The government has announced several sites in the East End of London where Surface to Air missiles will be stationed during the Olympics. There will also be a squad of specially trained snipers that will be able to shoot the pilot of a plane that looks like it is a risk.
This is the stuff that they are telling us about, so the question is, What are they not telling us?
Thinking about it, the most likely threat will probably come from someone with a bomb-vest making their way to a sensitive area on the Olympic site. This will probably come from the volunteers and employees used during the Olympics. You can be sure that these people will have security checks, and there will be 'spooks' listening in to things to try and foil terrorist attempts. The problem is that we are not told of their successes until the danger has well and truly passed. This is usually because revealing details will place people's lives at risk.
If security is tighter during the Olympics and people may have to queue a little longer, then I hope that they realise that this is part of the attempt to keep them safe. I, for one, will not be anywhere near London during the Olympics, as I do not have a ticket, but I do wish everybody who does go 'health and safety'.
Monday 30 April 2012
Friday 27 April 2012
"The Shadow of Sleaze"
My first, fatuous, comment is that title sounds like a good name for a band, particularly a politically aware band - just a thought! (Just checked on YouTube and there are no bands called it)
What is on the agenda for today? The Right Honourable Secretary for Culture and Media, Mr. Jezza Hunt.
He is accused of not acting with due propriety when handling Mr Rupert Murdoch's acquisition of BSkyB. As far as I am concerned that deal cannot be undone. It would cost, probably the tax-payer, billions to buy the shares from Rupert Murdoch. It is alleged that Jezza's assistant was too open and friendly with one of Mr. Murdoch's employee's. Consequently, he resigned. Mr. Murdoch's employee 'incorrectly' labelled conversations as being with Jezza, when in fact they were with his secretary. Jezza was advised to refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, as the deal was so important and if allowed would allow Mr. Murdoch too big a share of the available media, but he did not. It is alleged that Governments have altered policies so that Mr. Murdoch would not get upset and 'take his ball home'.
This is a sorry tale. Will we ever know the complete truth? I do not think so, but our imaginations will have no problems filling in the 'gaps'.
What is on the agenda for today? The Right Honourable Secretary for Culture and Media, Mr. Jezza Hunt.
He is accused of not acting with due propriety when handling Mr Rupert Murdoch's acquisition of BSkyB. As far as I am concerned that deal cannot be undone. It would cost, probably the tax-payer, billions to buy the shares from Rupert Murdoch. It is alleged that Jezza's assistant was too open and friendly with one of Mr. Murdoch's employee's. Consequently, he resigned. Mr. Murdoch's employee 'incorrectly' labelled conversations as being with Jezza, when in fact they were with his secretary. Jezza was advised to refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, as the deal was so important and if allowed would allow Mr. Murdoch too big a share of the available media, but he did not. It is alleged that Governments have altered policies so that Mr. Murdoch would not get upset and 'take his ball home'.
This is a sorry tale. Will we ever know the complete truth? I do not think so, but our imaginations will have no problems filling in the 'gaps'.
Thursday 26 April 2012
Is there time to save the NHS?
I received an e-mail and read an article on the Guardian web site that both asked the same question.
First, a little background. Andrew Lansley, the Secretary of State for Health, has had a law passed which means that the NHS is going to be re-organised. The re-organisation means that groups of G.P.'s will form Commisioning Groups who will, in essence, 'buy' the health care that they think their patients will require. To 'sweeten' the deal, the Government have promised not to have the G.P.'s pay subject to regional variations, whereas many of the staff that they work with will have their pay varied according to their Post Code.
Last night, there were meetings where the biggest private health care companies put on some 'presentations' to groups of interested G.P.'s. Rival presentations were put on by an organisation called 38 degrees (http://www.38degrees.org.uk/ if you want to check for yourself) whose main aim in life is to make sure that the NHS remains 'free at the point of delivery'. They say that there is 'wiggle room' within the act so that the 'fat cats' in the private sector do not get their hands on the N.H.S. (My words, not theirs).
The problem that I do not have experience with other forms of health care. On the continent, doctors receive part of their money direct from patients. What are the benefits/disadvantages of this? I know that we do not want a system like the U.S. where patients are not taken to hospital unless they have the correct insurance forms, and where a large proportion of bankruptcies are the result of non-payment of medical bills where people have long term chronic conditions.
