heart of the economy

No point complaining about migrants who sent money earned abroad to bolster their home economies. We need to change the way our society works to make it successfull.

Looking at these maps, most money sent abroad from anywhere currently flows to India and India of course has a very successful network of functionaling families.

As our country has specialised in establishing the forefront of some ideologies at the expense of letting family life develop, we will continue to get our money sent abroad by guest workers.

Stopping immigrants is not the solution, the solution is to join them if you can’t beat them and change our family policies.

We are currently cleansing our cities of the poor, send them out to rural areas and populate our cities with rich investors and city workers who have little off-spring. Our harvests of fruit and veggies get wasted as we have no workers to harvest it.

Lets just take a deep breath and re-consider options to stay on top of the game.

Advertisements

shoot yourself in the foot

is an expression that people use to describe if a measure you take, turns out detrimental against yourself.

British establishment and conservationists always want to help promote the establishment, of which the Church of England is an important cornerstone.

stjames

St James the Less church

Church of England schools were long seen as the ultimate part of the pro-English upbringing of those wanting to serve Queen and country.

The church being the glue that holds the social fibre of English society together, educated mind and spirits. Yet an essential part of English society was the emergence of unions, which branched out of working-class environments and became an integral part of life.

Along comes our latest bout of Conservative government seeking to destroy the stronghold unions have on the confidence of the working classes. This of course includes the pocket so Muslim immigrants who follow special social rules culminating in Sharia law.

Easy peasy things thinks the government, we just shake it all up, we get rid of the unions and the radical Islamist scourge at the same time.

There then followed a strong rule change, making working compulsory, forcing people to accept any job on offer and reducing work security through a change in working contracts law.

Also, to throw into the mix came the idea to “increase the quality of schooling” by allowing free schools and by tearing schools away from councils and getting them directly funded by government e.g. through the academy system.

Whilst previously we saw a shortage of school places, we now see an oversaturation of educational provision. Schools open everywhere but people generally have less children because of working law and benefit changes.

All the uprooting of social connections, suitably assisted by changes in housing law and provision thoroughly shook society to the core.

In Tower Hamlets just about the only traditional education available was through Church of England schools. Yet academies and free schools have mushroomed out of nowhere, leaving Muslim children to attend non-church schools with often 85-95% Muslims, whilst the Catholic kids, cram into the few Catholic schools.

The Church of England, through its Liberal approach suffers from a loss of church attendance and general lack of draconian church discipline, is not very attractive to Muslims who experience much more pressure to follow strict religious rules and enjoy the feeling of being forced to adhere to a religious life-style.

That makes Church of England schools less attractive to those who want to experience dogma.

Tower Hamlets has long been the source of constant political controversy and is run by more or less left-wing factions of the Labour Party and similar constellations of political movements like AspireRespect or Tower Hamlets First.

The current Mayor of Tower Hamlets, John Biggs, who was seen as a moderate leader by many, is however very keen to rid Tower Hamlets of one of the oldest Church of England schools at the earliest opportunity. It is just another weapon to stab local society into the heart of traditional values and help undermine the Monarchy.

Had this Conservative government not sought to change society to the core with a flurry of legal changes, we would not be in this situation that English traditional education is being disbanded in this part of London.

Any benefit that may have shown through ‘better’ academy schools is wiped out by disturbance constant change brings. Children need to feel safe not only physically but also mentally by being able to rely on those services, adults around them, knowing they can grow up into society and contribute to that society at a later stage.

raines school

Raine’s Foundation, C.o.E. Secondary in Bethnal Green

The children of Raine’s Foundation school in Tower Hamlets are being torn apart from their brand-new school, strewn into the wind of education and lost the ability to concentrate on their GCSE and A-levels because their school is threatened by closure.

The last thing, kids want to worry about is finding a school or changing school when they need to concentrate on years of course work to get the best results. The travesty is that the education and teachers at Raine’s are very good and pupils can achieve best results, they do run a Year 11 High Attainment Program in conjunction with Stem. Why do they want to close a school that produces top class achievers, just because it is a Church of England school?

