Two hundred days today

It is 200 days until the 31st Deep Rock Belfast City Marathon.

It is a race that I have never completed all of, though I have run several legs of the relay along its changing course. My late father also entered team of members of the Boys' Brigade in the event through the years.

In 2007 I got a phone call while at work in Edinburgh to come home quickly as my father who had walked into hospital the previous night for a routine appointment did not have long left and was in the Marie Curie Centre in Belfast. Those of you who know me will know that I didn't make it in time, although I was flying over Belfast I used my local knowledge to work out from the street lights just where he was and said "I'm on my way dad," little knowing that was the time that he had breathed his last.

The former runner in me has had itchy feet especially since my father passed on to do something that will raise money for Marie Curie in memory of my father. That is why I have set myself the task of running twice as far as I have ever run before (and that was when I was training a full programme). So on 6th May 2013 I will be lining up outside Belfast City Hall ready to face 26 miles 385 yards to get to Ormeau Park in what will be the longest mile and a bit of my life*.

I'm not expecting to run my first marathon anywhere near as fast as the twenty year old me thought I would do when I stepped up to that distance, but that is not the point. The point is that I am doing to raise funds for Marie Curie. I trust that a lot of my friends will help me raise the target that I have set. So with 200 days I reckon £5 a day is a reasonable target. You can donate to my Just Giving Page by clicking on the link below.




* The actual distance from start line to finish is about 1.5miles by the shortest walkable route.

How did the Northern Irish parties respond to adoption judicial review

I'm leaving this blog post largely in the words of the various parties in their own words as to how they have responded to today's judicial review on adoption here in Northern Ireland.

The DUP have nothing on their own website but speaking to the BBC the Health Minister Edwin Poots has said:

"It is my intention to urgently appeal this judgment and I am taking this action with a heavy heart.

"I have already publicly declared my intention to reform Northern Ireland adoption law because reform is much needed and long overdue.

"This judicial review has already delayed plans to introduce a new Adoption and Children Bill in the Assembly and I fear that this will lead to further delay."

Sinn Féin said:

Sinn Féin MLA Sue Ramsey said she is disappointed by the Health Minister’s decision to appeal a High Court ruling that a ban on gay and unmarried couples is unlawful.

The West Belfast MLA and Chair of the Health Committee at the Assembly said:

"This is a disappointing decision by the Health Minister Edwin Poots considering that our laws on adoption where out of date and not reflective of modern society and life-styles.

"The primary focus when it comes to adoption has to be the welfare of the child. It has to be the determining factor and guiding principle when it comes to anyone adopting a child.

"A single person or unmarried couple should be able to adopt a child, regardless of their sexuality, providing they can provide a stable, caring home with the child’s best interests at the heart of that decision.

"This extension of the eligibility criteria in line with modern society will significantly reduce the number of children in care." 

 SDLP said:

SDLP Health Spokesperson Conall McDevitt has welcomed this morning's ruling that the current bar on unmarried couples and civil partners adopting is unlawful and has called for a legislative remedy.

The South Belfast MLA was speaking after Mr Justice Treacy's decision to grant the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission a judicial review into current arrangements regarding adoption.

He said:

"Mr Justice Treacy's ruling is very welcome and a positive move forward towards creating uniform equality on adoption across these islands.

"This ruling, however, is only one step forward. If full adoption equality is to be achieved and Northern Ireland’s arrangements are to be made lawful, in line with Britain, a legislative framework must be drafted and brought forward for ratification without delay."

The Alliance Party said:

Alliance Health spokesperson Kieran McCarthy MLA has welcomed the court ruling that stated that the ban on unmarried couples from adopting was illegal. He said that this was great progress and would allow unmarried and same sex couples to adopt.
 
Kieran McCarthy MLA said:

"This is a tremendous victory and a great day for progress. The ban on unmarried couples adopting was illogical and wrong. The only issue that should matter is the needs of the child and not a blanket ban on certain groups from adopting. This is an issue of equality, so I am glad that the correct decision was reached

"The previsous rules did not make sense. Only one member of an unmarried couple could previously have legally adopted a child which could have resulted in the other partner having no rights to the child if the legal parent died.

"We have far too many children waiting to be adopted for us to be picking and choosing who we think should be able to adopt.

"This ruling will obviously result in unmarried and same sex couple being able to adopt which I fully support. I would urge any unmarried or same sex couple who believes that they would be able to provide a stable home to a child to consider applying to adopt a child."

Traditional Unionist Voice have said:

Commenting on Treacy J's ruling in favour of same sex adoption, TUV Leader Jim Allister said he was disappointed with the outcome and hoped the Attorney General and Department would appeal.

"There was, in my view, inadequate attention to the paramount benefit to the child of adoption within a regular family unit of a father and a mother and unwarranted equivalence of such to the unnatural setting of a same sex relationship. Once more we see the human rights mantra being exploited to further divorce the law from the moral expectations and norms of the society it exists to serve."

The Ulster Unionist have said nothing on their website.

The mixed up world for Northern Irish foetuses

Here is the world facing the unborn in Northern Ireland in one day....today.

