Slash, bang, whallop

Here we have it, Boris Johnson, shows how tough he is on crime and wants to build 10.000 more prison places and increase stop and search.

We are going towards a classical double-sided society. The underlings, living in prison cells and the good people living in houses/flats.

In the old days we could see the two-way society by the way pubs were built with two entrances for the poor and the rich. The public and saloon bars.

Boris Johnson now wants to create a new society whereby everybody just gets locked up, out of the way and that creates the internment society.

Gone has the community cohesion model, the trying to build civil societies who live together in peace and harmony.

I am not against stop and search and I am not against re-introducing the 20.000 police officers that were cut from the budget but recruiting masses of police officers quickly, doesn’t exactly increase the quality control of officer that is coming to our beats.

Yet stop and search done on an aggressively large scale, can seriously push mentally instable people over the edge and we may be walking towards a new age of riots.

Whilst the new government bemoans a break-down in civil society here in Tower Hamlets all Neighbourhood Watch signs were taken down from lamp posts. Those signs were always

  • an expression of anti-crime sentiment,
  • deterrents for criminals and
  • assurance for residents.

Why remove those signs, when they are simply a positive influence on the community? And whilst removing Neighbourhood Watch signs, which always introduced a better feeling of community spirit and increased attempts of community cohesion and simply replace all by a quick lock up and shut up policy?

It seems we are trending towards the Chinese model of building internmnet centres for re-education, and assisted living.

It is totally amazing that the government suddenly can find the funds to build 10.000 new prison places but is unable to build council housing in the same scale.

Advertisements

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.

 

 

 

 

 

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?

kicking cans

If the promise to leave the EU is as strong as the promise to reduce carbon emissions to zero by 2050 are of the same strenght, then we can assume that this government is just a promise but no action government.

What we get are sincere, deep voices, manly promises, but nothing changes, really.

Greenpeace thought of getting the grey cells of some politicians into motion but that didn’t have any effect, other than being pushed out of the event.

Action speaks louder than words but words are all what some people can come up with. The dinners, the speeches, the outfits, the glamour.

I am not certain that our politicians these days have the mental capacity or even flexibility to actually change anything that moves them out of their current comfort zones.

I don’t care whether we get Brexit or not, but what I care about is that our quality of life increases.

And I don’t believe those who say they are so totally Green because they all use medications and modern technology that was borne out of dirty production methods and using fossil fuels. They all have cars and use flights.

We need to start somewhere and how about changing the way we fund and perceive our schools?

Why not make sure that all schools are enabling our pupils and future generations to breathe in clean air? That all our pupils get plenty of palying fields and green spaces?

If we really want to change our lives, we need to change the way we calculate profits, taxes and distribution of wealth, ownership. In fact we need to redefine the meaning of wealth to include

  • health
  • environment

You cannot sell a walk in the forest for profit, you cannot sell the rainforest because it needs to be wild and just as it is. You cannot sell the ocean because it needs to stay and we cannot sell the north or south pole because we need it just as it is.

Yet there are two things, which are wars and space exploration, which create more carbon emission than a lot of other items. Also the production of white goods and anything that uses metals is highly contageous. Calculate your carbon footprint here.

Lets think about that for a while.

Removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere using machines is simply not creating the bio diversity we need to keep the environment healthy and evacuating from earth to another planet is nothing but wishful dreaming.

I must admit, I just love living in our civilisation, the freedom that women can have would be not even half as good in a primitive low carbon society.

Yet there is still the possibility of an educated low carbon society, something we probably all dream about. Articles 25 and 26 of the Universal Human Rights deal with health and education whilst the vast majority of paragraphs deal with legal definitions of personal freedoms.

Perhaps that declaration of Human Rights, should include taking care of our planet as an obligation and right for all of us.

Equality impossible

It is good to see that we are not the same after all, despite the government trying to force through the annihilation of the genders. Female RAF recruits won a substantive payout to compensate them for march damage.

Women had to carry the same weight as men and walk in the same leg stride of 30 inches, the same as 6 foot high men. Now female soldiers are no longer required to have leg strides longer than 27 inches. One female recruit then suffered 4 pelvic fractures and was medically discharged. Read the full story.

A roof over your head

Have you noticed how the sale of tents has become more popular, that people with monkey like feet are likely to start climbing and living in trees again?

A Spanish Mayor has declared that all those who live in his town since 2 years have a right to a home. So far so good. That is not different from our own region. Even here in London, people who live here have a right to a roof over their heads. People are even housed in luxurious hotels at an astonishing cost per night to fulfil the right to a home obligation.

It seems that just the methods are different between the London and Marinaleda town.

In Marinaleda the Mayor Juan Manuel Sanchez Gordillo says “A home should be a right and not a business”. Here in London the right to a home is coupled with the right of making a business out of home provision.

