Madeleine McCann– Still Missing
A thought - I have not heard it suggested on the news - but anyone on holiday in the area in the weeks running up to her disappearance could help, just by looking through all their video footage and stills, to see if there is anything inadvertently captured in them, that in retrospect, might be significant could do their bit.
It could, however unlikely, turn up the missing piece of the jigsaw, so is well worth doing on that basis alone.
Thursday, 17 May 2007
'Think Tank' says Teens can't tell right from wrong
The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies today issued a report recommending that the age of criminal responsibility should be raised, from 10, to as high as 18.
Are these people completely detached from reality? Are they seriously expecting normal people to believe that, say a sixteen year old, is incapable of telling the difference between right and wrong!
What about a suitable age of criminal responsibility for pixies, or hob-goblins? Maybe they should consider devoting time to those pressing issues. And no doubt, they would like us to think of them as experts, like Alcohol Concern for instance.
Thinking back to the heady days of my youth I knew perfectly well, what was right or wrong. I also knew kids who were well aware of the age of criminal responsibility, who took advantage of that dividing line and clearly knew when they were doing wrong. They were also well aware of the difference between Juvenile court and Magistrate’s Court.
Still I am sure the Government will not have missed the possibility of reducing youth crime to zero at a stroke that this brilliant idea may afford them, just as keeping kids in fill time education until they finish university will reduce youth unemployment to zero.
Just a thought - I wonder if the CCJS gets any funding from the Government.
Apparently the Crime and Society Foundation is an independent charity, Based at King's College London - and bills it’s self as a ‘social policy and criminal justice’ think tank.
Apparently it is open to anyone to join. Students £25, Adults £35. I am not sure if they do special rates for OAPs.
Are these people completely detached from reality? Are they seriously expecting normal people to believe that, say a sixteen year old, is incapable of telling the difference between right and wrong!
What about a suitable age of criminal responsibility for pixies, or hob-goblins? Maybe they should consider devoting time to those pressing issues. And no doubt, they would like us to think of them as experts, like Alcohol Concern for instance.
Thinking back to the heady days of my youth I knew perfectly well, what was right or wrong. I also knew kids who were well aware of the age of criminal responsibility, who took advantage of that dividing line and clearly knew when they were doing wrong. They were also well aware of the difference between Juvenile court and Magistrate’s Court.
Still I am sure the Government will not have missed the possibility of reducing youth crime to zero at a stroke that this brilliant idea may afford them, just as keeping kids in fill time education until they finish university will reduce youth unemployment to zero.
Just a thought - I wonder if the CCJS gets any funding from the Government.
Apparently the Crime and Society Foundation is an independent charity, Based at King's College London - and bills it’s self as a ‘social policy and criminal justice’ think tank.
Apparently it is open to anyone to join. Students £25, Adults £35. I am not sure if they do special rates for OAPs.
EU wants Taxpayer to foot entire Galileo Bill
The European Union’s satellite-navigation system, Galileo, will have to be built with public funds if it is going to be built at all, the European Commission announced.
So clearly, from this pronouncement, any one with any business sense realises it’s a bit of a white elephant before it even gets off the ground - and are reluctant o throw their own perfectly good money away on it.
Still that sort of consideration never put a politician off wasting tax payer’s money to their own glory. Some £2.7 billion they estimate – yes pull the other one and then multiply it by 12, if the London Olympics are anything to go by.
Now the question immediately arises - Why on earth ;-) would you want to go to the trouble and truly enormous expense, of building you own satellite navigation system, when there is a perfectly serviceable one up there already?
Even if you built it you would then have to try to wean the users of the existing system (who have coughed up cash for their sat-nav equipment) away from it just to get anyone to use it at all.
Is it dog in the manger-ism? Or they fear it will become unavailable. I know the European elite are not fond of the US but I hope they are not actually planning to go to war with them.
So clearly, from this pronouncement, any one with any business sense realises it’s a bit of a white elephant before it even gets off the ground - and are reluctant o throw their own perfectly good money away on it.
Still that sort of consideration never put a politician off wasting tax payer’s money to their own glory. Some £2.7 billion they estimate – yes pull the other one and then multiply it by 12, if the London Olympics are anything to go by.
Now the question immediately arises - Why on earth ;-) would you want to go to the trouble and truly enormous expense, of building you own satellite navigation system, when there is a perfectly serviceable one up there already?
Even if you built it you would then have to try to wean the users of the existing system (who have coughed up cash for their sat-nav equipment) away from it just to get anyone to use it at all.
Is it dog in the manger-ism? Or they fear it will become unavailable. I know the European elite are not fond of the US but I hope they are not actually planning to go to war with them.
Wednesday, 16 May 2007
You really can’t tell the difference...
