At least ten thousand students converged on London today to demonstrate against any increase in student fees. They followed a strictly imposed route, with twenty or so being quickly evicted from Trafalgar Square where they had tried to set up a camp similar to the one set up outside St Paul's Cathedral by the Occupy mob. The demonstrators tramped through the streets and let everyone know what they thought of university fees, bank bailouts and anything else that causes them to spit out the dummy. By dusk most had dispersed. Latest reports reckon on twenty arrests. No-one attacked, or had a fire extinguisher thrown at them from a great hight. And, as far as I am aware no windows smashed, no one urinated on a war memorial.Very civilised. What a pity it needed four thousand police officers to ensure such civility. I'm sure there will be complaints soon about the restrictions imposed on the marchers. But children,listen and learn: if you cannot behave without supervision-
People who believe they have entitlements which others have to provide, instead of first and foremost, having obligations to look after themselves, coupled with a sense of gratitude for anything that is given to them by others, very often turn to violence when they get told no you can't, 'the bank's shut',the pot's empty. We saw it at the last student demonstration, we saw it across England in August. It's not, as many like to claim, caused by deprivation or unemployment.
The release by the Office of National Statistics of figures on those rioters show that 35% were reliant on benefits. Something the B.B.C. tried to make a big deal of, while at the same time not even mentioning that the figures also clearly demonstrate that 65% of the rioters were not reliant on benefits. We also know from some of the individual court cases that many were employed. No, it is a culture of 'my rights' my entitlement' my desires must be satisfied' which is at the root of many violent outbursts. The sooner we get back to a culture of knowing about, and feeling a sense of obligations the better.
Wednesday, 9 November 2011
Thursday, 3 November 2011
Democracy, Accountability, Responsibility not Welcome Here;is this a Greek Tragedy?
Under pressure from all sides, including the German Chancellor Merkel and The French leader Sarkozy, the Greek Prime Minister, who announced a referendum on the new bail-out package for the country's debt is facing an ousting from government. What/who replaces his government has yet to be decided as the crisis is still unfolding. A commentator on the B.B.C. echoed the sentiments of some political pundits and the financial markets that his going may bring some relief. Relief from what. Oh nothing much, just a referendum for the Greek people. Well let's not allow anything like democracy stand in the way of a deal to satisfy the banks eh.
However, not having the referendum does not take away people's choice about the bail-out. There is, as they say, more than one way to skin a cat. We have already seen how the bail-out deals have been received so far: riots, petrol bombs, strikes. Will it be any different with this one. I doubt it. It could even get worse as the measures kick in. The Greeks have also been told to accept the bail-out or get out of the Euro.
What would a referendum have done anyway.? Well, two things as I see it.
1) To be given a choice, to be asked, people are more likely to take a more mature approach to a situation. To have accepted the deal they would be accepting responsibility for the measures that they will have to live with. This, which seems to have escaped the notice of the political elite is called democracy; Participation, consultation, accountability for all.
2) To reject the package, especially under the all or nothing stance would have made it clear that Greeks want out of the E.U. If this is the case it needs to be faced, and now rather than later. Leaving the E.U. would not be, as some fear, a get out of paying debt card. This can still be negotiated, but with the Greeks having more of an input than simply following undemocratic diktats from Brussels, and the international, unelected banking system, and last but not least, China, -that bastion of freedom- whose leaders didn't think a referendum would be helpful-well they would say that wouldn't they.
However, not having the referendum does not take away people's choice about the bail-out. There is, as they say, more than one way to skin a cat. We have already seen how the bail-out deals have been received so far: riots, petrol bombs, strikes. Will it be any different with this one. I doubt it. It could even get worse as the measures kick in. The Greeks have also been told to accept the bail-out or get out of the Euro.
What would a referendum have done anyway.? Well, two things as I see it.
1) To be given a choice, to be asked, people are more likely to take a more mature approach to a situation. To have accepted the deal they would be accepting responsibility for the measures that they will have to live with. This, which seems to have escaped the notice of the political elite is called democracy; Participation, consultation, accountability for all.
