Saturday, December 30, 2006
Battle of Britain & El Cid – Lessons for our leaders.
These two films have some good scenes two of which I shall draw to your attention. I really wish certain (almost all) of our political and religious leaders would study these and thereby improve their leadership skills.
The first is from the Battle of Britain film, it’s just after Dunkirk, and the German ambassador to Switzerland goes to visit his British counterpart in the expectation of the acceptance of the German peace terms.
The British ambassador is small and balding, wearing a tweed jacket, and always reminds me somewhat of Peter Rabbit. The German ambassador is tall and well proportioned, his sleek silver hair swept back and he reminds me of a wolf. Brilliant casting. The German is sure of his ground, he expects the British to agree to terms and what’s more the British ambassador appears intimidated and frightened by the German.
Despite this obvious fear no doubt for his country, as well as what seems to be a personal fear of the German, the British ambassador masters himself and sticks to his position. He refuses to accept the German terms, despite both parties knowing that Britain has no real defences left; it is the German who leaves discomfited. That is an important part of what true courage consists of; it is when you are afraid, and you master the fear and stick to your position; even and especially if you know within yourself you cannot win. This spirit was seen not just in the film, but during the war itself, and I quote words from Captain Langsdorff the German Captain of the Graf Spee (made into another film the Battle of the River Plate): “You English are hard. You do not know when you are beaten. The Exeter was beaten, but would not know it!”
Can you imagine that being said of our political leaders today? Rather than turn and face anything, when confronted they’re more likely to crush each other in the rush to run up the white flag. Yet, and this is what amazes me, they rarely if ever have to actually face any real danger; the crew of The Exeter, engaged the Graf Spee, took hits and damage, but still carried on fighting, until finally forced to withdraw. In the film the British ambassador doesn’t mouth platitudes to placate the German, on being told if they don’t agree to terms the Germans will simply march in and take the country, he tells them straight - words to the effect: “if you can do that then go ahead”. Today of course our leaders don’t have to face anything of that magnitude or danger, but surrender seems the only thing they know. This brings me nicely on to El Cid.
Towards the end of that film, the hero El Cid, knows he must go and ride out into battle in order to rally the troops, but he’s dying (I think he’s been poisoned or wounded or something). Knowing that if he rides out, he’ll soon be done for, and in falling of his horse the men will be disheartened, he has a rod of iron fastened to his back, and he is tied to his horse, so he can ride out without danger of falling off.
Any modern leaders reading this (yeah right) perhaps thinking that sometimes they lack the courage they need to stand up to something, can simply borrow the example from El Cid. No need to go to extremes with a rod of iron, a simple stave of stout English Oak will suffice, strap it to your back and see how much better you will function. No matter if it’s a question of standing up for your principles (after you've found some), facing a hostile crowd (oh wait you’re not likely to face any crowd), or dealing with the lovely media, the stave of oak will help you considerably.
No need to thank me, it’s all part of the service.
Happy & Prosperous New Year to all my readers.
The first is from the Battle of Britain film, it’s just after Dunkirk, and the German ambassador to Switzerland goes to visit his British counterpart in the expectation of the acceptance of the German peace terms.
The British ambassador is small and balding, wearing a tweed jacket, and always reminds me somewhat of Peter Rabbit. The German ambassador is tall and well proportioned, his sleek silver hair swept back and he reminds me of a wolf. Brilliant casting. The German is sure of his ground, he expects the British to agree to terms and what’s more the British ambassador appears intimidated and frightened by the German.
Despite this obvious fear no doubt for his country, as well as what seems to be a personal fear of the German, the British ambassador masters himself and sticks to his position. He refuses to accept the German terms, despite both parties knowing that Britain has no real defences left; it is the German who leaves discomfited. That is an important part of what true courage consists of; it is when you are afraid, and you master the fear and stick to your position; even and especially if you know within yourself you cannot win. This spirit was seen not just in the film, but during the war itself, and I quote words from Captain Langsdorff the German Captain of the Graf Spee (made into another film the Battle of the River Plate): “You English are hard. You do not know when you are beaten. The Exeter was beaten, but would not know it!”
Can you imagine that being said of our political leaders today? Rather than turn and face anything, when confronted they’re more likely to crush each other in the rush to run up the white flag. Yet, and this is what amazes me, they rarely if ever have to actually face any real danger; the crew of The Exeter, engaged the Graf Spee, took hits and damage, but still carried on fighting, until finally forced to withdraw. In the film the British ambassador doesn’t mouth platitudes to placate the German, on being told if they don’t agree to terms the Germans will simply march in and take the country, he tells them straight - words to the effect: “if you can do that then go ahead”. Today of course our leaders don’t have to face anything of that magnitude or danger, but surrender seems the only thing they know. This brings me nicely on to El Cid.
Towards the end of that film, the hero El Cid, knows he must go and ride out into battle in order to rally the troops, but he’s dying (I think he’s been poisoned or wounded or something). Knowing that if he rides out, he’ll soon be done for, and in falling of his horse the men will be disheartened, he has a rod of iron fastened to his back, and he is tied to his horse, so he can ride out without danger of falling off.
Any modern leaders reading this (yeah right) perhaps thinking that sometimes they lack the courage they need to stand up to something, can simply borrow the example from El Cid. No need to go to extremes with a rod of iron, a simple stave of stout English Oak will suffice, strap it to your back and see how much better you will function. No matter if it’s a question of standing up for your principles (after you've found some), facing a hostile crowd (oh wait you’re not likely to face any crowd), or dealing with the lovely media, the stave of oak will help you considerably.
No need to thank me, it’s all part of the service.
Happy & Prosperous New Year to all my readers.
Labels: Courage, leadership
Friday, December 29, 2006
"Where getting more like America every day"
The above quote comes from a section of comments about an armed robbery in York. I can't believe it myself as apparently a handgun was used in the attack, but haven't these been banned by the benevolent government? You know: "... if it saves the life of one child it'll be worth it ..." ad nauseam.
Anyway clearly no one told the criminals about the handgun ban and now they've used one to commit a crime. Back to the (in the main) appalling comments if the person is referring to spelling and grammar then they might be correct as I suspect they actually want to say: "we're" as opposed to "where". Never mind, just another product of our "envy of the world" education system.
One commentator gives some information missing from the story: "Police turned up in response to panic alarm at 8pm, were more interested in two youths on a moped and left again leaving staff locked inside with robbers! Obviously they left these details out of the press release." Thus summing up the effectiveness of the modern British police. To return to the original comment, the person has missed one very significant difference in that in America, the shopkeeper might well be legally armed, in which case they'll be in a far better position to defend themselves and their property, leaving the police free to deal with important issues such as mopeds.
Another commentator has the right idea, but seems rather short on practicality: "Arm shopkeepers and let them shoot robbers provided it is all on CCTV showing an honest shot!" Yes all very well and good, but what if the CCTV happens to be pointing elsewhere, or is obscured at the time of shooting? You can hardly ask the robber to kindly step into focus "just so I can have a legal shot for the camera sir". So I say allow the shopkeepers (and householders) to arm themseleves and protect them legally with a "castle doctrine". "If it saves the life or property of just one shopkeeper or householder it'll be worth it"
So no I'm afraid we're not getting more like America every day, but I live in hope, with proper application and determination, we might one day get there.
Anyway clearly no one told the criminals about the handgun ban and now they've used one to commit a crime. Back to the (in the main) appalling comments if the person is referring to spelling and grammar then they might be correct as I suspect they actually want to say: "we're" as opposed to "where". Never mind, just another product of our "envy of the world" education system.
One commentator gives some information missing from the story: "Police turned up in response to panic alarm at 8pm, were more interested in two youths on a moped and left again leaving staff locked inside with robbers! Obviously they left these details out of the press release." Thus summing up the effectiveness of the modern British police. To return to the original comment, the person has missed one very significant difference in that in America, the shopkeeper might well be legally armed, in which case they'll be in a far better position to defend themselves and their property, leaving the police free to deal with important issues such as mopeds.
Another commentator has the right idea, but seems rather short on practicality: "Arm shopkeepers and let them shoot robbers provided it is all on CCTV showing an honest shot!" Yes all very well and good, but what if the CCTV happens to be pointing elsewhere, or is obscured at the time of shooting? You can hardly ask the robber to kindly step into focus "just so I can have a legal shot for the camera sir". So I say allow the shopkeepers (and householders) to arm themseleves and protect them legally with a "castle doctrine". "If it saves the life or property of just one shopkeeper or householder it'll be worth it"
So no I'm afraid we're not getting more like America every day, but I live in hope, with proper application and determination, we might one day get there.
Tags: guns, armed citizenry, crime
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: armed citizenry, Crime, guns
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Hurrah for recycling!!! The farce of the future.
The local "news"paper "reports" on a council placed, self-congratulatory story about recycling.
Councillor Waller tells us all about the great success of the "plan": "since last January, 2,954 compost bins had been sold to residents."
"Every resident who composts their kitchen waste is cutting York's carbon emissions, producing rich compost for their garden and reducing the amount the council has to pay to the Government in landfill fines." I'm struggling here, if it wasn't being burnt, then how does it reduce carbon emissions? Anyway doesn't it emit carbon dioxide as it decomposes anyway? If it were being burnt then it would produce negligible ash, so would make no effective difference to the landfill tax.
Waller doesn't mention garden waste and notice the focus in the article is on composting kitchen waste. What of garden waste? Oh well the council introduced a "green bin" in which residents can put all their garden waste (not kitchen waste - "Be Good, your council is watching you don't go committing any offences against recycling") and this goes for composting by the council. The success of that scheme is measured in elephants, and it's usually reported as "...having saved the equivalent of forty elephants...", what was done with this waste before? Well a lot of it was composted by people in their gardens, now it's collected, put in the refuse truck, taken to a site and composted by the council, so they can meet government targets. It's great being green, no extra labour or transport costs involved here at all.
We even have a group (no doubt paid for/subsidised by me) called "York Rotters" who: "have done a lot of good work across York by demonstrating how easy it is to compost". Oh quite, how did we manage without them? Thank you council for your rotters.
