Make Stand Clear

May I, through your columns, ask the Socialist Action League where they really stand as regards the Election Campaign, their Manifesto etc. Do they support the Labour Party? If yes—then why do they have their members stand in opposition to Labour members? If they don't mind 'Labour' getting in why don't they go ahead and support the Labour Party and later on try to persuade them to change or modify some of their rules, etc. Surely, they should make clear what their aims are and who they are trying to represent before making such moves which will inevitably lose their deposits.

Pride Comes To A Fall?

We loved Prof. Pride's beautifully-handled ironic 'criticism' of our article on the English Department at Vic. (Salient, 22 April). But although quite delightful to read it's the most miserable form of defence that you have to resort to when you know that there's nothing to be said for your point of view—at least nothing normal people (whoever they are) could sympathize with.

Let's get a bit more positive for a change. After returning from Wellington to Germany last November, I took a job as a lecturer at the University of Bochum, West Germany. Very interesting to see the other side of the staff-student 'power-struggle'. The staff are either pretty reactionary or (like me) apathetic, the student representatives at the departmental conferences aggressive and unrealistic. All the bad things in the English Department here change very slowly, at least on the official level, and all the pseudo-democratic fervour that spills out in conference leads to pretty well nothing.

So students don't change anything because they're apathetic or unrealistically extreme and the staff won't change anything significantly because they've got a vested interest in seeing things continue as they always have.

I soon came to realize, however, that change was possible and that I could play an instrumental part in it (I guess this is also true of the other English lecturers). Let me give three examples of courses I've held in the last few months to show that something interesting and useful can be done, in spite of the system.

1. A series of seminars on textbook analysis. We looked at a wide range of East and West German English textbooks to see how Britain was represented by their authors: a study involving extensive and sometimes heated discussion (in English), detailed study of stereotyping processes and vocabulary selection. Very useful, surely, for students who are going to be standing in front of a class in three years time.

2. 'Descriptive Grammar.' This is an obligatory course on stylistics/grammar, regarded by the students with widespread hatred. I've twisted the demands of the syllabus somewhat so that the first four weeks involved my swamping them in semi-lecture form with as much information as possible. This information was then modified or rejected as a result of class discussion and an investigation of the way vocabulary and grammar were handled in recorded review sketches ('Beyond the Fringe'), newspaper obituaries and a recording of a discussion between two housewives.

Prof. Pride believes that one shouldn't criticize before one has read deeply round the subject. I suggested that the class might like to read about ten pages from one book, and am delighted to have as much critical discussion and thinking as possible, right from the start. Some people—even students—do have a little natural intelligence of their own and are quite capable, after a bit of practice and a hit of help, of working things out for themselves.

These students are now doing group work, analysing the style of newspapers, advertisements, political speeches, comics, etc., with as much or as little help from me as they need. Most of them actually like it, and if you can get anyone to like grammar then I think something has been achieved.

An exam is required at the end of the course, and I'm not going to give it.

3. Ten seminars on the novels of Ira Levin. Of course, the staff were shocked that I could actually choose (heaven forbid!!) to deal with a writer of thrillers! (Actually none of them had heard of him, much less read anything by him, but they knew there was a film called 'Rosemary's Baby', which was popular, so that was enough. To make it worse there's not even any-written criticism of his work—nothing for students to read before daring to make criticisms of their own!)

They really enjoy reading these novels, and discussing them, and in a couple of weeks I shall hand over the whole conduct of the seminars to specific students for discussion of general trends in the four books.

Dickens and Shakespeare are dead, and Dickens and Shakespeare don't interest roost people, so let's work at something that does, shall we.

Sorry to go on so long about this. What I'm trying to say is that we really depend on young? lecturers to bring something realistic into courses. Clever ironic letters are all very well in their place, but for God's sake let's shake traditional sentiments a tiny little bit now and again.

Rumour

I have heard a rumour that Neville Wynn has returned to University this year so that he can become President of VUWSA. According to my information Wynn thinks he will win the right-wing vote which supported John MacDonald last year, Is there any truth in this rumour?

A Warning

Narc Squad on Full Alert this Week-End and all of Next Week.

A Friend

An Unsigned Letter

As you have criticised so strongly the new tertiary bursary, I wondered it you had in fact seen the following press release of Mr. Amos which you have thus far ignored, in any of your articles:

Normal bursary and scholarship payments for university students would continue in addition to the standard bursary and all tuition fees would still be paid.