The Marie Stopes clinic in Belfast opened, offering abortion under the tighter that the rest of the UK regulations on who qualifies, to protests (pictured).

The High Court rules that same-sex couples being banned from adopting in Northern Ireland is unlawful.

Despite there being insufficient suitable placements for those currently looking to be adopted the health minister has said that he will challenge that ruling.

Now I suspect that many of those protesting and insisting that the women who wish to abort in Northern Ireland go full term (as well as the over 1000 a year who do not meet the regulations and go elsewhere) would probably support the Health Minister in his challenge. It is the sort of argument that the religiosity of the Pro-Lifers in Northern Ireland would stretch to. So yeah that is the mixed up world an unborn child may face here in Northern Ireland.

The choice a women faces is abide by the 9 weeks gestation rule and only if health physical or mental to the mother is as risk and abort, go elsewhere in the UK, go full term and give up for adoption in an under subscribed field with many not getting adopted. So if the women protested for Pro-Life really want the best for every unborn child have they really thought through all the consequences.

I suspect they haven't, but I also suspect that each women who finds herself pregnant that exercises her own choice without prejudice or judgement from others has considered all the options very carefully based on the reality of their own situation.

Update: No sooner had I posted this than I noticed that BBC NI political editor Mark Devenport was looking at today's events along similar lines.

Update 2: BBC report on the adoption story

Ostrich MP for Bournemouth on Marriage Equality

Everyone has the right to their own opinion. That is why I don't object to politicians saying they are not in favour of equal marriage (at least you know where they stand) or say they see no need for it (there is room to show them there is a need).

I do not even mind when the politician who says such things is LGB. Not everyone who is gay wants to get married anymore than everyone who is straight. Indeed someone like Rupert Everett clearly dispises the who institution.

What I do not have time for though is politicians who say that the reason they do not support equal marriage is because there is no clamour or demand for it. That is clearly not the case or else the churches wouldn't be so strongly on the offensive to try and coral those Christian soldiers that they can in the defense of 'traditional marriage'.

Therefore I am bemused and upset when a gay politician says:

"I marvel at why we’re bringing this forward; there is no clamour for this at all within the gay community."*

I see no clamour for marriage equality - Conor Burns MP

That politician is the Ulster-born Conservative MP for Bournemouth West, Alderney and Branksome East Conor Burns.

Now I know that being an MP is a busy task and Mr Burns may not be spending a great deal of time out clubbing in the gay clubs in Bournemouth in his constituency, or the ones near this weekday office in London. But surely he can be abreast of the call from his own party's LGBTory group.

This morning on their website their lead story is  Why lobbying our MPs on equal marriage is absolutely vital. Ouch! Rather embarressing for an MP saying that there is no clamour for equal marriage within the gay [sic] community when his own party LGBT group are saying this is vital stating:

"It is vital that we speak out, because otherwise, those who would rather lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans people did not exist, or those who believe that a particular religious definition of marriage is the only one, could well, in their minority, see a great victory, regardless of whether they achieve their ultimate aim of defeating these legislative proposals."

Clearly Mr Burns needs to heed that message from those within his own party.

No maybe as he was talking to a Northern Irish paper he was meaning there was no clamour in the LGBT community here for equal marriage. Strange then that on the day it was debated in Stormont (1 October) I didn't spot Mr Burns at the front of Parliament buildings when campaigners for Equal Marriage including many from the gay community were demonstrating in favour of the motion up for debate. Joined by MLAs from the Green Party, Sinn Féin, Alliance, SDLP and UUP to talk about why they were supporting it. Nor was he in the public gallery during the debate when there were many from the LGBT community there to listen to the MLAs debate the issue below them.

It can hardly be called no clamour when we were present on the steps and in the public gallery for the first debate on a home grown motion on LGBT issues.

So maybe the Ostrich representing Bournemouth West, Alderney and Branksome East should take his head out of the sand. See and here what the LGBT community even within his own party are saying on the issue of marriage equality realise that there is a demand for it and just be honest saying that he is not in support for his own personal reasons.


* For the record, the full quote from Mr Burns on the introduction of legislation on equal civil marriage is:

"I marvel at why we're bringing this forward; there is no clamour for this at all within the gay community.

"I'm very concerned – and I'm going to need some serious convincing about this – that while the Human Rights Act remains in place we cannot give the guarantees that I would want to see that churches would not ultimately be forced under human rights legislation to conduct such ceremonies.

"I would want, if this bill becomes law, cast iron guarantees that any religious organisation who on religious grounds object to it would not ultimately be compelled to do that.

"And at the moment, given that the Prime Minister came to the House of Commons and said it made him feel physically sick that prisoners would get the vote but there was nothing he could do about it because of that law, that law’s still in place.

"So how can we have those guarantees? Until those guarantees are in place, I have massive reservations."

Yeah I could have said so much about the fact that people who have done nothing wrong apart from fall in love with someone of the same gender are being compared to prisoners by Mr Burns but there is enough in how he starts out on this line of thought to be going on with.

One giant leap for man

If taking the final step off a ladder unto the moon just below you is "One small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind" what is jumping off a platform 39km above the earth?