Anyway there's no stopping the "recycling revolution": "City of York Council is set to roll out kerbside cardboard recycling services to nearly 40,000 more households in the new year." Hurrah!!!
There's more good news: "A study, conducted earlier this year, found that 97 per cent of residents across the city were recycling in some form or another...". Wow! How intellectual: "... some form or another ...", what a great study, I wonder how much that cost?
There are three comments which seem to be calling for more of the same, but with a modicum of sense in that they point out: "...we used to have centres where the guy's would pull out the decent stuff and sell it for a couple of quid. The council stopped this so everything including the timber, furniture either gets smashed up and land fill or burned."
Clearly the commentator has missed the point and somehow thinks that recycling is a goal of itself. You stupid fool, under that system it couldn't be monitored and recorded so government figures couldn't be generated. It's much better now, just look at the figures, 97% of residents are recycling [in some form or another] and soon the glorious 40% will be achieved [albeit by taking and transporting "garden waste" which was previously composted by people in their own gardens].
It's really great to be part of this recycling revolution, I know I'm helping, even if it saves just 0.000001% of the environment for the children it will be worth it [no matter what it costs].
Hurrah for recycling.
Councillor Waller tells us all about the great success of the "plan": "since last January, 2,954 compost bins had been sold to residents."
"Every resident who composts their kitchen waste is cutting York's carbon emissions, producing rich compost for their garden and reducing the amount the council has to pay to the Government in landfill fines." I'm struggling here, if it wasn't being burnt, then how does it reduce carbon emissions? Anyway doesn't it emit carbon dioxide as it decomposes anyway? If it were being burnt then it would produce negligible ash, so would make no effective difference to the landfill tax.
Waller doesn't mention garden waste and notice the focus in the article is on composting kitchen waste. What of garden waste? Oh well the council introduced a "green bin" in which residents can put all their garden waste (not kitchen waste - "Be Good, your council is watching you don't go committing any offences against recycling") and this goes for composting by the council. The success of that scheme is measured in elephants, and it's usually reported as "...having saved the equivalent of forty elephants...", what was done with this waste before? Well a lot of it was composted by people in their gardens, now it's collected, put in the refuse truck, taken to a site and composted by the council, so they can meet government targets. It's great being green, no extra labour or transport costs involved here at all.
We even have a group (no doubt paid for/subsidised by me) called "York Rotters" who: "have done a lot of good work across York by demonstrating how easy it is to compost". Oh quite, how did we manage without them? Thank you council for your rotters.
Anyway there's no stopping the "recycling revolution": "City of York Council is set to roll out kerbside cardboard recycling services to nearly 40,000 more households in the new year." Hurrah!!!
There's more good news: "A study, conducted earlier this year, found that 97 per cent of residents across the city were recycling in some form or another...". Wow! How intellectual: "... some form or another ...", what a great study, I wonder how much that cost?
There are three comments which seem to be calling for more of the same, but with a modicum of sense in that they point out: "...we used to have centres where the guy's would pull out the decent stuff and sell it for a couple of quid. The council stopped this so everything including the timber, furniture either gets smashed up and land fill or burned."
Clearly the commentator has missed the point and somehow thinks that recycling is a goal of itself. You stupid fool, under that system it couldn't be monitored and recorded so government figures couldn't be generated. It's much better now, just look at the figures, 97% of residents are recycling [in some form or another] and soon the glorious 40% will be achieved [albeit by taking and transporting "garden waste" which was previously composted by people in their own gardens].
It's really great to be part of this recycling revolution, I know I'm helping, even if it saves just 0.000001% of the environment for the children it will be worth it [no matter what it costs].
Hurrah for recycling.
Labels: recycling, York council
Saturday, December 23, 2006
It's all our fault.
In a predictable "mea culpea" in The Times, the Archbishop of Canterbury blames our government and America for: "...endangering the lives and futures of many thousands of Christians in the Middle East..." My regular readers (both of them) will know that I'm no ardent supporter of the government and I have a healthy dislike of Blair and his administration; however we must be fair even to Blair, and ask ourselves: "Where is this danger coming from?"
” In some Middle Eastern countries where Muslim-Christian relations have always been good, he [Dr Rowan Williams] says that extremist attacks on Christians are becoming “notably more frequent.” The extremists aren't named, but from the tenor of the article it's clear they mean Muslim extremists.
There follows plenty of hand wringing and calls on the government and of course calls to that effective international body the UN to do "something". One point I would agree with is that no account seems to have been taken of the Christian population in the Middle East; however at the end of the day, those perpetrating these attacks are Muslims, not Isrealis, not Tony Blair, not the Americans. The responsibility for the attacks lies with those people committing the violent actions.
What might we expect from the "men of the cloth"? Well it's obvious isn't it, they're always telling us of the importance of good relations with Muslims clerics and the community, let them exert their influence; let's see some Muslim leaders and clerics condemn these attacks on Christians. Even if the moderate Muslims in Britain adopted this stance it would be a step in the right direction. There's a fat chance of this, the so called moderate Muslims in Britain will keep quiet, and we certainly won't hear any condemnation of these attacks from the practitioners of the "religion of peace" in the Middle East; no matter how many apologies and acts of dhimmitude we undertake.
It's time Christian leaders woke up to reality, yes being nice to people being tolerant, engaging in debate, it's all very well and good, but it isn't a one way street. If (and this applies to all) the tolerance and respect isn't reciprocated then other measures are clearly needed. It's no good quoting the Bible and saying turn the other cheek, for that can only apply to the person who's subject to the violence. If a Christian leader sees or is aware of such violence yes they can go and put themselves between the victim and assailant and refuse to return any violence, but they cannot say "I'm safe in England, you don't fight back". These Christian leaders aren't even prepared to go as far as saying to other religious leaders "look this is all wrong, you need to speak out and comdemn it, otherwise you can't expect any support from us over anything"; and why not? I think they fear having a few extremists demonstrating outside a church.
Well is this the example of Christ?
Did Christ back down?
What of Saint Peter, on fleeing Rome for his life, was he not told to turn back, and face his fate, and did he not obey?
"11 Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: 12 Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you. 13 You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men. 14 You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. 15 Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house. 16 So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven."
These so called leaders have lost their savour.
” In some Middle Eastern countries where Muslim-Christian relations have always been good, he [Dr Rowan Williams] says that extremist attacks on Christians are becoming “notably more frequent.” The extremists aren't named, but from the tenor of the article it's clear they mean Muslim extremists.
There follows plenty of hand wringing and calls on the government and of course calls to that effective international body the UN to do "something". One point I would agree with is that no account seems to have been taken of the Christian population in the Middle East; however at the end of the day, those perpetrating these attacks are Muslims, not Isrealis, not Tony Blair, not the Americans. The responsibility for the attacks lies with those people committing the violent actions.
What might we expect from the "men of the cloth"? Well it's obvious isn't it, they're always telling us of the importance of good relations with Muslims clerics and the community, let them exert their influence; let's see some Muslim leaders and clerics condemn these attacks on Christians. Even if the moderate Muslims in Britain adopted this stance it would be a step in the right direction. There's a fat chance of this, the so called moderate Muslims in Britain will keep quiet, and we certainly won't hear any condemnation of these attacks from the practitioners of the "religion of peace" in the Middle East; no matter how many apologies and acts of dhimmitude we undertake.
It's time Christian leaders woke up to reality, yes being nice to people being tolerant, engaging in debate, it's all very well and good, but it isn't a one way street. If (and this applies to all) the tolerance and respect isn't reciprocated then other measures are clearly needed. It's no good quoting the Bible and saying turn the other cheek, for that can only apply to the person who's subject to the violence. If a Christian leader sees or is aware of such violence yes they can go and put themselves between the victim and assailant and refuse to return any violence, but they cannot say "I'm safe in England, you don't fight back". These Christian leaders aren't even prepared to go as far as saying to other religious leaders "look this is all wrong, you need to speak out and comdemn it, otherwise you can't expect any support from us over anything"; and why not? I think they fear having a few extremists demonstrating outside a church.
Well is this the example of Christ?
Did Christ back down?
What of Saint Peter, on fleeing Rome for his life, was he not told to turn back, and face his fate, and did he not obey?
"11 Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: 12 Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you. 13 You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men. 14 You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. 15 Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house. 16 So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven."
These so called leaders have lost their savour.
Labels: Church
Friday, December 22, 2006
Grooming Apparatchiks - Got to catch them young.
Sorry for not posting on this at the time, but better late than never. The Times reported here on Wednesday 20/12/2006 about a primary school exercise in where children were told that Father Christmas did not exist.
Now whilst I can understand the ire of the parents being focussed on this aspect, really the reporter has no excuse for missing the other issues: "The worksheet handed to the Year 5 pupils said “many small children believe in Santa” but that his letters were actually handled by an official at the Post Office. ... the pupils were then asked to compose a reply to one of the “small children” explaining why a request for presents was being turned down." I mean just what sort of Christmas exercise is this? What other worksheets are included in the series? I can imagine one like this:
"You are an official working in the council considering objections to parking tickets. Mrs Jones has been issued incorrectly with a ticket, explain to her why you can't cancel it."
Or how about: "You are an official working for NICE, explain to Mrs Jones why the drugs she needs will not be available. Compose a different letter, granting the drugs and explaning the first letter as a mistake, in case the media gets wind of this."
I suppose for those that enjoy and excel at these "exercises" a more advanced range might be available, based on examples of (socialist (national or not)) state triumphs over humanity from throughout the 20th century.
Maybe I'm considered too cynical, but: "Their parents, some unbelievers themselves, had to explain why not everything that you are taught in school may be true." With all the politically correct and revisionist views circulating the so called "education system" this is something I'd have ensured the children knew before they started attending school.