2) To reject the package, especially under the all or nothing stance would have made it clear that Greeks want out of the E.U. If this is the case it needs to be faced, and now rather than later. Leaving the E.U. would not be, as some fear, a get out of paying debt card. This can still be negotiated, but with the Greeks having more of an input than simply following undemocratic diktats from Brussels, and the international, unelected banking system, and last but not least, China, -that bastion of freedom- whose leaders didn't think a referendum would be helpful-well they would say that wouldn't they.
Saturday, 22 October 2011
Mrs Gaddafi and the Water Babies;any one care to oblige?
Slightly of topic here but events in Libya have overshadowed all other news at the moment, nothing else is happening apparently. The 'Battle of Dale Farm', which look set to provide a week's worth of news as the police mounted a surprise attack, suddenly disappeared from our screens. As did the events in Athens as thousands of people began a 48 hour strike, workers occupied public buildings and even magistrates went on a go slow. All culminating in the usual stand off with riot police, burning cars, petrol bombs e.t.c. Neither of these events was considered newsworthy once the town of Sirte was close to defeat. Its liberation and the death of Gaddafi has become the only show in town .Graphic photo's and reports of his death have been flashed around the globe. No one now doubts that he is dead. His death was violent and grizzly. Captured and surrounded by an angry and armed crowd after being dragged out of an underground pipe he is beaten, shot and thrown on to the back of a truck. Was this Murder?, or Justice?
Mrs Gaddafi has called for an investigation by the U.N. into the circumstances of her husband's death. The U.N is supporting the claim, reminding the world about the illegality of extra-judicial killings e.t.c. I would support Mrs Gaddafi and the U.N. so long as she reciprocates and accepts a U.N. investigation into extra-judicial killings in Libya which took place under the Gaddafi regime. Not all Gaddafi supporters and loyal drones have been killed. Many of them knew the game was up and got out. They could provide valuable information, as could Mrs Gaddafi herself. Though I doubt very much that the lady has seen the light and absorbed the principles of justice,which mean, if they mean anything at all, that what you demand of others you must be willing to submit to yourself .
Perhaps someone ought to send her a copy of the classic children's story by Charles Kingsley,The Water Babies. Perhaps It will educate her as to the principles of justice: No need to read long tomes from the U.N. Charter or myriad law books, Just look at who poor Tom is caught between; MRSDOASYOUWOULDBEDONEBY and MRSDONEBYASYOUDID. To demand justice for yourself while not being willing to submit to it is sheer hypocrisy. And for the U.N. to even consider putting the new Libya under this kind of pressure at this time will do nothing to help build bridges with the West which, for forty years dealt with the Gaddafi regime, in full knowledge of the oppression and violence perpetrated against the Libyan people.
No one can know for sure whether or not the new Libya will succeed in realising the aspirations of its founders. We can only hope. If it fails, if the divisions in that society lead to civil war, especially a prolonged one, there could be serious consequences for the rest of us. Both Libya and the West rely on oil. Those that have it make pots of money to sustain their economy, those that buy it use it to sustain modern life. However, the flow and exchange of oil and money depend on stable societies. I hope the Libyan people succeed for all our sakes but, I believe this call for an investigation into Gaddafi's death will hinder rather than help.
Perhaps someone could send a copy Of the Water Babies to the General.Secretary of the U.N. or, perhaps he could borrow Mrs Gaddafi's copy.
Mrs Gaddafi has called for an investigation by the U.N. into the circumstances of her husband's death. The U.N is supporting the claim, reminding the world about the illegality of extra-judicial killings e.t.c. I would support Mrs Gaddafi and the U.N. so long as she reciprocates and accepts a U.N. investigation into extra-judicial killings in Libya which took place under the Gaddafi regime. Not all Gaddafi supporters and loyal drones have been killed. Many of them knew the game was up and got out. They could provide valuable information, as could Mrs Gaddafi herself. Though I doubt very much that the lady has seen the light and absorbed the principles of justice,which mean, if they mean anything at all, that what you demand of others you must be willing to submit to yourself .
