Baby Gard’s death is state-endorsed eugenics

Baby Gard’s death in my view amounts to state-endorsed eugenics.
The European Convention on Human Rights provides that the death penalty can be legal, providing it is made by the order of a court. In my view the UK courts have enacted this right by ordering the killing of Baby Gard without his parents’ consent.
My living will says that I wish to continue my EEG research should I ever be dependent on life support like Baby Gard was. It says I should stay on it until it is possible for me to be a candidate for cryonics.
Why should the parents of Baby Gard not have had the same right to decide his future, such as for him to take part in an experimental treatment which even if it was ineffective, would have helped advance science in a small way like I want to happen with me in the same situation?
The judicial killers of Baby Gard would likely have ruled that an adult who wanted to end their life by choice should not be assisted by doctors or anyone else. So why did the courts assist the killing of Baby Gard against his parents’ wishes?

Boots were wrong to give into radical feminists

I think it is disgraceful that Boots has caved into pressure from radical feminist MPs Jess Phillips and Stella Creasy by reducing the cost of the emergency contraceptive pill (ECP).
When a GP refused to give a former partner of mine an ECP we went the the pharmacist where it cost £20, just slightly less than what Boots are charging now. The reason it was £15 more than in France was because that paid for my former partner to have a private consultation with the pharmacist to make up her own might about whether the ECP was right for her.
This was the same at Boots – part of the charge was so those asking for the ECP could have a private consultation. They might as well change their sub-name from “the chemist” to “the drug store” if they are willing to drop the independent and impartial advice they give women just because a few fanatics choose to bully them.

Cardiff County Court mistaken over Doctor Mike Reddy’s Negligence

Cardiff County Court has said it cannot making a ruling over Doctor Mike Reddy being biased and outside his area of academic expertise because it believes academic judgement is not judicious. According to the Times Higher Education Supplement, it is!

The fact that University of South Wales lecturers make statements that could be perceived as bias, but that it is not illegal to do so, means that in my honest opinion no student should apply for a PhD at the University of South Wales as they will have no recourse if one of its lecturers makes statements that are biased or false, because they can claim such statements amount to ‘academic judgement’.

If students were able to apply to different universities, yet take their course in a specific geographical location, then it would be very unlikely in my view that the University of South Wales would allow lecturers like Doctor Mike Reddy to make statements that could be perceived as biased or untrue because students would go to their competitors because the University of South Wales would not have the geographical monopoly that they have now. The only way to ensure fair access to higher education is competition because the universities that act oppressively would be forced to be dissolved because students would no longer have to use them like they forced to at present if they wish to study in a particular locality.

If Doctor Mike Reddy can get away with making disparaging statements about my work even if those statements would have invalidated his chances if applied to his work, then how many other students are being denied an education as a result? If the students of Treforest vote for me, I will push for reform of the University of South Wales so that lecturers like Doctor Mike Reddy are not able to get away with saying things that affect a student’s chance of getting a degree by relying on reference to ‘academic judgement’ when other university rules, like the dignity at study policy, should be coming into play.

Taking Doctor Mike Reddy to court

Cardiff County Court has given until 17 February 2017 to submit additional paperwork to account for the complexities of my case against Doctor Mike Reddy for making a biased assessment of my PhD proposal and commenting on something outside of his area of expertise.

I got a distinction in every one of the modules between level 4 and level 7 that Mike Reddy taught me on. One of them involved litigating on a matter of negligence, as it happened.

I think it would have been nice to have had a full house with Mike Reddy supervising me at level 8 – doctoral level – but instead of him supervising me as he promised, evidence I obtained under the Data Protection Act 1998, which I also learned about on his Multimedia Studies degree, shows he actively made statements to my detriment, and now it is unfortunately for the court to determine whether those statements amount to negligence.

Why is Doctor Mike Reddy denying paid up gradautes references?