Now whilst I can understand the ire of the parents being focussed on this aspect, really the reporter has no excuse for missing the other issues: "The worksheet handed to the Year 5 pupils said “many small children believe in Santa” but that his letters were actually handled by an official at the Post Office. ... the pupils were then asked to compose a reply to one of the “small children” explaining why a request for presents was being turned down." I mean just what sort of Christmas exercise is this? What other worksheets are included in the series? I can imagine one like this:
"You are an official working in the council considering objections to parking tickets. Mrs Jones has been issued incorrectly with a ticket, explain to her why you can't cancel it."
Or how about: "You are an official working for NICE, explain to Mrs Jones why the drugs she needs will not be available. Compose a different letter, granting the drugs and explaning the first letter as a mistake, in case the media gets wind of this."
I suppose for those that enjoy and excel at these "exercises" a more advanced range might be available, based on examples of (socialist (national or not)) state triumphs over humanity from throughout the 20th century.
Maybe I'm considered too cynical, but: "Their parents, some unbelievers themselves, had to explain why not everything that you are taught in school may be true." With all the politically correct and revisionist views circulating the so called "education system" this is something I'd have ensured the children knew before they started attending school.
Tags: state apparatchiks state education
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: Education, state apparatchiks
Now is the Winterval of our discontent.
Tucked away in the business section of The Times, but available here online, we have news on that bete noir of the Cameronites, tax.
The extent of Brown's banditry can be traced: "... taxes on income are now equivalent to 23.6 per cent of wages and salaries. The figure is the highest since records were first kept in 1987. The burden on consumers was at its lowest in the fourth quarter of 1997, shortly after Labour’s election victory, the data revealed. "So he's really had a field day. "Taxes on incomes rose by 6.7 per cent over the past year, much higher than the 4.6 per cent rise in wages and salaries." Ah yes, but the government needs it more than me and you, running the country is an expensive business you know.
Still nothing worry about, fortunately the Treasury has stepped in with some platitudes to undermine these Office of National Statistics figures: "... Using the quarterly accounts data, it is not possible to produce an accurate figure for income-tax ratios for households, as they take no account of income from a range of sources, for example savings, shares, and asset disposals. The fact is that, as a result of all tax and benefit reforms introduced since 1997, all households will be on average £1,000 a year better off in real terms from April 2007... " Note that, "all households", well I'd put a pound to an penny any day that I'm not better off. In fact (and without any checking) I'll put my money on it now, if I'm truly better off, then by however much it is, I'll give that extra straight to the Treasury, no problems, but if I'm worse off then they've got to make up the excess. I don't think they'll take me up on this somehow.
Anyway it's a true socialist winterval we're facing, high taxes, cold weather, rubbish government, atrocious opposition. Still dear readers take heart, all bad things come to an end and the darkest hour is just before the dawn. I hope before too long we can all celebrate a low tax Conservative Christmas.
The extent of Brown's banditry can be traced: "... taxes on income are now equivalent to 23.6 per cent of wages and salaries. The figure is the highest since records were first kept in 1987. The burden on consumers was at its lowest in the fourth quarter of 1997, shortly after Labour’s election victory, the data revealed. "So he's really had a field day. "Taxes on incomes rose by 6.7 per cent over the past year, much higher than the 4.6 per cent rise in wages and salaries." Ah yes, but the government needs it more than me and you, running the country is an expensive business you know.
Still nothing worry about, fortunately the Treasury has stepped in with some platitudes to undermine these Office of National Statistics figures: "... Using the quarterly accounts data, it is not possible to produce an accurate figure for income-tax ratios for households, as they take no account of income from a range of sources, for example savings, shares, and asset disposals. The fact is that, as a result of all tax and benefit reforms introduced since 1997, all households will be on average £1,000 a year better off in real terms from April 2007... " Note that, "all households", well I'd put a pound to an penny any day that I'm not better off. In fact (and without any checking) I'll put my money on it now, if I'm truly better off, then by however much it is, I'll give that extra straight to the Treasury, no problems, but if I'm worse off then they've got to make up the excess. I don't think they'll take me up on this somehow.
Anyway it's a true socialist winterval we're facing, high taxes, cold weather, rubbish government, atrocious opposition. Still dear readers take heart, all bad things come to an end and the darkest hour is just before the dawn. I hope before too long we can all celebrate a low tax Conservative Christmas.
Labels: tax
Belated apology
Sorry for the lack of posting yesterday, but I had a router problem I had to fix.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
The Only Tax Rise I Wanted To See
The Times reports here on a great disappointment, namely the small increase in the telly tax.
As a person exempt from this onerous charge (no not through age or blindness), it's one I like to see go up and up, not because I like high taxes, or because the BBC deserve all this largesse. No, every year the BBC produces a plethora of politically correct rubbish and disgracefully biased and or shoddy reporting. The more they charge for this rubbish, the more likely that people will question the existence of the BBC and its funding basis.
The fact that the rise they wanted has not been approved is in my view a sign that the BBC is starting to lose touch, and they should be grateful to their political masters for this measure as now they will be forced into some economies. In the long run it'll make no difference as I'm sure their bias and political correctness will win out, if I'd have been in charge of the decision I'd have let them go up to £500.00p per annum at their own discretion, I'm confident they'd have reached it within a year or two, well before 2012. Thus by giving them enough rope they'd have solved the whole BBC issue.
As a person exempt from this onerous charge (no not through age or blindness), it's one I like to see go up and up, not because I like high taxes, or because the BBC deserve all this largesse. No, every year the BBC produces a plethora of politically correct rubbish and disgracefully biased and or shoddy reporting. The more they charge for this rubbish, the more likely that people will question the existence of the BBC and its funding basis.
The fact that the rise they wanted has not been approved is in my view a sign that the BBC is starting to lose touch, and they should be grateful to their political masters for this measure as now they will be forced into some economies. In the long run it'll make no difference as I'm sure their bias and political correctness will win out, if I'd have been in charge of the decision I'd have let them go up to £500.00p per annum at their own discretion, I'm confident they'd have reached it within a year or two, well before 2012. Thus by giving them enough rope they'd have solved the whole BBC issue.
Tags: BBC, television licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: BBC, tax, television licence
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
The Only Way Is Up
The Times reports here on the rising cost of the Olympics, less than a month ago when I wrote here the costs were estimated at 4 billion and I said 20 billion, now there at 8 billion and rising so my 20 billion (like me) seems rather conservative.
Anyway aside from the incorrect headline in the print version saying: "Olympic bill up to £1bn..." which should surely be "up by" the article tells us that up to 80 businesses and hundreds of residents may have to be evicted to accommodate this leviathan and that happily compulsory purchase orders can now be used to ensure the site is vacant.
It's what you'd expect in a third world country, bulldozers moving in demolishing the shantytown to build a new presidential palace. Of course that's no real comparison, here in the Socialist homeland a palace to the people is to be built and these bourgeoisie individualists who are selfishly holding on to their property (remember all property is theft) instead of accepting the generous compensation offers by the good state don't deserve anything and indeed it shall be taken from them.
For those still concerned about the false stories of rising costs of this glorious event of the people: "Department for Culture, Media and Sport officials said they did not consider the agency expenses of relocating businesses to vacate the site as part of the core costs of the Olympic Games." So you can see the costs aren't really rising at all as this kind of thing isn't anything to do with the costs of the event at all.
All the talk of relocation disguises some hard facts including: "Some of those most difficult to move include car breakers and small businesses." This is what it's all about, it's fairly easy to move a large supermarket from A to B, but a car breaker, well no one wants that near them, but it's a necessary service. These businesses are surviving and competing in the market economy and part of that success must be due to their location even to an extent never even considered by the owners, things such as transport links, possibly cheaper labour etc. and relocating them could well finish them off anyway.
In the balance of things, I wouldn't even risk losing one of these businesses for such a wasteful event that the 2012 Olympics will be. The business however small contributes to the economy, the Olympics will drain it, and there's no way it'll match anything done by America or China or Australia. We'll be the shame of the world and it'll give the Aussies another thing to have a go at us with.
Anyway aside from the incorrect headline in the print version saying: "Olympic bill up to £1bn..." which should surely be "up by" the article tells us that up to 80 businesses and hundreds of residents may have to be evicted to accommodate this leviathan and that happily compulsory purchase orders can now be used to ensure the site is vacant.
It's what you'd expect in a third world country, bulldozers moving in demolishing the shantytown to build a new presidential palace. Of course that's no real comparison, here in the Socialist homeland a palace to the people is to be built and these bourgeoisie individualists who are selfishly holding on to their property (remember all property is theft) instead of accepting the generous compensation offers by the good state don't deserve anything and indeed it shall be taken from them.
For those still concerned about the false stories of rising costs of this glorious event of the people: "Department for Culture, Media and Sport officials said they did not consider the agency expenses of relocating businesses to vacate the site as part of the core costs of the Olympic Games." So you can see the costs aren't really rising at all as this kind of thing isn't anything to do with the costs of the event at all.
All the talk of relocation disguises some hard facts including: "Some of those most difficult to move include car breakers and small businesses." This is what it's all about, it's fairly easy to move a large supermarket from A to B, but a car breaker, well no one wants that near them, but it's a necessary service. These businesses are surviving and competing in the market economy and part of that success must be due to their location even to an extent never even considered by the owners, things such as transport links, possibly cheaper labour etc. and relocating them could well finish them off anyway.
In the balance of things, I wouldn't even risk losing one of these businesses for such a wasteful event that the 2012 Olympics will be. The business however small contributes to the economy, the Olympics will drain it, and there's no way it'll match anything done by America or China or Australia. We'll be the shame of the world and it'll give the Aussies another thing to have a go at us with.
Tags: Olympic Games, private property freedom
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: Olympic Games 2012, Private Property
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Professor Canter returns
With the arrest of a suspect in the Ipswich murders, it comes as no surprise that Professor Canter returns to the pages of The Times here. This time is different however lacking the pre-Christmas winterval book plug.
Also lacking is his old style, gone are the contradictions and statements of the obvious and instead we're treated to an exercise in banality and a commentary of what the police do. I would have thought a policeman or policewoman might be better placed to tell us what the police do.
