Please don't leave us isolated from the Titanic

Ed Milliband has recently warned that we're going to soon be living off raw potatoes and stale bread.

He attacked David Cameron over his decision to keep us out of any new European treaty. I won't quote him exactly but in summary; Britain will be isolated, the city will fall apart and before long you'll be queueing up in Soviet style mile long queues just to get some bread.

I exaggerate of course, but he genuinely does think the city (by which I mean the financial heart of London) will be worse off for being left out. This is rather strange considering the reason Cameron didn't go into the treaty was because the EU wanted the UK to be subject to the same new financial rules as everyone else in the EU... in other words, they wanted to control our financial industry. Doing this would mean there was no incentive to be in London, because it would be the same as anywhere in the EU. This would mean it would make most sense for a bank to move Germany (close to the European Central Bank where the power would be).

I apologise for this first part, how dreadfully dull I know. But now I'll move on the the crux of what I actually wanted to say. Isolation from the EU, how will we survive?

Well I would suggest that we'll survive in the same way someone does when a ship is sinking and they 'isolate' themselves by getting into a lifeboat.

The enormous disaster that is the mainship takes on water and the person in the life raft remains safe and dry, even if they are a bit rocked by the waves caused by the ship going down. This leaves the person in the life boat in a great position to get on another ship should one that is seaworthy turn up.

I'm hoping we're all getting the analogy.

You see, while free trade is excellent the political control of the EU is largely unnecessary and extremely expensive. Having public workers do any job is usually quite expensive (excluding Teachers, Nurses..) but having public workers do a job where no one in the building speaks the same language so everything has to be translated 20 times is the Mercedes A-Class of expensive, ie its not just expensive, its not that good either.

So what is to be done? Well what if we keep the free trade regulations and bin everything else? I mean EVERYTHING else. That particularly includes the Common Agricultural Policy... which for those of you who do not know, it where your money is taken off you and given to vineyard owners, so that they can tell you that Champagne is only called Champagne if it is from a specific region of France, otherwise it is 'sparkling white wine', very useful. In fact, it is worse than that, but I'm trying to give you a flavour.

So we're left with just the Common Market provisions, wouldn't that be nice? Is it even possible you ask? Well yes, we know this because Norway and Switzerland already have this arrangement. Both basically enjoy the free market but without having their countries run... well, from another country. And how does it affect their economy?

Well I'd like to finish with this. Below is the top five countries by GDP per captia. That is, how much money the country makes, divided by how many people in that country, it is an excellent way of working out how rich a country is proportionate to its size (population wise):

Luxembourg (tax haven, doesn't count)
Norway (in EFTA but not EU)
Qatar (not European)
Switzerland (in EFTA but not EU)
United Arab Emirates (not European)

So apart from a tax haven, the only countries in the top five that are European are outside of the EU but within the European Free Trade Area (ie they enjoy the Common Market, but don't have to waste their money on paying for bureaucrats to tell them what to call Champagne).

In fact, pretty much anyway of measuring the proportionate wealth in a country leaves the Swiss and the Nords way out in front of Germany, France, the UK etc. Which leaves us with the question, why aren't we joining them. And that is a question to which I just don't know the answer.

You've lost that entrepreneurial feeling

We need more jobs!

Unemployment is high and the economy is only just about 0% growth. This isn't an inspiring time to be unemployed. Therefore it is the government's job to make jobs, apparently.

For the retarded amongst us that means they should borrow more and then spend it to 'create jobs'. Or as I call it borrow more money to give away. After all if there is a job to be done, surely people will pay for it themselves. If they can't afford it as a person, it is highly unlikely we can afford it as a nation. If people won't pay for it themselves then it is probably because they don't really want it or it costs more than it is worth.

This doesn't always apply of course. We know that the NHS works best because everyone (officially employed) has to pay it. Old and young, rich and poor, fit and unfit. This means we all pay a little rather than some paying a fortune and others paying virtually nothing.

But generally paying public servants is very inefficient, because you can never choose to stop paying them. If my car insurance company is rubbish I can stop paying them and go to another company. If the bus service is rubbish I can stop paying them and take a train. If a public service is rubbish, then I'm stuck paying for rubbish service. There is no pressure on them to slim down when they have too many people because the money rolls in regardless of the service provided.

Anyway, I'm getting distracted. What I wanted to talk about was what I discovered when I was in California a few weeks ago.

We tend to think of the US as the place of big businesses. What we know of the USA is largely based around films, television and the chain stores that make it over here to Great Britain. Many of us go on holiday to the US (if we're blessed with some extra money) but often that is to the East Coast and more specifically; Florida.

But what I didn't realise until recently was for every Starbucks/ McDonald's/Burger King in America there is a Carl's Jr/Chilli's/independent. That is for everyone huge shopping chain that makes it across the pond, there are several smaller mid size or just totally independent restaurants that we in the United Kingdom, have never heard of.

Why is this relevant to anything? I heard you ask. Why did you start talking about the economy and now reach hamburgers? Well you'll be glad to hear I haven't lost track. My point is the reason why the USA has so many huge corporations is partly because it has so many small ones. When you have a decent size base of small companies, statistically some are bound to do really well. This is good for everyone.

But this leads me on to another point, Americans just have a different attitude to starting businesses to us. I think this is for a couple of reasons. first off, British people are far more pessimistic than Americans. I have heard it said that the difference between British people and Americans is that Americans think that they are going to live forever and British people know that they are going to die. I thought it was an exaggeration but American people genuinely do seem to avoid thinking about death at all cost. Which seems a bit odd, since that and tax are the things that are certain for all (perhaps not co-incidentally tax is the other Americans avoid at all cost).

Either way, this incredible optimism combined with a feeling that they are part of a 'pioneering' culture and a belief that anyone can make it if they work hard (potentially with the spur that you keep the money you make and you don't get lots of welfare support) means that people in the US set up businesses a lot.

In contrast we can look at the UK. In the UK we are very skeptical of anyone who says that something can be done, easily, quickly and with huge success. In fact, we are just skeptical. This has good sides to it. We are less moved by emotive speeches by politicians, so we're less likely to elect a 'Hitler' (although this is never impossible). It also means that most of us are less likely to be convinced by advertising which promises to change your life when you by a new mop, or taste a new sweet. Some will, but the majority with roll their eyes and want to slap the person back into reality.


Our heritage too is completely different. British political and economic heritage stretches all the way back to 1066. Almost a thousand years. Here it was established (or should I say confirmed) that those in the establishment lord it over those below, who work hard and are kept at the bottom of the social scale. Today of course, this is not the case, but the culture still comes from that same source. Which is why, you'll notice, that a large part of being rich and successful in Britain isn't just about being rich and successful, but also about entering the establishment.
This is why much more credence is given to established professions in Britain than to almost any other work. There is almost instant respect for Doctors, Barristers, Solicitors and accountants. This is despite the fact that (whether it is known or not I don't know) many managers earn more than all of the preiously mentioned professions. The reason being of course because a profession seems far more 'upper class' than saying I'm a manager, because there is a whiff of the nouveau about it. Like some how you could have reached a managerial position without knowing which cutlery to use in a fine restaurant, and somehow these manners are important.



