Gun Ownership Restrictions and Common Sense VS the NRA

All quotes: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/obama-to-gun-owners-im-not-looking-to-disarm-you/#

"Why don't we treat this like every other thing that we use? I just came from a meeting today in the Situation Room in which I got people who we know have been on ISIL Web sites, living here in the United States, U. S. citizens, and we're allowed to put them on the no-fly list when it comes to airlines, but because of the National Rifle Association, I cannot prohibit these people from buying a gun." - President Barrack Obama

There were a whole bunch of responses to this statement, particularly of the "To restrict someone based off what they read is a dangerous course. I don't care if it's a book, a website or a letter, it is punishment without due process. Restricting the rights of a person without due process is the opposite of what we claim to be about." (Observations99) variety. Now obviously Americans take their civil liberties very seriously but what is the alternative? The same argument that is applied here - visiting a terrorist organisation's website does not make you a terrorist was previously used as a defence against child pornography websites, that looking at these things did not make you a paedophile...which is now understood to be nonsense. Websites generate revenue from hits - by visiting a criminal website you may be supporting that crime financially. It has been established that there is no legitimate reason to look at child pornography 'for research'; similarly there is no legitimate reason to be visiting an ISIL website. Waiting for a paedophile to physically hurt a child is irresponsible, waiting for a terrorist sympathiser to mount an attack is waiting too long. If someone is pointing a gun at a woman and her child do you wait for them to pull the trigger or do you call for help / attempt to intervene / cause a distraction BEFORE they get shot? Preemptive measures will always be unpopular and someone will inevitably suffer for it BUT is the right of the individual greater than that of the masses? I don't think so. I would rather be wrongly subjected to restrictions than have my children slaughtered because those restrictions couldn't be applied to someone who really deserved it. The idea that a person's travel can be restricted on suspicion but their ability to buy weaponry can't...totes illogical.

"Safety laws are applied to all individuals equally - both law abiding and non-law abiding.

The example Obama uses is that everyone must get a driver's license and pass a test to prove they can safely drive a vehicle. Even if you are a known felon, child molester, tax avoider, etc you can still get a license. Then everyone must register their vehicle regardless of how they acquired it. Again.. doesn't matter what laws you have broken (or not broken) in the past. I will also mention that a car is considered a deadly weapon depending on how it is used.

The only time special scrutiny is applied is after you have committed a crime directly related to driving (drunken driving, reckless driving, etc). Then your license and ability to drive be revoked or curtailed." - Sean

This statement raises some interesting points: the ownership restrictions on cars doesn't affect the majority and we don't question the existence of those restrictions anymore (once upon a time driving licences hadn't been invented and literally anyone could get behind the wheel without censure). Virtually anyone can own a car, virtually anyone (in America) can own a gun - but is that really such a good idea? And cars have to be registered, taxed, insured; the driver licenced...why isn't this applied to guns? Why are people free to buy multiple weapons without checks? Why aren't they required to purchase insurance against the use of those guns - to cover you if a bullet ricochets and hits someone or damages their property, for example? Procedures that would have minimal impact on the responsible but be something of a deterrent to others. A car has a valid, practical use...hunting is the only valid, practical use of a gun and that doesn't apply to most American gun owners.

"How does registering a car decrease crimes that utilize cars? When there are drinking and driving accidents who calls for stricter licensing, more training and bans of certain types of cars? Who calls for cars to be governed so they cannot exceed the speed limit? Nobody. Who calls for mandatory breathalyzers to be installed in every car (analogous to a background check for every gun purchase), Nobody. Who calls for restrictions on the amount of alcohol you can buy? Nobody, they call for stricter penalties on the perpetrators. Yet you demand analogous restrictions on all guns and their owners not just on criminals. Why is it different for guns? Because you want to take our guns, you have no interest in banning cars." - George Mason

Okay, this is gonna be fun...

