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.
January 15, 2005
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)