Unfortunately, also missing is him telling us what the psychologist does, and I suspect there is good reason for this, something along the lines of the answer being: "nothing". I would have thought that with his "magical insights" see his previous writing, the psychologist would be the ideal "professional" to tell us if this suspect is guilty or not. The suspect himself has publicly stated he has no alibis for any of the murders (itself unusual as no one (apart from the murderer) knows when they happened, so how would you know if you had an alibi or not?) Also that he knew all five victims (what's the odds?). Professor Canter admits that getting the necessary forensic evidence could be very painstaking and time consuming; so I'd have thought it a great boon to know that yes the police are concentrating on the right suspect.
I would have thought that with psychology being clearly recognised as a science that with some psychological techniques and analysis Professor Canter should be able to tell us definitely yes this suspect is capable to these crimes or no he isn't. Remember to that there have been proposals to suggest that these things can be spotted very early on and that such people can and should be "treated" before even committing any crime. If that is truly the state of the science, once they've actually committed the crime, spotting them should be child's play especially to an advanced practitioner such as the professor.
Only a nasty cynic such as myself would say that the reason the professor has nothing to say and can't actually do any of this stuff, because psychology is just a load of mumbo jumbo; that exists merely to pay the wages of the practitioners. I wonder if a true scientific study was undertaken, in the actual tangible provable benefits of psychology what we might actually find, and I'd be surprised if we could rate it above astrology.
I don't think I've seen a horoscope in The Times, perhaps they need one.
Also lacking is his old style, gone are the contradictions and statements of the obvious and instead we're treated to an exercise in banality and a commentary of what the police do. I would have thought a policeman or policewoman might be better placed to tell us what the police do.
Unfortunately, also missing is him telling us what the psychologist does, and I suspect there is good reason for this, something along the lines of the answer being: "nothing". I would have thought that with his "magical insights" see his previous writing, the psychologist would be the ideal "professional" to tell us if this suspect is guilty or not. The suspect himself has publicly stated he has no alibis for any of the murders (itself unusual as no one (apart from the murderer) knows when they happened, so how would you know if you had an alibi or not?) Also that he knew all five victims (what's the odds?). Professor Canter admits that getting the necessary forensic evidence could be very painstaking and time consuming; so I'd have thought it a great boon to know that yes the police are concentrating on the right suspect.
I would have thought that with psychology being clearly recognised as a science that with some psychological techniques and analysis Professor Canter should be able to tell us definitely yes this suspect is capable to these crimes or no he isn't. Remember to that there have been proposals to suggest that these things can be spotted very early on and that such people can and should be "treated" before even committing any crime. If that is truly the state of the science, once they've actually committed the crime, spotting them should be child's play especially to an advanced practitioner such as the professor.
Only a nasty cynic such as myself would say that the reason the professor has nothing to say and can't actually do any of this stuff, because psychology is just a load of mumbo jumbo; that exists merely to pay the wages of the practitioners. I wonder if a true scientific study was undertaken, in the actual tangible provable benefits of psychology what we might actually find, and I'd be surprised if we could rate it above astrology.
I don't think I've seen a horoscope in The Times, perhaps they need one.
Tags: crime, justice, psychology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: Crime, Psychology
Monday, December 18, 2006
"Jail the Chief"
The Times reports here on the latest from the loans for lordships affair.
We're told: "the investigation has widened to include a suspected cover-up by those around the Prime Minister ... A prosecution source said: “There is more than a suspicion that evidence has not been handed over, people have colluded and the police are not being helped.
More detail is helpfully given: "The possibility of charges on perverting the course of justice was discussed by CPS lawyers after meetings with police. Such charges can be brought if a person tries to interfere with an investigation that might bring criminal proceedings. The charge, which carries a maximum life sentence, ... . According to the CPS, “it does not matter whether or not the act results in a perversion of the course of justice: the offence is committed when acts tending and intended to pervert a course of justice are done”.
It certainly doesn't bode well. The Prime Minister is enmeshed in this scandal and has brought shame and dishonour not just on himself and his family, but on the office he holds and on the nation. The loans business was bad enough on its own, but now (and unfortunately it comes as no surprise) we can see a culture of deceit and dishonesty. Tony Blair is supposed to be responsible for the government and even if he has no direct involvement with any alleged "cover-up" he has at least allowed and possibly encouraged this rotten culture right at the very heart of our country.
We are told that The Times on Saturday reported: "... his [Tony Blairs'] evidence contradicted that of his close friend, Lord Levy, who will now be interviewed again." [authors' additions] Clearly one of these two (shall we say) must be in error and the investigation seems to be going as I predicted, in that the interview with Blair was just a first tentative step. If he is innocent, and presuming he is genuine about leaving office, he should resign now and concentrate on clearing his name thus leaving the office he holds as unsullied as possible.
Personally I can't see that happening although I hope we're not treated to the spectacle of the Prime Minister leaving Downing Street handcuffed in a police car. These are serious charges, and whilst this cloud hangs over Downing Street, the office of Prime Minister cannot be effectively carried out. When something like this reaches this level there are no excuses, no "poor deprived childhood", no "not my job", no "just following orders" and no "not my responsibility". There are many benefits and much power associated with high office, but very few realise the burden such carries, a better person would never have allowed themselves to get into such a position and Blair must "carry the can" for his failings.
It's so ironic though, a Socialist Prime Minister, who has been responsible for curtailing our freedoms and inflicting all sorts of nonsense upon us, and what's going to get him? Dirty little bourgeois deals involving affectations such as titles of nobility. You should have left these things to the capitalists comrade! Socialists earn their living by the sweat of their brow!
We're told: "the investigation has widened to include a suspected cover-up by those around the Prime Minister ... A prosecution source said: “There is more than a suspicion that evidence has not been handed over, people have colluded and the police are not being helped.
More detail is helpfully given: "The possibility of charges on perverting the course of justice was discussed by CPS lawyers after meetings with police. Such charges can be brought if a person tries to interfere with an investigation that might bring criminal proceedings. The charge, which carries a maximum life sentence, ... . According to the CPS, “it does not matter whether or not the act results in a perversion of the course of justice: the offence is committed when acts tending and intended to pervert a course of justice are done”.
It certainly doesn't bode well. The Prime Minister is enmeshed in this scandal and has brought shame and dishonour not just on himself and his family, but on the office he holds and on the nation. The loans business was bad enough on its own, but now (and unfortunately it comes as no surprise) we can see a culture of deceit and dishonesty. Tony Blair is supposed to be responsible for the government and even if he has no direct involvement with any alleged "cover-up" he has at least allowed and possibly encouraged this rotten culture right at the very heart of our country.
We are told that The Times on Saturday reported: "... his [Tony Blairs'] evidence contradicted that of his close friend, Lord Levy, who will now be interviewed again." [authors' additions] Clearly one of these two (shall we say) must be in error and the investigation seems to be going as I predicted, in that the interview with Blair was just a first tentative step. If he is innocent, and presuming he is genuine about leaving office, he should resign now and concentrate on clearing his name thus leaving the office he holds as unsullied as possible.
Personally I can't see that happening although I hope we're not treated to the spectacle of the Prime Minister leaving Downing Street handcuffed in a police car. These are serious charges, and whilst this cloud hangs over Downing Street, the office of Prime Minister cannot be effectively carried out. When something like this reaches this level there are no excuses, no "poor deprived childhood", no "not my job", no "just following orders" and no "not my responsibility". There are many benefits and much power associated with high office, but very few realise the burden such carries, a better person would never have allowed themselves to get into such a position and Blair must "carry the can" for his failings.
It's so ironic though, a Socialist Prime Minister, who has been responsible for curtailing our freedoms and inflicting all sorts of nonsense upon us, and what's going to get him? Dirty little bourgeois deals involving affectations such as titles of nobility. You should have left these things to the capitalists comrade! Socialists earn their living by the sweat of their brow!
Tags: justice, corruption, Labour
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: corruption, Labour
Friday, December 15, 2006
A Mixed Bag
Apologies for the lack of posting yesterday, but an unfortunate over indulgence in sleep meant I lacked the time slot to write. I'm rather disappointed as I seem to have missed Professor Canter's last article, but I'll maybe try it over the weekend, giving me the hat trick as it were.
The Times leads today here with the publication of Lord Stevens report into the death of Princess Diana. I've never been one for the conspiracy theories that abound this tragic event; mainly because I can't see how anyone would benefit from her death especially at that juncture in time.
Princess Diana had a very good public image and a lot of public support, even assuming that she was planning to and would have married Dodi Fayed, it is my view that this would have lost her quite a bit of public support. She would have been seen as someone who'd been married to Prince Charles and who was the mother to a future King, but who had "moved on", and this would have been reflected in how people would have thought about her.
My view is that from the point of view of the establishment, the best thing for them would have been for Princess Diana to re-marry especially to a figure unlikely to engender much public support. This unfortunate situation for me contrasts sharply with the death of Dr David Kelly and I'm not convinced that his death was indeed suicide.
This brings us nicely onto pages 2 and 3 of The Times where we have Mr Blair the Prime Minister securing his place in history by being the first prime minister holding office to be questioned by the police as part of a criminal investigation. The investigation of course not being into the death of Dr Kelly, but rather into the loans for lordship affair.
"Teflon Tony" wasn't arrested or interviewed under caution, or anything like that, he was merely "treated as a witness", so I suppose sort of "helping the police with their enquiries". According to the report he had no lawyer with him, although the report fails to mention that Mr Blair used to be a barrister, (a point I would have thought relevant) so perhaps he didn't feel the same need for legal advice that a non-lawyer might.
According to the report, these honours were "party peerages" and a spokesperson stated: "The honours were not therefore for public services but expressly party peerages given for party service. In these circumstances the fact that they have supported the party financially could not conceivably be a barrier to their nomination." Which is all very well and good but somehow ignores the main problem being of course: "it would be against the 1925 Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act to promise peerages in return for money."