• How does registering a car decrease crimes that utilize cars? - It's harder to commit a crime with a car that can be easily traced back to the owner. It's a deterrent and it means the gov't know you have that car...shouldn't the gov't know about that home arsenal you're putting together?!
• When there are drinking and driving accidents who calls for stricter licensing, more training and bans of certain types of cars? - not sure how alcohol and the crime committed by drunk drivers is linked here, but the sale of alcohol is licensed and restricted.
• Who calls for cars to be governed so they cannot exceed the speed limit? - plenty of people actually. The ability of cars to travel at well over the legal limit is contentious. The popular UK car Vauxhall Corsa has a top speed of 113 MPH; 43 MPH over the top speed limit in the country. Totally unnecessary to enable people to break the law.
• Who calls for mandatory breathalyzers to be installed in every car? - actually again plenty of people would like this to be a thing. Just imagine how many lives would be saved each year!
• Who calls for restrictions on the amount of alcohol you can buy? - again, this is actually a thing. It'd do a lot for public health too. And coming from the nation that came up with prohibition that's just funny.
• You demand analogous restrictions on all guns and their owners not just on criminals. Why is it different for guns? - because a car is a transport vehicle, because alcohol is an intoxicating substance but a gun is a WEAPON PURELY FOR KILLING. WHY ARE YOU TOO FUCKING DUMB TO SEE THAT???

Also, why are you so hung up on linking alcohol and driving? Car drivers can't use mobile phones, eat or drink while driving. Driving while on drugs, driving while tired...there are many factors in non-deliberate road deaths and I don't know about America but in the UK there are all sorts of rules and regulations aimed at preventing these things. A person receives points on their licence for infractions and at a certain point will lose their licence. A person who receives certain medical diagnoses can lose their licence as unfit to drive...why doesn't this apply to gun ownership? Infractions like improper storage and wrongfully discharging a firearm would incur penalty points; visiting terrorist websites and diagnoses such as psychotic illness would involve a revoking of a licence. No one can just go buy a car, they have to have a valid driver's licence...allowing any idiot to go buy a gun is all kinds of nuts. Only a true dumbfuck would put an individual's 'right' to own an offensive weapon over the rights of innocent people to not get slaughtered.

Mrs Rock-Star the second

Feeling inclined to write a sequel to an earlier blog as it ties in rather neatly (see: For Example, Being Mrs Rock-Star - Feb 2016).

Note: I am using a hetero-centric male rock star / female non celebrity partner dynamic throughout because that is the kind of fantasy relationship I am in LOL. I fully acknowledge that other scenarios are possible and valid.

Recent events which are none of my business brought some further hypothetical issues to mind. Without referring to specific cases I think we've all seen enough of 'fandoms' to realise that petty rivalries and general bitching can get way out of hand...and it doesn't take much of a leap to realise how an actual wife, girlfriend or significant other is liable to get treated in such an environment. Even in the nicest of fandoms a certain I-love-him-more-than-you attitude can fester away which can be bad enough when it's all hypothetical.

So how do I feel about this? Given my imaginary boy-toy I have given this a fair bit of thought.

Firstly, I think there are probably two types of rock-star significant other...those to whom fame is an inconvenient side-effect, and those who were attracted by it. I don't think either kind is innately better suited to the role - finding the IDEA of fame appealing does not equate to enjoying it as a day-to-day REALITY. What I do think is that the Mrs Rock-Star with her head screwed on will do better than the one who thinks it'll be all glossy magazine spreads. Facing up to reality is key here.

So, what is the reality? Obviously a huge amount depends on the specific people involved but basically just like when any couple get together and you have to deal with his family and friends getting involved with a rock star means you're involved with his fan base...whether you like it or not.

Regarding that fan base you can engage, keep to the sidelines or hide. There is no golden rule here.

Even if you think you will stay well out of it don't imagine for one second that some sneaky little so-and-so won't be posting about you on social media behind your back. They might even set up fake social networking accounts in your identity. Personally that is why I think maintaining a presence in the fan base is the way to go - makes it easier to avoid being blamed for stirring up shit storms that were nothing to do with you for one thing. So that'd be my first recommendation: own your identity.

Obviously engaging with a fan base is easier if you have really good self esteem and the hide of a rhino. But is that essential? Obviously I'm talking from a position of total speculation here but I don't think so. If you're going to take every hurtful comment to heart you're in for a hard time but it could be just as difficult imagining what is being said behind your back. It can also give you an opportunity to address criticisms and aid you to present yourself how you want to be seen.

I'm under no illusions. I know my fantasy rock star is never gonna pick me and if in some bizarre alternate reality that actually happened I know I would never have the full, unconditional support of the fan base. It totally goes against human nature! I'm definitely not drawn to the idea of dating a rock star but I love him so that's what I'd have to deal with to be his. So how would I deal with it? Badly, probably! My self esteem is shit. But I'd definitely own my online identity, I'd get pretty harsh about muting the haters; I'd save up the nice comments and do my best to see the negatives as petty jealousy.

