This post is somewhat in the nature of a mission statement. It has always been my intention in writing this blog to offer constructive comment on issues that matter (or ought to matter) to the British people. As a general rule, I have tried to avoid using emotive or abusive language.
Another important aspect of this blog has been that I have often urged readers to join a political party, although I am careful never to specify which party that should be. Maybe the party you join should be a party which does not yet exist, or perhaps a recently formed party which I do not yet know about.
Anyway, as I write we are less than two weeks away from the next important test of political credibility in this country, the Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election. There are seven candidates in the running - Labour (who are defending the seat), Conservative, Liberal Democrat, UKIP, BNP, Green, and Monster Raving Loony. The latter two parties did not contest the seat at the last general election, and I do not expect either party to poll remotely well. No one expects Labour not to hold the seat, and so the only interest lies in the vote shares.
The Conservatives need to show that their support is rising in the run-up to an inevitable general election next year, as do the Liberal Democrats, although I expect nothing in the way of good news for them. UKIP have a serious chance of outpolling the Conservatives and taking second place, which I am sure they would regard as a good result. I do not currently expect the BNP to poll well, but their website is certainly talking a good game.
A Conservative bill to require a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU in 2017 has just been defeated in the House of Lords by Labour and LibDem peers. Whether or not this comes back to haunt them on polling day remains to be seen, but it is fair to point out that with very few exceptions if any, Labour and LibDem politicians care little for democracy.
I should perhaps point out as an aside that the defeat of the bill does not rule out a referendum from taking place in 2017. If the government of the day wants a referendum, then presumably one will be held. Likewise, had the bill been passed into law then it would not have guaranteed a referendum in 2017, because legislation can be repealed.
The Tories are presumably hoping that this episode will boost their vote share at the expense of Labour and the LibDems, whereas UKIP leader Nigel Farage is pointing out that the recent surge in their support has prompted the government to hold a debate on immigration. However he notes that:
... the Ukip solution is clear: we just leave the EU - and therefore the ECHR - and take back control of these legal issues.
The European Convention on Human Rights has nothing to do with the European Union.
Friday 31 January 2014
Thursday 30 January 2014
Euro-troublemakers want us to increase benefits
The national press is reporting that the British government has been told by officials of the Council of Europe to increase the benefits it pays to unemployed people. There are a number of points to be made here.
First, the Council of Europe is not the same as the European Union. The two organisations are entirely distinct from one another.
Second, the call for higher benefits payments appears to pertain to a document called the European Social Charter. I have tried to find the text for this document on the Council of Europe's website, but the best I could find was that the treaty upholds the right to be protected against poverty and social exclusion.
It appears that the Council of Europe cannot force the British government to increase its benefits, but its decree can be referred to in any litigation claims brought against the government by British citizens.
It is perhaps unsurprising that at least one Tory MP is calling for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the Council of Europe, but frankly we should never have entered in the first place.
The Council of Europe aims to uphold the European Convention on Human Rights, which it describes as a treaty designed to protect human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. That is a sick joke. There is nothing democratic about a treaty that seeks to be binding on supposedly democratic member states in perpetuity.
Democracy is by its nature fluid. It allows governments to change their policies and procedures in response to changing circumstances, and the electoral process often provides a strong incentive for such changes to take effect.
Many working people in this country are struggling to subsist on meagre wages. If benefits are increased for those not in work, will benefits also be increased for those in work? How much money would such an increase cost? Are the totalitarians who run the Council of Europe able to suggest a way in which such higher expenditure could be met without plunging the economy into another recession?
I do not condone Britain's membership of the undemocratic Council of Europe any more than I condone Britain's membership of the undemocratic European Union.
First, the Council of Europe is not the same as the European Union. The two organisations are entirely distinct from one another.
Second, the call for higher benefits payments appears to pertain to a document called the European Social Charter. I have tried to find the text for this document on the Council of Europe's website, but the best I could find was that the treaty upholds the right to be protected against poverty and social exclusion.
It appears that the Council of Europe cannot force the British government to increase its benefits, but its decree can be referred to in any litigation claims brought against the government by British citizens.
It is perhaps unsurprising that at least one Tory MP is calling for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the Council of Europe, but frankly we should never have entered in the first place.
The Council of Europe aims to uphold the European Convention on Human Rights, which it describes as a treaty designed to protect human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. That is a sick joke. There is nothing democratic about a treaty that seeks to be binding on supposedly democratic member states in perpetuity.
Democracy is by its nature fluid. It allows governments to change their policies and procedures in response to changing circumstances, and the electoral process often provides a strong incentive for such changes to take effect.
Many working people in this country are struggling to subsist on meagre wages. If benefits are increased for those not in work, will benefits also be increased for those in work? How much money would such an increase cost? Are the totalitarians who run the Council of Europe able to suggest a way in which such higher expenditure could be met without plunging the economy into another recession?
I do not condone Britain's membership of the undemocratic Council of Europe any more than I condone Britain's membership of the undemocratic European Union.
Tuesday 28 January 2014
Angry customers of HSBC
Readers of this blog may be aware that HSBC has recently introduced new rules about cash withdrawals. Basically it appears that customers wishing to make large cash withdrawals are being required to prove what the money is for. I am not a customer of HSBC, but if I were I doubt very much if the new rules would upset me.
Nevertheless a lot of people have been complaining, and tabloid columnist Richard Littlejohn shares their frustration. Regarding the case of a man who was obstructed from withdrawing £10,000 in cash, he comments that even if he’d wanted to blow the lot on cocaine and hookers, that’s entirely his own affair.
