surpressing creativity

I am an ardent follower of BBC programs. Perhaps it has been chiselled into my brain to stay tuned to BBC TV programs because it was my first place of work here in Britain.

Yet, watching BBC TV has become a bit of a chore. Has it to do with financial constraints or do they just not want to provide varied and interesting programs.

Whilst I think the presenters are all very nice people, to constantly show us the same antique programs has become boring. How to buy, sell, value antiques has gotten to the major TV sensation. We can even see those programs first thing in the morning.

Then there is endless cookery and not just once, those programs repeat constantly. Whilst Strictly come Dancing is very enjoyable, it seems that all the nicety ends there.

Yes, we have the hospital soaps, those along with East Enders are now used to help people diagnose and deal with common mental ailments. Sort of community grievance hubs.

I completely stopped watching the after-nine programs, which usually contain murder of one type or another, as they make me feel very uncomfortable.

So what is there to do? Winter will put restrictions on what we can do out-doors. But I do not want to have to spend on a lot of money on channel subscriptions. There are now a lot of them.

Perhaps volunteering is one way to get out and be useful. It is however hard to find voluntary roles, which also help with creativity.

I am just wondering whether the monotone repetitiveness of BBC TV programs is due to a lack of money or whether the main British channel, e.g. the BBC do not want to allow foreign viewers to get an insight into the minds of people. Anyhow why do they worry about the TV license, they won’t have a lot of viewers left at this rate.

Well we are putting on a jolly good show about the Brexit debate, minds have not been opened further ever before, but that is where it stops.

Mind you, for foreign intellegence services, having to transcribe and monitor all those debates will be very time-consuming, so I wonder whether there is a tactic behind the method on one hand to bore foreign viewers to death with constantly the same stuff or antiques or cooking and on the other hand keep them busy with our political discussion to disable them from being effective in their own right.

The British have long been brilliant tacticians, but lets hope it stays this way.

Advertisements

Women’s pensions

That is the state of how pensions changes affect women and men according to government statistics.

pension-peopleaffected-nc

It clearly shows that women are adversely affected during the early implementation period.

The court case will come to a conclusion today and I surely hope we’ll win because I was badly affected by the pension change. I did expect my pension age 60 and was totally baffled when I received that letter that I will not get my pension until I am 62 1/2 about 9 months prior to becoming 60. Then suddenly the Work and Pensions department madly pushed me into work quickly.

So watch this space, I shall continue this post later.

See source

So the court has decided against the women, one reason was, “Rather it equalises a historic asymmetry between men and women and thereby corrects historic direct discrimination against men.”

Women historically were encouraged to be wife and mother and to equalise the assymetry between men and women is not to punish the women for doing what they were encouraged to do.

Against brothels

What I really hate is legalised prostitution. Having to sell your body is just about the one thing that people must not be forced to do. My biggest fear of Germany is that prostitution is legalised in that country and that is why I would never have had children in that country I suppose.

You just imagine, you send your kid to school and then, once they finished education, they get a letter from the Department of Employment telling them to go for an interview in a brothel and if they do not attend, they loose their entitlement to unemployment benefit.

How horrible is that!!!

Because if sex work is a legalised activity, then children will be groomed into the profession from a very young age, as it is already happening in India, where girls as young as 7 get prepared into sex work. Further up in Asia they sell girls from the age of 7 into marriage, a similar slave trait.

Personal freedom must be that the one bastion that is us, must be our body. Just as our home is our castle, so our bodies have to be our first priority to choose what we want to do with it or not.

We have some very good personal protection laws in Britain and we have to be careful not to overstep the mark and loose the right to protect our bodies from harm.

So being against Brexit doesn’t mean that I would want to accept German employment laws, I am only in it for the close proximity of land mass.

I have not heard much about that point in for or against Brexit discussions.

 

 

Keeping the poor in poverty

This government’s employment, education and housing strategy is mainly aimed at keeping the poor in a position of legal servitude. We have entered the age of modern slavery.

“The government had an opportunity to help support the most disadvantaged people in the UK but has instead wasted over half a million pounds,” said Lord Jay, chairman of the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee.

The government even refuses to spend £3.5 Million of Eurpoean Union Funding for the alleviation of child poverty and already had to hand back £580.000 of unspent cash, given by the EU as funding to the UK.

So all those Brexit arguments saying we could spend money we give to the EU on ourselves, is simply a lying trick to hype up the Brexit agenda. They have no intention of making things better for our poor families.  See source article. 

Boris makes a stand

I must say I rather admire Boris’ attitude towards opposition that does not use quality questions and arguments to dismantle his plans. That is what I would have expected in a quality argument and political debate. Boris called them scientific names, oooh.

Much more important for us all, is the fact that Boris came out with information that he is following advice from senior London Fire Brigade leaders that recommended cutting down on fire stations and reducing the number of fire fighters in London.

Now that is something interesting. I just wonder where this information is, who are the senior officers that gave the advice? That is a basis to have discussions but not fast moving amendments that are based on the lack of or late attendance of a County Hall board member to move a vote.

