So that's the news of the world gone then. I had to laugh at their last front cover stating they had a 'proud' history. Laugh, i nearly wet myself. A proud history of being the lowest guttersnipe press on the block. The whole thing will unfortunately no doubt miss those actually responsible, they've probably left the paper now and will evade justice, which is a pity, people who have no respect for their fellow man should be dragged out into the street and shot.
However, this whole scandal shows just how bad it would be if Murdoch managed to get all of BSkyB, that would be catastrophic for the free press. Think of the power that man would wield if he owned that network too. Jees, frankly it scares me. Murdoch is a walking advert for abortion, the idea of him running something 70% of the TV channels we watch makes my blood freeze.
However, you can help stop this by going to http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/murdoch and signing this petition. Also write to your MP and members of the Lords.
Monday 11 July 2011
Thursday 30 June 2011
Self defence?
So, looking at this story today - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13957587
I'm very much in 2 minds over this one. The current law states we can use 'reasonable' force to defend ourselves and our homes, therefore changing the law will be a move from reasonable to un-reasonable. Many people will argue that stabbing someone is reasonable, well if that's the case then it's already legal as the law states you can use 'reasonable' force. However, it appears that the courts disagree that stabbing is 'reasonable' and as they are the one's that set the interpretations of the law then they are right, therefore changing it so they are wrong is to change it so that we can use 'un-reasonable' force.
On the other hand, if some little scrote breaks into my house and threatens me or mine then I would want to use any force needed to remove them from my house and the threat, up to and including deadly force.
So I guess this one is a tricky one, personally I would say that we change the law to state that there is a difference in defending one's property and family in your own home, but that this does not extend outside the walls of our homes.
There was a case recently where a man chased an intruder down the street with a cricket bat, that's too much but using a cricket bat to get an intruder out of your house, that should be OK.
I'm very much in 2 minds over this one. The current law states we can use 'reasonable' force to defend ourselves and our homes, therefore changing the law will be a move from reasonable to un-reasonable. Many people will argue that stabbing someone is reasonable, well if that's the case then it's already legal as the law states you can use 'reasonable' force. However, it appears that the courts disagree that stabbing is 'reasonable' and as they are the one's that set the interpretations of the law then they are right, therefore changing it so they are wrong is to change it so that we can use 'un-reasonable' force.
On the other hand, if some little scrote breaks into my house and threatens me or mine then I would want to use any force needed to remove them from my house and the threat, up to and including deadly force.
So I guess this one is a tricky one, personally I would say that we change the law to state that there is a difference in defending one's property and family in your own home, but that this does not extend outside the walls of our homes.
There was a case recently where a man chased an intruder down the street with a cricket bat, that's too much but using a cricket bat to get an intruder out of your house, that should be OK.
Wednesday 29 June 2011
Tuition fees in Scotland
Now this one, gets my goat.
See this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13951685
So the Scottish parliament gets to vote FOR tuition fees here in England and yet gets to not have them in Scotland, and now gets to say that English students wishing to study in Scotland will get charged an increase rate!
Now, lets ignore the fact that I believe education should be free for the moment, likewise lets leave alone the subject of devolution and just concentrate on the utter hypocritical nature of the Scottish MPs (and I will say, it's not all of them).
But to vote against it for home students and to vote for it for 'foreign' students, if they feel that strongly about the issue on their home soil they should not vote on it down here.
Now, tuition fees in general. I hate them, hate them, hate them, hate them. Education is the corner stone of our society, the foundation of generations and should be free at the point of delivery, in full, for ever! This can be paid for in other ways, Universities can offer other services at a profit such as conference facilities, private tuition during non-semester time etc. Those with a university degree should have an altered income tax band, looking at my plan for income tax in my other blog post, I would amend it so that if you have a degree, you pay 1% higher than non-degree holders, if you have Masters then 2% and PHD 4%.
Now, devolution. I hate this too. That's not to say I hate countries having independence, that's an entirely different matter. If a body of people wish to rule themselves then they should have that right, but devolution, this half-way house is a mess, creates inequalities, creates division. To sum it up in easy language 'if you're going, go'. But we all know in the case of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland that none of them could stand economically without the rest of the UK, and they could definitely not stand independently and keep no tuition fees (or prescriptions). So the MPs vote to keep the current devolved status, to keep the division and the issues it creates, is that moral? Is that just? They will argue they are doing the best they can for their constituents, however surely they also all have a responsibility to work for the whole of the UK as their role as Her Majesty's Government / Opposition etc.
See this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13951685
So the Scottish parliament gets to vote FOR tuition fees here in England and yet gets to not have them in Scotland, and now gets to say that English students wishing to study in Scotland will get charged an increase rate!
Now, lets ignore the fact that I believe education should be free for the moment, likewise lets leave alone the subject of devolution and just concentrate on the utter hypocritical nature of the Scottish MPs (and I will say, it's not all of them).
But to vote against it for home students and to vote for it for 'foreign' students, if they feel that strongly about the issue on their home soil they should not vote on it down here.