Pardon my impudence, but no it is not entirely his own affair. Littlejohn is condoning substance abuse and possibly also human trafficking, both of which are quite reasonably circumscribed by law.
Littlejohn's attitude is typical of the selfishness and hypocrisy of far too many people in this country.
Do you aspire to live in a crime-free country? I will assume that the answer is yes. Is it then too much to ask that you play your part?
Cash payments are one of the ways in which crime flourishes in this country, and any bank which obstructs people from making large cash transactions is arguably obstructing crime.
Of course you can argue that you are not a criminal, but anyone else can argue the same thing, and yet the fact remains that some people are criminals. How is your bank supposed to know for a fact that you are not a criminal? Even if you have been a customer of the bank for many years or decades, that does not prove that you are not involved in crime.
I have never in my life withdrawn more than £500 in cash from a bank or building society account in a single transaction, and I fail to see why anyone who is not a criminal should obsess about large cash transactions.
If anyone reading this blog can think of a good reason why anyone other than a criminal should want to make large cash transactions - as opposed to using documented means such as cheques or bank drafts - then please leave a comment.
As an aside, Littlejohn concludes his comment with these words:
Two ‘British jihadists’ who went off to wage holy war in Syria have been killed.
Good.
Britain does not as yet have a law prohibiting incitement to occupational hatred. If it did, then presumably Littlejohn would be facing a prison sentence.
Relevant previous post:
Money laundering: a cautionary tale
Nevertheless a lot of people have been complaining, and tabloid columnist Richard Littlejohn shares their frustration. Regarding the case of a man who was obstructed from withdrawing £10,000 in cash, he comments that even if he’d wanted to blow the lot on cocaine and hookers, that’s entirely his own affair.
Pardon my impudence, but no it is not entirely his own affair. Littlejohn is condoning substance abuse and possibly also human trafficking, both of which are quite reasonably circumscribed by law.
Littlejohn's attitude is typical of the selfishness and hypocrisy of far too many people in this country.
Do you aspire to live in a crime-free country? I will assume that the answer is yes. Is it then too much to ask that you play your part?
Cash payments are one of the ways in which crime flourishes in this country, and any bank which obstructs people from making large cash transactions is arguably obstructing crime.
Of course you can argue that you are not a criminal, but anyone else can argue the same thing, and yet the fact remains that some people are criminals. How is your bank supposed to know for a fact that you are not a criminal? Even if you have been a customer of the bank for many years or decades, that does not prove that you are not involved in crime.
I have never in my life withdrawn more than £500 in cash from a bank or building society account in a single transaction, and I fail to see why anyone who is not a criminal should obsess about large cash transactions.
If anyone reading this blog can think of a good reason why anyone other than a criminal should want to make large cash transactions - as opposed to using documented means such as cheques or bank drafts - then please leave a comment.
As an aside, Littlejohn concludes his comment with these words:
Two ‘British jihadists’ who went off to wage holy war in Syria have been killed.
Good.
One of them is reported to be a London estate agent, which counts double.
Britain does not as yet have a law prohibiting incitement to occupational hatred. If it did, then presumably Littlejohn would be facing a prison sentence.
Relevant previous post:
Money laundering: a cautionary tale
Saturday 25 January 2014
Shapps and the northern renaissance
The Daily Express has published an essay by the Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps, in which he describes an economic renaissance in the north of England. My initial reaction was to wonder how well informed this MP for a southern constituency is on the subject, but it turns out that he lived in Manchester in his younger days. Furthermore it appears that he is in the habit of visiting the north of England on a regular basis.
The essay mentions the industrial heritage of the north of England, and also the damage inflicted upon it by the last Labour government. It also praises the present government for assisting in the process of regeneration. In particular he notes that:
Today graphene - the miracle new material that is constructed from a single layer of carbon atoms but is 100 times stronger than steel - is being pioneered in a Manchester laboratory, with a Conservative-led Government investing £50million to help commercialise it.
The business spirit never died in our Northern cities: it just needed to be set free.
Later on he urges that:
Some predict we can be the biggest economy in Europe again. But only if we stick to David Cameron's plan.
There is however a problem here. On present trends, the general election next year will see Ed Miliband enter Downing Street. I am not saying that should be welcomed, but it is fair to point out that if Labour win the next general election, then David Cameron's plan will soon be abandoned, probably in favour of an approach similar to that of the current French government.
Of course the Conservative Party's fortunes may improve in the coming year, but there is no evidence of an upturn in their fortunes as I write. Let me reiterate what I said in an earlier post:
I expect UKIP to come second in the forthcoming parliamentary by-election in Wythenshawe and Sale East. This prediction is not wishful thinking. It is based on a careful analysis of voting trends in all parliamentary by-elections since the last general election.
If the Conservative Party wants to confound me by outpolling UKIP in that by-election, then I cannot stop them. This is a northern constituency (in Greater Manchester to be precise), and if Grant Shapps is correct in his assertion that David Cameron's plan is boosting the economy of the north of England, then maybe the Conservative Party will see their vote hold - or maybe not.
Related posts include:
The new power house in Europe
The essay mentions the industrial heritage of the north of England, and also the damage inflicted upon it by the last Labour government. It also praises the present government for assisting in the process of regeneration. In particular he notes that:
Today graphene - the miracle new material that is constructed from a single layer of carbon atoms but is 100 times stronger than steel - is being pioneered in a Manchester laboratory, with a Conservative-led Government investing £50million to help commercialise it.
