Wednesday, February 14, 2007
"It's for the children!"
The Times brings us a story about unhappy UK children. They are the unhappiest in the Western World, according to the headline. A quick reading of the story reveals that it's based on a so called "well-being table". From my poor reading of the story, it seems that this has been compiled under the guidance, funding and direction of UNICEF.
The story tells us one of the authors is a "Jonathon Bradshaw"; further into the story, we're told that a "Professor Bradshaw" ("a leading authority on child poverty" - for which I read child poverty pays his wage) tells us how this report, shows us that the unhappiness is down to inequality.
There is clearly an obvious problem of self-interest for Bradshaw which isn't pointed out in the story. The UNICEF report appears embargoed until 10:00 am GMT Today so I can't confirm if the "two" Bradshaws are in fact the same person, but I'll go with my instincts (see I'm in touch with my feminine side) and assume they are.
The full title of the report shows the study is limited to rich countries, which is all well and good especially as it can then avoid any embarrassing revelations such as children in some poorer countries being happier than some in rich countries; after all where would the child poverty industry be then professor?
The professor of course cites inequality as the reason, but is it really, I cannot believe that children in say Italy, Switzerland and Ireland (all well above the UK) live in a less unequal society, if anything I'd say their societies are more unequal.
The report seems a damming indictment and I imagine it's conclusions are probably correct, but we wont even start to address the issues by looking at irrelevancies like so called poverty. It would be different if children were being forced to go out to work to earn money to live, but that's clearly not the case.
Our attitude in the UK has changed considerably over the years, primarily no child can ever undertake any activity with a modicum of risk, ironically the main reason cited being to "protect them", but I think it's having the effect of making the world dull and boring for them, no wonder they're unhappy. It may be prefect preparation for being a subject of the nanny state, but it's hardly going to make for happy well-rounded citizens. The lesson here is if you want happiness you must set them free, you cannot have happiness without freedom. It's a powerful lesson which our government will have to take to heart sooner or later.
The story tells us one of the authors is a "Jonathon Bradshaw"; further into the story, we're told that a "Professor Bradshaw" ("a leading authority on child poverty" - for which I read child poverty pays his wage) tells us how this report, shows us that the unhappiness is down to inequality.
There is clearly an obvious problem of self-interest for Bradshaw which isn't pointed out in the story. The UNICEF report appears embargoed until 10:00 am GMT Today so I can't confirm if the "two" Bradshaws are in fact the same person, but I'll go with my instincts (see I'm in touch with my feminine side) and assume they are.
The full title of the report shows the study is limited to rich countries, which is all well and good especially as it can then avoid any embarrassing revelations such as children in some poorer countries being happier than some in rich countries; after all where would the child poverty industry be then professor?
The professor of course cites inequality as the reason, but is it really, I cannot believe that children in say Italy, Switzerland and Ireland (all well above the UK) live in a less unequal society, if anything I'd say their societies are more unequal.
The report seems a damming indictment and I imagine it's conclusions are probably correct, but we wont even start to address the issues by looking at irrelevancies like so called poverty. It would be different if children were being forced to go out to work to earn money to live, but that's clearly not the case.
Our attitude in the UK has changed considerably over the years, primarily no child can ever undertake any activity with a modicum of risk, ironically the main reason cited being to "protect them", but I think it's having the effect of making the world dull and boring for them, no wonder they're unhappy. It may be prefect preparation for being a subject of the nanny state, but it's hardly going to make for happy well-rounded citizens. The lesson here is if you want happiness you must set them free, you cannot have happiness without freedom. It's a powerful lesson which our government will have to take to heart sooner or later.
Tags: media, government, 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: freedom, government, media
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
The rulers and the ruled
Some of my fellow bloggers have been urging their readers to sign the "online petition" at the Downing Street web site. I haven't bothered drawing this to the attention of anyone, because I have no faith in the government. If the government supports a proposal and people sign an online petition in it's favour, the government will claim public support.
If on the other hand they don't support a proposal, then the online petition becomes: "just one contribution to the debate", weasel words from apparatchik and Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander (DA).
Hence my silence on the issue, there's just no point in signing any online petition because no one cares what you or anyone else thinks.
