It would appear that Mr Blair is determined to be the first labour prime minister to survive three terms of office, and wants the labour party to fail in the next election when it is no longer under his leadership.
How have I reached that conclusion? Simply by watching the news, reading the papers, and relying on memories sporned during his term of office.
Mr Blair first came to power in a landslide victory against the conservatives in 1997, and then effectively disappeared for almost two years while 'assessing the needs of the country' which, I felt, was much needed at the time. However, since then things have gone down hill and are rapidly gaining pace in that direction.
We now have hospitals which are effectively rented from the private sector, with the possiblity of schools coming under the same category in the near future. Taxes have soared in the form of more stealth taxes, more taxes on property, more taxes on capital gains through inheritance and house sales and now we are to expect 'green taxes' on pollution through fuel comsumption.
Although I agree with the green tax in principle (the more petrol your car uses, or the more miles you do should contribute towards making the world a healthier place), and did, in fact, with the help of my wife come up with an idea to add road tax to the cost of petrol rather than the annual fee we currently pay, I can not see the revenue from this new tax being used for it's claimed purpose, well possibly a token amount will be used, but the rest will be eaten up in 'administrative costs'.
This will be yet another nail in the labour coffin, to go along with the Iraq war, the aforementioned trust hospitals, the wonderful gesture of a pay cut by Mr Blair prior to his second election - subsequently followed by a nice big pay rise the following year, the great plan of house snoops (to see if you are paying the right amount of council tax - home improvements will increase your annual bill), his inabilty to control the amount of immigrants entering the UK from europe and abroad, etc.
Okay, he has done some good things during his time in office, but people have short memories for good things and long memories for bad things or things that harm them, a fact that most, if not all, politicians, seem to fail to realise.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Thursday, October 19, 2006
I'm from Neptune - apparently
| You Are From Neptune |
 You are dreamy and mystical, with a natural psychic ability. You love music, poetry, dance, and (most of all) the open sea. Your soul is filled with possibilities, and your heart overflows with compassion. You can be in a room full of friendly people and feel all alone. If you don't get carried away with one idea, your spiritual nature will see you through anything. |
Blimey, that describes me to a tee!! ScaRy sTUfF...
Torture - Is it right or wrong.
A recent BBC survey of 27,000 people from 25 different countries indicates that roughly one third of the world's population support the use of torture in prisons. This is a bit disconcerting, but not suprising considering the current state of the world. We all have the need to feel safe and most of us will go to varying degrees of extreems to have that feeling. If putting extra bolts on your front door, installing extra smoke detectors in your home, or buying a licenced firearm helps you feel more secure then who am I to criticise.
Generally, the definition of torture is the infliction of severe pain or mental suffering, especially as a punishment or as a means of persuading someone to give information. However, this level of pain and/or mental suffering would vary from person to person as we all have different pain thresholds.
In extreems of definition smacking an unruly child could be seen as torture, but so could denying a child the right to watch their favourite television programme (mental suffering) if they have mis-behaved. As a parent I would consider these acts as disipline (although I am against smacking, but have used it on rare occasions), but someone with different views may consider them as excessive and torturous.
The Geneva Convention prohibits the use of all torture and cruel and degrading behaviour, and all the countries surveyed have signed up to it, but it is worthy to note that countries where political violence and torture have been more prevalent in recent history are more willing to accept torture than others who have had a longer history without it.
This factor could be put down to desensitisation, or simply an apathetic acceptance of life situations. It could also be a nurture-learned acceptance through the religious, or political beliefs, of the parents and /or educational establishments in each environment. Without experiencing life in these countries it is impossible to comment fairly as to why torture is more acceptable than in other countries.
However, I have detracted slightly from the main point of this blog. Is torture right or wrong?
From a moral standpoint, yes, torture is most definately wrong.
However, it has been used to great effect and has possible saved thousands of lives throughout history, but does this make it right. Does obtaining information through any means neccesary to save lives justify the pain and suffering of one individual, who is most probably only doing his job as an employee of his countries government or monarchy. Does it state in his contract of employment, written or unwritten, that the risk of torture is part of his job and must be accepted?