As a result the British legal system is one of the finest in the world. Many of the worlds largest law firms are based here (Slaughter and May, Freshfields, Linklaters, Clifford Chance and Allen & Overy but to name the obvious). Ernst & Young and Pricewaterhouse Coopers' profits run into tens of billions of pounds, they are enormous organisations unsurprisingly based on professional services such as accountancy.

So there is no doubt that both sides have their benefits. Americans have huge businesses, the British have huge professional practises. But the thing is professional services generally services business.

In this time of recession the one thing we don't have, is enough businesses. The news largely seems to show people complaining that the government isn't providing enough jobs. But the question may be asked, at what point did the government start being responsible for jobs. Now I have to declare at this point that my money comes, indirectly from the government. Not all of it, but most of it comes from central government. So feel free to discard everything I say. But I think it is worth hearing me out.

Why wait for the government to create jobs, when each person has the freedom to create their own. Finding something that people are willing to pay you to do, then doing it has been the basis of income for the free man for years (the exception being the peasant tied to a lord and slaves).

Maybe, we need to take a little bit of our American cousins' attitude to heart and once again stimulate the entrepreneurial spirit.

The wise among us at this point will point out that the US is also down the pan right now. I would agree, but I'd also note that they seem to have developed their own dependence on government a little like us.

No doubt there are things that the government can do to help, reduce paperwork and invest in infrastructure being the main ones. But generally that isn't much else they can do without borrowing more money and essentially just making the matter worse. In reality the economy rests on the shoulders of the people, not the Prime Minister.

PS When I've got £10,000 saved I want to start a business, any other investors?

Got you by the Bonds

When you have the money, you don't need guns to manipulate a country.

That was the claim I made in my last post. I wasn't going to go into detail because frankly these posts always seem to go on a lot longer than I anticipate. I guess argument just takes time.

However since China appears to be helping out the EU by giving us money, it actually seems like a prime opportunity to explain why having huge amounts of debt to another country is really concerning.


To begin I'm afraid we need a brief history lesson. The scene is post war Europe. The UK hasn't gone into the EU, because we didn't need to. Europe has huge debts to the US because after the war Europe had spent every penny it had trying to kill off Nazism. Britain and Germany had practically destroyed themselves in a fight for supremacy, while in the mean time, for most of the war, the US was happy to take over the trade the Britain was unable to serve because it was too busy trying to save Europe from the Nazis.

Not exactly America's proudest moment, but in fairness it was American citizens who didn't want to get involved in another costly war and no one knew about the holocaust until later.

Anyway, after the war the US bought huge sums of British bonds in order to give the UK the money to rebuild itself and get back on track. Largely it had.

So that is the scene. Now Egypt decides that it is going to take over the Aswan Dam, a French and British owned structure. The British and French unsurprisingly don't find this amusing. They launch a military invasion and sort the matter out within 5 minutes. Militarily Egypt was not a challenge for countries that knew how to fight.

So far, so straight forward, so where does the debt come in? Well at this point its 1956 the cold war between the Soviets and the US is going on... by cold of course we mean there was no war, there were just two countries (the USSR and the US) getting ready to beat each other into the stone age should war actually break out.

Egypt was doing a fine job of playing the two countries against each other. It went to the US for weapons, they said responsibly... fine but only if you're trained and supervised by US personel, the Egyptians didn't fancy that, so they went to the Soviets instead who said "sure, whatever you want, if you've got the money (or even if you don't) we've got the guns. Egypt also recognised China too a new communist state even though the US really didn't want this to happen, so all in all Egypt was doing a great job at playing the two off each other.

So you can imagine how wary the US was when two of its biggest allies went in and started kicking in Eygpt like an annoying little brat who isn't giving respect to the sixth formers.

The US feared that the USSR would come in to help Egypt and before you know it the cold war would turn very very hot. Bear in mind we are talking WWIII with nuclear weapons hot.

So the US told the UK and France to back off. Of course, Britain, like a good independent country would, told the Yanks to jog on and get on with their own business. Now if there was no debt, chances are, that is where the story would have ended. Possibly the US would have paid both the UK and France the cost of the Dam and quietly they would have left Eygpt with some excuse about respecting national autonomy or some other rubbish.

But the US didn't need to do that. It had bought all our bonds, remember? It just said to the UK, get out of Egypt or we'll sell all the bonds we own in the UK government. In doing so supply would have shot up, while demand stayed the same. The price of our bonds would have plummeted, the pound would have dropped like a stone and our economy would have collapsed. So perhaps unsurprisingly, we got out.

How embarassing. Annoying behaviour from the Yanks, but understandable when you consider what the cold war was about; essentially stopping the world from wiping itself out.

So that is the end of the history lesson. Well actually the true end of the story is that after this the UK joined the EU, obviously annoyed that there was the potential for foreign powers to interfere with its policies, it thought the best thing to do was to get into a bigger gang to look after its interests. Personally I don't see how taking orders from the EU is any better than taking orders from the US, in fact, I'm confident it is worse.

Back to China and today; I'm guessing you get my point. China is now buying bonds in the European Financial Stability Facility. Hmmm, do you see a pattern here?

Of course China has its own benefits from loaning Europe money. Europe is the country buying its products in the first place so if Europe goes down, so does their Export economy. Also as long as the amount of Debt owned by China remains low over all their influence will remain limited. But with the papers suggesting it could be as much as £62,000,000,000 that is a little concerning.

(see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/china-holds-europe-to-ransom-over-16362bn-bailout-deal-2377396.html
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2011-10/30/c_131220069.htm)

Either way though it just seems to signal a worrying desperation to keep the EU afloat. Surely a lot of people are wondering why it is such a good idea to keep borrowing money, rather than letting those who are going to go under, go under.

Sure lots of countries would be bankrupt initially. Money would be lost and there would be problems. But then instead of borrowing to finance borrowing money could be spend investing. Lots of companies would become worthless and their assest can be bought by companies that are doing well and want to expand. Businesses that are efficient could borrow money and invest it, instead of governments borrowing money just to spend on interest payments. It would allow the system to re-settle itself with the companies that made mistakes dying off and those that didn't being in a better and stronger position than before... I'm willing to accept that I'm not certain about this, but I can't help but get the feeling all this borrowing is just postponing the inevitable.

Part of the problem is that we're too used to having what we want. We think that because we live in the West we're entitled to have the best of everything and the rest of the world is another matter.

In reality the West only ever had all it had because of a work ethic and a level of morality that meant you worked hard, didn't cheat and you weren't corrupt. Even now thankfully the level of corruption in the UK is way lower than in China. But I doubt that is going to stay the same. After all it is no surprise to me that the wealthiest areas of China are usually those that have the highest Christian populations, and a true Christian (I imagine a fake one is pretty rare in a country where it draws adverse attention from the authorities and can land you in jail) isn't likely to behave in a corrupt manner. This combined with the exploding Christian population in China at the moment means it is likely that corruption is going to decrease.

But while we're not too corrupt, areas of the West do not have the right work ethic. When the banks went under, people still refused to give up their bonuses. What sort of work ethic is that? You and your team fail so badly you send your country into crisis and you're still not willing to give up your bonus? What? If I was the government minister responsible I would have fired them on principle. I don't know where they think they are going to get new jobs when they have just made such a hash of their previous one.