I don't know where all this is going of course. It would have been ridiculous that the first interview with the Prime Minister would be anything other than what happened. I suspect it might end up like an episode of Columbo where he keeps going back to clear up a small minor point, and eventually the criminal is trapped. Of course I'm not saying that Mr Blair is a criminal, but obviously on the television, on Columbo, the whole point of the program is to find the culprit, and an unsuccessful investigation would fail to make an episode. So it could equally be that when they go back to clear up minor points, the Prime Minister emerges as whiter than white and we can all sleep safely in our beds.
Anyway I'm sure you'll all agree with me that the most important thing is for Mr Blair to have secured his place in history. Now this glorious accomplishment has been achieved, he can leave office safe in the knowledge we shall relish his legacy.
The Times leads today here with the publication of Lord Stevens report into the death of Princess Diana. I've never been one for the conspiracy theories that abound this tragic event; mainly because I can't see how anyone would benefit from her death especially at that juncture in time.
Princess Diana had a very good public image and a lot of public support, even assuming that she was planning to and would have married Dodi Fayed, it is my view that this would have lost her quite a bit of public support. She would have been seen as someone who'd been married to Prince Charles and who was the mother to a future King, but who had "moved on", and this would have been reflected in how people would have thought about her.
My view is that from the point of view of the establishment, the best thing for them would have been for Princess Diana to re-marry especially to a figure unlikely to engender much public support. This unfortunate situation for me contrasts sharply with the death of Dr David Kelly and I'm not convinced that his death was indeed suicide.
This brings us nicely onto pages 2 and 3 of The Times where we have Mr Blair the Prime Minister securing his place in history by being the first prime minister holding office to be questioned by the police as part of a criminal investigation. The investigation of course not being into the death of Dr Kelly, but rather into the loans for lordship affair.
"Teflon Tony" wasn't arrested or interviewed under caution, or anything like that, he was merely "treated as a witness", so I suppose sort of "helping the police with their enquiries". According to the report he had no lawyer with him, although the report fails to mention that Mr Blair used to be a barrister, (a point I would have thought relevant) so perhaps he didn't feel the same need for legal advice that a non-lawyer might.
According to the report, these honours were "party peerages" and a spokesperson stated: "The honours were not therefore for public services but expressly party peerages given for party service. In these circumstances the fact that they have supported the party financially could not conceivably be a barrier to their nomination." Which is all very well and good but somehow ignores the main problem being of course: "it would be against the 1925 Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act to promise peerages in return for money."
I don't know where all this is going of course. It would have been ridiculous that the first interview with the Prime Minister would be anything other than what happened. I suspect it might end up like an episode of Columbo where he keeps going back to clear up a small minor point, and eventually the criminal is trapped. Of course I'm not saying that Mr Blair is a criminal, but obviously on the television, on Columbo, the whole point of the program is to find the culprit, and an unsuccessful investigation would fail to make an episode. So it could equally be that when they go back to clear up minor points, the Prime Minister emerges as whiter than white and we can all sleep safely in our beds.
Anyway I'm sure you'll all agree with me that the most important thing is for Mr Blair to have secured his place in history. Now this glorious accomplishment has been achieved, he can leave office safe in the knowledge we shall relish his legacy.
Tags: justice, Labour, corruption
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: corruption, Labour
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Professor Canter again
With the tragic death toll in Suffolk rising, Professor Canter returns to the pages of The Times here with another "analysis" piece. Yet again it's a mixture of statements of the obvious and contradictions, perhaps someone should analyse the professor.
Yesterday we were told of the importance of finding the first murder, as the killer would have slipped up and left important clues, making it relatively easy to solve. Today we're told: "Whatever distorted idea he had about the necessity of the killing will have given way to the cold logic of disposing of her body with the minimum evidence to lead back to him." and further on: "...as the pressures build from the massive police investigation and media interest, he can no longer take the precautions he originally did." Oh so in fact the first murder is likely to be the hardest to solve, well make up your mind professor.
We have some further speculation, no doubt only ever thought of by such an exalted mind: "It therefore has to be possible that even if there was one evil mind behind this he had a willing assistant." Actually professor, by my count that would make at least two evil minds, the "willing assistant" must be evil too, also I somehow suspect that this might have just managed to occur to the police quite independently of your own input.
The professor writes at some length on some killings in America and focuses on the geographic nature of the location of finding the bodies: "What brought the offender to this area? Is it a place he knew from more innocent activities? Or is he trying to put a distance between his base and the victims’ bodies? If so, how far would he think was an appropriate distance?" Yes well, all very good, but in practical terms we're far more likely to be able to answer such questions after the killer is caught, and even posing these questions to the investigative team will give them a bigger conundrum to solve than that of actually catching the killer (or killers); bear in mind that each location may have been chosen for a different reason.
We then get a lot of unnecessary distinguishing between these killings, and the shootings at Columbine and Hungerford, so he could just as well have drawn unnecessary distinctions with a fraud or a mugging.
A ridiculous statement of the obvious follows: "...the killer, or killers, by now will have thought through how best to avoid detection. He will be deeply interested in the police inquiry, but be at pains to avoid drawing attention to himself. As the international media interest grows he may be tempted to reveal his hand some more, but is more likely to be driven further underground." I translate this as: "It could be green or it could be red, but until we see it we really don't know." Do you think maybe the professor gets to be an expert witness in court?
He has more on the role of the police which seems to have changed a little into a more traditional role: "...the police will have the task of filtering out all the disturbed, or silly, individuals who seek some distorted glory, or confused expiation of their imagined sins, by confessing to the police for crimes they have not committed." Actually professor I'd have thought you'd have been best at this, I mean you'd be able to look at the psychology and with your "magical insights" (see yesterday) you'd be able to quickly identify and eliminate these people from the police enquiry.
Finally we get the admission of a sad, but inevitable truth: "...in the past serial killings against victims with whom the offender had no obvious connections have usually been solved by the killer making a mistake ..." Yes indeed no amount of psychology seems to work. We get a nice sop to the "big brother" state though (Is the professor perhaps hoping for something?) "Nowadays, with automatic numberplate recognition and closed-circuit television footage, ... it is much easier for even the most careful criminals to leave identifying traces." Just think if we had compulsory ID cards, perhaps the killer might have dropped his, wouldn't that have made it a lot easier? My view on CCTV and automatic number plate recognition is that any criminal with half a brain could easily avoid them (I won't say how).
Yet again an invaluable and insightful contribution from the professor to our understanding. Thank you so much.
Yesterday we were told of the importance of finding the first murder, as the killer would have slipped up and left important clues, making it relatively easy to solve. Today we're told: "Whatever distorted idea he had about the necessity of the killing will have given way to the cold logic of disposing of her body with the minimum evidence to lead back to him." and further on: "...as the pressures build from the massive police investigation and media interest, he can no longer take the precautions he originally did." Oh so in fact the first murder is likely to be the hardest to solve, well make up your mind professor.
We have some further speculation, no doubt only ever thought of by such an exalted mind: "It therefore has to be possible that even if there was one evil mind behind this he had a willing assistant." Actually professor, by my count that would make at least two evil minds, the "willing assistant" must be evil too, also I somehow suspect that this might have just managed to occur to the police quite independently of your own input.
The professor writes at some length on some killings in America and focuses on the geographic nature of the location of finding the bodies: "What brought the offender to this area? Is it a place he knew from more innocent activities? Or is he trying to put a distance between his base and the victims’ bodies? If so, how far would he think was an appropriate distance?" Yes well, all very good, but in practical terms we're far more likely to be able to answer such questions after the killer is caught, and even posing these questions to the investigative team will give them a bigger conundrum to solve than that of actually catching the killer (or killers); bear in mind that each location may have been chosen for a different reason.
We then get a lot of unnecessary distinguishing between these killings, and the shootings at Columbine and Hungerford, so he could just as well have drawn unnecessary distinctions with a fraud or a mugging.
A ridiculous statement of the obvious follows: "...the killer, or killers, by now will have thought through how best to avoid detection. He will be deeply interested in the police inquiry, but be at pains to avoid drawing attention to himself. As the international media interest grows he may be tempted to reveal his hand some more, but is more likely to be driven further underground." I translate this as: "It could be green or it could be red, but until we see it we really don't know." Do you think maybe the professor gets to be an expert witness in court?
He has more on the role of the police which seems to have changed a little into a more traditional role: "...the police will have the task of filtering out all the disturbed, or silly, individuals who seek some distorted glory, or confused expiation of their imagined sins, by confessing to the police for crimes they have not committed." Actually professor I'd have thought you'd have been best at this, I mean you'd be able to look at the psychology and with your "magical insights" (see yesterday) you'd be able to quickly identify and eliminate these people from the police enquiry.
Finally we get the admission of a sad, but inevitable truth: "...in the past serial killings against victims with whom the offender had no obvious connections have usually been solved by the killer making a mistake ..." Yes indeed no amount of psychology seems to work. We get a nice sop to the "big brother" state though (Is the professor perhaps hoping for something?) "Nowadays, with automatic numberplate recognition and closed-circuit television footage, ... it is much easier for even the most careful criminals to leave identifying traces." Just think if we had compulsory ID cards, perhaps the killer might have dropped his, wouldn't that have made it a lot easier? My view on CCTV and automatic number plate recognition is that any criminal with half a brain could easily avoid them (I won't say how).
Yet again an invaluable and insightful contribution from the professor to our understanding. Thank you so much.
Tags: crime, justice, psychology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: Crime, Psychology
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Do You Know What You're Talking About?
With these worrying murders of prostitutes in Suffolk and the likelihood that a serial killer is at large, The Times gives us an analysis here from a Professor David Canter.
The good professor starts with some statements of the obvious: "They frequently have criminal backgrounds that can include burglary and theft, drug dealing or, of course, violence. They evolve through various stages of criminality..." Yes well, but when people call for tough deterrent sentences I don't hear you singing professor. Surely we shuold have strongly escalating deterrent sentences to discourage this ascent of criminality?
He then tells us: "...if the police can identify the perpetrator’s first violent crime, (referring specifically to a murder fdm) they will come very close to solving the case." As: "At the time of that first crime, he would not have honed his skills." Yes, but if at the time the police couldn't solve it then, it's going to be much harder now isn't it? If it was some time ago then the trail might have gone cold, unless of course the police made such a pig's ear of the initial investigation. In which case of course the job might be comaparatively easy.