I am rather disappointed with the general press reporting from the BBC. I have not had any decent tables, statistics from them but the usual lukewarm reporting that stimulates political adventurous argument with little substance.

Since yesterday it was also more difficult to find the actual article on the BBC website that explains why the Mayor rejects the budget change move.Of course Boris is under a clear duty to follow the advice of senior Fire chiefs, who recommend cuts in services. I want to know the details of those recommendations Boris, who said what and when. Perhaps it is to find on the LFB website where the policy papers are displayed. I have not read them yet, as I only have so much time to read and browse, I am already kept busy with BBC articles, from which I expect a certain depth and content.

Boris argues quite correctly that if he has recommendation from Senior Fire chiefs to cut services, that it would be a fruitless exercise to ask rate payers to pay even a penny more to keep services that are not needed. It would have been much better to bring quality questions to the Mayor to publicly demand those services stay with quality statistical arguments rather than move a fast motion. That doesn’t raise my confidence in the opposition at all.

PS: I am a little confused about the original article I read this morning because now an article appears, saying that Boris’ plans had been pushed back and there is now consultation.

BBC correspondent Iain Watson calls benefit recipients scroungers

This how I have to interpret this article found on the BBC website. I quote the whole sentences as published together and it says: ”

The BBC’s political correspondent Iain Watson said: “Next week, Labour will vote against government proposals to cap the rise in most benefits to just 1%.

‘Tough and fair’

“So they’re keen not to be seen as ‘soft on scroungers’ and to show they have their own solution to bringing down the benefits bill.”

I think its rather strange that a BBC correspondent should call benefit recipients scroungers. After all it is the government’s policy to favour redundancies, which are made by companies to increase profit and reduce worker in their companies, the so-called efficiency sackings and redundancies. A company is always allowed to reduce a work force to satisfy shareholders and increase profits and the workers who lost their jobs are then called scroungers.

But, at 9:36 the BBC completely re-wrote the article and the parts quoted above are no longer on their site.

Obese get a star on their coat

Oh no, I forgot to mention the government doesn’t just plan to hunt down all obese people, they only want to punish those obese people who are on benefits. This news has turned up on various news sites and I first thought it was a joke, but the more I search, the more it creeps up in mainstream media. There is the BBC article, the Mail online and the Guardian, to name a few. As far as I understand current comments, all those reporting sites think the idea is bonkers. Bonkers is in fashion lets not forget it.

I am just wondering how this is to work in practise. In my experience a vast amount of obese people work in the health service and in social services, council services and other related community care services. Would it look like this that if an obese benefit claimant comes for their money, that an obese worker can tell them the benefit claimant is too obese to get the money but the obese worker can stay in their job obese simply because they got a job?

Currently the government already suggest to discriminate against overweight police officers and wants to stage police pay according to physical fitness. But that is already questionable; yet to apply the same principle to benefit recipients would mean that benefit recipients get treated like government employees to some extent as both police officers and benefit claimants would get a reduction in pay because of obesity.

Yet other employees can happily stay fat.

This however means that the demand on health services would be higher from obese employed persons rather than those on benefits. Isn’t that just discrimination?

Well, I remember well the picture in my mind, that Hitler forced young men to do wheelies on a beach to keep fit. I know plenty of gay people who are perfectly slim and they are then model citizens to us all because they are gay but slim?

It seems that this government concentrates on benefit claimants and puts them under more and more pressure. But the amount of health care employed people use also affects the benefits others can get because health care costs are part of the common pot of money that is available to us all.

Lets not forget very efficient service providers want to cut costs all the time, they want to cut jobs, all that will create jobless and those jobless are going to get treated like outcasts simply because they fell victim to the latest economy drive. So it can happen, that an obese worker one day tells an obese benefit claimant is unable to get their money but when the obese worker finds themselves out of a job, they get no benefit either. People we are all in the same boat so to speak.

I think it would be much more clever to ask ourselves why people feel so stressed that they feel a need to over-eat, over-drink, over-smoke and do other things in excess too.

New Year’s Honours

I think that it is quite remarkable how the BBC makes public opinion in a not so good way. The BBC tried very hard to concentrate on the problem that occurred for Mr Hogan-Howe as Met Police Commissioner and the Pleb Gate affair. For Mr Hogan-Howe the Honour bestowed to him by the Queen in the 2013 New Year’s Honours list could not have come at a better time But just as the BBC closely reported on the Pleb-Gate affair, it would have been better, I think, to also report in head-line news that Hogan-Howe has gotten Knight  Bachelor and the wording on his honour says, I quote: “Bernard Hogan-Howe QPM is a role model for single-minded crime fighting. He oversaw a 30% fall in crime over three years as Chief Constable of Merseyside; anti-social behaviour fell by 20% in a single year. Now Metropolitan Police Commissioner, he has brought new energy to action on gangs, guns and knife crime, using zero tolerance tactics and sustaining front line visibility. He oversaw the policing of London during the Diamond Jubilee, and the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.”

