North Korea: Hypocrisy of Democracy

You may or may not be aware that North Korea is in fact a democratic country. North Korea's full name, "the Democratic People's Republic of Korea" should be a dead give away.

It's just that it's not very good at being a democracy...

In the Index of Democracy (A list of all "Democratic" counties on the globe in descending order from most democratic to least democratic) North Korea is placed last out of the 167 Democratic Countries in the world.

But what exactly do we mean by democracy...?

Democracy is in incredibly hard concept to define, but because we are using the Index of Democracy it makes sense to use their conditions of a democracy. The index claims:

"Free and fair elections and civil liberties are necessary conditions for democracy, but they are unlikely to be sufficient for a full and consolidated democracy if unaccompanied by transparent and at least minimally efficient government, sufficient political participation and a supportive democratic political culture."

In order show that North Korea is not a democracy we need only show that North Korea fails to meet one of these two necessary conditions. This video will focus on refuting the claim that North Korea has free and fair elections.

A basic structure of North Korea's Government looks like this. Starting at the top we have Kim Jong-Un.

His official title is Supreme leader of North Korea. He inherited this title after the death of his Father, Kim Jong-Il.

Kim Jong-Il inherited that title after the death of his father, Eternal President of North Korea, Kim Il-Sung.

As supreme leader, Kim Jong-Un is head of the Korean People's Army - the land, sea and air armed forces of North Korea. He is also first secretary of the single dominating party of North Korea: The Workers Party of Korea.

There are however four political parties: 

The Workers' Party of Korea

The Korean Social Democratic Society

Chondoist Chongu Party

General Association of Korean Residents in Japan.

However, the existence of these other three parties only creates the illusion of democracy.

The Worker's Party of Korea is the "ruling party" whilst The Korean Social Democratic Society, Chondoist Chongu Party, and the General Association of Korean Residents in Japan form the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland.

This Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland is controlled by the Worker's Party of Korea.

This information was hard to establish because different sources emit certain political parties and fail to even explain their relationship. After digging enough it becomes very clear that these other parties merely satellites of the Workers Party of Korea. The Workers Party of Korea is the single party with Kim Jong-Un as the country's god.

The country begins to look even more like a dictatorship when you read the constitution of the country, article 12 defines the country as a "dictatorship of people's democracy". These two terms don't really go hand in hand. In fact it's like calling claiming that you husband is your wife and your husband at the same time - it makes no sense and you look stupid.

But what this term actually means is that the government acts on behalf of the people (that's the democracy part) but can use dictatorship to prevent anyone from altering things from the way they are. So if anyone wants change, they can't have it. (That's the dictatorship part).

The thinking behind this is that if "democracy" fails the country will be in a better state than if there were just dictatorship....

So within this dictatorship of democracy the vote itself ends up not being a vote at all. It is more of a formality people go through to prevent harm to themselves and their family.

In a vote each district has a single Candidate. Thus are a total of 687 candidates for the 687 seats in the Supreme People's Assembly. That single candidate is chosen by the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland - which is the Workers Party of Korea but in a different T-Shirt.

If that choice isn't already limited enough the ballot paper seals the deal. The ballot paper consists of the Candidates name and one box to tick to say "Yes."

To vote no, you have to join a different queue and go to a different booth, cross out the candidates name, and then put your vote in a different box.

Defectors have recommended avoiding this "no" queue as to enter it would be considered an act of rebellion.

One defector told a news channel that most people don't know who their local candidate is and only vote because of the consequences - such as becoming a prime candidate for a concentration camp.

It is mandatory to vote if you are over 17 and not voting as well as voting no is considered treason - the crime of betraying one's country. Voting is a very handy way for the country to keep tabs on who is potential defector committing treason. People who have left the country often return to vote so that their family is safe. A defector that is caught could end up at the hell that is "Kaechon internment camp".  

Criticizing the government is seen as a crime that is unredeemable. If a defector along with their entire family ends up here they will remain here for the rest of their life for endless labour. But because of North Korea's "three generations" policy their children also end up here for life, along with their children. Most people die in this place from malnourishment, illness of the after affects of torture.