Printed in the Dominion and Evening Post's of Friday May 30th.

Reply to Israel Shahak

'Israel-bashing', 'Anti-Zionism', etc., the currently fashionable cause of the Left, is rather difficult to reconcile with their other espoused causes.

On the one-hand, this young nation is berated for its joy and pride in the first homeland it's persecuted people have had for 2,000 years, and for stressing the teaching of a culture and literature that other countries in which Jews lived, did not allow. On the other hand, Nationalism in Black Africa. South East Asia etc. is vigorously supported. Curiously too. Israel's critics seem unconcerned by such examples of Arab intolerance as the carving of 'Jew' arrow the stomach and arms of an American student at Beirut University because she had visited Israel (recently reported in the 'Evening Post'). One's mind boggles at the likely every-day treatment of Jews by the ordinary uneducated people in Arab countries, whether such Jews can worship peacefully, (let alone live safely) or have Jewish culture taught in schools. But, of course, such countries have, in the main, closed Feudal systems, that one would have been excused for thinking were anathema to the Left!

The land Israel was established upon was, in the main swamp and desert, and it was the early Jewish settlers who lost their lives from the various associated diseases, in the draining and reclamation of such land. In all the 2,000 years before this land was brought to its present abundantly productive state, the Arabs who cry dispossession, seem to have made little impression upon this liny territory that one need spectacles to find amid the millions of square miles of Arab lands. It is interesting too, that the Arab leaders who profess such concern for the 'Palestinians', had plenty of time before 1967 (at which time the Israelis were uncompromising enough not to be driven into the sea) to use such territory, since occupied, to establish the Palestinian state they now find such an important precondition of a peace settlement.

Curiously, in all the vast lands of the Middle-East, with all its varying cultures, the Arabs can feel at home only in the orange groves of Jaffa.

Israel's 'intransigence', its 'Masada complex' (or whatever such criticism is levelled at it), the very fact it must live a seige-like existence in respect of the Arabs within its cities and boundaries is, I suggest, merely an inevitable result of a situation where, hours only after its establishment as a State by the United Nations, the Arabs began their policy of belligerancy, and continued and accompanied it with calls to the effect that the only concessions, on any question, be made by Israel alone.

Why should it be that the Jews who were persecuted in the anti-semitic programs in Russia or Poland, or who somehow survived Hitler's 'solution' to the Jewish 'problem', must now see the State of Israel and its citizens looked upon as yet another 'Jewish problem'? to be solved in another 'interesting way'?

Why should the rights of every other Peoples in the world be sacrosanct, save those of the Jews?

Henderson Replies

I am astonished and to-some degree upset by the recent flood of mail into the Salient letterbox complaining about the articles which have been appearing under my name in the Salients of late. These letters attack me for 1) Frivolity 2) Egotism 3) Banality and 4) My generally unrespectable appearance, I would like to handle these in reverse order.

And in conclusion, I would like to say two things. First, I am no longer writing my exec. reports. I will recommence this 'service to students' if and when I get a directive or a request from said students asking me to do this. Secondly, would you please redirect your efforts from attacking me to attacking the state of the catering services. It is a much more worthy cause.

More Shit to Stir

Much as I dislike dragging on this sort of correspondence, I feel obliged to reply to your tirade, in Salient June 12. You accuse me of being 'much less than honest' in outlining your reasons for rejecting my report. Might I suggest, that you are are equally dishonest, specifically in your distortion of the very tone and content of my report.

Your repeated reference to 'factual inaccuracies' in my report is poritively laughable when one considers the numerous 'factual innacuracies' inherent in your reply and the report that was subsequently published and for that matter, the numerous other articles published in Salient.

Just for laughs, might I quote you from one of your earlier replies to a letter in Salient:

'how does Brent Ellis know that I consign to the dustbin anything I feel doesn't come up to my personal standards? Have I ever stated that to be my policy? (Sic) In fact I have printed articles of quite varying standards in Salient this year because I believe that students should feel free to write what they like for Salient without fear of an editorial sledgehammer.'

I am again reminded of the old fable of 'Alice in Wonderland'...

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is, 'said Humpty Dumpty. 'which is to be master—that's all.'