The business spirit never died in our Northern cities: it just needed to be set free.
Later on he urges that:
Some predict we can be the biggest economy in Europe again. But only if we stick to David Cameron's plan.
There is however a problem here. On present trends, the general election next year will see Ed Miliband enter Downing Street. I am not saying that should be welcomed, but it is fair to point out that if Labour win the next general election, then David Cameron's plan will soon be abandoned, probably in favour of an approach similar to that of the current French government.
Of course the Conservative Party's fortunes may improve in the coming year, but there is no evidence of an upturn in their fortunes as I write. Let me reiterate what I said in an earlier post:
I expect UKIP to come second in the forthcoming parliamentary by-election in Wythenshawe and Sale East. This prediction is not wishful thinking. It is based on a careful analysis of voting trends in all parliamentary by-elections since the last general election.
If the Conservative Party wants to confound me by outpolling UKIP in that by-election, then I cannot stop them. This is a northern constituency (in Greater Manchester to be precise), and if Grant Shapps is correct in his assertion that David Cameron's plan is boosting the economy of the north of England, then maybe the Conservative Party will see their vote hold - or maybe not.
Related posts include:
The new power house in Europe
Friday 24 January 2014
Communists hate Christianity
I was impressed to read an essay by Tom Utley about religion in one of our fellow-travelling national newspapers. He observes that:
... I’ve often done things that I know perfectly well are wrong. But what I find so striking in my sons’ generation is that many among them who have never darkened a church doorstep in their lives, except to attend weddings or funerals, don’t even put the question to themselves: ‘Is the course of action I’m proposing right or wrong?’
Like MPs fiddling their expenses, they ask instead: ‘What are my chances of getting away with it?’ And if the answer they give themselves is anywhere between 95 and 100 per cent, they reckon that’s the clincher. No further objections.
It is true that religion, by which I mean Christianity, tends to have a positive impact on the lives of many people. It does not make them perfect - far from it - but I have noticed for example that people I know who go to church tend not to drink to excess (or at all), not to smoke, and not to use vulgar language.
I recall once reading about a prison in South Africa which began teaching inmates about The Bible. The result was a massive fall in the reoffending rate from above eighty percent to below twenty percent. A lot of people like to be dismissive of Christianity, but how many of them would enjoy being mugged by a career criminal who is never taught about The Bible while in prison?
One huge problem that I have with Tom Utley is that he implies - or appears to imply - that Judaism and Islam can also have a positive effect on people's behaviour.
If Judaism is a force for good, then how come the only majority-Jewish country in the world - Israel - is a terror state? How many people in Israel ever vote for political parties which are not led by cold-hearted murderous scum? How many Jews in other countries ever condemn Israel for murdering people in neighbouring countries? (I'm not implying that the answer is zero.)
Of course many people in the United Kingdom and the USA vote in elections for political parties which are led by cold-hearted murderous scum, although to be fair the people of Britain are currently suffering from war fatigue, and hence we are not currently planning to go to war against Syria.
Furthermore, many Christian countries are not led by cold-hearted murderous scum, and it is fair to point out that Christians who allow themselves to be brainwashed into voting for warmongers are not evidence for Christianity being in itself a force for evil in the world.
As for Islam, let me repeat what I said in an earlier post:
Islam is founded upon a book called The Koran. This book dictates that Muslims should fight non-Muslims (9:29) and that Jews and Christians should be destroyed (9:30). A similar sentiment is found in 5:51. The Koran also preaches terror against non-Muslims (8:12), spousal abuse (4:34), spousal rape (2:223), and that slaves may be raped (23:6).
To anyone who accuses me of not understanding The Koran, The Koran says many times that it is either clear or easy to understand. Therefore the correct interpretation is always the obvious one.
If our political leaders had any sense of decency, we might expect them to encourage Christianity, but to have a more guarded attitude towards Judaism and Islam. Unfortunately our political leaders tend to be either communists or fellow travellers, and their attitude towards religion tends to be confused (to put it mildly).
... I’ve often done things that I know perfectly well are wrong. But what I find so striking in my sons’ generation is that many among them who have never darkened a church doorstep in their lives, except to attend weddings or funerals, don’t even put the question to themselves: ‘Is the course of action I’m proposing right or wrong?’
Like MPs fiddling their expenses, they ask instead: ‘What are my chances of getting away with it?’ And if the answer they give themselves is anywhere between 95 and 100 per cent, they reckon that’s the clincher. No further objections.
It is true that religion, by which I mean Christianity, tends to have a positive impact on the lives of many people. It does not make them perfect - far from it - but I have noticed for example that people I know who go to church tend not to drink to excess (or at all), not to smoke, and not to use vulgar language.
I recall once reading about a prison in South Africa which began teaching inmates about The Bible. The result was a massive fall in the reoffending rate from above eighty percent to below twenty percent. A lot of people like to be dismissive of Christianity, but how many of them would enjoy being mugged by a career criminal who is never taught about The Bible while in prison?
One huge problem that I have with Tom Utley is that he implies - or appears to imply - that Judaism and Islam can also have a positive effect on people's behaviour.
If Judaism is a force for good, then how come the only majority-Jewish country in the world - Israel - is a terror state? How many people in Israel ever vote for political parties which are not led by cold-hearted murderous scum? How many Jews in other countries ever condemn Israel for murdering people in neighbouring countries? (I'm not implying that the answer is zero.)