At the risk of sounding like an advert…
“You really can’t tell the difference between Nu-Lab FascistLite ™ and Cameron’s, New Improved Soft and Gentle, Caring Conservatism – Kinder to Hoodies, kinder to your planet too.“.
Today the Conservative Party officially ditched academic selection, accusing grammar schools of entrenching social advantage.
The shadow education secretary David Willetts, told grammar school supporters in the party that they cannot harp back to the past, saying: "We must break free from the belief that academic selection is any longer the way to transform the life chances of bright, poor kids,"
“You really can’t tell the difference between Nu-Lab FascistLite ™ and Cameron’s, New Improved Soft and Gentle, Caring Conservatism – Kinder to Hoodies, kinder to your planet too.“.
Today the Conservative Party officially ditched academic selection, accusing grammar schools of entrenching social advantage.
Just when it’s finally dawning, that girls and boys do better academically in separate classes and children cope better with lessons specifically tailored to their abilities, the conservatives take a giant leap - backwards.
The shadow education secretary David Willetts, told grammar school supporters in the party that they cannot harp back to the past, saying: "We must break free from the belief that academic selection is any longer the way to transform the life chances of bright, poor kids,"
Saturday, 12 May 2007
Democracy in Action - Voting
I note the ‘heats’ for the Eurovision Song Contest were on Thursday evening (10th May). There was the usual spread of stuff on offer - of varying quality.
When they announced the vote results though, as far as I could tell, regardless of the merit of the offerings, apart from Turkey, only eastern European efforts actually made it through to the final - and some that did I felt were embarrassingly ghastly.
It often seems that in the past the Nordic countries voted for each other, according to the great sage Wogan. Now it could be the Eastern Europeans are taking a leaf out of their books.
What is the betting the main contest goes in a similar direction? We shall see this evening.
In any event the results seem to be based on approval of the states involved rather than having any relation to any merit of the songs.
All in fun, you may say and that’s as may be., but by accident, or intent, it looks as if the vote may be being consistently ‘tactically’ distorted.
The underlying theme, that goes largely unnoticed, is that this is a problem with virtually all voting systems.
I am not sure if the Eurovision system of national votes could be regarded as a Borda Count system, but internally within the UK it looks more like an Approval Voting system. The overall effect being a combination. It would be interesting to know what methods the other nations use.
I wonder if it might be better to switch to a Condorcet system. Any thoughts on the subject of voting anyone?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eurovision is over for another year, the taste of ashes in our mouths ;-)
“Flying the flag” is a descendant (and inheritor) of “making your mind up” and by all rights should have done well. Done well, that is, until the admission and proliferation of Eastern European States – oh and Tony B upset everyone in western Europe.
What we recognise as the 'Euro' sound has changed. It was a sort of lowest common denominator of the old Europe’s musical tastes, the sort of thing that does well in the clubs of the med.
Eastern Europe however has added a new (Early 8os) element - Anthemic Power Rock, plus fireworks and black leather gear, a sort of love child of Aerosmith and Europe (the group)
I know there is much dark talk of block voting - and there may well be an element of that – but next year!
Next year Tony and his inheritance of continental disapproval may have faded from French and German minds.
Next year, if we can cobble together a group of long haired, reasonably slim aging hard rockers capable of lasting through such an energetic number and carrying off black leather and studs. Accompanied by some leather (if scantily) clad young, operatically voiced women. A sort of a cross between belly dancers and biker chicks.
Next year, if we can craft an anthemic European power ballad that can stir the eastern European sole.
If we can lay our hands on enough fireworks...
Then maybe we will be able, once again, hold our heads high in the halls of Europe – and - who knows, apart from funding a huge chunk of the cost of the contest, possibly even have to go to the additional expense and bother of hosting it too! What more could you ask?
When they announced the vote results though, as far as I could tell, regardless of the merit of the offerings, apart from Turkey, only eastern European efforts actually made it through to the final - and some that did I felt were embarrassingly ghastly.
It often seems that in the past the Nordic countries voted for each other, according to the great sage Wogan. Now it could be the Eastern Europeans are taking a leaf out of their books.
What is the betting the main contest goes in a similar direction? We shall see this evening.
In any event the results seem to be based on approval of the states involved rather than having any relation to any merit of the songs.
All in fun, you may say and that’s as may be., but by accident, or intent, it looks as if the vote may be being consistently ‘tactically’ distorted.
The underlying theme, that goes largely unnoticed, is that this is a problem with virtually all voting systems.
I am not sure if the Eurovision system of national votes could be regarded as a Borda Count system, but internally within the UK it looks more like an Approval Voting system. The overall effect being a combination. It would be interesting to know what methods the other nations use.