Perhaps someone ought to send her a copy of the classic children's story by Charles Kingsley,The Water Babies. Perhaps It will educate her as to the principles of justice: No need to read long tomes from the U.N. Charter or myriad law books, Just look at who poor Tom is caught between; MRSDOASYOUWOULDBEDONEBY and MRSDONEBYASYOUDID. To demand justice for yourself while not being willing to submit to it is sheer hypocrisy. And for the U.N. to even consider putting the new Libya under this kind of pressure at this time will do nothing to help build bridges with the West which, for forty years dealt with the Gaddafi regime, in full knowledge of the oppression and violence perpetrated against the Libyan people.
No one can know for sure whether or not the new Libya will succeed in realising the aspirations of its founders. We can only hope. If it fails, if the divisions in that society lead to civil war, especially a prolonged one, there could be serious consequences for the rest of us. Both Libya and the West rely on oil. Those that have it make pots of money to sustain their economy, those that buy it use it to sustain modern life. However, the flow and exchange of oil and money depend on stable societies. I hope the Libyan people succeed for all our sakes but, I believe this call for an investigation into Gaddafi's death will hinder rather than help.
Perhaps someone could send a copy Of the Water Babies to the General.Secretary of the U.N. or, perhaps he could borrow Mrs Gaddafi's copy.
Sunday, 2 October 2011
Call to scrap the Human Rights Act
Home Secretary Theresa May, has called for the Human Rights Act to be scrapped. Her interview with the Telegraph newspaper on the Third of October is nicely timed to coincide with the start of the Conservative Party Conference this week and is bound to upset its Liberal Democrat Coalition partner which, during its recent Party conference announced that the Act was here to stay. The Human Rights Act though, will not be scrapped even under Conservative government. It has been with us for so long now it is part of our heritage;and, it is not as though the act was conferring rights of persecution, tyranny, or mayhem. It is meant to provide protection from these things for the most vulnerable. Whether or not it succeeds in this and whether or not it can be improved is open to debate. That it is open to abuse is what seems to be the driver of calls for it to be scrapped. But let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. To scrap it and replace it with a specifically British Act will, I suspect still provide loopholes for clever lawyers and immoral claimants. People who do not understand, or lack a sense of the spirit in which something is devised will always use the 'letter of the law' so to speak, to advance their own interests. So, it seems to me that what is needed is a reappraisal of the way the act is understood and why it came into existence.
Take the Right of Family Life for instance, which seems to be causing most consternation presently. Like many other Articles of the Act it came about from the experiences of the Second World War and in particular, the war waged against minority civilian groups for no other reason than their race or ethnicity. Bans on marriage between certain groups of people, sterilisation e.t.c. forced population transfers, all combined to destroy families and to make that most personal of decisions, who to marry, how many children, how to raise them, subject to political ideology based on a set of race laws. Who would not want to protect people from this.?
However, interpretation of this Act seems now to be extended with success, to protect the family life of non British Nationals who are, not only not subject to any kind government tyranny, but are themselves criminals and have wrought a tyranny of a sorts on their victims and their families. Apparently it isn't always possible to deport non- national criminals because it would mean the break-up of his or her family life. This seems about as far from the intention of the framers of the Act as you could possibly get. The Act does not provide for an absolute right, no rights are absolute, they are always conditional on you not having caused or contributed to your situation. Every day people are separated from their families and sent to prison. Not because of who or what they are but because of what they have done.We have to be able to discriminate between those who fit the terms of the Act i.e the innocent, and those who are not. And as long as the break-up of a person's family is a consequence of the person's own illegal actions and the rules on deportation are followed correctly then we have not only a right to deport but also a duty. If we do not, we risk watering down the Act so much that we kill the spirit of it. Once we do that it simply becomes a vehicle for criminals to avoid justice in the pursuit of personal gain. I for one would not want that to be our legacy to all those who suffered for the Act to be needed in the first place. Let us pay them, and the Act a little more respect
Take the Right of Family Life for instance, which seems to be causing most consternation presently. Like many other Articles of the Act it came about from the experiences of the Second World War and in particular, the war waged against minority civilian groups for no other reason than their race or ethnicity. Bans on marriage between certain groups of people, sterilisation e.t.c. forced population transfers, all combined to destroy families and to make that most personal of decisions, who to marry, how many children, how to raise them, subject to political ideology based on a set of race laws. Who would not want to protect people from this.?