Anyway, I digress, my concern is, with that sort of attitude in the West and the increasing efficiency of the East, that predicts storms coming our way, regardless of who has got us by the bonds.

The one thing that is likely however, the moment that problems do come, it may be that we start to sort ourselves out, moving away from materialism and more towards family and community... one can hope eh!

The EU vote raises the same question that is never explicitly asked.

Why do Labour and the Lib Dems never vote against Europe?

This was largely the question posed to me by a friend when the discussion of exiting Europe came up. I have to be honest, I had to think. If the population of the UK wants to get out of Europe, which it does (why else would a government be so scared to hold a referendum?) surely it would be easy money for Labour or the Lib Dems to cash in on this by saying they would exist Europe.


Well, the reason begins with this; no one believes in independence anymore. Confused? Let me lay it out. Power is dictated by money, whoever has the most money, has the most influence and has the spare cash to spend on financing a nice shiney military. But even without guns money gives control (more on this a little later). To get money you need a good economy.

The US has a good economy, for example, because it has low tax, highly skilled workers and a huge home market. If you don't know what I mean by a home market take this example.

Your name is Bob, you like in the US, you make a product which brushes your teeth for you. You can now sell that to the whole US population of 300 million people at $5. You make $1.5 Bn.

Your name is Francois, you like in France, you make the same product. You can now sell it to the whole of France's 65 million people for $5 which makes you only $325million.

If you want to sell else where you need translation, you need to address the change in cultures their toothpaste tubes don't fit etc etc. This all causes expense and profit margins go down.

In short, if you live in a big country or area with the same rules and regulations and culture, you make more money.

This is why the US is so rich. Everyone speaks the same language, drive on the same size roads, has similar values and so on.

Great. Lesson one, done.

Lesson two I'm going to abridge to stop this getting too big. The more money a country has the more you can get other countries to do what you want. If they don't do as you ask, sell all your investments in their country and their economy goes down the pan, people lose jobs, the leader gets kicked out, and you start the process again.

So with this in mind the leaders of the UK know that if we go it alone, we're going to get screwed with by countries like the US. So we need to get along side someone equally as big. The two obvious options at the moment is the EU and the US. Frankly I'd rather get on side with Australian, New Zealand and Canada, but whatever.

This is where the explanation comes in for Labour's and the Lib Dem's behaviour. Everyone in Parliament knows we need to choose between the EU and US... how do they decide?

Ideology.

The United States is a free market, free speech, small government, morally Christian kinda place.

Europe/the EU is 'generally' is a protectionist, socialist, big government, morally secular kinda place.

Labour is protectionist, socialist, pro-big government and morally secular
Lib Dems are big government, morally secular
The Tories are for free speech, small government, free market, and half of them are morally Christian.

Get it?

Basically this is lifes play ground and we're having to choose who our friends are. Each party is trying to pick the ones that are most like them. This is just an epic sized question of "do you hang around with the junkies, the nerds, the jocks or the Crispys?"


You're not going to spend your life on your own, so it is time to choose some friends. But be careful who you choose, "Do not be deceived: “Evil company corrupts good habits.” or another proverb "The righteous should choose his friends carefully, For the way of the wicked leads them astray."

Now I'm not saying Europeans are evil or good or vis-a-versa. But you will become more like your friends, whomever they may be. Whether they are good or not.

So the next time you heard about a EU treaty and who has voted on it and how. Don't look at the small picture, whether the treaty has merit or not. Look at the bigger picture of the aims of the two parties, because I'm willing to bet that there is one group of people who will vote for it no matter what it says and others who will vote against, almost everytime.

That's because the question is not about that individual treaty really, rather it is about the country you want to live in in 30 years: a socialist leaning, protectionist, big government secular one, or a free market, small government (slightly more) Christian one.

That is the question for the EU vote, and that will ALWAYS be the question for each EU vote.

Sweden Fascist paradise?

What do you think when you think of Sweden? Most people think of Ikea, Volvos, Saab (although that is Chinese now) and possibly traditionally stereotypical blond/e people. Well, here is something new to associate with Sweden, fascism.

Yeah, I know it sounds all very dramatic, a little too dramatic actually, I don't like, it the British part of me thinks that introduction is too earnest... shall I change it? Maybe later.

What do you think of when you think of fascism? Generally oppressive police and serious invasive control of its citizens right? Well that is what comes to my mind. When I read about the plight of Christer and Annie Johansson it made me want to vomit. What did they do that was so bad? Well apparently they were so bad as to educate their child at home!

No for long, they were moving to India (the Mother's homeland) soon anyway, so rather than disrupt their child's education too much they thought they would teach him at home and until they left.

That was what they thought they would do. They notified their school and asked them for some materials (normal procedure) but obviously some people got to hear about this who didn't like it. So they changed their minds and said that the child HAD to go to school. If they didn't they would be fined 250 Kronor per day (about £25 at the time of writing). This didn't bother the family because they knew they were within their rights as it was perfectly legal to home school.

The day came for the family to depart, they are sitting on their plane for India and then the plane is stormed by police removed the child and that is how things have remained for 2 YEARS.

So to recap, the government didn't like them homeschooling, so they took the child off them and they are apply to legally terminate the relationship between the child and the family. So far so fascist.

I've tried to find official documents, which is slightly difficult because, of course, I don't speak Swedish, but here is the application to the European Court of Human Rights:

http://oldsite.alliancedefensefund.org/userdocs/JohanssonApplication.pdf

But the deeper I research the worse it seems to get. Apparently the case was taken on by the Nordic Committee for Human Rights, so far so good there. You have got to respect those who taken on such important cases. "After reviewing all pertinent documents, Attorney Harrold-Claesson has agreed to defend the Johansson family and is now acting as their legal counsel."

Huraay!

But then when the lawyer tried to meet the child in question they were delayed by staff while social services (SS) took the child out the back of the school without them knowing. The only reason the parents found out is because the grand parents of the child had been sitting in their car waiting for them in the car park.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=152697

As if that wasn't enough the SS then decided that a phone call that was scheduled to take place between the parents and the minor was then called off because of what happened that day. Of course, I mean that would teach them a lesson, daring to have their lawyer talk to the minor.

As if that wasn't bad enough, that same lawyer (who is, by the way, the president of the Nordic Committee for Human Rights) is then kicked off the case by the Court.

At this point we're into full nut job society. I don't really know what else can be said. I guess lots of things. Largely involving injustice, state control, excessive, unwarranted and abusive use of force.

So the Swedish authorities seem rather unhappy that someone has the power to educate their own children. I can understand of course, information I'm sure is key in any tyranny. Again, I know, I'm using emotive words but lets face it, there isn't much reason to justify stopping someone home school their child. You'd think that home-schooling a child would risk them being too shy and reclusive. But all the stats say the opposite. Statistically home-schooled children outperform their peers by about 30 percent. Further they are also found to describe themselves as happier as adults and more active in their community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling#Test_results

This hasn't stopped the Swedish government from now banning, yes banning home-schooling all together.

http://thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/3885-sweden-bans-home-schooling-religious-instruction

Only is 'exceptional circumstances' can one can be home-schooled now. Which realistically is probably intended to mean never.

