Much debate has been had in the last week on the "deserving and undeserving poor".
As Stephen Tall puts it, "David Cameron has been pitching to the right-wing nut-job vote in recent weeks", and a brilliant example of this is the amount of people claiming incapacity benefits for alledgedly spurious reasons.
Churning out such debates is a good way to retain traditional Conservative voters, but the subject opens up a kettle of fish for many people.
What is the issue?
The welfare state is there to protect people who cannot work for whatever reason. The state provides this universal benefit to citizens in social solidarity, guranteeing a minimum level of well being. Apparently.
However, the term Social Solidarity means different things to different people.
What is the debate?
Smoking is a classic example, where upon people divide into different camps to debate the subject of smoking related illnesses in full colour.
But smoking is the tip of the iceberg. When one considers smoking to be the most socially acceptable of addictions, introducing illegal addictions is gasoline on a smouldering barbecue.
The difficulty with a welfare state is always exposed when one introduces firstly morality and secondly fault into the debate.
This is where I refer you back to the term "universal". The universiality of Britain's Welfare State should be the founding and ultimate principle. Whether you break your leg horse riding or because of an industrial accident, the welfare state should provide regardless.
The Facts?
The debate, however, is somewhat circumspect when one examines the facts.
People are so het up with the issue of fault, they did not question the facts. Mark Easton made the most brilliant post on the facts which far suppasses my paultry attempts at interpretation.
The truth is, addiction and obesity may make up some of the figures in recipient of Incapacity, however, this number has reduced by a third in the last two years.
And therefore, the debate is almost elementary.
And for good measure
If the welfare state was indeed introduced to remove the stigma of charity, how exactly does one reconcile the Big Society and Localism debates in current politics?
Have we come full circle, to where Charity provisions are acceptable and preferable to the state?
Will we now begin a fresh cycle where pride will build up and people will eventually reject the stigma once again?
Showing posts with label welfare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label welfare. Show all posts
12 Dec 2010
Death of the Lib Dems?
There's a lot of blogging on the Lib Dems at the moment. Some are writing an epitaph and some are writing of metamorphasis after the sacrifice of Clegg.
The phoenix was an interesting choice for the Liberal Democrats to choose in 1983. Most understand the bird to represent rising from the ashes, and so the merging of the Social Democrats and the Liberal Party could be seen as a rejuvenation of their policies in a positive, casting off their daemons along the way.
But the image of the phoenix is even more poignant now.
For those with a love of classics, the phoenix lived a 500 year life, where at the end it would build a nest of riches and lay down and burst into flames. And from those ashes, a young bird would imerge, ready for another 500 year cycle.
The metaphors are wonderful. As Ovid observed;
And here the Lib Dems are apparently at their moment of resurrection, in their nest of rich and Tory laid principles, from where a new form of party could imerge, amongst the broken windows of the Treasury and the Supreme Court.
Their destination depends on the party itself, the only party to be guided by democratic principles that govern each level of importance. Unlike the current parliament.
The Lib Dems have acehived a lot in coalition, although the voters aren't getting the message.
What ever your position on tuition fees, it was the Lib Dems who insisted on a cap, while the Tories wanted it to be unlimited. Imagine the social divide then. We'd be looking at an American Style system where those with money got degrees.
The limits on nuclear energy and the increased investment in renewable energy sources are one of Chris Huhne's biggest sucesses, the Green Deal, as it so quaintly called. But this deal will significantly improve the environment, having impact on ours and our children's future, as well as embracing better mentalities towards energy saving and reducing carbon footprint.
The introduction of a higher tax threshold in April 2011 will ensure that those experiencing benefit cuts are better off, and help to ensure it is more productive to work than take benefits.
The bankers levvy, so demanded by the public, has been introduced as part of the coalition strategy.
And that is just the beginning.
Perhaps the Liberal Democrats havent had enough experience of the media and how to spin their successes. Or at least competing with the agendas of other political parties in the midst of a spin war.
Even ConHome was advertising Nick Clegg as a liar this week, taking their pound of salt but not accepting any of the blame for recent insurrections by students and activists.
So yes, a strategic opportunity is here for the Liberal Democrats. To reassert their party politics, play their own trumpet and push, aggressively, to get a differnt identity from both Tories and Labour.