Most parents choose schools wanting peace of mind, being able to leave their children there till 6. Form and then go onto university or into a working life.

Yet the chopping and changing politics by this current government has thrown everything around into a big mixing bowl of social change and nobody is any the wiser of what is happening.

Of course, being able to plan ahead has become a luxury and that is what this government wants, they do not want people to get too comfortable because happy people are dangerous people who can start to demand even better than they have.

So, this Conservative government in fact chips away on conservative values and education by creating a whirlwind social environment that destroys all conservative values and creates anxiety and fear among our young people.

That is one of the reasons why kids now feel they need to demonstrate about the climate emergency instead of going to school, why school kids feel they need knives to protect themselves as they no longer feel safe as nothing can be relied upon any longer. Parents aren’t even at home after school any longer to calm down any fears, parents are forced into working instead of being there to parent.

Everthing is being eroded for working people, starting by housing, to working contracts and schooling. The reduction of policing services has another detrimental impact onto society.

Getting rid of everything known and comforting is perhaps the biggest mistake this government makes.

There are no particular problems at Raine’s Foundation, yet over-crowded popular schools often attract the most problems. But the per-pupil funding will prefer big problem schools before smaller, high quality schools because of the funding formulae.

Just today, the World Economic Forum published figures to show how stress severely affects our University Students, which means the format of education needs to change, to become more user friendly rather than production belt style.

Raine’s provides that friendly but high quality education, that is of excellent quality.  Universities must follow a model that produces happy students.

 

detachment is responsible

standing family near fireplace

Photo by Victoria Borodinova on Pexels.com Family

I think that the reason for the rise in the crime rate and especially gang related crime, e.g. knife crime, gangs, drugs is the destabilisation of family life.

As I stated in my previous post about renting, currently in Britain, an average renter only stays for 4 years in a flat. People are moved around the country, into areas they do not know anybody just to get a roof over their head. Some call it de-gentrification of inner cities like London.

Renters conditions have been changed, so that a permanent tenancy is now hard to come by. the old-fashioned flats for life, people could pass on to a relative have largely gone.

Additionally the emigration rate through wars in far away lands has unsettled large amounts of people around the globe who also add to the new additions to society.

group of people in a meeting

Photo by rawpixel.com on Pexels.com Work place

Families are destabilised because in families now all family members have to work. Decades ago one family member could stay at home until a child reached the age of 13, that is now reduced to the age of 5.

In practise that means if a family has older children in schools, those kids often find themselves without a parent after school.

The close family contact between people no longer exists. Employment conditions have become more and more unpredictable, income can vary tremendously with times of hard-ship, e.g. reliance on food banks.

All these uncertainties contribute considerably to making gangs attractive to young people. Especially vulnerable youngster get picked off the expelled pupils registers to work for Post code drug gangs.

It really has nothing to do with the keeping people busy, it has a lot to do with giving people the right to be the boss of their own life, to have a right to a family life and give kids the guidance they need.

man lights legs silhouette

Photo by Tookapic on Pexels.com     Gang member

Gang bosses can give plenty of guidance and that is why they are so successful recruiting youngsters. Those youngsters then are led to believe that carrying a knife is the only way to stay safe, its either kill or get killed. That is the terrible fact about the current crime scene.

Whilst youth funding is cut back, police officers reduced and parents are stuck into jobs through the work program, there is nobody available to give a shoulder to lean on for our young people.

Families just can’t help each other out any longer easily, they often live apart, have been moved to different parts of the country or world and have no longer any time for each other.

Until a government restores our sense of family, gives people the dignity of having permanent homes and permanent jobs, I do not see an end to the current problems. People need to belong and feel they are safe and increasing the instabilities is not going to help. The government needs to show some sympathy, emphathy for people. We are not just all robots who follow work rosters.

From G(c)rime to shine

It is an extraordinary public drama and mind-boggling to follow the public discussion that is the result of the decriminalization of homosexuality and the efforts of governments world-wide (almost) by now to change laws to enable gay couples equality to same-sex couples.