What I would be exceptionally careful of is that I didn't allow it to affect my relationship. The worst this shit can really do is cause stress or make you a needier partner. No matter what kind of relationship you're in it's never up to your partner to make up for the shit other people give you. Bring, as far as you can, only good stuff to your relationship. Leave everything else out with the trash.

On the nature of God

Last year (2014-15) I took a level two module in Philosophy; this academic year I've been taking level three Classical Mythology. During this time two of my cousins (who were brothers) have died - Sean (49) was killed in a motorcycle accident in October '14 and Allister (52) passed away from a brain tumour just two weeks ago in April '16.

These things have led me to contemplate deeply the nature of God.

His Holiness The Dalai Lama advises against conversion stating that it is "advisable for people to stay within their traditional religious folds" (http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-otherstates/religious-conversions-are-not-advisable-says-dalai-lama/article4278920.ece) and when I experienced my spiritual awakening, with what I perceive as a miracle, in 1996 it seemed natural to lean toward my own religious background - The Church Of England.
Now this is a subject of some debate because although my parents describe themselves as agnostic they definitely lean towards atheism. I was not raised in any faith - my parents come from CofE backgrounds although my late maternal grandfather was raised a Catholic (one of his cousins also died recently, she was a nun with the Little Sisters of the Poor). Two of my schools made occasional CofE visits but I more frequently attended a Methodist church during my time in The Girls' Brigade.
For a number of years I attended church and even took confirmation but organised religion never gelled with my personal sense of God. Interestingly my recent studies have only acted to strengthen my personal beliefs and that is what I wish to share here.

The thing that annoys me most about religion and the arguments against it mistakes religion for FAITH. Religion and religious texts are blatantly man-made. Separating the two seems impossible in most people's eyes - the atheist gloats that someone's religious logic is fatally flawed whilst unaware that this does not equate to there being no god. Faith is something you feel in your heart and soul; religion is something that is learned or indoctrinated. I BELIEVE that there is a power in the universe I refer to as God. It is not logical or reasonable or provable; it is something I feel and no one can tell me it's not real because it is to me.

The Bearded Man In The Clouds
(The European visualisation of the Judeo-Christian God)
Clement saw that man created gods in his own image rather than the other way about stating: "Ethiopians say that their gods are flat-nosed and black, and Thracians that theirs have blue eyes and red hair" (Miscellanies, 7.22.1) and that if animals could draw "Horses would have drawn horse-like gods, cows cow-like gods, and each species would have made the gods' bodies just like their own" (Miscellanies 5.109.3). To me this is absolutely right - man has created God in his own image, not the other way about.

Good
Plato puts the following words into the mouth of his character Socrates: "Now gods, of course, are really good aren't they, and must be described as such?" (Republic 2.379b1)...but WHY? Once again we're clothing god in, if not our own attributes, then our expectations. We expect god to be good and then try to explain away pain and suffering. Of course, all things exist in balance; we cannot appreciate the light without the dark as a contrast. But beyond that there really is no reason to assume god created life out of love and wisdom and goodness...just because life may have been created by a sadistic idjit out of magic playdoh doesn't negate the role of aforementioned idjit as god.
This is essentially the same as building up a celebrity (whom we do not know personally) to be some sort of idol, a role model, an inspiration. Which is not to say we shouldn't do that but all the same, when we accept our idol's faults and appreciate them as a real human being like any other then our admiration is more worthy - building someone up, placing them on a pedestal and then blaming them for not living up to our expectations...now THAT is idiotic!

Omniscient
(all-seeing, all-knowing)
Sextus Empiricus had the measure of this: "...some shrewd and clever man first invented fear of the gods for mortal men, so that the wicked might have something to fear, even if their deeds or words or thoughts were secret" (Against the Professors 9.54, l. 12-15).
Yeah...God isn't watching you taking a dump or having sex or whatever. That's just creepy. However I do believe that the good or bad we do does affect us in a tangible way. I am undecided on the nature of an afterlife - most of the myths about it are entirely too constructed and I strongly suspect there isn't one. Perhaps God sends good and bad stuff your way based on how you act (karma), perhaps your sins stain your soul or your aura. I have no idea and I don't care a huge deal. I believe that people choose how to act, that religious beliefs and human laws shape how we choose to act but that we can still choose to be good without the threat of damnation.