So there you have it, a modern Western civilisation, in 2011 passing laws to ensure that everyone has to be taught just they way they want and no exceptions. The heart felt dream of tyrants, dictators and megalomaniacs everywhere. Well done Sweden.

Makes me sick.


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=165361
http://friendsofdomenic.blogspot.com/p/latest-news-and-announcements.html
Judgement of lower court:
http://oldsite.alliancedefensefund.org/userdocs/JohanssonOpinion.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3CmaPzRCG8

Woe unto those who have to employ British educated recruits?

young people arrive at interviews without the "vital employability skills" required by employers such as having a suitable grasp of English, being punctual and having a general "can do" attitude

Mr Frost, whose organisation represents more than 100,000 British businesses, criticised Britain’s education system, saying it was a “failure” despite billions of pounds of government funding. He said firms were then saddled with funding remedial training for school leavers who lacked vital skills to do their jobs.

Lucy Neville-Rolfe, Tesco’s executive director of corporate and legal affairs, said school leavers had basic problems with literacy and numeracy and have major “attitude problems”.


Everything above it taken from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8819425/British-graduates-not-fit-to-start-work-say-majority-of-bosses.html

First of all I want to start on the positive, the Department for Education spokesman said "too many of our young people leave school without the necessary skills – in particular in the basics of English and maths. That is why we are prioritising them."

Great start, well done. I think we can all agree that we can't leave school, or we shouldn't leave school without English and Maths.

I don't think there is anything wrong with our Maths teaching. I didn't find it particularly good, but that was because I was lazy and lacked focus. In addition Maths is a difficult subject to teach in the sense that often if the student loses focus and misses one step in a mathematical process, then they can't come back in 2 minutes later (after they have stopped day dreaming) and get back into the process. In short, Maths is something that is ideally taught one to one. But I appreciate the government can't afford that.

I personally have no problem with adding, subtracting, per centages or pretty much any maths that you are realistically likely to use in everyday life.

English is another matter. Leaving school, I had little idea of the rules regarding the use of the English language. Sure, I knew how to speak properly. My written communication was tolerable. But I didn't know where an apostrophe went in a sentence and I had little concepts of commas too. Yet, for some reason my school had seen fit to seek to teach me poetry analysis. A lesson that could have been made a whole lot shorter and a whole lot more successful if the teach had stood out the front and said "here is a poem, talk about it like you're a pontificating, arty fart".

Had this been done I believe the whole of English literature could have been dispensed with and the teacher would have been able to actually take the time to teach me punctuation.

But as I've said, focusing on those subjects, sounds great. As long as the focus is on the technicalities. So for example the teach should state; "I want you to write a story, I don't care how boring it is, just so long as the handwriting is legible, the spelling is accurate and the grammar is correct", because lets face is, that is what counts in the real world. Unless you're going into novel writing, which most of us won't and even if we were going into it, a GCSE in English doesn't get you any further whatsoever.

Writing a good book isn't something that is really should be taught in a English lesson. The five people in the whole of the UK who are good enough to make a living from it didn't learn how to write in school. It isn't something you can really teach. If it was the teacher would be a million themselves.

But the thing I want to get on to is the bit that the writer skips over. The lack of 'can do attitude', puntuality and 'attitude problems'. This is the thing that can't be addressed by a government minister, because he doesn't have the power to change it. In reality if Britain is to become more economically developed the things that need to change start not in Whitehall, but in the home.

Like so many of our social and economic problems, there isn't a magic wand in government that can be waved to solve the problem in a moment. The more I look around the more I can see that people seem to love to think that government is the answer to everything, maybe because that means we can always have someone to blame when things go wrong and we don't ever need to look at ourselves.

Look at the Jewish community. Statistics bear out that the Jewish community tend to be wealthier than any other (ethnic? Social? Religious?) group. Why is this? Is there lots of government schemes always looking to increase the participation of Jews in various high flying professions? No. What about social intergration initiatives? No. As far as I can tell there are hardly any government initatives that are founded to help Jews. Is this because no one is every prejudiced against Jews? I don't think I need to answer that question. So it must be a cultural thing... i.e. how they bring their children up and how they expect entrants into their ranks to behave. Change starts at home.

Like wise if our country is to get back on its economic feet we need to adopt a 'can do attitude' and drop the 'attitude problem'. Thinking we're entitled to a high standard of living even when we don't do any work is not healthy. Maybe what they can teach in Maths in how an economy will collapse when we buy more things than we sell as a country. Or perhaps how borrowing money from the market and then using it to create public sector 'jobs' is actually just borrowing money and using it to keep the 'good times rollling'. But such education would no doubt be considered ideological and therefore would be replaced with some socialist guff as soon as the government changes hands.

Nope, the answer lies firmly at our own doors. It has been shown that those who try to send their children to private schools, even if they fail to do so, tend to have children who do better at school. This is because the type of parent who cares enough to want to send their child to a good school cares about their child and their education, and if they fail in getting them into a private school, this concern obviously provides enough motivation for their children to do well even if the school isn't perfect.

Those who are educationally sub par, arrive at school behind those who aren't, once again showing it is what happens at home that makes the difference.

If Britain is to get going, parents should spend time with their children, supporting them, encouraging them, even just talking to them. It will all make a difference, then when it comes time for them to go to school, they will have a better chance at being able to concentrate long enough to learn their ABCs and they will be in the situation where they want to work hard because they understand that it is highly likely to make their, and everyone else's life a lot more pleasant overall.

We, as a people need to realise that what makes an economy tick is not liberally distributed bits of paper with "degree" written on it or teachers pressurised with targets or throwing money at schools. But instead it is hard working, intelligent, (by which I mean 'natural' cognitive ability developed when very young) disciplined and stable people seeking to do their best and being rewarded fairly for it.

That is what moves an economy. And that my friends is a product of families, not policies.

The fastest U turn I've every made?

My last post discussed television coverage of court cases and how the idea of rolling it out in the UK is absolutely retarded. But with the never ending furore surrounding the Knox case I (mistakenly?) investigated what was going on.

If you don't know about the story I'm sure you can look it up online. Short version, couple accused of killing flatmate.

The media coverage at the time was focusing on the fallibility of the forensic evidence. Apparently there was a kitchen knife found with blood on it and Knox's DNA. The other matter was that her partner's DNA was found on the victim's bra clasp.

What concerns me first, is not the fallability of the evidence, but its tenuous nature in the first place. It had Knox's DNA on it? Well of course it would, it is a kitchen implement she owned. Why wouldn't there be. Pretty much everyones stuff in their kitchen probably has their DNA on it. As for her partner's DNA on a bra clasp, errr, what if he helped out with the laundry? What if he was cheating with her? What if, what if... there are lots of explainations, that is before you get to the Defence's case that the items hadn't been bagged properly for days and not in accordance with international standards (there are international standards for this?) With such tenuous evidence in the first place sadly (this was using my time) curiousity meant I had to find out why there was a case against them in the first place.

Apparently she lied in questioning. She confessed at one point, and her bloke said that she left during the night and he didn't know where she went.
Further to that both said that they went to sleep at one time and woke up at 10:00, when their mobile were turned on at 6:00.

OK, you think, so she is obviously a liar and therefore hiding something. We'll you dig a little further again (I know, I'm meant to be working here!)
Her 'lying' is actually open to some serious interpretation. This all focuses on some imaginative interrogation by the police.

