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.
January 26, 2005
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