Not surprisingly, Kim Jong-Un is his district got 100% of votes in his favour.

Now the real question is, is this election system free and fair?

We would say, No.

For starters, the excessive amount of fear the populace faces by thinking or opposing their government through democratic means could hardly be considered a form of freedom or fairness.

Secondly, as a single party state all of the satellite parties have to acknowledge the Korean Working Party as the leader and they cannot oppose the government. This lack of choice could hardly be considered fair.

Then there's the fact the ballot paper contains no fair choice...

So North Korea is not a democracy, the government knows it is not a democracy but pretend that it is.

And that is the Hypocrisy of North Korea's Democracy.

How to Make a Law (UK)

You are a Citizen of Great Britain and you have a great idea that you think should become law. But where do you go and what do you do to see that it becomes law?

You  first need to create a petition - In order to get your proposal noticed by parliament you need to get like minded individuals to give their signature as a sign of approval.

As a citizen of Great Britain you will have constituency in which you reside. Each constituency has a Member of Parliament (or MP) to represent the individual voters within the area. Only MP's can present petitions to the House of Commons. Generally if there is evidence of enough support for the petition from constituents then the MP will raise this petition in the House of Commons. 

However, the MP is only obliged, not obligated to do so.

But if your petition has enough names on it your MP will be inclined to act - MPs are very keen to keep favour with their voters - job security is very important...

Your MP, with your petition will now raise the petition formally or informally in the House of Commons.

If you live in Scotland it this is where it can get confusing because of devolved government. The Scottish government deals with the following issues:  Health, Education, Justice, Agriculture, Housing, etc, which are all Devolved powers. 

Westminster deal with reserved matters (matters for the entirety of Great Britain): Benefits and social security, immigration, defence, foreign policy, employment, data protection, etc. They also deal with all their own matters - the same as the devolved powers of Scotland. For the sake of this post the law you want to make is falls into the Reserved powers of Westminster.

Back to your MP in the House of Commons: They can raise the petition informally, at any time while sitting in the House of Commons by signing the top of the petition and placing it in the large green bag hooked to the back of the Speaker's Chair. The Speaker is the chief of the House of Commons and the Highest Authority within. 

This green bag is almost like a black hole for petitions. It is a place where they go die. If your MP disagrees with what is on the petition, it will probably go in here.

To raise it formally is better. The MP must present the petition at the correct time - immediately before the half-hour adjournment debate (normally discussions about local issues) at the end of each day's business. When presenting the petition they must give a brief statement setting out who the petition is from, the number of signatures contained and the concerns of the petitioner before reading out the request. This request is called a "prayer".

Once accepted, the petition gets sent to the appropriate government body such as the department of transport. The government department finding merit in your idea will create a draft bill. This can often take the form of a white paper. It allows the government to gather feedback formally before making it a fully fledged Bill starting in the House of Commons.

There are three categories of Bills: Public, Private and Hybrid.

Public Bills are concerned with the general law. Private Bills are when a private individual or organisation is in excess of, or in conflict with the general law. 

A hybrid Bill affects the general public but also specific individuals or groups.

This Bill is a Public Bill effecting the general UK population.

Now begins the Bill's First Reading in the House of Commons. This can take place at any time in a parliamentary session. The title of the Bill is read out followed by an order for the Bill to be printed. The Bill is then printed on House of Commons paper.

The Bill then progresses to the Second Reading where the Government minister, spokesperson or MP responsible for the Bill opens the debate. The Opposition spokesperson gives their views on the Bill followed by the other Opposition parties and backbench MP's with their opinions.

MP's then decided on the whether the Bill should progress by voting. If there was no opposition then it can progress without a vote.

The Bill then moves to the Committee Stage. In the Committee Stage detailed examination of the Bill takes place by a Public Bill Committee. The Committee would be named after the main subject of the Bill. Evidence from experts surrounding the topic and nature of the Bill as well as interests groups will be gathered allowing for the educated discussion of each of the Bill's separate clauses. Any amendments to the Bill are proposed and agreed. This amended Bill is then sent back to the House of Commons for the Report Stage.