The ultimate mission is still the AV Referendum.
Anyone who has been made redundant, anyone who has demonstrated at unfair tuition fees, anyone who is unhappy about the cuts to child benefit, are posed with the opportunity to change politics in the UK for good.
We are currently governed by a man who received just 25% of the country's votes in 2010.
Our own MPs are generally elected on less than 50% of the population.
Why would anyone be content to stay with this system of complete unfairness?
The change would allow people to vote for their genuine choices, no tactics, and change how the country is ruled for good. If you don't like Clegg, this is your opportunity to out him. Far more so than ignoring the vote.
To ignore the AV Referendum would ensure a future of Old Boys Club, a future of people who have never received benefits deciding benefits payments, of people who dont need to worry about university fees raising them for the rest of us.
But with Labour contesting the referendum (after all, it was good enough for them to elect a leader, but not for the country), and the Tories wanting to maintain the status quo, it will be the Lib Dems championing the campaign.
And there in lies their opportunity, a remodel and a review of identity with a new political system in the UK.
The phoenix was an interesting choice for the Liberal Democrats to choose in 1983. Most understand the bird to represent rising from the ashes, and so the merging of the Social Democrats and the Liberal Party could be seen as a rejuvenation of their policies in a positive, casting off their daemons along the way.
But the image of the phoenix is even more poignant now.
For those with a love of classics, the phoenix lived a 500 year life, where at the end it would build a nest of riches and lay down and burst into flames. And from those ashes, a young bird would imerge, ready for another 500 year cycle.
The metaphors are wonderful. As Ovid observed;
"From the body of the parent bird, a young Phoenix issues forth, destined to live as long a life as its predecessor
And here the Lib Dems are apparently at their moment of resurrection, in their nest of rich and Tory laid principles, from where a new form of party could imerge, amongst the broken windows of the Treasury and the Supreme Court.
Their destination depends on the party itself, the only party to be guided by democratic principles that govern each level of importance. Unlike the current parliament.
The Lib Dems have acehived a lot in coalition, although the voters aren't getting the message.
What ever your position on tuition fees, it was the Lib Dems who insisted on a cap, while the Tories wanted it to be unlimited. Imagine the social divide then. We'd be looking at an American Style system where those with money got degrees.
The limits on nuclear energy and the increased investment in renewable energy sources are one of Chris Huhne's biggest sucesses, the Green Deal, as it so quaintly called. But this deal will significantly improve the environment, having impact on ours and our children's future, as well as embracing better mentalities towards energy saving and reducing carbon footprint.
The introduction of a higher tax threshold in April 2011 will ensure that those experiencing benefit cuts are better off, and help to ensure it is more productive to work than take benefits.
The bankers levvy, so demanded by the public, has been introduced as part of the coalition strategy.
And that is just the beginning.
Perhaps the Liberal Democrats havent had enough experience of the media and how to spin their successes. Or at least competing with the agendas of other political parties in the midst of a spin war.
Even ConHome was advertising Nick Clegg as a liar this week, taking their pound of salt but not accepting any of the blame for recent insurrections by students and activists.
So yes, a strategic opportunity is here for the Liberal Democrats. To reassert their party politics, play their own trumpet and push, aggressively, to get a differnt identity from both Tories and Labour.
The ultimate mission is still the AV Referendum.
Anyone who has been made redundant, anyone who has demonstrated at unfair tuition fees, anyone who is unhappy about the cuts to child benefit, are posed with the opportunity to change politics in the UK for good.
We are currently governed by a man who received just 25% of the country's votes in 2010.
Our own MPs are generally elected on less than 50% of the population.
Why would anyone be content to stay with this system of complete unfairness?
The change would allow people to vote for their genuine choices, no tactics, and change how the country is ruled for good. If you don't like Clegg, this is your opportunity to out him. Far more so than ignoring the vote.
To ignore the AV Referendum would ensure a future of Old Boys Club, a future of people who have never received benefits deciding benefits payments, of people who dont need to worry about university fees raising them for the rest of us.
But with Labour contesting the referendum (after all, it was good enough for them to elect a leader, but not for the country), and the Tories wanting to maintain the status quo, it will be the Lib Dems championing the campaign.
