Penned out

How can anybody be charged with an offence if the remarks made make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

It seems completely outlandish to even think that residing Muslims could be compared to Nazis in any capacity whatsoever. The remarks are so off the mark that nobody could possibly belief them.

If Le Pen actually believes what she said, and if anybody admires her for it, then they are all completely and totally crackers. Perhaps the only thing Le Pen could be guilty of is admiration of Hitler. Both seem equally mad.

 

Advertisements

No benefit for the doubt

We heard all these discussions about too many benefits being paid to fraudulent claimants. But to assess whether a claim is fraudulent takes time. Long discussions were held about this. All entitlements to benefits now carry notices, that overpaid benefits can be recouped.

Nowadays it takes at least 8 weeks to get a decision on a claim for Jobseeker’s Allowance. Cases get referred to Decision Makers. Those Decision Makers are most likely highly paid lawyers. Any decisions made by Decision Makers can be appealed. The last time I appealed I won.

It’s very expensive for the government to closely scrutinise each application for Jobseekers Allowance. All these Decision Makers have to be paid. If a case is appealed and goes to a Tribunal, the costs of that have to be paid by the Department for Works and Pensions. The DWP have to employ lawyers to argue their case if it goes that far.

It would be interesting to know what is actually more expensive, to overpay slightly or to underpay claimants and pay expensive lawyers instead.The government allows people to starve whilst they wait for 8 weeks to get a decision on Jobseekers Allowance. Reliance on food banks has  increased dramatically.

The latest situation is that Britain is being dragged before the European Court of Justice because apparently, so I understand it, an EU citizen was denied Jobseekers Allowance, after they worked in the UK and lost their job here.

This fatal obsession with European Negativity costs Britain even more money now in more expensive lawyers. It’s like a huge chip on Britain’s shoulder, to try to avoid European commitment. Britain was always extremely generous to all other nationals who came here to study and sought health treatment or housing, until of course Margaret Thatcher changed a few things around and now foreign students have to pay.  Boris Johnson seeks a Thatcher College in her honour as the good lady was refused a honorary Doctorate by Oxford, and her being the only Prime Minister, and female one at that, being denied it.

Dealing with applications for Jobseeker’s Allowance has now become more expensive for the state. Now we just don’t get the benefit quickly, now we have to wait longer and if we cannot wait we can make an application for quick hardship payments instead. That of course causes another administrative layer of work that needs to be done. Of course that created a few extra jobs.

A whirlwind romance

How gay marriage rights work in Europe

Gay marriage has now been legalised in the UK. The graphic shows us a map of gay marriage rights in Europe, prior to the UK legalizing it yesterday.

Gay marriage seems to move like a cyclone across Europe. It is fascinating to see that stark catholic countries like Spain, Portugal and France have championed the cause along with religiously less ambiguous nations like the northern European countries.

We can see from the description, that the bright red countries, the Balkans are firmly against

 Status of same-sex marriage and other types of same-sex partnerships in Europe.
   Same-sex marriage (dark blue)
   Other type of partnership (medium blue)
   Unregistered cohabitation (light blue)
   Unrecognized (white)
   Constitution limits marriage to opposite-sex couples (red)

I am a firm believer of geographic relevance, and especially in this case, we see a clear geographical line of countries that tolerate it despite having very little in common religiously or politically.

Cameron, who wants to satisfy staunch Euro sceptics, marries up with Europe on gay marriage.

Incidentally the Balkan countries were snubbed at the recent Eurovision song contest, they are also the most vehement against gay relationships.

Eurovision needs an ethnic overhaul

Watched the Eurovision Song Contest or ESC for short yesterday. If you asked me to tell you by tune alone where a song originates, I would have sworn that the Danish, winning entry came from Ireland. The classic flute and drum song was in my view ethnically Irish.

Most songs were in English and that was a pity. I would suggest that a new rule be made that forces all countries to perform in one of their native languages and at the most can only use the official language of the country, if any one country uses more than one ethnic languages. Belgium for example uses Flemish and French.

I think one could have thrown most entries into a big hat and let each country pull a composition out of it and let them perform it and that would not have changed yesterday’s results.

I enjoyed watching the contest years ago when countries proudly would attend in national costume and regional language to be frustrated by English speaking countries winning but that should not give them reason to throw their tradition overboard.

It is just atrocious that an authentic entry like Croatia’s was refused into the final.

I think for next year, all countries should submit ethically flavoured entries and flout the English speaking watering down of the contest.

Yellow or Orange EU

Looking at a statistic from HMRC 2012, that is supposed to make Nigel Lawson’s case against further EU membership, I am having trouble to distinguish between the meaning of the yellow and orange colours on the graph. Why can’t we have it in plain numbers?

Is it possible that Nigel Lawson simply misinterpreted figures.

We can see

Non EU 8-12 %

European Union 51%

Latin America 1-2%.

I think Nigel Lawson has to think again.

It must be said that the shades of yellow and orange can look different on the BBC graphic and on this original one from HMRC.

