Samantha Grixti, a teacher, has been sentenced to 180 hours of forced labour (aka community service) after being convicted of kissing a 16 year old pupil.
As I have said before, it may be unprofessional to have relationships with pupils, but it is not a matter for the law. At 16 people are over the age of consent, and free to embark on sexual relationships with anyone else over 16. It is perverse to make it a criminal offence for others to have relationships with them.
All the more so when the state is happy to support widespread promiscuity among the under 16s, offering confidential contraceptive and abortion services, often in defiance of parental wishes, and seeks to encourage unconventional relationships, for example through 'gay marriage'.
December 15, 2005
November 09, 2005
Why Protect Red Squirrels?
The Telegraph reports that grey squirrels are to be 'excluded' from red squirrel areas in England on pain of death.
There is an evolutionary struggle going on and the red squirrels appear to be losing out to the greys, which was introduced (by man, of course) from America.
Why should we intervene in this struggle? There is no malice between squirrels. There are no 'good' or 'bad' squirrels, there are just little creatures struggling (as we all do) to survive.
If the greys are spreading at the expense of the reds, it is because in evolutionary terms, they are the fittest to survive - the fittest for the environment in which they live.
For man to take sides is ridiculous.
In fact it is worse than ridiculous. It is not clear that more red squirrels will have suffered short lives then would have been the case without the grey, because there are always factors at work limiting a species' population size.
But if we have in some sense caused red squirrels to suffer by introducing the grey, it simply compounds our failing to cull greys. Unless we exterminate the greys entirely there will never be an end to the slaughter. So to assuage our collective guilt over the change in squirrel populations we embark on an endless campaign to inflict suffering on grey squirrels.
Who are we to say one little animal is worth more than another little animal, especially when the difference between them is that one is red and the other is grey?
There is an evolutionary struggle going on and the red squirrels appear to be losing out to the greys, which was introduced (by man, of course) from America.
Why should we intervene in this struggle? There is no malice between squirrels. There are no 'good' or 'bad' squirrels, there are just little creatures struggling (as we all do) to survive.
If the greys are spreading at the expense of the reds, it is because in evolutionary terms, they are the fittest to survive - the fittest for the environment in which they live.
For man to take sides is ridiculous.
In fact it is worse than ridiculous. It is not clear that more red squirrels will have suffered short lives then would have been the case without the grey, because there are always factors at work limiting a species' population size.
But if we have in some sense caused red squirrels to suffer by introducing the grey, it simply compounds our failing to cull greys. Unless we exterminate the greys entirely there will never be an end to the slaughter. So to assuage our collective guilt over the change in squirrel populations we embark on an endless campaign to inflict suffering on grey squirrels.
Who are we to say one little animal is worth more than another little animal, especially when the difference between them is that one is red and the other is grey?
October 21, 2005
Another Teacher Pupil Love Case
Shelley White, a 24 year old geography teacher, has been convicted of 'abuse of trust' by having sexual activity with a child, a 15 year old boy. The 'sexual activity' was kissing (or 'snogging' as the Telegraph puts it).
It may not be desirable conduct in a teacher, but it is not something that warrants a conviction. The difference in age was not so great, and the acts were consensual, and in any case fell well short of intercourse.
A matter of school discipline perhaps, but not the criminal law.
The jury probably thought so too, because it was a 10 - 2 majority conviction. In the old days that would have meant an acquittal, and should have done so yesterday.
Instead, another life ruined.
It may not be desirable conduct in a teacher, but it is not something that warrants a conviction. The difference in age was not so great, and the acts were consensual, and in any case fell well short of intercourse.
A matter of school discipline perhaps, but not the criminal law.
The jury probably thought so too, because it was a 10 - 2 majority conviction. In the old days that would have meant an acquittal, and should have done so yesterday.
Instead, another life ruined.
Government Planned Population Explosion
Official forecasts from the ONS suggest the UK's population will grow from 60 million now to 67 million in 2031. Much of the increase will be in south east England.
The growth results from greatly increased immigration - net migration into the UK last year was 223,000, against 50,000 a year in 1997. The new forecasts are greater than Migrationwatch has put out, when it has been called 'alarmist'.
So will those who have been encouraging this massive wave of immigration free up the planning system so people can live decently and affordably in southern England? Or will the government inspired rabbit hutches continue to proliferate, for those that can afford them, and we come to live in ever closer proximity to each other as more spacious houses are demolished to accommodate increasingly cramped ones, and traditional gardens disappear?
Oh, and by the way, when did the English ever ask for so many new neighbours?
The growth results from greatly increased immigration - net migration into the UK last year was 223,000, against 50,000 a year in 1997. The new forecasts are greater than Migrationwatch has put out, when it has been called 'alarmist'.
So will those who have been encouraging this massive wave of immigration free up the planning system so people can live decently and affordably in southern England? Or will the government inspired rabbit hutches continue to proliferate, for those that can afford them, and we come to live in ever closer proximity to each other as more spacious houses are demolished to accommodate increasingly cramped ones, and traditional gardens disappear?
Oh, and by the way, when did the English ever ask for so many new neighbours?
October 14, 2005
Has it ever been alive, European Democracy?
The EU cannot undo its lack of democracy by setting up national debates with students, young people, politicians, trades unions, academics and business groups as reported by the Telegraph. The problem is there is no EU demos - people's political activity, awareness, and allegiance is at the level of individual nation states. Democracy exists only within the nation state, not the EU, its antithesis.
Margot Wallstrom, the European Commission's vice-president for communication asks, "Has it ever been alive, European democracy?"
She should know when she says, "This [the EU] has been a project for a small elite, a political elite ..."
If the EU were a democracy there would not be a series of European Commission inspired 'debates' with a few groups, but elections where the electorate were regularly offered the power of decision at EU level. Yet not only are there no such elections, and the EU is ruled by an unaccountable, unelected, self-perpetuating elite, but EU political supremacy is not even wanted: in Britain at least, people want their nation state to continue and do not want to be subject to foreign control.
Parliament, wake up!
Margot Wallstrom, the European Commission's vice-president for communication asks, "Has it ever been alive, European democracy?"
She should know when she says, "This [the EU] has been a project for a small elite, a political elite ..."
If the EU were a democracy there would not be a series of European Commission inspired 'debates' with a few groups, but elections where the electorate were regularly offered the power of decision at EU level. Yet not only are there no such elections, and the EU is ruled by an unaccountable, unelected, self-perpetuating elite, but EU political supremacy is not even wanted: in Britain at least, people want their nation state to continue and do not want to be subject to foreign control.
Parliament, wake up!
October 06, 2005
The Craven Broadcaster
John Humphrys, the BBC Today presenter got a dressing down from his bosses last month for remarks which made fun of some Labour politicians.
But the Telegraph today reports that:
If it isn't true, it is a good reason to abolish the 'licence fee' and let the BBC find its own way in the world, because the idea that the BBC is in thrall to the politicians is all too believable.
But the Telegraph today reports that:
BBC chiefs wanted to sack the Today presenter John Humphrys over jibes he made about Labour leaders in an after-dinner speech ...If true, it is a good reason to abolish the 'licence fee' and let the BBC find its own way in the world, truly independent of any government.
... According to John Kampfner, the New Statesman's editor and a former BBC journalist, Mr Grade [the BBC chairman] was intent on making an example of Humphrys to placate the Government at a time when it is reviewing the corporation's charter. He said Mr Grade also saw the Humphrys issue as an opportunity to prove to politicians that the corporation's new governance system is effective.
If it isn't true, it is a good reason to abolish the 'licence fee' and let the BBC find its own way in the world, because the idea that the BBC is in thrall to the politicians is all too believable.
October 04, 2005
Being English Now Banned
On the same day I learn from Mark Steyn about a Tory council banning all pig related items, including an employee's box of Winnie the Pooh and Piglet tissues, due to Muslim sensitivities - and a so-called wish for 'tolerance', I now discover the Chief Inspector of Prisons, Ann Owers has been at it too:
To have pride and respect for our past, and support the ancient institutions that have grown out of it in the face of a new intolerance is to stand firm for our country's freedom and future. The tail cannot wag the dog. Down with PC prats and religious bigots.
It's nearly enough to start me eating meat again - pork, that is.
A section on race relations in Owers' report [on Wakefield prison] said: "We were concerned to see a number of staff wearing a flag of St. George tie-pin.CNN goes on to report:
Chris Doyle, director of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, said Tuesday the red cross was an insensitive reminder of the Crusades.I say wave the flag, sing the national anthem, march on St George's Day, and let's see who our friends are!
"A lot of Muslims and Arabs view the Crusades as a bloody episode in our history," he told CNN. "They see those campaigns as Christendom launching a brutal holy war against Islam.
"Muslim or Arab prisoners could take umbrage if staff wore a red cross badge. It's also got associations with the far-right. Prison officers should be seen to be neutral."
Doyle added that it was now time for England to find a new flag and a patron saint who is "not associated with our bloody past and one we can all identify with."