Looking at the history of it, same-sex marriage has always been the way to create a partnership, in which property was shared and it enabled the ground for a married couple to reproduce and leave possessions and often land and property to the off-spring.

Marriages were made for the purpose to amalgamate whole kingdoms, properties were made larger by using marriage and children could inherit considerable fortunes and power when they were in the best households.

The idea of gay marriage is entirely not fitting into this concept as gay couples cannot produce any children but can only adopt them. So it does not surprise me that Ben Summerskill chief executive of Stonewall, a pro-gay lobby group, argues that gay couples could produce a stable home for children who are condemned to grow up in single parent households because regular couples have broken up. He practically supports, in my personal view, that gay couples could take over raising children in a ‘stable gay family’ once the heterosexual couple has broken up and therefore save children from growing up in single parent households.

As if that is the most important thing to consider.

The fact is that gay couples have no reason to marry within the traditional boundaries of marriage because they do not produce off-spring to pass possessions onto.

An important fact has to be established and that is the first reason for marriage in he first place is to form a hub for raising off-spring produced within that marriage and not just to get married for the sake of being married and that is what Stonewall tries to achieve I think, they try to achieve that you can get married for the sake of being married without further purpose.

I think that law makers have fundamentally mishandled the marriage question and equalised something that has no equal because it naturally is incapable of producing children. It would be wholly inappropriate to allow gay marriage just to produce a gay subsidy where heterosexual families have failed.

There is another mistake in Stonewall’s argument in that gay marriage does not guarantee that it lasts forever, gay couples break up just as other ones do. So just because gay marriage exists, this does not guarantee the ability to place children into ‘stable families’ forever.

I think it is more than obvious that some very influential and rich gay men could influence the law making process into allowing homosexuality and now the rest of the legal world struggles to integrate this newly produced equality into all areas of life.

It is not possible to produce a legal total equality where nature has not gotten the ability to be totally equal itself. Nature and/or God’s creation is not equal for all, it is for those who follow the correct path of life, which is very well described in the bible.

The Independent online newspaper reports that David Cameron was today presented with a 500.000 strong petition against gay marriage.

added 26/12/12, apparently this article supports everything I said. Frankly it is a complete shambles that the Conservatives emphasize gay marriage so much, presumably just because they have some strong donors among them. Political parties should be forced to declare money donations from homosexual people.

Active discrimination against women Mr Osborne

Here we go again, whilst during Thatcher times we were openly put down and ridiculed for being single mothers, now we get the theory of equal treatment but get hit harder through fiscal policies instead. see source

At the time of Thatcher in principle I very much agreed with Conservative policies but for the public stance on single mothers, I never liked the witch hunts against single mothers. Even though I was married and had all my children within marriage, one cannot condemn a woman for having to bring up a child alone, I therefore take a stand for single mothers because at the moment technically I am a single mother too.

I get all the tough treatment, I get sent to employment courses even though I am a volunteer and get asked whether I want to work evenings and weekends. There is a work placement but I cannot be forced to work in the holidays. The whole concepts stinks of discrimination against single mothers.

The Fawcett Society, which campaigns for equality between women and men estimates that single mothers will lose 8.5% of their income by 2015.

The charity also said single mothers were being hardest hit by cuts to public services, estimating that these were costing them the equivalent of 18.5% of their net income – more than double the impact on couples with children.

Whilst we get big movements against forced marriage and domestic violence and women are actively encouraged to leave violent relationships, not at least for the sake of their children, women are at the same time financially and fiscally discriminated against. Another not so common sense policy I should say.

I am in principle for the furthering of family life but cannot agree to the fact that women are punished for raising children alone.

A message on father’s day

David Cameron has clearly spelled out his desire to continue a policy of preferential taxation for families and he says that absent fathers should be stigmatised as much as drink drivers. Though I find it a little bit hard to believe that the Liberal Democrats do not favour a tax policy that helps complete families along.

I think it is a very important step forward that David Cameron now wants to stigmatize the absent fathers when under Thatcher it seemed like single mothers were the ones to blame. It was a very hard fight to have acknowledged who the real victims are and it seems now the general consensus is that the victims are the single mothers and their children and that it is up to the dads to put in an appearance, show interest in their children’s education and financially support the children.