Whatever Happened to the Capping Ball?

Just a quick not to tell you that we thought the capping ball was a bit hopeless.

On the whole, it could have been a whole lot better on the whole.

Was this the capping ball, or was this Saturday night at the Lion Tavern?

Henderson Defended

If the lazy slobs who wrote criticizing Henderson would turn up at Salient once in a while they 'd find out why his name appears so frequently. It's an accurate reflection of the amount of work he does. Since the pay isn't quite up to paper-boy levels it isn't actually for the loot either. If J.T. Minge had bothered to read the Salient notes in June 5th more closely, he'd have noticed thay they were co-written by me—and the literary gem he quotes ('masturbation is perfectly normal ...') was mine. The intention was a satirical comment on the Wall Amendment, with reference to the fact that masturbation is a crime punishable by (in one case) twelve years! imprisonment in certain US states. I regret that my adolescent psychology should present such interpretative problems for Mr. Minge. Also, does Jan Lacki only take seriously those whose dress and hairstyle conform to certain standards? My, my, where were you in '62? Why the hell should people have to write things in a serious vein all the time? Buggered if I will. Henderson's raves were frequently the only interesting thing in a whole turgid self-righteous issue of Salient. Confucius say he who takes life seriously have fucked head. Not that laughing cures fucked head but it doesn't ache so much.

The Aristocrat

it's part of the English genius and has a marked affinity with the excess of Victorian romanticism. If not on the page then certainly on record.'

Well, say no more!! Pseudo apoceraphile muck like the above is its own worst enemy.

Anyway what I wanted to say is this: as the English genius I completely dissociate myself from Mr. Brown's lyrics (which are wretched if they are lyrics at all) and Mr, King's peculiar assertions about their relation to me. I would not be seen dead. Yours 'til your critique masters the queen's English.

Watch That Waste Paper

The readers of 'Salient' newspaper should take more care about what they do with their newspaper when they've finished with it. Large numbers of this newspaper are, for example, left lying on the tables of the bottom and third floor cafeterias. This creates a disposal problem for other people, (namely cafeteria staff) which is really unnecessary. The more considerate action would be to take the paper home or put it back on the pile or stuff it in the rubbish bins. (This wastepaper is really only a smaller section of a much larger problem of badly disposed off used articles i.e. drink containers, paper bags, etc. and the solution is similar—throw it in a rubbish bin.) Ecologically it would be better to recycle as many of these materials as possible and at present only one location is known for collection of waste paper—the Kelburn Primary School Collects Waste Paper.

Going Against The Grain

It would appear that some of my comments recently have upset the Puketitri Playboy. Why else would rationale desert his ... arguments, (for want of a better word) with a result that is even more haphazard than John Henderson.

In the first place, the University does not teach that to question and to criticize is to become disillusioned, that is a product of SRC. Whose 'status quo' Mr. Paul D. Swain is talking about in his letter, is something only he can explain. But if it is his, I can assure him there is no security in it for me.

Secondly, the principle 'if you're not for it, you're against it' is that propounded by Mr. Tony Ward and Pat Martin (with regard to whether or not SRC should support the PRG) I applied it merely to point out its idiocy. It certainly is not a rational argument, it certainly is not a 'Right-Wing' principle (unless Messers. Ward and Martin call themselves right wing, in which case there would be a large swing on my part), and it should not be used at SRC to bully people into supporting something they do not.

His comment that the breweries make a profit each year seems rather irrelevant to whether or not he agrees with me. The Catholic Church makes an even bigger profit than the Breweries, but that too is irrelevant. (Though conveniently ignored by the NCL). Mr. Swain claims that 'the left have won by default and consequently SRC's are boring. True, they are boring, but in fact, the left Lost by default. He makes several condescending comments about 'come on stand up and give us a bit of opposition'. Something like 'Stand up Nigger, we want to kick ya in the balls again,' Well just watch out, some Niggers kick back.

Most 'left wingers' seem to have a preoccupation with revolution. They seem to think that one day they'll raise up the red flag and everyone will rally round, and united as one, they will storm the bastions of everything that is evil (i.e. Right). This myth is something which perpetrates the University and more particularly SRC, from top to bottom. If this 'Revolution' is ever to take place here, it will be as a reaction against the left, not with it. Students are getting sicker and sicker of hearing the same liberal bullshit at SRC, spouted by the same liberal bullshitters.

