Though posting has been light recently, due to being, as they say, 'time poor' at the moment, I never-the-less feel moved to mention the latest ufortunate post by Baht At. Part of a series of quite personal attacks on Blogpower Bloggers, particularly Crushed.
Blogpower is a pretty ‘broad church’ and we mostly get along without launching vitriolic, puritanical, attacks on each other.
One wonders why, if Baht At finds membership of Blogpower so tedious, he does not simply resign and disassociate from it.
I shan’t because of time get into the issue of if drugs should, or should not be legal, what moral right the state has to prescribe them in any event, a hunt through previous posts should enlighten and increase my traffic ;-)or issues relating to holding someone’s past against them for ever and ever and ever…
Monday, 9 June 2008
Quote of the day
" Some people see things that are and ask, Why? Some people dream of things that never were and ask, Why not? Some people have to go to work and don't have time for all that.”George Carlin
Wednesday, 4 June 2008
Quote of the day
" If something is exceptionally well done it has embedded in it's very existence the aim of lifting the common denominator rather than catering to it.”Edward Fischer
Another New-Labour UK educational triumph - Not!
Well it looks like practically speaking New-Labour have, by fiddling the difficulty/pass marks in order to improve their figures, successfully destroyed the A-Levels, the old ‘gold standard’, as a properly functioning exam.
It is something parents and probably employers, have been quietly discussing for years. It is effectively official now.
Universities not only now need to do interviews, they need to set their own tests to see if candidates with A-Levels are actually able to manage real subjects at degree level.
How long before New-Labour set their sights on making degree courses ‘fair’ – in educational terms newspeak for; any one can get one, no actual ability or work necessary.
It is something parents and probably employers, have been quietly discussing for years. It is effectively official now.
Universities not only now need to do interviews, they need to set their own tests to see if candidates with A-Levels are actually able to manage real subjects at degree level.
How long before New-Labour set their sights on making degree courses ‘fair’ – in educational terms newspeak for; any one can get one, no actual ability or work necessary.
Tuesday, 3 June 2008
Just how useless are 'community support officers'?
Community Support Officers appear to be New-Labour’s cheap response to what had been the public’s demand for more police officers on the street. There may well even still be a demand, despite the police apparently targeting ordinary citizens and trivial effectively non-crimes in order to boost government targets.
These ‘Community’ (don’t you just hate this newspeak) Support Officers are a kind of pretend police officer, presumably intended to fool the public into believing there are actually police officers on the street. Well police officers used to be taught how to swim and use life saving techniques, they used to be taught CPR and first aid. They may still be, but not it seems these Community Support officers. Their Idea of supporting the community would appear to be to leave a child to drown .
Now it seems they are employing suppressors of free speech who might be interpreted as verging on the edge of being racists. Nothing new there then some of the more jaded and cynical amongst you may think. But it is. The reason police in the UK have been so successful until successive governments have begun to politicise and micro manage them was precisely because they were not. Because they were largely fair, even despite the natural tendency towards preconceived ideas we are all so often prone to - also they had and were allowed to use their discretion.
The question is why did West Midlands Police not suspend and hopefully sack this particular Community Support Officer? His behaviour went beyond the pale.
If the police are in the business of suppressing religion then surely they should be more even handed and suppress them all, or is it only some.
If it is ok for them to hate certain nationalities and treat them differently to others then maybe we need to come up with some alternative.
Or display a clear antipathy towards certain political parties, in this case the Republicans. Maybe the Conservatives and Liberals had better watch their backs.
West Midlands Police refused to apologise and fobbed off enquiries claiming the incident had been "fully investigated" They are going to offer training in understanding hate crime and communication. One fears it actually calls for a little more than that. Surely if investigated the way New Labour seem to prefer the PCSP’s behaviour could generate a number of ‘detections’ for them.
Depends on how you interpret the words "You have been warned. If you come back here and get beaten up, well you have been warned". In light of the whole incident.
These ‘Community’ (don’t you just hate this newspeak) Support Officers are a kind of pretend police officer, presumably intended to fool the public into believing there are actually police officers on the street. Well police officers used to be taught how to swim and use life saving techniques, they used to be taught CPR and first aid. They may still be, but not it seems these Community Support officers. Their Idea of supporting the community would appear to be to leave a child to drown .
Now it seems they are employing suppressors of free speech who might be interpreted as verging on the edge of being racists. Nothing new there then some of the more jaded and cynical amongst you may think. But it is. The reason police in the UK have been so successful until successive governments have begun to politicise and micro manage them was precisely because they were not. Because they were largely fair, even despite the natural tendency towards preconceived ideas we are all so often prone to - also they had and were allowed to use their discretion.
The question is why did West Midlands Police not suspend and hopefully sack this particular Community Support Officer? His behaviour went beyond the pale.
If the police are in the business of suppressing religion then surely they should be more even handed and suppress them all, or is it only some.
If it is ok for them to hate certain nationalities and treat them differently to others then maybe we need to come up with some alternative.