There is absolutely no argument into leaving the EU if we trade most with the EU, as this graphic suggests.

More hypocrisy from current UK government

Owen Tudor from the Robin Hood Tax Campaign has found out that the UK cashes in £3 Billion worth of tax from the trading of UK shares wherever they are sold but at the same time the UK has now launched a legal challenge in the European Court of Human Rights against the Financial Transaction Tax because Osborne fears that this tax infringes on UK sovereignty.

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.

 

It’s the principle that counts

Often we hear that persons who are psychopaths  are always finding it easy to exploit repetition in institutions to their advantage. Indeed many great institutions fell victim to habitual offending of some sort, stretching from the Catholic church to the BBC.

All institutions are ruled by principles and that is right that this is so. The whole earth follows a principle of its very own existence and we cannot escape that.

I looked at various ways where people tried to escape principles because those principles didn’t suit their own egoistic needs.

Religion is one. Just spent years researching the effects of churches on people and how it came that the Lutheran church broke away from the Catholic church and this then led the Church of England to be founded.

Looking at Luther he was most likely somebody who could not follow the demands of no sex within the church and looked for ways to justify his relationship with a nun, whom he loved. Again in the case of Henry VIII sexual problems, here to produce a son, led to a whole lot of unfortunate brutalities to justify the personal needs of one powerful person.

On that point of principle I am currently astounded to find that the current UK government applies the same principles to each ministry under their wing and in some it works and in some it doesn’t. Obviously Justice under Mr Grayling has adapted a great attitude by saying that prisons should never encourage an alternative lifestyle, whilst the principle of economic viability obviously doesn’t work in the employment tactics that Iain Duncan Smith wants to develop.

We can see that any institution contains various individuals of different opinions but those institutions are trying to house all of them within one principle.

Luther questioned the divinity of the Pope, saying that the Pope was of human origin and not Godly, yet the whole church started to exist because of God’s initiating it.

What is however quite important is the fact that Luther was a peaceful man who was just interested in getting his own personal relationship justified, after he gotten himself ex-communicated. But in the case of Henry VIII he took the opportunity to start a murderous regime and used his own desires to kill a lot of people, mainly Catholics in the process. Yet our monarch today happily continuous the heritage left since Henry VIII. Only change so far that now the British monarch is allowed to marry a Catholic.

What I think is the main sticking point is the inability of institutions to vary rules so that individual needs can be accommodated.

Basically it is a good principle to rule out sex because personal desires themselves are just often self-indulgent. I gotten horrified when I found out about the child marriages of underdeveloped regions for example where girls as little as 6 years old are sold to rich old men and that the elders of such region sanctify such marriages even if they are against civil law.

At a time in early Christianity when Catholic clergy were allowed to engage in sex they exploited their positions and pressurised locals and used them for personal pleasures, then the rules changed and they had to make a promise to celibacy.

I think it is great that the Catholic church beliefs that no sex is a good basis on which to start out but not all people who are in that church really do want to live that way. Yet as an institution the church is a save heaven for many and a way of life, which recently gotten less easy because many nuns and priests nowadays have to take on jobs because the church cannot support them any longer.

Perhaps it would be better for the Catholic church to introduce tiers of membership whereby those who really want to live without sex make up the upper tier and those who wish to live worldly get less senior roles. I think it is very important that there are religious leaders in the Catholic church that counter-balance our sex crazed world because it is important. In fact I think people should start off thinking that sex is not important and that would help to reduce over-population and reduce reproduction to those who really feel responsible enough to create another human being.

But we should not either forbid or glorify human reproduction.

But to say that all have to live under the same principle is a bad way of trying to organise human life. It is that principle that makes governments decide on stupid rules like gay marriage because we all have to be equal in every aspect of life, which is in itself completely unachievable.

Organisations that live according to strict principles are easy to manipulate by those wanting to do wrong.  We have got to get away from this equalitarien thinking and allow variation of principles to suit people’s needs.

It is the one big qualitative difference between civilised Christianity and uncivilised primitive cultures that girls are not exploited for the pleasure of old men. In this context again I wish to emphasize what I said before that primitive cultures prevalent in Islam, that prosper in economically underdeveloped areas very well, couch a culture that allows the exploitation of young girls and the Taleban are the ultimate tip of that iceberg. Islam itself also centres its religious ceremony around the movements of the moon. Christianity is more in tune with the wider planetary system and follows the sun, which is quite significant.  It is obvious that God who made the earth, made the sun to give us life and the moon is merely a planet that travels around the earth to regulate the water content of this planet.

Obviously for more primitive people it is easier to follow a religious ritual that is based around the movements of the moon as the moon is easy to see in the sky. Christianity is more difficult to understand as it is based around the whole planetary system, as God made the whole universe and not just the moon.