'What are you going to do about it?', I hear you cry already. 'Come on take a stand.' Lets look and see the stands that have been taken so far. The famous Feslier drinking-horn motion. As Kevin Wright said 'people (Joe Average-Student) are prepapred to act when Repressive millions not within their interests are put forward.' A minor triumph. David Newton said exactly what he thought about the political profiteering at SRC. A few heads nodded, a few listened, wondering who he was talking about ('not us' thinks the liberal-left.) And to show there was genuine concern for what he had said, he was presented with a chocolate fish.

If you think for a moment you have student support, you're wrong. If you think for a moment that you can win that support you're wrong. If you think that anyone is going to stick his or her neck out to give you the 'soul' pleasure of chopping it off you're wrong. And if you think things are going to stay this way for very much longer, you're even wronger.

Is Values Socialist?

Your correspendent 'Values Voter' criticises the Young Socialists for 'compromising' ourselves by calling for the return of a Labour Government. Instead we should vote for Values, who 'stand out as a humanitarian party firmly based upon Socialist principles.'

But is Values socialist? Cathy Wilson, Deputy Leader of the party, claimed in a letter to the Young Socialists that they are 'fundamentally opposed to capitalism.' However, Values does not even begin to seriously analyse capitalist society. The outline in their 'Why Join the Values Party' leaflet how 'we're polluting the environment ... We're turning people into 'production' work slaves'—how 'we' are causing all sorts of problems. But who is it that are creating these problems? The Young Socialists say that the problems are not caused by the majority of New Zealanders, but by the small minority who make profits out of the exploitation of others. It is not the working people who make themselves into 'production' work slaves. It is the businessman thirsting after bigger profits—and these are the same people who make the real decisions in out society.

Because they do not see that capitalist society is run by and for a small wealthy minority, Values will never have a strategy than can challenge that minority. They will remain in the blind alley of policies of 'zero population growth' and 'zero economic growth', which shift the blame for this society's problems from its rulers to its masses of victims. We need to create a society organised rationally to provide for everyone—not make further calls for the working people to tighten their belts to solve the problems that capitalism has created.

As 'Values Voter' points out, the Young Socialists are severely critical of the Labour Government. We have see for three years the Labour Government trampling on the rights of working people, Maoris and other Polynesians, women, and young people. Pensioners, dental nurses, student teachers, university students, Maoris, unionists, women, and gay people have all been forced to organise to defend their rights, demand changes. What sort of alternative does Values offer these people: a muddled series of reforms with no clear strategy for achieving them.

The Young Socialists in contrast see the only solution is to transform this society into a socialist one. There is only one way to achieve this—through the majority of working people and other oppressed sectors of our society organising independently of big business, and making fundamental changes.

The Labour Party was originally formed as the political arm of such a movement of working people. Despite its present rotten leadership it still remains the party of the unions, retaining the support of the overwhelming majority of workers and underprivileged people. Therefore we call for the return of Labour to office, but at the same time we challenge the Labour leaders to respond to the demands of the working people—the people who vote for them—and to abolish the power and influence of bib business.

The Young Socialists will be running a vigorous campaign in this year's elections. We are supporting the candidates—in Wellington, Kay Goodger is running in Island Bay and Russell Johnson in Petone.

Our campaign will represent the people who voted for Labour in 1972, but who feel betrayed by its performance. Values can offer these people no real alternative, as they have no strategy or programme for the fundamental changes that this society needs.

A Supporter of Dr. Wall

As a member of the Students' Association I would like to condemn the Vice-President's remarks about the recent Hospitals Amendment Act, and similar remarks made by Anthony Ward in an article in 'Salient' of May 29th.

Every unborn child is a separate human life (since both its parents are human), with its own body, and genetic and other characteristics. As medical knowledge of the unborn child advances, its own individuality as a human being at a particular stage of maturity is increasingly realised. It is a pity that so many people are prepared to measure the value of the lives of these children more and more in terms of how convenient it is for the children's mothers, or society, to have them.

If the purpose of society is to provide support to and acceptance of each of its members as having individual human worth, that is, to exist for man's benefit, then it has no right to impose criteria for the right to be provided with these things. Any critieria which decided which children were to be born and which were to be disposed of would be denying human beings their worth, and would thereby make society defeat its own purpose by becoming repressive. Instead of society existing for mankind, mankind would exist for the sake of society.