Now, tuition fees in general. I hate them, hate them, hate them, hate them. Education is the corner stone of our society, the foundation of generations and should be free at the point of delivery, in full, for ever! This can be paid for in other ways, Universities can offer other services at a profit such as conference facilities, private tuition during non-semester time etc. Those with a university degree should have an altered income tax band, looking at my plan for income tax in my other blog post, I would amend it so that if you have a degree, you pay 1% higher than non-degree holders, if you have Masters then 2% and PHD 4%.
Now, devolution. I hate this too. That's not to say I hate countries having independence, that's an entirely different matter. If a body of people wish to rule themselves then they should have that right, but devolution, this half-way house is a mess, creates inequalities, creates division. To sum it up in easy language 'if you're going, go'. But we all know in the case of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland that none of them could stand economically without the rest of the UK, and they could definitely not stand independently and keep no tuition fees (or prescriptions). So the MPs vote to keep the current devolved status, to keep the division and the issues it creates, is that moral? Is that just? They will argue they are doing the best they can for their constituents, however surely they also all have a responsibility to work for the whole of the UK as their role as Her Majesty's Government / Opposition etc.
Tuesday 28 June 2011
Teacher's strike
So, there's a lot of coverage on the strike on thursday.
The government is saying it doesn't want it to happen, well of course you don't, because those striking are striking against you! Isn't it odd how they don't complain about private industry strikes, like the BA cabin crew strikes? However, Gove then saying that the government should change the laws on strikes is stupid in the extreme. Striking is the most powerful method of peaceful protest we have, something we should keep, something that has shaped employment law for generations. Shame on them for threatening to make it illegal, to remove the power of protest is to move from democracy to oppression.
To further demonstrate Gove's complete stupidity he then says parents should go in to schools to keep them open. Firstly people covering for others when striking does down the power of the protest. Let's also not forget that for the parents to go in they would need to all be CRB checked (thanks to the governments laws on child protection) which we know is impossible in the time frame. Also he's expecting members of other unions represented in schools to support this, does he really think that NASUWT teachers will facilitate parents covering for NUT teachers? Really?
I will admit the pension system needs to be updated, however people who work in the public sector work in the public interest, there should be some reward for that, for giving up someone's life to serve the nation be that as a policeman, or fireman or teacher. These people work for the protection and service of all. Then there is the wage gap between private and public, it does exist. When I worked in the NHS as an analyst I earned £23k, I could have earned £28k in the private sector, more in London. That wage gap is accepted by public workers as the terms are better, better working conditions, better hours, better pensions. Thats what the gap pays for, that's why we accept it. Personally I would change the pension to be part final salary (where final salary means an average of the last 3 years wage) and part proportional salary (where this means an average of your yearly wage in the later 60% of your career) i.e. if you work for 30 years, final salary means an avarage of years 28,29 & 30 and the proportional part is based on an average of years 12 to 30. And the split between these 2 pots increases in favour of the final salary based on the number of years worked total, starting at say 30% final salary working up to a max of 60% final salary.
Suffice to say that I am less than impressed with the Cameron and Gove today (more than usual), i hope they see sense but we all know that a Tory seeing sense is about as likely as Labour-man saying Thatcher was awesome.
The government is saying it doesn't want it to happen, well of course you don't, because those striking are striking against you! Isn't it odd how they don't complain about private industry strikes, like the BA cabin crew strikes? However, Gove then saying that the government should change the laws on strikes is stupid in the extreme. Striking is the most powerful method of peaceful protest we have, something we should keep, something that has shaped employment law for generations. Shame on them for threatening to make it illegal, to remove the power of protest is to move from democracy to oppression.
To further demonstrate Gove's complete stupidity he then says parents should go in to schools to keep them open. Firstly people covering for others when striking does down the power of the protest. Let's also not forget that for the parents to go in they would need to all be CRB checked (thanks to the governments laws on child protection) which we know is impossible in the time frame. Also he's expecting members of other unions represented in schools to support this, does he really think that NASUWT teachers will facilitate parents covering for NUT teachers? Really?
I will admit the pension system needs to be updated, however people who work in the public sector work in the public interest, there should be some reward for that, for giving up someone's life to serve the nation be that as a policeman, or fireman or teacher. These people work for the protection and service of all. Then there is the wage gap between private and public, it does exist. When I worked in the NHS as an analyst I earned £23k, I could have earned £28k in the private sector, more in London. That wage gap is accepted by public workers as the terms are better, better working conditions, better hours, better pensions. Thats what the gap pays for, that's why we accept it. Personally I would change the pension to be part final salary (where final salary means an average of the last 3 years wage) and part proportional salary (where this means an average of your yearly wage in the later 60% of your career) i.e. if you work for 30 years, final salary means an avarage of years 28,29 & 30 and the proportional part is based on an average of years 12 to 30. And the split between these 2 pots increases in favour of the final salary based on the number of years worked total, starting at say 30% final salary working up to a max of 60% final salary.
Suffice to say that I am less than impressed with the Cameron and Gove today (more than usual), i hope they see sense but we all know that a Tory seeing sense is about as likely as Labour-man saying Thatcher was awesome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)