I know in the old war films torture was depicted, and officers were often told not to give up their secrets. The phrase "Death before Dishonour" being bandied around like a magic shield, but were soldiers really expected to keep their mouths shut as their captors tortured them in many graphic ways that I won't describe here as youngsters may read this post (although they are probably taught about it in schools).
I don't know, but it wouldn't suprise me if there were unspoken rules regarding captivity and what would be expected of you as a prisoner of war which, ultimately, is why this survey was conducted.
Some people would probably even argue that they (our captors) would do it to us, so we have the right to do it to them, but does this make it right.
Throughout history torture has been used in wartime, by religious establishments and by individuals, to obtain information that is considered to be important or beneficial, and I suppose if people with knowledge were not instructed to keep it to themselves then torture would not have to be used as a means to get an advantage over the opposition.
It has also been used as a way of inflicting nasty and painful death on people considered to be wrong-doers in the eyes of the person ordering the torture. In this second case torture is most definately wrong.
In the first case (torture to obtain knowledge), well, at the end of the day I don't know. I feel that it is morally wrong, but is it not also morally wrong to risk the lives of thousands of people by not allowing it, people you and I could be related too. I am going to have to sit on the fence with this one. I cannot and will not condone it, but cannot see an alternative where lives could be saved. Eutopia does not exists yet, and probably never will.
Generally, the definition of torture is the infliction of severe pain or mental suffering, especially as a punishment or as a means of persuading someone to give information. However, this level of pain and/or mental suffering would vary from person to person as we all have different pain thresholds.
In extreems of definition smacking an unruly child could be seen as torture, but so could denying a child the right to watch their favourite television programme (mental suffering) if they have mis-behaved. As a parent I would consider these acts as disipline (although I am against smacking, but have used it on rare occasions), but someone with different views may consider them as excessive and torturous.
The Geneva Convention prohibits the use of all torture and cruel and degrading behaviour, and all the countries surveyed have signed up to it, but it is worthy to note that countries where political violence and torture have been more prevalent in recent history are more willing to accept torture than others who have had a longer history without it.
This factor could be put down to desensitisation, or simply an apathetic acceptance of life situations. It could also be a nurture-learned acceptance through the religious, or political beliefs, of the parents and /or educational establishments in each environment. Without experiencing life in these countries it is impossible to comment fairly as to why torture is more acceptable than in other countries.
However, I have detracted slightly from the main point of this blog. Is torture right or wrong?
From a moral standpoint, yes, torture is most definately wrong.
However, it has been used to great effect and has possible saved thousands of lives throughout history, but does this make it right. Does obtaining information through any means neccesary to save lives justify the pain and suffering of one individual, who is most probably only doing his job as an employee of his countries government or monarchy. Does it state in his contract of employment, written or unwritten, that the risk of torture is part of his job and must be accepted?
I know in the old war films torture was depicted, and officers were often told not to give up their secrets. The phrase "Death before Dishonour" being bandied around like a magic shield, but were soldiers really expected to keep their mouths shut as their captors tortured them in many graphic ways that I won't describe here as youngsters may read this post (although they are probably taught about it in schools).
I don't know, but it wouldn't suprise me if there were unspoken rules regarding captivity and what would be expected of you as a prisoner of war which, ultimately, is why this survey was conducted.
Some people would probably even argue that they (our captors) would do it to us, so we have the right to do it to them, but does this make it right.
Throughout history torture has been used in wartime, by religious establishments and by individuals, to obtain information that is considered to be important or beneficial, and I suppose if people with knowledge were not instructed to keep it to themselves then torture would not have to be used as a means to get an advantage over the opposition.
It has also been used as a way of inflicting nasty and painful death on people considered to be wrong-doers in the eyes of the person ordering the torture. In this second case torture is most definately wrong.
In the first case (torture to obtain knowledge), well, at the end of the day I don't know. I feel that it is morally wrong, but is it not also morally wrong to risk the lives of thousands of people by not allowing it, people you and I could be related too. I am going to have to sit on the fence with this one. I cannot and will not condone it, but cannot see an alternative where lives could be saved. Eutopia does not exists yet, and probably never will.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Religious Symbolism - Should it be public?
This matter has raised it head again, with the news that a teaching assistant has been suspended, pending enquiries, for wearing a full head veil during lessons along with the news that a BA member of staff has been put on unpaid leave until she is willing to wear her cross necklace under her clothing, rather than displaying it in public.