I find it quite disturbing that the biggest misfit of recent times in Britain, by the name of Cameron now wants to host peace talks between Pakistan and Afghanistan, which are two regions of the world, which are heavily practising abuse of young girls. Yet Cameron makes not secret of his hate of the EU and tried to get out of this as early as possible. The EU is a civilised region of this world with clearly defined laws that put age limits on girls engaging in relationships. Cameron should enforce civilised laws on these nations and not host talks with them in this nation whilst nasty things are going on there because Elders still rule the provinces and not those politicians that come to see Cameron.

He is a strange man that David Cameron and if the Conservative Party can produce something like that, then perhaps they are not worthy of our trust. I think the whole Monarchy is being put into disrepute and should consider abdicating and allow Britain to re-organise. The Queen openly declared her full support of Cameron when she recently sat in on a Cabinet meeting.

Cameron should nurture his relationships with other civilised nations and not throw those friendships away in favour of meddling with more primitive cultures as primary political partners.

I think as a country Britain has a lot to win but also a lot to loose.  Even the US criticises Cameron on his stance on Europe.

Religious faith ruling due today at the EU court

People here in Britain were sacked from their jobs after refusing to carry out acts, required by their employers, that would restrict the employees religious freedom. The BBC reports that a variety of cases are heard together and that signals that the EU wants to make a landmark ruling to silence the issue altogether.

I find it strange that some people are not allowed to wear Christian crosses but others are allowed to wear Muslim veils. Expression of religion with external items on the body can take many shapes and forms including jewellery, items of clothing or hairstyles. For examples many Muslims wear beards and are allowed to do so even as police officers but a Christian should not be allowed to wear a cross. That seems discrimination to me.

I reckon if the court rules against the Crosses that then could give employers the right to strip Muslims of their rights to wear head scarves I reckon.

My prediction is that the court is going to go secular and will rule that religious freedom is a private matter and cannot be carried over to jobs. Currently Muslims for example, who work in supermarkets are required to handle pork, though it is against their religion to do so.

However there is a difference in quality of argument because if it comes to deeper matters like human relations the severity of impact on a person of faith is much bigger than with relatively trivial externally worn items.

We have seen mass demonstrations in France against gay marriage for example.

As far as early reports from press across the spectrum report only Eweida won her case in respect of the ability of wearing a Christian symbol of a cross. Here is a press release from the EU court. Chamber judgment Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom 15.01.2013.

The other 3 defendants lost their cases because they refused to carry out work that goes against their religious belief. In particular the sex therapy judgement against Gary McFarlane shoes the dilemma we are in. The question is, how can a heterosexual man who does not like, knows nothing about and does not want to support gay relationships, supposed to give counselling about physical pleasures? At least you got to know your subject.

Be honest, if you are gay, do you seriously want to get sex therapy from a straight person who does not know anything about your practises?

But that judgement shows that judges do not care about service delivery but only that everyone has to deliver a service, without being able to do it with compassion. That is what’s wrong with the world today.

This just proves that we are no longer able to choose jobs we like doing and want to do, we have to do jobs that are available and do everything that is expected of us.  How does that allow us to be free?

One of the most heard complaints about service in general is that customers think that customer services assistants are unfriendly, insufficient, do not know the product service. The judgement given by the EU court today, supports the notion that anybody has to do any job, whether they would do it well or not. People are humans, they are not robots, they have feelings, and feelings are something the law does not accept exist.

A song and a dance deficit

Whilst barriers to export monies had been removed a long time ago and the UK concentrates on education and arts, it is absolutely no wonder that the widening trade deficit starts to hit us. We allow more and more housing per square meter available and close down manufacturing and business to allow that to happen.

Of course any UK based rich person can invest their money in an overseas country to produce cheap goods, which are then imported to the UK. Taxes are not paid to the UK but to the manufacturing country and the rich person themselves has changed residence to cheaper tax heavens.

Of course the international drive to exploit cheap labour markets to make more profits cannot be stopped as it is only the nature of business to make as much profit as possible. Business does not have an ethics built in, the ethics come with understanding and promotion of them, sometimes by individuals and sometimes by governments.

It’s only the biggest trade deficit since September 2011, when we already had a big deficit at that time but no remedial action was taken. Our imports from EU countries remain unchanged at £17.1 billion, which explains that we only import the absolutely necessary from relatively expensive labour markets, in European countries.

But there is hope because as soon as living standards rise in the currently cheap labour markets, we won’t be able to afford their goods and services any longer and have to seriously consider making goods ourselves once more. Just wonder where that would take place, when all space available gets increasingly occupied by housing.

Maybe we will also see a general reduction in manufacturing worldwide because increasing earth warming will remind us that it is exactly the manufacture and use of machines and goods, produced using natural resources that makes our temperatures soar.  Some Chinese residents recently dared to complain that their river is in danger of pollution if a factory is allowed to spew out waste into it, whilst previously those residents just died quietly from poisoned waters.

The other question is do we really want to be on the top of the manufacturing table? Just prior to World War I and World War II Germany was much superior in a low trade deficit and high manufacturing output, whilst Britain lagged behind.

During these Olympic games Britain has shown the world that this relatively small country cares a lot about health and fitness of its inhabitants, see the medal table to proof it.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 52,762 hits