Of course many people in the United Kingdom and the USA vote in elections for political parties which are led by cold-hearted murderous scum, although to be fair the people of Britain are currently suffering from war fatigue, and hence we are not currently planning to go to war against Syria.
Furthermore, many Christian countries are not led by cold-hearted murderous scum, and it is fair to point out that Christians who allow themselves to be brainwashed into voting for warmongers are not evidence for Christianity being in itself a force for evil in the world.
As for Islam, let me repeat what I said in an earlier post:
Islam is founded upon a book called The Koran. This book dictates that Muslims should fight non-Muslims (9:29) and that Jews and Christians should be destroyed (9:30). A similar sentiment is found in 5:51. The Koran also preaches terror against non-Muslims (8:12), spousal abuse (4:34), spousal rape (2:223), and that slaves may be raped (23:6).
To anyone who accuses me of not understanding The Koran, The Koran says many times that it is either clear or easy to understand. Therefore the correct interpretation is always the obvious one.
If our political leaders had any sense of decency, we might expect them to encourage Christianity, but to have a more guarded attitude towards Judaism and Islam. Unfortunately our political leaders tend to be either communists or fellow travellers, and their attitude towards religion tends to be confused (to put it mildly).
Wednesday 22 January 2014
Unemployment falls again ...
Unemployment has fallen by 167,000 to 2.32million. In a sense this is good news, but there is another side to the figures. This post is from the Daily Mail website:
I work at the job center and can honestly tell you people are not back in work! We mark people back in work when we stop their benefits and we have a number of different ways of doing this. Once we stop a persons benefits they are marked down on government papers as "found work" even though they are not at work.
While this may well be true, it applies to the claimant count, and not to the Labour Market Survey which is the statistic we are dealing with here. While any statistics can be manipulated, allow me to take the government's figures at face value.
If unemployment continues to fall at the present rate, then it will fall to zero in less than four years. That may seem impressive, but a similar fall in unemployment in 1997 did not lead to full employment.
Britain remains a country where many people - including many working people - are dependent on food banks. Crime remains high, with shoplifting on the increase. The coalition government really needs to raise its game if it is to stand any chance of keeping Ed Miliband out of Downing Street.
I work at the job center and can honestly tell you people are not back in work! We mark people back in work when we stop their benefits and we have a number of different ways of doing this. Once we stop a persons benefits they are marked down on government papers as "found work" even though they are not at work.
While this may well be true, it applies to the claimant count, and not to the Labour Market Survey which is the statistic we are dealing with here. While any statistics can be manipulated, allow me to take the government's figures at face value.
If unemployment continues to fall at the present rate, then it will fall to zero in less than four years. That may seem impressive, but a similar fall in unemployment in 1997 did not lead to full employment.
Britain remains a country where many people - including many working people - are dependent on food banks. Crime remains high, with shoplifting on the increase. The coalition government really needs to raise its game if it is to stand any chance of keeping Ed Miliband out of Downing Street.
Monday 20 January 2014
Do we really want what we vote for?
Once again I find myself unable to choose just one news item for comment, and so here are three.
There has been an increase in shoplifting, which now stands at a nine-year high. Apparently fewer than ten percent of incidents are reported to the police. This cannot be blamed on Benefits Street, which was first screened only two weeks ago. Nevertheless the lesson in shoplifting featured in its first episode may have encouraged people to go shoplifting who would not otherwise have done so.
It is perhaps easy to remove a can of beer from an off licence without the shop staff noticing, but Benefits Street showed us how to steal expensive clothing. Nevertheless this is something the British people choose. For many years now, the British people have voted for political parties which are soft on crime, and so we should not be surprised about the latest crime statistics.
Still on the subject of Benefits Street, children who appear in the programme are being victimised. I do not condone this victimisation, and I would in fact welcome some prosecutions, but the fact remains that people are angry with what they see on this programme about the lives of people on benefits. Nevertheless this is another thing the British people choose. For many years now, the British people have voted for political parties which are soft on welfare as well as soft on crime, and so we should not be surprised about what we see on James Turner Street.
There has also been an increase in gender-selective abortions, which appear to relate to women from certain immigrant communities not wanting to give birth to daughters. There is apparently a furore over whether or not such procedures are legal. The people who maintain illegality are welcome to try to secure a criminal prosecution, but it is only fair to refer them to the prosecution sought by Joanna Jepson.
I have three more comments about this. Predictably, the first is that this is something we choose. For many years now, the British people have voted for political parties which are soft on abortion. The abortion laws are worded so as to be vague and open to what might be construed by some as abuse. For example, the term in good faith means what exactly? My second and closely related point is that for many years now, the British people have voted for political parties which are soft on immigration. Lax immigration laws have resulted in many people entering this country whose cultural values are different from those of the native population. We should therefore not be surprised if women from some immigrant communities take advantage of our lax abortion laws for the purpose of gender-selective abortions.
My third point is that Dominic Lawson describes The Daily Mail as a cash-strapped newspaper. I have absolutely no problem with that. In fact I have no problem with it going out of business altogether.
There has been an increase in shoplifting, which now stands at a nine-year high. Apparently fewer than ten percent of incidents are reported to the police. This cannot be blamed on Benefits Street, which was first screened only two weeks ago. Nevertheless the lesson in shoplifting featured in its first episode may have encouraged people to go shoplifting who would not otherwise have done so.