The fact that a child is unwanted is a reflection on the community, not the child. If the community is so irresponsible as not to want certain children, it certainly does not help to give it the arbitrary power of child destruction. One act of irresponsibility does not justify another. Even if the child is severely handicapped, society would be failing in its duty if it did not accept and support him for what he is.

For these reasons, I very strongly oppose abortion except when it is necessary to preserve the mother's life. In this case it is simply the child's right to life as against the mother's.

An abortion is justified legally only if it is done in good faith to preserve the mother's life. Dr. Wall's Bill restricts the performance of such abortions to public, or to approved private, hospitals. Since I agree with the present legal grounds for abortion, and no others, and since justified abortions would be so very few that the public and private hospitals could easily cope with them, and since the effect of the Bill is to make illegal abortions more difficult without restricting legal ones, I support the Bill. John Blincoe claims that the Remuera Clinic provided a relatively cheap service, but a public hospital should be able to do the same, since it provides a free service. Anthony Ward claims that the Bill's primary motive is to close the Remuera Clinic, but even if this were so, that would not make the Bill wrong. If it is right in prohibiting abortions in clinics other than hospitals, it is also right in closing the Remuera Clinic.

The other major objection to the Bill was that it would force some women to go to Australia, and others to back street abortionists, to get an abortion. If any abortion were justified, it could be performed cheaply in a public hospital. If it were not, then it should not be performed anyway. The fact that women are prepared to use desperate means, or to spend a lot of money, to break the law is no reason why the law should be changed to accommodate the actions of criminals. It may well mean that the law should be enforced more rigorously.

A similarity was also drawn between Dr. Wall's Bill and a Bill of Attainder. Dr. Wall's Bill basically makes it more difficult to break the existing law, which is far different from the purpose of a Bill of Attainder.

'Shocked'

I was shocked by a recent press statement released by one of your students association's affiliated clubs. The Shite Sports Coat and Pink Carnation Society stated, and I quote: 'It is ridiculous to treat Blacks as equal because if it wasn't for the influence of White People, they would still be throwing spears.' I know now for sure that they are really basically racists at heart. No-one in any organisation would ever come [unclear: ou with] such a ridiculous statement unless they were actually brought up to think that way by their forefathers in the organisation. Most people in such an organisation learn not to say things like that in public because they know it would be detrimental to their cause. But ocassionally one member of their ranks will get through unnoticed and say what they actually believe and what ideas actually lie behind their organisation.

No organisation is a good enough socialisation agent to be an absolutely successful deceiver.

I object to Ken Comber's ludicrous advertisement that appears with monotonous offensiveness in Salient. A six-year old could pick the grammatical error in Comber's invocation but still he's a drop-out student who never made a graduation ceremony. One thing I do like is the elegant snail that crept around the corners of his box (June 4). It's symptomatic of just about everything his party stands for. Still, it's an improvement. I never did like the pig.

A Reply

While reading last week's Salient letters I noticed one Ms (or Mr.) Jan Lacki's destructive criticism of John Henderson.

I agree that it's been nice in the past to see Vic's aspiring critics demonstrating enough interest in the magazine to voice their opinions of its format, etc. but I am disappointed at the total lack of feeling some correspondents demonstrate when they not only criticise other writers, but seem determined to publicly rub somebody's face in the dirt without offering a constructive alternative.

At the risk of appearing rude, what the hell do you—Jan Lacki—hope to achieve through your mindless attack on John Henderson? If you really disagree, or are embarrassed by what he writes, why don't you come into the Salient office and volunteer to write the staff notes, Exec, reports, etc? Of course, one word of warning—you will find that very few people will read these reports unless you make them interesting and/or witty because they are otherwise horribly boring. (But judging from your keen sense of humour you may do very well). Another thing to remember is the time you must spend attending these meetings and forums taking notes and observing the people there, so you can later construct your witticisms.

While you apparently take enough interest in John to read and analyse what he writes, you seem annoyed that his name appears in the magazine. I personally think that the writers of Salient's articles should be acknowledged for their efforts—but you evidently disagree. Of course, if you join the staff and write something on a regular basis, you should have the satisfaction of seeing his name replaced by your own at least once per issue.