So save the N.H.S. and make sure that the poor and vulnerable are protected.
First, a little background. Andrew Lansley, the Secretary of State for Health, has had a law passed which means that the NHS is going to be re-organised. The re-organisation means that groups of G.P.'s will form Commisioning Groups who will, in essence, 'buy' the health care that they think their patients will require. To 'sweeten' the deal, the Government have promised not to have the G.P.'s pay subject to regional variations, whereas many of the staff that they work with will have their pay varied according to their Post Code.
Last night, there were meetings where the biggest private health care companies put on some 'presentations' to groups of interested G.P.'s. Rival presentations were put on by an organisation called 38 degrees (http://www.38degrees.org.uk/ if you want to check for yourself) whose main aim in life is to make sure that the NHS remains 'free at the point of delivery'. They say that there is 'wiggle room' within the act so that the 'fat cats' in the private sector do not get their hands on the N.H.S. (My words, not theirs).
The problem that I do not have experience with other forms of health care. On the continent, doctors receive part of their money direct from patients. What are the benefits/disadvantages of this? I know that we do not want a system like the U.S. where patients are not taken to hospital unless they have the correct insurance forms, and where a large proportion of bankruptcies are the result of non-payment of medical bills where people have long term chronic conditions.
So save the N.H.S. and make sure that the poor and vulnerable are protected.
Wednesday 25 April 2012
Doubling the Recession
It has been announced that the U.K. economy is going into the second dip of the 'double-dip recession that we are in. George Osbourne has always rejected this idea. I remember seeing Michael Moore (MM) on the Piers Morgan show. MM said that when he was young rich people could have their fancy houses and foreign holidays because they would invest some of their wealth in jobs. Now they are hanging on to it because they are worried that the recession would be longer and more severe than everyone had predicted (I am para-phrasing). George Osbourne has long said that a double dip recession is unlikely to happen. To explain the recent figures he has pointed the finger at the slow-down in the E.U. Zone as being responsible, as we cannot sell them our good and exporting has diminished. That may be a factor, but it is only one.
Looking at the figures put out recently shows that manufacturing has indeed slowed, but then so has construction. The second dip has been because George Osbourne has cut too far and too deep. Many public sector workers have lost their jobs and will not have the money to put an extension onto their houses or buy the goods that manufacturers produces. Many have consistently said that investment in the economy is the way out of this recession. Gordon Brown missed a trick when he was in charge. He put money into the banks to re-capitalise and said that this was the sort of thing that John Maynard Keanes would have advised. That does not correspond to the things that I have been told. J.M. Keanes would have said that the investment should have gone into infra-structure projects. That way there would be more people working, paying tax, buying new televisions, and having extensions built on the side of their houses.
The sad thing is that there is no guarantee that either scheme would have worked over the other, except that the Keansian view would at least have people working.
Looking at the figures put out recently shows that manufacturing has indeed slowed, but then so has construction. The second dip has been because George Osbourne has cut too far and too deep. Many public sector workers have lost their jobs and will not have the money to put an extension onto their houses or buy the goods that manufacturers produces. Many have consistently said that investment in the economy is the way out of this recession. Gordon Brown missed a trick when he was in charge. He put money into the banks to re-capitalise and said that this was the sort of thing that John Maynard Keanes would have advised. That does not correspond to the things that I have been told. J.M. Keanes would have said that the investment should have gone into infra-structure projects. That way there would be more people working, paying tax, buying new televisions, and having extensions built on the side of their houses.
The sad thing is that there is no guarantee that either scheme would have worked over the other, except that the Keansian view would at least have people working.
Tuesday 17 April 2012
One of the certainties of life - paying tax?
The problems with the way the wealthy pay their taxes is still causing a rumpus in the News. Recent reports suggest that "some millionaires pay less tax than their secretaries" The question that should be answered is 'how do they do it?'
One method of paying less tax is to have your income paid into a company that you have set up, so that the income attracts 20% tax instead of the 45% that used to be 50%.
