Much as I dislike David Cameron, I believe in giving credit where it is due. Since he took office there have been numerous reports in the press about school pupils being punished for what might often seem to be minor infringements of their school's uniform policy.
My argument has been that classroom discipline is important, and that any attempt to improve discipline has to be considered favourably. Neverthless it is now reported that the level of crime in Britain's schools is on the rise, with over fifteen hundred sexual assaults in one year.
It is also reported that schools are dealing with unruly pupils by suspending them - sometimes repeatedly. Teachers as well as pupils are being assaulted and in some cases seriously injured. This may lead some of us to wonder how bad the situation has to become before schools move beyond suspension as a form of punishment.
What is not reported is the extent to which immigration is a factor in the school violence equation. It is however reported that nearly forty thousand immigrant children are starting school this year. Let's hope they all wear the correct school uniform.
Related previous posts include:
School uniforms: think before complaining
Saturday, 26 September 2015
Sunday, 20 September 2015
What is a patriot?
Jeremy Corbyn has received a lot of negative press coverage this past week, and in particular a lot of people are questioning his patriotism. This is related partly to his being a pacifist, and partly to his failure to sing the national anthem at a service to commemorate the Battle of Britain.
I consider myself to be a patriot, by which I mean that I care deeply about my country. Being a patriot is not the same as being a monarchist. Jeremy Corbyn is a republican, but that does not make him not a patriot. I can understand that someone of a republican persuasion may not want to sing the British national anthem.
To be fair, a lot of people who are not republicans also dislike the British national anthem.
Another issue of contention is that Jeremy Corbyn does not want Britain to maintain its non-existent stock of nuclear weapons. He has also opposed British involvement in various illegal foreign wars, and has even called for Britain to leave NATO.
Being a patriot is not the same as being an apologist for war. If anything it is the opposite. I will not vote to send British troops into illegal foreign wars, partly because I respect the right of every country on earth to determine its own affairs. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is a murderous organisation which interferes in the affairs of other countries. (On reflection, that seems to be rather a silly thing to write, given that it appears to imply that NATO is itself a country, which it is not.)
At least one political commentator has compared Jeremy Corbyn with George Lansbury, who led the Labour Party from 1932 until his resignation in 1935. Lansbury was a pacifist who believed that world peace could be achieved through nation's disarming rather than rearming - a point of view I find hard to take seriously.
But of course Lansbury was a communist, and so presumably wanted the forces of the Soviet Union to be able to invade Britain without encountering any military opposition.
If you are a patriot, then you love your country. If you love something, then presumably you seek to protect it. I want my country to maintain a high level of military capability so as to discourage other countries from going to war against us. That is not the same as saying that I support war. I support the defence of my homeland, and not the wanton destruction of other countries.
There is however little point in maintaining our armed forces if we are just going to sit back while immigrants take over our country. I understand that, but Jeremy Corbyn appears not to. On that basis, he comes across to me as no more of a patriot than David Cameron.
Related previous posts include:
A reasoned approach to war
I consider myself to be a patriot, by which I mean that I care deeply about my country. Being a patriot is not the same as being a monarchist. Jeremy Corbyn is a republican, but that does not make him not a patriot. I can understand that someone of a republican persuasion may not want to sing the British national anthem.
To be fair, a lot of people who are not republicans also dislike the British national anthem.
Another issue of contention is that Jeremy Corbyn does not want Britain to maintain its non-existent stock of nuclear weapons. He has also opposed British involvement in various illegal foreign wars, and has even called for Britain to leave NATO.
Being a patriot is not the same as being an apologist for war. If anything it is the opposite. I will not vote to send British troops into illegal foreign wars, partly because I respect the right of every country on earth to determine its own affairs. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is a murderous organisation which interferes in the affairs of other countries. (On reflection, that seems to be rather a silly thing to write, given that it appears to imply that NATO is itself a country, which it is not.)
At least one political commentator has compared Jeremy Corbyn with George Lansbury, who led the Labour Party from 1932 until his resignation in 1935. Lansbury was a pacifist who believed that world peace could be achieved through nation's disarming rather than rearming - a point of view I find hard to take seriously.
But of course Lansbury was a communist, and so presumably wanted the forces of the Soviet Union to be able to invade Britain without encountering any military opposition.
If you are a patriot, then you love your country. If you love something, then presumably you seek to protect it. I want my country to maintain a high level of military capability so as to discourage other countries from going to war against us. That is not the same as saying that I support war. I support the defence of my homeland, and not the wanton destruction of other countries.
There is however little point in maintaining our armed forces if we are just going to sit back while immigrants take over our country. I understand that, but Jeremy Corbyn appears not to. On that basis, he comes across to me as no more of a patriot than David Cameron.
Related previous posts include:
A reasoned approach to war
Tuesday, 15 September 2015
Is there really just one race?
We often hear it said that there is only one race: the human race. Other people assert that there are many races. Which is correct?
First, it is reasonable to point out that people who maintain that there is only one race are almost always hypocrites. With very few exceptions if any, they are the same people who support a multiracial society in which people of all races are expected to mix together harmoniously. Quite how this is possible if there is only one race is never explained.