Omnipotent
(all-powerful)
If a god or gods create all things then that god must be all-powerful and in control of everything, right? If you build a house are you responsible for it and everything that happens within it for all time? If you have a child are you responsible for their actions for their whole lives, and the actions  of their children and their children's children? This makes no sense. Assuming a God created the world and all in it why assume *he* didn't gift it to us and that what happens thereafter is our own problem?
Now, I personally feel that we're all working to a plan. There's free will but there's also a design guiding us along. I don't believe god decides who lives and who dies because everyone dies. I believe that each person is here for a reason - and if you haven't 'fulfilled your purpose' then you'll survive even the weirdest of accidents. And your purpose could be tiny - I believe in the domino effect: each person has an effect on the next. My life has been changed any number of times by random people who will have no clue that they touched my life at all...most notably two mums at the GPs in 2012 talking about lactose intolerance. They could never have any idea that their conversation turned my life around and consequently my being well for the first time in over a decade has made it possible for me to go places and do things I couldn't have risked before. Perhaps at some point I will fulfill a purpose in a similar way, perhaps I have already done so. Who knows?
I love the Final Destination films because they fit so well with my ideas on this - that when your time is up, your time is up. If you're still meant to be here you will live another day, if you're not you won't and the more you interfere with the design of the universe the worse it'll be when it finally catches up with you.

Omnipresent
(present everywhere)
Now THIS is an idea I can really get behind - I view God as the Ch'i (Qi) of the universe; the life-force which exists everywhere and in all things. This also explains for me why I feel closer to God in natural surroundings; the more man has manipulated the environment the more disturbed that life-force is. God still exists in a modern high-rise but it's easier to feel on a beach or in a woodland or on top of a mountain...

So yeah, there you have it. That's the basic version of how I personally view god; not as the creation of man but the sense of power and design I FEEL at work in the world around me.

Cancer Vs Morality

I was vegetarian in my teens (age 13-17, 1991-1995) - as I have been again since 2013, and now vegan - and, perhaps in consequence, formed particular views on the subject of animal testing, including in medical contexts. I simply do not place humans above other animals to such an extent. Mortality is a fact of life; causing animals to suffer in the vain hope of prolonging human life is, to me, both reprehensible and futile. For once one disease is conquered another appears - the balance always must be maintained. Despite my eating meat for many years in the interim my views on animal testing did not change; to me killing an animal to eat it is far less cruel than the prolonged suffering experienced by lab animals. I freely admit I am not as good as I should be about buying cruelty free products but I certainly won't donate to charities that perpetuate animal cruelty.

Back at secondary school (1989-1994) my 'house charity' was for cancer research. I caught a lot of flack for refusing to contribute on the grounds of animal cruelty. One thing I got a lot was "you'd feel differently if cancer affected someone in your family" which is the most incredible bullshit in my humble opinion. Do people really have such shallowly rooted morals that they only hold high ideals whilst it's in their favour? People can and do and should be able to change their stances on things as they learn and grow and experience life...but only believing in that which is of personal benefit is pretty low. This is something I came up against in my OU Philosophy module and to be honest I was astonished that even Slytherin types like myself would just chop and change their belief system so easily.

I feel the need to revisit this due to recent events. My family has been touched by cancer several times:

• My nan (d. 2003) was, in the 1960s, one of the early survivors of bowel cancer (I did not know this until after she died of unrelated causes)
• My stepdad also survived bowel cancer in recent years
• I have had two cancer scares (1998 & 2007 - both ovarian), my parents have both undergone investigations too (for various potential cancers)
• One of cousins lost her husband to lung cancer in 1996
• Another cousin died of brain cancer this past Thursday

And you know what? I still feel the same. I respect that other people will feel differently but I still do not hold human life as so intrinsically valuable as to warrant that kind of suffering to many, many animals. I am deeply sorry for the human suffering involved but people die. Cancer is often considered a particularly cruel disease but there are few nice ways to die. People talk about 'dying of old age' like it's some kind of ideal...I'm fairly sure it's not from what my parents have told me about watching their parents die. Death is rarely painless and dignified. Personally I'd rather die of something than nothing, not decomposing alive as my body craps out - I can only hope my brain would be mush by then and 'I' would be oblivious to the indignities of an extreme old age.