However, interpretation of this Act seems now to be extended with success, to protect the family life of non British Nationals who are, not only not subject to any kind government tyranny, but are themselves criminals and have wrought a tyranny of a sorts on their victims and their families. Apparently it isn't always possible to deport non- national criminals because it would mean the break-up of his or her family life. This seems about as far from the intention of the framers of the Act as you could possibly get. The Act does not provide for an absolute right, no rights are absolute, they are always conditional on you not having caused or contributed to your situation. Every day people are separated from their families and sent to prison. Not because of who or what they are but because of what they have done.We have to be able to discriminate between those who fit the terms of the Act i.e the innocent, and those who are not. And as long as the break-up of a person's family is a consequence of the person's own illegal actions and the rules on deportation are followed correctly then we have not only a right to deport but also a duty. If we do not, we risk watering down the Act so much that we kill the spirit of it. Once we do that it simply becomes a vehicle for criminals to avoid justice in the pursuit of personal gain. I for one would not want that to be our legacy to all those who suffered for the Act to be needed in the first place. Let us pay them, and the Act a little more respect
Friday, 2 September 2011
A written Constitution will protect our age old liberties:especially one drawn up by the Government?Really!
The government is allowing us to compile our own wish list of how to make our Country and society a better place. If 100.000 signatures are gained for any issue then it will be debated in Parliament. There are at present, nine petitions with a total of 105 signatories calling for a written constitution in some form or other.
Well it might be a good idea to have one. Looking at what are generally thought to make up our existing constitution i.e. Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, they seem most notable for their distinct lack of influence on our justice system. Trial by Jury, the Right to Silence, non-forfeiture of goods without conviction all seem to have either been put to death or on the way to it.
What is apparent though in those old pieces of history, is that they were always about challenging the power of whoever was in charge; Magna Carta limited the power of the monarch against the people, well at least against the Barons anyway. The Bill of Rights also limited the Monarch's power, but this time, in favour of Parliament. This set in motion the transfer of power and state building to Parliament, which now occupies the position once held by the Monarch.
So, let's have a written constitution to reflect our modern society. But given our history of always having to challenge the powers that be in order to secure what we believe to be our freedoms I would think asking that power, to give us a constitution seems rather bizarre.We need a constitution to protect ourselves from those who rule. Therefore, we need to write it for ourselves and impose it on any would be Parliamentarian, along with a Constitutional Court to prevent said Parliamentarians from putting it away in drawer, forgetting about it, re-writing it, adding to it while we're all asleep and generally not giving a stuff about it once they think we're all happy that they condescended to let us have one.
Well it might be a good idea to have one. Looking at what are generally thought to make up our existing constitution i.e. Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, they seem most notable for their distinct lack of influence on our justice system. Trial by Jury, the Right to Silence, non-forfeiture of goods without conviction all seem to have either been put to death or on the way to it.
What is apparent though in those old pieces of history, is that they were always about challenging the power of whoever was in charge; Magna Carta limited the power of the monarch against the people, well at least against the Barons anyway. The Bill of Rights also limited the Monarch's power, but this time, in favour of Parliament. This set in motion the transfer of power and state building to Parliament, which now occupies the position once held by the Monarch.
So, let's have a written constitution to reflect our modern society. But given our history of always having to challenge the powers that be in order to secure what we believe to be our freedoms I would think asking that power, to give us a constitution seems rather bizarre.We need a constitution to protect ourselves from those who rule. Therefore, we need to write it for ourselves and impose it on any would be Parliamentarian, along with a Constitutional Court to prevent said Parliamentarians from putting it away in drawer, forgetting about it, re-writing it, adding to it while we're all asleep and generally not giving a stuff about it once they think we're all happy that they condescended to let us have one.