To have pride and respect for our past, and support the ancient institutions that have grown out of it in the face of a new intolerance is to stand firm for our country's freedom and future. The tail cannot wag the dog. Down with PC prats and religious bigots.
It's nearly enough to start me eating meat again - pork, that is.
Dogs' Dinners
Jamie Oliver exposed the dire state of Britain's school dinners on TV.
The government commissioned a report which says:
Very good. But would school meals have got so bad if schools were not controlled by the state, and obliged to direct their attention and resources to satisfying the bureaucracy and politicians rather than children and parents?
Having spent "more than two decades" making a dog's dinner of school meals, the government still thinks it knows best, showing no respect for the freedom of parents to determine what their children may eat. According to the Telegraph:
The government commissioned a report which says:
The state of many school meals is an indictment of more than two decades of public policy which has in effect stripped nutrients off plates, removed skills from kitchen staff and seen the take-up of school meals drop precipitously.So, caught out, the government intends to enforce nutritional standards and on-site cooking (even though it will mean building kitchens for many schools - another one-size-fits-all approach), while banning many 'junk' foods.
Very good. But would school meals have got so bad if schools were not controlled by the state, and obliged to direct their attention and resources to satisfying the bureaucracy and politicians rather than children and parents?
Having spent "more than two decades" making a dog's dinner of school meals, the government still thinks it knows best, showing no respect for the freedom of parents to determine what their children may eat. According to the Telegraph:
At first, the standards will cover only the provision of food. By 2011, however, they could be applied to its consumption, which would involve restricting the food children were allowed to bring into school.Government conceit joined by the heavy hand of an obese state.
September 30, 2005
History as Propaganda
On his blog, James Bartholomew describes a visit to St Pauls - a leading boys' independent school in London.
The sixth form boys had very little idea of the reality of life before today's welfare state, greatly underrating health and education provision in the past, and with little conception of past generations' independence, a partial view fed by their highly left-wing teachers.
As Bartholomew says, if it is like this even in private schools, what sort of message is being promoted in state secondary schools?
No wonder people find it so hard to consider moving beyond the welfare state.
The sixth form boys had very little idea of the reality of life before today's welfare state, greatly underrating health and education provision in the past, and with little conception of past generations' independence, a partial view fed by their highly left-wing teachers.
As Bartholomew says, if it is like this even in private schools, what sort of message is being promoted in state secondary schools?
No wonder people find it so hard to consider moving beyond the welfare state.
September 29, 2005
Abuse of Terror Act
An 82 year old man, Walter Wolfgang, a refugee from Nazi Germany and a Labour Party member since 1948, was yesterday ejected from the Labour party conference for heckling. According to the Telegraph:
And if the Sussex police denial was made knowing its falsity, an example of self-serving lack of integrity.
When he tried to re-enter the secure zone, he was stopped by a police officer citing the Terrorism Act.Another example of a law passed for one purpose but used for another - moral: never trust the state.
... At first Sussex police denied that Mr Wolfgang had been detained or searched but a spokesman later admitted that he had been issued with a section 44 stop and search form under the Terrorism Act.
And if the Sussex police denial was made knowing its falsity, an example of self-serving lack of integrity.
September 28, 2005
Blair U-Turn on Kyoto?
Those of us who failed to pick up the great scoop from James Pinkerton at Tech Central Station on 15th September 2005 are only now learning from the MSM of Blair's change on Kyoto. The Sunday Times reports Blair saying:
As I've said before, and maybe Blair is coming round to this too, if there is global warming we are better off adapting to climate change than trying to control the weather, which is still subject to greater natural forces than we can deal with.
“The truth is no country is going to cut its growth or consumption substantially in the light of a long-term environmental problem. To be honest, I don’t think people are going, at least in the short term, to start negotiating another major treaty like Kyoto.”Perhaps he'll tell his 'scientific' advisers now, and we'll have to endure less of the sanctimonious claptrap we've been getting from the likes of Sir John Lawton, chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, reported by the Telegraph saying:
... In his comments, Blair suggested he no longer had faith in global agreements as a way of reversing rising greenhouse gas emissions. Instead he appeared to place his faith in science, technology and the free market ...
... the intensity of the hurricanes was caused by water in the Gulf of Mexico being warmer than usual and was consistent with the latest scientific predictions of how the climate will behave as a result of man-made warming.And yet Sir John had only to look at the US National Hurricane Center's statistics on hurricane strikes on the US mainland over the past 150 years to see that while there is a lot of variation, there is no pattern of increasing frequency or intensity in recent years.
"If this makes the climate loonies in the States realize we've got a problem, something good will come out of this situation," said Sir John.
As I've said before, and maybe Blair is coming round to this too, if there is global warming we are better off adapting to climate change than trying to control the weather, which is still subject to greater natural forces than we can deal with.
July 31, 2005
Most People Want To Leave EU
A YouGov opinion poll commissioned by UKIP shows 50% of UK voters want to leave the EU in favour of a free trade area, while only 34% want to remain within the EU.
How can it be that on something as fundamental as national independence the main political parties remain committed to the EU against the majority of the electorate?
No wonder votes ebb away from them, and there is disillusion with UK politics.
Must we suffer a terrible crisis before the incumbent parties recognise reality and are stirred to action?
For how much longer must we voters watch this EU show which has no clothes?
How can it be that on something as fundamental as national independence the main political parties remain committed to the EU against the majority of the electorate?
No wonder votes ebb away from them, and there is disillusion with UK politics.
Must we suffer a terrible crisis before the incumbent parties recognise reality and are stirred to action?
For how much longer must we voters watch this EU show which has no clothes?
July 26, 2005
How To Help Someone Near Death
The greatest thing one can do for another (letter from the Telegraph):
Sir - The death ofSomething to remember in these troubled times. Thank you, Jeanne.
Dame Cicely Saunders
(Obituaries, July 15) is a great loss to the hospice movement.
I spent the whole of my career in nursing and in the early 1970s I heard a lecture given by Dame Cicely, who described the three important things that the terminally ill need. They are given as if the patient were speaking - Stay with me - Speak to me - Hold my hand.
These few words perfectly describe the needs of a dying person and were so powerful that I remember them every time I think of that situation. May I commend them to every person who is a carer, be they a relative, a friend, or anyone in the medical field. To carry out these three things is the greatest thing one can do for another person.
Jeanne Yates, Devizes, Wilts
July 22, 2005
Justice Is Fallible
It always surprises me how much confidence people place on the verdicts of the courts.
The justice system is a human construct and so subject to error, both of fact and reason.
Professor David Taylor is spot on in his letter to the Telegraph regarding so-called expert witnesses:
The justice system is a human construct and so subject to error, both of fact and reason.
Professor David Taylor is spot on in his letter to the Telegraph regarding so-called expert witnesses:
Sir - Judge Thorpe (letter, July 20) recognises the failure of the way that expert witnesses are treated in this country, but not the cause of the failure.
The fault lies not with insufficient expertise on the part of the witness, but in the fact that even the best experts can be wrong. I very much doubt if Prof Roy Meadow would have failed Judge Thorpe's tests.
The answer is that expert witnesses must be treated like any others, and be subject to challenge. It is true that this can lead to undesirable contests, but even so, this is preferable to the present system.
Prof David Taylor, Scarborough, N. Yorks
July 20, 2005
Council Pygmies Oppress Giants
Brian Culbert and his wife Fiona wish to extend their house in Lumphanan, Aberdeenshire. Mr Culbert is 6 ft 10 in and Mrs Culbert is 6 ft. As they keep banging their heads on the ceiling and doors, they want their extension to have a higher ceiling.
But, after 18 months, the council has refused them planning permission, Councillor Peter Argyle saying if they allowed it because the Culberts are above average height,
Councillor Jenny Watson, height 5 ft, said they should just "buy a bigger house". Well thanks, Councillor Jenny Watson, perhaps you'd like to pay for it, and suffer the inconvenience and disruption too?
But perhaps councils should just stop telling people what they can and can't do with their own houses, and to their own land? The planning process is slow, expensive, and wasteful; the bureaucracy pettifogging, harsh and oppressive (and, of course, with a vested interest in itself).
Does anyone imagine the world would fall apart if the Culberts built an extension fitted for someone of 6 ft 10 in? Like hell!
If thy eye offend thee, pluck it out!
But, after 18 months, the council has refused them planning permission, Councillor Peter Argyle saying if they allowed it because the Culberts are above average height,
Then in theory that would open the door to anyone else who is tall getting applications approved on the basis of their height. That is just not logical.It seems perfectly logical to me: if you're tall you need higher ceilings and doorways than if you're not.
Councillor Jenny Watson, height 5 ft, said they should just "buy a bigger house". Well thanks, Councillor Jenny Watson, perhaps you'd like to pay for it, and suffer the inconvenience and disruption too?
But perhaps councils should just stop telling people what they can and can't do with their own houses, and to their own land? The planning process is slow, expensive, and wasteful; the bureaucracy pettifogging, harsh and oppressive (and, of course, with a vested interest in itself).
