Jonathan Bishop

Sysop prerogative is the right that an owner of an online community has to take whatever actions they wish in order that the community functions the way they wish. In common law counties it is understood that someone can do whatever they want unless they give that right way or it is taken away from them by a superior authority, such as Parliament, in the case of the United Kingdom (UK). It can therefore be expected that the systems operator (sysop) who owns an online community is free to operate their community under any rules they want that has not been taken away from them by statute. After all the community is surely their property which they can use and dispose of in any way they choose?

However, with each right or freedom comes certain duties and obligations, something which is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. This convention, like the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, places obligations on nation states to guarantee certain rights and not to interfere with the enjoyment of these rights except where they conflict with other rights or duties. This means that sysop prerogative may be both guaranteed and limited by European Human Rights Law.

My friend Mark Beech had a book delivered our house with ‘Dr Mark Beech’ on. I thought nothing of it until he showed me a card from his mobile phone provider with ‘Dr Mark Beech’ on. He got it through answering one question from Templar University, which say they ‘respect everyone’s intelligence’ and will award degrees to anyone to prove how worthless academic degrees are.

Well, whatever Templar say, I don’t respect Mark’s intelligence. Today I asked him whether he noticed something about the order of the top three drivers at the European Grand Prix.

Looking at this table it is clear to me as someone studying at doctoral level that the car number of the next driver can be predicted by adding 1 to the current one and dividing it by 3. Also the grid position of the next driver can be predicted by multiplying the current one by 2 and adding 1.

He didn’t understand this coincidence no matter how much I tried to explain it to him. If I had said this to someone else with a real PhD, or even someone in Mensa with no qualifications, they would have easily understood it.

Mark Beech’s political name in the Official Monster Raving Loony Party is The Good Knight Sir Nosda, but he is certainly no Issac Newton!

I received a postcard from what the writer called a “university town” in Germany recently.

And from the images on the card, the people there know the importance of art and architecture.

So why at home should the Old Bridge be the only redeeming structure of Pontypridd and the park the only relaxing space?

RCT’s match funding of the metal sculpture opposite Brown Lennox means that now, along with the Old Bridge and Ynysangharad Park, there is a third thing that can go on a Pontypridd postcard.

But what about the fourth?

Does Pontypridd have what it takes to come up with the next big idea?

The infantile letters of the Lib Dems each week in the Observer serves only to remind of the state of local politics in the area.

The penny-pinching nature of the finance committee on the Town Coincil makes me ashamed to be a town councillor, and I have not sought re-appointment to it.

The answer therefore lies not with the politicians but with the people.

We are not all as small-minded as the Lib Dems, who publically bemoan the town and borough council giving the Emotivate Project £2,000, which was match funding by money from outside the area worth over £8,000.

This project was not “art for art’s sake”, as Councillor John Bell said, but a value-for-money summer youth scheme.

Unlike his notices of motion which have produced only hot air, it will have a lasting impact on the appearance of the area.

We’ve all heard of the Big Apple – a concrete jungle where dreas are made up according to Alicia Keys.

But what about the Big Ponty?

Why should we settle for second best?

Why can’t we have the big ideas, the big dreams and the big ambitions?

In a speech I made for the Association of Speakers Clubs Online Speech Competition I made the case for introducing electronic signatures for verifying people’s identity when they post to online communities such as bulletin boards.

Some may say that if it is a human right to use the Internet and assemble online through bulletin boards for instance, it must be against human rights laws for the government to introduce restrictions on posting to them.

With regard to freedom of expression the European Convention on Human Rights says the exercise of such a freedom, ‘carries with it duties and responsibilities’ and ‘may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary’.

So it may be the case that if a government introduced a requirement for all users of online communities to verify their identity and sign their posts electronically in the name of preventing crime such as identity theft, and civil wrongs, such as defamation, then it may be permissible under European Human Rights Law for them to do it.

There has been a lot of discussion recently about whether it should be a human right to be able to access the Internet. To implement this may require new treaties.

Taking this one step further, does existing law mean it is a human right to use online communities?

Whereas Article 10 of the ECHR says ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers’.

Whereas Article 11 of the ECHR says ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.’

If you consider the Internet as a medium that crosses frontiers, and a bulletin board as a means of people assembling peacefully, then I would regard it to be a human right to be able to express yourself freely with others in an assembled form in online communities, such as bulletin boards.

Article 11 of the convention, while not being interpreted as imposing an obligation on associations or organisations to admit everyone wishing to join, says people do have a right to apply to join them in order to further the expression of their views and practices as set out in Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers & Firemen v United Kingdom (ECHR, App no 11002/05). An organisation is an undertaking within the meaning of the EU Treaty, and the term undertaking has a broad meaning in EU Law, which can include someone who hosts a bulletin board. This means that someone should have a human right to be able to apply to join an online community, but they have no right to be a member if the administrators choose not to accept them.

Rights are never absolute. The right of one person (e.g. to form an association), may conflict with someone else’s right (e.g. not to form an association), as the ASLEF case shows. In this case it was held that the organisation’s right not to associate was greater than the individual’s right to associate. However, the recent case in the UK over the membership rules of the political party referred to in the ASLEF case should mean that in exercising their rights to refuse membership under Article 11 undertakings must only do so in line with what is acceptable in a democratic society, which includes not discriminating on grounds such as race.