I intend to look more closely at our so-called protections from authoritarian rule via our so-called existing constitutions and ask whether or not it does what it says on the tin.I shall post my conclusions on here for others to dissect and discuss. In the meantime let's have a poll to see just how much support there is for a modern constitution.
Sunday, 21 August 2011
Equality Means?_ page two
A couple more definitions of equality to ponder on. Thanks once again to those taking the trouble to contribute their ideas and thoughts.
- All people treated without bias or prejudice
- Positive discrimination to be eliminated by removal of all political correctness
- Merit to be awarded accordingly
The term equality is a transcendental term,much like the term perfection. It is a term which provides a reference point ,the pursuit of an aspiration which can never be realised. Our human goal therefore, is to continue to discuss it, work out how its nuances can be applied to the ways in which we think and live.
It becomes therefore, a dialectical process, wherein its importance is realised in the journey
Michael, Philosopher
Monday, 15 August 2011
Equality of Possession:Redistribution of Property Act?-August 2011
I switched on the T.V. last week-end and couldn't help wondering, if only for a moment, if our wonderful leaders had taken equality concerns to the edge of madness and abolished private property. There in full view of the whole world were representatives from our society; the employed,unemployed, white, black, Asian all helping themselves to whatever they wanted, including t.v.'s, trainers,phones,food, clothes,cigs, and booze. What they didn't want, couldn't carry or was in their way was simply destroyed and discarded. Only hours later when the police seemed a wee bit upset by it all did I realise that what we had was a mass outbreak of criminality. Sigh of relief then,for a moment at least.
However, there are social issues we need to tackle and quickly. We are told by those who should know that many people are poor, cannot read or write properly, cannot find work and therefore cannot pay for anything. We need to sympathise with them we are told, we need to help them. I agree and, I have a plan. Some may find it controversial and say I'm a leftie with a soft head leading the country to destruction along with all other lefties, who believe the poor are victims of poverty, created by a globalist conspiracy to allow as many people as possible to make money and live comfortable lives. When in fact, we all know, especially lefties, that no-one really wants that kind of life at all. You only have to look at the lifestyles of the leftie class which ran the U.K for the ten years that most of those child criminals were growing up to see that.
I propose that everyone be entitled to free,- yes you read it right- full time education from the age of five to 18. Not only will it be free but, it will also be compulsory-no-one can opt out. In addition, if they are poor they should get a free meal in the middle of the school day.
Controversial-maybe- but it is the only way people can compete in the jobs market and so afford all those things they desire and other people-except for some really leftie types-want them to buy.
.If you agree with this please let your M P know A.S.A.P. IT'S TIME FOR RADICAL ACTION!
However, there are social issues we need to tackle and quickly. We are told by those who should know that many people are poor, cannot read or write properly, cannot find work and therefore cannot pay for anything. We need to sympathise with them we are told, we need to help them. I agree and, I have a plan. Some may find it controversial and say I'm a leftie with a soft head leading the country to destruction along with all other lefties, who believe the poor are victims of poverty, created by a globalist conspiracy to allow as many people as possible to make money and live comfortable lives. When in fact, we all know, especially lefties, that no-one really wants that kind of life at all. You only have to look at the lifestyles of the leftie class which ran the U.K for the ten years that most of those child criminals were growing up to see that.
I propose that everyone be entitled to free,- yes you read it right- full time education from the age of five to 18. Not only will it be free but, it will also be compulsory-no-one can opt out. In addition, if they are poor they should get a free meal in the middle of the school day.
Controversial-maybe- but it is the only way people can compete in the jobs market and so afford all those things they desire and other people-except for some really leftie types-want them to buy.
.If you agree with this please let your M P know A.S.A.P. IT'S TIME FOR RADICAL ACTION!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)