Does anyone imagine the world would fall apart if the Culberts built an extension fitted for someone of 6 ft 10 in? Like hell!
If thy eye offend thee, pluck it out!
July 12, 2005
Government Uses EU to Bypass UK Constitution
The UK government is using the London bombings to advance its Big Brother agenda. It wants internet and mobile phone companies to retain data about user activity for extended periods, ostensibly for intelligence purposes. This agenda has previously run into considerable opposition, both in Parliament and among civil liberties and other groups.
Now the government intends using the device of an EU inter-governmental agreement - which is not enforceable by the EU - to enable implementation within the UK without an Act of Parliament, and hence without normal Parliamentary scrutiny, and without the possibility of Parliamentary amendment.
As the EU Referendum blog points out in an illuminating post, the UK government is using the EU to legislate in the UK outside the normal Parliamentary process, effectively bypassing the UK constitution.
It is an extremely important point to grasp in understanding how Britain is losing its constitutional safeguards, and Parliament has lost a large part of its power, not simply to the EU, but to the executive.
Now the government intends using the device of an EU inter-governmental agreement - which is not enforceable by the EU - to enable implementation within the UK without an Act of Parliament, and hence without normal Parliamentary scrutiny, and without the possibility of Parliamentary amendment.
As the EU Referendum blog points out in an illuminating post, the UK government is using the EU to legislate in the UK outside the normal Parliamentary process, effectively bypassing the UK constitution.
It is an extremely important point to grasp in understanding how Britain is losing its constitutional safeguards, and Parliament has lost a large part of its power, not simply to the EU, but to the executive.
March 01, 2005
Commons Sidelined, Again
The Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, is reported to have caused outrage in the Commons when it became apparent that amendments to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, will be introduced in the House of Lords. The Commons will be unable to debate them, and the limited debate they were allowed yesterday had to be conducted in ignorance of what they would be.
Kenneth Clarke, a former Tory home secretary, said the proceedings were "a complete outrage" and the Government was treating the Commons with "intolerable contempt".Amazing that MPs (especially arch-Europhile Kenneth Clarke) should get so worked up about being sidelined in this debate, when Parliament has been completely cut out of the picture on so many matters by the EU, is often ignorant of where power now lies, and while its decline continues apace.
Other MPs expressed anger at being cheated of consideration of the new legal moves before being asked to approve the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. But attempts to force the suspension of the Commons to allow time to consider the changes were unsuccessful.
February 28, 2005
Fairtrade Critique
Nice post on Fairtrade by Alex Singleton on the Adam Smith Institute blog, explaining how counter-productive Fairtrade is (even if it does relieve middle class guilt).
Neigh To Horse Passports
Horse owners face fine or jail from today if they do not have passports for their animals. The passports are required by the EU to control the quality of meat entering the human food chain - they eat horses on the continent.
According to the Telegraph, while half a million passports have been issued, anything up to half a million animals do not yet have a passport, which must be shown when moving premises, entering competitions, breeding, etc.
The government has twice delayed implementation of the law, because so few people had acquired the passports: once in January 2004, and again in June 2004.
The government says that if Britain does not comply with the law to the EU Commission's satisfaction, the Commission may withdraw approval for around 60% of veterinary medicines.
So what does it mean?
It means Britain can no longer make the law for itself, because our government is no longer competent to decide this matter, and there is now no one Parliament can bring to account and force a change if the policy and law on horse passports is thought to be unsatisfactory.
And it suggests that the most effective form of resistance to unwelcome bureaucratic laws which do not have general support is to ignore them. The horse passport requires a certain amount of cooperation among horse owners if it is to work.
Notice too, that it is the UK government that gets the flak for failing to derogate from the EU regulation: the principle of subservience to EU law is not questioned, and nor is the EU criticised for creating the regulation in the first place.
According to the Telegraph, while half a million passports have been issued, anything up to half a million animals do not yet have a passport, which must be shown when moving premises, entering competitions, breeding, etc.
The government has twice delayed implementation of the law, because so few people had acquired the passports: once in January 2004, and again in June 2004.
The government says that if Britain does not comply with the law to the EU Commission's satisfaction, the Commission may withdraw approval for around 60% of veterinary medicines.
So what does it mean?
It means Britain can no longer make the law for itself, because our government is no longer competent to decide this matter, and there is now no one Parliament can bring to account and force a change if the policy and law on horse passports is thought to be unsatisfactory.
And it suggests that the most effective form of resistance to unwelcome bureaucratic laws which do not have general support is to ignore them. The horse passport requires a certain amount of cooperation among horse owners if it is to work.
Notice too, that it is the UK government that gets the flak for failing to derogate from the EU regulation: the principle of subservience to EU law is not questioned, and nor is the EU criticised for creating the regulation in the first place.
February 24, 2005
Act Needed For Prince Charles' Marriage
I think the government is deliberately undermining the monarchy. It seems quite happy to let the uncertainty continue over the legality of Prince Charles' marriage to Camilla, and for our future king to suffer the inconvenience and indignity of being married in a public registry office.
It would not be difficult for Parliament to pass an Act putting the legitimacy of Charles' wedding beyond doubt, and enabling him to have the civil ceremony at Windsor Castle as originally intended, but without making the Queens' home a wedding venue for everyone else.
It is not enough for our second rate Lord Chancellor to make a statement of his advice: the trouble is that if there is any question over the legality of Charles' marriage, it may give rise to serious constitutional and legal questions in the future, affecting not only Charles' family and heirs, but the country.
We owe it to the family who bear the burden of being Britain's constitutional keystone, and to ourselves, to sort this out properly.
It would not be difficult for Parliament to pass an Act putting the legitimacy of Charles' wedding beyond doubt, and enabling him to have the civil ceremony at Windsor Castle as originally intended, but without making the Queens' home a wedding venue for everyone else.
It is not enough for our second rate Lord Chancellor to make a statement of his advice: the trouble is that if there is any question over the legality of Charles' marriage, it may give rise to serious constitutional and legal questions in the future, affecting not only Charles' family and heirs, but the country.
We owe it to the family who bear the burden of being Britain's constitutional keystone, and to ourselves, to sort this out properly.
February 22, 2005
Labour Plays Politics With Election Court
The Times reports on Labour's attempt to delay the trial of three Labour councillors accused of using postal ballots to rig elections to seats in the Bordesley Green and Aston wards in Birmingham in June 2004.
When Richard Mawrey, QC, the judge, refused an application to delay the trial until after May 5th, the Labour party withdrew legal funding from its accused councillors, presumably attempting to distance itself from them, but at the same time revealing its real interest in the case.
Doubtless without the case Labour would also find it easier to press ahead with introducing their contentious system of postal voting for the general election.
Another example of Labour's total cynicism, and contempt for the legal process.
When Richard Mawrey, QC, the judge, refused an application to delay the trial until after May 5th, the Labour party withdrew legal funding from its accused councillors, presumably attempting to distance itself from them, but at the same time revealing its real interest in the case.
Doubtless without the case Labour would also find it easier to press ahead with introducing their contentious system of postal voting for the general election.
Another example of Labour's total cynicism, and contempt for the legal process.
Power To Parents
Anyone who doubts the decline in British education standards should look at the figures at the end of a report in the Telegraph.
Geoff Parks, director of admissions at Cambridge said the university admitted 140 fewer undergraduates this year than last because of an increase in the number of four year degrees, now common in engineering and the sciences, a result of pupils knowing less than they used to.
This despite, of course, repeated government assertions that things have never been better, as evidenced by the ever higher grades achieved by ever more pupils in ever more subjects. Nothing to do with grade inflation, naturally. Blatant lies, and part of Britain's Sovietisation.
The Telegraph also mentions that the numbers obtaining at least three As at A level or the "vocational equivalent" (as the university admissions service regards hairdressing) increased by 68% last year to 128,000 (or around one in six of the entire year group). And yet pupils know less than they used to and degree course get longer in consequence. It doesn't add up.
I don't see how Britain's education system can ever improve so long as it remains a political football, and a vehicle for social engineering. Stop pretending the academic and the non-academic are the same. Get the politicians, the civil servants, and the inspectors out, and let parents make the decisions.
Geoff Parks, director of admissions at Cambridge said the university admitted 140 fewer undergraduates this year than last because of an increase in the number of four year degrees, now common in engineering and the sciences, a result of pupils knowing less than they used to.
This despite, of course, repeated government assertions that things have never been better, as evidenced by the ever higher grades achieved by ever more pupils in ever more subjects. Nothing to do with grade inflation, naturally. Blatant lies, and part of Britain's Sovietisation.
The Telegraph also mentions that the numbers obtaining at least three As at A level or the "vocational equivalent" (as the university admissions service regards hairdressing) increased by 68% last year to 128,000 (or around one in six of the entire year group). And yet pupils know less than they used to and degree course get longer in consequence. It doesn't add up.
