Archive for British moral compass
Evicting tenants for earning too much money
The ConDemned coalition have come up with yet another crack-pot idea, the detail of which is surfacing.
Too rich to live here
This one is to evict tenants who are doing well.
I’ll state up front, the idea that well-off people are living in subsidised Social Housing, is an anathema, but the ConDemned have approached the issue from the most obscure angle possible and come up with a concept that is damaging in the long term and totally contradicts their mantra of encouraging financial success.
The idea that tenants become too wealthy to live in a particular area, will lead to ghettos in which the only inhabitants are the poor. This is an appalling state of affairs. Society is made up of a mix of income groups and to suggest that Social Housing Estates should only contain the poorest members of Society is an absolute disgrace. This encourages poor service provision, poor schooling opportunities and continued and increasing social deprivation.
The idea that if you earn too much money, you have to move makes absolutely no sense at all. It means that the poor only meet the poor, that estates of poverty have no better-off neighbours who may encourage others to aspire to better things and creates a brooding sense of helplessness.
This hardly meets the concept of improving social cohesion.
On a similar vein, the idea that if a family income raises to an arbitary limit that the family is forcibly evicted does nothing to encourage people to improve their financial position. Social Housing rents are subsidised (I am not referring to Housing Benefit, which is a separate issue) and the disparity between Social Housing rents and Private Sector rents are well documented. The idea that a family who manage to secure a £3000 a year (pre tax) improvement in salary will then have to pay an additional £3600 (post tax) in rent makes absolutely no sense at all. This policy is a disincentive to work and financial betterment.
I don’t see the drive to earn ever higher sums of money as being the be all and end all of life, but as this is the dogma of the ConDemned how can this block on incentive fit within their dogma.
There are a myriad of other Social issues with this form of apartheid will cause including: Schooling continuity; Housing security; Social cohesion; Fairness and Simple relationship building, all of which will be adversely affected.
Were the ConDemned actually interested in doing anything other than stamping on the vulnerable, poor families, poor elderly and disabled, they would have approached this from a different angle.
Taking as a concept that it is the subsidy that is the major issue with Social Housing for life, there is absolutely no reason that instead of forcing people to move out, that Housing Associations and Local Authorities could not be permitted to increase rents for tenants dependent on income. This could be graduated to not discourage people to earn more and be capped at mid-market rents for the area. This has many advantages over eviction, as outlined above on the disadvantages of the proposal and simultaneously enables Housing Associations and Local Authorities to secure a fair market rent for properties where that is feasible.
Were the process thought through in more detail tenants of Social Housing could be freed from claiming Housing Benefit, as rent charged by the Association or Authority would be set on income. The Association or Authority could then make a claim for rental to cover the subsidised rents for tenants en-mass, rather than DWP employing a myriad of staff to deal with individual claimants.
The rabid right wing red-tops would be in favour as it would be in the interests of Housing Associations and Authorities to ensure that tenants declared all their income, as if the tenant had extra income, they (the landlord) would be able to charge a higher rent.
There are undoubtedly other ways to tackle the problem, but the idea that if you earn too much money you will be evicted is an anathema.
I have recently read that NASA are considering one way flights to Mars, perhaps the ConDemned are in cahoots with NASA and will shortly be announcing mass colonisation of Mars by the vulnerable groups in the UK.
Major Terrorist Group working in London
A new terrorist splinter-cell, based in Central London has been uncovered with some key stated objectives, which are aimed at destroying the cohesion of the UK.
Their targets are wide-spread and comprehensive, indicating this to be a terrorist group, which are likely to lead to widespread destruction of Military and Civilian infrastructure. Their motivation would appear to be the wholesale destruction of the UK, leading to its re-emergence as a satellite of a far more powerful terrorist group based in Washington.
They are planning a series of attacks across the UK, which are aimed at destroying much of the infrastructure, which will lead to chaos in delivering public services, military defence, wide-scale deaths and significant unemployment. They have announced plans to target the civilian population, with plans which are likely to cause widespread devastation of housing resulting in refugees fleeing inner cities. Selective targeting of members of society indicates this terrorist group has an abject hatred of poor people, the elderly and those with disability.