Back in the House of Commons, MPs will now have the opportunity to suggest more amendments and additions to the Bill. After potentially several days of discussion the Bill is then immediately followed by the Third Reading.

This is now the final opportunity for debate within the House of Commons. There is a short debate on only what is included in the Bill. Amendments cannot be made at this point. MP's then vote on whether to approve the third reading of the Bill. Once accepted, the Bill now makes its way to the House of Lords for the same sort of journey.

What, you thought that was it?

The House of Lords is similar in many ways to the House of Commons, except all the Lords wear silly wigs and have an obsession with the colour red.

In the House of Lords the formality of the First Reading takes place so that it can be printed.

Before the second reading takes place, members of the House of Lords must add their name to the Speakers List indicating their interest in the Bill. Within the Second reading general discussion normally happens for a number of hours, or sometimes a couple of days before moving onto the next Committee Stage. 

This normally takes place in the Lords chamber (dubbed on the floor) or in Grand Committee (dubbed off the floor). Just before this stage has begun the amendments to the bill are gathered, placed in order, and then published in the marshalled list. During this committee stage every clause of the bill must be agreed on and any amendments that are in the marshalled list can be voted on.Issues can be discussed for as long as members choose to discuss them - Unlike in the House of Commons the government cannot restrict this discussion by imposing a time limit. At conclusion, the bill is printed again and 14 days later the bill undergoes even more scrutiny in the Report Stage.

This is yet another chance for the Lords to examine and amend the bill. Once again a marshalled list is produced and discussions begin. The Lords can vote again on changes. The amended bill is printed again in preparation for the Third Reading.

This might be the last chance for the Lords to make any amendments. The marshalled list is produced. Changes can be made at this point but only if there wasn't a vote on the amendment in the House of Lords Committee and Report stage.

One of two things will now happen. If there were no amendments made by the Lords, then it moves immediately for Royal Assent. If there have been changes then it would go back to the House of Commons for consideration of Lords' Amendments.

This is where Ping Pong can sometimes begin. The Lords amendments must be accepted by the House of Commons. The House of Commons might disagree on some of the wording and so will make an amendment and return it to the House of Lords consideration. The Lords must then either agree or suggest further amendments. As you can imagine, this can take some time.

But if the House of Commons accept the changes, then the Bill progresses to Royal Assent.

Now that the bill has passed all stages of the House of Commons and the House of Lords it needs to now pass Royal Assent. Royal Assent is the Monarch's agreement to make the Bill an Act (or law).

The Queen can of course refuse to do so. Royal Assent is now more like a tradition. If the queen did block a Bill becoming an Act there would likely be both Public and Parliamentary outrage. The last monarch to block a Bill (to arm Scottish Militia) was Queen Anne in 1707 when she refused fearing that the Scots would be disloyal.

After Royal Assent the bill becomes an act and that act is law and must be obeyed by the area in which it refers too.

And that is how you make a new law.

Finally all road signs are at least 5 square meters and nobody has an excuse for missing the "no parking" signs...

If you read this far, congratulations! Have a hypothetical cookie for your hard work!

Until next time, it's SciPhiBye!

Some thoughts on linguistic determinism

In an early video, we discussed free will and determinism. Many agree that, scientifically, free will does not exist and brains are deterministic machines. As such, everything we do is the result of actions that came before, and the things that we do represent the only possible route of action that could have happened. Free will and determinism are not the topic of this post (although if you are interested in such topics I strongly recommend giving this article a read) but about a related issue. The question is this: does the language you speak determine anything about how you think and perceive?

Linguistic determinism is the idea that thought, perception and knowledge are constrained by the language that an individual uses natively or habitually. Proponents of this view claim that language limits what a person sees, feels and thinks. An example of this idea is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis:

"The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached... We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation." -Sapir (1958) 

"We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way - an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language. The agreement is, of course, an implicit and unstated one, but its terms are absolutely obligatory; we cannot talk at all except by subscribing to the organization and classification of data which the agreement decrees." -Whorf (1940)

These quotes suggest that meaning arises through shared symbols, which are the backbone of language. Moreover, languages are not just distinct from eachother, they create distinct societies and cultures. These distinct cultures can be considered separate worlds, as they represent and are represented by different symbol systems and structures.