I don't see how Britain's education system can ever improve so long as it remains a political football, and a vehicle for social engineering. Stop pretending the academic and the non-academic are the same. Get the politicians, the civil servants, and the inspectors out, and let parents make the decisions.
February 16, 2005
Stop Giving Aid
Today, an example of the waste that foreign aid becomes. The Telegraph reports that King Mswati III of Swaziland has just spent £450,000 - half Britain's aid to the state - on new cars for his many wives.
Last year the King spent almost £9 million on palaces, parties, and cars, nearly two-thirds the country's aid receipts.
Most of the population live in poverty and many are infected with Aids.
Why do we carry on giving the money? It props up bad government and aid fails to reach the people anyway.
What we should be doing is offering unrestricted trade, not aid. We would be better off too, but trade barriers support the EU's controlling and interventionist tendencies: policies of subsidy and high taxation, and keeping third world produce out.
Last year the King spent almost £9 million on palaces, parties, and cars, nearly two-thirds the country's aid receipts.
Most of the population live in poverty and many are infected with Aids.
Why do we carry on giving the money? It props up bad government and aid fails to reach the people anyway.
What we should be doing is offering unrestricted trade, not aid. We would be better off too, but trade barriers support the EU's controlling and interventionist tendencies: policies of subsidy and high taxation, and keeping third world produce out.
February 15, 2005
Pupil Marries Teacher
The Times reports that an American former elementary school teacher, Mary Kay Letourneau, is to marry her lover, Vili Fualaau, after serving two sentences for child rape: they met and had a relationship when he was her pupil aged 12.
Their daughters, aged 6 and 7, are to be flower girls at the wedding.
Their relationship may not have been conventional, but I can't help wondering whether the law today treats such consensual relationships too harshly.
I hope they and their family have a happy life.
Their daughters, aged 6 and 7, are to be flower girls at the wedding.
Their relationship may not have been conventional, but I can't help wondering whether the law today treats such consensual relationships too harshly.
I hope they and their family have a happy life.
February 10, 2005
Why Prosecute? POCA Them Instead!
This is another post triggered by Bystander, the interesting Magistrate, this time with a blog about the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA).
Bystander seems a little uneasy, but is content to call POCA a civil matter and go along with it. I don't know why.
I agree with the comment of Special Forces Alpha Geek: the POCA is not really a civil matter. It is a tool of the law enforcement agencies, and its justification for confiscating property is that it was acquired as the proceeds of crime. The seizure or confiscation of property by the state is a sanction of the criminal justice system. The proceeds of these proceeds of crime actions go to the very agencies undertaking the actions.
Especially worrying is that the POCA imposes criminal sanctions without the procedural safeguards of the criminal law: there are none of the procedural safeguards surrounding criminal prosecutions; the burden of proof is reduced from beyond reasonable doubt to balance of probabilities (with the onus on the defendant); and there is no possibility of a jury.
The government sold the Act on the basis it would be used mainly against wealthy "Mr Bigs" (as if that justifies circumventing normal due process) - but it is being used against all sorts of Mr Smalls (and who knows how many Mr Smiths?). If you look on the Home Office website there is a lot of talk about recovering "criminal cash", "criminals' ill-gotten gains", etc, but the POCA does not require there even to have been a charge brought against anyone, let alone a prosecution or conviction. Indeed, someone can be acquitted after a trial, and still be subject to related asset seizures.
As in other areas - like the detention of terrorist suspects - the government seems to think criminal trials make it too difficult to deal with those they just know to be criminals.
With the terrorist suspects, the government says 'trust us, what we do is based on good intelligence, it's just it cannot be divulged lest we compromise our sources'.
The POCA is based on intelligence too - it requires all accountants, bankers, estate agents, traders and retailers, and in many circumstances lawyers too, to be secret informers of the state. Any suspicions they may have about anyone, e.g. their clients, they must reveal to the National Criminal Intelligence Service. Failure to do so is a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment, as is letting the suspect know they are suspected. The intelligence is then used to identify possible asset seizures outside the normal criminal justice system.
It can only encourage lazy police work and rough justice.
Why then do good men like Bystander go along with it?
Bystander seems a little uneasy, but is content to call POCA a civil matter and go along with it. I don't know why.
I agree with the comment of Special Forces Alpha Geek: the POCA is not really a civil matter. It is a tool of the law enforcement agencies, and its justification for confiscating property is that it was acquired as the proceeds of crime. The seizure or confiscation of property by the state is a sanction of the criminal justice system. The proceeds of these proceeds of crime actions go to the very agencies undertaking the actions.
Especially worrying is that the POCA imposes criminal sanctions without the procedural safeguards of the criminal law: there are none of the procedural safeguards surrounding criminal prosecutions; the burden of proof is reduced from beyond reasonable doubt to balance of probabilities (with the onus on the defendant); and there is no possibility of a jury.
The government sold the Act on the basis it would be used mainly against wealthy "Mr Bigs" (as if that justifies circumventing normal due process) - but it is being used against all sorts of Mr Smalls (and who knows how many Mr Smiths?). If you look on the Home Office website there is a lot of talk about recovering "criminal cash", "criminals' ill-gotten gains", etc, but the POCA does not require there even to have been a charge brought against anyone, let alone a prosecution or conviction. Indeed, someone can be acquitted after a trial, and still be subject to related asset seizures.
As in other areas - like the detention of terrorist suspects - the government seems to think criminal trials make it too difficult to deal with those they just know to be criminals.
With the terrorist suspects, the government says 'trust us, what we do is based on good intelligence, it's just it cannot be divulged lest we compromise our sources'.
The POCA is based on intelligence too - it requires all accountants, bankers, estate agents, traders and retailers, and in many circumstances lawyers too, to be secret informers of the state. Any suspicions they may have about anyone, e.g. their clients, they must reveal to the National Criminal Intelligence Service. Failure to do so is a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment, as is letting the suspect know they are suspected. The intelligence is then used to identify possible asset seizures outside the normal criminal justice system.
It can only encourage lazy police work and rough justice.
Why then do good men like Bystander go along with it?
February 09, 2005
When The Innocent Plead Guilty
The Magistrate's blog has got me thinking.
Is it right that people who plead guilty should get a lighter sentence - perhaps for a lesser offence - than someone who pleads not guilty and fights the prosecution?
I can see there are benefits to the Crown, and the victims and witnesses, in not having a contested trial: less stress and inconvenience, and fewer costs.
What worries me is that innocent people, or people for whom guilt is a moot point (as, for example, in a case of self defence) may plead guilty because they don't think they have a very good chance of acquittal and want to cut their losses.
If justice is to be seen to be done, it needs to be open. Guilty pleas to secure lighter sentences suggest a calculation by the accused, even if there is not necessarily overt negotiation between defence and prosecution.
We get some idea of how many people may be wrongly convicted as a result of their trial, because some later have their convictions quashed and are released on appeal.
But we will never know how many people serve time having pleaded guilty, while believing themselves to be innocent.
For that reason we should give only a very slight discount (if any) to a sentence following a guilty plea, and not accept a guilty plea on a lesser offence in lieu of a trial on a more serious offence.
Is it right that people who plead guilty should get a lighter sentence - perhaps for a lesser offence - than someone who pleads not guilty and fights the prosecution?
I can see there are benefits to the Crown, and the victims and witnesses, in not having a contested trial: less stress and inconvenience, and fewer costs.
What worries me is that innocent people, or people for whom guilt is a moot point (as, for example, in a case of self defence) may plead guilty because they don't think they have a very good chance of acquittal and want to cut their losses.
If justice is to be seen to be done, it needs to be open. Guilty pleas to secure lighter sentences suggest a calculation by the accused, even if there is not necessarily overt negotiation between defence and prosecution.
We get some idea of how many people may be wrongly convicted as a result of their trial, because some later have their convictions quashed and are released on appeal.
But we will never know how many people serve time having pleaded guilty, while believing themselves to be innocent.
For that reason we should give only a very slight discount (if any) to a sentence following a guilty plea, and not accept a guilty plea on a lesser offence in lieu of a trial on a more serious offence.
February 04, 2005
Jail - Driving's Booby Prize
The government is proposing another populist measure - imposing prison sentences of up to 5 years for causing death by careless driving, which currently carries a maximum fine of £2,500. The alternative offence of causing death by dangerous driving already carries a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment.
The change is expected to create a need for 800 extra prison spaces.
There are currently around 3,500 deaths each year on the roads, half caused to car occupants, with around 40,000 serious injuries and 280,000 minor injuries in 240,000 accidents. Including accidents without injuries, there are a total of around 4 million incidents annually in the UK.
If the average sentence imposed for causing death by careless driving were 3 years, and people actually served half that, then we are looking at about 550 prison sentences a year. In other words imprisoning about a fifth of the drivers involved in accidents involving a fatality. Given that many drivers involved in a fatal accident will themselves have been killed, the imprisonment rate for survivors will probably be higher: around 25% - 30%, maybe more.
The reason more people are not prosecuted for causing death by dangerous driving is because juries are reluctant to convict for it. Mainly, I suspect, because they realise that 'accidents happen' and it could be them next time.