So while Article 11 makes it clear that people have a right to associate with others, such as on a bulletin board, those others also have a right not to associate with them. It doesn’t stop posting on a bulletin board from being a right, just because the Admins can withdraw someones membership on grounds which are non-discriminatory.

I just read an article on the weblog of Cllr John Bell about him not appreciating the work I was involved with to improve the visible appearance of the St. Dyfrig’s underpass.

I find Cllr Bell’s comments quite odd, seeing as some of the grants in question were only given due to a letter of support that he wrote for the project! To attack the project is to attack the creative efforts of all the young people involved. As a councillor for the area he should be supporting youth projects, particularly ones which make such a good contribution to the community.

What Cllr Bell fails to acknowledge is that the funding allocated to the project in Treforest would have gone elsewhere had a convincing case, which a letter from him was part of, not been put together.

When local council budgets are being cut due to Cllr Bell’s colleagues in London slashing the Assembly’s budget, he should be pleased that local community groups like Glamorgan Blended Learning Ltd are bringing in external funding to benefit the local community.

Gordon Brown said that in his position as Prime Minister he has a duty to ‘seek to resolve’ the current situation with regards to a hung parliament. Another prime minister once suggested that true leadership is to find opportunity in every difficulty.

The Prime Minister’s solution should not simply look towards forming a coalition, but a new type of politics. With the support of the other parties he could facilitate the creation of a 25-seat cabinet composed of MPs based on the share of the vote the parties have received and who have been appointed by their party’s MPs. This executive could then elect a chairperson who would assume the role of Prime Minister and appoint the cabinet portfolios in a similar way to the way the European Commission works. The executive would be like the board of a company where everyone has equal responsibility and would therefore have to act in the interests of the country and not their party.

Parliamentary committees could also become proportional. In addition, individual MPs could then be given the right to vote freely or as part of a group on all issues, in a similar way to how they do in the European Parliament. MPs would no longer be accountable to the whips, but to their constituents.

This approach would renew our democracy and could be done without primary legislation. I urge the parties to adopt this position and take the country forward, to a future where partisanism ends and progress begins.

People who say they are against affirmative action like all-women-shortlists say the reason is because people should be chosen on merit – but when has anything relying on subjective judgment without full access to and acceptance of the facts been meritocratic?

However, it seems that we are not living in a meritocracy, but an inequitable partisan autocracy. An IPA, as exists in the UK, involves the hierarchies of political parties choosing people not on their ability to do the job they aim to be elected to, but their ability to deceive the electorate into thinking they will always do what they want, and their willingness to, on the contrary, do whatever the party hierarchy wants.

Conversely, an equitable individualistic meritocracy (EIM), as exists with applications to grades of membership with professional bodies, selects people on what they are able to do based on the evidence they have provided through demonstrable experience.

The main difference between the IPA organisations I am a member of, such as the Labour Party and the EIM bodies I am a member of, such as the BCS and IEEE, is simply a matter of objectivity, reliability, and verifiability; the Labour Party doesn’t expect you to provide evidence of your experience, such as through referees, portfolios or certifications like an EIM does, as they base their appointments purely on superficial factors such as whether you support the same opinion as them, whether you are willing to do what you are told by the hierarchy, and all too often, whether you are known to the selection panel.

For instance, I am currently working my way up the grades of the BCS and IEEE. Through increasing my education and experience in the application of IT to business, research and community problems I am ticking the boxes set by these EIM bodies, meaning I will eventually have enough evidence to apply for higher grades of membership. In the Labour Party however, like all IPAs, there is an interview procedure where candidates answer questions that trick them into providing evidence why they should be eliminated and not appointed. They will ask questions such as ‘Would you ever vote against the whip’. If you were honest, and said you would vote with your conscience, this would be reason to eliminate you. In an EIM on the contrary, voting on the basis of your best judgment in line with your competencies is encouraged and in some cases obligatory. For instance, if you were on the board of an IT company and voted in favour of the opinion of the Chairman and you knew it was against the interests of the company, not only could you lose your membership of the EIM but also you right to be a director.

I have a Masters of Laws degree in European Union Law, I have been involved in marketing campaigns to encourage young people to be involved in community arts, I am able to utilise a team of workers so I can more effectively define and meet the objectives of both my organisation and myself, and I am able to communicate my thoughts and listen to others in project meetings, where necessary arguing my personal opinion and at other times representing others’. Surely I should be sitting on a committee in the European Parliament by now, or at least one of my party’s preferred candidates for European political work. But this is not the case, as the Labour Party is not an equitable individualistic meritocracy but an inequitable partisan autocracy. I have experienced it myself when despite providing objective evidence of my abilities only my performance at an interview was taken into account. I have seen other people affected by it, where one of my contemporaries was eliminated from a contest for reasons that had nothing to do with his ability to do the job.

