We went bowling today. Lyn suggested it, and, not having been bowling in ages, I thought it sounded like fun. Lyn won; of course, gentleman that I am, I let her win, just like I let her win the chess game we had in Amsterdam. (persons wanting to dispute this are reminded that they have their own blogs!).

After bowling, I was thirsty. The atmosphere at the bowling ally was so dry, I just needed a coke, so we went to a nearby pub. We took a seat, and we noticed that there was football on. However, I then noticed who was playing – we had stumbled into the local derby! The pub was on two levels, but there was a large screen behind the bar which one could see from both floors. Chelsea supporters were on the upper balcony, arsenal supporters were downstairs. However I got a bit worried what if either team scored? What if a brawl broke out? Would we be able to defend ourselves? I was a bit concerned, and rather excited – we were inn a south London pub for the local derby: it was quite an interesting sociological phenomenon.

As it turned out, neither team scored while we were at the pub, and everybody left quietly. It was quite a cool little outing, though. I’m really enjoying my new life here.

I know that I’m repeating myself, and that I blogged about this the other day, but I’m still very concerned about the stuff about assisted suicide. It isn’t that I’m against suicide per se – I believe anyone should be able to make such a decision – but what worries me is where legalising such acts might lead. It kind of sends out the message that the lives of people with disabilities are somehow worthless, and that we’re all itching to top ourselves. I also worry that it opens the door to some very dark possibilities – what if people start assuming you want to die? What if you can’t communicate your wishes properly? I may be being paranoid, but we may be starting down a slippery slope to some very dark things.

I realised yesterday, with great astonishment, that my friend Hugh Jones – brother of Charlie – lives in new cross. To be fair, C had mentioned it before, but yesterday with the aid of google maps I found out where new cross was: it’s practically within spitting distance of Charlton. I found a poster on Facebook concerning Hugh performing at a pub there, so I looked it up. I was kicking myself, as, if I’d seen it the day before, we could have gone to watch Hugh.

The reason I was looking Hugh up was, the night before, Lyn dan and I were talking about the music industry. Lyn is a musician, and a damn good one at that: she composes using her mac. She is really eager to make it in the music industry, so I suggested she meet Hugh, who now works for the ministry of sound. Now all I have to do is organise a way for them to meet, Lyn will get a record deal, and I’ll be rich! Easy!

A strange thing occurred to me the other day: that, despite it all, despite the absence of WMD and the horrendous loss of life, I still trust Tony Blair more than I do David CaMoron. I think it’s because of what Blair once was: a bastion of hope, a fresh face; the person who ended 18 years of misery under the Tories. I was watching him at the chilcot enquiry, and I thought, ”this man lied to us, yet I still trust him more than CaMoron. Why?”

I think it’s because Blair is genuine – CaMoron isn’t. Blair had firm convictions, and has stood by them. He honestly thought he was acting for the greater good. All I see when I look at CaMoron is an act: a shallow, hollow attempt to present himself and his party as reasonable and delectable. The other day I saw a poster with CaMoron’s face and the words ”are we Blair yet?” I thought it hit the nail on the head: CaMoron is hoping to do what Blair did in 97. He goes around trying to tell people that Britain is broken, when in fact it is doing rather well. We’ve just come out of the worst recession in living memory relatively unscathed, thanks largely to brown; unemployment is also lower than it might have been. In short, the last 13 years have been a period of prosperity, and for CaMoron and his brainless minions to go around pretending otherwise is just plain wrong. I’ve spoken to Tories who would have you believe the recession was caused by brown.. How can anyone believe such demonstrably untrue bullshit? In fact it was only because of brown that this country didn’t hit a 1920s-style depression, yet the Tories intend to lie and cheat their way into government by any means. And that’s why I still trust blair more than CaMoron.

There is a small voice in the back of my head which screams the word ‘hypocrite’ every time I go into school. I still think I can make a difference there, and I still think it is a good thing to do. Yet there was a time when I was appalled at the very existence of special schools, and I still think most of the arguments I heard in those days are essentially valid.

Inclusion must proceed where at all possible; I do not think many people would argue with that. But where vulnerable children are involved, idealism must give way to pragmatism. Part of the reason why I’m going into school is to better educate myself on the other side of the debate. I must admit the situation is far more complex than I must thought, and I can see why some kids need the settled environment a special school provides. Yet, other times, I look at kids and think ‘why aren’t they in mainstream?’ this is not an argument one can afford to be dogmatic about, and I’m yet to draw any final conclusions.I am starting to come to the opinion that inclusion can proceed, but elements of segregation must be retained.

The less said about the events of today the better. Let’s just say I haven’t seen that many self-obsessed pretentious teenagers since college, and let me remind Lyn that I still love her. Perhaps she should go here.