And there in lies their opportunity, a remodel and a review of identity with a new political system in the UK.
22 Jan 2010
A few views on Frig's Day 2010
Hell Boys
I have run one or two diatribes on the "hell boys" so far so I need not impress my opinion on the illogical systems of criminal culpability and social care in this country any more. I will, however, say that no man is without merit, and if I had any faith in our British Psychology, Rehabilitiation or Young Offenders Institutes, I may be more forth coming about their ages.
But, in the true political prevaricating way, can I just say that Ed Balls on Radio 4 made an excellent point about the case being used for political gain by the Conservatives. The sound bite "broken Britain" is more Blairite than Hazel Blears.
The Pirates of Distraction Technique
Somewhere in the reports of bungled rescue attempts and removal of ring fenced budgeting, reporters seem to have forgotton the plight of Mr and Mrs Chandeler. It is almost as an afterthought in this article they add;
[The couple] "had been separated and beaten by the pirates and [Mr Chandler] expected to be killed within "three or four days".
I'm sure the local papers in Tunbridge Wells are clamouring for justice, but has the world got so big that we are blind to people suffering harm unless it is a mass disaster or a political tool? I hazard a cynical guess that were Cameron to take up their cause, it would be the main thrust of the BBC et al. However, "Chandler" does not make for a good soundbite, and he would only target the same story presented, blaming Labour spending cuts for the resulting harm the couple are suffering and may suffer still.
Perceived Terror Threat
This comes a little late in the day, would you say? Nearly four weeks after the event? The event that was farcical at best. The biggest fall out has been that the Dutch will be even more scrutinised in customs, and more personal freedoms will be erased with inept profiling based on stereotypes and masqueraded as UK Border Agency Security.
Brown's Debut at The Iraq Enquiry
Sir John Chilcott may have "said the committee was still concerned about the risk of the hearings being politicised in the run-up to the election. and we all knew it was inevitable.
I fail to understand why anyone would want to enter a ballot for tickets to see Blair dissemble arguments when we had that for 8 years with him as a Prime Minister.
And on the Iraq Enquiry, do they not have Lawyers and Judges because the cost of creating a logo eradicated their budget perhaps?
Munchausens Mother Jailed
While the facts of this case are terrible, it perhaps raises mroe concerns about our National Health System than I had initially perceived. With the advent of medical technology, one has to wonder how a child went through 8 years of medical examinations, in a high profile case, and was still diagnosed with conditions which require medical evidence. While I appreciate she put sugar in his urine samples to make him diabetic, I am not sure how anyone can fabricate cerebral palsy and cystic fibrosis without a level of incompetence in the diagnostacians involved.
It also raises an interesting point about coping with Disability.
"Andrew Macfarlane, prosecuting, told the court that Hayden-Johnson's... medical treatment meant that the child was socially stigmatised."
This in turn makes me think about how society responds to disability. We currently live in a society that pities disability and yet stigmatises those who suffer from it. People with disabilities are constantly pandered to in the worst possible way, with no responsibility, few friends and exclusion from society, yet renounced with charity and gifts. But I will leave this for another post I think.
I have run one or two diatribes on the "hell boys" so far so I need not impress my opinion on the illogical systems of criminal culpability and social care in this country any more. I will, however, say that no man is without merit, and if I had any faith in our British Psychology, Rehabilitiation or Young Offenders Institutes, I may be more forth coming about their ages.
But, in the true political prevaricating way, can I just say that Ed Balls on Radio 4 made an excellent point about the case being used for political gain by the Conservatives. The sound bite "broken Britain" is more Blairite than Hazel Blears.
The Pirates of Distraction Technique
Somewhere in the reports of bungled rescue attempts and removal of ring fenced budgeting, reporters seem to have forgotton the plight of Mr and Mrs Chandeler. It is almost as an afterthought in this article they add;
[The couple] "had been separated and beaten by the pirates and [Mr Chandler] expected to be killed within "three or four days".
I'm sure the local papers in Tunbridge Wells are clamouring for justice, but has the world got so big that we are blind to people suffering harm unless it is a mass disaster or a political tool? I hazard a cynical guess that were Cameron to take up their cause, it would be the main thrust of the BBC et al. However, "Chandler" does not make for a good soundbite, and he would only target the same story presented, blaming Labour spending cuts for the resulting harm the couple are suffering and may suffer still.