Apparently when police question occasionally they get the person to 'imagine' the scene the police want. And then the police ask them how that scene would go. I've never heard of it, but then why would I?
This is what the police used, so the Defence says. Combine that with being dehydrated from from lack of water and rest, plus shock and some (alledgely) increasingly aggressive police officers and frankly who knows what people say. In addition the police officer would slap her on the back on the head and call her a liar when she said the wrong thing. Hmmmm, not entirely sure that is the way to go. It was to help her remember?

Wait, is this recorded? How can this be acceptable? I hear you say. Well no, it isn't recorded. This is because even though it is proceedure, the police didn't record the interrogation. Neither did they provide a lawyer, which they also should have. Those issues alone, in my mind at least, are huge.
Further to that Knox was also being fed false information, she was told that they had evidence placing her at the scene (which they didn't) and that she was going down for 30 years, just to add more stress. Further one of the most interesting parts, was that they told her that her partner had 'stopped covering for her'. What actually had happened was that her partner had said she was with him the whole night. When he confirmed that they were both sleeping, it was put to him, and he accepted, that technically he couldn't have known where she was all night, because he was asleep. This is technically accurate of course, but is this what is meant when one says that 'he changed his story and said that she left and he didn't know where she went during the night'? If so that is a bit of an extrapolation. There is more, but I won't go on.

So at this point, what does it look like? It looks like the Police were incompetant and just desperately seeking to convict 'someone'. So at this point I look like I'm about to do the ultimate U-turn. One day saying press coverage of cases is bad, the next, thinking, my goodness without this coverage maybe no one would know about the potential incompetance of the police and the mistakes that can be made.

Except no.
After all, why were the police so desperate to convict someone in the first place? This has happened before and the answer is: press coverage! When there is huge media coverage of a case, there is huge pressure on the police to convict someone. It doesn't matter who necessarily. Just so long as someone ends up in the 'slammer'. There was one story from the UK where there was huge coverage, many years ago, and the police arrested, and the court convicted a man whom the police knew COULD NOT have been the perpetrator.
So generally press coverage makes the police pressured to find someone, quickly. And why all the press coverage in the first place? Because one of the women involved was 'good-looking' and young. I mean, can you get a more pathetic reason?

Further throw in the fact that the issue is now becoming one of national loyalty between Italians and Americans and the issues that actually count are getting further and further away.

Each day new facts seem to come out about how bad the police were: evidence not being found for 6 weeks, the lead prosecutor having a criminal record of his own for illegal phone tapping etc etc. But if that was what was being reported there wouldn't be so much of an issue. Police not following protocol and not recording interrogations is news in itself, individual facts of the case when reported are rarely going to be reported in full. After all, if the matter could be explained in a column then why would a trial take so long?

As I've written before the press can latch onto one thing and make the person sound bad, this case is no different. Once again the fact that the Defendant was called 'foxy knoxy' at one point comes up, it adds nothing to the case, but everything to the news.

Oh and I won't go into the millions of dollars the Defendant may now make through interviews, movies and books.

So how can I summarise my wildly swerving train of thought, moving from thinking that cases shouldn't be reported, then that maybe they should and then all the way back again?

The best way to conclude simply is this:

The fact of the matter is, I don't know the facts of the case, I don't really know who was and who wasn't guilty. I wasn't at the trial, I didn't hear all the evidence from both sides; so why can't we leave the deciding to those who are?

Smile you're on camera, and in court!

At the moment there are two high profile cases going on in the United States. One involving Amanda Knox, and the other involving the Doctor of Michael Jackson. I know this not because I'm interested but because it is on the news every morning.

Now allow me to be clear of this from the start, I don't care. Michael Jackson's death was unfortunate. But all that is necessary is a single report at the end of the trial to the tune of 'he did it' or 'he didn't do it'. I'm at a loss as to why I need to know what each security guard, every aid and Doctor saw heard and thought/thinks. Why does it matter? I isn't my place to decide and largely the case has no relation to me.

The Amanda Knox case has slightly more interest, but only really because I have a small and highly likely and unfair thought in the back of my mind that a US Court may care slightly less about the murder of a British national than an American. I know, that is prejudice, but I guess my thoughts are partly sponsored by the retarded response of the American people to the BP oil spill. "Oh those Brits have ruined out country and are going to get away with it!" When actually the truth was "a multinational company ruined your country" and largely that makes no difference to what happened any more than if it was an American company, especially since those working on the platform in question were likely to be American themselves.

The American ability not know know who their allies and their enemies are is always slightly worrying so I'd like to think that if there is a lot of coverage of the case at least that means the UK is watching for any obvious errors.

But if it wasn't for that one angle, we would be back in the situation where I don't know why the matter is being reported all the time. In fact there is an entirely separate rant of mine regarding why we need crime reported nationally anyway... but that is for another day.

But this rather obvious American trend of broadcasting Court cases has some rather worrying support of here, in the UK.

Now I don't know what the numbers are, it could be that 99% of people would oppose such a move and it is only the 1% who are, I assume, snorting something illegal, that actually think it is a good idea. But the BBC managed to find one lawyer who thought it was a good idea.

So here goes the simple logic of why allowing videos in Courts is a dumb idea:

1. Where to start? How about with the fact that putting it on TV will give people the chance to act up. But it will give many people the chance to act up so I'll break it down further:

a) the Barristers.
Right now we have a system, the Barrister does the talking, he knows the system, the Judge does the listening, he knows the system, the solicitors draws up the paper work, they know the system. The Client largely does very little, because they know crap all about the legal system. If they were to get involved in likelihood they would make a monumental mess of it. Common sense tells you this, as does experience (if you ever see small claims trial where the parties represent themselves and you'll know what I mean). However with the addition of a camera all of a sudden you have a huge new presence. The people watching who don't know the system. All of a sudden there is a temptation for the lawyers involved to start acting. After all it could be good for business if you start to give yourself some sort of character. It may not help your client's case (chances are acting up would actually hurt it, but who cases if it is a pretty duff case anyway) but it could start to make you look like the 'Doctor House' of the Court room, or 'Rumpole of the Bailey'. No solicitor would buy it, as they know that you would be damaging your case, but to those outside the court room, it is basically free advertising, and as we know about advertising, often, it doesn't have to be good, it just has to be memorable.

b) those on the stand
Once on the stand the Defendant, Claimant, whoever could be tempted to play up. Maybe the Defendant knows that they are going down so they are going to try and bring out some 50 cent bravado in the process, or maybe they just want to put on the best performance for the cameras.

c) victim
Err, would you want to have to go through an account of attempted murder with a huge audience watching? What about rape? What about anything like that? No didn't think so.

d) witnesses
Person A saw that the murder was done by someone else, but the reason they knew was because they were visiting a prostitute at the time... you think that they are going to stand as a witness at the trial? ................... Nope, me neither.
Person A saw the mafia gang leader shoot the victim in the face... you think they are going to stand witness? ...... Two for two.
Of course there are ways of protecting these witnesses, but I'm not sure how effective they would be, especially since in my experience video link evidence isn't quite as effective as in person.

e) idiots
For how long has Big Brother been running now? Years. How long has Jackass being going on? One thing I think we can say we've all learned is that:
I) idiots love being on TV
II) plenty of idiots will do plenty of stupid thing just to be on TV
III) TV executives seem to believe that what the public want to watch is basically all the weird freaks mixed in with the truculent and cantankerous with maybe one of two normal people thrown in for fun.
In my opinion, the last thing we should do as a society is add to the number of ways that morons can get publicity. Society works best when those who work hard and do well are known best.