Today I had my first speech therapy lesson in over ten years. Well, it wasn’t really my lesson, as I wasn’t a student; more like a participant. I don’t think, however, that they’ve changed much: the aim of speech therapy, as far as I can gather, is to get one to communicate as much as possible. So, in my day, Mrs hickson and I used mostly to sit and talk, often about books. Today we played a version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire? It was rather slow going – we were working with one boy who seems to be a reluctant communicator.

I’m already finding volunteering at school very rewarding. At the mo, I only go in for a couple of hours every two or three days, but I get the same kind of buzz I got from Onevoice – the buzz which comes with the feeling that you might be making a difference.

The subject of Islamic dress has cropped up again, and as uusual I found myself in two minds. Now, you all know my stance on clothing in general: people should be allowed to wear whatever they want. Hence Lyn and I have two tutus hanging on the wardrobe door in our bedroom!

But what about the burka or hijab? Naturally, if some people choose to wear them, Muslim or otherwise, it’s their choice. The only reservation I have is a practical one: in places where one’s face needs to be seen for identification, I think people should be obliged to take the head covers off. I guess this should also apply to things like hockey masks and zentai suits. Mind you, it also occurred to me that such clothing might be useful if one intended to break the law. But this is no reason to ban the things. In Japan and other places, people are increasingly going out in public in zentai suits where they are seen as figures of curiosity and fun; in a way it’s a form of performance art, something like having a life-sized plasticine figure walking down the street. If I have no objection to that, how could I possibly object to people wearing the veil?

In other words, while I can see the disadvantages to veils on the practical level, my urge to tolerate and celebrate diversity must win out: people should be able to wear what they want. But now we get to the really problematic bit: is it really a choice? In my more facetious moments, I sometimes think that, if it’s just about covering up, why don’t women wear zentai suits instead of veils? But that would defeat the point of trying to desexualise women’s bodies; I guess the point of veils is in part to prevent men from seeing women as sexual objects. But I sometimes think veils – especially the big black ones – objectify women in other ways. It denotes gender, making it impossible to see the person inside. You can’t see that person as an individual, but just as ‘a woman’, in a way, especially if there is a group of women in such veils. I sometimes see women wearing such things when I’m out with Lyn; having only just moved to London, I must admit to still feeling a little scared by the sight. On the other hand, you can say exactly the same about zentai suits: they can be said to turn people into objects, removing their identity; and some people are indeed scared by them.

Yet, as an atheist, I also worry that women are forced to wear veils and denied the freedom to wear what they want. Problem is, how can you tell whther they are given a choice – many Muslim women argue they chose to wear the veil to show their religious identity, in which case it is prescribed to them and, paradoxically not a choice. If this is so, then the difference between the full veil and the zentai suit is that one connotes fun and freedom, the other is repressive. The whole debate rests on whether it is a choice.

I fear I might be rambling here: I’m talking about things I might not fully understand, so I’ll leave it there.

I just came across this link, which I think you should all go watch. It’s another perspective on what I was blogging about yesterday, and one with which I totally agree. I’d like to dismiss such people as reactionary and paranoid, yet I cannot for I know they are right. There is an inherent danger in assuming some lifes aren’t worth living.

Btw, the person in the bandanna is Claire/Dennis, whom I have mentioned here before.

I was just watching the news. I’ve had quite a good day: I went into school to help with an ICT session. We’re starting to figure out my exact role there, but the staff seem rather eager for me to help. Anyway, I was watching the news item on the court case of the mum who killed her daughter who had ME.

I know I’ve blogged about this before, possibly more than once, but it still worries me. Of course, people have a right to do what they want, even kill themselves, but I worry that some person would take advantage of this case? Say someone is caring for a severely disabled person who can’t communicate, and decides they’ve had enough? they might claim that the person being looked after wants to end their life when they don’t. of course, there will always be ways of communicating – even wiggling one’s toe can form the basis of a system of communication – but my point is that this can be abused. Disability history is littered with abuses like this. I mean, how do we know such people really want to die? What if they lack the cognitive capacity to make such a decision, and are being coerced into doing so? It would be seen as condescending to have one rule for people with learning disabilities on this, and another for those without. Thus this ruling opens up a huge moral can of worms, and I feel rather uncomfortable about it.

I went exploring again today. Again, I tried to find the dome and again I failed. You’d think that it wouldn’t be hard to find, wouldn’t you? It’s big and ugly and looks like a huge white spot. But no! this time, though, I went along the previously mentioned Shooters Hill road and found the royal observatory? How incredible is that? I went in and took a look – it’s free! I didn’t do a very thorough tour, but it was amazing to see things like the ancient telescopes. I also wondered over the Greenwich meridian almost without noticing.

From there I went down the hill, to the national maritime museum. I have an affinity for ships and boats, but couldn’t find an accessible entrance. I was going to go further, but I noticed my battery had dropped a few bars, so I headed home. Next I’m going to figure out the busses, and maybe the tube; then virtually the whole of London will be my playground!

And I will find the damn dome one day.