Why should religion be bought into the workplace, but also, why should it be criticised. Every member of our society has a right to express their beliefs and feelings, but they should also have to accept and tolerate other peoples rights and beliefs. As long as their beliefs, feelings and public displays of faith do not affect their ability to do their job, or contravene specific company dress code then it really shouldn't matter.
With regards to the teaching assistant, who's job it is to help pupils who speak english as a second language, I feel that it should be down to the board of governers, the teachers and the parents of pupils at the school to decide diplomatically and fairly as to whether veils and other religious artefacts (crosses, hijabs, etc.) are an acceptable part of the dress code within the school environment. It could be argued that it is beneficial in our multi-cultural society that our children are exposed to diversity of religion and beliefs, but this diversity could also cause disruption and discomfort for some within the school environment, and may cause further discrimination and divide between different cultural practices.
The BA staff member who wore a cross necklace over her clothing should not cause offence and in most cases, probably, would not. However, it is BA policy that jewellery on chains should be worn under clothing - this would, obviously, include crosses on chains. In this case, it would seem, that the member of staff is in violation of existing uniform policy, a policy which allows the wearing of turbans and hijabs. I am sure that if christian dress code required the wearing of certain visible items then that tolerance would be extended to include those items, but the wearing of a cross is a religious choice, not a requirement.
However, the wearing of a hijab is required by the Muslim faith, as a symbol of modesty that is a strong part of islamic faith, although the hijab is not required to cover the face (unlike the full head veil worn by the teaching assistant - indicating that this would be a personal choice rather than a religious one, and thus could be moderated to a standard hijab, unless of course she follows a particulary strict version of her faith, which requires a full head veil).
If a person wants to wear a cross on religious grounds, or a hijab, or turban then they should be allowed to do so without fear of ridicule, persecution or prejudice. My only reservation in this matter is where the wearing of such items could be considered a health or safety risk to the wearer or their colleagues, i.e. a worker in a factory should not wear loose fitting clothing as it could snag in machinery they may operate. A tie, a hijab and a turban could all come into this category, and thus should not be worn on those grounds. However, an office worker who never enters the shop floor would be fine to wear a tie, hijab or turban without risk to personal safety or to the safety of others (as long as they stay clear of the paper shredder :-) ) so in that instance it would be fine.
At the end of the day this, like most religious and cultural matters, will be discussed and shuffled around with no conclusion being reached. While this is happening the media, and politicians, will jump on the band wagon to gain public exposure but no changes will be made.
Change will only come from acceptance and tolerance between the various cultural and religious faiths, and will most likely start at the bottom of the pile, among the general population. The politicians, media, extreemists (and they occur in every faith and culture) and higher members of faiths have their own agenda's which prevent progress being made by them. It is down to us little people to make the changes to make a better, more tolerant, society for all.
Why should religion be bought into the workplace, but also, why should it be criticised. Every member of our society has a right to express their beliefs and feelings, but they should also have to accept and tolerate other peoples rights and beliefs. As long as their beliefs, feelings and public displays of faith do not affect their ability to do their job, or contravene specific company dress code then it really shouldn't matter.
With regards to the teaching assistant, who's job it is to help pupils who speak english as a second language, I feel that it should be down to the board of governers, the teachers and the parents of pupils at the school to decide diplomatically and fairly as to whether veils and other religious artefacts (crosses, hijabs, etc.) are an acceptable part of the dress code within the school environment. It could be argued that it is beneficial in our multi-cultural society that our children are exposed to diversity of religion and beliefs, but this diversity could also cause disruption and discomfort for some within the school environment, and may cause further discrimination and divide between different cultural practices.
The BA staff member who wore a cross necklace over her clothing should not cause offence and in most cases, probably, would not. However, it is BA policy that jewellery on chains should be worn under clothing - this would, obviously, include crosses on chains. In this case, it would seem, that the member of staff is in violation of existing uniform policy, a policy which allows the wearing of turbans and hijabs. I am sure that if christian dress code required the wearing of certain visible items then that tolerance would be extended to include those items, but the wearing of a cross is a religious choice, not a requirement.