It appears that they have already succeeded in taking over much of the mainstream Media in the UK, creating effective smoke-screens and social division. The power of their media manipulation has already resulted in the civilian population turning against themselves. By using the in-built greed and selfish nature of the British population, which was bolstered by an associated cells, earlier forays, over the past 13 years, this new group have been able to convince large swathes of the population that helping others is not a good idea rather, a pointless exercise, with the most effective solution being their dispersal. Despite the fact that many of those targeted are in-fact people submissively targeting themselves.
Their lightning raids on Military installations has already led to the weakening of the Royal Navy. They have successfully laid plans to disrupt Air-force capability over the medium term and have been able to divert the Army to a futile war aimed at supporting their parent group in the USA.
Some anticipated figures have been unearthed of the scale of the destruction in civilian infrastructure have been released by the group. They aim to destroy half a million jobs, with expected collateral damage to result in a further half a million people becoming unemployed. Their follow-up plans on housing are anticipated to lead to at least a million people to become refugees, with their two pronged attack on employment infrastructure this is likely to be far higher.
The elderly and disabled are specifically targeted by this group, with a quarter of a million people, including those with dementia, to be left to cope on their own. This carefully targeted population has the additional benefit, for this ruthless terrorist group, of a significant chance of their deaths.
To manage the transition to the destruction of the UK, they are known to kidnap those who oppose their aims and send them to central command in Washington to be tortured. Whilst waiting shipment by the Washington cell, the London based group, use what they like to term ‘Control Orders’ and their widespread use of snatch squads has resulted in the past year on over one hundred thousand people being stopped and questioned. This threat of arrest, control order and torture is managing to dampen open signs of opposition. As required, the snatch squads will perform public executions. These have been witnessed recently in London, during to time when the Major World Economic Powers were in the UK and an individual was selected for public execution and murdered, as a warning against all those who oppose their power.
The latest move in this group has been to successfully divert attention from civil unrest in the UK and ensure the British population focus on issues which are of importance to the Washington Group. This weekend two bombs were found in Northern Ireland, but it would be difficult to find much of the mainstream media reporting this, dealing with the far more important issue of bombs in planes directed towards the USA, rather than bombs in the UK directed at the UK population.
Assisted suicide
Assisted suicide raises considerable dilemmas, but pretending the issue doesn’t need addressing is futile.
I have reservations about the issue here in the UK, simply because I would expect there to be considerable abuse.
Unfortunately this country has become one in which large sections of Society believe they have an entitlement to everything and in a particular an entitlement to their parents money.
We also have a Government which shows scant regard for the old and infirm, seeking to create a Society in which Pensioners are viewed as scroungers and resourcehoggers. As evidenced by Gordon Brown and the 50p pension increase and the continued pumping of propaganda about how there are too many old people in Society relative to those of working age, with no coherent strategy, other than it would be far better for Society if the elderly slipped this mortal coil.
Religious moral views from the established church and catholic church, should hold no sway in the debate. These are the groups who view paedophilia as a slightaberration by a few of their priests, when evidence indicates this to be extremely common. Their views on suicide are as relevant as their views on sexuality.
The argument that medical staff would be put in to an complex situation, is one with which I do have sympathy. Undoubtedly there are many who would not wish to be involved in the stark choice of administering or providing drugs to kill someone. However, I would balance this with conflicting evidence. People are now dying in the UK because staff shortages, finances and time will not permit operations, or medication to be prescribed, leaving patients to die. Morphine is regularly prescribed as a painkiller for people in severe pain withincurable conditions. The morphine administered, as required, which is effectively administering a drug to assist with death. Life support machines are switched off, effectively ending a life. I can see no reason why medical staff are not able to opt-out of assisted suicide procedures.
To argue that this is counter to medical training is to obfuscate the truth. Every day Veterinary staff make these decisions.