Perceived Terror Threat
This comes a little late in the day, would you say? Nearly four weeks after the event? The event that was farcical at best. The biggest fall out has been that the Dutch will be even more scrutinised in customs, and more personal freedoms will be erased with inept profiling based on stereotypes and masqueraded as UK Border Agency Security.
Brown's Debut at The Iraq Enquiry
Sir John Chilcott may have "said the committee was still concerned about the risk of the hearings being politicised in the run-up to the election. and we all knew it was inevitable.
I fail to understand why anyone would want to enter a ballot for tickets to see Blair dissemble arguments when we had that for 8 years with him as a Prime Minister.
And on the Iraq Enquiry, do they not have Lawyers and Judges because the cost of creating a logo eradicated their budget perhaps?
Munchausens Mother Jailed
While the facts of this case are terrible, it perhaps raises mroe concerns about our National Health System than I had initially perceived. With the advent of medical technology, one has to wonder how a child went through 8 years of medical examinations, in a high profile case, and was still diagnosed with conditions which require medical evidence. While I appreciate she put sugar in his urine samples to make him diabetic, I am not sure how anyone can fabricate cerebral palsy and cystic fibrosis without a level of incompetence in the diagnostacians involved.
It also raises an interesting point about coping with Disability.
"Andrew Macfarlane, prosecuting, told the court that Hayden-Johnson's... medical treatment meant that the child was socially stigmatised."
This in turn makes me think about how society responds to disability. We currently live in a society that pities disability and yet stigmatises those who suffer from it. People with disabilities are constantly pandered to in the worst possible way, with no responsibility, few friends and exclusion from society, yet renounced with charity and gifts. But I will leave this for another post I think.
18 Jan 2010
Seeking Social Policy Solutions
Another rehash of the "Hell Boys" who tortured two younger children in Doncaster last year has appeared through out the news.
The details have not been elaborated on due to an injunction to prevent all of the details being know. When I blogged on this last year, I referred to the case as the next generation's Jamie Bulger, and indeed this case has been compared to the notorious 1993 Jamie Bulger case..
Police were alerted on April 4 after the nine-year-old boy who was attacked was found wandering, covered in blood, in the former pit village. The youngster told the people who found him where to find his 11-year-old companion, who was discovered unconscious in a nearby wooded ravine.
Previous court hearings have been told that the two victims were hit with sticks and bricks, one had a sink dropped on his head, one had a noose put round his neck and the other was burned with a cigarette on his eyelids and ear. Their tormentors also tried to force the boys into performing sex acts on each other.
During the attack the older victim begged his attackers to kill him, such was his torment.
This case raises several strands of concern. The failings of our public services and the systematic rise in child to child violence that the Legal System is not equipped to deal with.
Failing Public Services
The BBC have had access to a document which identifies 31 incidents which Social Services had recorded but not acted on. This must be a relief for Haringey.
Joking aside, this raises serious concerns about thechildren's services department of Doncaster council, where seven children officially marked as being at risk have died since 2004.
Newsnight is revealing the details of the report into Eddington as I type, and reporting of matters in the public interest
"Corporate and Organisational Inadequacies" are cited by the report as the main cause of the failings of the system.
Ultimately, it is not only Eddlington that is failing children, it is systems across the country.
Underfunded, badly staffed, managed by CEOs who transfer through directorates with alarming ease and no experience, all cite reasons for a serious review.
Articles litter the web on proposals and analysis of cases and systems. Political parties have limited proposals and it is as unappealing a job as reviewing the benefit system.
Reviews need to be done with all members of staff, not just quality and target assurance managers who do not practice the trade . Case loads need to be reviewed, more administrative support needs to be provided.
After all, Doctors automatically have secretaries, why not Social Work professionals?
The premise of a right to parenthood has dominated public services for too long. If someone has a child taken away from them, it should follow that all subsequent children are removed until they are deemed to be a stable parent. The case in Eddlington shows more evidence of drink, drugs and violence in a home with seven children.
Early intervention would have decreased the risks of the boys then attempting to murder other children, among other offences.