Lowering the bar will bring the courts into disrepute. Why should people be punished heavily for slight negligence? Road accidents do happen, lots of them, and it is a risk all road users take (and create). Mostly we get away with these accidents without injury. Only a tiny fraction of road accidents result in death - less than one in 1,000. And even taking into account only those accidents that result in injury, death is still relatively uncommon - little more than 1 in 100 injury accidents.
Banging people up for slight negligence means banging them up when they had no intention to cause harm. Not only that, but they will have had no conception that they were liable to cause any harm until the split second in which the accident happened.
What does it mean to say they were 'careless' - only that the accident was their fault, because they made a misjudgment. Given that someone has an accident that is their fault, it is purely a matter of chance whether they kill someone or not. And in general, it is unlikely that they do.
We can all expect to be involved in an accident every 7 or 8 years. A good half of those accidents will be our fault.
In the course of 50 years of driving we can expect to have 3 and a half accidents which are our fault - most people will have at least one in their driving career.
I don't think it is rational or just to penalise so heavily accidents which happen to have a very bad outcome. Only if someone were exceptionally reckless could it begin to be justified. But those are the people already being convicted of the more serious offence of causing death by dangerous driving.
Two wrongs do not make a right, and locking up those unfortunate enough accidentally to have caused someone's death, through some inadvertance - to which we are all from time to time prone, is wrong because it is arbitrary and capricious. It is like creating a booby prize for the lottery.
The change is expected to create a need for 800 extra prison spaces.
There are currently around 3,500 deaths each year on the roads, half caused to car occupants, with around 40,000 serious injuries and 280,000 minor injuries in 240,000 accidents. Including accidents without injuries, there are a total of around 4 million incidents annually in the UK.
If the average sentence imposed for causing death by careless driving were 3 years, and people actually served half that, then we are looking at about 550 prison sentences a year. In other words imprisoning about a fifth of the drivers involved in accidents involving a fatality. Given that many drivers involved in a fatal accident will themselves have been killed, the imprisonment rate for survivors will probably be higher: around 25% - 30%, maybe more.
The reason more people are not prosecuted for causing death by dangerous driving is because juries are reluctant to convict for it. Mainly, I suspect, because they realise that 'accidents happen' and it could be them next time.
Lowering the bar will bring the courts into disrepute. Why should people be punished heavily for slight negligence? Road accidents do happen, lots of them, and it is a risk all road users take (and create). Mostly we get away with these accidents without injury. Only a tiny fraction of road accidents result in death - less than one in 1,000. And even taking into account only those accidents that result in injury, death is still relatively uncommon - little more than 1 in 100 injury accidents.
Banging people up for slight negligence means banging them up when they had no intention to cause harm. Not only that, but they will have had no conception that they were liable to cause any harm until the split second in which the accident happened.
What does it mean to say they were 'careless' - only that the accident was their fault, because they made a misjudgment. Given that someone has an accident that is their fault, it is purely a matter of chance whether they kill someone or not. And in general, it is unlikely that they do.
We can all expect to be involved in an accident every 7 or 8 years. A good half of those accidents will be our fault.
In the course of 50 years of driving we can expect to have 3 and a half accidents which are our fault - most people will have at least one in their driving career.
I don't think it is rational or just to penalise so heavily accidents which happen to have a very bad outcome. Only if someone were exceptionally reckless could it begin to be justified. But those are the people already being convicted of the more serious offence of causing death by dangerous driving.
Two wrongs do not make a right, and locking up those unfortunate enough accidentally to have caused someone's death, through some inadvertance - to which we are all from time to time prone, is wrong because it is arbitrary and capricious. It is like creating a booby prize for the lottery.
February 02, 2005
Cynics Proved Right
The head of Sri Lanka's presidential task force, Tilak Ranavirajah, has criticised the country's relief effort. Five weeks after the tusnami disaster, corruption and incompetence has left 70% of affected Sri Lankan's without aid. This is without considering the areas under the control of the Tamil Tigers. Aid has been disappearing and relief camps have served rotten food.
I don't know how many people are surprised by this. It is a problem of over governed and bureaucratic societies. We can only give our money and hope some of it trickles down to the right people.
The cynics are proved right.
I don't know how many people are surprised by this. It is a problem of over governed and bureaucratic societies. We can only give our money and hope some of it trickles down to the right people.
The cynics are proved right.
January 31, 2005
Government Abandons British
First, under the EU arrest warrant, the UK government has allowed other EU countries to arrest, remove from the UK, and then try, people alleged to have committed acts which are perfectly legal under UK law.
Now the UK government favours the introduction of an EU evidence warrant, which will allow other EU states forcibly to enter and search British homes and property seeking evidence with a view to the criminal prosecution of acts which could not be crimes in the UK.
In other words, to make legal the execution by a foreign power of search warrants which could not be legally obtained by the British government or justice system.
The British are being abandoned by their own government in their own country.
To be tried in a foreign state, where the law, procedures, and language differ from one's own, and foreigners may viewed with prejudice, is a serious matter. That is why extradition to a foreign state has traditionally been subject to many restrictions and safeguards. These safeguards have already been watered down by the Extradition Act 2003 which introduced the EU arrest warrant, extended extradition to a wide range of relatively trivial offences, and removed the principle of dual criminality, while reducing further the countries required to show a prima facie case.
By failing to uphold established principles of legal jurisdiction and extradition, the Crown is failing to protect its subjects from arbitrary and unjust interference in their lives. Traditional considerations of justice and good government are being sacrificed for administrative convenience and political ingratiation.
Who are the masters now?
Now the UK government favours the introduction of an EU evidence warrant, which will allow other EU states forcibly to enter and search British homes and property seeking evidence with a view to the criminal prosecution of acts which could not be crimes in the UK.
In other words, to make legal the execution by a foreign power of search warrants which could not be legally obtained by the British government or justice system.
The British are being abandoned by their own government in their own country.
To be tried in a foreign state, where the law, procedures, and language differ from one's own, and foreigners may viewed with prejudice, is a serious matter. That is why extradition to a foreign state has traditionally been subject to many restrictions and safeguards. These safeguards have already been watered down by the Extradition Act 2003 which introduced the EU arrest warrant, extended extradition to a wide range of relatively trivial offences, and removed the principle of dual criminality, while reducing further the countries required to show a prima facie case.
By failing to uphold established principles of legal jurisdiction and extradition, the Crown is failing to protect its subjects from arbitrary and unjust interference in their lives. Traditional considerations of justice and good government are being sacrificed for administrative convenience and political ingratiation.
Who are the masters now?
January 30, 2005
Swastika Fetishists Force Women Into Prostitution
The EU wishes to ban the wearing and display of swastikas for "inappropriate purposes" reports the Telegraph. I guess Harry wasn't reverential enough?
Anyway, the impetus for this doubtless comes from the same freedom loving people that expect the unemployed to take jobs as prostitutes?
Who are we getting into bed with?
Anyway, the impetus for this doubtless comes from the same freedom loving people that expect the unemployed to take jobs as prostitutes?
Who are we getting into bed with?
January 26, 2005
Mass Teenage Criminality
Well, I 'm shocked, I really am: a quarter of boys aged 14 to 17 are serious or prolific criminals, according to a Home Office study.
A quarter?!!!
It is not simply a matter of parental discipline or inadequate policing (although it is about those things too). But what does that widespread criminality say about modern mores? We live in a country where common decency, respect for others, and individual independence and self reliance are giving way to a dishonesty and viciousness entirely destructive of society.
People live 'by right' on welfare, or with access to the welfare state. There is no compelling need to maintain the integrity and trust required in normal (for how much longer?) society. Nor is there any shame or humility. Governments have done all they can to elevate welfare benefits onto the same social and moral plane as hard earned income from a job or business.
There has been a price to pay for this beyond taxation: social and family breakdown on the one hand, and the growth of single parent families on the other, which by their nature 1) are less likely to value - and demonstrate the value - of personal commitment, trust, and integrity: all inherent in successful marriages; and which 2) have fewer financial and social resources with which to bring up children. In Britain the problem families end up being concentrated together in 'social housing' (anti-social sink estates), exacerbating the problems.
For all that, there is no simple answer to this epidemic of incivility and criminality. Part of the problem, I am sure, lies with education, which needs to be far more closely tailored to the needs of individual children, i.e. to be selective. The school leaving age should be reduced, as should the age at which children are allowed to work. Another part of the problem is policing: it is time for the police to leave their desks and go back on the beat, reverting to their role of preventing crime.
But most importantly, the welfare state should be allowed to wither away. The nanny state is an inadequate substitute for the self-reliant family.
A quarter?!!!
It is not simply a matter of parental discipline or inadequate policing (although it is about those things too). But what does that widespread criminality say about modern mores? We live in a country where common decency, respect for others, and individual independence and self reliance are giving way to a dishonesty and viciousness entirely destructive of society.