In the Spanish town individual residents are given actual land and bricks and expertise to build their own permanent house on permanent land, whilst here in London the homeless are given temporary accommodation that is making those who own it immense profits. It seems the Spanish solution simply costs the tax payer lots of money. The mayor there has gone so far as to repossess houses from banks who took them of those who failed to keep up with mortgage repayments.

The Secretary-General for Housing in Andalusia, Amanda Meyer, says thousands of families were “tricked” into taking out a mortgage and that their situation is now “hellish”. Of course many here in the Britain, the rest of Europe and anywhere in the world can feel this if they followed advise to purchase their own home and then lost their jobs. With an unemployment rate of 37% it is kind of quite obvious that not all those on the dole can be expected to purchase tents and populate the roads around towns.

Such rural solutions would not be thinkable here in London.Is there any multi-national company that offers to built homes for the homeless unemployed in Spain?

Cameron dismantles the state

This Conservative government, assisted by the Liberal Democrats, systematically dismantles the state.

We see

  • reduction in police officers
  • reduction in fire services
  • reduction in A & E and health services

Yet the government constantly asks for more volunteering but if you do volunteer you get no benefits.

It is impossible to volunteer without a job and without benefits. Fact is the state cannot rely on volunteers, services cannot rely on volunteers, we are left with nothing but a stronger EDL.

Volunteering  is essentially a private function but the government interferes with your right to do this private activity by stopping benefits for volunteering.

When e-mails get snooped on, all we actually will be able to do safely is visit government website, e.g. Directgov jobmatch and exchange e-mails with employers. Everything else is going to be suspicious and gives them reason to suspend our benefits. We are going to be unable to have any private communications.

The recent Woolwich attack is not reason to snoop on private communications, as the security services themselves said, that unplanned actions cannot be monitored and they said the Woolwich attack was unplanned. But that nonetheless gives Boris Johnson the idea to call for more monitoring of private communications.

Universal credit will slowly eradicate humanity

Universal credit, if applied around the globe would result in the eradication of the human race as it will severely affect people’s ability to have children. But whilst I previously argued that over-population is one important factor in earth warming, it is only so because we burn fossil fuels.

There is no point in shutting down humanity to stop global warming at all. We need to ensure that people can have children, even if there are no jobs. What this government is doing is a crime on humanity as it blames locals for the fact that no jobs are available and I think this government is paid probably by foreign forces to slow the multiplication of westernised individuals.

A lot of jobs have been out-sourced to eastern countries and they are the only people to benefit from economic growth.

I think this government should be tried for treason.

No witches please we are civilised

Having heard that the song “Ding dong the witch is dead” made 3rd spot in this week’s charts, of course that is an incredible coincidence that this occurs the week after Margaret Thatcher’s death, I started to think about this a little bit.

I thought what is the cause of the problem, is it Lady Thatcher or is it the ill-begotten habit that people have with witches?

Women have been burned as witches, quartered, ridiculed, outcast, you name it.  And very unfortunately the witch saga is continued in the very popular film the Wizard of Oz, that happens to deal with good and evil. But apparently in the film there is a good witch and a bad witch, but the song celebrates the death of the bad witch.

Why don’t we just stop using the term witch completely and so clear our minds of bad discriminatory and sexist habits?

The next step down is the ridicule of the Mother in Law, though  this is not so strong but equally sexist ridicule of a lady in authority. The term witch is also pagan and not Christian.

This sexist ridicule of decent women has become very much ingrained into our social behaviour that people won’t even stop using it at the burial of a former Prime Minister.

I am more than certain that there are plenty of men who made harsh decisions whilst in political office but nobody would find a compatible way to ridicule them,would they?

The dialectic of law and politics

I suppose I have to read up on that because the latest development in the Home Office makes me cringe with desire to learn about the subjects. Theresa May wants judges not to interfere with decisions made in parliament.

The lady makes a very good trilogy of thought stating that: “It is about how to balance rights against each other: in particular, the individual’s right to family life, the right of the individual to be free from violent crime, and the right of society to protect itself against foreign criminals,” she said.

There I would say ad hoc that a society should want to protect itself against any type of criminal and that it may be sensible to not let foreign criminals in when we already have local ones.

Yet laws are there as an overriding objective so to speak, that forces parliaments to couch legislation within the laws already present. Thought it must be very difficult to stream politics in a variation direction from existing laws.

Having looked at the budget proposals of the EU it seems that the smallest proportion of money has actually been put aside for the legal process, which probably explains why the European Court of Human Rights refuses 85% of applications on grounds of admissibility. Only the most prominent cases get heard generally. The question is whether there is even the capacity in the courts to rule on all legal questions effectively. The current Human Rights laws are determined by EU laws but the current budget shows that out of 960 Billion Euros, only about 9 billion go to court expenses. See page 6 of this document for individual breakdown till 2020.

I think the European Court would be more effective if they tried more individual cases to give better guidance to countries in how they apply laws in their regions. Yet UK courts have a duty to refer cases to the ECHR if they are not sure how to apply legislation and that is why an Appellant can then appeal decisions instead of making  comments in the political arena.

 

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 52,762 hits