UK government locked up typhoid sufferers in asylum

The BBC reports that women who were chronic carriers of typhoid were locked up in a mental asylum from 1907 to as late as the 1990s. They were locked up as a risk to public health (note it was women, not men). The hospital - LongGrove - closed in 1992. In 1956 there were 26 and it was reported they were "deteriorated mentally". Unsurprising as they were physically sick, locked up as if they were mentally ill and dangerous. Almost all were incarcerated and died there. By 1972, most surviving had been cured and were relocated in non-isolation wards in the same institution.

The women effectively had life imprisonment, and isolated in a mental institution, even though they were simply infectious, not with any psychiatric condition. In the TV report on Newsnight, one nurse said it was prison like, the patients were seen as "objects" and life was not good. She talked of the women she looked after, saying most were not mentally ill. The tragedy of this case is that the women are dead. Moreso, the UK Department of Health denies that there was any such policy, although there remain powers to incarcerate carriers of disease. The state, meaning good for the masses, destroyed the lives of a minority - not by isolating them in a medical facility but imprisoning them out of sight and out of mind. Nobody will ever be accountable.

Congrats to David Farrar

Well it is slightly late, but still well worthwhile giving David Farrar a cyber slap on the back for five years of good work and being the number one political blog in NZ.

Yes I know he's a Nat, but he is generally a more liberal one.
Yes I know he's a hardline leftwing statist on telecommunications policy, he'll see the light one day and stop wanting to thieve from everyone else eventually.
Yes I know the comments on his blog are a mix of conservatives, some bigoted, and socialists, some more bigoted.

However, Farrar is an astute political pundit and is no mere lapdog of the National Party. His blog isn't funded by the taxpayer, and is probably the most reliable place online for commentary on New Zealand politics.

My only serious criticism would be one shared by Not PC. It comes from his latest comment on Chris Trotter.

Trotter said:

Those charged with governing our country, hold in trust the resources – both natural and social – that are the common property of all our people.

Farrar said: "Can’t disagree with that."

Oh dear me. If there was one thing I'd really like David to post on it would be a statement of his own political philosophy and beliefs. It may lay him bare to criticism that he and the Nats are not exactly in sync, but he appears to be a man who thinks a great deal and has some degree of consistency in his philosophy (with major lapses).

So go on David, what ARE your core beliefs. Whether it be from religion/atheism, to individualism, the role of the state, and what drives you philosophically and politically? If that's too hard, describe what you DON'T belief in - it ought to be a long list.

Flying on a Boeing 747 is still remarkable and safe

While investigators continue to examine why the Qantas 747-400 from Hong Kong to Melbourne had to divert due to a hole in its fuselage, it's worth noting how remarkable and how safe the Boeing 747 really is.

ABTN notes that three rather remarkable transport engineering achievements were unveiled in 1969. The QE2 was the largest, and it is about to be retired in September. The Concorde prototype was the fastest, and none of the 20 made have flown in five years. The 747 was meant to be a large military transport, then a cargo plane - and was built to be tough enough to handle those missions. Its life as a passenger jet design was expected to be short, as the Concorde (and the long defunct Boeing 2707 supersonic transport) were meant to be the future. Unfortunately for British, French and US taxpayers, they were wrong. Fortunately for Boeing, the 747 proved to be revolutionary.

Over 1,400 have been built. The QE2 by contrast was a one off, and instead of being the hallmark of a new generation of ocean liners, it became a cruise ship. A leisure vessel rather than transport, as the age of trans-oceanic travel came to an end in the 1970s. It wasn't the future, but the last gasp of the past.

Concorde whilst a remarkable technological achievement was more a national showcase than a commercial success. Whilst funded by taxpayers, it was politicians around the world, particularly in the USA and India, that stymied Concorde all because of - the environment. The sonic boom was hated by those living near airports where planes are half the noise today than they were in the 1970s. With supersonic flight banned over the continental USA (except, of course, for US military aircraft) and over India, most of the market for Concorde was kneecapped - with no chance of flights between Europe and the US West Coast, or with Asia at full supersonic speed. Its final years were profitable because BA got the debt for them written off, and could charge £13,000 (yes pounds) for a return trans-atlantic flight by Concorde.

So the 747, slow, and not altogether majestic, would be what would change travel. It carries 2.5 times what its predecessors carried, the Boeing 707 and DC-8. It would do it as fast as most subsonic airliners, would carry enormous loads of cargo, be two-thirds wider, and start making inflight movies (on the big screen for many years) easy for all. Most of all, it created most of the new capacity in economy class, and airlines had to fill these enormous planes, and the price of long haul air travel dropped - dropped not because of governments, not because of price control, but because airlines and a plane maker took risks, and it worked.

Consider the original 747 was designed in the 1960s:

"Some 4,500 people were involved in the original design with most of the work carried out on huge elephant-size drawing boards, not the amazing 3D CAD computers available today"

You see things have changed a lot, it's not just a longer upper deck, but engines have evolved, interiors have changed significantly, with entertainment systems, more luxurious seats in the front (and more in front), and less legroom in the back. However, bear in mind what the 747 represents. In less than a lifetime humanity went from the Wright Brothers to an airliner that can lift off with a maximum weight of nearly 334,000 kg (now 397,000), could fly non-stop up to 9,800 km with a full load (now 13,450 km), cruising at 895 km/h (now 913 km/h) with a maximum speed of 945 km/h (now 977 km/h).