Whilst many good people of the UK got double honours by getting medals in the games and getting into the New Year’s Honours list for many public servants getting the Queen’s Honour is a lifeline at a time when public perception makes them questionable turbulent news.

In this particular case I think the BBC should stir less and report more. They do a lot of selective reporting to steer people’s sentiments into particular directions.

Ken Lvingstone, I think has made a very good point, similar to Danny Boyle. Both worked for the Olympic Games 2012 and were offered New Year’s Royal Honours and both turned them down. Ken Livingstone saying, he already got paid for the work and it was part of his job and Danny Boyle did not want to become special above everybody else.

It does seem that very many people get these honours just for doing their jobs for which they get paid. So why are some getting honours for doing their jobs well and others don’t. It does seem to put the spanner into the works of day to day relationships between people, that some get honours and some don’t.

For winning Olympic sports, the athletes already get medals and the UK medals were bigger and worth more than the usual ones. It is a sporting honour to win and that way they get sponsored for with huge tax payer’s support already.

I think that honours should be reduced to the very special few who do work that is of particular national importance or is voluntary and does not get other recognition.

But it is not as such I think a personal achievement for the Queen to give out honours, it is merely a national appreciation ceremony, which is frankly not necessary on that vast scale. In the UK people start to expect an honour just for doing what others do in any case, just to do good for their country, for wanting to prop up their pride in their own abilities and they do not get any special honours for doing so.

But does it mean that those who get the honours do their jobs better than those who do not in similar posts? It is a rather embarrassing concept I must say because why should some do get an honour and others don’t for doing equally well? Considering that people who do get honours are not necessarily living a clean lifestyle, as the case of Jimmy Savile shows and later have to be stripped of their honours, shows that the whole concept is rather childish.

And another resignation

The new Director General at the BBC has already resigned his post. He doesn’t seem to be able to get it right. First he was criticised for not reporting with Newsnight about a child abuse scandal to do with Jimmy Savile and now DG Enthwistle resigns because the Newsnight report was inappropriate.

The BBC has steadily declined in public confidence over the years and I think it is because they elevated themselves a little bit too much to be judge and jury of the UK in almost every aspect of our lives. At one point a BBC reporter was actually jailed for committing personal fraud by breaking housing benefit laws whilst happily trashing others on the BBC’s Rogue Traders programme.

Politically tainted reporting has steered the public mood and the BBC became much more than just a reporting service for all sorts of news but has become a moral judging ground for the public with the result that the BBC has fallen victim to its own success in the end.

We are now getting to realise pretty fast how easily press freedom works to the detriment of the media,who know that you cannot just say what comes to mind and not cause violations of public confidence at the same time.

Of course the BBC excelled brilliantly in times of foreign attack, when it merely defended the world against cross breaches of human rights in times of warfare, but now it has tried to morally judge day to day occurences in all walks of life and that simply didn’t work out at  all.

On the whole it is very positive that wrong-doings in public services comes to light and gets dealt with. Whether its abuse by church officials, broadcasters or others, it is important to curb it and rid society of two-faced evil-doers.

Breivik trial has started

I see from the BBC website that the Breivik trial is the most watched item there. The mood in the court room is grim in that the present persons have to listen to gruesome accounts of killings of mostly innocent young people, whereby the mostly relates here to the age of victims and not to their status of innocent because clearly all victims were innocent.

Whilst the BBC broadcast most of the proceedings they refuse to show a highly emotional film that made Breivik cry whilst commentators lament about the 2 different opinions,is Breivik  sane or is he insane. I think the matter of sanity is relative to the singularity of the attack. He acted seemingly alone, with his organisation denying that they even exist. But that is a phenomena that Jesus said to his apostles that they will deny him. Though I think that this only proves that in worldly laws those wanting to exist in peace will always deny that they could be compliant to any criminal entity.

I think no Christian will identify with Breivik in any way whatsoever though plenty can identify with some political fears.

Both the methods though that Breivik used and his apparent melancholic psychology point in my view to manic depression, clinical depression and or some degree of Autism in that he is emotionally detached from his environment but only reacts to his own emotions. Often violent men are highly melancholic and either turn the violence against others or against themselves. There is a likelihood that Breivik may turn suicidal during the trial, when he will realise that he bangs his head against the biggest wall he ever encountered and that nobody could possibly show any sympathies for him.

He shows a similar psychology to the Baader-Meinhof terrorists but they worked in groups whilst Breivik worked seemingly alone but he has also this cadre thinking that might work on a piece of paper but not in t he real world.

The Norwegian officials say the trials will be a healing process for the victims and all others who suffer from the knowledge that this happened. Though that they did not show his film will simply lead to lots of people getting it and watching it anyway in their own rooms, and that will give them better cause to sympathise with his emotions than it would if it was part of an official screening within the context of the court proceedings.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 52,819 hits