Any further criticism of Salient's content is, I feel, unwarranted unless the critics bother to help with the work of writing it, because if the present few workers gave up and left, Salient would cease.

People

In response to Mr. Robson's plea for more participation, I submit the following, as an exstudent who has finally reached the point of no return.

Have you ever seen a cat spread out and squashed flat, with road visible where its rib-cage was? It was obviously hit by something fast and heavy because it's spreadeagled and there's a pool of glistening red liquid about the same diameter as the span of the legs, spread of bone glinting in the moonlight.

What about all the squashed hedgehogs, birds, dogs, possums, pets, little shapes of feathers, fur or needles, thrashing and flopping their lives away in agony. Those that get hit directly are the exception rather than the rule. Or perhaps you'd prefer a Flake—that girl really gets it on!

The world is literally running out of phosphate, the stuff is mined as a relatively insoluble material, treated with sulphuric acid to make it more water-soluble, then dumped on the land to dissolve in runoff and groundwater, collecting in places like Lake Tutira where it causes the suffocation of sub-aquatic life, through over nourishment of the plants and algae.

Meanwhile, I understand that the Japanese are set on harvesting plankton from the sea, using modified whaling vessels.

When you consider that plankton recycle something like 70% of the oxygen in the atmosphere, as well as oxygenating the oceans, remembering that the plankton float and drift, they don't swim, they can't escape from a trawled seive, they are easily 'fished out'.

Fish the plankton out of the oceans, you drown the fish, and you raise the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere, creating a 'greenhouse effect', melting a few polar icecaps a bit more and drowning a few cities as well.

If we quadrupled the present rate of world fuel consumption, and burnt all the plants for fuel as well, there would still be enough oxygen in the atmosphere to last us another 125,000 years or so (that's 3,750 generations peoplewise).

Our present rate of world consumption of fuel furnishes us with approximately 15,000 Gigacalories (1 Gcal. = 1000 million calories) per day, about half of which is wasted as heat before it's even put to work. The sun furnishes earth with approximately 2000 million Gigacalories daily.

There are companies who spend more on advertising than on protecting the environment, than on cleaning up their own discharges. A company which has an economic monopoly on a commodity is under little or no social pressure to change its processing methods—financial penalties for pollution are easily passed onto the consumer as increased costs

There are people in this society who claim to represent groups of peoples' interests, using arguements on behalf of the group, without having the facts to found the argument ( including the fact of representation.)

With our present information gap between those who are older or more experienced, and those who hold positions of control in society, I have no doubt that within a generation or two, the transfer of common sense skills from one generation to another, will, to all practical purposes, cease.

As the experienced people die or forget, the knowledge gets buried until destroyed or rediscovered by inspiration or an 'act of genius'. Those who are left capable, find more and more people demanding more and more of their time, at the mercy of those who own the resources, they work themselves to death through idealism, or sell out, or they become hermits.

Anyway, they don't pass on the information that will enable their children to stay alive in a material world, they prefer to let someone assumedly more qualified do that, and from my experience of student teachers, and knowledge of the number of teachers that a class goes through in a year, coupled with a bit of observation, I would conclude that it is easier to manipulate a class of pupils through a school that it is to gain their respect and trust by demonstrating facts reasonably and knowledgeably.

The teachers, at the moment, are the instruments by which knowledge is directed towards those who, at present in economic authority, also strongly influence the means by which information is disseminated to the public and thus concentrate knowledge and power in the hands of a chosen few. The fact that some people have woken up to this is evidenced by the attacks on centres of learning in the form of arson, sabotage of instruments and equipment, disturbances at school and university functions and vandalism to education department property.

I think that the spectacular dawns and sunsets we've been having recently are caused by pollution from the burning of too much fuel for not enough work, too much waste.

I have patented a machine for converting waste plastic to non-polluting fuel, flux and organic raw materials for reprocessing, I have almost finished developing a process for using sun and windpower to convert carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into acetylene.

I am thinking about a process to extract phosphate from runoff, using sun and/or wind power to reconvert it into a form suitable for use as an economical fertiliser.

Unless persuaded otherwise, I intend to form a company and make these and other ideas viable commercially, it takes two people ple to sign the articles of association. The other signatory will be female.

I would be interested to see what other people are doing environment wise.