Nefarious Youth
The convicted killers of Damilola Taylor identified a serious trend of youth violence in Britain in 2006. Yet this, and other high profile cases of attacks and murder of children by children have failed to accelerate a solution within the public services that are failing these "hell boys".
To take a political slant, the "tough on crime, tough on causes of crime" soundbite Blair was so good at has created a decade of clunky bureaucracy and pseudo offences for the young criminal population. Antisocial behaviour orders, a brilliant concept with no back bone or implementation what so ever, have failed the justice system and the perpetrators.
Antisocial behaviour orders remain difficult to achieve, taking an average of 3 years to achieve and only when a system of reprimands such as Acceptable Behaviour Agreements have been tried first. In turn, 45% of ASBOs are breached in the first year.
Many groups question the suitability of ASBOs for young persons and how they are worked separately from the Social Care system.
With The Children’s Society saying "Asbos are never appropriate for children". and fighting for abolition for under-18s, the Youth Justice Board saying ASBOs should only be used “with care, and only when necessary” and the Children's Commissioner stating that an Asbo should only be issued when it is “appropriate, sensible, proportionate and just”, it is understandably a confusing area.
The variety of non custodial sanctions employed in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Antisocial Behaviour Act 2003 are repeatedly revealed by statistical agencies as futile, there is clearly a need for a social policy review in this area without soundbites, without tabloids screaming capital punishment and a determined focus on the origins and development of violent behaviour that are increasingly leading to high profile cases such as these.
Inadequate Legal Jurisdiction
The age of criminal responsibility in the UK is 10 before a prosecution can be brought.
The Youth Justice Board battled for rights for children in relation to criminal prosecution resulting in the Children's Act 1989.
However, it is clear that the Courts are dealing with these children too late. While Youth Offending Officers and Legislation governs for intervention by Social Services, it is clear that, as children cannot be arrested, cautioned or sanctioned before the age of 10, there is no system in place for referral.
Social services are only aware of a situation if it is brought to their attention.
If lesser sanctions were allowed for children under the age of 10 committing offences then it would flag the child's name to social services and allow intervention before the child ended up in Court at 14 charged with serious offences.
Inter Agency Working
Multiagency working, another Labour Buzzword, is the logical conclusion to proceed in a review of these services.
But partnership working suffers with numerous meetings, little action planning and poor results. Bureaucracy and the infiltration of tick box procedures has created an environment where there is little focus on client care or focus. With Police ensuring they make the target on ASBOs and the Social Workers ensuring they have met their weekly visit quota, the client is left to run rings around the system and results in activities with no fear of consequence, no remorse and little prospects other than further crime.
In the UK we are proud of our public services, but they have become so entrenched in bureaucracy and procedure in the last two decades that they are failing the people who really need them.
Where they are not outsourced to corner cutting, profit making businesses, the staff are disillusioned and unable to make a difference in a culture of targets and imagined successes by managerial incompetency.
The only quality assurance a society should need is to protect it's citizens.
Social policy should follow this by ensuring that children's needs are met to allow them to grow up with access to education, a safe and stable family environment, no poverty and a meritocratic system of reward and achievement.
The social agencies are so focused on meeting stringent targets, they miss the bigger picture. When children die, or commit serious offences, they retreat behind excuses of poor facilities or resources.
What about the poor resources the children are left with that leave them in a state of criminal behaviour with no morality and no future?
The details have not been elaborated on due to an injunction to prevent all of the details being know. When I blogged on this last year, I referred to the case as the next generation's Jamie Bulger, and indeed this case has been compared to the notorious 1993 Jamie Bulger case..
Police were alerted on April 4 after the nine-year-old boy who was attacked was found wandering, covered in blood, in the former pit village. The youngster told the people who found him where to find his 11-year-old companion, who was discovered unconscious in a nearby wooded ravine.
Previous court hearings have been told that the two victims were hit with sticks and bricks, one had a sink dropped on his head, one had a noose put round his neck and the other was burned with a cigarette on his eyelids and ear. Their tormentors also tried to force the boys into performing sex acts on each other.
During the attack the older victim begged his attackers to kill him, such was his torment.
This case raises several strands of concern. The failings of our public services and the systematic rise in child to child violence that the Legal System is not equipped to deal with.