People live 'by right' on welfare, or with access to the welfare state. There is no compelling need to maintain the integrity and trust required in normal (for how much longer?) society. Nor is there any shame or humility. Governments have done all they can to elevate welfare benefits onto the same social and moral plane as hard earned income from a job or business.
There has been a price to pay for this beyond taxation: social and family breakdown on the one hand, and the growth of single parent families on the other, which by their nature 1) are less likely to value - and demonstrate the value - of personal commitment, trust, and integrity: all inherent in successful marriages; and which 2) have fewer financial and social resources with which to bring up children. In Britain the problem families end up being concentrated together in 'social housing' (anti-social sink estates), exacerbating the problems.
For all that, there is no simple answer to this epidemic of incivility and criminality. Part of the problem, I am sure, lies with education, which needs to be far more closely tailored to the needs of individual children, i.e. to be selective. The school leaving age should be reduced, as should the age at which children are allowed to work. Another part of the problem is policing: it is time for the police to leave their desks and go back on the beat, reverting to their role of preventing crime.
But most importantly, the welfare state should be allowed to wither away. The nanny state is an inadequate substitute for the self-reliant family.
January 25, 2005
UK Powerless To Change Immigration Law
The Telegraph reports the EU Commission saying a new Tory government would be unable to implement its proposals to control immigration, because asylum is now governed by EU law. The Tories could not introduce quotas nor withdraw from the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to Refugees. The Telegraph reports:
If the British people wants to make its own immigration law what is it to do?
There is no EU government we can throw out. The EU Commission is an oligarchy over which we have no democratic control. The only way to assert any democratic control is to withdraw from the EU.
MPs and officials were unaware how much national sovereignty on immigration and asylum had been transferred to Brussels.Which just goes to show how far Parliament has allowed itself to be sidelined. Law is being made which goes to the heart of Britain's nationhood and MPs do not know what is happening, let alone have any control over it. Within the EU they are truly irrelevant. Why do we pay them?
If the British people wants to make its own immigration law what is it to do?
There is no EU government we can throw out. The EU Commission is an oligarchy over which we have no democratic control. The only way to assert any democratic control is to withdraw from the EU.
January 21, 2005
School Stops Teaching
The Telegraph reports that St John's school in Marlborough has scrapped homework for 12 year olds, having already scrapped subject teaching, as part of a scheme devised by the Royal Society for the Arts.
But its main idea: that a school education should be about acquiring "competences for learning" and not subject knowledge, is misconceived.
The main purpose of school, as presumably is the main purpose of acquiring learning skills, is to help pupils learn and use a body of knowledge. It may be arguable how best people acquire learning skills, whether by doing or more abstractly, but either way they serve little purpose in themselves.
Being able actually to learn is a matter of practice and experience in learning, and building on what you already know. It is impossible to make connections, and to see patterns and inconsistencies in a subject, if you have no knowledge to work on.
Higher levels of learning are not something acquired overnight once one learns abstract skills. Rather they are based on detailed knowledge and understanding of the subject matter, perhaps painfully and laboriously acquired, which then forms the basis for evaluating further additions to, and extrapolations from, that body of knowledge.
There is also the matter of effective teaching. It is not at all clear that structured subject based learning is inferior to project based learning. I suspect in general it is easier to ensure pupils obtain knowledge and understanding when a subject is taught in a structured way, and classes are taught as a whole.
I wonder if this shying away from imparting hard knowledge to concentrating on soft "skills" is a sign that English education has little meaning for the huge numbers of children who have difficulty reading and writing? It is easier instead fill the time with intangibles: "competences for learning, citizenship, relating to people, managing situations and managing information" and gloss over the failure of schools to teach.
But its main idea: that a school education should be about acquiring "competences for learning" and not subject knowledge, is misconceived.
The main purpose of school, as presumably is the main purpose of acquiring learning skills, is to help pupils learn and use a body of knowledge. It may be arguable how best people acquire learning skills, whether by doing or more abstractly, but either way they serve little purpose in themselves.
Being able actually to learn is a matter of practice and experience in learning, and building on what you already know. It is impossible to make connections, and to see patterns and inconsistencies in a subject, if you have no knowledge to work on.
Higher levels of learning are not something acquired overnight once one learns abstract skills. Rather they are based on detailed knowledge and understanding of the subject matter, perhaps painfully and laboriously acquired, which then forms the basis for evaluating further additions to, and extrapolations from, that body of knowledge.
There is also the matter of effective teaching. It is not at all clear that structured subject based learning is inferior to project based learning. I suspect in general it is easier to ensure pupils obtain knowledge and understanding when a subject is taught in a structured way, and classes are taught as a whole.
I wonder if this shying away from imparting hard knowledge to concentrating on soft "skills" is a sign that English education has little meaning for the huge numbers of children who have difficulty reading and writing? It is easier instead fill the time with intangibles: "competences for learning, citizenship, relating to people, managing situations and managing information" and gloss over the failure of schools to teach.
January 19, 2005
Political Education For All
Schools have become a means of social engineering and control, and the ideas and values they inculcate are determined by the government, and controlled through the National Curriculum and Ofsted's school inspections.
In particular, the government is using the citizenship part of the national curriculum to propagate its own views and values, and expects schools to 'teach' these even in the face of their own belief and ethos, or judgment of the subject's value.
So it is that David Bell, chief inspector of schools, worried that some (particularly Muslim) schools may undermine the coherence of British society, explains that to be registered as a school, all schools, including private ones, have to ensure their pupils learn about and respect other faiths and cultures, "and the wider tenets of British society." It seems the pre-requisite of being a school is not teaching the three Rs, but 'teaching' the government's idea of 'citizenship'.
Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, endorses this view, calls education "probably the most important site of social and cultural integration we have," and goes on to say that education's "public value ... is about providing a benefit to Britain that is social, cultural and economic."
If you doubt that the government has an agenda, consider that the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, announced today that he intends introducing citizenship ceremonies for 18 year olds to help promote "inclusive citizenship" as part of a wider plan to increase race equality and community cohesion.
Citizenship is not a curriculum subject like maths or English: it is tendentious, and serves a political purpose. Its reach extends to all schools, state and private, and all schools, staff, and pupils have to conform to its doctrine. There is no escape - on pain of school closure - whatever the school and parents may think a good education is about.
In particular, the government is using the citizenship part of the national curriculum to propagate its own views and values, and expects schools to 'teach' these even in the face of their own belief and ethos, or judgment of the subject's value.
So it is that David Bell, chief inspector of schools, worried that some (particularly Muslim) schools may undermine the coherence of British society, explains that to be registered as a school, all schools, including private ones, have to ensure their pupils learn about and respect other faiths and cultures, "and the wider tenets of British society." It seems the pre-requisite of being a school is not teaching the three Rs, but 'teaching' the government's idea of 'citizenship'.
Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, endorses this view, calls education "probably the most important site of social and cultural integration we have," and goes on to say that education's "public value ... is about providing a benefit to Britain that is social, cultural and economic."
If you doubt that the government has an agenda, consider that the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, announced today that he intends introducing citizenship ceremonies for 18 year olds to help promote "inclusive citizenship" as part of a wider plan to increase race equality and community cohesion.
Citizenship is not a curriculum subject like maths or English: it is tendentious, and serves a political purpose. Its reach extends to all schools, state and private, and all schools, staff, and pupils have to conform to its doctrine. There is no escape - on pain of school closure - whatever the school and parents may think a good education is about.
January 18, 2005
Britain's Political Crimes
Prosecutions for racially and religiously aggravated crime are growing. In the year to April 2004 the Crown Prosecution Service prosecuted 3,616 defendants.
But why add racial or religious aggravation as an element of a crime? Does it make it any worse for someone mugged on the street that their assailant was at all motivated by race or religion? Does it make it any better for the mugged old lady that she was a victim only because she was old (and feeble, and hence an easy target)?
I cannot see it makes any difference. We all need protection under the law. Why we are attacked, robbed, or intimidated is of no relevance to the wrong that is done. If you are injured or made to fear for your safety it is that fact that defines the harm done to you as victim. Given a criminal intention, I do not see why the harm should be regarded more seriously because the perpetrator had one motivation rather than another, or was partial to one type of victim rather than another.
It is in deference to different ethnic and religious communities - to cultivate their vote - that the concept of racial and religious aggravation of crime has come about: first racial aggravation was introduced by the Labour government in 1998 (soon after gaining power), with religious aggravation following in 2001.
There is no moral reason to punish the mugger of Asian women more severely than the thug who mugs old women indiscriminately. The reason one is treated more severely is political, and the racially motivated crime is a political thought crime as much as it is anything else.
But why add racial or religious aggravation as an element of a crime? Does it make it any worse for someone mugged on the street that their assailant was at all motivated by race or religion? Does it make it any better for the mugged old lady that she was a victim only because she was old (and feeble, and hence an easy target)?