Donating to charity. Those with significant incomes could pay half of their income to charity and their tax rate is halved, or pay 75% of your income to charity and you will only pay 11% on the remainder. There have been reports that Lord Fink has told a group of wealthy individuals that the main reason to give to charity is because of all the interesting places you will get invited to, even No. 10. Anything that is done to harm wealthy people giving to charity will affect charities severely as 50% of charities income comes from just 8% of their donors. There was a suggestion for wealthy people's giving be treated the same as the majority that give to charity. When I give to charity, I usually 'tick the box' to say that I want the donation Gift-Aided. What happens then is the Treasurer of that organisation has to write my name and address on a form, along with others that have 'ticked the same box' and send it to H.M.R.C. These names and addresses are checked against the list of tax-payers in the U.K. Then H.M.R.C. send a cheque to that organisation for 25% of the donation. The main criticism is that this system creates a lot of work for little money, less than a wealthy person sending the appropriate forms to H.M.R.C. saying that they have given a large wedge of cash to a charity.
I think that I agree with another commentator, perhaps rather than George trying to 'iron out' the anomalies, one at a time, why not scrap the lot and start again? Then you could devise a tax system that could be fair and could be seen to be fair.
Will this lot do it? They may try, but they will screw it up!
One method of paying less tax is to have your income paid into a company that you have set up, so that the income attracts 20% tax instead of the 45% that used to be 50%.
Donating to charity. Those with significant incomes could pay half of their income to charity and their tax rate is halved, or pay 75% of your income to charity and you will only pay 11% on the remainder. There have been reports that Lord Fink has told a group of wealthy individuals that the main reason to give to charity is because of all the interesting places you will get invited to, even No. 10. Anything that is done to harm wealthy people giving to charity will affect charities severely as 50% of charities income comes from just 8% of their donors. There was a suggestion for wealthy people's giving be treated the same as the majority that give to charity. When I give to charity, I usually 'tick the box' to say that I want the donation Gift-Aided. What happens then is the Treasurer of that organisation has to write my name and address on a form, along with others that have 'ticked the same box' and send it to H.M.R.C. These names and addresses are checked against the list of tax-payers in the U.K. Then H.M.R.C. send a cheque to that organisation for 25% of the donation. The main criticism is that this system creates a lot of work for little money, less than a wealthy person sending the appropriate forms to H.M.R.C. saying that they have given a large wedge of cash to a charity.
I think that I agree with another commentator, perhaps rather than George trying to 'iron out' the anomalies, one at a time, why not scrap the lot and start again? Then you could devise a tax system that could be fair and could be seen to be fair.
Will this lot do it? They may try, but they will screw it up!
Sunday 15 April 2012
Evangelical Christians - a school disco view of heaven?
In case there is any doubt, I must tell you I do not agree with the view taken by Evangelical Christians. At Church this morning, the vicar gave a sermon that was basically the manifesto of Evangelical Christians. The basic theme is that 'unless you believe that Jesus died for your sins', and salvation is only through this belief. He then went on to say that in the tomb of Mohammad, Mohammad is still there, but if you go to the tomb of Jesus Christ, he is not there, proving the philosophy. He also said that followers of any other religion, other than Christianity, would not 'be saved'. He also quoted several bible verses that support the Evangelical view.
What an arrogant view to take! This is the same attitude that I met at school at the disco, unless you had a 'stamp on the wrist' they would not allow you in. This is the same as the Evangelical Christians belief of heaven, that unless you believe that Jesus died for our sins, then you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. A joke - Gandhi was being shown around heaven, and kept seeing a high wall. He asked St. Peter what the wall was for, and the answer was, 'It's for the Evangelicals, they like to think that they are the only ones here.'
My view is that God is more forgiving than that! In my view the most important thing is the way that you live your life, not your beliefs. Believers of other faiths can access heaven depending on how they have lived their lives. "My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?" John Chapter 14 verse 2.
What an arrogant view to take! This is the same attitude that I met at school at the disco, unless you had a 'stamp on the wrist' they would not allow you in. This is the same as the Evangelical Christians belief of heaven, that unless you believe that Jesus died for our sins, then you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. A joke - Gandhi was being shown around heaven, and kept seeing a high wall. He asked St. Peter what the wall was for, and the answer was, 'It's for the Evangelicals, they like to think that they are the only ones here.'