Yes you take it for granted now, but consider that it was not long ago that the notion you could be sitting at 11km above the earth, breathing normally, eating a 3 course meal, able to choose between a couple of hundred movies to watch, travelling at just below the speed of sound for the price of anything of between 2-5% of the average annual income of a Western country, would be seen as fantasy. Now it is the norm.

The Boeing 747 wasn't the first plane, it wasn't the first jetliner, but it was the one that moved jet airline travel from being a luxury service to being a mass market service. 747s are built strong and the number of incidents as a result of aircraft failure have all, to date, been attributed to poor maintenance and in one instance flying with too little fuel. In the coming months the last of the second generation of 747s (a 747-400F freighter) will roll out of the factory, and the third generation (747-8) will emerge to ensure that the 747 will still be in our skies for another 15-20 years (albeit in passenger service less and less).

In recent years the airlines flying 747s into New Zealand have reduced to be only Air NZ and Qantas today, with Cathay Pacific occasionally dabbling with them. I don't doubt that within 5 years they will be the exception in NZ skies for passenger use, as smaller longer range more fuel efficient planes are better suited to the NZ market.

However, a winner it has been - and while Concordes and the QE2 both gather more attention, it is the 747 that has been the revolutionary, the strong, enormous workhorse of the skies. Qantas passengers on flight QF30 are alive today not because of luck, but because of a strong, robust design of 39 years (adapted and updated in the 1990s) that changed the world.

Killing for religion is ok

So says almost a third of Muslim university students in the UK, according to a Yougov poll for the Sunday Times.

That in itself should give pause for thought. Pause to think about how the institutions that at best don't discourage and at worst catalyse such thoughts should be treated by the state.

The flipside is that "55% of nonMuslim students thought Islam was incompatible with democracy. Nearly one in 10 had “little respect” for Muslims."

Furthermore "Homophobia was rife, with 25% saying they had little or no respect for gays. The figure was higher (32%) for male Muslim students. Among nonMuslims, the figure was only 4%."

The obvious tension is clear. Whilst a significant minority of Muslims hold and express values that are contrary with those of Western civilisation, and fundamental British laws, serious questions will be raised about how much tolerance there should be towards those promoting such hatred and violence.

The UK has long been tolerant of Muslims and those of other (and no) religion, and rightfully so. It is a core liberal concept that people should be able to live their lives in peace regardless of what they do or don't believe in. This of course also includes racists, communists, Christian fundamentalists and the like. You shouldn't be stopped about going about your daily life, as long as your prejudices, desire for violence and the like remain expressed within your own four walls.

However, the state shouldn't be subsidising organisations or locations where you and your warped friends meet to share your malignant beliefs. Moreover if you and your friends plan to do violence or threaten as part of your collectivised irrationality, then expect that to be drawn to the attention of the state.

So what to do? Well first, non-private universities shouldn't be funding or supplying space for students of any religion to worship or meet. Religion and state should be separate, so the state shouldn't facilitate Islam. Secondly there is immigration. The UK ridiculously hands migrants rights to welfare, healthcare, education and housing. This simply should end. If you wish to migrate you should be responsible for paying your own way. Finally there is the most important point of all - it is the promotion of what liberal democratic capitalist British society is all about.

It is about respecting the rights of adults to make their own decisions about their lives and property.
It is about respecting the rights of adults to have freedom of speech, but not demand that others provide the means to express it.
It is about separating the right of people to hold their views, beliefs, lifestyles, as long as they respect the rights of others to hold different ones, AND CRITICISE YOURS.

It means the right to say Islam is evil, Christianity is evil, Communism is evil and Capitalism is evil - and to condemn those who hold these views, or no views.

Muslim students who believe in violence should be damned for the evil that they are, their stone age views should be criticised without fear, as the similar views of fringe fundamentalist Christians should be, as should Marxist-Leninists and neo-Nazis. Meanwhile, taxpayers shouldn't be providing places or funding for these views to be spread, they should be funding intelligence services to be watching and monitoring those who do.

National's latest policy is Labour's - again...

Newstalk ZB reports "The National Party has moved to defuse fears it will dismantle the Working for Families scheme if it wins the election. Party leader John Key told this morning's TV One Agenda programme he is planning no changes to the system. He says a careful look at the way the scheme functions has shown it is not worthwhile changing it. Mr Key says it is important to offer people certainty during tough economic times."

Just think, you can vote Labour and get the same policy with different people - nice to have choice isn't it? Then whichever way the election goes you win - unless you think Working for Families is middle-class welfare thieved from middle to upper income taxpayers that encourages the majority of families to be dependent on the state, rather than granting them higher tax cuts. Given it didn't exist when National was last in power, it need not exist now. Or should National just concede that "a lot that Labour did when it was in power is worth keeping".

(Hat tip: Lindsay Mitchell)