I simply do not believe however that women should be replaced as carers for their babies in saying fathers are better at nappy changing. Women are not a “rent – a – womb” service, giving birth, letting the bloke do the nursing and going back to work either.

Only 15% of men who were asked believed their partners do a better job than they can looking after babies. Yet the immensely important emotional bond that is there between a mother and a child cannot be surveyed as this is a natural bond that cannot exist between a baby and the father as much as it does with the mother as the baby grows inside the mother’s body. It is for that reason I believe that 61% do not trust father’s as much as they trust mum’s to look after babies.

PS: Having just read a comment to the Prime Minister’s suggestion from gingerbread, I must say I would not support it if mothers had to pay the CMEC any fee to use the service. It should be the fathers, or the person who supports the caring parent, who should have to pay the fee if any. If any absent father makes a voluntary financial agreement and then pays the money he would save himself and the tax payer using the CMEC and if he needs to be reminded of his duty then he should be charged the fee and not the parent needing the money.

It is always difficult to ‘punish’ or reward for being married or not in a society that allows divorce and has fairly liberal  moral rules. There is no boundary on being married, there is not just one marriage, there are early marriages, late marriages, first and second and third marriages, neither of which exclude the possibility of children somewhere out of any of those marriages with other partners. When I hear the Prime Minister on such issues, it always seems to me as if he suggests people only marry once or have no other children after they got married elsewhere.

religious debate in France

This debate is titled “Islam debate” in France on the BBC website, which I think should not be the correct title because the debate in France deals with all types of religious symbols from Christian crosses to Muslim headscarves.

I understand that France, not unsimilar to Turkey, is a secular state. Germany works on similar principles, in that state education is secular but religion  is left to families. I do not think that a discussion about a very prominent religion stigmatize that religion. In fact it can intimidate the rest of the population if one particular group walks around in totally distinguished clothing and makes others left out, which can have very racist implication, in that the person who wears that “Social Uniform” tells other, unless you look like me, I won’t accept you.

There is a reverse stigmatization happening from those being very distinct towards those who are not.

I think that would apply to all religion and not only to Muslims or any other religions for that matter.

The question that arises for me is who is discriminating against whom? Members of a very distinct group of people, including some religions who keep out everybody else, or those who say, we do not wish to be confronted with your religious symbols in every walk of our lives, keep your religion in your church and your home.

I think freedom and tolerance has to have a breathing space that keeps a common ground for all of us and as much as Christians have stopped to indoctrinate the  society, as much must we expect of all other religions not to indoctrinate our lives as well.

 

Family? What family?

Here it is now officially acknowledged what I’ve said all along, that the family cannot exist any longer as we know it because the parents are working all the time and get estranged from their family.

I am not talking about the absent parent, who serves as soldier or works abroad and comes home only so-and-so often. I am talking about the average family, that has now become detached from itself by working all the time. Kids in school all day, parents working all day, where is the quality time that is necessary to give families the feeling that they actually are families.

By now it is seen as normal that women do not want to be stay-at-home mothers any longer and perceptions of what women are supposed to be doing with their lives have also changed.

When the typical family composition consisted of the working dad and the mum at home, we now do not even know this any longer.

I am glad that the Conservative taxation policies allow families with an in-house mother a 10% better income, yet the strategy that single mothers have to sign on for work once the child is seven still stands.

The Home Front  report  by Jen Lexmond states that

“one-in-eight fathers work more than 60 hours a week, and typically, fathers increase their hours after their youngest child reaches the age of six

the number of working mothers has tripled from one in six in 1951 to two in three now, with 6% working more than 48 hours and 3% more than 60”

I am not sure I agree with the recommendations by the Home Front, who call for Sure Start centres to become open to all because we already see a discrimination against benefit recipients in play centre holiday provision, which is only affordable for working parents now.

We need to look at the cost of living for a family and determine how much money a family has to earn to make ends meet and that should be the basis from which to devise a sensible policy that allows parents again to be parents instead of just working for the kids, but they never really spend time with.