This is why programmes like dragon's den is very good. It is why programmes like.... ok I'm struggling here, I'd say the apprentice, but since the contestants are chosen they too probably have the assorted mix of morons in, which isn't exactly meritocracy. You can't imagine being taken on at a firm because they think you're particularly argumentative arrogant and they think that it will lead to plenty of fights. But I bet they do that with Apprentice candidates.

But anyway, you get my point, if the courts could be televised then chances are people will want to get on TV and it will draw morons. People will want to be witnesses in trials because they want to be on TV not because they know anything useful. Who knows maybe people will commit crime just to get one TV. I wouldn't put it passed people, especially when you consider the link between publicity and shootings (I mean the ones where someone walks into a school or shopping centre and shoots a load of people for no reason).

Urghh.. that is a depressing thought, moving on.

The only counter I can think of is that it will add to the 'transparency' of the law. But I have a problem with that. Criminal cases are already open to anyone who wants to attend. If it matters that much, chances are people have no problem with attending. If they don't, then why do they need to watch the trial? There are a few instances where I can see someone may want to know what happens but can't (a fraud trial that involved someone who bankrupted their company, but they can't leave their new job to watch) but they are few and far between. Generally if anyone has a real reason to watch, they already can. Those whom it doesn't really involve, can't. Frankly, that sounds idea.

Finally, will it really lead to greater transparency? I mean most people don't understand the law or legal procedure. Ask most people and they don't understand the difference between civil and criminal courts. So how are they going to interpret what goes on? Probably, wrongly.

I'm not saying this with condescension. If someone was broadcasting a surgical operation, would I know what was going on? Nope. What if someone was broadcasting an accountant going through the accounts of a department without explaining? Not a clue. I doubt I'd know what a plumber of BT technician was doing all of the time either. So why do we think it would be any different with the law?

The only people in favour of this are surely the TV companies themselves (perhaps maybe one of two of the already famous Barristers) and frankly, they can go and make their own entertainment. Isn't that what they are there for?

Probably the best idea... in the world...

Recently I was asked by a lobby group to tell the government's committee on the House of Lords how it should be reformed.

At first I just started typing a basic response, but then over an hour of two I actually came up with something with which I'm rather pleased. It may not be the best idea in the world as the title misleadingly suggests, but it may be one of my best.

If the goverment implemented this, I think we'd all be living in a slightly better country.

Before discussing the House of Lords, first by way of background, the House of Commons must be discussed.

The current problem with the elected house (Commons) is that they are not independent.

First each MP is subject to his or her party. This means, if one has a safe seat, then all they need to do is always go with the party line and they will always have a job. After all, the party is never going to remove a candidate that always votes the way they want them to. This is great for the party, terrible for everyone else, because it bypasses the wishes of the electorate.

Second, each MP is subject to being lobbied. Powerful self interest groups that don’t necessarily represent the views of the country as a whole can hold huge sway over the Commons. The reason for this is that if they do something against the self interest group, they will be slammed by that group to their subscribers. This means that instead of looking to the long term benefit of the country, every MP is only thinking what will make them look good to the lobbying groups in the next five minutes. This isn’t in anyone’s interest either.

To make the Lords like the commons would just serve to compound these problems, rather than balance them, so, to solve both these problems the following measure ought to be instituted in the reformed House of Lords:

1) 1) The House of Lords must have a limited number of members, each of which is replaced on a cycle;

2) 2) Each member of the House CANNOT be a member of the political parties. The Lords are to represent the people, and thus it is them to whom they must listen. Any strong associate of a Lord to the House of Commons parties, or too much interacting with their chief whips etc would be seen in the same was as a Judge finishing a case and then going for coffee with the Defendant, totally inappropriate professionally, professional code of conduct would be drawn up to this effect, with potential dismissal if breached a few times;

3) 3) This may be contentious but the House must not be elected. This may sound strange but it is totally necessary. Instead the members of the House should be chosen by a group of people, like a jury, drawn at random from the electoral register, this means they will be chosen by people representative of ‘the people’ (statistically proportionate of all races, genders, social classes etc) and they will be chosen independently of the parties, it will also mean that candidates can be personally interviewed if necessary, it will also mean that there will be no point ‘lobbying’ the group, as after they have made their decision they will be disbanded;

4) 4) It is essential that the House of Lords is elected in a staggered fashion. For example, if they are replaced every 10 years, it is essential that they are not all done at the same time, but rather in sets of 2 each month for example. This is important because in the House of Commons there is the tendency to screw the public through the term and then grant favourable tax breaks of benefits when the elections are coming. This doesn’t help anyone, therefore if they are elected continually then there will be an element of consistency (ironically). This would also get rid of the current pattern where the government swaps each time there is a recession, because the people are just generally less satisfied during that period. There would be gradual change not instant shifts depending on how the FTSE is doing.
(It should now be clear why 3 is essential, while one couldn’t possibly have an election every month, it is possible to have a jury selection two new Lords each month)

5) 5) Selection of the short list:
The short list for the ‘jury’ to decide must be picked thus third from the people on the electoral roll, two thirds from specialists.
The first group must be taken again from random from the electoral roll. They have the option to opt out if they so desire but otherwise are free to represent the people.
The second group should be made up of specialists; this will be a mix, partly of people who have helped society and partly those who have useful training. An example list would be:
Self made business man;
small but successful charity worker;
economist;
Doctor (physician);
First generation lawyer;
Mathematics teacher.

It is of utmost importance that no one in this second group have a history in politics, the Lords must not be a place where useless politicians go to die. Also they should not be workers for campaign groups. This should not count as a charity. The emphasis should always been on the first two categories, on the logic being that self made businessmen clearly have good business acumen and if they took a company to success themselves they are unlikely to be a product of nepotism. Then people who have worked for charities helping the poor or orphans etc here or abroad genuinely care about people. People fighting for ‘X’s rights does not count as this would open up the system to obvious bias. Economists and other specialist (assuming the jury chooses to elect them) will come in handy in the House of Lords when arguments stray into specialist areas.
The ratio may be tweaked, depending on what works most effectively.

If these points were taken into account we would not have a House that just mimics the problems of the House of Commons, but we would have a house that BALANCES the problems of the House of Commons. Not only that but it would be almost totally protected from the interference of the political parties and therefore they would be able to do what genuinely is in the long term interests of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Further the House would not be filled with career politicians, but rather it will be filled with salt of the earth men and women who have actually made the country a better place through their own hard work and competence, either through private enterprise or through compassion and dedication, or most likely; both.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That said I came up with the idea in one morning, so it may take a day or two for any flaws to show themselves. All in all though, it looks like a winner!

Is the media's fairness fair?

Some of you may have noticed that New York was not destroyed by hurricane Irene.

Some of you may not even know about what has been happening on the East Coast of the USA, so here is a brief catch up. There was a hurricane, its name was Irene. It went up the East coast of the USA. It reached New York and did very little damage, even though they were prepared for something a lot worse. Locals said it was 'just like any other tropical storm'.