I should probably have typed this up yesterday, but by the time I got in I was knackered. Even just three hours at school wore me out; I don’t know where my teacherfriends get their energy. Nevertheless, they want me to go back there on Monday afternoon, so I must have been doing something right.

I encountered quite a few things off extreme interest yesterday afternoon, but there isn’t much I’d want to put on here, not at this point anyway. They had the kids interview me for school radio, which was rather fun. One of the kids on the radio team seemed to be a born entertainer. They also showed me around the school: it is bigger and more laberynthine than Hebden, and very impressive. Yet it had the same ‘feel’ as Hebden – that special school feel I can’t describe. An oxymoronic feeling.

I’m looking forward to going back there on Monday. I just want to help, and I think the staff think I can be a positive rolemodel for the kids. Who knows – maybe I can teach them a few things.

I am now an urbanite. Well, kind of. For all my life I’ve lived in the country: the housing estate where I grew up – indeed, where I was born – backs onto fields. Three minutes driving in my chair would bring me to lanes and hedgerows and the smell of manure. Every day, growing up, my trip to school took me past fields full of cattle, sheep, or crops.

Yet now, I’m surrounded by miles of concrete and tarmac. I’m not complaining about this: in fact the prospect of exploring London excites me; but I find it odd to reflect on the fact that, for the first time in my life, I’m living in a place without a field or tractor in site. Even alsager campus was surrounded by farmland.

I’ve already taken my first steps into my latest brave new world. I’ve been making trips to the local shop and back, but the other day, armed with an electric door key so I could let myself back in, I set off on my first real voyage of exploration. We’re reasonably near the O2 arena, so I decided I’d try to find that. Lyn gave me directions, but I must have taken a wrong turn as I couldn’t find a pub I knew I needed to pass. Interestingly for history buffs, I did find Shooters hill road, which was strategically significant during world war two as it would have been the road the Germans would have taken into central London had they invaded.

Anyway, this afternoon we’re off to the shops – I need more cash – and tomorrow I start a voluntary post at a local school. I’ll let you guys know how I get on, and whether I see any cows.

this is just a quick blog to say that I’m safe and well in charlton. The last few days have been largely uneventful. I’m settling in okay; dad dropped my PC off this morning, as well as other essentials. I get the feeling todday just might be the first day of the rest of my life.

I am in two minds about blogging anything today. Tomorrow I begin my move to Lyn’s. all being well, I’ll live with her permanently, which means tonight is my last night living here. I was born here, in this house, so it’s kind of an odd feeling. It is, at one and the same time, both sad and exciting. I don’t want to reflect on it too much, so I’ll just send you here – it’s one of my favourite songs, and today it seems a good choice.

It is probably lazy of me to do this two days in a row, but I must say that this is probably the most inspiring bits of writing I’ve read in quite some times. It’s written by Clair Lewis, probably one of the leading lights of the disability rights movement. She writes how it takes courage to ‘be our best selves’, and not to bow to social pressures and simply be good little cripples. As I’ve written before, part of the reason why I love Lyn so much is because she has done just that: she had the courage to become the person she believes herself to be, not for any quazi-political reason, but because she refused to let social pressures get in her way. Lyn’s might be an extreme example, but to a lesser extent most disabled people feel a certain amount of pressure to conform to what society expects of us – to be meek and mild crips grateful for being allowed to live at all. We must overcome this feeling; we must stick up for ourselves, and show our true colours. Only then can equality be attained.

I have been reading steve graby’s site throughout today. I met steve a month or two ago, but have only just started reading his blog. While I disagree with some of what he writes – he can be too radical sometimes – most of what he writes is fascinating. His stuff on gender in particular made me think, and I like the notion of being nongendered or gender-neutral particularly interesting. This is not the same as actively crossing gender boundaries, but simply not associating with either gender, in a way approaching my stance on gender from the other end. While I like to negate the gender binary by crossing male/female lines (dressing up as a woman) he negates it simply by not recognising it. Anyway go here.

I caught dave CaMoron on the Andrew Marr Show earlier. Truth is, he doesn’t seem such a bad fellow – a nice approachable family man who used to play footie with chris evans. I also like the fact that he supports both the BBC and NHS, the two finest institutions of their kind in the world. Yet what I find unpalatable about the conservatives these days is that underneath the charm and spin lie the same old rigid values that have always been the hallmark of conservatism. On Friday I explored how liberalism is, from certain points of view, inherently contradictory: if you take it too far it actually becomes illiberal and intolerant. However, I didn’t mean this as a criticism of the philosophy: bearing such things in mind is an integral part of liberalism itself.

I think this is where it contrasts with conservatism as I perceive it. Whereas liberalism has the ability to perceive it’s own contradictions, conservatism is too rigid and dogmatic, especially in it’s American form. To conservatives, concepts like right and wrong are absolutes rather than subjective constructs. Hence we hear CaMoron talking about things like the family and austerity – his own pre-conceived ideals. Tories hold such things to be good, when in fact A) they are idealistic constructs and

B) there are many good examples of such things being repressive or destructive. The problem is, conservatism, unlike liberalism, cannot acknowledge the fact that it can be wrong.