Cancer survival rates have improved largely due to improvements in diagnostics and awareness meaning more cases are caught at an earlier and more treatable phase. They have also improved due to the trial and error of treating HUMANS. Doctors have best learned how to treat people by treating people.

The latest cancer research news stories suggest that cancer cures will be found in the individual patient's genetic make-up (http://www.news-medical.net/news/20160420/Genetic-markers-may-influence-how-breast-cancer-patients-respond-to-treatment.aspx) or in the genes of the specific cancer itself (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160414082124.htm). In other words, decades of hunting for a miracle drug as a cure-all may well have been entirely pointless, especially in terms of animal testing if we are the key to our own disease.


SEE ALSO:-
http://animalaid.org.uk/h/n/CAMPAIGNS/experiments//2574//
http://www.peta.org.uk/living/health-charities-are-they-spending-your-money-on-animal-testing/

The Great Loo Debate

I have seen an awful lot on social media lately about transgender people's right to use the bathroom of choice and I want to put in my tuppence worth on the topic.

1a. Gendered bathrooms are a thing we are taught to expect from early childhood, a lot of people are going to be pissy (no pun intended) if expected to do something they are distinctly uncomfortable about. Given that estimates put non gender conforming people at around 1% of the population that leaves a huge majority of people who could be left feeling potentially unable to use public restrooms.

1b. Being uncomfortable about using public bathrooms leads to shy bladder / shy bowel syndrome which leads to issues like urinary tract infections, constipation and even incontinence. I understand that a lot of trans people may well suffer from this but dispensing with segregated bathrooms is likely to exacerbate the issue and become a health risk for a lot more people.

1c. Who have you shared a bathroom with of the opposite biological gender? For a lot of us only EVER family members and people we were otherwise intimately acquainted with. Maybe YOU have a background where you've shared facilities with a range of people but a lot of us haven't and would never willingly to do so.  Also I should imagine that for women of very conservative religious backgrounds particularly this is could be a deeply problematic thing. I'm no expert on religious issues but given that strictly religious women of several failths have to be separate from men in many day-to-day activities anyway this is bound to be a deeply divisive issue which could lead to cases of religious discrimination if segregated facilities were not upheld.

2. We're being told that 'bathroom predators' are a myth but tell that to the numerous men, women and children who've been assaulted in that way. Yes, most people are raped / abused by people they know but assaults by strangers can and do happen; yes, we know same-sex assaults happen but statistically women are more likely to be assaulted by men than other scenarios - and public restrooms have always been considered a high risk place. Girls go to the loo in packs for REASONS, and those do not generally include fear of basilisks.

3a. No one is specifically equating being trans with being a 'bathroom predator' BUT...being trans doesn't make you a good person. Sorry but your identity does not equate to your morality.

3b. How are we planning to ascertain whether someone is trans? Disabled people have to carry ID / radar keys to access locked facilities which they have to have medical proof of their NEED for such a thing (which, lets face it, is an utter disgrace. Adults, especially those with incontinence issues, should not be having to ask to use the bathroom in the 21st century!) - you see someone using the disabled bathroom you can challenge them on their right to do so. What people are REALLY concerned about here is predators PRETENDING to be trans; a system so bogged down by political correctness that a man entering a women's bathroom (for example) is not challenged.

4. Not an issue that is usually raised but...if genderless bathrooms become commonplace / people are not challenged on entering a bathroom contrary to their apparent birth sex it may well also lead to an increase in *ahem* bathroom assignations / public indecency issues and I don't suppose anyone wants that.

Question: if a man in a gender-free bathroom comes out of a cubicle with his fly unzipped / if a woman comes out with her skirt tucked in her knickers will they risk being done for exposing themselves??? These things happen a lot and are usually rectified before leaving the restroom thanks to mirrors / friendly fellow occupants. Mixed bathrooms could seriously complicate that.

I personally think trans people who are undergoing treatment - psychological, hormone or surgical - should be able to use the facilities of choice and being issued with a medical ID (like the disabled version) to prove their case if challenged. Simply saying 'I identify as a man' or 'I identify as a woman' is too easy for paedophiles and other sexual predators to do.
There are few statistics on either but there are likely to be more gender non-conforming people than sexual predators in the UK but this is not about numbers this is about perceived risk. Sexual predators pose a risk and changing how public bathrooms operate will certainly increase that risk as well as perception of it.
It would be a good idea if all new public buildings were required to provide a gender-free FOURTH bathroom type (after male, female, accessible - previously disabled) - being for trans and others such as parents who need to supervise opposite gender children (which can be a major headache, especially if you have an older child with special needs who is not 'disabled' as such). A similar requirement could be put in place that all refurbishments should provide this fourth category of restroom wherever possible. By being a fourth type it would give people the choice, and choice is important - for ALL of us.