It is perhaps easy to remove a can of beer from an off licence without the shop staff noticing, but Benefits Street showed us how to steal expensive clothing. Nevertheless this is something the British people choose. For many years now, the British people have voted for political parties which are soft on crime, and so we should not be surprised about the latest crime statistics.
Still on the subject of Benefits Street, children who appear in the programme are being victimised. I do not condone this victimisation, and I would in fact welcome some prosecutions, but the fact remains that people are angry with what they see on this programme about the lives of people on benefits. Nevertheless this is another thing the British people choose. For many years now, the British people have voted for political parties which are soft on welfare as well as soft on crime, and so we should not be surprised about what we see on James Turner Street.
There has also been an increase in gender-selective abortions, which appear to relate to women from certain immigrant communities not wanting to give birth to daughters. There is apparently a furore over whether or not such procedures are legal. The people who maintain illegality are welcome to try to secure a criminal prosecution, but it is only fair to refer them to the prosecution sought by Joanna Jepson.
I have three more comments about this. Predictably, the first is that this is something we choose. For many years now, the British people have voted for political parties which are soft on abortion. The abortion laws are worded so as to be vague and open to what might be construed by some as abuse. For example, the term in good faith means what exactly? My second and closely related point is that for many years now, the British people have voted for political parties which are soft on immigration. Lax immigration laws have resulted in many people entering this country whose cultural values are different from those of the native population. We should therefore not be surprised if women from some immigrant communities take advantage of our lax abortion laws for the purpose of gender-selective abortions.
My third point is that Dominic Lawson describes The Daily Mail as a cash-strapped newspaper. I have absolutely no problem with that. In fact I have no problem with it going out of business altogether.
Saturday 18 January 2014
The way out of Benefits Street
Only two episodes of Channel 4's Benefits Street have so far been screened, but already it is causing a furore. In case you haven't seen it, the programme follows the lives of people most of whom live on a street in Birmingham called James Turner Street. I say most because a man who I think is called Smoggy appears not to live on the street.
Some people who took part in the programme have complained about being misrepresented, while others have argued that the programme should not be screened. It appears that a lot of people regard the programme as Conservative Party propoganda.
It has now reached the point under the coalition government where many people on benefits are having their payments stopped - the official term is sanctioned - and at least two such households are featured in the programme.
In many cases the sanctions are imposed for reasons which are hard to condone. I have personally spoken with someone whose benefits were stopped for two weeks because he failed to turn up for an appointment because he was ill. Nevertheless I am not opposed to sanctions in principle, but I cannot approve of punishing people on a random basis. Anyone can be ill.
Obviously it is helpful for the government if the general public regards people in receipt of benefits as being for the most part a lot of workshy scroungers who deserve to have their payments stopped, and so it is easy for people to assume that the purpose of Benefits Street is to portray the underclass as undeserving.
I currently incline to the point of view that Benefits Street is fairly honest in its representation of the lives of people on benefits, although I do think it was very unwise for the programme makers to allow a shoplifter to reveal the tricks of his trade. It is easy to misrepresent what is portrayed however, because there are things which are not made clear. For example the man called Smoggy sells household goods as well as drinks and sweets door-to-door, and implies that this is his only source of income. Maybe it is, but it would be easy for someone watching the programme to assume that he is also in receipt of benefits.
A comment about the programme in The Daily Mail contains this quote about resident Dee Kelly who is a lone parent:
If Dee got a job as a cleaner, earning £90 a week, then her benefits would be cut by £70. So after spending a week scrubbing floors and cleaning toilets, she would find herself just £20 a week better off. Is that worth it?
Some people who took part in the programme have complained about being misrepresented, while others have argued that the programme should not be screened. It appears that a lot of people regard the programme as Conservative Party propoganda.
It has now reached the point under the coalition government where many people on benefits are having their payments stopped - the official term is sanctioned - and at least two such households are featured in the programme.
In many cases the sanctions are imposed for reasons which are hard to condone. I have personally spoken with someone whose benefits were stopped for two weeks because he failed to turn up for an appointment because he was ill. Nevertheless I am not opposed to sanctions in principle, but I cannot approve of punishing people on a random basis. Anyone can be ill.
Obviously it is helpful for the government if the general public regards people in receipt of benefits as being for the most part a lot of workshy scroungers who deserve to have their payments stopped, and so it is easy for people to assume that the purpose of Benefits Street is to portray the underclass as undeserving.
I currently incline to the point of view that Benefits Street is fairly honest in its representation of the lives of people on benefits, although I do think it was very unwise for the programme makers to allow a shoplifter to reveal the tricks of his trade. It is easy to misrepresent what is portrayed however, because there are things which are not made clear. For example the man called Smoggy sells household goods as well as drinks and sweets door-to-door, and implies that this is his only source of income. Maybe it is, but it would be easy for someone watching the programme to assume that he is also in receipt of benefits.
A comment about the programme in The Daily Mail contains this quote about resident Dee Kelly who is a lone parent:
If Dee got a job as a cleaner, earning £90 a week, then her benefits would be cut by £70. So after spending a week scrubbing floors and cleaning toilets, she would find herself just £20 a week better off. Is that worth it?
Thursday 16 January 2014
The horrors of war, the horrors of UKIP
I can't find just one thing to write about today, and so I am taking the unusual step of lumping two issues together in one post. First, there is a news report about American soldiers doing naughty things in Iraq. Anyone who is surprised by this is almost certainly either very young or utterly naive.