I have been thinking a lot recently about liberalism, and what it means to be liberal. To me it means having an open mind, and being tolerant of different people and lifestyles. I like to think of myself as a rather liberal, open minded person – I think that, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else, physically or otherwise, people should be allowed to do as they please. This, of course, stems from my belief that there is no such thing as ‘normal’, so any lifestyle is just as valid as any other.

This, on the face of it, seems a pretty simple philosophy. Yet, if you think aabout it, there are a few little inconsistencies and contradictions. How far can you take it? What, exactly, is harm? On YouTube one can find videos of all kinds of people: for instance, that’s where I found out about Jazz, a 7 year old girl who was born a boy, or Kim Petras, the worlds youngest post-operative transsexual. I view such phenomena in a positive light: although others may have reservations about such cases, transitioning between the genders has obviously made these young people happier, so I think it cool that they have been allowed to become the people they want to be. Needless to say, the same applies to my girlfriend. If living as the opposite gender, or in whatever lifestyle you want, makes you happy, then I say go for it.

But on the other hand, YouTube also has video clips of a girl who weighs 400 pounds, or rather used to before her diet. I must admit I feel pretty sickened at the fact that this girl was allowed to get so obese. One must ask yourself, however, what is the difference? Why is one behaviour okay, and another not? The girl in question claims she was addicted to food, implying that she was not in full control of her eating just as Jazz and Miss Petras did not decide to be transgender. Further, she obviously found happiness in eating, just as kim, jazz and Lyn find happiness in being who they are. Why is one behaviour right and another wrong? Of course, being so fat was causing her real problems: she was unable to walk due to her weight, and her heart was under aa great deal of strain. But one could also say there are substantial medical and social risks in transitioning too; and one can also point out, as a disabled person, that the ability to walk is not as great a thing as others might want one to believe. So why is one behaviour (at least nominally) condoned by society, but another condemned?

Those were, admittedly, two rather obscure examples, but my point is that there are contradictions which those that call themselves liberal must contend with. I’ve been thinking about islam recently, and indeed faith in general. I like to think that the UK is a pretty tolerant place where people from all over the world can come and find a safe haven. I don’t care what god you worship, or how you worship it. Yet what if a central principal of that worship actually contradicts that principal of tolerance? On YouTube (yes yes, I get most of my knowledge from YouTube these days) there are videos of people who apparently want to impose sharia law in the UK, or at least have areas where sharia law is enforced. As I understand it, sharia law is pretty intolerant; it demands women wear the hijab, and involves brutal punishments, or at least punishments we would find brutal. It seems incompatible with western liberal democracy.* as a tranny, I think people should be allowed to dress as they please; I also suspect that most of the women I know would fiercely object to having to wear a veil. Moreover, sharia in it’s strictest form involves capital punishment, which I find utterly repugnant. Thus there is a conflict between respecting the right to worship and the need to ensure everyone is held to the same laws. I should add too that this issue is not localised to islam – in some areas, for example, orthodox jewish law prevails. To me, it makes no sense to have one set of rules for one set of people, and another for another; surely if everyone is equal, they everyone should be held to the same laws. Similarly, why should one issue be dealt with one way and accomodated, and another be condemned by society?

This is further complicated by my atheism. I do not believe in any god or gods, just in the evidence I am presented with. Part of me feels that religion is just another divisive factor and so should be done away with. The same principals which brought me to liberalism – those of equality, justice, and evidence-based judgements lead me to believe society should be secular. If there is no consensus of faith, then the government should be faithless; but this would lead us to a Dawkinsian stance of assuming religion is bad and wanting to do away with it, which strikes me as rather illiberal. Thus we have a paradox – in order to respect everyone’s faith, we should assume no faith is correct, but then what’s the point of faith?

These contradictions trouble me; they puzzle me. The very principles which bring me to liberalism show me its shortcomings. Yet this does not mean liberalism is wrong: on the contrary: Liberalism also means being forever mindful that nothing is ever black and white.

*however, some scholars have argued that English common law was originally inspired by Islamic law. ”It has been suggested by several scholars such as Professor John Makdisi, Jamila Hussain and Lawrence Rosen[23] that several fundamental English common law institutions may have been derived or adapted from similar legal institutions in Islamic law and jurisprudence, and introduced to England after the Norman conquest of England by the Normans, who conquered and inherited the Islamic legal administration of the Emirate of Sicily (see Arab-Norman culture), and ”through the close connection between the Norman kingdoms of Roger II in

Sicily – ruling over a conquered Islamic administration – and Henry II in England”.’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#English_common_law)

It snowed heavily last night, and I take it as a sign of old age that I am not overjoyed. In fact, it’s rather depressing. I need to get over to Crewe station to get my train ticket for London, but for the last two or three days that hasn’t been possible due to the snow. Of course, there was a time when I thought snow was wonderful stuff it meant days off school and snowball matches with my brothers. I remember trying to walk in it, half petrified of falling over, half eager to hit mark or Luke with a snowball. Indeed, Lyn has promised me a snowball match, and I’m more than willing to accept her challenge, yet I just whish some of it would clear so I can get to her. Until then, snow is just a damn nuisance.

