Protest as a fashion accessory

Just as I didn’t know what to watch after Wallace and Gromit, I switched to the remainder of the Liberal hustings to hear the end of the discussion. It went like this:

Question: “Do you think we should curb internal flights?”

[Answer: “I don’t think that is feasible at the moment, we need to invest in transport infrastructure. But I went to protest with my  5-year old with Extinction Rebellion over the weekend”]

Policitians who make decisions about this climate emergency have no fear of delaying immediate action to stop environmentally unfriendly behaviour and most likely commute a lot by car and plane but do go to Extinction Rebellion demos, block traffic for others, to have a bit of fun on the weekend.

So I do not bother going to those demos to say there is a climate emergency. I rather live environmentally friendly, it is not a weekend fashion for me, it is important.

What really should be done by our politicians, they should immediately make the money available to build the infrastructure and not think of investing in the future at some point in the future.

Climate change is happening now, a dangerous heatwave is hitting the US, lakes are drying out, we need to change now.

We won’t find any entrepreneurs putting money into saving the environment, it has to come from governments spending money on saving the environment everywhere.

Advertisements

Happiness, the forbidden word

sculpture st. pancrasThe per-pupil funding formula leads to huge, overcrowded schools, which leave no time for enjoying education. Pupils are perched into class-rooms like chickens in a coop.

Pupils are stuffed in their hundreds and thousands into the smallest available space and treated as profit making goods to get as much yield per square metre of pupil occupied in relation to GCSE results achieved.

Of course the law of probability will ensure that the more pupils there are, the more top results will be achieved. Perhaps a couple per hundred achieve top results.

So any school that has a huge building, with even more pupils can kid themselves by saying, they provide quality education because a few of their pupils achieved top marks. Smaller schools will find it harder to get the same success total. If a dense school achieves 10 out of 2.000 top achievers, a small school will probably only produce 1 out of 200.

It then comes down to cost spent per top grade achieved. It is no longer about the person.

If it was and researched and the research would be publicised to show how much knife crime originates from over-crowded schools, how much misery and despair follows in the aftermath of production line style education follows, we would see a sudden change in attitudes, yet those figures are never made public in that context.

I dare to say that our increase in knife crime and gangs is a direct result of per pupil funding, bigger schools and absent parents, who work for the work program.

The government believes a crowded school is more rewarding, cheaper to run with bigger yields.

So our not so clever government tends to rate all schools, that manage to educate hundreds of kids like robots on an assembly line with top Ofsted ratings simply because a small percentage of the huge pool of pupils get top grades.

If those pupils then can actually behave on the day of the Ofsted inspection, the school can get a world class rating. Ofsted puts no weight on pupil’s mental health, physical health or happiness. Well they look a bit at healthy meals, but that’s all.

Happiness, is the forbidden word.

Smaller schools, which can actually find the time and space to allow for some personal freedom to build meaningful relationships with teachers or among pupils are only possible in either private schools or such remote environments, that there are naturally very few children around.

The government has to change the per pupil funding formula and Ofsted has to consider mental, physical and academic health of pupils. Ofsted should enquire about any reports of stressed behaviour, how many pupils bunk off, how many have eating disorders, mental health issues, learning disability and special needs, the amounts of bullying, the air quality, the green space, academic, sporting, craft, arts achievement, all important factors to ensure a young person can develop a great personality.

Sexist Tower Hamlets

Please can anybody who has the time to support a protest at the Tower Hamlets Council Town Hall next week on 17. July 2018 from 17:30 onwards. Many parents from the school will be attending an academic reward evening that the brilliant Raine’s Foundation hosts for hard-working pupils at Raine’s Foundation school on that day.  Please read the latest up-date on the protest in an East London Advertiser article.

So far the protests have brought the council to amend the consultation documents on 3. July due to the legal pressure that the Steering Group has brought.

Raines-summer-concert-2019

End of term summer concert, which the new headmaster Patrice Cavanan failed to attend.

Any plans to transfer pupils to Oaklands school are not very popular. Tonight’s school concert was not even attended by Patrice Cavanan, the Oaklands head teacher who is now in charge of Raine’s.

It does’t matter how many rainbow flags and rainbow pedestrian crossings Tower Hamlets has installed, when it comes to education, they give boys’ education preference by using a simple trick.

The agenda of the full council meeting on 17. July 2019 lists 3 petitions:

CCTV, Stepney Green school, Raine’s Foundation school.