The professor goes on to tell us of the killer's motivation, although in the following paragraph he admits that it is just speculation and adds nothing to the investigation. The professor continues: "Officers no longer believe that magical insights can be had from the poorly informed opinion of some Cracker-like figure." I'm not sure what to make of that, "officers no longer believe", does the professor think that perhaps they should? He certainly offers no justifications for a belief in "magical insights". For the director of the Centre of Investigative Psychology, University of Liverpool, he seems very non-committal.
We're then told: "The investigative psychologists who contribute to police investigations do not call themselves profilers any more but behavioural investigative analysts. They see their job as operational guidance rather than psychological profiles." I translate this as: we couldn't do what he thought we could, but as we're all getting paid and need to justify our existence, we've changed our job title.
The professor gives us some detail on the new role: "They help the police to decide how to identify potential suspects. They give guidance on how suspects may be put into some order of priority. Most importantly, they draw on geographical profiling to create a very detailed analysis of where the victims’ bodies were found to build a picture of what the offender’s “mental map” is of the area, and how it may be influenced by other locations with which he is familiar, such as where he lives or works. That can then be used to focus house-to-house inquiries and other intelligence searches." Well I'd have thought that was the role of the police, you know identifying suspects, prioritising tasks etc. It just sounds like normal investigative work to me.
Still all is not lost as the professor then tells us what the police should do: "Police then need to identify the interpersonal and intellectual consistencies that the offender exhibits by detailed study of how he committed the crimes. For example, leaving the bodies in water will have reduced the forensic evidence but could carry great psychological significance. If there is no obvious sexual activity, as has been reported in this instance, it suggests anger rather than sexual sadism." Personally I couldn't care less for all this guff, I'm not interested in what motivates the killer, I like the vast majority of the public simply want the killer caught and brought to justice (which on the bare facts should mean hanging here), and I rather thought that was the job of the police.
We are then treated to another statement of the obvious: "One significant problem in this case will be the unwillingness of most potential witnesses — clients of prostitutes — to present themselves for questioning." What an insight, I can see why we need these sort of people to guide the police.
The professor finally concludes: "The confusions and inefficiencies in that investigation (Jack the ripper fdm) cast a long shadow over their work. No longer do you hear of police talking of the completely ineffective strategy of leaving no stone unturned. Instead they now have highly trained and sophisticated teams working steadily through the appropriate options. These actions will be guided by behavioural and other scientists, but in the end it will be the intelligence and determination of the investigative team that will bring the killer to justice." So if the guidance from the behavioural and other scientists doesn't solve the crime why do we have it? Note the clever inclusion of other scientists, clearly this behavioural analysis is just as important as forensics. In the end the professor admits that it's the: "intelligence and determination of the investigative team that will bring the killer to justice." So perhaps someone could tell me why do we pay these behavioural bods from the public purse?
The good professor starts with some statements of the obvious: "They frequently have criminal backgrounds that can include burglary and theft, drug dealing or, of course, violence. They evolve through various stages of criminality..." Yes well, but when people call for tough deterrent sentences I don't hear you singing professor. Surely we shuold have strongly escalating deterrent sentences to discourage this ascent of criminality?
He then tells us: "...if the police can identify the perpetrator’s first violent crime, (referring specifically to a murder fdm) they will come very close to solving the case." As: "At the time of that first crime, he would not have honed his skills." Yes, but if at the time the police couldn't solve it then, it's going to be much harder now isn't it? If it was some time ago then the trail might have gone cold, unless of course the police made such a pig's ear of the initial investigation. In which case of course the job might be comaparatively easy.
The professor goes on to tell us of the killer's motivation, although in the following paragraph he admits that it is just speculation and adds nothing to the investigation. The professor continues: "Officers no longer believe that magical insights can be had from the poorly informed opinion of some Cracker-like figure." I'm not sure what to make of that, "officers no longer believe", does the professor think that perhaps they should? He certainly offers no justifications for a belief in "magical insights". For the director of the Centre of Investigative Psychology, University of Liverpool, he seems very non-committal.
We're then told: "The investigative psychologists who contribute to police investigations do not call themselves profilers any more but behavioural investigative analysts. They see their job as operational guidance rather than psychological profiles." I translate this as: we couldn't do what he thought we could, but as we're all getting paid and need to justify our existence, we've changed our job title.
The professor gives us some detail on the new role: "They help the police to decide how to identify potential suspects. They give guidance on how suspects may be put into some order of priority. Most importantly, they draw on geographical profiling to create a very detailed analysis of where the victims’ bodies were found to build a picture of what the offender’s “mental map” is of the area, and how it may be influenced by other locations with which he is familiar, such as where he lives or works. That can then be used to focus house-to-house inquiries and other intelligence searches." Well I'd have thought that was the role of the police, you know identifying suspects, prioritising tasks etc. It just sounds like normal investigative work to me.
Still all is not lost as the professor then tells us what the police should do: "Police then need to identify the interpersonal and intellectual consistencies that the offender exhibits by detailed study of how he committed the crimes. For example, leaving the bodies in water will have reduced the forensic evidence but could carry great psychological significance. If there is no obvious sexual activity, as has been reported in this instance, it suggests anger rather than sexual sadism." Personally I couldn't care less for all this guff, I'm not interested in what motivates the killer, I like the vast majority of the public simply want the killer caught and brought to justice (which on the bare facts should mean hanging here), and I rather thought that was the job of the police.
We are then treated to another statement of the obvious: "One significant problem in this case will be the unwillingness of most potential witnesses — clients of prostitutes — to present themselves for questioning." What an insight, I can see why we need these sort of people to guide the police.
The professor finally concludes: "The confusions and inefficiencies in that investigation (Jack the ripper fdm) cast a long shadow over their work. No longer do you hear of police talking of the completely ineffective strategy of leaving no stone unturned. Instead they now have highly trained and sophisticated teams working steadily through the appropriate options. These actions will be guided by behavioural and other scientists, but in the end it will be the intelligence and determination of the investigative team that will bring the killer to justice." So if the guidance from the behavioural and other scientists doesn't solve the crime why do we have it? Note the clever inclusion of other scientists, clearly this behavioural analysis is just as important as forensics. In the end the professor admits that it's the: "intelligence and determination of the investigative team that will bring the killer to justice." So perhaps someone could tell me why do we pay these behavioural bods from the public purse?
Labels: Crime
Monday, December 11, 2006
Merry Winterval From Bandit Brown & The Grabbing Goblins
Or a future PM addresses his subjects.
No doubt you'll all recall the recent budget event (it's strange how we now seem to have two of these a year as opposed to only one, which I'm certain used to be the case traditionally). Anyway in the winterval budget, bandit Brown decided we weren't paying him enough in fuel duty and decided to increase the same by some 1.2p per litre.
I attempt to keep an eye on fuel costs, and despite not noticing a connection at the time, recall that the price of petrol at the pump rose by some one point something per litre on the day before the merry winterval budget.
So we've had two increases at the same time, an extra winterval present for bandit Brown, and another gratuitous one for the grabbing goblins of the petrol companies. This is what they must mean by a true partnership between business and government.
The relationship between business and government is a topic for another time, and whilst I'm in favour of the free market, most business that exist and thrive, have usually compromised such principles and accepted some form of subsidy (be it direct money or a more favourable market position) from the government and are in many ways, part of an informal state apparatus.
As you all know, winterval is the ancient festival of sloth, consumerism and consumption. As good comrades, you know the dangers of bourgeois ideology; spending money on yourselves when there are so many others in need is clearly wrong. At this time of year, people travel considerably, not for work, but for their own individualistic purposes, to buy superfluous gifts, and for social visits; as these dangerous and subversive activities cannot be stamped out by physical coercion, it is only right and proper that the government raises taxes on them. It is even better when private companies join in with a gratuitous price rise as this will ensure a harder hit on those selfish enough to indulge in winterval.
This blog clearly salutes our glorious leader and his efforts to suppress winterval, travel should only be used for legitimate work purposes. Any travel for private use must be eliminated by punitive taxation and big price rises for those selfless petrol companies.
Hurrah for socialism.
Hurrah for bandit Brown.
Hurrah for the petrol companies.
No doubt you'll all recall the recent budget event (it's strange how we now seem to have two of these a year as opposed to only one, which I'm certain used to be the case traditionally). Anyway in the winterval budget, bandit Brown decided we weren't paying him enough in fuel duty and decided to increase the same by some 1.2p per litre.
I attempt to keep an eye on fuel costs, and despite not noticing a connection at the time, recall that the price of petrol at the pump rose by some one point something per litre on the day before the merry winterval budget.
So we've had two increases at the same time, an extra winterval present for bandit Brown, and another gratuitous one for the grabbing goblins of the petrol companies. This is what they must mean by a true partnership between business and government.
The relationship between business and government is a topic for another time, and whilst I'm in favour of the free market, most business that exist and thrive, have usually compromised such principles and accepted some form of subsidy (be it direct money or a more favourable market position) from the government and are in many ways, part of an informal state apparatus.
As you all know, winterval is the ancient festival of sloth, consumerism and consumption. As good comrades, you know the dangers of bourgeois ideology; spending money on yourselves when there are so many others in need is clearly wrong. At this time of year, people travel considerably, not for work, but for their own individualistic purposes, to buy superfluous gifts, and for social visits; as these dangerous and subversive activities cannot be stamped out by physical coercion, it is only right and proper that the government raises taxes on them. It is even better when private companies join in with a gratuitous price rise as this will ensure a harder hit on those selfish enough to indulge in winterval.
This blog clearly salutes our glorious leader and his efforts to suppress winterval, travel should only be used for legitimate work purposes. Any travel for private use must be eliminated by punitive taxation and big price rises for those selfless petrol companies.
Hurrah for socialism.
Hurrah for bandit Brown.
Hurrah for the petrol companies.
Labels: Gordon Brown, tax
Friday, December 08, 2006
Oh Dear...
