We had a general election recently and I learned that 3.5 million people in the UK did not even register to vote. Fine because I think that is their democratic right. I do not believe, unlike Australia, that people should be forced to vote.
However, the act of not bothering to register raises deeper issues for me. If you cannot be arsed to participate in the most basic factors of a democratic state, then why should that democratic state afford you its protection and benefits? Disenfranchisement can work two ways you know although I do not expect the unregistered to recognise that.
OK so you do not wish to operate within the democratic process? Fine, then piss off and do without any benefits, the NHS and much else.
It’s like the so-called travellers, who like to consider themselves romantically as gypsies. Wander around, paying no council tax or possibly pretty much else, yet they expect to squat where they like, shit all over your lawn and get away with it. Read somewhere about one of their sites where passersby on the adjacent motorway were said to be shouting insults at them. So the local mad council built them a fence to screen them from passing cars.
It’s very simple. Do you wish to be part of this society and enjoy its benefits? Yes? OK, pay up and understand that rights only come with obligations. No? Fine then bugger off and do your own thing and expect no help from me.
It’s their kids I feel sorry for because they have no choice in all this. What is worse, those kids will be raised with the same attitude
Thursday, 27 May 2010
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
Teachers and my kids
When my daughter was very young, 5 or so, I and my wife were summoned to her infant’s school by the headmistress. She, in sombre tones, told us that she was concerned that Caroline was becoming uncontrollable. This was news to us. Caroline had always been stubborn but she seemed to be doing really well at school and had got along fine with her first teacher.
It appeared that Caroline had been told to do something by her second teacher, a Mrs Garscadden to do something. Well we had an inkling that all was not well between Mrs. Garscadden and Caroline so it was no surprise, to me at least, that Caroline had stood up and said, ‘I shan’t and you won’t make me.’
My reaction was, ‘That’s my girl!’ at which point my wife punched me and told me to be quiet.
Caroline flourished with her third teacher and the others that followed.
Separately, at secondary school, my son, Peter, was doing badly in English and with our consent he was demoted to the ‘B’ stream and a new teacher. He too flourished in his new stream and gained an ‘A’ grade at GCSE.
They are both successful in their chosen fields.
And now the role reversal has emerged and they are teaching me. Is that not wonderful?
It appeared that Caroline had been told to do something by her second teacher, a Mrs Garscadden to do something. Well we had an inkling that all was not well between Mrs. Garscadden and Caroline so it was no surprise, to me at least, that Caroline had stood up and said, ‘I shan’t and you won’t make me.’
My reaction was, ‘That’s my girl!’ at which point my wife punched me and told me to be quiet.
Caroline flourished with her third teacher and the others that followed.
Separately, at secondary school, my son, Peter, was doing badly in English and with our consent he was demoted to the ‘B’ stream and a new teacher. He too flourished in his new stream and gained an ‘A’ grade at GCSE.
They are both successful in their chosen fields.
And now the role reversal has emerged and they are teaching me. Is that not wonderful?
A letter to Wales and Scotland
I am an Englishman living in Cardiff, one of the best cities I have ever lived in. However, I am increasingly growing tired of Celtic abuse towards the English plus their continual demands for greater autonomy in their local affairs. It’s more a government/media thing than a general feeling among the people on the street and your friends. But, it’s there and it nags away at you.
These people need to understand that the English are equally growing tired of all the bloody moaning and the way in which England is subsidising the economies of Wales and Scotland.
Barnett formula, Wales? Why should that be changed on the basis of need? Of course you need more: you always have. Even in its heyday, the South Wales coalfield had the highest rate of absenteeism in Britain. Are you asking us to subsidise your historic fecklessness?(Back in the 60’s, a coal miner was paid for 6 shifts if he worked 5 shifts a week. If you took a day off and worked 4 shifts, then you only got paid for 4, which is a 33.3% reduction on the full week. And no coalfield did that more often than South Wales.)
You may well say that the Celtic position is born of the wealth of the SE of England and I would agree for much of England generates negative wealth compared to the South East. Indeed there seems to be an inverse relationship across the British Isles between wealth and moaning. The less they have: the more they moan.
