Seggars.