This entry is a test to see if I can blog from this computer. I swapped machines over the weekend; my old computer – a trusty old warhorse I’ve been using since I started university – is now packed and ready to be taken to lyn’s. I should, with any luck, be blogging from there soon.

Looking back through the archive, it’s interesting to see how things have progressed, and how my attitudes have changed. For instance, I used to be pro-special schools, then, after meeting Becca and Katie, dead set against them. Now I feel I take a more cautious stance, as idealism must give way to pragmatism.

I’ve also tried to record the important things in my life – important events and happenings. Dad says this makes my site seem more of a diary than a blog. But I’d maintain that it’s important to present people with who I am; to show the world that a guy with c.p can be as active as anyone else, as foolish, as prone to boredom, or as selfish. I’ve just tried to bee honest, and to show the world who I am.

Well, when we manage to get a ticket, I’ll be off down to lyn’s, and the next chapter in my life will begin. I look forward to letting the world know how I’m getting on.

The decade turned rather dully for me I’m afraid. In the end I had to stay at my parents’, rather than going to Lyn’s for new year, and my parents don’t seem to celebrate new year. They were in bed before 12. oh well. Nevertheless, I’m excited at the prospect of the new year. What might 2010 bring? I start my trial period living with Lyn very soon – I’ve already started packing. When I’m there I hope to get a job. It seems I might finally be growing up.

Something tells me it’ll be a hell of a year. I can’t wait. Anyway happy new year everybody!

You know the truth is a funny thing. I’m sure we have all heard reports that china executed a British man for smuggling drugs into their country; of this there can be no doubt. But from that point on matters start to get rather vague: was it 4kg, or 20 he was carrying? Did the man have a mental disorder or not? According to a report I saw on the bbc yesterday, there was strong circumstantial evidence that he did, yet the Chinese authorities did not allow a psychologist to examine the guy. In this case, British condemnation of china’s actions is well founded. Foreign Office Minister Ivan Lewis told the chinese ambassador ”China had failed in its basic human rights responsibilities”. Yet the Chinese maintain they have done nothing but act according to their own laws, as is their right. To the Chinese, British criticism of this case is ”unreasonable”, and have urged the British to correct our mistake, lest it strain anglo-chinese relations. So, depending on who you believe, either a criminal got his due punishment yesterday, or a mentally ill man was murdered after a deeply flawed and unfair ‘trial’. I know who I’m siding with.

The house is quiet again. Both my brothers are still here, as is Yan, but most people have gone home. Let me say, before I say anything else, how impressed I am with my mum: having to contend with fourteen people around the place, cooking for them and cleaning up, must not have been easy. Yet my mum has taken it in her stride, preparing some truly delicious food and making sure everyone was happy.

It’s a little weird, though, having so many people around. Now, you know how I love a good party, but having a house full for several days was a bit of a strain for me, although not as much as I thought it would be. At times I didn’t know the best place to put myself, and I was very glad to be able to come up to my room for a break. That’s why I much prefer having such big family holidays at home. I think I’d have been far more tense and agitated if I couldn’t have come up here and chatted to Lyn for a while. As it happens, though, I could, and I was rather sorry to see half the family leave this morning. Mind you, I still have new years eve with my brother(s?) to look forward to, and pretty soon after that a trip to Lyn’s, so it’s still all go.

It has been a cool couple of days. The place has been packed; at mealtimes we have 12 people round the table, and tonight there’ll be 13, or even 14 if grandma joins us. It’s been really cool to see everyone, and I especially appreciate having the chance to catch up with my brothers. Mark and I have had some much needed chats – I needed the wisdom that only an older brother can impart. Luke, in his greatness, set up skype yesterday so I could chat to Lyn. It was bloody great to be able to talk face to face with my girlfriend.

I miss her quite a bit. Our house is not a place for wheelchairs, as I’ve been able to walk since I was little, so we didn’t need to move or adapt. This suits us, but it does mean that I can’t have Lyn come to stay, which is sad. Mark has Kat with him, and Luke has Yan of course, but my Lyn is not here. On the other hand, my cousins Cyril and Christina are here, but without Tom and Saran, so they’re probably feeling the same. Nevertheless, I could really do with a cuddle from Lyn right now, yet she and those deep, lovely eyes of her seem so far away.

I suppose I’ll see her soon, and in the mean time there are things to get on with round here, but every now and again it strikes me that there’s this extraordinary person who I love dearly, but who I can’t see or hold. And that thought hurts almost physically.