Undoubtedly there should be safety valves and I would like to see a system in place, in which people desiring assisted suicide are permitted to do so under supervision, not to keep the State happy, but to ensure the State and family are not pressurising someone in to a decision they do not wish to make.
In much the same way that people sign up for organ donation, people should sign up for assisted suicide. This signature, not to be ongoing authorisation, but a confirmation that an individual would be prepared to consider assisted suicide at some point in their life. This would need to be registered at least a year prior to an intervention. The purpose of this registration, would be to ensure people were not being coerced at the last moment into making a decision.
Before the suicide, the individual would need to be in a medical ward, or hospice, where they can talk through their condition, the procedure and the options prior to undertaking the procedure, for a period of two weeks, prior to finally agreeing the procedure. All visits with the patient during this two week period to be accompanied visits, thereby minimising the risks of pressure being put on individuals. Representatives of the State, including Social workers, Mental health professionals and Police Officers being barred from visiting the individual during this two week period.
The state to have no rights or say in assisted suicide. ie. making decisions for those deemed mentally incapable, or otherwise incapacitated.
At the end of the two week period the individual to then make a decision and open visits to be resumed. If the individual decides they wish to continue with the procedure, that procedure to be administered with four weeks of that decision, at the time of the patients choosing. If the procedure is not administered with in that four weeks, then the individual to be taken out of the process for a period of six months before starting again with a two week assessment period.
These time frames are not intended to make assisted suicide a difficult procedure, but a way to protect the vulnerable from exploitation, which is my greatest concern.
I do not see any reason the procedure should preclude anyone from undertaking the procedure, on the proviso that they have registered at least twelve months prior to seeking medical assistance in their death.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=79f9c0f5-bb0f-41dd-ba12-2562f04f0b07)
Murky journalism
Phone hacking
The fascination many people have with the minutiae of other peoples lives has led some journalists to use a variety of strategies to obtain more and more salacious details.
The story of News of the World journalists hacking into phones is just one of many means used by these people to satisfy the insatiable desire by customers to read about the lives of other people.
It is certainly possible to argue, that the use of illegal and questionable tactics by journalists are unacceptable, but it is equally possible for a portion of the blame to lie squarely on the shoulders of the readership. This is not about absolving journalists from obnoxious tactics, which are a choice made by individual journalists to creep in to the illegal and questionable. It is however about individuals taking responsibility.
The UK has become riven with an unhealthy desire on the part of many people to obsess over other peoples lives. Magazines exist which offer nothing more than photographs of other peoples weddings, hairstyles, clothes, make-up etc. The television schedules are awash with the generic term ‘reality’ TV. Newspapers are purchased because of some gossip story about someone or other.
The fact is that mainstream media is driven by ratings, which in the case of print media can and do affect pricing as well as advertising rate cards. Broadcast media is driven by ratings which dictate rate card advertising costs. These are businesses which are seeking to make a profit. If people want salacious gossip, which journalists would argue is the case, which is evidenced by sales or viewership, then they will stoop to whatever level they personally feel necessary to meet that demand.
The moment people decide, enough is enough and stop purchasing print media or watching programmes which expose ever more personal and intimate information, will be the moment journalists stop snooping.
Many of those who appear in the press and subsequently moan about the coverage, need to take a look at their own responsibility in the chase for coverage. Courting media attention about personal information when it suits a PR campaign inevitably leads to journalists pursuing that person once they have used the media for their own end. If they don’t wish to be pursued in this way, they shouldn’t seek to manipulate journalists in the first place.
The consumers of this minutiae need to take a look at their own responsibility and recognize it is their choice whether to purchase or watch what is being broadcast and published.
Journalists should recognize that just because something sells, doesn’t mean it should be published, nor should personal moral lines be crossed in the chase for the dollar.
There are times, many times, when the role of a journalist does mean working within the grey area of the law and on occasion crossing in to illegal territory. The breaking of the MPs expenses allowances, the BBC continuing to reports from inside Zimbabwe, being just two recent examples. But hacking phones to obtain information about where someone may or may not be going out to dinner, doesn’t sit on any moral compass I know of.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=c327292e-7ac6-459b-8a81-0b8c2acf93ce)
Balancing Government Expenditure
The new mantra spouted by politicians is ‘we have to make difficult decisions’, the use of the term ‘difficult decisions’ is nothing more than PR speak and has already worn thin, it is a way that Politicians can act as though this is something being foisted on them, over which they have no control and if only they could, they would spend unlimited amounts of money on everything.