My view is that God is more forgiving than that! In my view the most important thing is the way that you live your life, not your beliefs. Believers of other faiths can access heaven depending on how they have lived their lives. "My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?" John Chapter 14 verse 2.
Tuesday 10 April 2012
George Osbourne - Own Goal?
Gorgeous George, the chancellor of the Exchequer has removed tax relief on donations to charities. It is his attempt to stop tax avoidance. Good call! Give away some money to avoid paying tax on it!
Some of the major charities in the U.K. have been lobbying to have this rule overturned, and there are reports that some donors have already told their charities that their donations will not happen due to the rule change. It strikes at Delicious Dave, the Prime Minister's pet project - Big Society. This is the idea that philanthropists will put their hands in their pockets and support charities that will take up the slack caused by the cuts in public expenditure. Brilliant thinking George!
You know it is a shame that the Conservative Party is not a charity, because if it was, this stupid rule would not have found its way onto the statute list.
Some of the major charities in the U.K. have been lobbying to have this rule overturned, and there are reports that some donors have already told their charities that their donations will not happen due to the rule change. It strikes at Delicious Dave, the Prime Minister's pet project - Big Society. This is the idea that philanthropists will put their hands in their pockets and support charities that will take up the slack caused by the cuts in public expenditure. Brilliant thinking George!
You know it is a shame that the Conservative Party is not a charity, because if it was, this stupid rule would not have found its way onto the statute list.
Tuesday 3 April 2012
The Met. and Race
In today's paper, there are more revelations about the Metropolitan Police Officers and some young black people that were abused, physically and verbally. As an ex-Psychology teacher (more about this at a later date) let's see what psychology has to say about this.
The study that could shed some light on this situation is Sherif's "Robber's Cave" study. In this study they 'took over' a boys summer camp in America. They arranged one group of boys to get better things than the other group. For example, at a 'party' one group of boys arrived earlier than the other and ate all the nicest sandwiches, etc. leaving the dried up, curled up sandwiches and the flat Coke for the other boys. Not surprisingly, when the boys' attitudes were investigated one group of boys said that they did not "like" the boys in the other group. Interestingly, Sherif and his team attempted to undo the damage that they had done to the boys' attitudes. They achieved this by arranging mis-haps that could only be undone if all of the boys worked together. For example, they arranged for the van carrying all of the boys to break down in a remote situation, and the only way to get to safety was if all the boys pushed the van, which they did. Following several events of this type, the team again investigated the boys' attitude towards the other group, and they found that they "weren't that bad after all."
This is not the only study in this area, you can investigate "Brown Eyes, Blue Eyes" on YouTube, or do an internet search for "Henri Tajfel's" study.
Sherif's study is interesting as it shows how discrimination may occur. One group in society receives preferential treatment in comparison to another group, or at least there is a perception of preferential treatment. It can be 'treated' by making sure that both group share a view that 'we are all in this together' (where have I heard that before?). You can draw your own conclusions about how this is reflected in how groups in society are treated.
The study that could shed some light on this situation is Sherif's "Robber's Cave" study. In this study they 'took over' a boys summer camp in America. They arranged one group of boys to get better things than the other group. For example, at a 'party' one group of boys arrived earlier than the other and ate all the nicest sandwiches, etc. leaving the dried up, curled up sandwiches and the flat Coke for the other boys. Not surprisingly, when the boys' attitudes were investigated one group of boys said that they did not "like" the boys in the other group. Interestingly, Sherif and his team attempted to undo the damage that they had done to the boys' attitudes. They achieved this by arranging mis-haps that could only be undone if all of the boys worked together. For example, they arranged for the van carrying all of the boys to break down in a remote situation, and the only way to get to safety was if all the boys pushed the van, which they did. Following several events of this type, the team again investigated the boys' attitude towards the other group, and they found that they "weren't that bad after all."
This is not the only study in this area, you can investigate "Brown Eyes, Blue Eyes" on YouTube, or do an internet search for "Henri Tajfel's" study.
Sherif's study is interesting as it shows how discrimination may occur. One group in society receives preferential treatment in comparison to another group, or at least there is a perception of preferential treatment. It can be 'treated' by making sure that both group share a view that 'we are all in this together' (where have I heard that before?). You can draw your own conclusions about how this is reflected in how groups in society are treated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)