A former tutor of mine, Doctor Mike Reddy, has been refusing to give former students references. Previously I had been refused a reference by Professor Guoping Liu even though my taxes pay his wages.

My last degree was awarded in 2011 by Aberystwyth University, and they have given me references since then as many universities require a reference from the institution where your last degree was awarded and so if the last degree someone got that they were taught by Mike Reddy was 2002 – when I was awarded my first degree – then he should provide references until that person is awarded another degree.

It is disgusting that universities talk about ‘commencement’ at graduation ceremonies, yet in the case of Doctor Mike Reddy and Professor Guoping Liu, they have no intention of aiding with that.

It is disgusting that Doctor Mike Reddy is refusing to provide references to students who studied on programmes he designed or delivered.

Both Doctor Mike Reddy and Professor Guoping Liu, and any other lecturer funded by the Welsh tax payer, are a total disgrace if they are not willing to do all they can to help the university’s students and graduates get on in the world.

It will be part of my election campaign for the Welsh Assembly to require universities to provide value for money.

How is it value for money for Doctor Mike Reddy to have outputted less than 10 academic papers since he got his PhD in 1999?

And equally, if Professor Guoping Liu is not willing to help Welsh graduates reach as high a status in an international body like the IEEE at the same time as being paid by the Welsh tax payer, then he should go back to China where he will likely be welcomed by other human rights deniers.

If Judge Seys Llewellyn were in my house

This article suggests what would happen if Deputy Judge Seys Llewellyn were to be asked to decide whether my bottle of water was sealed or not before I opened it.

Judge Seys Llewellyn
Judge Seys Llewellyn. Courtesy: Aberystwyth University.

I just opened a bottle of cold water from the fridge, but wasn’t sure whether it was one I refilled or not.

Reflecting on my experience with the judiciary, especially Deputy High Court Judge Seys Llewellyn, this is what a judge like him would have said:

“The nub of the case is that a man has opened a bottle, and the dispute is whether or not the bottle was already unsealed and refilled. I agree with everything that was said by Judge Doel in the Pontypridd County Court, but shall now try to make it look like I’m being impartial…

“It is quite clear that the only reason this man is relying on Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights is to give himself the opportunity to remain drinking his water. Despite the fact his friends tells me he drinks water often, this is clearly his way of justifying having access to ice-cold water, rather than running it into a glass using a tap…

“Article 1 of Protocol 1 was never intended to allow people to peacefully enjoy the possession of a plastic bottles in order to drink ice-cold water, and it is an abuse of process to claim it is…

“If one were to apply the case of Ducks Back v The Bridge, it can be seen that there are two permissible ways to possess water. The first is “off” and the second is “under.” As this man turned the cap of a bottle, it is quite clear that “off” applies here, as he took the cap off…

“However, it is not necessary to have a chilled plastic bottle in order to possess water in an “off” context. For instance, it is quite possible for a tap to be turned on and off, and for that tap to be used to fill a glass…

“So at the end of the day Judge Doel of Pontypridd County Court is right. And I am not giving this man any opportunity to appeal this, because Judge Doel’s word is gospel. I know this because I share a drink with him at the Cardiff Law Society meetings and he is a good guy.”

 

Russell Brand on Question Time – Rhetoric or just thick?

Who is Russell Brand? To me Russell Brand is that guy who got lucky with Katy Perry, but what she saw in him I don’t know! Or do I?

Most people with autism are logically based and most people with empathism rhetorically based. Russell Brand from his Question Time performance was 100% rhetoric, with no substance whatsoever.

I think the women who take part in beauty pageants, and a male school friend I like, are sexy not because of how they physically look, but because of how absent of any substance intellectually. That must be the appeal of Russell Brand to others who agree with the rhetoric he spouts.

Russell Brand on Question Time was as populist as Nigel Farage, but without the ability. Those who find Russell Brand sexy should switch to Johnny Depp, who has the looks and the brains – They should let Shania Twain date Russel Brand! I can see why Katy Perry left him when the novelty wore off! He is cute for his passion but has nothing much otherwise.