Wars are very rarely conducted without atrocities being committed, and either side in a war is usually capable of committing those atrocities. One of the main reasons why wars happen - or at least why they tend to have public support - is the revolting belief that many people have that we - whoever "we" happen to be - are the good guys, and that it must be right for us to go to war because we are somehow not capable of going to war except with good reason.
People do not generally speaking want to believe that their own brethren are capable of committing atrocities, but it is only reasonable to assume that war tends to bring out the worst in many people.
Second, it is reported that UKIP is on course to come second in the European Parliament elections this summer. I have no problem with people breaking out of the mindset of only ever voting Labour or Conservative (or maybe Liberal Democrat in some cases), but surely they could choose a better party to vote for than UKIP. UKIP think that it is acceptable to vote Conservative.
For the record, I expect UKIP to come second in the forthcoming parliamentary by-election in Wythenshawe and Sale East. This prediction is not wishful thinking. It is based on a careful analysis of voting trends in all parliamentary by-elections since the last general election.
I predict also that UKIP's success will be short-lived, but unfortunately that remains wishful thinking - at least for the time being.
Wars are very rarely conducted without atrocities being committed, and either side in a war is usually capable of committing those atrocities. One of the main reasons why wars happen - or at least why they tend to have public support - is the revolting belief that many people have that we - whoever "we" happen to be - are the good guys, and that it must be right for us to go to war because we are somehow not capable of going to war except with good reason.
People do not generally speaking want to believe that their own brethren are capable of committing atrocities, but it is only reasonable to assume that war tends to bring out the worst in many people.
Second, it is reported that UKIP is on course to come second in the European Parliament elections this summer. I have no problem with people breaking out of the mindset of only ever voting Labour or Conservative (or maybe Liberal Democrat in some cases), but surely they could choose a better party to vote for than UKIP. UKIP think that it is acceptable to vote Conservative.
For the record, I expect UKIP to come second in the forthcoming parliamentary by-election in Wythenshawe and Sale East. This prediction is not wishful thinking. It is based on a careful analysis of voting trends in all parliamentary by-elections since the last general election.
I predict also that UKIP's success will be short-lived, but unfortunately that remains wishful thinking - at least for the time being.
Monday 13 January 2014
Money laundering: a cautionary tale
Oxana Zubakova is a Russian model and entrepreneur. It is reported that she has recently failed in a bid to recover money and jewellery siezed by the police, having thus far taken her case to the Court of Appeal. She intends to continue her case.
It appears that in 2008 the police raided a deposit box which was in the joint names of Miss Zubakova and an ex-boyfriend, Tarik Meghrabi. The police took a large sum of money in banknotes, which apparently is permitted by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Miss Zubakova began legal action to recover the money, but the following year police raided her home and took her computer. They also blocked her bank cards.
Miss Zubakova then returned to Russia, although it is not clear how she managed to afford the airline ticket given that her bank cards had been blocked. Tarik Meghrabi has since been jailed for money laundering.
This is not the first case I have come across where the police have blocked someone's bank cards. Is there a law requiring the police to ensure that people still have enough money for subsistence?
It is fair to point out however that there is a need to tackle money laundering, and the police cannot be expected never to pursue the wrong suspect. While I am critical of the banks, I am aware that banks are an important, partly because of the transparency of transactions. Money held in a bank account is money that is documented to exist. Transactions between bank accounts are likewise documented.
Money held in bank accounts might have been laundered at some point, but money laundering normally involves a non-bank transaction somewhere along the line. This could take the form of a cash payment, or else the handing over of valuable items such as jewellery.
Miss Zubakova claims that reliance upon cash is an important aspect of her Russian culture, and it was an important aspect of British culture until fairly recently. It was still common in the 1980s for some British workers to be paid weekly in cash.
If you do not want to fall foul of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, then take care with your finances. Do not hoard cash, try to avoid large scale cash transactions, and do not share deposit boxes or bank accounts or credit cards with anyone else.
It appears that in 2008 the police raided a deposit box which was in the joint names of Miss Zubakova and an ex-boyfriend, Tarik Meghrabi. The police took a large sum of money in banknotes, which apparently is permitted by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Miss Zubakova began legal action to recover the money, but the following year police raided her home and took her computer. They also blocked her bank cards.
Miss Zubakova then returned to Russia, although it is not clear how she managed to afford the airline ticket given that her bank cards had been blocked. Tarik Meghrabi has since been jailed for money laundering.
This is not the first case I have come across where the police have blocked someone's bank cards. Is there a law requiring the police to ensure that people still have enough money for subsistence?
It is fair to point out however that there is a need to tackle money laundering, and the police cannot be expected never to pursue the wrong suspect. While I am critical of the banks, I am aware that banks are an important, partly because of the transparency of transactions. Money held in a bank account is money that is documented to exist. Transactions between bank accounts are likewise documented.
Money held in bank accounts might have been laundered at some point, but money laundering normally involves a non-bank transaction somewhere along the line. This could take the form of a cash payment, or else the handing over of valuable items such as jewellery.
Miss Zubakova claims that reliance upon cash is an important aspect of her Russian culture, and it was an important aspect of British culture until fairly recently. It was still common in the 1980s for some British workers to be paid weekly in cash.
If you do not want to fall foul of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, then take care with your finances. Do not hoard cash, try to avoid large scale cash transactions, and do not share deposit boxes or bank accounts or credit cards with anyone else.