I wonder if it might be better to switch to a Condorcet system. Any thoughts on the subject of voting anyone?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eurovision is over for another year, the taste of ashes in our mouths ;-)
“Flying the flag” is a descendant (and inheritor) of “making your mind up” and by all rights should have done well. Done well, that is, until the admission and proliferation of Eastern European States – oh and Tony B upset everyone in western Europe.
What we recognise as the 'Euro' sound has changed. It was a sort of lowest common denominator of the old Europe’s musical tastes, the sort of thing that does well in the clubs of the med.
Eastern Europe however has added a new (Early 8os) element - Anthemic Power Rock, plus fireworks and black leather gear, a sort of love child of Aerosmith and Europe (the group)
I know there is much dark talk of block voting - and there may well be an element of that – but next year!
Next year Tony and his inheritance of continental disapproval may have faded from French and German minds.
Next year, if we can cobble together a group of long haired, reasonably slim aging hard rockers capable of lasting through such an energetic number and carrying off black leather and studs. Accompanied by some leather (if scantily) clad young, operatically voiced women. A sort of a cross between belly dancers and biker chicks.
Next year, if we can craft an anthemic European power ballad that can stir the eastern European sole.
If we can lay our hands on enough fireworks...
Then maybe we will be able, once again, hold our heads high in the halls of Europe – and - who knows, apart from funding a huge chunk of the cost of the contest, possibly even have to go to the additional expense and bother of hosting it too! What more could you ask?
Tuesday, 8 May 2007
A Robust Constitution?
Some time ago a post on Samizdata.net by Perry de Havilland entitled What now, England? prompted a discussion on what would constitute an ideal or, “wish list”, British constitution.
Having taken into account many comments and with acknowledgements to Mandrill, Tim C, Mark E, Jim, Freeman, Nick G, RC Dean, Paul Marks Pietr, Cat, Sunfish, Nicholas Gray and the US constitution, here is a distillation/consensus of the comments.
It is still a work in progress, so feel free to offer any sensible comments, or suggestions, including the order of importance of the clauses. It is really a means to make one consider exactly what one considers the ideal role of government and the citizen, what rights they both need and the duties they owe.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. The powers not delegated to the State by the Constitution are reserved to the people. The State shall make no law amending this except by the will of the people expressed in a full referendum .
2. The state shall enter into no treaty, or agreement with any individual, group or state, that in any way abrogates or diminishes the sole sovereignty, or power, of the people of the United Kingdom, save with the full agreement of the people as expressed in a full referendum.
Any such agreement must be subject to a full referendum to reaffirm , or revoke any such treaty, or agreement. At any time on a Petition signed by over 25% of the eligible citizens, or in any case within 14 years of the agreement.
3. The State shall make no law concerning the establishment, elevation or imposition of any religion, or prohibiting the free peaceable exercise of religion. No person or persons shall have the right to impose any religion on any person by means of force or threat.
4. The State shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, including the written word, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
5. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. No warrants shall be issued, except on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and precisely specifying the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The State shall have a duty and the power to enforce this by appropriate legislation.
6. All persons born, or naturalized, in the United Kingdom, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United Kingdom.
The State shall make no law, or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the State. Nor shall it deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within it’s jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
7. Neither slavery, nor any form of involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United Kingdom, or any place subject to it’s jurisdiction.
The State shall have a duty and the power to enforce this by appropriate legislation.
8. The right of citizens who are over 21 to vote shall not be denied, or abridged by the Government or by any Local authority on account of race, creed, colour or sex. This right shall not be denied, or abridged, by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
The State shall have a duty and the power to enforce this by appropriate legislation.
9. The State shall make no law interfering with the right of any individual, groups, or companies, to freely associate, or make agreements and contracts together, excepting where said are contrary to, or bound by the constitution of the United Kingdom.
10 The State shall make no law in separation or isolation or special case . in other words, parliament shall be of the people, not of itself.
11.The State make no law which infringes on the rights of all citizens to bare arms in personal and collective defence of the constitution and against enemies both internal and external. Towards this end any honest citizen of voting age and sound mind has a right to take training, obtain a licence of competence to bare arms and subsequently to bare arms. Citizens shall have a right to form and join licensed militia.
The State shall have a duty and the power to enforce this by appropriate legislation.
12. The citizen has an absolute right to protect their life family and property, also lives and property for which they may be responsible, against unlawful attack. The citizen may use reasonable force, up to and including deadly force, if necessary, in order to exercise that right.
This right shall only be bound by the constitution of the United Kingdom. The State, or any other governing authority, shall enact no law, and enforce no law, which shall abridge, abrogate, or diminish that right.
13. The citizen shall have a right to pursue health, wealth, happiness, associate and conduct their lives however they choose, provided it is within the constitution and is not to more than minimal detriment of others and does not harm the general good. The State shall have a duty to ensure this and shell enact no law, allow no law, and enforce no law, which shall abridge, abrogate, or diminish that right.