This hypothesis is largely based on evidence from studies involving colour perception. For example this study tested native and English Setswana speakers colour categorisation, by presenting them with triads of coloured tiles and asking them to choose which one was least like the others. In Setswana, the term 'tala' is used to refer to colours that could be categorised into 'blue' and 'green' in English - therefore if three tiles are presented, two green-ish and one blue-ish, English speakers should be more likely to pick the blue-ish one as the odd one out than the Setswana speakers, who may perform closer to chance level. This is what the authors found, triads made up of colours which are perceptually similar but have different names in English are less likely to be reliably distinguished by Setswana speakers, and vice versa. In another study it was shown that speakers of a language called Berinmo, which has but five colour terms, categorised presented colours in line with those terms and not in line with what might be called 'universal' colour categories. Other studies on this topic can be found here and here. The first supports a weak version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, where language influences colour perception but is not the sole factor involved. The second rejects the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, claiming that there exist universal and objective colour categories. 

Colour perception is not the only area that is believed to be affected by the language that an individual speaks. In English, time is generally described in horizontal terms (e.g. 'ahead' or 'behind' schedule; the clocks go 'forward' or 'back') whereas in Mandarin, time is generally described in vertical terms (e.g. shang (up) and xia (down)). It has been suggested that native Mandarin speakers responded quicker to statements that portrayed time in vertical rather than horizontal terms, whereas the opposite occurs for English speakers. This implies that language influences patterns of thought and understanding of metaphor. It is possible that other aspects of life are constrained and influenced by the words used to communicate an idea too. For example, gendered language has been linked to sexist views (see here, but also see here). Consider this: Finnish does not use separate words for 'he' and 'she', instead the term 'hän' is used to refer to both genders. Is it then a coincidence that Finland was the first sovereign country to have full rights for women? Another example, this time from literature. In '1984' Newspeak is used to control the types of concepts that could be discussed by the citizens of Oceania. Without a word for 'freedom' does the concept cease to exist? 

What does this mean for our increased use of text language? R we gna bcum dumer cos we r usin wrds lyk this nd nt propr English? Not necessarily. Studies have been reported that show that use of text speak does not adversely affect children's grasp of grammar. However, that is not to say that the use of text speak does not affect how we communicate with others, for example here it was claimed that the use of text-speak among children creates a social barrier between themselves and their parents and teachers. This should not be surprising, language is a simple way of creating in- and out-groups. Using jargon seems to lead to the isolation of those who don't use such terms themselves, for example using terms like "affordances" at a party probably wouldn't make me very popular, as it is a jargon word used in psychology. Similarly, when football fans discuss the 'offside rule' it is almost a subconscious test of who is in the know and who is not. Language generates and maintains social groups, and is a powerful force in embodying how we think and understand the world. That is not to say that I believe that simply by speaking in a way that is natural to us that we are maliciously and intentionally isolating whole social groups. However, I am suggesting that language has an impact on our social relationships. We communicate with and speak to different people in different ways in different circumstances. And we do so because the language we use matters. 

In a sense then, linguistic determinism must contain a kernal of truth. It has even been claimed that language – referred to as discourse in this context – is the only medium in which reality and knowledge can exist. Foucault (1969) defined discourse as “an entity of sequences, of signs, in that they are enouncements” where enouncements are not simply units of language, but refer to constructs which assign meaning and represent the relationships between an individual and the external world. The central idea is that social relationships between institutions and people, as well as individual actions and behaviours, are defined and restricted by enouncements which, because language creates meaning, constrict and govern social and mental behaviour. 

So what of free will? If there existed a language that did not contain any self-referents, such as 'I' or 'me', would speakers of said language even have a sense of free will or agency? How reliant is our sense of freedom and identity on our capacity to express such concepts? Or did language develop including such concepts because they represent how we think? The direction is unclear, however linguistic determinism suggests that without a way of expressing the sensation of freedom, free will and agency, we would no longer conceive of or experience such ideas. Even if they do exist outwith language, if we cannot express their existence is it not possibly meaningless to claim they are real if we cannot comprehend and explain them in spoken language? Afterall, since the purpose of language is understanding and communication, we surely cannot claim to know or understand if we cannot articulate that knowledge.