The fact is that expenditure in the UK is higher than income and this is always a distinct possibility as potential demands for expenditure will always exceed income. These so called ‘difficult decisions’ are being taken all the time. The British people are not idiots and are well aware that cuts need to be made.
For many years the, spend now – pay later culture has pervaded both in personal households and also by Government. The abrupt collapse in the financial system has brought this failure to balance the books to the fore.
To argue about what should have been done and how to get out of this mess are a separate debate and should not be confused with the essential aspect. Finances in the UK are limited and should be spent more efficiently and in a more targeted manner.
On a personal level, individuals are reluctant to see taxes rise and a governmental level; politicians are reluctant to cut spending, so we have an imbalance.
The discussion needs to centre around what drives people to be so self focussed when it comes to their taxes, but so socially conscious when it comes to government expenditure. Efficiencies should be made across Government Departments and public sector expenditure. I am sure many people in the UK can identify examples of wasted money, be it in grandiose buildings, PFI inefficiencies, Quangos, etc. but these are issues tinkering around the edges.
The discussion needs to focus on the core expenditure of this country.
The NHS eats vast chunks of money in all sorts of programmes. We perhaps need to revise our expectations about the NHS, what is it and what is it not.
There is a debate to open as to whether the NHS should be spending money on treatments such as IVF, Cosmetic Surgery, and leading edge research. Should the NHS provide palliative care, or only treatments? Should parts of the NHS treatment process become means tested. Is the NHS responsible for treatment of those with self imposed conditions, such as drinkers, the obese, smokers etc?
It is ridiculous for the users of the NHS to demand ever increasing ranges of treatment, yet at the same time expect to pay ever decreasing taxes.
The Defence budget is another huge expenditure area. The UK continues to seek to play a role as a major world power, on a budget which doesn’t cover the costs. Should we be seeking to have a Military which is able to respond to conflict around the world, or should we scale back to become a defence of the country? Should the UK seek to remain a nuclear force, or should it move away from this?
Having a world class fighting force, requires money, can the country afford it and should we strive to have a military which is able to respond in a meaningful way to world conflicts.
The education system is another area with a large budget. What are the aims of our education system and why. Do we need larger schools, do we need more schools? Should children be made to stay in state funded education until the age of 18? Should University education be funded by the tax payer, or the student?
Looking at climate change, how should the country focus on the issue? Should it even focus on the issue? Should fossil fuels be taxed at a higher rate and the money invested in alternative sources of energy or should alternative energy research and development be funded through indirect taxes. Is there any need to focus on alternative energy? Should people be incentivised to become ‘greener’, or penalised for not becoming ‘greener’? Should any money needed to be spent on the issue of climate change or is this a choice individuals should be making?
There are other big areas of expenditure, this is only a short list and not necessarily the most important, until the ‘sacrosanct’ are identified, trying to balance budgets is nothing more than hot air. Not only do Politicians need to look at this issue, but individuals must accept their own financial responsibility in the process. Demanding more services yet throwing hands up in horror at the idea of higher taxes is a ridiculous starting point.
This country needs to limit expenditure and individuals needs to consider whether the reluctance of people and business to pay higher taxes, means we are absolving Public Services from the responsibility for providing services.
The discussion needs to be open and those with free market attitudes who would prefer to head towards a system of limited centrally provided services, need to be honest with themselves, about the reality of that type of society. Those who would prefer a system in which all services are freely available to all and provided centrally again need to step up to the plate and accept the reality of their position.
Burying heads in the sand and expecting the state to provide all to everyone for free at point of delivery yet refusing to pay for it is a road to nowhere and in reality is unachievable. There is limited income and therefore there has to be limited expenditure. The questions are what money should be spent on and how much are we prepared to pay, at that point budgets can actually be balanced.