By only counting the signatories on petitions for schools from residents actually living in Tower Hamlets, the council ignores almost half the Raine’s school signatories and gives the school less importance than Stepney Green because they received more Tower Hamlets based signatories simply because the parents who want to stay that school boys only reside in Tower Hamlets.

Local parents want to prevent Stepney Green school from becoming a mixed school and want it to stay boys only.

Of course this shows that there are a lot of parents in Tower Hamlets who prefer boys education alone and who do not want girls mixed up. A time-lapse into old-fashioned values perhaps? Malala has been shot for defending girl’s education.

Raine’s Foundation school, is Church of England affiliated and provides an excellent all-round education for children from all genders. The school runs an online petition. To date 2,859 have actually signed the petition but the council counts less than 2,000 signatures because they don’t live in Tower Hamlets.

Yet the catchment area for Raine’s isn’t exclusive to Tower Hamlets, pupils are coming from all the neighbouring boroughs but the council only counts signatories from Tower Hamlets itself.

That is highly discriminating. Hence the parents that want a school to stay a boys school get more time at the council to debate their issue than the parents who want their school for all to stay open.

 

 

It’s all about the money, money

Whilst the Taxpayers Alliance stimulates people to vote Tory to avoid higher taxes, tax payers are taken to the cleaners by private finance initiatives like ‘buying council flats’, which cost them loads more money than paying a little more tax. Many people have been defrauded by crooks exploiting vulnerabilities of private investors.

I am trying to keep out of current affairs, yet today’s politicians don’t seem to look further than just in front of their noses. There are no long-term goals indicated in policies.

It’s out of the EU, free trade deals with the US but no longer-term plans on how to avoid incremental costs with all those extra risk factors that are accumulated through trade deals with far-away countries.

There are talks about reducing carbon rich activities, but how does bulk trade with far-away countries reduce the amount of carbon that is generated through transport. How do we avoid bad-weather disturbances of container ship transports?

Unfortunately today’s politics do not ask people to look at the basics, but their minds get fixed on ideologically tinted ideologies.

It were American manufacturers who supplied most of that faulty cladding that adornes our tower blocks and which cost a fortune to leaseholders to remove. They also manufactured the faulty tumble dryers.

Leaving the EU in favour of American trade deals will be very expensive according to this social media profile: @BarnabyEdwards

Costs broken down per day, per person:

  • EU membership £ 0.35 per person per day.
  • Cost of Brexit since 2016: £ 0.91 per person per day
  • Est. cost of Brexit: £ $.15 per person per day
  • Est. cost of No-deal Brexit: £ 5.81 per person per day
  • Nigel Farage’s earning from publicity since 2016: £ 541.10 per day.

Whilst our current government constantly claims to deliver the cheapest options, I am not so sure that those following all the advice, especially including private ownershp of council homes, actually make much money out of it.

I think it would be much more sensible if the Americans (US) concentrate on improving relationships with their neighbours (like Mexico) instead of constantly building walls and the same should be said about every other geographical region. If all continents make strong relations within themselves, we will all have better chances of getting a better life.

We do need world-peace and will not achieve it if we cannot make peace with our neighbours.

It’s like a desease that everywhere we look there are these pockets of aggressive conflict and it seems to be catching like a virus.

Nothing compares

A lot of things are trying to compare something to Malala Yousafzai. Yet Malala is completely unique. She is unique in her quest to establish better girls education because she comes from a country that is notorious trying to prevent girls from getting to grip with any kind of academic concept. Malala has become a world-wide ambassador for better girls education.

Malala was almost killed by Taleban fighters, shot in the head, but luckily survived to be a great role model for girls around the world.

That fact, that girls need education is true for every culture in the world. However, since people’s mix and move and mingle in other geographical locations, secular principles are a good idea. I support it that countries forbid their civil servants, including teachers to wear religious symbols at work. Every person, girl or boy has the right to a great education and if everybody gets the same treatment, we all have the same chances.

That should not stop churches or relgions to run schools, anybody with the correct qualifications can run a school and educate pupils. We are attending a local Church of England school and we love that the school is not too pragmatic and doesn’t enforce stereo-typical relgious practises. Some churches, have too much dogma and cannot successfully run their schools in a multi-cultural environment.

Of course most countries, have developed certain holidays around relgious beliefs that had been held over centuries but even that  phases out gradually, the more pople mix. Many people still are accustomed to practises they were taught as children and carry on through families, and it will take a long time to ease out of this.