The Times reports here on some top Conservative defections to the UKIP. This is interesting because only yesterday I read a report supposedly from UKIP that some were indeed planned. It's always hard to know the truth in such cases, but this does at least show UKIP weren't simply "flying a kite".
The article concentrates on Tony Horton, who is a former constituency chairman to William Hague. Some of his quotes resonate with me, and no doubt to with many of my readers: "I didn’t leave the Conservative Party, the Conservative Party has left me...", and "It will become increasingly common. Most Conservatives are instinctively loyal, but there’s always a tipping point."
One conservative MP (unsurprisingly unnamed) is quoted: "This is undoubtedly a warning shot. Many people tempted to join UKIP are cast-iron Conservatives, but they must feel they have something to vote for. It is essential we keep on board traditional Tories." Well unnamed, your views are at odds with those of others, see The England Project here quoting from Iain Dale: "Cameron knows what the right knows. If the price of getting the extra two million votes needed to win an election is to lose a few thousand “scorched earthers” on the right, it’s a price he’s only too happy to pay. So far, he’s managed to keep the right on board despite trying its patience with his failure to deliver on withdrawing from the European People’s Party…", but it looks like it's slipping...
Another defector is quoted: "The way Cameron has led the party means I can’t be part of it, and there’s lots of people like me, ... He’s turned it into something indistinguishable from new Labour, so what’s the point?" Well indeed, and it's quite stupid too, the people who vote and like Labour as it is are never ever going to vote for the Conservatives, no matter what they do. These votes aren't available, which is why your strategy, Cameron is flawed.
Another defector says: "UKIP are now the only voice of opposition in this country, speaking up for all those who feel betrayed by the other parties." Returning to Mr Horton for a similar quote we have: "There is a real need in this country for a party of the Centre Right, and if the Conservative Party doesn’t want to fill it, there is inevitably a vacuum that UKIP will fill. If you want to vote green, there is a thriving Green Party. If you want to vote Liberal Democrat, there is a thriving Liberal Democrat Party." Both these quotes are ignoring any likely threat the BNP might pose, which is probably a mistake, I think it likely that many previous Labour voters will be tempted by a less racially orientated BNP, as they are very socialist after all.
The last quote in the article comes from Conservative headquarters: "UKIP is a party of the few dedicated to a single issue. The Conservative Party is the only political party that can replace this failing Labour Government." Well it won't be a party of the few dedicated to a single issue if disgruntled Conservatives get hold of it will it? It won't take too long to produce some sensible policies on crime, taxes, public spending, immigration and other important issues that the Conservative Party shies away from, and in any event at least they've got an issue, what issue have you got?
We're like Labour, but we're not Blair? You can't seriously expect to win an election with that.
The article concentrates on Tony Horton, who is a former constituency chairman to William Hague. Some of his quotes resonate with me, and no doubt to with many of my readers: "I didn’t leave the Conservative Party, the Conservative Party has left me...", and "It will become increasingly common. Most Conservatives are instinctively loyal, but there’s always a tipping point."
One conservative MP (unsurprisingly unnamed) is quoted: "This is undoubtedly a warning shot. Many people tempted to join UKIP are cast-iron Conservatives, but they must feel they have something to vote for. It is essential we keep on board traditional Tories." Well unnamed, your views are at odds with those of others, see The England Project here quoting from Iain Dale: "Cameron knows what the right knows. If the price of getting the extra two million votes needed to win an election is to lose a few thousand “scorched earthers” on the right, it’s a price he’s only too happy to pay. So far, he’s managed to keep the right on board despite trying its patience with his failure to deliver on withdrawing from the European People’s Party…", but it looks like it's slipping...
Another defector is quoted: "The way Cameron has led the party means I can’t be part of it, and there’s lots of people like me, ... He’s turned it into something indistinguishable from new Labour, so what’s the point?" Well indeed, and it's quite stupid too, the people who vote and like Labour as it is are never ever going to vote for the Conservatives, no matter what they do. These votes aren't available, which is why your strategy, Cameron is flawed.
Another defector says: "UKIP are now the only voice of opposition in this country, speaking up for all those who feel betrayed by the other parties." Returning to Mr Horton for a similar quote we have: "There is a real need in this country for a party of the Centre Right, and if the Conservative Party doesn’t want to fill it, there is inevitably a vacuum that UKIP will fill. If you want to vote green, there is a thriving Green Party. If you want to vote Liberal Democrat, there is a thriving Liberal Democrat Party." Both these quotes are ignoring any likely threat the BNP might pose, which is probably a mistake, I think it likely that many previous Labour voters will be tempted by a less racially orientated BNP, as they are very socialist after all.
The last quote in the article comes from Conservative headquarters: "UKIP is a party of the few dedicated to a single issue. The Conservative Party is the only political party that can replace this failing Labour Government." Well it won't be a party of the few dedicated to a single issue if disgruntled Conservatives get hold of it will it? It won't take too long to produce some sensible policies on crime, taxes, public spending, immigration and other important issues that the Conservative Party shies away from, and in any event at least they've got an issue, what issue have you got?
We're like Labour, but we're not Blair? You can't seriously expect to win an election with that.
Labels: Conservative Party
Thursday, December 07, 2006
For what we are about to lose ...
The Times reports here on the latest Brown tax and burn scheme. I'm sure it will come as no surprise to my readers that it's "for the children" under a "four-year plan to refurbish all 21,000 primary and secondary schools, and bring immediate rises in the amount head teachers can spend as they see fit". Leaving the Stalinist vocabulary aside, quite what's immediate about a 4-year plan I don't know. There's no mention if all the primary schools actually need refurbishment, and I don't suppose it matters when the Chancellor as his money to waste. Oh wait a minute it's our money, so it matters even less then.
We have a "1.25p a litre inflation rise in petrol duty", but remember this doesn't mean you already pay by the mile and it isn't a good enough reason not to introduce road charging at some future point.
We also have a doubling on "air passenger duty from £5 to £10 on most short-haul flights and up to £80 for long-haul flights ...". There is no mention of whether extra revenue is needed, but I'm sure he'll have no problem wasting it on some so-called public service.
The Times tells us that: "Gordon Brown laid down his battle lines with David Cameron yesterday by announcing a £36 billion outlay to rebuild schools, and portraying himself as the leader who would rather spend without shame on the public services than cut taxes." Well if only, he's given Cameron a golden opportunity to really have a go at him, but when it comes to taxes Cameron is as much use as a beached whale.
Actually he's not too hot on the environment either, there's a separate article in The Times interviewing Rebecca Gold a recent graduate, who isn't convinced: "His environmental concern seems fake to me." Cameron you'd be better off being honest about these things, take a strong line, say there's no evidence of man made climate change, and therefore any taxes under the excuse of combating it are just oppressions in disguise. None of these greenies are going to vote for you no matter what you do, and if you're going to lose you may as well lose with Conservative votes than without them.
All in all it's a pretty poor show, no one's even making the case for small government, for less tax, for greater freedom. The people are probably paying more tax in percentage terms than under King John, and our so-called democratic parties are doing nothing about it. Why is the modern politician so distant from those he/she is supposed to represent? History shows us that this sort of situation doesn't go on forever, but quite where and how it will end, who knows?
We have a "1.25p a litre inflation rise in petrol duty", but remember this doesn't mean you already pay by the mile and it isn't a good enough reason not to introduce road charging at some future point.
We also have a doubling on "air passenger duty from £5 to £10 on most short-haul flights and up to £80 for long-haul flights ...". There is no mention of whether extra revenue is needed, but I'm sure he'll have no problem wasting it on some so-called public service.
The Times tells us that: "Gordon Brown laid down his battle lines with David Cameron yesterday by announcing a £36 billion outlay to rebuild schools, and portraying himself as the leader who would rather spend without shame on the public services than cut taxes." Well if only, he's given Cameron a golden opportunity to really have a go at him, but when it comes to taxes Cameron is as much use as a beached whale.
Actually he's not too hot on the environment either, there's a separate article in The Times interviewing Rebecca Gold a recent graduate, who isn't convinced: "His environmental concern seems fake to me." Cameron you'd be better off being honest about these things, take a strong line, say there's no evidence of man made climate change, and therefore any taxes under the excuse of combating it are just oppressions in disguise. None of these greenies are going to vote for you no matter what you do, and if you're going to lose you may as well lose with Conservative votes than without them.
All in all it's a pretty poor show, no one's even making the case for small government, for less tax, for greater freedom. The people are probably paying more tax in percentage terms than under King John, and our so-called democratic parties are doing nothing about it. Why is the modern politician so distant from those he/she is supposed to represent? History shows us that this sort of situation doesn't go on forever, but quite where and how it will end, who knows?
Tags: tax, budget, Gordon Brown
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: tax
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Equal opportunities.
The Times reports here on another example of Labour stacking a board with it's own supporters. Yesterday there was a report of the Big Lottery Board (gives out lottery cash) where 5 out of 12 members of the board are members of the Labour Party.
This time with true irony, it's the Equal Opportunities Board, with 4 out of 10 members being members of the Labour Party, so it's good to see it living up to its name. Strangely the board seems to have two chairmen (both men), but don't worry as they are both Labour supporters: "A spokeswoman for the Culture Department admitted that Ms Jowell “may have been aware” of the party affiliation of Sir Clive Booth, the new chairman, before he was appointed." and "The chairman of the board will be Trevor Phillips, the former head of the Commission for Racial Equality, who wanted to be Labour’s candidate for London mayor in 1999." I can't work out just precisely who will be the chairman, unless it genuinely will have two (nothing's impossible under Labour).
I just love that "may have been aware"; the reality is if she wasn't aware then she must be incompetent.
Of course we have the platitudes: "A spokesman for Ms Kelly said that the appointments were in line with the rules ..." Oh well that's OK then, nothing to see here, move along now please.