Or display a clear antipathy towards certain political parties, in this case the Republicans. Maybe the Conservatives and Liberals had better watch their backs.
West Midlands Police refused to apologise and fobbed off enquiries claiming the incident had been "fully investigated" They are going to offer training in understanding hate crime and communication. One fears it actually calls for a little more than that. Surely if investigated the way New Labour seem to prefer the PCSP’s behaviour could generate a number of ‘detections’ for them.
Depends on how you interpret the words "You have been warned. If you come back here and get beaten up, well you have been warned". In light of the whole incident.
Tuesday, 27 May 2008
Time for a change over Eurovision?
Well there is at least one good thing about the Eurovision Song contest. It is a useful reminder of exactly how low the esteem in which much of Europe holds the UK actually is - and curiously places outside Europe like Russia and Israel hold the UK. There seems to be some following for the Contest in Australia, maybe they should participate, they are surely just as 'qualified' as Israel or Russia.
Still, covering 40% of the costs together with only France, Germany and Spain is a steep price for this knowledge. Italy sensibly decided Enough was enough. It could be the automatic qualification for the final when better songs do not make it this massive expenditure buys us probably does not help.
Of course Russia does not like us at the moment, due to the diplomatic row over some mysterious unidentified party killing off Russian dissidents on British soil. The Balkan states know what side their bread is buttered, but it does have to be said the UK entry this year was not, by objective standards, by any means the best, or most likely to do well on it’s ’Euro’ merit.
By the new Eurovision standards the Russian entry was good, but despite the voting probably not the best.
It would be interesting to see how well the UK would perform if the psychology of the Euro sound were to be analysed and a group and song were to be crafted, specifically designed to succeed, rather than relying on the proven inability of the British public to judge current, heavily East European influenced, ‘Euro’ taste.
It would also be interesting to see a complete change in the voting system where all the votes were pooled. It is simply ludicrous that a country with the population of Andorra has the same voting clout as one with a population the size of Germany.
Maybe it would be much better if an arrangement were found where all participating countries paid their fair percentage share, based on their population and no one automatically made the final too.
If these changes can not be made in time for next year’s contest then surely it would be better if the UK followed the Italian example, withdrew from the contest and took it’s cash with it.
Still, covering 40% of the costs together with only France, Germany and Spain is a steep price for this knowledge. Italy sensibly decided Enough was enough. It could be the automatic qualification for the final when better songs do not make it this massive expenditure buys us probably does not help.
Of course Russia does not like us at the moment, due to the diplomatic row over some mysterious unidentified party killing off Russian dissidents on British soil. The Balkan states know what side their bread is buttered, but it does have to be said the UK entry this year was not, by objective standards, by any means the best, or most likely to do well on it’s ’Euro’ merit.
By the new Eurovision standards the Russian entry was good, but despite the voting probably not the best.
It would be interesting to see how well the UK would perform if the psychology of the Euro sound were to be analysed and a group and song were to be crafted, specifically designed to succeed, rather than relying on the proven inability of the British public to judge current, heavily East European influenced, ‘Euro’ taste.
It would also be interesting to see a complete change in the voting system where all the votes were pooled. It is simply ludicrous that a country with the population of Andorra has the same voting clout as one with a population the size of Germany.
Maybe it would be much better if an arrangement were found where all participating countries paid their fair percentage share, based on their population and no one automatically made the final too.
If these changes can not be made in time for next year’s contest then surely it would be better if the UK followed the Italian example, withdrew from the contest and took it’s cash with it.
Saturday, 24 May 2008
The Eurovision song 'contest' rolls round once again
Tonight is the night of one of the greatest wastes of British TV taxpayer’s money in the entire year. The Eurovision Song Contest.
It is saved, mostly by the fact that watching the often frankly amazing performances appeals to the sneaking desire to watch a curiosity, combined by Terry Wogan’s gentle micky taking on behalf of us all.
Humourless European officials decry his efforts, whilst failing to grasp he is probably the only thing that keeps the opinion of the UK public in a mood of benign amusement - as opposed to outright contempt.
The 'contest' is intrinsically silly and unfair, it always has been. He does not need to make it look that way, he just uses the fact that it is to entertain us...
We all know we have very little chance of even doing well in it. We know we are not particularly popular with Europe as a whole, given our relationship with the US. But mostly it is the voting system and the blocks that doom all the old large western European nations.
Namely the Baltic and Balkan voting blocks.
Firstly each group tends, by accident, or design, to vote the high points largely exclusively for other members of ‘their’ block.
This, combined with the fact that a microscopic country that consists of several small towns, has the same voting power as a huge country with a population of multiple millions. Tends to give them a lock on the contest, no matter how good or more likely bad the particular entries happen to be.
It’s as if you were to give each county in the UK an individual vote and they all voted for the UK, and Irish entries.
How different would the results be it it were down to a simple total of all the votes cast for each entry, with no country being able to vote for it's own entry?