Something happened here last night which I don’t think has happened here in almost a decade. My brothers have come home for Christmas, but Kat and Yan were both aat their parents, so it was just the five of us. Since mark left for oxford back in 2000, each time he’s come home he’s had a girlfriend with him; I think the same more or less applies to Luke. So just having the five of us round our kitchen table is extremely rare.

But last night it happened. It felt so good to see my brothers there again, where they always sat when we were growing up. It gave me a warm, christmassey feeling, although the beer could have helped that. In a strange way, it felt like nothing had changed in all those years, although, of course, almost everything has. We’ve grown up; we each have beautiful partners, and our own lives. Yet what strikes me as special is that we are still a very close family; we still love each other deeply. Last night was something of an echo of the past, of my childhood, yet it reminded me that my family will always be there for me/

My future lies in south London. I think next year will be one of great change for me – it is time. Yet I am quite sure that I’ll always be welcome at the table down in the kitchen, as Mark and Luke are. Realising that last night has given m great strength.

I just waved goodbye to Charlie. She popped over from Chester for the afternoon; she was going to stay longer, but the weather has taken a severe turn for the worse., so she needed to get going. It was great to see her though. She came at Christmas last year, so we may have started something of a tradition, although it will hopefully be Lyn’s she’ll be visiting next year. It was great to see her though.

I realised, however, that Charlie is the only person I see from uni, pretty much. She’s the only person I’m in more or less regular contact with from uni, apart from

Esther. I used to have a large cohort of friends, but it now appears the links of friendship are slowly fading. I know two or three read this site, like Chris, Steve and Ricardio, but it strikes me as a great shame that, aside from charlotte, I’m slowly falling out of contact with many of my best friends. I have resolved, therefore to put that right. To start with, if you’re reading this and you know me from uni, please leave a comment or email me.

Yesterday I was surprised to find that some people made a group on facebook criticising the bbc for opening up a forum in which people could debate the Ugandan law to execute gay people. it’s bizarre how some people, mostly on the right, use every opportunity to attack the bbc, but completely miss the point at the same time. Of course, any law to execute gay people anywhere is abhorrent*, and anyone supporting such a law must be short of a brain, but surely everything must be fair game for debate. Otherwise, things become absolute truths, beyond debate, something which I see as very unhealthy. Nothing in science is a fact: things like evolution, the idea that the world is round (like an orange!) or global warming are still theories and open to debate, although the evidence for each of these is so great that they’re very unlikely to be disproved. Nevertheless, none of these things are beyond debate, and nor should anything else be seen as such. Hence you cannot criticise the beeb for opening up debate.

What can be criticised, however, is the underlying issue. We all know, of course, that being gay is noot an abnormality, but something quite natural. Nor is it something you choose to be, but you’re either born gay or straight or bi. During the course of my googling, I found that the Ugandans are being funded by the American right, including at least two senators and several fundamentalist organisations. They are, in part, basing their biggortry on the work of an American, Richard cohen, cohen argues that gay people can be ‘cured’, that they chose to be straight if they so whish. This, of course, goes against all the psychological evidence on the subject, and indeed in 2002 cohen was expelled from the American Counseling Association for, among other things, ” seek[ing] to meet [his] personal needs at the expense of clients”. In other words, he was trying to manipulate the data to meet his own agenda. From this, and from the way in which Cohen thereafter termed the ACA a ”gay-affirming club”, we can see that this man is no scientists and is acting out of motives other than the search for truth.

Indeed, Cohen describes himself as Ex-Gay; he speaks of wanting to give people the choice to be heterosexual if they so whish. In an article entitled ”born gay? No way” in the New Statesman, Cohen states that ” I am pro-choice regarding homosexuality. If someone wants to live a gay life, that needs to be respected. If someone wants to change and come out straight, that too needs to be respected. Let us practice true tolerance, real diversity, and equality for all.” Yet beneath this message is the presumption that homosexuality is wrong, and something to be corrected. In other words, it’s fascism masquerading as liberalism, belief masquerading as science.

It doesnn’t end there. The Ugandan law is being funded and supported by American right-wing senators. Both the Ugandan ptesident and vice-president are members of a secretive American religious organisation known as ‘the family’, which has very conservative (read fascist) views on gay people. it boasts at least two US senators as members who were instrumental in steering American money to fight AIDS in ugannda into funding abstinence-only schemes. Moreover, several American churches are involved, to whom cohen is a cause celebre.

Does this not strike you as absurd? We have these crackpots in the states claiming that homosexuality is a choice, coaxing Uganda to pass an utterly biggoted law, justifying their beliefs through a mixture of quack-science and religion, and refusing to listen to anyone who tells them they’re wrong. I have many gay friends; indeed, my own relationship wilt Lyn isn’t exactly straight, is it? I am very concerned, with the most powerful state on the Earth influencing others in such an illogical, bigoted way, about where this will all end.