Most schools now educate on a variety of religions, during religious education classes, which could be further enriched with Humanist content.

We are more tolerant generally in western countries and allow people time to neutralise their relgious belief; the Chinese however actively re-educate and tear people away from their familar surroundings in tailor-made camps. The tactic to take children away from families now becomes more popular and is even practised in the USA to deal with immigrants. Yet the Chinese seem to treat the children better than the US.

The Chinese have the space and resources to build such huge camps, we in smaller countries would never have the space to do so. We slowly integrate. We develop methods like having to speak the host country language and making people work in jobs their religion would normally forbid. We establish laws that contradict some relgions and enforce them on the whole population.

We out-lawed forced marriage, domestic violence, genital mutilation and our laws force all children into education.

 

 

 

 

 

Enlightenment

I love a book full of statistics. It saves me compiling them and luckily there are always plenty of published number crunches to relate to.

When I started reading Steven Pinker’s book Enlightenment Now, I started to feel, he was a little too simplistic and tries to make a case that the rich make the live of the poor easier and better.

I do however like the slant on Humanism in the under-title. And whilst I am now on the Environment chapter, I am starting to get interested.

Frightening though the samples Steven Pinker gives by quoting Paul Watson who wants to radically reduce humanity to fewer than one billion.

sand desert blue sky egypt

Photo by David McEachan on Pexels.com

I think that is a very dangerous approach. I belief that the Egyptian Pharaoh culture simply died because the Egyptians spent too many of their scarce resources  on building the pyramids. With the technology available at the time, most of the human labour available must have gone into shaping those stones and putting them into the triangular shapes that built the Pyramids. People didn’t have enough time to spend on planting, harvest and dealing with environmental emergencies or attacks from other forces. Nor did they have the time to develop better technogies.

If we reduce humanity to the bare existence level, we will suffer similar consequences by not being able to sustain technology, which was only able to develop because we have gotten so much spare resources laying around.

Our lifestyles now are becoming increasingly inflexible. We rely more and more on the same habits to do all things each day. We regulate every spare niche of our lives with increasingly complicated laws. This inflexibility in itself is a major hindrance on making real progress. We cannot possibly maintain all that technology with few people.

person holding save our planet sign

Photo by Markus Spiske temporausch.com on Pexels.com

We cannot possibly change our world by leaving it the way it is and try to reduce our carbon foot prints alone.

The fact that Amazon rainforest countries demand the right to develop their lands puts a big dampener on our enthusiams, which rely on the existence of the rainforest.

We need to come to an international agreement that we either re-settle all peoples who reside in current rain forest regions and settle them in other nations. Or another possibility is forcing all nations to have a certain amount of forest areas within each country.

The latter option will require a lot of loss of sovereignity of each nation on the planet. Whilst we cannot even cope with Europe at present, how are we going to enter world-wide agreements?

One major source of pollution is travel and air travel causes more air pollution than previously thought.

We need to radically change values and the calculation of wealth from purely being a plus in the bank acount to being a whollistic view on positive contribution to global wealth including the health of the planet.

Humanism is the best way to achieve this because we cannot continually kick each other’s backsides but believing that God loves us all whilst we destroy each other and the planet. For what, a better afterlife? The Egyptians beliefed in a great afterlife.

 

shifting responsibility

Look at it at very basic principles. The Conservative government wants to get rid of any government led service provision and shift the responsibilities for everything onto the private individual.

That principle is what led to a recent tribunal decision whereby leaseholders of a block of flats lost and have to foot the bill for £3.000.000 worth of cladding removal, fire patrols and developers legal fees.

photo of green leaf potted plants on window and stand

Photo by Daria Shevtsova on Pexels.com

It is simply this principle of transferring everything from government to individuals, the principle of personal freedom and less taxes for all, that makes the indivduals pay.

Previously and post-war we had council estates, provided by local authorities, maintained and paid for and rented out.

I remember on our estate, the first flats for sale went for £5.000 for a 2 bedroom flat. Crazy prices. After that prices went gradually up to £5.000 for a 3-bedroom flat and now the prices are at £300.000 and rising for small flats.

But the difference is that every leaseholder is still responsible or all the costs of the block.

When I go to a residents meeting, most attendees are leaseholders and proud to be so but all are complaining about their costs. Apparently most of our Labour councillors are also all leaseholders of flats. So there is little difference in the Labour and Conservative activities.