Anyway we have an article in The Times (strangely lacking the full text of the print version) giving the quote, but there's more of interest. DA accuses the campaign [against road charging] of spreading myths and says he welcomes the "opportunity to set some of the facts stright". Aside from a cynic like me asking: "why just some of the facts, why not all of them?" Any actual setting of major facts straight seems missing from the article, so either The Times failed to report it or DA didn't in fact take the opportunity.
There's a good quote showing how the government in general "works": "A Department for Transport official said: “Doing nothing is not an option. We welcome all debate, but it must be based on fact and not fallacy. The first step to achieving this is to demonstrate through local pilot schemes how road pricing can tackle local congestion.”" So you see the debate has to have a pre-determined outcome in favour of road charging, any route that leads to a different outcome will not be countenanced. Then they wonder why people send them bombs.
A final quote from the department: “Public acceptability of such schemes is one of the milestones that has to be achieved. We have always said that we have to see the results of the pilot schemes before we make a decision.” to which I say: "The government should work for the people, if we the people say "Jump!" The government and its departments should respond: "how high?", if there's no public acceptability for a scheme then it must be abandoned, not forced on the people."
It is a major problem with the government systems of this country, it is far too much the rulers and the ruled over. Instead of prattling about tinkering with the House Of Lords, our priority needs to be to get the House Of Commons working properly first.
If on the other hand they don't support a proposal, then the online petition becomes: "just one contribution to the debate", weasel words from apparatchik and Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander (DA).
Hence my silence on the issue, there's just no point in signing any online petition because no one cares what you or anyone else thinks.
Anyway we have an article in The Times (strangely lacking the full text of the print version) giving the quote, but there's more of interest. DA accuses the campaign [against road charging] of spreading myths and says he welcomes the "opportunity to set some of the facts stright". Aside from a cynic like me asking: "why just some of the facts, why not all of them?" Any actual setting of major facts straight seems missing from the article, so either The Times failed to report it or DA didn't in fact take the opportunity.
There's a good quote showing how the government in general "works": "A Department for Transport official said: “Doing nothing is not an option. We welcome all debate, but it must be based on fact and not fallacy. The first step to achieving this is to demonstrate through local pilot schemes how road pricing can tackle local congestion.”" So you see the debate has to have a pre-determined outcome in favour of road charging, any route that leads to a different outcome will not be countenanced. Then they wonder why people send them bombs.
A final quote from the department: “Public acceptability of such schemes is one of the milestones that has to be achieved. We have always said that we have to see the results of the pilot schemes before we make a decision.” to which I say: "The government should work for the people, if we the people say "Jump!" The government and its departments should respond: "how high?", if there's no public acceptability for a scheme then it must be abandoned, not forced on the people."
It is a major problem with the government systems of this country, it is far too much the rulers and the ruled over. Instead of prattling about tinkering with the House Of Lords, our priority needs to be to get the House Of Commons working properly first.
Labels: democracy, government
Thursday, February 08, 2007
"... deriving their powers from the consent of the governed ..."
The title quote comes of course from the American Declaration of Independance, and I find it highly appropriate as today The Times reports on the latest in the letter bombs which have been afflicting the afflicters as it were.
Now of course this is criminal behaviour and I cannot condone it, if the culprit is convicted, it will be interesting to see what kind of sentence they get. If it's their first conviction for violence, perhaps a course in addressing offending behaviour will be appropriate? What's the betting that for crimes against the government, the book will be thrown at them? But what's the point? After all we all know that long and tough prison sentences are no deterrent don't we? Still it'll make a nice comparison, crimes against an individual as a private person, slap on the wrist, crimes against the government tough prison sentence even though prison doesn't work at all.
Whilst I cannot condone the behaviour, I find it very difficult to have any sympathy with some of the bodies' targeted. Take Capita for example, they administer the TV tax and send me a monthly harassment as I have no television and refuse to allow: "... an official to visit to confirm the situation...". The people who work for Capita know how the group operates, and how it harasses people that it shouldn't be concerned with, but they choose to get paid for working in that way - they have no excuse of starvation as with our generous benefit system the state won't let them starve. If they happen to get targeted by someone harassed into criminal behaviour well it's just part of the territory, they take the payment so cannot complain of the risk. The fact they happen to be at work cannot morally absolve them of their actions.