Saturday 11 January 2014
Vigils for Mark Duggan
A vigil has taken place in memory of Mark Duggan, and at least one more is planned. So far since the inquest returned its verdict there has been little in the way of violence, but that could change. There are times when I feel like moralising, but right now I am inclined to reflect on a few basic facts.
Greater London has a huge problem with crime, and in particular with violent crime. It is therefore only to be expected that the Metropolitan Police will on occasions put armed police on the streets. It is also to be expected that occasionally they will shoot a suspect, perhaps fatally.
When a fatal shooting takes place, it is only to be expected that there will be an outcry, and possibly even rioting. This is perhaps especially likely to happen when the victim of the fatal shooting is a drug-dealing gangster with lots of friends (not necessarily also drug dealers).
A trail of logic leads us from the existence of a criminal underworld to the August riots of 2011. The criminal underworld is still very much with us, and so there is no reason to think that there will not be more riots in the future. Maybe a member of your family will be among those killed in the next riots. Maybe you will have your photograph taken while jumping from the first floor window of a burning building.
You could of course make it clear to the government that you expect them to tackle the criminal underworld with serious policies, and you could do that by joining a political party with sensible policies. But will you?
Greater London has a huge problem with crime, and in particular with violent crime. It is therefore only to be expected that the Metropolitan Police will on occasions put armed police on the streets. It is also to be expected that occasionally they will shoot a suspect, perhaps fatally.
When a fatal shooting takes place, it is only to be expected that there will be an outcry, and possibly even rioting. This is perhaps especially likely to happen when the victim of the fatal shooting is a drug-dealing gangster with lots of friends (not necessarily also drug dealers).
A trail of logic leads us from the existence of a criminal underworld to the August riots of 2011. The criminal underworld is still very much with us, and so there is no reason to think that there will not be more riots in the future. Maybe a member of your family will be among those killed in the next riots. Maybe you will have your photograph taken while jumping from the first floor window of a burning building.
You could of course make it clear to the government that you expect them to tackle the criminal underworld with serious policies, and you could do that by joining a political party with sensible policies. But will you?
Friday 10 January 2014
Bedroom tax fiasco
Much as I despise the so-called bedroom tax, I will spare you the reasons why on this occasion, and instead comment on this news item about a loophole. If I read the situation correctly, the government, or someone, has identified a loophole in the underoccupation rules. Apparently this loophole was accidental, not deliberate. The government is now alerting local authorities to the existence of that loophole.
And so once again I find myself writing about fat cats. Were the rules written by someone who earned only the minimum wage? (I believe that legislation is normally written by civil servants, and I would be surprised if government legislation is ever written by anyone else.) Were the rules enforced by local authority personnel who earned only the minimum wage?
If you earn more than the minimum wage, then presumably your salary reflects the fact that you are worth more than the minimum wage. If you are employed to write legislation, and you unintentionally create a loophole, then presumably you are either paid a very low salary, or else you are overpaid. Likewise, if you are employed to act in accordance with legislation but you fail to implement that legislation correctly in every case, then presumably you are either paid a very low salary, or else you are overpaid.
This is all subjective of course. What is a low salary? Does anyone think they are paid well? Consider the testimony of privileged journalist Petronella Wyatt. If you don't have time to read all of it, she quotes a surgeon as saying he is poor.
I don't doubt that it can be rather hard to scrape by on a huge salary if you have trouble making good financial decisions. It appears that some of the people she mentions have children in private schools, some of them borrowed money when they could and should have been saving, and some of them are obsessed with expensive designer clothes. She mentions a work ethic, but I wonder how many of her posh friends would get out of bed for the minimum wage.
I strongly suspect that the bedroom tax loophole is yet another symptom of a society which rewards some people with salaries which are way out of proportion to their abilities.
Related posts include:
The cats stay fat
Energy sector fat cats
The betrayal of the low paid
To build on debt is to build on sand
And so once again I find myself writing about fat cats. Were the rules written by someone who earned only the minimum wage? (I believe that legislation is normally written by civil servants, and I would be surprised if government legislation is ever written by anyone else.) Were the rules enforced by local authority personnel who earned only the minimum wage?
If you earn more than the minimum wage, then presumably your salary reflects the fact that you are worth more than the minimum wage. If you are employed to write legislation, and you unintentionally create a loophole, then presumably you are either paid a very low salary, or else you are overpaid. Likewise, if you are employed to act in accordance with legislation but you fail to implement that legislation correctly in every case, then presumably you are either paid a very low salary, or else you are overpaid.
This is all subjective of course. What is a low salary? Does anyone think they are paid well? Consider the testimony of privileged journalist Petronella Wyatt. If you don't have time to read all of it, she quotes a surgeon as saying he is poor.
I don't doubt that it can be rather hard to scrape by on a huge salary if you have trouble making good financial decisions. It appears that some of the people she mentions have children in private schools, some of them borrowed money when they could and should have been saving, and some of them are obsessed with expensive designer clothes. She mentions a work ethic, but I wonder how many of her posh friends would get out of bed for the minimum wage.
I strongly suspect that the bedroom tax loophole is yet another symptom of a society which rewards some people with salaries which are way out of proportion to their abilities.