Since then the New York city government has been ridiculed somewhat for over preparing.

Yeah I know! Over-preparing!?! What? Is that like being too rich, or too knowledgeable, ie things that aren't really bad at all because they are easily rectified and more often than not useful, not detrimental?

Sure if the mayor of New York had made everyone get into nuclear bomb shelters and didn't let them out for two days, I can imagine it would be time to kick off. But what happened was that high risk areas were evacuated, and then when the storm passed they left. How is this bad?

It bothers me that people in positions of responsibility these days can't win. Prepare too little, everything that happens is your fault, prepare too much, you get ridiculed for making too much of something, get it just right, well thats your job anyway, what congratulations do you need?

Occasionally, someone may actually say 'well done', but generally the life of a politician I think is one of a gratitude vacuum. Is this a good thing? I'm thinking not.

I guess the reason why newspapers rarely say good things about politicians is because they don't want to be seen as bias. But isn't it more bias never to report good stories than reporting them?

Maybe I just don't pick up on the stories that are positive but it just seems there is a growing attitude of dissatisfaction. This isn't helped by the further two points that the media seems to love.

1) Always give a blanced view point.

OK, OK, I know what you're thinking, surely you're in favour of a blanced view point? Well sure, in theory it sounds fine, but in reality it is impossible. Sure, when one thinks of creationism and evolution you can understand why both view points need to be represented.. But if you apply the idea to everything you end up having extreme view points broadcast or printed that don't really make sense. No matter what any political party does, no matter what any leader or citizen does, there is always going to be some sort of association somewhere that disagrees. Which means when Jeremy Clarkson makes a joke about truck drivers killing prostitutes, the media go to a hualiage company for comments. And when the hauliage company respond in a perfectly reasonable way (which was basically 'it was a joke, we're not offended, it isn't meant to be taken seriously') the media strain themselves further to find some organisation that will give them the pointless fury they desire (the English Collective of Prostitutes,) whoever they may be.

This means that there is always some negative view point and that in some cases they are clearly opinions that are off the wall. But the point is one man's off the wall, crazy view point, it anothers fair point, so no one can really decide for everyone else what a reasonable or wacky opinion is. And so every idots view gets heard. This then leads on to the next point; which is,

2) Nothing goes far enough

More money for pensioners? Not enough. More money for fighting knife crime? Not enough. More police on the street? No enough. Less regulation/more regulation for banks? Not enough/too much. Whatever someone does there is almost always a group willing to say that it doesn't go far enough.

Well, that might be their opinion, and I'm sure it is. But think of the world we're making for ourselves. We're making a world where nothing is ever good enough (which to an extent is true) but also where no improvement or victory or success is really apprciated. That isn't good.

So I'm going to do the reverse. I'm going to take a few minutes to scan the web and congratuate those in office on some of the things that they've done in the past few weeks.

1) Congratulations to the New York Major for helping keep people were safe through hurricane Irene.
2)Well done to the coalition government for getting the 'free schools' work done, so that this Autumn 24 free schools will open their doors
3) Congratulations to all the fighters who have managed to take Tripoli in Libya, and to all the NATO forces who have helped with the fighting (I hope and pray that the transition council make wise decisions that lead to a prosperous and free country)
4) Big welcome too, to the government initiative to force Universities to publish data on their courses regarding the employment rates of people on that course and their post degree salaries.
(so now you'll be able to see whether there is any point in doing a degree of a certain kind in a certain university).

London's burning

As we all know London has spent the last few days being on fire while gangs roam the streets looting shops and burning cars.

I haven't seen anything like it in my lifetime, but then I'm unable to recall the Brixton riots. Now apart from the fact our reletively civilised country has had images captured of it looking more like a third world pit, something else really troubles me; the reaction of the public.

Now most of it has been appaul at the behaviour of the looters and rioters. So far so good. People should be appaulled and I'd be more worried if they were not. But my concern rests largely with the reaction after that.

Rather inevitably as events are going on people are asking why this has happened. The disturbing thing is that people start looking for 'big' explanations rather than the small. Socio-economic factors being the obvious and easy choice. Essentially many of the looters (although not all) are from poorer economic backgrounds. In addition we're going through econonmic hard times, so I can see it is going to be exceedingly popular with some people to say that the reason for the riots is due to the economic climate. This is wrong, and dangerous.

To begin economic times are hard, but they aren't really THAT hard. When one can't get food for yourself and your family, I appreciate that a natural tension develops. This is because when a hard working man can't obtain sufficient food for himself and his family, it is highly likely (unless there is a famine going on) something wrong with the way society is structured. Riots usually result in unheaval and so it is almost a logical reaction. This isn't what is going on at the moment.

For all our economic hardship everyone still have food and clothes and the government is still doleling out the benefits are usual, no crisis there. This is further supported by what is being looted; bread? Oats? Clean water? No. What is being looted is DVDs, CDs, wiskey, wine, in other words luxuries, things that people don't need, but want.

People don't need rose wine any more than I need fresh pressed orange juice each morning. It is nice, but not essential. In other words, it is something one has to work for. If the work isn't around that is unfortunate, but that is how economics works. Give it a couple of years and there will be money around again... unless all your businesses have been burnt to the ground by looters, that is.

This is not the only thing that shows that the riots are not about economic needs. Swansesa, South Wales, is a bit of a dive. Not completely, but it certainly isn't Cambridge. There are few highly skilled jobs to work towards and the average income is quite low. So too in the Rhondda Valleys, so too in Glasgow, and yet no one in these areas are rioting. A quick glance at the BBC news website for Scotland reveals that it's main story is about roads being flooded. The only arrests in both Wales and Scotland have been to do with people encouraging rioting on facebook and other social media sites.

Now, when one considers that the Welsh and Scottish have just as many deprived areas as the English, clearly it can be seen that this is nothing to do with poverty.

There is one explanation and one alone, there are people, who want things that they haven't worked for and they have no concern for those who have. They are selfish and believe they have a right to things that other people have, even if those people don't really have them at all. After all does a shop keeper really 'own' the widescreen TV on the shop floor? Legally it is his, but it doens't mean he watches a good TV at home, it is his, but his to sell to someone else, it is his livelyhood. Further the retail industry has been sufferring of late, which actually suggests no one really has the money for these things at the moment.

So what is the cause of the riots? Greed. Pure and simple. I want, I don't want to wait, I want it now, and I don't care who suffers as a result. A similar but slightly different kind of greed that makes the banks try to stop the UK from regulating them properly, while giving themselves huge bonuses. I want, I want now, I don't care who suffers. Although at least with the banks the sufferring is slightly less direct than with the rioters.

This then is the first thing that needs to be acknowledged by society. Greed is what has caused this, greed and a desire to put 'me' first and screw anyone else, "stuff your neighbour" if you will. Any talk of lack of opportunity or feeling 'let down' by the government it looking in the wrong place. It also undermines the behaviour of those who are also poor, but aren't burning down their neighbour's shop.

The second issue society needs to, and no doubt will consider, is what to do to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen again. That is a good reaction. Self-reflection is an important requirement for improvement in almost any aspect of one's life. But the issue is that we have stopped 'self-reflecting' and started 'government blaming'.