EDIT (2019)
I identify as agender and I am biologically female so I have always used female loos. I have cleaned bathrooms for a living and have no desire whatsoever to share facilities with males of the species - even at home! When my stepdad visits I make him use one particular loo cos he pees on the floor!
I was assaulted by a teenage lad the other day for being agender... and that was out on a busy main road - heaven knows how much danger people could be at in an enclosed, private space like a bathroom. Sexual assault, gender assault, religious persecution, an innocent lad getting mistaken for a paedophile because he took his little sister into the bathroom?! The possibilities are endless and while not all are limited to shared public loos they'd certainly make it easier to attack someone.

Racism and Immigration

All over the news today is the report that Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby has said that fearing Europe's 'migrant crisis' is a legitimate concern and not racism as others would prefer to state:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/10/reasonable-fear-colossal-migration-crisis-justin-welby-archbishop-canterbury

Well, my dictionary defines racism as "hatred, rivalry or bad feeling between races; belief in the inherent superiority of some races over others". It's hard to see how that applies. We Britons generally don't feel we're better than say Syrian refugees unless it's to consider that when our country was last at war we didn't abandon ship en masse so to speak... Most of us don't hate, compete or resent migrants, more the overall situation of population growth and the consequent strain on our nation's resources.

One of my views on the issue is centred around our closest neighbours and one of my least favourite subjects - numbers. Figures from Wikipedia as follows:
Great Britain
Area: 80,823 square miles
Population: 60,800,000 (2011 census)
France
Area: 248,600 square miles
Population: 66,644,000 (2016 estimate)
That's UK 752.3 people per square mile; France 268.1. The UK has a population proportional to its area 2.8 times greater than that of France. 
Meanwhile asylum applicant figures run as follows (from: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/migrant-crisis-how-many-refugees-are-countries-actually-taking-1519100):
Great Britain
4th Quarter 2014 - 8,155
1st Quarter 2015 - 7,335
France
4th Quarter 2014 - 15,515
1st Quarter 2015 - 14,770
So yes, applications are considerably up in France but that is ONLY first time asylum claims. That does not include subsequent claims and appeals or economic migrants or illegal immigrants or any other classification of migration. And yes, I will use the term illegal; the migration of people without all relevant permissions and paperwork IS criminal. 
WHY are there massive camps of migrants at Calais? Why is France not housing them? Are the anti-immigration posts I see about refugees refusing accommodation in France in the hope of coming to Britain actually true?

Now I admit I know next to nothing about France or the state of things there but as a Briton I know that the UK is under pressure - a struggling health service, a struggling education system, a lack of affordable housing, too few jobs...and yet to criticise a further influx of people is RACIST? Sorry, no. I don't care what race / nationality / religion / whatever people have the population is getting to be a problem. If it were a home-grown problem so to speak I would expect the government to promote smaller families, boost birth control etc, although hopefully not to the extremes China went to. But the problem is multi-faceted - although it is commonly cited, from what data I am unsure, that migrant mothers bear considerably more children than the 1.9 UK average and that 25.5% of all births in 2011 were to 'foreign born women' - which of course doesn't tell us a thing about how they came to be here or whether they are ever intending to return to their country of origin - it doesn't change the fact that 53% of the population increase 1991-2014 was "due to the direct contribution of net migration"
(source: http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/impact-migration-uk-population-growth). 

Claiming that being resistant to immigration is racist is somewhere between over simplification of complex issues and being entirely off base. Concerns about migration aren't about the specific PEOPLE involved, it's about LOGISTICS. It's about resources and money; considering that aspect may seem vulgar but it is necessary. For anyone who says people's lives are more important than money...well, yes but lets see how you fare without money. Housing, fuel, clothing, food, transport. The day-to-day essentials cost money. Then there's education, training, medical care...all the long term costs of resettlement and a person's long term residence. That's not racism; that's practicality. That's costs regardless of a person's origins. Sooner or later we, as a society, are going to have to take a long hard and practical look at how we're going to address the rapidly increasing population of our country, and, indeed, of the whole planet. We can't just ignore those issues because it's not considered politically correct.