Science and philosophy: does ontological belief dictate how we should understand perception?

I am going to attempt to demonstrate why the relationship between science and philosophy is one of great importance. The way I want to do this is by asking this question: does ontological belief dictate how we should understand perception? For the purpose of clarity, I will define some terms and attempt to make clear the specifics of what I'm talking about.

Ontology

The study of what constitutes reality or a state of being. Ok, that's vague. I understand ontology to mean a perspective or view on what gives something the status of being 'real'.

Perception

The collection, organisation and use of sensory information to understand and interpret the environment. This could be visual, haptic (using active touch), auditory, kinaesthetic... the list goes on. When we talk about perception, we are talking about the gathering of sensory information.

Action

The online guidance of goal-directed bodily movement. This could mean a full body action such as walking, or a smaller scale movement such as reaching or grasping. When we talk about action, we are talking about what an individual can do. 

Affordances

Properties of objects that inform an organism about what can be done with that object. These are dependent on both the spatial nature of the object and the morphology and capacity for action of the organism doing the perceiving.

Now that's (hopefully) cleared up, I'll describe the two ontological stances that I think are relevant here. The first is relative ontology. According to this stance, reality does not exist objectively but is instead generated by an individuals interactions with the environment. Therefore, there exists not one single reality, but multiple realities which are distinctive from individual to individual. Upon this stance, the meanings attached to actions, events or thoughts create reality, and although we appear to share in one world, reality is created solely in the minds of individuals. The second is objective ontology. In contrast to relative ontology, upon this stance an objective, truthful reality exists independently of human perception, and this reality is not influenced by the meanings attached to it by people. Both of these stances can go by different names and are associated with several epistemological perspectives however, again for the sake of clarity, these terms will suffice.

I will now describe two opposing stances of perception. The first is the so-called constructivist account. According to this account, the information we receive from the environment is inadequate and requires some form of intelligent cognizance, or consciousness, to interpret it. Through learning, we create and maintain mental representations and constructs of things we perceive and interact with. For example, through the process of induction we are able to use individual instances of interactions with the environment to develop mental representations which we then draw upon in future encounters. So when we see a mug on a table, we are able to recognise it because of previous experience with mugs, glasses, hot beverages, cafes and so on. When we see the mug on the table, we are able to tap into the mental construct of what a mug is, what its function is, common places mugs are found (and so on, and so on) and we use this to successfully identify and use the mug. For a more elaborate discussion of this perspective, see here and here. The first of these links is a paper supporting this account, and the second is a paper attacking an alternative account, which I will now describe.

The ecological account of perception rejects the notions of mental representations and constructs. Instead, it is claimed that the information we obtain from the environment through perception is rich and our sensory systems pick up the information they do because they evolved to do so. When we look at a mug on a table, an ecological psychologist would say that we do not see 'a mug' as a construct, instead we see a familiar object which affords being grasped and used as a container for a hot beverage. Through experience of engaging with objects within a range of environments, we learn about affordances (see above) and also about the capabilities of our bodies to perform actions. Therefore to a healthy adult human, the mug will afford 'graspability' whereas to a dog the mug is unlikely to afford very much. This of course does not mean that the dog does not see the mug, it simply means that it will not see the mug in the same way or as having the same purpose that the healthy human adult will. For a more elaborate discussion of this perspective, see here, here and here. The first link is to a book by a prominent proponent of ecological psychology. The second is a discussion of where the constructivist view may be flawed, and the third is a response to the second.

The question is then, does the view of perception we choose to endorse necessitate that we adopt one of the two ontological possibilities outlined above? As part of this thought exercise, I posit this:

Since a key argument of the constructivist account is that the information we obtain from the environment is impoverished, and thus requires the use of an internal, intelligent consciousness (e.g. the brain) to make sense of it, this suggests that the outside world need not be objective. If we create and maintain constructs and representations of objects and concepts through induction and experience, and those constructs guide our future percepts, does this mean that reality can only be created in our minds? Does the nature of the 'outside world' not matter? Is there a case for arguing that the constructivist account of perception necessitates that we adopt a relative ontological perspective? 