One suspects it won’t be much different for Andy Abraham tonight. One fears how good the song, or the performance, is will only have a peripheral impact on how well it actually does. The fact that I don’t come right out and predict it is more a triumph of optimism over experience than anything else. We shall see on the morrow…
It is saved, mostly by the fact that watching the often frankly amazing performances appeals to the sneaking desire to watch a curiosity, combined by Terry Wogan’s gentle micky taking on behalf of us all.
Humourless European officials decry his efforts, whilst failing to grasp he is probably the only thing that keeps the opinion of the UK public in a mood of benign amusement - as opposed to outright contempt.
The 'contest' is intrinsically silly and unfair, it always has been. He does not need to make it look that way, he just uses the fact that it is to entertain us...
We all know we have very little chance of even doing well in it. We know we are not particularly popular with Europe as a whole, given our relationship with the US. But mostly it is the voting system and the blocks that doom all the old large western European nations.
Namely the Baltic and Balkan voting blocks.
Firstly each group tends, by accident, or design, to vote the high points largely exclusively for other members of ‘their’ block.
This, combined with the fact that a microscopic country that consists of several small towns, has the same voting power as a huge country with a population of multiple millions. Tends to give them a lock on the contest, no matter how good or more likely bad the particular entries happen to be.
It’s as if you were to give each county in the UK an individual vote and they all voted for the UK, and Irish entries.
How different would the results be it it were down to a simple total of all the votes cast for each entry, with no country being able to vote for it's own entry?
One suspects it won’t be much different for Andy Abraham tonight. One fears how good the song, or the performance, is will only have a peripheral impact on how well it actually does. The fact that I don’t come right out and predict it is more a triumph of optimism over experience than anything else. We shall see on the morrow…
Wednesday, 21 May 2008
Quote of the day
" Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.”Benjamin Franklin
Threat of yet more laws and another huge UK State database
New-Labour’s developing fascist state moves a little closer as it’s Ministers consider plans for a vast and intrusive database of electronic information. A real move in the direction of a sinister total surveillance society.
Their plan is for New-Labour to legislate to force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and telephone companies to pass the details of all emails and telephone calls to them to be stored in a gargantuan database.
Their current justification is national security, a marvellous excuse to make the gullible grateful for their own oppression, but if they couldn’t talk that up then they would probably look to find some other reason.
A Home Office ‘spokesman’ claimed retaining communications information is now apparently essential for protecting national security. He also insisted that powers to hold information were subject to strict safeguards.
Yes, but somehow with other legislation and systems it has still resulted in things like local councils spying on ordinary people over schools admissions, people getting criminal records for putting a little too much rubbish in their bins and the private data of huge numbers of people being lost, or given away, or even published on the internet. These safeguards and promises are clearly utterly worthless.
In fact the prime minister’s personal representative has publicly admitted that "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation", so it is curious they expect us to actually believe any such lesser assurances.
The state claims that if only they can bring in this law, restrict that freedom, then they can make the citizen safe. It is a lie. They can not guarantee safety, not from chance, not from natural disaster, not from crime and not from terrorism. They can even genuinely try, but sooner or later they are sill bound to fail.
Quite frankly I would rather take the chance of not making it easier to catch and more problematically convict terrorists (because they are easier to foil than catch and easier to catch than convict) than to allow them change my society to the point where it no longer reflects values I would be willing to defend. That is one of the aims of terrorism.
Are we are reaching the point where the state is in danger of becoming a greater menace to out liberties, values and way of life than terrorism.
Their plan is for New-Labour to legislate to force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and telephone companies to pass the details of all emails and telephone calls to them to be stored in a gargantuan database.
Their current justification is national security, a marvellous excuse to make the gullible grateful for their own oppression, but if they couldn’t talk that up then they would probably look to find some other reason.
A Home Office ‘spokesman’ claimed retaining communications information is now apparently essential for protecting national security. He also insisted that powers to hold information were subject to strict safeguards.
Yes, but somehow with other legislation and systems it has still resulted in things like local councils spying on ordinary people over schools admissions, people getting criminal records for putting a little too much rubbish in their bins and the private data of huge numbers of people being lost, or given away, or even published on the internet. These safeguards and promises are clearly utterly worthless.
In fact the prime minister’s personal representative has publicly admitted that "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation", so it is curious they expect us to actually believe any such lesser assurances.
The state claims that if only they can bring in this law, restrict that freedom, then they can make the citizen safe. It is a lie. They can not guarantee safety, not from chance, not from natural disaster, not from crime and not from terrorism. They can even genuinely try, but sooner or later they are sill bound to fail.
Quite frankly I would rather take the chance of not making it easier to catch and more problematically convict terrorists (because they are easier to foil than catch and easier to catch than convict) than to allow them change my society to the point where it no longer reflects values I would be willing to defend. That is one of the aims of terrorism.
Are we are reaching the point where the state is in danger of becoming a greater menace to out liberties, values and way of life than terrorism.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)