14. The constitution recognises that from time to time for certain needs the State may need to raise Taxes. Taxation should be limited as much as possible and at no time, except temporarily, for no more than three calendar years, in a state of dire emergency, or war, should total taxation exceed 21% of Gross Domestic Product. Total individual and total Company taxation should not exceed 14% of income in any three year period and in the case of individuals be restricted to those over voting age. Any new tax, or increase in taxation, shall be subject to ratification by a full referendum.
The State shall not incur debt, or increase borrowing, beyond it’s ability to pay within it’s existing tax structure and income without a full referendum.
In furtherance of clause 9 - The state shall make no tax nor impose any unreasonable hindrances on the sale and transport of goods and services.
Having taken into account many comments and with acknowledgements to Mandrill, Tim C, Mark E, Jim, Freeman, Nick G, RC Dean, Paul Marks Pietr, Cat, Sunfish, Nicholas Gray and the US constitution, here is a distillation/consensus of the comments.
It is still a work in progress, so feel free to offer any sensible comments, or suggestions, including the order of importance of the clauses. It is really a means to make one consider exactly what one considers the ideal role of government and the citizen, what rights they both need and the duties they owe.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. The powers not delegated to the State by the Constitution are reserved to the people. The State shall make no law amending this except by the will of the people expressed in a full referendum .
2. The state shall enter into no treaty, or agreement with any individual, group or state, that in any way abrogates or diminishes the sole sovereignty, or power, of the people of the United Kingdom, save with the full agreement of the people as expressed in a full referendum.
Any such agreement must be subject to a full referendum to reaffirm , or revoke any such treaty, or agreement. At any time on a Petition signed by over 25% of the eligible citizens, or in any case within 14 years of the agreement.
3. The State shall make no law concerning the establishment, elevation or imposition of any religion, or prohibiting the free peaceable exercise of religion. No person or persons shall have the right to impose any religion on any person by means of force or threat.
4. The State shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, including the written word, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
5. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. No warrants shall be issued, except on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and precisely specifying the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The State shall have a duty and the power to enforce this by appropriate legislation.
6. All persons born, or naturalized, in the United Kingdom, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United Kingdom.
The State shall make no law, or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the State. Nor shall it deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within it’s jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
7. Neither slavery, nor any form of involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United Kingdom, or any place subject to it’s jurisdiction.
The State shall have a duty and the power to enforce this by appropriate legislation.
8. The right of citizens who are over 21 to vote shall not be denied, or abridged by the Government or by any Local authority on account of race, creed, colour or sex. This right shall not be denied, or abridged, by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
The State shall have a duty and the power to enforce this by appropriate legislation.
9. The State shall make no law interfering with the right of any individual, groups, or companies, to freely associate, or make agreements and contracts together, excepting where said are contrary to, or bound by the constitution of the United Kingdom.
10 The State shall make no law in separation or isolation or special case . in other words, parliament shall be of the people, not of itself.
11.The State make no law which infringes on the rights of all citizens to bare arms in personal and collective defence of the constitution and against enemies both internal and external. Towards this end any honest citizen of voting age and sound mind has a right to take training, obtain a licence of competence to bare arms and subsequently to bare arms. Citizens shall have a right to form and join licensed militia.
The State shall have a duty and the power to enforce this by appropriate legislation.
12. The citizen has an absolute right to protect their life family and property, also lives and property for which they may be responsible, against unlawful attack. The citizen may use reasonable force, up to and including deadly force, if necessary, in order to exercise that right.
This right shall only be bound by the constitution of the United Kingdom. The State, or any other governing authority, shall enact no law, and enforce no law, which shall abridge, abrogate, or diminish that right.
13. The citizen shall have a right to pursue health, wealth, happiness, associate and conduct their lives however they choose, provided it is within the constitution and is not to more than minimal detriment of others and does not harm the general good. The State shall have a duty to ensure this and shell enact no law, allow no law, and enforce no law, which shall abridge, abrogate, or diminish that right.
14. The constitution recognises that from time to time for certain needs the State may need to raise Taxes. Taxation should be limited as much as possible and at no time, except temporarily, for no more than three calendar years, in a state of dire emergency, or war, should total taxation exceed 21% of Gross Domestic Product. Total individual and total Company taxation should not exceed 14% of income in any three year period and in the case of individuals be restricted to those over voting age. Any new tax, or increase in taxation, shall be subject to ratification by a full referendum.
The State shall not incur debt, or increase borrowing, beyond it’s ability to pay within it’s existing tax structure and income without a full referendum.
In furtherance of clause 9 - The state shall make no tax nor impose any unreasonable hindrances on the sale and transport of goods and services.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