No, bugger off Celts. Go your own way and we shall go ours. We shall close RAF Valley, St Athans, Rosyth and Faslane, leave you to your own fisheries protection, remove the ONS office from Newport, move Companies House from Maindy, shift the DVLA from Swansea and throw RBS to the wolves. Pay for your own bilingual signs and utility bills. Sort your own little TV relay stations in your hills and valleys. Cough up to pay for broadband plans for your remote areas (thereby eliminating the 50p monthly telephone tax for every Briton). And we need to give some serious thought to closing down BBC transmissions and offices in Wales and Scotland. ITV can sort themselves on the basis of advertising revenue.
And if Wales needs a new nuclear power station to replace the existing one at Wylfa, then bloody well pay for it yourselves. Mind you, maybe it’s not a bad idea putting the new one there. It’s quite a way from England so if it goes bang, it will only destroy Anglesey.
Another compelling reason to let Scotland go would be to see what a frigging mess Alex Salmond would make of independence. As ‘leaders’ go, I cannot recall seeing such a display of smirking, arrogant, dismissive behaviour in any politician.
Remember Quebec.
England can do without the Celts. What they need to ask is if they can do without England.
I love living in Cardiff but I am tired of all this crap.
These people need to understand that the English are equally growing tired of all the bloody moaning and the way in which England is subsidising the economies of Wales and Scotland.
Barnett formula, Wales? Why should that be changed on the basis of need? Of course you need more: you always have. Even in its heyday, the South Wales coalfield had the highest rate of absenteeism in Britain. Are you asking us to subsidise your historic fecklessness?(Back in the 60’s, a coal miner was paid for 6 shifts if he worked 5 shifts a week. If you took a day off and worked 4 shifts, then you only got paid for 4, which is a 33.3% reduction on the full week. And no coalfield did that more often than South Wales.)
You may well say that the Celtic position is born of the wealth of the SE of England and I would agree for much of England generates negative wealth compared to the South East. Indeed there seems to be an inverse relationship across the British Isles between wealth and moaning. The less they have: the more they moan.
No, bugger off Celts. Go your own way and we shall go ours. We shall close RAF Valley, St Athans, Rosyth and Faslane, leave you to your own fisheries protection, remove the ONS office from Newport, move Companies House from Maindy, shift the DVLA from Swansea and throw RBS to the wolves. Pay for your own bilingual signs and utility bills. Sort your own little TV relay stations in your hills and valleys. Cough up to pay for broadband plans for your remote areas (thereby eliminating the 50p monthly telephone tax for every Briton). And we need to give some serious thought to closing down BBC transmissions and offices in Wales and Scotland. ITV can sort themselves on the basis of advertising revenue.
And if Wales needs a new nuclear power station to replace the existing one at Wylfa, then bloody well pay for it yourselves. Mind you, maybe it’s not a bad idea putting the new one there. It’s quite a way from England so if it goes bang, it will only destroy Anglesey.
Another compelling reason to let Scotland go would be to see what a frigging mess Alex Salmond would make of independence. As ‘leaders’ go, I cannot recall seeing such a display of smirking, arrogant, dismissive behaviour in any politician.
Remember Quebec.
England can do without the Celts. What they need to ask is if they can do without England.
I love living in Cardiff but I am tired of all this crap.
Monday, 12 April 2010
Philtrums
In case you didn’t know it, the philtrum is that groove on your face between your nose and your upper lip. In some cases it is barely visible: in others it is quite deep and when it is, it affects the shape of your upper lip turning it into something like the shape of a crossbow.
I have no idea whether or not it has a function. It could be a drainage channel to move nose dribbles to the mouth. Sounds gross I know but as far as I know your own bodily fluids will add no harm. I mean, let’s face it, if you have got something, you ain’t going to get anymore by adding to it, not that I have a particular affection for any of my bodily secretions.
Maybe it's one of them decorative things and that would figure for I do find philtrums attractive, especially on women. Makes their lips more sexy.