In contrast, a key argument of the ecological account is that the environment provides us with rich, salient information and we, as active participants in the world, pick-up on that information and use it to navigate our environment. Through experience we learn about the capabilities of our bodies, which in turn change as a result of experience. Thus a feedback loop is created whereby observer and world are necessarily entangled. This suggests that there must exist a world for the active observer to engage with and learn from in the first place. Does reality centre on the properties of objects in the environment being accessible to active observers? Is there a case for arguing that the ecological account of perception necessitates that we adopt an objective ontological perspective? 

Of course, it is not that simple - nothing in science or philosophy is! These are so-called hard arguments, and represent extremes of a hypothetical continuum. As such I would be surprised to hear anyone leaping to agree with either. However, this thought exercise demonstrates the intimate relationship between psychological theory and philosophy.

At this point, I would hasten to point out that this post is geared towards thinking about the philosophy of science, and is not intended to support or attack any particular theory of ontology or of perception. Of course, I have my personal notions and ideas on the topic, but those are not relevant to the thought exercise I have attempted to outline here. 

In order to further demonstrate how important the relationship between science and philosophy is, I would like to briefly describe one, famous, attempt modelling the relationship between perception and action, and how this model has been used to blur the lines between the hard inferences drawn above.

The model is known as the perception-action model (PAM) - a recent discussion of which can be found here. According to this model, perception and action are interpreted by two independent but interacting visual systems, respectively the ventral system and the dorsal system. It is the job of the ventral system to gather and interpret information, which is then used to provide a representation of the environment and the objects and bodies therein. The notion of creating and maintaining representations is critical here, as this suggests that the ventral system invokes cognition and the need for interpretation of the environment. This speaks strongly to the view of constructivist perception, which suggests that the information we pick up in the environment is inadequate and in order for it to be useful, it must be interpreted by an intelligent cognizance. In contrast, it is the job of the dorsal system to guide the online control of movement, reinterpreting environmental information as guidance for successfully completing a target action. These two systems work in parallel, often overlapping and interlinking, however it is thought that they interpret sensory information in fundamentally different ways to achieve different goals. For example, in this study participants were found to look at different parts of a visual configuration depending on whether they the task engaged the ventral or dorsal stream. 

It has been suggested (note: not by the original proponents of PAM) that the ventral stream described above represents the constructivist account of perception, whereas the dorsal stream represents the ecological view. For a very well written discussion of this idea, see here. Although this seems like a good idea, as each stance on perception has elements that ring true - and importantly, seem to fit the PAM model nicely. However, when we reconsider ontology, and what constitutes 'reality', the state of affairs under a model which compromises in this manner is unclear. If there exists one version of reality (which, in truth, there surely must) then can compromises such as this truly answer those questions most important to scientists? Those about the nature of the world and the nature of the mind? So, I will end this post by re-asking the initial question, but with a minor modification: does ontological belief dictate how we should understand perception, and why does it matter?

Some final remarks

The PAM is not infallible, see here and here. The first link describes an alternative model of perception and action. The second is a direct attack on the PAM, suggesting that is does not sufficiently explain the available data.

This post was intended as a thought exercise to demonstrate the intimate relationship between science and philosophy, not to provide answers. 

Some might argue that the truths of ontology will be revealed through scientific endeavours, not the reverse. However, this runs into the old problem that we are trapped by the limits of our own perception. An ironic state of affairs, no? 

If you have any thoughts on the topic, we would love to hear them! As previously stated, this post was not designed to provide answers, but to ask questions and to highlight that science and philosophy are necessarily entangled. 

How much land beneath my land do I actually own?

How much land beneath my land do I actually own?

There are many definitions of what land actually means. The statutory definition is as follows -

Section 205 of the Law of Property Act 1925 defines land as including:

‘land of any tenure, and mines and minerals’.

Meaning if you own the land, you also own the land beneath the surface. However, UK law allows for different people or parties to hold the rights to surface and the all the stuff underneath the surface. You may only bought the surface when you were sold your land - in this case the surface and land beneath your land has been separated. The land registry knows exactly what landowners own.