Now don't get me wrong. Anyone can read the rest of my blog and see that I do my fair share of slating the government. There is no doubt there. However, there is a time and a place. This is neither the time nor the place.

The government after all have no interest in either ruining the economy or having riots in the street. Both look very bad on the government and so we can rule out intentionally damaging either. After all even if David Cameron is a millionaire, he has his money in shares just like everyone else and so he wants the economy to improve even if it is for no other reason than for his own bank balance to increase.

But the main issue is, and this really needs to sink into our consciousness as a society:
THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT CONTROL EVERYTHING.

If they could, then the thing that we really need to worry about is not a few rioters in the street but the fact we have a totalitarian government so powerful it can control everything and everyone. That would be far more dangerous and probably result in far more suffering event than what we have now.

Further just logically people forget that the resources of the government are finite. We seem to thing that government is an everlasting stack of cash. But really the governments resources is only what you and I earn. Which means their resources are only our resources. Are you feeling the pinch? So in the government then. Can you only just make ends meet? Well that means the government can't tax you any more and if they do that will decrease the amount you can spend and that will hurt the economy. So basically since the police resources depend on the government and the government on us... and we're all broke. We need to start thinking of the government as the people who keep the basics of life ticking over, not the people who solve all of lifes problems.

Further, money, contrary to popular belief, can't solve all problems. Sending someone to university doesn't make them more intelligent. Giving someone £20 doesn't make them more moral and paying someone to do A-levels doesn't make them more hard working. So throwing money at the the problem won't make it go away. Giving the police more money would just mean more people in prison. Which means we'd need more money for prisons. Then they are always going to come out of prison and some point and the cycles starts again. It is incredibly expensive. The Budget for national offenders is around £4Bn. The home office has a budget of around £11bn together that is more than all the devolved spending in Wales.

The people who caused this were individuals. As a society we need to choose whether we accept this sort of behaviour and make excuses for it or whether we realise that it is we who dictate social norms and it is we who decided what is acceptable. We do it as parents and/or friends and/or work collegues and/or partners.

Listen to the clip on this website, then ask youself one question. Have WE (the people) go this balance right?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/​uk-14458424

The (BBC) Empire fights back

Ironically, the one thing that has dominated the media recently... is the media.

Thanks to News of the World hacking peoples phones News International now has a giant "kick me" sign on its back and the BBC and other media outlets are determined to make the absolute most of the opportunity to do so.

I don't think the BBC could make a more wanton display of delight as it give 24 hour news coverage to the phone-hacking scandal.

But at least there was one commentator on BBC news who had the strength to say that it was looking like a media "cat fight" and that if they didn't start covering some of the other issues properly they would lose credibility.

He's not joking. I'm no friend of Murdoch, but the fact that the European Monetary Union has almost fallen out of the sky and there is a famine in Somalia (apparently?) would surely suggest that it is time to have other news stories on the front page (metaphorically and literally).

But while this whole episode is kicking off I have a completely different concern with the media. One of the few stories that did manage to filter through the "kick him when he's down marathon" was the story of a nurse who might have killed some of her patients.

What concerned me was how this was reported. When the media wasn't trying to stir up a lynch mob to take one Murdock or another to the gallows, they were explaining what they knew about this nurse who was being questioned by the police.

In summary what they knew about her was this:

nothing.


In a display of rather mind numbingly shoddy journalism someone had accessed her facebook page and taken down a few quotes.

That's right; facebook. The thing to which we could all gain access if we wanted. The system where by if you want, you can say your married to your best friend for laughs and where people can read about your favourite TV programmes.

Chances are if people thought this sort of thing was relevant they could have tapped the suspects name in and found the page themselves. I assume that the privacy settings were not very high since the journalists could view it and unless they hacked her account... which in this environment even the most delinquent, walnut brained mammal would know it avoid.

But on to the real issue; what did they find? Well two things, first she describes herself as 'happy-go-lucky' and second that 'she had complained about work in her status updates'.

This is where things get really ridiculous. The tone of voice and the intonation of the reporters when describing these facts made them sound like they were both relevant and sinister.

What shocking use of the media to demonise someone. Sure, they might be guilty, but equally they could be innocent. I have no idea, the media, they have no idea either, who knows at this point. The police may not even know. What annoys me is that instead of someone being innocent until proven guilty in the media, they are innocent until proven able to sell papers... or making 'interesting' news reports.

Is that really fair? That person has to continue living in society long after those news reports are yesterday's bin fodder. Those of their acquaintances who don't know them properly, even if acquitted, are they not going to remember what the news said about them? Of course, if they waited until the person was proven innocent or guilty it wouldn't be half as bad. I'm still not sure it would be ideal, but at least they were not risking a potentially innocent persons life in society.

But taking the issue of liability aside for a moment, what does the information provided actually tell us about the suspect? They describe themselves as happy-go-lucky. The inference of course is 'a nurse that is happy-go-lucky? How reckless! How terrifying, how can they sleep at night'. But of course, this is her facebook page, not he resume. She isn't describing herself as a nurse, any more than when someone states that they are 'single' on facebook it means they are seeking to date workmates or patients.

That sort of logic would suggest that somehow if you knew someone who was an undertaker, and on their facebook page they said they loved practical jokes, people would automatically assume that they put whoopee cushions under the seat of the deceased's wife when they are carrying out funerals. It is just the deliberate misuse of context.

The second statement, she has complained about work in her status updates. How dare she? That absolute soulless piece of... oh, no wait, everyone who has every used facebook status updates has put something like that as their status up-date.

I've just taken a look at the list of updates uploaded by my friends on my facebook page, no less than four can be easily interpreted as complaining about work, including the post at the very top.
Another two could be 'interpreted' to suggest that one of my friends has a serious drinking problem and another that they self harm... of course, that is all a load of rubbish, because they are joking, but if you're a press reporter who is willing to note someone has 'complained about work' then who knows what you will do.

I myself would rant about work on a regular basis, except for the fact that at least two of my work colleagues are on my facebook page. Does that mean I am going to commit violent crime? Not a chance. But I'm sure if read in a suitably malicious and sinister way the press could interpret anyone's updates are indicting. Why? Because that isn't the context in which they are intended.

I'm hoping that the public can see through such ridiculous and dangerous behaviour. But I'm not putting my money on it.

Recently we've found out that the media is willing to break the rules to get the story. This shows that they are willing not just to infringe the privacy of the grieving, but further to demonise those who may be innocent. I don't know which in the long term is worse, even though I know which one is getting the coverage.

I guess it comes down to the old adage of who watches the watchers. The government check the police, the media check the government and ............. no one is watching the media. The government can't do it as they are too busy trying to cosy up to the media. This much can be seen with the ex-editor of the News of the World becoming the communications chief for Downing Street... and thus we're left with a situation where the media scrutinises the behaviour of everyone... except themselves.

Maybe then it is a good thing that the BBC is giving such coverage to the mistakes of the Murdoch media empire. Maybe the various media outlets are ideal for holding each other to account. Maybe plurality of the press is working to keep each other in balance.

In that case, I wish they'd do it with a little more objectivity and with the professionalism of the massive corporation they are, rather than coming across as a five year old with a bitter vendetta, and a complete lack of perspective.