From the article: "Applicants for jobs on public bodies are not required to declare their membership of a political party — only whether they have engaged in “political activity”. But, under the rules set out by the Office for the Commissioner for Public Appointments, information about political activity is withheld from the shortlisting panel and the minister making the final decision." Oh well then the minister can't possibly know, I imagine they have some set procedure where the applicant writes to the minister to "check if Labour membership is compatible with the role" just to be on the safe side. In any event we're not talking about ordinary people you're likely to find at your local working mans club, they are all public figures, so they'll mix together at conferences and party organised things etc. I fairly confident the minister will know.
"Labour Party membership - in tests 8 out of 10 board selectors who expressed a preference said their boards preferred it."
This time with true irony, it's the Equal Opportunities Board, with 4 out of 10 members being members of the Labour Party, so it's good to see it living up to its name. Strangely the board seems to have two chairmen (both men), but don't worry as they are both Labour supporters: "A spokeswoman for the Culture Department admitted that Ms Jowell “may have been aware” of the party affiliation of Sir Clive Booth, the new chairman, before he was appointed." and "The chairman of the board will be Trevor Phillips, the former head of the Commission for Racial Equality, who wanted to be Labour’s candidate for London mayor in 1999." I can't work out just precisely who will be the chairman, unless it genuinely will have two (nothing's impossible under Labour).
I just love that "may have been aware"; the reality is if she wasn't aware then she must be incompetent.
Of course we have the platitudes: "A spokesman for Ms Kelly said that the appointments were in line with the rules ..." Oh well that's OK then, nothing to see here, move along now please.
From the article: "Applicants for jobs on public bodies are not required to declare their membership of a political party — only whether they have engaged in “political activity”. But, under the rules set out by the Office for the Commissioner for Public Appointments, information about political activity is withheld from the shortlisting panel and the minister making the final decision." Oh well then the minister can't possibly know, I imagine they have some set procedure where the applicant writes to the minister to "check if Labour membership is compatible with the role" just to be on the safe side. In any event we're not talking about ordinary people you're likely to find at your local working mans club, they are all public figures, so they'll mix together at conferences and party organised things etc. I fairly confident the minister will know.
"Labour Party membership - in tests 8 out of 10 board selectors who expressed a preference said their boards preferred it."
Tags: corruption, Labour, favouritism
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: corruption, Labour
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
You Can't Fatten The Pig On Market Day
A personal tale - Dear readers, I have a sister, who whilst not being a rabid leftie, doesn't exactly see eye to eye with me politically. I could go further but shall merely point out that she "believes" in man made global warming, and likes the theatre and the world of luvvies that represents.
Last night my sister was enraged, no not by George Bush, but by the governments obesity plan. According to my sister, obese people will get free dance classes, fitness membership and other such things in order I suppose to help them conquer obesity. Of course the fact is that people are fat because they eat and drink too much in proportion to the physical exercise/work they do, but free work classes (perhaps mining (by hand) or breaking rocks) seem out of the question. I'd be the first to admit that even I could do to lose some inches around the waistline, but it's up to me and the fact it's there is my fault.
Despite gently pointing out that surely it was a case of: "from each according to their means to each according to their needs", and clearly obese people would benefit from these "free" activities. I was told that these people had brought their obesity on themseleves and it wasn't right the government should pay for their dance classes, when my sister (who isn't obese by the way) has to pay both for her own classes and now with her taxes for those of the obese as well.
I mention this by way of analogy, the votes of people like my sister, those who supposedly care for the environment, people who are a bit leftie, young people. This is the demographic that David Cameron is supposed to be aiming for, but these people aren't stupid and they're waking up to the reality of state sponsored profligacy - that the state is taking their money and dishing out to anyone and anything no matter how unworthy; and in many cases the more unworthy the better. By the time of the next election, these people will be crying out for a party that has sensible, workable policies that involve a far smaller state, with far less government spending and most importantly much less taxes. The Conservative Party should be in that position, with a history of making the case for tax cuts, every week the party should be identifying unnecessary and expensive government spending (quite an easy task) and committing to do away with it. So come the election, when asked where will the tax cuts come from you've got a great long list. In fact Labour won't even dare to ask the question.
As it is Cameron looks like sticking to the Blair formula, and even if he actually starts to realise what people want; it'll be too late for him. He won't have the policies, he won't have the history of the policies and he won't be able to make the case for any policy; not least because he's never done it.
If you put the spadework in now, then come election day, people will trust you, you'll have a history of supporting the policies they'll then want and you'll get the votes. Without the work, it'll be a scrawny Conservative pig at the market.
Last night my sister was enraged, no not by George Bush, but by the governments obesity plan. According to my sister, obese people will get free dance classes, fitness membership and other such things in order I suppose to help them conquer obesity. Of course the fact is that people are fat because they eat and drink too much in proportion to the physical exercise/work they do, but free work classes (perhaps mining (by hand) or breaking rocks) seem out of the question. I'd be the first to admit that even I could do to lose some inches around the waistline, but it's up to me and the fact it's there is my fault.
Despite gently pointing out that surely it was a case of: "from each according to their means to each according to their needs", and clearly obese people would benefit from these "free" activities. I was told that these people had brought their obesity on themseleves and it wasn't right the government should pay for their dance classes, when my sister (who isn't obese by the way) has to pay both for her own classes and now with her taxes for those of the obese as well.
I mention this by way of analogy, the votes of people like my sister, those who supposedly care for the environment, people who are a bit leftie, young people. This is the demographic that David Cameron is supposed to be aiming for, but these people aren't stupid and they're waking up to the reality of state sponsored profligacy - that the state is taking their money and dishing out to anyone and anything no matter how unworthy; and in many cases the more unworthy the better. By the time of the next election, these people will be crying out for a party that has sensible, workable policies that involve a far smaller state, with far less government spending and most importantly much less taxes. The Conservative Party should be in that position, with a history of making the case for tax cuts, every week the party should be identifying unnecessary and expensive government spending (quite an easy task) and committing to do away with it. So come the election, when asked where will the tax cuts come from you've got a great long list. In fact Labour won't even dare to ask the question.
As it is Cameron looks like sticking to the Blair formula, and even if he actually starts to realise what people want; it'll be too late for him. He won't have the policies, he won't have the history of the policies and he won't be able to make the case for any policy; not least because he's never done it.
If you put the spadework in now, then come election day, people will trust you, you'll have a history of supporting the policies they'll then want and you'll get the votes. Without the work, it'll be a scrawny Conservative pig at the market.
Tags: taxes, Conservatives, rights, freedom
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: Conservative Party, tax
Monday, December 04, 2006
Private Schools, No Good?
The Times reports here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2485876,00.html (sorry can't link for some reason) on a "study" by a Professor David Jesson, of York University (so from my part of the world as it were).
Apparently he was "... surprised by his own research, which showed very little difference between the state and independent sectors ..." and from there we have our headline of: "Private schools are 'no better for A levels'". If we read on another few words we get: "...in the proportion of the most able students gaining three grade As at A level ...". Note that bit "proportion of the most able", well a cursory glance at the results every year shows us that some pupils in the state sector do obtain good grades, so yes we can conclude that if your child works hard and is dedicated then not even the socialist education system of our state can hold them back.
The professor clearly not overburdened with an analytical mind goes on to conclude: " “This is the demolition of the myth that independent school education is of itself creating better results,”". Well that as maybe, but it only applies to the most able students doesn't it? Also the measurement is finite the A grade is the maximum, but it could be that those from the private sector are scoring higher despite still receiving an A grade. What of the less able students, well conveniently the good professor doesn't look at them, but isn't it possible in fact I would say likely that the independent schooling actually contributes to say an increase of maybe 10% or more to their grades? Which can easily be the difference between a lower and higher grade.
The professor is clearly out with an agenda to prove that private schools are a waste of money. Perhaps they are, but he hasn't proved it, and I know what my opinion is. Amazingly though: "He conceded that independent schools may still produce better results than the state sector in subjects most valued by the elite universities, such as science, maths and languages." Which is most odd as this presumably means that in his comparative analysis he was comparing results from media studies in the state sector with results from maths in the private one. Again although never having undertaken a media studies course or qualification I think I know which is shall we say more academically challenging.
If I'd have come up with a study like this I'd never dare speak about it let alone publish it, for fear of being ridiculed. How can someone with so little analytical grasp be a professor? I'd wager he earns far more money than me, and what for? To produce drivel like this.
With professors like this knocking around we need private universities as well as private schools.
Apparently he was "... surprised by his own research, which showed very little difference between the state and independent sectors ..." and from there we have our headline of: "Private schools are 'no better for A levels'". If we read on another few words we get: "...in the proportion of the most able students gaining three grade As at A level ...". Note that bit "proportion of the most able", well a cursory glance at the results every year shows us that some pupils in the state sector do obtain good grades, so yes we can conclude that if your child works hard and is dedicated then not even the socialist education system of our state can hold them back.
The professor clearly not overburdened with an analytical mind goes on to conclude: " “This is the demolition of the myth that independent school education is of itself creating better results,”". Well that as maybe, but it only applies to the most able students doesn't it? Also the measurement is finite the A grade is the maximum, but it could be that those from the private sector are scoring higher despite still receiving an A grade. What of the less able students, well conveniently the good professor doesn't look at them, but isn't it possible in fact I would say likely that the independent schooling actually contributes to say an increase of maybe 10% or more to their grades? Which can easily be the difference between a lower and higher grade.
The professor is clearly out with an agenda to prove that private schools are a waste of money. Perhaps they are, but he hasn't proved it, and I know what my opinion is. Amazingly though: "He conceded that independent schools may still produce better results than the state sector in subjects most valued by the elite universities, such as science, maths and languages." Which is most odd as this presumably means that in his comparative analysis he was comparing results from media studies in the state sector with results from maths in the private one. Again although never having undertaken a media studies course or qualification I think I know which is shall we say more academically challenging.
If I'd have come up with a study like this I'd never dare speak about it let alone publish it, for fear of being ridiculed. How can someone with so little analytical grasp be a professor? I'd wager he earns far more money than me, and what for? To produce drivel like this.
With professors like this knocking around we need private universities as well as private schools.
Tags: education, Professor Jesson, state
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: Education