I cannot see it makes any difference. We all need protection under the law. Why we are attacked, robbed, or intimidated is of no relevance to the wrong that is done. If you are injured or made to fear for your safety it is that fact that defines the harm done to you as victim. Given a criminal intention, I do not see why the harm should be regarded more seriously because the perpetrator had one motivation rather than another, or was partial to one type of victim rather than another.
It is in deference to different ethnic and religious communities - to cultivate their vote - that the concept of racial and religious aggravation of crime has come about: first racial aggravation was introduced by the Labour government in 1998 (soon after gaining power), with religious aggravation following in 2001.
There is no moral reason to punish the mugger of Asian women more severely than the thug who mugs old women indiscriminately. The reason one is treated more severely is political, and the racially motivated crime is a political thought crime as much as it is anything else.
Big Spending Tories
A year ago, the Tory leader, Michael Howard set out his ideas for less government in his speech, The British Dream. He said:
Claiming to identify £35 billion of waste expenditure, the Tories want the government to spend most of it on their pet programmes like health and education. Only £4 billion - £6 billion would be repatriated to taxpayers as tax cuts. Pathetic.
Sounds to me more like a way of promising extra spending without admitting the need for additional taxation. If they didn't make the 'savings', what then? Would they hold back on the spending? Fat chance!
Do the Tories think the huge extra monies spent on health and education by Labour has been money well spent, or even that it can be well spent? Not according to that speech of Howard's last year:
The Tories should be proposing to cut out whole functions of government. That is the only way to small government.
And I will tell you today, in all honesty and as starkly as I am able to, that the size and scope of government in this country – and the means of its financing by the people through taxation – is quite simply too big.So the Tories are the party of small government? Are they hell! The individual knows better how to spend his money than government? Er, not really ...
Claiming to identify £35 billion of waste expenditure, the Tories want the government to spend most of it on their pet programmes like health and education. Only £4 billion - £6 billion would be repatriated to taxpayers as tax cuts. Pathetic.
Sounds to me more like a way of promising extra spending without admitting the need for additional taxation. If they didn't make the 'savings', what then? Would they hold back on the spending? Fat chance!
Do the Tories think the huge extra monies spent on health and education by Labour has been money well spent, or even that it can be well spent? Not according to that speech of Howard's last year:
Opponents of change [to the NHS] assiduously propagated two myths. First, that no country had better health care. And secondly that there was nothing wrong with the system that just a little bit more money would not solve.So why spend even more?
But now we have seen those myths blown out of the water. The current Government has spent a huge amount more of people's taxes on the NHS: they have set hundreds of targets and bench marks. But we still lag behind many of our neighbours.
[... T]his approach has been tried, it has been given time to work and it has failed. Public sector productivity has not increased. The public's expectations, raised by the rhetoric of politicians, have not been realised. There is now a fundamental imbalance between what voters want and what government is able to deliver.
The Tories should be proposing to cut out whole functions of government. That is the only way to small government.
January 15, 2005
Prince Harry: Man Or Eunuch?
Why get so worked up about Prince Harry's Nazi costume? No one suggests he was making a political point, and no one suggests he intended to offend anyone.
He was going to fancy dress party. His costume was intended for light hearted fun and a limited audience of friends. It is not as if he was attending an Auschwitz memorial service.
He is third in line to the throne, and if he ever makes it to the throne, he will have no power. Is he condemned to a life of orthodox correctness by virtue of being in the public eye on account of his birth?
Can he not display a little - or even a lot of - bad taste every now and again? Has he no artistic licence? Can he not be a teensy provocative every now and again? Never to let his hair down, offend, and grow up in his own way?
Or must he have come into the world a ready formed, middle aged eunuch - reserve symbol for a nation ambivalent about its nationhood?
Let a man's private parties be private. If you want to act the voyeur, don't complain about what you see.
He was going to fancy dress party. His costume was intended for light hearted fun and a limited audience of friends. It is not as if he was attending an Auschwitz memorial service.
He is third in line to the throne, and if he ever makes it to the throne, he will have no power. Is he condemned to a life of orthodox correctness by virtue of being in the public eye on account of his birth?
Can he not display a little - or even a lot of - bad taste every now and again? Has he no artistic licence? Can he not be a teensy provocative every now and again? Never to let his hair down, offend, and grow up in his own way?
Or must he have come into the world a ready formed, middle aged eunuch - reserve symbol for a nation ambivalent about its nationhood?
Let a man's private parties be private. If you want to act the voyeur, don't complain about what you see.
January 14, 2005
Sentence By Life Expectancy
The government now plans to reintroduce the previously discredited idea of fining people according to their income.
But if it were really serious, the government would ensure criminals were sentenced according to their remaining life expectancy. In this way the prospect of prison would weigh with equal force on the young as it does on the old. The fact that a given prison sentence will deprive an older person of a greater proportion of their remaining years must surely be a factor in the lower incidence of criminal activity among the elderly?
So perhaps we will see 60 year olds sentenced to 2 years for burglary, while 20 year olds get 10 years for the same offence - just as under the 1993 scheme there were cases such as the one mentioned in the Telegraph where someone just over the drink drive limit was fined £1500, while someone else twice over the limit was fined only £104 at the same court on the same day.
While I jest, and assume my proposal would be laughed out of court - to be followed, of course, by the government's own whimpier proposal - in the back of my mind I fear there is nothing our lords and masters will not do in their increasingly unrestrained pursuit of the popular, the novel, the sensational, and the politically correct: whatever the cost to our traditional notions of due process and justice. And no thought, other than self interest, they will give to anything before they do it.
But if it were really serious, the government would ensure criminals were sentenced according to their remaining life expectancy. In this way the prospect of prison would weigh with equal force on the young as it does on the old. The fact that a given prison sentence will deprive an older person of a greater proportion of their remaining years must surely be a factor in the lower incidence of criminal activity among the elderly?
So perhaps we will see 60 year olds sentenced to 2 years for burglary, while 20 year olds get 10 years for the same offence - just as under the 1993 scheme there were cases such as the one mentioned in the Telegraph where someone just over the drink drive limit was fined £1500, while someone else twice over the limit was fined only £104 at the same court on the same day.
While I jest, and assume my proposal would be laughed out of court - to be followed, of course, by the government's own whimpier proposal - in the back of my mind I fear there is nothing our lords and masters will not do in their increasingly unrestrained pursuit of the popular, the novel, the sensational, and the politically correct: whatever the cost to our traditional notions of due process and justice. And no thought, other than self interest, they will give to anything before they do it.
Why The EU Is Undemocratic
A nice analysis on the EU Referendum blog of the EU Commission and the enormous power this unelected de facto government has by virtue of its complete control over the EU's legislative agenda.
Trade Not Aid
Is it right for governments to give foreign aid? In general, the answer must be no.
Government aid is counter-productive and wasteful. Much money goes to line the pockets of foreign politicians and officials, supporting and prolonging the life of corrupt and oppressive regimes, and their pernicious policies. The rest is liable to create dependency.
There is an exception in the case of natural disaster, where immediate humanitarian relief is needed - although even then it is better if the aid comes from private donors, partly because their motivation is purer and they are more likely to scrutinise what happens, and partly because it is better if people are not taxed any more than necessary.
Even in the case of natural disaster, the problem is to turn off the aid to avoid undue dependency without being callous.
Far better if governments promoted free trade. It is time for the EU to open up to foreign producers, including all those from the third world - it will do them (and us) far more good than any amount of aid, and is what they prefer. The present system serves vested interest groups. If the EU won't change and soon, it is another reason to leave the EU.
It is a great shame the Tories have pledged to match Labour spending on overseas aid - yet another area of spending they feel unable to cut, and yet another area of spending everyone would be better off without.
Government aid is counter-productive and wasteful. Much money goes to line the pockets of foreign politicians and officials, supporting and prolonging the life of corrupt and oppressive regimes, and their pernicious policies. The rest is liable to create dependency.
There is an exception in the case of natural disaster, where immediate humanitarian relief is needed - although even then it is better if the aid comes from private donors, partly because their motivation is purer and they are more likely to scrutinise what happens, and partly because it is better if people are not taxed any more than necessary.
Even in the case of natural disaster, the problem is to turn off the aid to avoid undue dependency without being callous.
Far better if governments promoted free trade. It is time for the EU to open up to foreign producers, including all those from the third world - it will do them (and us) far more good than any amount of aid, and is what they prefer. The present system serves vested interest groups. If the EU won't change and soon, it is another reason to leave the EU.
It is a great shame the Tories have pledged to match Labour spending on overseas aid - yet another area of spending they feel unable to cut, and yet another area of spending everyone would be better off without.
January 10, 2005
Britain's Sham Courts
I previously mentioned that Jack Straw's attempt to justify the continued detention of terrorist suspects without trial by reference to the appeal process available to the suspects - extraordinary enough in the face of the Law Lords' judgment against the government - was flawed, because the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) had already ruled they were being unjustifiably discriminated against.
Now the Independent reports that from judgments released under the Freedom of Information Act it is clear the judges on SIAC also have deep misgivings about the process because of the suspects' disadvantage in not being able to see the secret evidence and allegations used against them.