So of course such things must be debated, if only so we go beyond the headlines. Debate leads to research; and only through research can you find the truth. * capital punishment is barbaric for whatever reason

I used to aim to blog every day, but these days it seems I’m away from my computer so much that I can no longer do that. I guess it’s a good thing – I used to post just for the sake of it, and the result was meaningless prattle. Now I post when I have something to say.

Anyway, guess where I’ve been. I got back from Lyn’s this morning, having spent a week or so down there. Her place is becoming to feel like home, although I need to take stuff like my neater-eater down there. As it is, Lyn’s PA has to feed us both, which makes meals slow. Hopefully I’ll start moving stuff down after Christmas, including my pc so I can blog from hers.

Talking about Christmas, it seems my parents are planning on having pretty much all the family here. The house will be packed, and I have to sleep in the conservatory. I whish Lyn could come too, but the house isn’t really suited for a full-time wheelchair user: there are too many steps,, narrow pathways and too much clutter. I think I’ll have problems with so many people around here as it is. Yet it is a shame she won’t be here – I always go to hers; it’s time she saw the old Goodsell family house. Ho hum; I’m planning to go to hers for New Years Eve anyway.

I just tried to watch George osbournes reply to the chancellor, but after 5 minutes I felt so angry that I gave up. I felt sickened by his lies and insults; by the way he pretended that brown had made the recession worse, or had even caused it, rather than saving Britain from the worst of it. I’m appalled by how the Tories claim we are now the sick man of Europe when the fact is Britain has one of it’s strongest economies. We’re certainly doing a damn sight better than we were in 97, and, under the Tories, this recession would have hit us all much harder.

While it is by no means perfect, I love what Britain has become since New Labour came to power. It is more multicultural and tolerant than ever before. It is a place where we crips can live independently, rather than being shoved into homes; it is a place where more and more disabled kids are being included so that they get a decent education. I daresay that it is only in such a liberal, tolerant society that people like my wonderful girlfriend can live exactly on their own terms and flourish. Since 97, more and more people are going to university; it is only through the initiatives of labour that I was able to get my degree. Higher education is no longer the sole province of the rich.

The Tories, with their moronic talk of austerity, would undo all this. they would cut spending and lower taxes. They would return power to the upper class, and widen the socioeconomic devide. They believe the rich should rule over the poor, as if they were somehow born to rule. The argument is that, when society is left to it’s own devices, the fittest rise to the top, and so government should get out of the way. Anyone with more than half a brain knows that to be bollocks – it is an excuse to maintain wealth in the hands of the few, as it advantages the greediest rather than the fittest. That’s why I almost felt physically sick when Osbourne attacked Labour for attacking tax cuts for the rich. The Tories want to give their selves and their friends a tax cut.

I’m also wondering how the Tories have the gall to accuse labour of being obsessed with spin and appearance when they have CaMoron trying to pretend that he’s a nice regular guy, and their backbenchers trying to pretend they aren’t a bunch of closet racists and eurosceptics. The blatant hypocrisy is sickening. The Tories aren’t regular people – they see themselves as superior, born to rule; they want to impose their views on all of us. I hope with every fibre of my being that they aren’t elected next yeat/

It is my great pleasure to announce the wedding of Luke Spencer Goodsell to Yan Chen. On Saturday, my brother married his partner, Yan, in a beautiful wedding. It was just a small event, with mostly family there. Four or five of their uni mates came. Mark and I acted as best men, which was quite cool, although I never can stand still however hard I try.

Then we went for the reception at a Greek restaurant. This seemed to last most of the afternoon, and I forget how much I had to eat or drink. I got talking to Luke’s friends, who seem hyperintelegent. Mark gave the best best-man’s speech ever – concise but very funny, embarrassing to just the right degree.

So, now my little brother is married, and the family has grown. You know, we’re quite an international bunch: Yan’s from China; Cyril’s girlfriend Saran is from guinea; we have family in brazil, the states, all over the place. How cool is that?

Today, we’re off to London for Luke and yan’s wedding. I dunno what to put here – I’m kind of lost for words. My little brother’s getting hitched. It’s just incredible.

I have been watching cast-offs with growing relish, I must admit. In case you don’t know, Cast-Offs is a late-night channel four mocumentary about a group of disabled people on an island, trying to fend for themselves. I find it subtle, witty and intelligent. Through flashbacks we get to know a bit about these people’s lives back home, thus sketching a portrait of life with a disability in contemporary Britain. It is also quite sardonic and irreverent, unafraid to pussy foot around subjects, or show crips can be prats too. Mind you, the central characters of the last two episodes have been berks, especially Will, played by Matt Frasier.

I watched last nights episode this morning. What struck me is will’s vitriolic politics. Beneath his showing off for the camera, and attempts to impress his son, there seems to be a real sense of anger there. He was affected by thalidomide, and we see him writing to various people for compensation. There’s nothing wrong with this, but some of what he writes is inappropriate and offensive. This got me thinking: can this sort of behaviour go too far?