So if you own land and the land beneath your land, you also own all the gold, silver, coal, and gas there too, right?

Wrong.

Firstly all the Gold and Silver are that occur in the ground are owned by the crown thanks to Royal Mines Act 1424.

Gas is a hydrocarbon, along with oil and coal, and has been vested in the crown since the creating of the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934. Coal is an exception to this and is owned by the Coal Authority) It has since been updated but stays true to its original meaning.

Petroleum (Production) Act 1934

(1)Her Majesty has the exclusive right of searching and boring for and getting petroleum to which this section applies.

(including petroleum in Crown land) which for the time being exists in its natural condition in strata in Great Britain or beneath the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom.

Petroleum being:

(a)includes any mineral oil or relative hydrocarbon and natural gas existing in its natural condition in strata (with the exception of coal.

In short any petroleum within the UK is owned by the crown.

Who can get the oil? - The act has that covered too -

Petroleum (Production) Act 1934

(1)The Secretary of State, on behalf of Her Majesty, may grant to such persons as he thinks fit licenses to search and bore for and get petroleum to which this section applies.

(b) (3)Any such license shall be granted for such consideration (whether by way of royalty or otherwise) as the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury may determine, and upon such other terms and conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit.

This means the Government can license energy companies who they see fit to extract that petroleum.

Fracking (Hydraulic Facturing) - the process of injecting millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals at high pressure down and across horizontally drilled wells to extract natural gas, has become a hot topic because the Government wants to access all the lucrative treasure underneath people's homes. The problem is they have to dig through peoples land to get there.

Imagine you own a house and the land beneath your house. Within the boundaries beneath you is a pocket of gas. In order to access this gas the energy company would have to drill through some of the land that is yours. They would have to get your permission because otherwise it would be trespass (disturbance of possession. Permission normally comes with money from the energy company.

If the pocket of gas extended out with the boundaries of your land, the energy company doesn't need to get permission from you at all - they only need to get the permission of the Government in the form of a permit, on behalf of the crown, to take that gas.

The Government has been met with resistance in Scotland when a map of planned Fracking areas was released.

What can people do about it?

Well, at the moment it people are starting to seem pretty powerless.

The Scottish Government released the following statement on the 25th of September:

"The) UK Government have announced that they are to remove the rights of householders to object to oil and gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing beneath their homes. This will include householders in Scotland, and comes despite 99 per cent of respondents to the UK Government consultation on the proposals objecting to them."

It will mean that companies will be allowed to drill below people’s land without first negotiating a right of access with the landowner.

However they would still need regulatory permissions such as planning and environmental permits.

This is a pretty bold move by the UK Government seeing as 99 percent of their respondents were against the idea.

Why have the Government ignored people?

The Government isn't making as much money off oil.

The UK Government state: 

"Since 2003, as North Sea Oil has declined, we have become a net importer of oil and gas and are now increasingly dependent on international energy resources."

The UK is tight on cash and wants to independently generate its own energy.

So, if you owned the house in the first example (if energy companies drilled below 300ft) you could do "diddly squat" because it would no longer be trespass.

Apart from this being a significant step towards the death of democracy, why are people up in arms about it?

Fracking brings with it a number of risks.

Environmentalists are against high carbon fuels because they are so bad for the environment being a major contributor to global warming. On that note, the UK Government statement when justifying the removal of landowners' rights stated: "We know that our journey towards a low carbon future will take time and that emerging energy industries often need Government support to get going." So by digging up more carbon resources to burn....they are planning on reducing their...carbon....burning. Someone might need to go back to school.

In the US, scientists warn of health risks related to Fracking, namely due to contamination of surface water with chemicals that affect human hormone functions.

Other risks include blowouts from toxic chemicals; Fracking induced earthquakes, large volume water usage, and sinkholes.

It will be interesting to see how all this plays out. If Oil revenue in the UK is declining is the Government right to be changing the law to allow for easy exploration and extraction of gas? If you disagree what are the alternatives?

Share your thoughts with us in the comments below, or by visiting our Facebook page found in the link in the description.

Until next time, it's SciPhiBye!