What will almost inevitably happen as population increases is an increase in racism as, due to resources being squeezed ever harder, people will not entirely unreasonably feel resentment toward the 'newcomers' - for this reason these issues need to be addressed both sensitively and soon. Before it turns into something really ugly...

PS Anyone who wants to criticise my cited figures / sources etc...please bear in mind I am an ordinary mum who works part time as a cleaner - not a journalist, politician or an authority on migration or whatever.

For Example, Being Mrs Rock-Star

This is something I've been thinking about a fair bit lately, and not because I've completely lost my marbles...I know I don't stand a hope in hell with the rock-star of my dreams but who HASN'T imagined themselves in a relationship with, or married to, a celebrity crush?!

Now, beyond my own musings and barely coherent ramblings with fellow fangirls a few things have inspired this post:-

• Watching The One Show's tribute to Sir Terry Wogan and the odd way in which his family, including his wife of 50 years, were mentioned almost as an afterthought - between being very private about his home life and being considered a national treasure the people who should've been considered first and foremost following his death seemed almost excluded.
• The following line from actress Pam Dawber's Wikipedia page, describing her marriage to fellow actor Mark Harman: "The couple is known to be private about their family life and rarely appear in public together with their children or speak about one another in interviews" 
• Reading an article about the two virtually unknown daughters of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

What makes people keep aspects of their lives so intensely private?  It makes perfect sense to avoid unwarranted press intrusion, to protect young children and to not go airing all your dirty laundry in public like some people do - *cough* Katie Price *cough* - but personally I find it a little disconcerting when people are SO private it's like their 'other half' doesn't even exist.  Getting married particularly is a legal, and often religious, unification of two people's lives so continuing to live and present yourself as a single unit strikes me as decidedly odd; especially when BOTH partners are famous as in the instance above.  If one is a completely private individual it makes a little more sense but when you're both in the public eye...you don't have to say a lot about your partner - or children - but time and time again I come across it on someone's Wikipedia or IMDb page that they NEVER talk about their partner; sometimes the dates of their marriage, or even little details like the spouse's NAME, are unknown.

Perhaps it comes of having been single since... *tumbleweed* ...well, yes, let's not go into specifics.  Anyhoo, after many MANY years alone the thought of being with someone who'd barely acknowledge my existence in a public setting is actually quite upsetting.  Like, dude, are you ASHAMED of me?!  Just to make it quite clear, I have no interest in being with someone for any kind of reflected fame, glossy magazine photoshoots or having my flabby bits papped on the beach, but the thought of being...almost 'edited out' of my husband's life doesn't sit well either.  I can't imagine anyone wanting to proudly show me off on a red carpet (or jump on Oprah's sofa for that matter) but that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to be his +1 on occasion.

As a mother of two I can imagine trying to be discrete about what I said about my daughters in interviews, but I can't imagine never mentioning them at all.  As a parent your children are usually the centre of things; to me that level of 'privacy' sounds more like you're disowning them!  People ask after your family, it's considered polite and I can't imagine refusing to answer a basic question just because it refers to them.  My kids may be adult now but if they ever get a stepdad I hope he'd acknowledge them; my stepdad came into my life when I was 29 and he has fully embraced me and my children as his family.

EDIT 9th September 2024

I just saw a short by YouTuber Uyen Ninh where German Fiancé appears in a No-Face costume as they launch their new podcast and it reminded me of this blog... I have been following Uyen for a while (although due to notification issues I saw this late). Uyen is a Vietnamese YouTuber posting in English about her life in Germany.

I love the fact that whilst - for whatever reason(s) - German Boyfriend (now German Fiancé or German Husband-To-Be) doesn't use his name or show his face online he is clearly supporting of her channel and willing to be involved in content.

And that's what I was thinking with this blog post... Pretending your other half doesn't exist is a world of different (IMHO) than respecting their privacy.

I have ZERO interest in fame but I couldn't deal with being a non-entity or footnote in my partner's life.

I just love the way Uyen and German Boyfriend/Fiancé/Husband-to-be are managing his need for privacy while acknowledging their combined path in life. It really shouldn't have to be all or nothing; healthy middle ground can be found.