Related posts include:
The cats stay fat
Energy sector fat cats
The betrayal of the low paid
To build on debt is to build on sand
Wednesday 8 January 2014
Cadets debate the war
There was recently a debate in the House of Lords which involved cadets and veterans. The topic was the First World War, which is approaching its centenary. I have found a video of the debate, and if you do not have time to watch all of it, then maybe you could watch the speech by Flight Sergeant Donaldson (a cadet) which begins at around one hour and nine minutes.
Before I comment on Miss Donaldson's speech, let me refer you to this essay by the daughter of a veteran. In brief, Bryher Scudamore grew up in fear of her father, but realised after watching a film (presumably fictitious) that her father's bad behaviour was the result of the terrible things he experienced during his time as a prisoner of war. I have three points to make in reply.
First, I suspect that the Japanese treated their POWs far less harshly than the Allied troops in western Europe who operated General Eisenhower's extermination camps.
Second, bad behaviour is bad behaviour, and trying to excuse it by reference to supposed events in the past could be construed as idiotic.
I will leave my third point until I have considered the speech by Flight Sergeant Donaldson.
She argues also that wars happen because no country is willing to put down their arms first. Perhaps she does not know that the invasion of Iraq did not happen until after the Iraqi government had given up its most terrifying weapons. It is perhaps strange that she complains about the slow reaction of the United Nations to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but does not mention the use of chemical weapons by the terrorist USA against Iraqi civilians. The difference of course is that the murderous scum of the US military really do use chemical weapons, whereas the Syrian army does not. Any chemical weapons deployed in Syria are supplied to rebel forces from outside the country.
My final point regarding the essay by Bryher Scudamore is that the British POWs who allegedly suffered terrible abuse at the hands of their Japanese captors were all volunteers. They may not have had a choice about joining the forces, but they could have opted to join the Non-Combatant Corps. (Were members of the NCC ever deployed in war zones? I presume not.) It is true that NCCs were sometimes barred from certain premises, but that is presumably not as bad as having to build a railway.
I am also a volunteer. I choose to be despised by warmongering scum. I do not choose to build a railway.
My many previous posts on related subjects include:
Questions for the warmonger Gove
A reasoned approach to war
Update: a comment on this post on another site reads: My late father in law was a prisoner of the Japanese from the fall of Singapore until the end of the war. He was an honourable and honest man. If one former POW was capable of not abusing his family, then what excuse was there for Douglas Mitchell (the father of Bryher Scudamore) to abuse his family?
Before I comment on Miss Donaldson's speech, let me refer you to this essay by the daughter of a veteran. In brief, Bryher Scudamore grew up in fear of her father, but realised after watching a film (presumably fictitious) that her father's bad behaviour was the result of the terrible things he experienced during his time as a prisoner of war. I have three points to make in reply.
First, I suspect that the Japanese treated their POWs far less harshly than the Allied troops in western Europe who operated General Eisenhower's extermination camps.
Second, bad behaviour is bad behaviour, and trying to excuse it by reference to supposed events in the past could be construed as idiotic.
I will leave my third point until I have considered the speech by Flight Sergeant Donaldson.
She argues that Britain entered the Second World War for its
own interests. Britain entered the
Second World War in defence of genocide.
Jews were murdering Germans in Poland, Germany invaded Poland in a bid
to protect innocent human life, and Britain went to war in order to allow the Jewish
atrocities to continue. We fought on the
same side as France and the Soviet Union - led by Stalin.
Following the war, France proceeded to murder huge numbers of
people in Algeria, Stalin continued to murder huge numbers of people in the
Soviet Union, and Jewish terrorists were allowed to create the terror state of
Israel. Does Miss Donaldson really
believe that this international murder-fest was in Britain’s interests?
She argues also that wars happen because no country is willing to put down their arms first. Perhaps she does not know that the invasion of Iraq did not happen until after the Iraqi government had given up its most terrifying weapons. It is perhaps strange that she complains about the slow reaction of the United Nations to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but does not mention the use of chemical weapons by the terrorist USA against Iraqi civilians. The difference of course is that the murderous scum of the US military really do use chemical weapons, whereas the Syrian army does not. Any chemical weapons deployed in Syria are supplied to rebel forces from outside the country.
The main reason the world is not at peace is because of
three terrorist nations – Israel, the United States of America, and the United
Kingdom. The fact that our parliament
has not voted for war against Syria is merely because the British people are
currently suffering from a bout of war fatigue.
I am confident however that we will soon recover. Syria is as I write exporting its chemical
weapons. I confidently expect that once it no longer has those
weapons, the USA will find a reason to invade, and the British government will
try to persuade parliament to send in British troops as well.
Maybe Miss Donaldson will be among the dead when Britain
eventually invades Syria.
My final point regarding the essay by Bryher Scudamore is that the British POWs who allegedly suffered terrible abuse at the hands of their Japanese captors were all volunteers. They may not have had a choice about joining the forces, but they could have opted to join the Non-Combatant Corps. (Were members of the NCC ever deployed in war zones? I presume not.) It is true that NCCs were sometimes barred from certain premises, but that is presumably not as bad as having to build a railway.
I am also a volunteer. I choose to be despised by warmongering scum. I do not choose to build a railway.
My many previous posts on related subjects include:
Questions for the warmonger Gove
A reasoned approach to war
Update: a comment on this post on another site reads: My late father in law was a prisoner of the Japanese from the fall of Singapore until the end of the war. He was an honourable and honest man. If one former POW was capable of not abusing his family, then what excuse was there for Douglas Mitchell (the father of Bryher Scudamore) to abuse his family?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)