I have no idea whether or not it has a function. It could be a drainage channel to move nose dribbles to the mouth. Sounds gross I know but as far as I know your own bodily fluids will add no harm. I mean, let’s face it, if you have got something, you ain’t going to get anymore by adding to it, not that I have a particular affection for any of my bodily secretions.
Maybe it's one of them decorative things and that would figure for I do find philtrums attractive, especially on women. Makes their lips more sexy.
Wednesday, 31 March 2010
Wasted food
We in the UK are said to waste enormous amounts of food. Here in Cardiff, they even provide us with biodegradeable bags to put the stuff in and it is collected weekly with other compostible material. Most of the stuff I put in there is inedible anyway - bones, husks, outer coating of pineapples, orange peel etc. And I am someone who doesn't peel potatoes or carrots or the like so you can hardly call me wasteful.
But it isn't all the consumer's fault. So much stuff is sold in quantities that defy complete usage even if you have a family of say 4 or 6. Celery is a real culprit. It doesn't keep fresh for too long although I dare say I could blanch it and freeze it. However most recipes call for one stalk or two and all the supermarkets sell is the whole bloody bunch. Do I really want to spend all day preparing different things with the stuff to save the planet?
Our Government wishes to discourage or even ban 2 for 1 food offers saying that much is wasted. They can piss right off as far as I am concerned. I live alone but I am quite happy with the savings I can make on '2 for 1' providing I can freeze the 2nd portion for another day. If I cannot freeze it, then I don't buy it.
But it isn't all the consumer's fault. So much stuff is sold in quantities that defy complete usage even if you have a family of say 4 or 6. Celery is a real culprit. It doesn't keep fresh for too long although I dare say I could blanch it and freeze it. However most recipes call for one stalk or two and all the supermarkets sell is the whole bloody bunch. Do I really want to spend all day preparing different things with the stuff to save the planet?
Our Government wishes to discourage or even ban 2 for 1 food offers saying that much is wasted. They can piss right off as far as I am concerned. I live alone but I am quite happy with the savings I can make on '2 for 1' providing I can freeze the 2nd portion for another day. If I cannot freeze it, then I don't buy it.
Friday, 19 March 2010
British Empire
This beyond all doubt was the largest empire ever seen, bigger than that or Rome or even Alexander the Great. As such, it has come in for a lot of criticism and it is true that a lot of nasty things were done in our empire. I don't apologise for that. Times and social values were different when the empire was created and who is to say that the colonial countries would have behaved differently if they had been colonial powers? You wouldn't want Robert Mugabe to be the Emperor of Europe would you?
'Ah,' I hear you say, 'but we never had any colonial aspirations.' Really? Are you telling me that given half a chance you would not have knocked seven bells out of the neighbouring tribe or country? Given the history of conflict over the past centuries, then of course you would. It still happens to this day.
And if the British Empire was really so very very bad, why is it that its political ideals - democracy, free press etc. - are still held in high esteem today? Even the worst dictator still pretends that things are democratic. The USA kicked us into touch in 1776 but they still hold many of our values dear, as does Canada,Australia, India and many, many smaller places.
But was there ever a British Empire? I am biased here for I really believe it was an English Empire. Yes the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish were drafted in to support the expansion but it was led, largely, by the English.
Next point. For most colonies it's been about 60/70 years since they were given independence and what's happened since? India has moved on and Canada/Australia/USA have done so too but they became independent earlier. South Africa seems to progress in fits and starts.The majority of the rest have not moved at all or even gone backwards. Despite this, British colonialism continues to be blamed for the woes of today. Yes indeed we could and should have done more but that's no excuse for the state of many countries today.
Well, let's just think about the state of things before Britain arrived. People wandering around with tea towels over their genitals, holding spears, fighting and earning a subsistence living. (India was different.) Our main fault is that we hardly improved on that.
'Ah,' I hear you say, 'but we never had any colonial aspirations.' Really? Are you telling me that given half a chance you would not have knocked seven bells out of the neighbouring tribe or country? Given the history of conflict over the past centuries, then of course you would. It still happens to this day.