Second, no word in the English language is confined to just one meaning. Therefore just because a word has one accepted definition does not justify us in regarding other definitions as spurious.
The meaning of any word can be deduced from the context in which it is used. Therefore when we talk about the human race, then we are presumably talking about the human species. When we talk about races, we are talking about different ethnic groups. These groups are founded upon shared ancestry and on shared racial characteristics.
On the one hand, I am inclined to argue that both of these definitions are equally valid; but then it occurs to me that the people who talk about the human race never seem to talk about the canine race or the feline race. Until they do, I will feel justified in concluding that their talk of the human race is foolish. There are many races, and I for one am proud to be a member of the white race.
Related previous posts include:
The church of England, race, and paedophiles
This item on Western Spring is also of interest.
First, it is reasonable to point out that people who maintain that there is only one race are almost always hypocrites. With very few exceptions if any, they are the same people who support a multiracial society in which people of all races are expected to mix together harmoniously. Quite how this is possible if there is only one race is never explained.
Second, no word in the English language is confined to just one meaning. Therefore just because a word has one accepted definition does not justify us in regarding other definitions as spurious.
The meaning of any word can be deduced from the context in which it is used. Therefore when we talk about the human race, then we are presumably talking about the human species. When we talk about races, we are talking about different ethnic groups. These groups are founded upon shared ancestry and on shared racial characteristics.
On the one hand, I am inclined to argue that both of these definitions are equally valid; but then it occurs to me that the people who talk about the human race never seem to talk about the canine race or the feline race. Until they do, I will feel justified in concluding that their talk of the human race is foolish. There are many races, and I for one am proud to be a member of the white race.
Related previous posts include:
The church of England, race, and paedophiles
This item on Western Spring is also of interest.
Saturday, 12 September 2015
The murder of Jeremy Corbyn
As I write, Jeremy Corbyn has recently been announced as the new leader of the Labour Party. His victory was decisive.
Many people have argued that he is unfit to lead Britain, but consider some facts. Many MPs on both sides of the house have lined their pockets at the public expense to a quite shameful extent, whereas Jeremy Corbyn has practised more restraint than most.
Also, Prime Minister David Cameron - like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown before him - is obsessed with Britain taking part in illegal foreign wars, regardless of the cost in human life and in taxpayers' money. By contrast, Jeremy Corbyn has for many years been fairly steadfast in his opposition to foreign wars. If Britain were to stay out of illegal wars, then it could save us many billions of pounds, and yet I don't see the Conservative front bench urging restraint in this particular area.
Criticism of Jeremy Corbyn often revolves around his welcoming attitude to asylum seekers, but it is fair to point out that the Conservative Party also supports open door immigration. Also, the huge levels of migration currently being experienced in Europe have a lot to do with the illegal wars which Jeremy Corbyn professes to oppose, and also to the free movement rules of the European Union. It is worth noting that Jeremy Corbyn claims that he voted no to Britain's membership of what has become the European Union in the referendum of 1975.
And so to the question of murder. Recent opinion polls show the Conservatives ahead of Labour by a margin which is not huge, but nevertheless impressive for a party in government. At the moment therefore it does not appear likely that Jeremy Corbyn will be our next Prime Minister.
Nevertheless, public opinion can shift, and support for Labour may increase in the next few years. However I cannot see Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister, as I feel confident that he would be murdered if he ever looked set to lead his party to victory in a general election.
Not content with being opposed to war, he has also hinted at the possibility of Tony Blair being prosecuted as a war criminal. Tony Blair has many rich friends, and I can easily envisage one of them hiring an assassin to dispose of Jeremy Corbyn rather than let him become Prime Minister. Also, David Cameron must be worried that he too might be prosecuted as a war criminal under a government led by Jeremy Corbyn, and it would be very easy for him to arrange for the security services to have him murdered.
To make matters clear, I do not support the Labour Party. Nevertheless I do not condone the murder of politicians by people who want their evil friends to avoid justice for their crimes.
Update: at least two former leaders of the Labour Party have died while serving as Leader of the Opposition. Hugh Gaitskell died in January 1963 aged 56, and John Smith died in May 1994 aged aged 55.
It has often been suggested that Gaitskell was murdered, possibly by agents of the Soviet Union who wanted someone else to lead the Labour Party. I am not aware that anyone has ever claimed that John Smith was murdered.
Many people have argued that he is unfit to lead Britain, but consider some facts. Many MPs on both sides of the house have lined their pockets at the public expense to a quite shameful extent, whereas Jeremy Corbyn has practised more restraint than most.
Also, Prime Minister David Cameron - like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown before him - is obsessed with Britain taking part in illegal foreign wars, regardless of the cost in human life and in taxpayers' money. By contrast, Jeremy Corbyn has for many years been fairly steadfast in his opposition to foreign wars. If Britain were to stay out of illegal wars, then it could save us many billions of pounds, and yet I don't see the Conservative front bench urging restraint in this particular area.