His statement on QuestionTime to say he does not want to become a politician in case he becomes like them shows he lacks even more substance to be able to hold onto his beliefs when they are challenged in order to stand up to the scrutiny required. He has policies but no way to achieve them.

I am setting up a global social enterprise, which will use its profits to achieve charitable aims. If the Sun reports are right, why is Russell Brand putting his money in a tax haven and not a charity that could achieve in action what he says in words?

Today I stood for election in Tynant and got 20 votes. That is more votes than Russell Brand has ever got. I haven’t yet been invited on Question Time. However, my campaign was against the reintroduction of fox hunting and I was able to communicate with all sides and those who were more divided, and have become more informed on the debate through engaging with people. From his Question Time performance, Russell Brand could never do this because he lacks substance to put meat on the bone of what he says he believes.

Those who are unelected, which includes myself at this point in time, can only speak for themselves. Only if someone is elected by the popular vote can they legitimately speak for other people. If Russell Brand is not willing to stand for election or use his millions to put his words into action, then he is no better than anyone else who says one thing and does another, or possibly worse, nothing.

Off of their heads in Foggy Furze

As a gaming addiction researcher I was disgusted to read the article in the Hartlepool Mail about residents in Foggy Furze being against social housing in their back yard.

I live in the “leafy Pontypridd suburb” of Efail Isaf. No more than 5 minutes from my home is a drug rehab clinic and only a bit further a complex for people with emotional and behavioural conditions. My community is playing its part in helping disadvantaged groups get on the straight and narrow.

My research has found addictions are caused by a brain condition I call SDA, which can be brought on for instance by a family member suddenly dying and the person not being able cope, leading to using habit forming substances to calm the pain.

Can I ask the residents of Foggy Furze whether they could go a day without caffeine or nicotine? If not, they probably have SDA too. How about they be made to leave the area also?

Don’t VProud – VAshamed

VProud has been touted as a social networking service for women says The Cut. For me it is better named VAshamed.

The idea of creating a social networking for women as an alternative to a mainstream site like Facebook is disgraceful.

Throughout history, women have given their lives to get equal rights for men and women onto the statute books. To say it is a good thing not to enforce these rights shows they don’t make women like they used to. It seems today’s feminists want to have the rights that were hard won, but none of the responsibilities that go with them. They seem to want to fight with their mouth but let their brain to a runner.

My grandmother is what I call Rhondda Woman – whilst it was Rhondda Man who thought he was the head of the household, it was Rhondda Woman who actually was, ensuring that the children were fed before the money had a chance to get peed away at the pub. My grandmother was a political activist, knocking on doors to further her political beliefs.

When people were abusive to my grandmother, she wouldn’t roll on the floor crying like Caroline Criado-Perez and Stealla Creasy MP have over a few trolls, she would continue to argue for what she believed in.

It is one thing to have websites like Cafe Mom, where women who are mothers can meet like-minded people to share experiences with, but for women to leave a mainstream website like Facebook or Twitter because of trolls shows they do not deserve the hard-fought rights they are all too easily giving up.

Language, Stevie

According to the New Statesman, when the new UKIP MP, Douglas Carswell, sat in the spot in the Commons normally occupied by Steve Rotheram, the Walton MP said to him “Eff off out of my seat.”

Does Mr Rotheram not know that it is an offence under Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 to use “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour” within the hearing or sight of someone who could feel harassed of threatened by them?

When a town councillor, one of my constituents was convicted under this provision simply for saying to the police “Don’t come near me, I’m a ninja.” Equally, Internet troll Liam Stacey was convicted under this Act for saying racist remarks on Twitter.

Why does Steve Rotheram appear to think the law offline should be more lenient than online, and members of parliament should get less stern treatment than anyone else?