I joined the Labour Party because I thought its ultimate objectives were the fairest. I joined the Labour Party, not to further my own interests, but because on paper it seemed like the party that would best represent my values of fairness. Tony Blair convinced me that it was the party that would put power, wealth and opportunity into the hands of the many and not just the few.
However, I have seen the unacceptable face of the Labour Party, and no matter how much Tony Blair changed the Rule Book, he wasn’t able to change the people in the party. I am a person of great ability, yet with the exception of the Ogmore constituency, wherever I have been in the Labour Party I have been treated like an outcast, someone who was not welcome. I have not been treated with the respect someone of my intellect deserves, nor have I been given the opportunity to use my strengths for the benefit of the party, again, other than in Ogmore.

Democracy means governance by the people, not political parties. Representative democracy means governance by people who reflect the makeup of the country as a whole, and not simply people who meet the prejudices of an IPA organisation. For mean the ideal representative democracy would where institutions are made up of people who are representative of those affected by the issues being discussed, such as parents or teachers, and secondly by people who have the training and competencies required to initiate the change, such as legislator or regulator. The former could be selected based on subjective factors and more suited to reformed IPA organisations (perhaps Equitable Integrated Autocracies – EIAs), and the latter, objective, more suited to existing EIM organisations.

According to my best friend, Mark Beech, whose politics I in no way endorse, today is Namesake Day as part of Celebrate Your Name Week, so I thought I’d join in.

There are a number of other Jonathan Bishops in the world, perhaps too many for my liking, but I thought I’d list them here anyway in the good spirit of the event.

The Reverend Jonathan Bishop, a minister in the Twitterverse, who follows in the footsteps of Vivian Parkinson, who was probably the first minister in the world to blog, using my Llantrisant Online website.

Jonathan Bishop, from Design Interactions at the Royal College of Arts, who is interested in the merging of fiction and reality, and in how the everyday can become more wonderful.

Jon Bishop, an Internet Marketing Specialist at Magicomm. He concentrates on understanding and developing web 2.0 technologies and applications. Clearly he doesn’t have the practical experience of me, who invented the Circle of Friends social networking technology, so will the real Jonathan Bishop please stand up.

Jonathan Bishop, the Co-Owner/Co-CEO of Bishop’s Orchards. Clearly experienced in a different sort of Apple exploitation to me. I wonder if he will follow me and migrate from Apples to something more fruitful!

Jonathan Bishop, the Deputy Headteacher at Broadclyst Primary School. This Jonathan Bishop is currently more known at Microsoft for e-learning than me, but I hope to change that.

Jonathan Bishop, Chief Deputy Director, State Water Resources Control Board California.

John Bishop, a Liverpool stand-up comedian. Apparently he will be performing at the Glee club in Cardiff. He can’t be any worse than any other the other acts I’ve seen there.

Johnathan Bishop, a Network Administrator in the Information Services department of the National Food Service Management Institute.

The late Jonathan Bishop, Professor Emeritus, who helped initiate Cornell University’s first-year writing seminars.

Jonathan Edward Bishop, a digital artist.

John Peale Bishop, an author, poet, and editor, born in 1892 in Charles Town, West Virginia.

Dr Jonathan E. Bishop MD, a clinical Associate Professor at Snohomish Family Medical Center.

“A recent court case found that political manifestos do not ‘create legitimate expectations’ even though there is a body of evidence to suggest politicians keep their promises – should we ban political parties?

That seems to be the logic of the parliamentary committee looking into the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies for treating chronic illnesses. They claim that homeopathic treatments, which have no medicinal qualities beyond placebo, should not be used as a treatment on the NHS because of lack of efficacy.

It is known that practicing a religion can be good for health, because people who do it regularly interact with others, think and reflect on different issues, and are disciplined in their worshipping activities.

As a co-operator I believe in self-help and because of this I believe that if people are managing their chronic illness, however invalid their approach, then this can only be good. Chronic illnesses are incurable, so no medicine will be effective in treating them completely. However, developing daily living patterns, such as eating at certain times, sleeping at certain times, etc. can alleviate some of the comorbidities that occur with them, such as fatigue and depression.

Therefore I would argue that prescribing homeopathic placebos to those who believe in its effectiveness can be effective at providing a disciplined lifestyle to those who would otherwise deteriorate psychologically because of their condition. Similarly, homeopathic hospitals give people individual time and attention that eliminates the despair that accompanies chronic illness and gives people a sense that they are being cared for, which creates a sense of community and solidarity.

I would argue that Atheistic fanatics should stop trying to push their religious viewpoints against alternative medicine on so-called science grounds. They should understand that human beings are not always rational beings who ensure their beliefs are valid and reliable as a scientist should. These fanatics, who are not true scientists in my opinion, should not let their anti-spirituality religious beliefs cloud their judgment about the psychological benefits on patients with chronic illness that alternative medicine brings.

Medical professionals should not be looking for ‘the absolute truth’
when prescribing treatments, but creating a treatment programme that will make the most of the belief system of patients so that they are better able to manage their chronic illness. Such a programme should be based on self-help and solidarity and would be better than the alternative of subjecting the patient to disillusionment and despair for the rest of their lives.”