I do not pretend to know much about thalidomide, save that it was a drug taken for morning sickness which effected the development of the foetus. But I do know that, just as I will never blame my parents for having me at home, one cannot demand retribution for such mistakes. To do so, it seems to me, is to repeat the folly of Ahab. While I know crips need money, I’m not sure I like this culture of blame and entitlement. People like will seem to have real chips on their shoulder, and I’m not at all sure that’s a good thing.

Anyway, the next episode is tonight at about 11, I think. I’m really looking forward to it.

I don’t have much to report today; it’s cold, wet and miserable, and I feel low. I had a look over my thesis earlier, which made me depressed. I keep finding faults and repetitions. On the brighter side, the other day Charlie sent me this link. As well as teaching, she’s in a trio called The Harmonettes. They sound quite good, I think, and I hope they go far. it’s not usually my type of music, but it sounds better to me than most of the crap in the charts these days.

I am back home, briefly. I’ve been staying with Lyn for the last week, where highlights included trying to teach Karolyna the phrase ‘smeg head’ and Lyn’s neighbours birthday party on Saturday. I don’t remember too much about said party, only being called a lightweight by a 12 year old. Grr. He should have been in bed anyway. I’m off again on Thursday for my brother’s wedding, which I’m really looking forward to, although, if I’m honest, I’m slightly nervous about too. I mean: Luke, marrying? Part of me still sees him as my little-big brother, who has always cared for me. It wasn’t so long ago that we were squabbling over toys, or he was telling me to stop getting comfortable.

But Luke has turned into a man, and a damn good one at that. He is a person of honour, unafraid to do the right thing. I respect what he is doing on Saturday; I am proud to call him my brother, as I shall be to call yan my sister. I love you bro.

I should point out that my previous entry was intended to be ironic and tounge in cheeek. However, I should add that I’m still pretty angry about recent events – I do not think I was treated at all fairly. I do not want to ban kids from tthe ‘net, but some people seem to want to censor me.

Recent events have caused me to rethink my stance on censorship. I usually take a liberal position on such matters: I think everything should be open, honest and available. Take drugs,, for example: I recently found that I do not llike weed, but I didn’t know that till I tried it. Until then it was something verboten – a mystery to be fettishised. The same goes with information, data and so forth – I believe, or used to believe, that all information should be freely available to all. How else could one make informed decisions?

We all know that the internet is a great place to find stuff out as well as to share information. On the internet I can put my opinions forth, I can find information about almost anything, I can catch up with my friends and show them what I’ve been getting up to. However, the problem is that kids use the net too, and their little brains are apparently not ready for certain things. Given that kids must be protected, either we impose some kind of censorship on the net, or some kind of age restriction. In my opinion, to censor the internet would be impractical; it would also defeat it’s very purpose. I know there’s already a ban on extreme material online, as there should be, but I’m talking about things that most people wouldn’t bat an eyelid at but kids wouldn’t understand. I rather think it would be more practical to ban children from the net until their sixteenth birthday. This would be enforceable given that, before that age, most kids are around parents or teachers when using computers. We already ban buying alcohol, driving cars and having sex before that age, and using the internet can be more dangerous than any of those things.

This goes against all my instincts, but I’ve decided that the only way to protect kids online is simply not to let them online, as the alternative would make a mockery of the very concept of the net.

Something odd happened in Tesco this morning: I got asked for ID. I was replacing the beer I drank over the weekend, but the staff wouldn’t let me buy any until I showed them either my passport or driving license. I had to come all the way back here to get my passport, then go back to get the beer.

This has never happened before. I don’t think I look that young, do i? from the way in which the staff were asking one another ”Is anyone with him?”, I cannot help but think that it has something to do with my disability. They were also being highly condescending. Once I got my passport, they had no choice but to give e the beer, but I am sick of being treated like a child just because I have CP,

Whatever I right on here tonight it’ll be wrong. Either that or it’ll offend someone. Or I’ll be accused of lying or cheating, or being sexually explicit. Or not appropriate for kids. Or whatever. So I won’t. I’ll just say that stuff’s got pretty complicated recently, but I’m sure I can work it all out. You know, one of the risks of keeping a blog is that you risk saying something you really shouldn’t. when you try to blog every day you sometimes forget a blog isn’t a personal diary. This thing has got me into a lot of trouble over the years. And yet something compels me to tap some irrelevant crap into it every day. It’s like a form of therapy, almost, only the internet is a bizarre, often judgemental therapist.

I guess I’m going through the best of times, and the worst of times at the same time. As I alluded to yesterday, the 1voice thing went tits-up; long story short, I do not think they want me as a role model any more. I’m not happy, but hey. However, this left me with a PA at my disposal for the weekend, Steve. He’s been stayiig with us, and today we went down to hanley on the bus. I have officially started my Christmas shopping, and I really enjoyed having someone to hhelp out. Plus, tomorrow we are going up to see Becca again – she has promised to introduce me to a few people in the avant-garde of politics and gender and disability and all that cool stuff. Should be fun.