It used to be Labour pro council housing and pro renting out. Now it’s all a mish-mash of ill-thought out policies and practises.

It simply is not working and people are deeply unhappy about the whole situation.

Nobody seems to practise what they preach anymore. There are no clear lines.

Obviously the sale of council flats has made living more expensive for everyone and raised the stress-levels. So why do it?

Can’t invade the rainforest

Just to follow on my previous post about the rainforest, I want to specialise in particular on how education forms the brain and is responsible for the thought processes taught in school.

I am not saying I hate those who have been misled but I am saying change the way we educate our children to stop that specialisation in short-term profit thinking.

It was perfectly possible to invade Iraq, Afthanistan, Germany and any other similar countries to stop genocide and war but it is not possible to invade the rainforest to stop deforestation. We cannot drop bombs onto trees to save the trees, the way we can drop bombs onto buildings and people to stop murderous regimes.

What human evolution sees at present is a part-time brain development, which sees people specialise in certain subjects.

We see people specialising only in their region and making as much profit as possible within and for their region without taking into account that the whole planet needs to function to make regional development sustainable.

Yet, education in developed countries hasn’t even touched what is required to maintain our planet.

Private education stupefies students to think about making profit, lead a country to obtain certain political goals, which are mainly profit related whilst state education or social education concentrates on wider issues like social responsibility.

I am a vehement opponent of private versus state education systems. I am in total favour of only one education system teaching all.

If we teach social and planetary responsibility in schools we will very soon get to the point that currently only each country that has rainforest within actually owns this rainforest.

That is simply how our legal minds work these days, you need to own and if you own you have total power over what you own.

British elite political thinking currently wants to turn away from collective responsibiliy by leaving the EU. But it doesn’t stop at the EU, it stops at the point where the whole earths’ ecosystem is in danger because we do not own the rainforest together as a collectively important earth environment.

There is no other way as creating earth collective ownership if we want to preserver any type of natural self-regulation on the planet. Even as EU states we all need to work towards earths preservation with rules that apply to all nations.

We need to get away from our indivindualistic profit making mentality and work together as human beings who have only one planet to live on.

the rainforest

Is without question one of the most importent assets of our planet. It is concentrated on various geographical locations. Lets take Brazil here as an example.

green leafed trees under blue sky

The typical British countrydise, cleared of forest, ready for farming. Photo by Lisa Fotios on Pexels.com

Of course us developed nations we have already cleared a lot of our forests and developed our lands. We in Britain even talk about becoming self-sufficient farming-wise to justify us leaving the EU without a deal.

For that of course we need to farm the land and clear probably even more forest.

We really do love to rely on the rain forest. The untouched and virgin rain forest, that same rain forest that saves our planet.

But what about those nationas that are couched within the rainforest areas. Nations like Brazil. Do their citizens not have the right to farm, to develp the land, to get skills-based jobs that are based within their national borders.

scenic view of rainforest

Rainforst    Photo by Arnie Chou on Pexels.com

Whilst we here in Britain demand that we can become independent of others, we do expect nations within the rainforest regions to leave that forest and just not devleop, to depend on others, help others, so that we developed countries can stay developing ourselves.

What are the nationals within the rainforest countries supposed to be doing?

Nobody has thought about this and I think that just shows how stupid our privately educated politicians and business leaders are because all they can think of is themselves.

It is an international problem and it needs nations to work together. But of course our political leaders only think about Brexit and becoming indendent from Europe and use the resources of other nations to bolster our own wealth.

The rainforest? The rainforest is depended upon that it stays as it is. So what about putting that thinking cap on?

fast movers

red bus on road near big ben in london

Photo by Daria Shevtsova on Pexels.com

The urban myth that you need a car in London to get around, is really a myth. Scientific examination of transport has proven the following:

The following numbers came up or moving people around town:

  • 22.000 people using trains
  • 19.000 people walking
  • 14.000 people cycling
  • 9.000 people using buses
  • 2.000 people using private cares.

Read about all the details on New Scientist from where I gotten those numbers.

I had a dad who worked just down the road and needed to take his car to drive there. So that car dependence is just a little bit of an addiction.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan will let us have a car-free day on 22. September 2019. I love the idea, better than the whinging Boris Johnson always did talk about needing large family saloons all the time.

Apparently Talk London is consulting on having car-free days once a month. Bring it on.

London Transport is amazing, with Central Line trains running every minute.

 

 

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries

Blog Stats

  • 52,738 hits