However, the wearing of a hijab is required by the Muslim faith, as a symbol of modesty that is a strong part of islamic faith, although the hijab is not required to cover the face (unlike the full head veil worn by the teaching assistant - indicating that this would be a personal choice rather than a religious one, and thus could be moderated to a standard hijab, unless of course she follows a particulary strict version of her faith, which requires a full head veil).
If a person wants to wear a cross on religious grounds, or a hijab, or turban then they should be allowed to do so without fear of ridicule, persecution or prejudice. My only reservation in this matter is where the wearing of such items could be considered a health or safety risk to the wearer or their colleagues, i.e. a worker in a factory should not wear loose fitting clothing as it could snag in machinery they may operate. A tie, a hijab and a turban could all come into this category, and thus should not be worn on those grounds. However, an office worker who never enters the shop floor would be fine to wear a tie, hijab or turban without risk to personal safety or to the safety of others (as long as they stay clear of the paper shredder :-) ) so in that instance it would be fine.
At the end of the day this, like most religious and cultural matters, will be discussed and shuffled around with no conclusion being reached. While this is happening the media, and politicians, will jump on the band wagon to gain public exposure but no changes will be made.
Change will only come from acceptance and tolerance between the various cultural and religious faiths, and will most likely start at the bottom of the pile, among the general population. The politicians, media, extreemists (and they occur in every faith and culture) and higher members of faiths have their own agenda's which prevent progress being made by them. It is down to us little people to make the changes to make a better, more tolerant, society for all.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Hurrah, it's Saturday
Why hurrah? No reason really, it just means the kids are home all day today, and tomorrow and will probably innundate me with a thousand ridiculous, and irrelevant, questions that they are quite capable of answering for themselves, but won't.
I have found, over the years, that it doesn't seem to make any difference how old they become they still ask the questions. Okay, they have got out of the 'Why' stage, but the questions still go on. It drives me barmy sometimes, especially as they seem to choose the most inconvenient times (i.e. as the pan boils over on the cooker, or when I have a gloss paint covered brush in my hand and a half painted door).
Fair enough, the half painted door hasn't been an issue for a while, but you can bet your bottom dollar it will happen today as I have some glossing to do in the downstairs hallway.
That's a funny phrase, your bottom dollar. I know it means your last dollar, but I can't help thinking of a stack of dollars in the middle of a room and someone trying to retrieve the bottom one that they have just won, without removing the dollars above it.
Hmm!... Thinking!... Maybe that would be a worthwhile gamble, and if successful you'd win all the dollars above it as well. Maybe you'd have to put a dollar on the top of the pile before trying to remove the one at the bottom. If you win you keep them all, if you lose the pile gets bigger. Hmm, my brother springs to mind...
My brain obviously isn't functioning properly today because I came up with a really good blog discussion yesterday but absolutely cannot recall it today. I think I'll have a quick look at what is happening news-wise and maybe comment on some of that. Well, you can't say I don't try to be current, can you...
No, it seems that the news is pretty boring today. It's important I have to admit, but nothing wonderfully new that is worth commenting on, except maybe the return of The Secret Policemans Ball charity show, which has been in hiding since 1989. Led by Chevy Chase this year it is good to see it back. (opinions welcome)
Well, I suppose I'd better go and paint. It won't be a van gogh, or even a Rolf Harris. It will just be a big, white, shiny, flat(ish) surface with a handle stuck half way up it. However, if I was van gogh I could probably sell it for a few million quid as modern art.
See you all soon, and remember... smiles use more face muscles than frowning, so look miserable and save energy.
I have found, over the years, that it doesn't seem to make any difference how old they become they still ask the questions. Okay, they have got out of the 'Why' stage, but the questions still go on. It drives me barmy sometimes, especially as they seem to choose the most inconvenient times (i.e. as the pan boils over on the cooker, or when I have a gloss paint covered brush in my hand and a half painted door).
Fair enough, the half painted door hasn't been an issue for a while, but you can bet your bottom dollar it will happen today as I have some glossing to do in the downstairs hallway.
That's a funny phrase, your bottom dollar. I know it means your last dollar, but I can't help thinking of a stack of dollars in the middle of a room and someone trying to retrieve the bottom one that they have just won, without removing the dollars above it.