To return to the "consent of the governed", we have seen considerable expansion of the government, and a huge increase in administrative crimes. You know the kind of thing, failure to fill out a form £80.00p fine, failure to tell the government something another fine and so on ad infinitum. All this has been done with the active consent of the House of Commons in which are supposed to sit our representatives, but there's no way it's been done with the consent of the people. What party would stand and include in its manifesto a commitment to creating the SORN (Statutory Off Road Notification) with a strict liability fine for non-compliance? None of them would. They know when they pass this legislation that they have no mandate or consent of the people for it, but that doesn't stop them.
In the main these oppressive appratchikisms have been tolerated, but and let's be clear, tolerated doesn't mean some kind of implied consent. It's also true that many people have been actively withdrawing from the system as demonstrated by the DVLA computer fiasco. Where these letter bombs are concerned, those involved have undergone a similar process, but perhaps haven't thought about avoiding the forms, and are now demonstrating their intolerance of oppressive government by criminal action.
What's the prognosis? Will the government start to think hang on a minute maybe we're going too far? Or will we see more government interference in turn, feeding intolerance of government? Well this other report from The Times perhaps gives us a clue: "Motorists are to be forced to change the way they drive to help car manufacturers to meet strict new emission targets, the European Union announced yesterday. All new cars will be fitted with devices that tell drivers when to change gear, what speeds to drive at and even when to pump up their tyres."
Oh yes a step in the right direction.
Now of course this is criminal behaviour and I cannot condone it, if the culprit is convicted, it will be interesting to see what kind of sentence they get. If it's their first conviction for violence, perhaps a course in addressing offending behaviour will be appropriate? What's the betting that for crimes against the government, the book will be thrown at them? But what's the point? After all we all know that long and tough prison sentences are no deterrent don't we? Still it'll make a nice comparison, crimes against an individual as a private person, slap on the wrist, crimes against the government tough prison sentence even though prison doesn't work at all.
Whilst I cannot condone the behaviour, I find it very difficult to have any sympathy with some of the bodies' targeted. Take Capita for example, they administer the TV tax and send me a monthly harassment as I have no television and refuse to allow: "... an official to visit to confirm the situation...". The people who work for Capita know how the group operates, and how it harasses people that it shouldn't be concerned with, but they choose to get paid for working in that way - they have no excuse of starvation as with our generous benefit system the state won't let them starve. If they happen to get targeted by someone harassed into criminal behaviour well it's just part of the territory, they take the payment so cannot complain of the risk. The fact they happen to be at work cannot morally absolve them of their actions.
To return to the "consent of the governed", we have seen considerable expansion of the government, and a huge increase in administrative crimes. You know the kind of thing, failure to fill out a form £80.00p fine, failure to tell the government something another fine and so on ad infinitum. All this has been done with the active consent of the House of Commons in which are supposed to sit our representatives, but there's no way it's been done with the consent of the people. What party would stand and include in its manifesto a commitment to creating the SORN (Statutory Off Road Notification) with a strict liability fine for non-compliance? None of them would. They know when they pass this legislation that they have no mandate or consent of the people for it, but that doesn't stop them.
In the main these oppressive appratchikisms have been tolerated, but and let's be clear, tolerated doesn't mean some kind of implied consent. It's also true that many people have been actively withdrawing from the system as demonstrated by the DVLA computer fiasco. Where these letter bombs are concerned, those involved have undergone a similar process, but perhaps haven't thought about avoiding the forms, and are now demonstrating their intolerance of oppressive government by criminal action.
What's the prognosis? Will the government start to think hang on a minute maybe we're going too far? Or will we see more government interference in turn, feeding intolerance of government? Well this other report from The Times perhaps gives us a clue: "Motorists are to be forced to change the way they drive to help car manufacturers to meet strict new emission targets, the European Union announced yesterday. All new cars will be fitted with devices that tell drivers when to change gear, what speeds to drive at and even when to pump up their tyres."
Oh yes a step in the right direction.
Tags: freedom, liberty, government, statism
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: freedom, government, liberty, statism