Politicians have a role in this debate by being honest about cost implications; people have a responsibility to accept their role in funding those costs.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=e550ab56-8df1-4a09-a7f2-4c1d882c9d90)
English bigorty
- Image by Getty Images via Daylife
British and in particular English bigotry and racism, which is endemic is usually portrayed by the Daily Mail and Express in particular, as perfectly reasonable, is suddenly deemed unacceptable when the natural home of English racists, the BNP, comes home to roost.
Why Brown and the Nationalist Socialist Party, more commonly known as the ‘Labour Party’ are so shocked that the Nazis win votes, when they have a slogan which proclaims ‘British jobs for British workers’, beggars belief.
The Conservative Party who spend their life proclaiming that there are far too many immigrants in this country, suddenly back track and decide that isn’t what they meant at all.
The UK has for many years been an endemically a racist and bigoted country; loud proclamations are made of a multi-cultural society, which in reality it is not.
Having spent most of my life living in London, where although the situation is not ideal, there are many different cultures living together in many Boroughs, I recently moved to East Anglia, where with out a doubt anyone who isn’t obviously White British is treated as an invader. Polish are deemed to be evil illegal immigrants, despite the fact they are from the EU and a non white face is of course up to no good.
I have had far too many arguments in this part of the world with people who genuinely believe that anyone who isn’t white is a scrounger an illegal immigrant and should be kicked out of the country. My only surprise was that the BNP didn’t secure a seat in East Anglia.
My first battle against racism was back in 1977 at the Lewisham march at the age of 13, when for the first time the Police used riot shields, nothing much has changed.
The simple fact is that many English people are racists and of course the BNP achieved European Representation. The Local Council representation was played down, as it didn’t hit the international agenda, but the sight of neo Nazis representing the UK at the European level has suddenly made the media and politicians pretend they actually care about the issue.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=f49c7a2d-1b57-444a-b284-7476bd0a7f8a)
Die for the UK but don’t try and live here
1st Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles
The disgraceful treatment of Gurkhas continues, despite very strong protests, which have been ongoing for years.
Gurkha Corporal Kumar Pun served in the Gurkhas for 14 years, just one month in to a tour of Afghanistan he was killed in a suicide bomb attack.
The first step was to alert his wife Parbati, just 24 hours after his death that she and their children could be ordered out of the UK next year, when their Visa expires.
This position was subsequently changed with the UK Borders Agency stating: ‘…We will not curtail this lady’s leave. We would not seek to remove the widow of any soldier killed in action, whether they are a Gurkha, a foreign or a Commonwealth soldier… A soldier’s spouse or dependants would almost certainly be granted settlement after applying for leave to stay in the UK…’
The statement still leaves a question as to settlement and is not an acceptable position.
Yesterday Wotton Bassett saw the homecoming of four soldiers who died that day, including Corporal Pun, marking the sacrifice made by these men, yet hypocritically at the same time, obfuscating on whether his family had any right to be here.
Corporal Pun Kumar served all over the world, including tours of duty in Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Oman, Kenya, Kosovo and the Falklands. Most of the past decade has been based around living in Britain.
In 1999, Corporal Pun married his wife, he had been serving in the Gurkhas for 3 years, but she wasn’t granted leave to live in this country until 2006, 7 years after they married, when their eldest daughter was three.
It transpires that this is sadly not the end to the appalling way Gurkhas are treated.
In 2007 Gurkhas were given the right to leave their own pension scheme and switch to the regular Army scheme, which provides a widow with a lump sum payout in the event of her husband being killed, it is not known whether Gurkha Corporal Kumar Pun had transferred to the new scheme, so his widow may receive nothing.
Because Corporal Pun only served for 13 years, there is no entitlement to war widow’s pension; they are required to serve 15 years for this entitlement.
It would be better if Britain omitted the word Great, from its self congratulatory name.
There is nothing to be pounding a chest about; service personnel and the families of non-British Nationals who fight for this Country, are treated in a morally reprehensible manner.