Hmm!... Thinking!... Maybe that would be a worthwhile gamble, and if successful you'd win all the dollars above it as well. Maybe you'd have to put a dollar on the top of the pile before trying to remove the one at the bottom. If you win you keep them all, if you lose the pile gets bigger. Hmm, my brother springs to mind...
My brain obviously isn't functioning properly today because I came up with a really good blog discussion yesterday but absolutely cannot recall it today. I think I'll have a quick look at what is happening news-wise and maybe comment on some of that. Well, you can't say I don't try to be current, can you...
No, it seems that the news is pretty boring today. It's important I have to admit, but nothing wonderfully new that is worth commenting on, except maybe the return of The Secret Policemans Ball charity show, which has been in hiding since 1989. Led by Chevy Chase this year it is good to see it back. (opinions welcome)
Well, I suppose I'd better go and paint. It won't be a van gogh, or even a Rolf Harris. It will just be a big, white, shiny, flat(ish) surface with a handle stuck half way up it. However, if I was van gogh I could probably sell it for a few million quid as modern art.
See you all soon, and remember... smiles use more face muscles than frowning, so look miserable and save energy.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Welcome Me Hearties
Here we go, my very first online blog... It's only taken me 40 years to get round to it but what the heck.
Not sure what to say at this very moment in time, except that I need a cup of tea, so if anyone has a pot brewed and ready let me know and I'll sail round. Remember, I like two sugars in mine, it helps keep the chills out on the high seas.
No matter what happens in life, remember that someone else is having a harder time than you.
That is something that has been said to me so often in life, and I find myself passing that piece of wisdom onto my children regularly, but it's all rubbish really. Why? Because when your having a rough time, even if times have been worse in the past, you still feel like crap. Having someone telling you that someone else is having a harder time doesn't comfort you or make you feel better, you don't jump up with a big smile on your face shouting "Oh, I feel so much better now, knowing that Fred down the road is going through more shit that I am. WhooHoo life is worth living again."
No, you don't give a toss about Fred. It's your problems that matter and until they're resolved they will continue to matter. I'm sure Fred is being given the same advice about someone else having a harder time that he is, but who is that someone. If it's you you're in trouble... If not, then eventually you will find the poor little mucker who is at the bottom of the pile, who has no one with troubles worse than his, and who we all believe is making a fuss about nothing because no one, seriously, can be that unfortunate.
I think the best thing we can do is try our best to get through each day, every day, do something about the things we can change and file away the things we can't do anything about until we can sort them out as well. Help out others if they need it, but don't forget our own needs, and put your kids first whenever you can so they can grow into the wonderful people they deserve to be.
Ooh, that was unexpected. I was only going to say hi. Where did that (the above) come from? Answers on a postcard, please.
Not sure what to say at this very moment in time, except that I need a cup of tea, so if anyone has a pot brewed and ready let me know and I'll sail round. Remember, I like two sugars in mine, it helps keep the chills out on the high seas.
No matter what happens in life, remember that someone else is having a harder time than you.
That is something that has been said to me so often in life, and I find myself passing that piece of wisdom onto my children regularly, but it's all rubbish really. Why? Because when your having a rough time, even if times have been worse in the past, you still feel like crap. Having someone telling you that someone else is having a harder time doesn't comfort you or make you feel better, you don't jump up with a big smile on your face shouting "Oh, I feel so much better now, knowing that Fred down the road is going through more shit that I am. WhooHoo life is worth living again."
No, you don't give a toss about Fred. It's your problems that matter and until they're resolved they will continue to matter. I'm sure Fred is being given the same advice about someone else having a harder time that he is, but who is that someone. If it's you you're in trouble... If not, then eventually you will find the poor little mucker who is at the bottom of the pile, who has no one with troubles worse than his, and who we all believe is making a fuss about nothing because no one, seriously, can be that unfortunate.
I think the best thing we can do is try our best to get through each day, every day, do something about the things we can change and file away the things we can't do anything about until we can sort them out as well. Help out others if they need it, but don't forget our own needs, and put your kids first whenever you can so they can grow into the wonderful people they deserve to be.
Ooh, that was unexpected. I was only going to say hi. Where did that (the above) come from? Answers on a postcard, please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