This on top of the resignation of Ian MacDonald, one of the QCs acting as the government's special advocate for the suspects, who called the law which allows arbitrary arrest and indefinite detention without trial an "odious blot on our legal landscape".
Now the Independent reports that from judgments released under the Freedom of Information Act it is clear the judges on SIAC also have deep misgivings about the process because of the suspects' disadvantage in not being able to see the secret evidence and allegations used against them.
This on top of the resignation of Ian MacDonald, one of the QCs acting as the government's special advocate for the suspects, who called the law which allows arbitrary arrest and indefinite detention without trial an "odious blot on our legal landscape".
January 09, 2005
Politically Correct Charity
The Charities Bill now going through Parliament introduces a public benefit requirement for charities. It has encouraged a Mr Tony Mitchell in a letter to the Telegraph (No Tax Concessions For Sham Benefits) to call on the Charities Commission to withdraw charitable status from independent schools, because he believes: "they reinforce division and inequality."
Education has always been considered of good in itself, irrespective of who benefits: that is why it has been a charitable purpose, the main legal effect of which has been to allow the endowment of schools.
What Mr Mitchell wishes is to abandon education as a charitable purpose in favour of his idea of egalitarianism. His test that education offers a public benefit only if it is available to all irrespective of income or ability places a narrow and personal meaning on "public benefit" which blindly ignores any value education may have in itself.
I have no doubt that Cambridge students are privileged, even poor ones, benefitting as they do from institutions founded on the generosity of past benefactors, and selected from among many who want to go and could benefit. The fact that those who do benefit are in some ways privileged does not mean Cambridge is not worthwhile, nor that we would be better off without it and similar universities. What we value about Cambridge is the education and learning it provides founded on meritocratic elitism and intellectual excellence. I do not imagine anyone believes the educational value of a degree depends on whether a student is subsidised by the state or not.
Similarly, schools educate individual children, and they benefit as individuals. The school a child attends may affect the quality of the education they receive, but in terms of educational benefit, it makes no difference who pays for it.
It is only because Mr Mitchell wishes schools to serve a purpose other than education that he claims there is no public benefit to schools which charge or select. If you share his brand of egalitarianism you may perhaps agree with him, but to the extent they would penalise private and selective schools, his ideas are destructive of education.
The worst of it is that Mr Mitchell's view may be shared by the new Charity Commission, which is left the discretion by the Charities Bill to decide what is meant by the "public benefit" test it says charities must pass. Another example of government trying to make a matter of administrative and political diktat what should be a matter of law.
Education has always been considered of good in itself, irrespective of who benefits: that is why it has been a charitable purpose, the main legal effect of which has been to allow the endowment of schools.
What Mr Mitchell wishes is to abandon education as a charitable purpose in favour of his idea of egalitarianism. His test that education offers a public benefit only if it is available to all irrespective of income or ability places a narrow and personal meaning on "public benefit" which blindly ignores any value education may have in itself.
I have no doubt that Cambridge students are privileged, even poor ones, benefitting as they do from institutions founded on the generosity of past benefactors, and selected from among many who want to go and could benefit. The fact that those who do benefit are in some ways privileged does not mean Cambridge is not worthwhile, nor that we would be better off without it and similar universities. What we value about Cambridge is the education and learning it provides founded on meritocratic elitism and intellectual excellence. I do not imagine anyone believes the educational value of a degree depends on whether a student is subsidised by the state or not.
Similarly, schools educate individual children, and they benefit as individuals. The school a child attends may affect the quality of the education they receive, but in terms of educational benefit, it makes no difference who pays for it.
It is only because Mr Mitchell wishes schools to serve a purpose other than education that he claims there is no public benefit to schools which charge or select. If you share his brand of egalitarianism you may perhaps agree with him, but to the extent they would penalise private and selective schools, his ideas are destructive of education.
The worst of it is that Mr Mitchell's view may be shared by the new Charity Commission, which is left the discretion by the Charities Bill to decide what is meant by the "public benefit" test it says charities must pass. Another example of government trying to make a matter of administrative and political diktat what should be a matter of law.
Planning Vicious Circles
Further to my earlier blog on town planning, an ex-town planner and (I assume ex) Labour councillor writes an interesting piece on the Civitas blog about the do-gooding motivation and self interest of 1960s town planners and their supporters, and their destructive effect on working class communities.
January 05, 2005
Government Plan To Increase House Prices
Prescott says he doesn't understand why house prices rise faster than inflation, and then wants to add fuel to the fire by subsidising house purchase.
January 04, 2005
Government Approves Discrimination
The sex discrimination lobby get the EU to pull back from their scheme to enforce equal insurance premiums for motor insurance despite different risks for each sex, thereby avoiding women having to pay the same as men. Would the EU have relented had it been women who posed the higher risk, and men who faced higher premiums?
A contrasting story is the intention of the Lake District National Park to scrap volunteer guided walks because they attract only middle class middle aged whites. There is no suggestion that the walks are not worthwhile in themselves, or that walks are not available to others. Sounds to me like discrimination against middle class people, middle aged people, and whites.
Examples of the politicians and officials institutionalising discrimination, and how easily rationality goes out the window.
A contrasting story is the intention of the Lake District National Park to scrap volunteer guided walks because they attract only middle class middle aged whites. There is no suggestion that the walks are not worthwhile in themselves, or that walks are not available to others. Sounds to me like discrimination against middle class people, middle aged people, and whites.
Examples of the politicians and officials institutionalising discrimination, and how easily rationality goes out the window.
January 02, 2005
EU Regulation Costs Rise £17 Billion
The EU is about to cost us another £17 billion each year as its emissions quota scheme starts, and an artificial market begins in emission trading - see the EU Referendum site.
Planning Ruins English Towns
It is ironic, but not surprising, that planning laws, supposedly needed to stop England turning into a concrete jungle, have precisely that effect.
A story in the Telegraph tells of a large Victorian suburban house in Nottingham, which is to be pulled down so 16 flats can be built in its place, typical of what is happening all over the country as developers struggle to meet demand for housing within the tight restrictions on land use imposed by the government.
It's a story I've seen repeated many times in our local newspaper too.
For many years new houses have been crammed into the gardens of older houses in all England's towns and villages. Now the pressure has increased and with government demands for ever higher housing densities, the older - more spacious - housing is being demolished to make way for flats.
I know people don't like to see the countryside encroached on, but the price is inferior new housing, the disappearance of traditional housing and gardens, and everyone having to live in less space.
It seems mad to me when farmland is often not even farmed, and in receipt of massive subsidies.
If land were not subject to planning restrictions people would likely have bigger, cheaper homes, with decent sized gardens around them. The quality of life would be generally improved. As it is, we seem to be spiralling into a world of ever smaller, more cramped, and expensive housing.
In ostensibly trying to preserve the countryside, planning laws are in the process of destroying the quality of life in our towns and villages. Not only are more and more houses being packed into the same space, but prices go up, and locals have to move away. And if the countryside is being preserved, it is true in only a limited sense: farms are being amalgamated, the old farming communities are withering away, and government interference in food trade and supply has rendered much farming uneconomic.
Unfortunately planning laws do not let the market - the net result of the choices we all make every day - decide how land might best be used, and substitutes the decisions of a handful of politicians and officials: the result is less flexibility, less innovation, more uniformity, massive development on greenfield sites when it does happen, and more greyness.
Unfortunately the Tories don't get it either, and are playing the same game.
A story in the Telegraph tells of a large Victorian suburban house in Nottingham, which is to be pulled down so 16 flats can be built in its place, typical of what is happening all over the country as developers struggle to meet demand for housing within the tight restrictions on land use imposed by the government.
It's a story I've seen repeated many times in our local newspaper too.
For many years new houses have been crammed into the gardens of older houses in all England's towns and villages. Now the pressure has increased and with government demands for ever higher housing densities, the older - more spacious - housing is being demolished to make way for flats.
I know people don't like to see the countryside encroached on, but the price is inferior new housing, the disappearance of traditional housing and gardens, and everyone having to live in less space.
It seems mad to me when farmland is often not even farmed, and in receipt of massive subsidies.
If land were not subject to planning restrictions people would likely have bigger, cheaper homes, with decent sized gardens around them. The quality of life would be generally improved. As it is, we seem to be spiralling into a world of ever smaller, more cramped, and expensive housing.
In ostensibly trying to preserve the countryside, planning laws are in the process of destroying the quality of life in our towns and villages. Not only are more and more houses being packed into the same space, but prices go up, and locals have to move away. And if the countryside is being preserved, it is true in only a limited sense: farms are being amalgamated, the old farming communities are withering away, and government interference in food trade and supply has rendered much farming uneconomic.
Unfortunately planning laws do not let the market - the net result of the choices we all make every day - decide how land might best be used, and substitutes the decisions of a handful of politicians and officials: the result is less flexibility, less innovation, more uniformity, massive development on greenfield sites when it does happen, and more greyness.
Unfortunately the Tories don't get it either, and are playing the same game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)