The Second US Presidential Debate.

I am well aware that the US Presidential election is now over. However this is something that I've been meaning to tidy up for a while.

I think the second US Presidential debate held on October 9th (9/10/16) really summed up not only how utterly detached from reality that the Hillary Clinton campaign was but also the extent to which the entire system - including the supposedly independent debate commission - was in favour of Hillary Clinton.

The Clinton campaign's big play for ahead of that second debate was the release of the Billy Bush tapes on October 7th (7/10/16). The intention being to portray Donald Trump as some sort of sexual predator. Despite the fact Trump pretty much blew that out of the water by inviting just a handful of women Bill Clinton has sexually assaulted over the years to the debate everyone just snapped straight back to the Clinton narrative.

Well everyone except the leader of Britain's purple themed UK Independence Party (UKIP) Nigel Farage who likened Donald Trump's performance to that of a glorious Silverbacked Gorilla. 

The following day there were numerous social media memes - which the traditional media were more than happy to report on - claiming that Trump had been stalking Hillary Clinton around the stage invading her personal space like some sort of sexual predator. The fact is that like so much else of Clinton's campaign this simply wasn't true.

The debate was in the Town Hall format. This meant that on stage right you had a podium and chair that had been assigned as Donald Trump's area. On stage left you had another podium and chair which had been assigned as Hillary Clinton's area. You then had members of the public who'd been chosen to ask questions sitting to both the left and right of the stage. In front of them all you had the moderators who were asking questions that had supposedly been sent in by members of the public via social media.

Whenever a question was asked by someone on stage right or by the moderators Hillary Clinton would immediately walk over to the right of the stage. She would then stand right in front of Donald Trump's assigned - let's go with; "Enclosure."

So it wasn't a case of Donald Trump invading Hillary Clinton's personal space throughout the debate. It was actually Hillary Clinton who was invading Trump's personal space.

However the hope was clearly that because Donald Trump is of slightly above average height while Hillary Clinton is of slightly below average height viewers wouldn't pick up on this and he would be percieved as the aggressor.

The questions seem to have been arranged in order to aid the Clinton campaign in this aim. There were four in total from audience members on both stage left and stage right.

The first question came from stage left while the next four questions came from stage right. The remaining three questions from stage left came in quick succession in a ten minute period right at the end. As a result a huge majority of the debate was spent dealing with questions from stage right and the moderators.

I actually have a degree of experience with exactly this type of snidey behaviour.

Back in 2007 I was volunteering for a charity that was partnered with the local council to help rehabilitate people with mental health problems.

During my time there a new member of staff joined who seemed to take an instant dislike to me. This lesbian wasted no time in telling anyone who would listen that I was homophobic and that I was bullying her. If she'd made an official complaint it would have triggered a formal disciplinary process to which I would have been allowed to bring an advocate.

The advocate I would have chosen would have been my lesbian mother who at the time also happened to be a government lawyer who helped draft the relevant piece of legislation.

Despite not realising that she was setting herself up for possibly the shortest disciplinary hearing in history this co-worker never did make a formal complaint. That was largely because the only piece of my supposedly intimidating and bullying behaviour she could point to as evidence was the fact that I'm quite tall. That is obviously no more my fault than her sexuality is hers.

So in the end I quit. After all that's not how you behave towards people who are trying to do you a favour.

This all happened about six months before the 2008 financial crash which was rather like Britain's 9/11. Not only did I know that was coming it actually factored into my decision making.

Nearly ten years later there are still some people utterly convinced that they are brilliant at this sort of thing while I am completely useless. Therefore I must allow them to 'help' me be rehabilitated by working at a minimum wage job in a supermarket where one day I may be promoted to work on the check-out.

One area that really helps to highlight the folly of that point of view is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Of the six Conferences of Parties (COP's) that occurred between 2010 and 2016 I found myself in Court for four of them. These were primarily to argue civil cases over said council's treatment of my grandmother. She actually died during the 2012 COP16 which was somewhat stressful.

One of the things that was achieved during those years was the formation of the Green Climate Fund (GCF). This is essentially a bank to fund efforts to combat climate change. The GCF's headquarters in South Korea was actually opened on my grandmother's birthday the following year.

The current COP22 opened in Morocco on Monday (7/11/16). The week before the so-called Paris Agreement which was reached at last year's COP21 came into force. However it will not actually take effect until 2020.

As a result COP22 seems to be being largely used to talk about other things. Particularly by people who are trying to hide their hope that President-elect Donald Trump will follow through on his promise to sign an executive order to scrap what has become known as; "The 12/12 Atrocity." It is only then that we can re-start work on something that will actually combat climate change.

The Closing Ceremony of the 2016 Olympic Games held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil featured a segment set in a vegetable garden. This was intended to mock current US First Lady Michelle Obama and her efforts to get children to eat more vegetables. Specifically the sarcastic #ThanksMichelle hashtag used by students to protest their new 'healthy' school meals.

However with the games being held in Rio - the birthplace of the UNFCCC - the issue of climate change also featured heavily.

This is particularly true of the very dry Opening Ceremony. This made frequent reference to the Brutalist school or urban design which grew from the Modernist school that was in part founded by very famous Brazilian architect Oscar Niemeyer.

Essentially the Brutalist school pioneered the idea of dormitory cities. These are small cities designed just to house workers who travel to near-by economic cities.

From a climate change perspective these are a horrible idea because even if you are using public transport the further people have to travel to and from work the more greenhouse gas emissions you get and by extension more climate change.

Brutalist urban design is also extremely problematic for that hard to define concept of "Social Cohesion." Essentially with the dormitory cities being deserted during the day and the economic city being deserted at night there is no sense of community or togetherness in either.

Brazil obviously has many examples of Brutalist design. However a particularly good example within the UK is the London borough of Croydon. Essentially it was designed in the 1960's to act as a dormitory city for central London. It is also where I spent a year studying urban design and geography.

To combat the social cohesion problem Croydon has built a Tram system running from residential areas in the east and west into the town centre. The idea being to give the town centre a bit of life during the day while most residents are working in central London to the north.

The year I spent studying in Croydon was also the year between construction on the Tram system being completed and it finally getting a safety certificate to carry passengers.

If you look on a map you will see that the main offices for the Tram system - "Tramlink" as it's officially known - are literally right between Croydon College and the offices of Croydon planning department. As a result the amount of information I have forgotten about Croydon's Tram system is mind boggling.

However I seem to remember that the original safety problem was that drivers unfamiliar with Trams kept driving their cars into the side of them not realising that things on rails can't swerve out of the way.

On Wednesday (9/11/16) Croydon's Tram system suffered its first major accident when one derailed killing 7 and injuring a further 50 passengers. Although the cause of the crash is still under investigation speed is believed to be a major factor. So the discussion is essentially;

"Was the driver going to fast? Or; Is the track just too damn slow?"

Then of course there is the issue of the Notting Hill Housing Trust (NHHT) Housing Association who I consider to be responsible for the murder of my grandmother.

The Conservative MP for Croydon Central - Gavin Barwell - who has appeared on TV screens across the globe as a result of the crash is also the Minister of State for Housing and Planning. He like the rest of the Conservative government was elected in 2015 on a manifesto promise to abolish housing associations exactly like the NHHT.

As a result it also seems to serve as a warning from upon high that certain people shouldn't be at all confident in their current point of view.

Of course in the sending of that message four - and I think is likely to be confirmed - seven wholly innocent people have been killed.

Surely it would have been easier just to kill the people who - in my opinion at least - completely deserve it.

15:25 on 11/11/16 (UK date).