In the last hour that is precisely what  Felix Baumgartner did.  Following the words from the man whose 52 year-old records he was setting out to break, Joe Kittinger.

"Item 38. stand up on the exterior step but be sure to duck your head down low as you go out that door....The rest is yours."

About to leap

He had already set the world record for the highest manned balloon flight merely to get himself this high. His leap became the highest altitude for a freefall, something that he did for the next 4 minutes 22 seconds before he deployed his parachute, not a longer time in freefall that Kittinger. Telemetry did indicate that he was traveling at the speed of sound but all the records need to be verified from the GPS and telemetry systems on both Baumgartner's suit and the capsule. But it looks like he's secured three of the four records he set out to achieve.

The delays to his attempt during the week meant that by being the first man to break the sound barrier in freefall Felix did so exactly 65 years after Chuck Yeager became the first man to fly faster than Mach 1 in 1947.

It took him 2hrs 21 minutes to get to the level he needed to start but he was back on earth within 10 minutes. You can watch his jump here. He even made a very impressive landing on his feet at the end of all that.

Update:  Ahead of the press conference back at Mission Command in Roswell this guy was spotted in one of the control seats.

  Update 21:34: Confirmation of the numbers of FAI preliminary data:

Highest freefall jump exit alti 128,100 ft 39,045m
Longest freefall without a drouge chute: 119,846ft 36,629m
Velocity maximum: 373 m/s 1342.8km/h 883.9mph Mach 1.24 breaking the speed barrier.

European Union Nobel Laureate

The winner of the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize is the European Union.

There has been some mocking of the award from a mixture of sources. But maybe it is time to look at history and I'll take you back to Robert Schuman. You may not know who Robert Schuman was but in 1950 he was the French Foreign Minister. On 9 May of that year he issued the Schuman declaration in light of the two world wars that had centred on Europe in the previous 35 years.

The French had realised that justice across Europe and perceived injustice had led to the two wars and therefore for a lasting peace it could not be restrained to the State apparatus alone so the French Government issued the Schuman Declaration.

• It marked the birth of Europe
• It made war between Member States impossible
• It encouraged world peace
• It would transform Europe by a 'step by step' process (building through sectoral supranational communities) leading to the unification of Europe democratically, including both East and West Europe separated by the Iron Curtain
• It created the world's first supranational institution and
• the world's first international anti-cartel agency
• It created a single market across the Community
• This, starting with the coal and steel sector, would revitalise the whole European economy by similar community processes
• It would improve the world economy and the developing countries, such as those in Africa.

There has not been a war between the member states since 1945, the membership has now increased to include some of those cold war enemies. It has acted together as a European peace keeping force at times of genocide elsewhere, it has helped  developing countries financially as a means to peaceful growth.

Apart from the Balkan war in the 90s and other civil unrest in some countries in the lifetime of the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Economic Community and now the European Union Europe the continent that sparked the two bloodiest wars in world history has been at peace. Surely this is due to the binds that were established between them as a result of Schuman's declaration and the bodies that have followed on from that.

Surely for the length of maintaining Peace the EU is a more worthy winner of the Nobel Peace Prize than a US President in his first year of office.

Conform or else no job for you - Osborne

"The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full.

"We recognise that the independence of individuals is safeguarded by their personal ownership of property, but that the market alone does not distribute wealth or income fairly" Two extracts from the Preamble to the Liberal Democrats Constitution

How then do we find ourself in coalition with a Chancellor who is offering to lift employment rights for new employees in return for share options?

As someone who is currently seeking work I don't want to have as a question in interview:

"If you were to be offered this job would you be willing to do without employee rights in return for some shares?"

Maybe it is because I am an economics graduate who knows that share values are only of value while there is a solvent company behind them. Or maybe it is because many of my former colleagues in The Signet Group were tied into share bonuses while the company's share price plummeted.But mostly it is because as a Liberal Democrat I do not want any individual to be trampled over in the name of business. Those rights are there to protect not only the employee but the employer.

We are looking at a large number of people who are unemployed. Every job I currently apply for is heavily over subscribed so even being called to interview is a rarity. So how would I, or someone less tuned in to their rights and how shares work going to respond if they were asked that question? They are likely to be given the job, those of us who do not want to waive our employment rights will be shunted to the end of any list when it comes to awarding the job. We would be made unemployable as there might be someone out there who is prepared to take the shares and give the employer permission to do whatever they want them to do.

If we as a party do not believe that people should be enslaved by conformity, this new option may end up leading to those that do not want to conform to Osborne's ideal being enslaved to poverty being unable to find work as they will not take the shares.

There are arguments going around in senior Lib Dem circles that this is only voluntary and nothing to worry about. How can they be so blind? Employers will make it appear voluntary but take the option that best suits them, ie those that agree to waive their rights. The pressure will be applied to return us all to Victorian working practices ie that the employer has all the rights and the employees none.

We need to stop Osborne from making this ridiculously backward step. We need to not be distracted by the voluntary language that is being used. We need to stand up for the individual, every individual and protect tehir employment rights as it is clear that the Conservative Party are not going to even hide that they don't want to.