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.

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. 

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

Steve,Civil Servant

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

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!

Equality Means?

In the search for a definition of equality I decided to shift focus from government and policy makers to my peers.  I have posted some of the responses below.  Thank you to those who were kind enough to participate in my not too scientific piece of  research.

I shall post more as I get them.  In the meantime please feel free to respond to any of the posts or, take the poll, or even both.



  "every one is equal in every way__some hope!"
Peter, retired film editor.


  "every one is the same"
Michelle, Community volunteer.


  "never thought about it that much. But if I said what I thought it probably wouldn't be liked"
Lee,tyre fitter
  " Asking - What the term Equality means to me is one treacherous question its a bottomless pit in discussion, one persons equality is another persons route to oppression.

In my job as a firefighter the term equality has been sidelined and replaced to some extent by the concept of Fairness: Fairness at Work is an attempt to protect the worker against the employer the minorities against the majority. Although progress has been made and tolerance has increased the tendency is to force prejudice underground under the banner, often, of Political correctness gone mad.
Equality may mean treating everyone the same, without favour with justice rather than a set of laws. It is about accommodating difference or tolerating difference with due regard, respect and dignity
.Structurally society is at odds with fairness and equality ours is an unequal world wealth, power and control over ones own life go hand in hand, discrimination exits at all levels the law can only lay down behavioral limits which can be easily pushed aside or circumvented. Some religious groups could never be reconciled to homosexuality, or the role of women. Justice and fairness for all is but a slogan not a reality.
In conclusion, equality has a social and political edge, a secular Trinity always in conflict always being redefined and accommodated by the structure it exits in its strength ebbing and flowing in a constantly warring sea of conflicting needs. Reconciling those needs often requires a fight were there are winners and sore losers."

 John -Fire fighter

  "Never really thought about it, But, if I said what I think it probably wouldn't be liked"

Lee, Tyre fitter.

Are some of us more equal than others?

The recent furore over the alleged phone hacking by News of the World journalists and who at the top knew or didn't know has provided a glimpse into the world of our so called elites, those people who shape and fashion our society. Here we have hundreds of workers at the News of the World losing their jobs at the click of an email, while those who held positions of responsibility during the time of all the alleged dubious practice seem to still have enough clout to participate in the discussions and decision making about how the crisis should be dealt with. They seem to move effortlessly from one little cloud to another. Mr Coulson, when things got heated at the newspaper, simply moved to advising our Prime Minister, Ms Brooks kindly offers her resignation. Mr Murdoch, the big man himself, well he's going to sort it all out. And while he's taken the trouble to come over here he might as well try and boost his bid to get the rest of BSkyB.So, all's well with the world then .I don't know what Coulson and Brooks  will do next to earn a living. But I doubt they'll be spotted down the local Job Centre.
It's a nice thought though to image them completing a modern job application. And anyone trying to find work lately will know what I mean. I wonder how they would answer these typical questions:

 a) How do your skills and experiences meet the job description-please give examples?

 b) What qualities will you bring to our organisation?
.
 c) Have you ever been the subject of disciplinary procedures or investigations at your place of employment?.

And last but not least, the Criminal Records Check! Let's wait and see

In a fair and equal society the handling of this scandal would be very different, and there may not even have been a scandal. Perhaps if those journalists, who hacked into mobile phones had not been allowed to get away with it on the spurious ground that the victims were celebrities, maybe they would never have gone on to hack into the phone of a missing child. It should have been nipped in the bud. And it would have been if it were you or I stealing  and interfering with other people's private correspondence
But we all know in an equal society, some are more equal than others.

Equality ? well, depends how thick the door is

In a confused article by Trevor Phillips, Chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission,which appeared in the Telegraph last week we find the limits of state power in its drive to 'equalise'everything and everyone.
There is an admission by Mr Phillips that there is a popular anti-religious sentiment prevalent in society and that some people of faith are feeling under siege. However the E.H.R.C. is not party to it and will defend people of faith providing that they adhere to the law, they cannot be a special case. They should also keep politics behind the church door and not 'politicise' faith,remember they are providing a public service, and just for good measure, remember that their charitable status depends on the government.
All well and good. But then we find that while it is wrong for ordinary employers and service providers to discriminate on the grounds of race , gender, sexuality e.t.c. when it comes to religious institutions it is a different matter. Different rules apply.
 Apparently it is not for the Commission to be telling Churches how they should organise themselves and that a decision has been made not to pursue equality issues beyond the Church door.
In other words, Churches and other faith organisations can continue with practices,-women Bishops,gay Bishops,e.t.c. which, in other contexts would probably land them with a Tribunal or a Court appearance.
I rather suspect that it wasn't so much a decision to stop at the church door as finding that the 'church door,' far from being some charity, providing some kind of public service, is in fact, a very powerful organisation and that the door was too thick for the state to kick open.
So where does this lead the drive for equality, a supposedly universal principle to be universally applied?
If faith groups can opt-out why not others. To take the E.H.R.C policy to its logical conclusion it should be perfectly possible for an employer to discriminate in its recruitment of employees regards race, gender,e.t.c. providing they do not discriminate against customers!
Should having a religious belief exempt people from complying with laws the rest of us have to adhere to. Does it really matter?
Well,I don't know but, I suppose it's one definition of equality-ONLY GO FOR THE WEAK DOORS-

Equality

I was thinking about women's equality and what it means today, what the struggle was for. Do we really have equality? Equality must surely mean equality of responsibility as well as opportunity. Have we taken the same responsibility and, are we even expected to take it whether we want it or not. If equality is simply about choice, then that isn't really equality at all, it's advantage

If we were to become engaged in total war would the call up be imposed on women as well as men and, would women accept it as their duty like so many thousands of men have done in the past.

Just a thought