And if the British Empire was really so very very bad, why is it that its political ideals - democracy, free press etc. - are still held in high esteem today? Even the worst dictator still pretends that things are democratic. The USA kicked us into touch in 1776 but they still hold many of our values dear, as does Canada,Australia, India and many, many smaller places.
But was there ever a British Empire? I am biased here for I really believe it was an English Empire. Yes the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish were drafted in to support the expansion but it was led, largely, by the English.
Next point. For most colonies it's been about 60/70 years since they were given independence and what's happened since? India has moved on and Canada/Australia/USA have done so too but they became independent earlier. South Africa seems to progress in fits and starts.The majority of the rest have not moved at all or even gone backwards. Despite this, British colonialism continues to be blamed for the woes of today. Yes indeed we could and should have done more but that's no excuse for the state of many countries today.
Well, let's just think about the state of things before Britain arrived. People wandering around with tea towels over their genitals, holding spears, fighting and earning a subsistence living. (India was different.) Our main fault is that we hardly improved on that.
Wednesday, 17 March 2010
Age of criminal responsibility
Back in 1993, two 10 yr old boys took a 2 yo toddler from a shopping mall. The little one went freely and CCTV shows that he held the hand of one of the older boys. The older boys took the toddler to a railway track and killed him by bashing his head with a brick and a car battery. The killers were released on parole in 2001 and given new identities. One of them is now back in jail for what are said to be serious criminal charges but we don't know what they are.
That is the background to the fact that this case and others have reawakend the debate on what age should we set for criminal responsibilty. In Britain, it is 10 yrs old (8 yrs old in Scotland) and that is one of the lowest, if not the lowest, in Western Europe. The simplistics amongst us are clamouring to raise the age to say 14, 16 or even 18. Are they saying that we have to change because France or Germany are different? If we used that logic, we'd be changing all sorts of laws.
Each country is different. Go to Amsterdam and you see the glass covered tourists boats moored on the canal sides at night; it was no different when I went there the first time back in 1970. Try doing that in the UK and they would be bricked to oblivion in just one night.
No, any decision on this issue must be based on local circumstances not what is happening in the Congo.
But there is a wider and much more important issue here - why should there be a fixed age anyway? Children develop at different speeds and much depends on parenting in the first 5 years. Some parents infuse their kids with moral values and others don't; many do it half heartedly. So who is to say that all children below a given age are not criminally responsibe whilst those above that age are. It all depends on the child and his/her upbringing.
In an ideal world, you'd scrap the fixed age limit and make an assessment of the child before deciding upon the way it was to be treated much as you do with adults with respect to insanity. Trouble is the assessment would be made by sociologists who are only too willing to play the 'there, there, it's not your fault' card.
I don't have an answer here. But of this, I am sure that any 10 year old from whatever background would know that bashing a 2 yo's head until he died was wrong.
That is the background to the fact that this case and others have reawakend the debate on what age should we set for criminal responsibilty. In Britain, it is 10 yrs old (8 yrs old in Scotland) and that is one of the lowest, if not the lowest, in Western Europe. The simplistics amongst us are clamouring to raise the age to say 14, 16 or even 18. Are they saying that we have to change because France or Germany are different? If we used that logic, we'd be changing all sorts of laws.
Each country is different. Go to Amsterdam and you see the glass covered tourists boats moored on the canal sides at night; it was no different when I went there the first time back in 1970. Try doing that in the UK and they would be bricked to oblivion in just one night.
No, any decision on this issue must be based on local circumstances not what is happening in the Congo.
But there is a wider and much more important issue here - why should there be a fixed age anyway? Children develop at different speeds and much depends on parenting in the first 5 years. Some parents infuse their kids with moral values and others don't; many do it half heartedly. So who is to say that all children below a given age are not criminally responsibe whilst those above that age are. It all depends on the child and his/her upbringing.
In an ideal world, you'd scrap the fixed age limit and make an assessment of the child before deciding upon the way it was to be treated much as you do with adults with respect to insanity. Trouble is the assessment would be made by sociologists who are only too willing to play the 'there, there, it's not your fault' card.
I don't have an answer here. But of this, I am sure that any 10 year old from whatever background would know that bashing a 2 yo's head until he died was wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