You may say, well the upper classes really never meet their children either because they stay at boarding school, yet that is a totally different system whereby children are supervised at all times within a set environment, whilst for the rest of us, we always have to worry what the kids are up to when they are out of school.

I do not think it is the small stage of the child that causes all the concern because working parents get a lot of child care vouchers but it is the later stages of a child’s life when the kids form social relationships with the family that is missing the necessary time to do so.

We have created this equal society whereby women are treated like men but forgotten that woman and children are better off spending time together during the toddler stage.  I think it will cause too much confusion for employers and adults if both parents can take more time off as often jobs and employers rely on the always there person who knows the jobs, the customers and the problems in a job. I think all those fancy ideas might be one more reason why business are packing up and leaving Britain to set up where human relationships are not so complicated and less regulated as in our highly developed and politically correct society.

benefit changes for single parents

Since 25 October 2010 single parents have to change from Income Support to Job Seekers Allowance and stay able to work at least 16 hours per week. Whilst I generally agree to that policy I still wonder how practical this is to keep up.

First of all will employers want single parents and under what conditions would  they have to be employed?

When many working contracts already deny responsibility for sick-pay what is a working parent supposed to do when the child becomes ill and has to stay at home  with Chickenpox?  Will employers be able to put up with it?  Will parents be able to claim the loss of earnings through the benefit system?  That seems to be forgotten in this benefit equation is the fact that parents are responsible to look after their kids around the clock and they have to be supervisedand especially so when they are sick. We cannot assume that working single parents have another family member that can take in a sick child whilst the parent goes out to work. I wonder where the answers to those questions are.

changing attitudes in fathers

Another way of looking at the welfare reforms, and in particular that single parents, and that will be mostly mothers, will have to seek work when their youngest child turns 7, is that fathers have become unreliable in that role.

It is not simply that lifestyles have changed and people do not get  married any longer, it is a broader problem in that many men do not wish to pursue their responsibilities as fathers and run away from the problem.

It would have been unthinkable 50 years ago to say a man suspected of domestic violence can be banned from the home for 4 weeks, but since men have become more violent, less reliable and more irresponsible, they load the responsibility of parenthood completely onto the mother (a few men are  the exception from the norm, in that they are left to care for the child alone) so that women have to seek solace in work instead of being able to rely on their partner as breadwinner till the child is older, as it used to be.

50 years ago women would have stayed at home until the child was well settled into school and often secondary school until they went out to seek work but now, their often, idly spent days as single parents can get them into more trouble by becoming vulnerable to volatile relationships or substance abuse.  Single mothers have to work harder to get basic child support today. For example fathers abroad have to be sued through the courts for payments. The wider decline in domestic living arrangements is also to blame, people do not marry, they have loose relationships, which encourages irresponsible fatherhood.

Fathers now find it easier to bring excuses as to why they cannot pay for a child, they do not have to put their name on the birth certificate even though they know they are the father.

I more than welcome the proposals that violent partners can be banned from the home if the other partner complains of domestic abuse. It is one step into the right direction. The problem of domestic abuse is rising in both heterosexual and same-sex relationships. But it still has to be made easier for women to claim child support from fathers. Fathers that fail to pay child support voluntarily should be made to pay the cost to administer child support claims. Foreign fathers have to be approached through courts in the 100 countries the UK has an agreement with.

With the measure of a benefit ceiling for families  with children, even if they are married, we get the clear message that lifestyles are changing towards less children per family for benefit recipients and more responsible planning of our lives. We do get those 2 types of problem families these days, the single parent and the multi-children married household who have children in abundance regardless of their ability to pay for their kids. Yet domestic abuse takes place in both instances of family life and it is a great step into the right direction to help people enjoy their private life without threats of violence from a partner.

I think it is up to men to proof they are not prats and up to men to change their behaviour because ultimately the men are more able to earn and plan family life when women sometimes can easily be made pregnant. Of course ideally girls and women would want to plan their own lives more consciously but that is the ideal and still not the norm in all social circles.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 52,819 hits