Criticism of Jeremy Corbyn often revolves around his welcoming attitude to asylum seekers, but it is fair to point out that the Conservative Party also supports open door immigration. Also, the huge levels of migration currently being experienced in Europe have a lot to do with the illegal wars which Jeremy Corbyn professes to oppose, and also to the free movement rules of the European Union. It is worth noting that Jeremy Corbyn claims that he voted no to Britain's membership of what has become the European Union in the referendum of 1975.
And so to the question of murder. Recent opinion polls show the Conservatives ahead of Labour by a margin which is not huge, but nevertheless impressive for a party in government. At the moment therefore it does not appear likely that Jeremy Corbyn will be our next Prime Minister.
Nevertheless, public opinion can shift, and support for Labour may increase in the next few years. However I cannot see Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister, as I feel confident that he would be murdered if he ever looked set to lead his party to victory in a general election.
Not content with being opposed to war, he has also hinted at the possibility of Tony Blair being prosecuted as a war criminal. Tony Blair has many rich friends, and I can easily envisage one of them hiring an assassin to dispose of Jeremy Corbyn rather than let him become Prime Minister. Also, David Cameron must be worried that he too might be prosecuted as a war criminal under a government led by Jeremy Corbyn, and it would be very easy for him to arrange for the security services to have him murdered.
To make matters clear, I do not support the Labour Party. Nevertheless I do not condone the murder of politicians by people who want their evil friends to avoid justice for their crimes.
Update: at least two former leaders of the Labour Party have died while serving as Leader of the Opposition. Hugh Gaitskell died in January 1963 aged 56, and John Smith died in May 1994 aged aged 55.
It has often been suggested that Gaitskell was murdered, possibly by agents of the Soviet Union who wanted someone else to lead the Labour Party. I am not aware that anyone has ever claimed that John Smith was murdered.
Tuesday, 8 September 2015
A triple murder in Syria
The front pages of the national press today are dominated by the murder of three Muslim men in Syria. They were killed by a missile fired from a drone which was remotely guided by RAF personnel in England.
I have no problem in saying that these killings were an act of murder. David Cameron has described the killings as an act of self-defence, but this does not make sense. These men were in Syria, and were not in a position to attack the United Kingdom - or are we to believe that they too had access to missile-laden drones?
While the Prime Minister maintains that the killings were lawful, he currently refuses to publish the exact legal advice which he received, and it is reported that the relatives of the murdered men - two of whom were British nationals - can now be expected to seek legal remedies against the British government.
It is true that Article 51 of the United Nations Charter permits acts of self defence, but that I hope I am correct in assuming that this refers to situations where one country is clearly attacked by another. I find it curious however that no one ever uses Article 51 to argue for the British government sinking any Spanish military vessel which dares to enter British waters off Gibraltar.
It is however fair to point out that the United Nations is an unelected body, which is not the same as saying that its dictates should be ignored.
I have previously written extensively about the murder of Lee Rigby. Two Muslim men killed a British soldier on the streets of London, and were then shot - although not fatally - by police marksmen. They were then arrested and put on trial, were conviced of murder, and were sent to prison.
By contrast, the Muslim men who were killed by the RAF drone had not been convicted of any crime. They were sentenced to death without any trial.
I have yet to hear anyone explain the difference between Muslim men killing a British soldier in London and British soldiers killing Muslims in far-off countries.
If the killing of these three men was legal, then logically it must also be legal for the British government to kill anyone anywhere at any time - including you right now.
Related previous posts include:
Hear the words of a killer - and learn
Woolwich: more bad press coverage
I have no problem in saying that these killings were an act of murder. David Cameron has described the killings as an act of self-defence, but this does not make sense. These men were in Syria, and were not in a position to attack the United Kingdom - or are we to believe that they too had access to missile-laden drones?
While the Prime Minister maintains that the killings were lawful, he currently refuses to publish the exact legal advice which he received, and it is reported that the relatives of the murdered men - two of whom were British nationals - can now be expected to seek legal remedies against the British government.
It is true that Article 51 of the United Nations Charter permits acts of self defence, but that I hope I am correct in assuming that this refers to situations where one country is clearly attacked by another. I find it curious however that no one ever uses Article 51 to argue for the British government sinking any Spanish military vessel which dares to enter British waters off Gibraltar.
It is however fair to point out that the United Nations is an unelected body, which is not the same as saying that its dictates should be ignored.
I have previously written extensively about the murder of Lee Rigby. Two Muslim men killed a British soldier on the streets of London, and were then shot - although not fatally - by police marksmen. They were then arrested and put on trial, were conviced of murder, and were sent to prison.
By contrast, the Muslim men who were killed by the RAF drone had not been convicted of any crime. They were sentenced to death without any trial.
I have yet to hear anyone explain the difference between Muslim men killing a British soldier in London and British soldiers killing Muslims in far-off countries.
If the killing of these three men was legal, then logically it must also be legal for the British government to kill anyone anywhere at any time - including you right now.
Related previous posts include:
Hear the words of a killer - and learn
Woolwich: more bad press coverage
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)