Failing Public Services
The BBC have had access to a document which identifies 31 incidents which Social Services had recorded but not acted on. This must be a relief for Haringey.
Joking aside, this raises serious concerns about thechildren's services department of Doncaster council, where seven children officially marked as being at risk have died since 2004.
Newsnight is revealing the details of the report into Eddington as I type, and reporting of matters in the public interest
"Corporate and Organisational Inadequacies" are cited by the report as the main cause of the failings of the system.
Ultimately, it is not only Eddlington that is failing children, it is systems across the country.
Underfunded, badly staffed, managed by CEOs who transfer through directorates with alarming ease and no experience, all cite reasons for a serious review.
Articles litter the web on proposals and analysis of cases and systems. Political parties have limited proposals and it is as unappealing a job as reviewing the benefit system.
Reviews need to be done with all members of staff, not just quality and target assurance managers who do not practice the trade . Case loads need to be reviewed, more administrative support needs to be provided.
After all, Doctors automatically have secretaries, why not Social Work professionals?
The premise of a right to parenthood has dominated public services for too long. If someone has a child taken away from them, it should follow that all subsequent children are removed until they are deemed to be a stable parent. The case in Eddlington shows more evidence of drink, drugs and violence in a home with seven children.
Early intervention would have decreased the risks of the boys then attempting to murder other children, among other offences.
Nefarious Youth
The convicted killers of Damilola Taylor identified a serious trend of youth violence in Britain in 2006. Yet this, and other high profile cases of attacks and murder of children by children have failed to accelerate a solution within the public services that are failing these "hell boys".
To take a political slant, the "tough on crime, tough on causes of crime" soundbite Blair was so good at has created a decade of clunky bureaucracy and pseudo offences for the young criminal population. Antisocial behaviour orders, a brilliant concept with no back bone or implementation what so ever, have failed the justice system and the perpetrators.
Antisocial behaviour orders remain difficult to achieve, taking an average of 3 years to achieve and only when a system of reprimands such as Acceptable Behaviour Agreements have been tried first. In turn, 45% of ASBOs are breached in the first year.
Many groups question the suitability of ASBOs for young persons and how they are worked separately from the Social Care system.
With The Children’s Society saying "Asbos are never appropriate for children". and fighting for abolition for under-18s, the Youth Justice Board saying ASBOs should only be used “with care, and only when necessary” and the Children's Commissioner stating that an Asbo should only be issued when it is “appropriate, sensible, proportionate and just”, it is understandably a confusing area.
The variety of non custodial sanctions employed in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Antisocial Behaviour Act 2003 are repeatedly revealed by statistical agencies as futile, there is clearly a need for a social policy review in this area without soundbites, without tabloids screaming capital punishment and a determined focus on the origins and development of violent behaviour that are increasingly leading to high profile cases such as these.
Inadequate Legal Jurisdiction
The age of criminal responsibility in the UK is 10 before a prosecution can be brought.
The Youth Justice Board battled for rights for children in relation to criminal prosecution resulting in the Children's Act 1989.
However, it is clear that the Courts are dealing with these children too late. While Youth Offending Officers and Legislation governs for intervention by Social Services, it is clear that, as children cannot be arrested, cautioned or sanctioned before the age of 10, there is no system in place for referral.
Social services are only aware of a situation if it is brought to their attention.
If lesser sanctions were allowed for children under the age of 10 committing offences then it would flag the child's name to social services and allow intervention before the child ended up in Court at 14 charged with serious offences.
Inter Agency Working
Multiagency working, another Labour Buzzword, is the logical conclusion to proceed in a review of these services.
But partnership working suffers with numerous meetings, little action planning and poor results. Bureaucracy and the infiltration of tick box procedures has created an environment where there is little focus on client care or focus. With Police ensuring they make the target on ASBOs and the Social Workers ensuring they have met their weekly visit quota, the client is left to run rings around the system and results in activities with no fear of consequence, no remorse and little prospects other than further crime.
In the UK we are proud of our public services, but they have become so entrenched in bureaucracy and procedure in the last two decades that they are failing the people who really need them.
Where they are not outsourced to corner cutting, profit making businesses, the staff are disillusioned and unable to make a difference in a culture of targets and imagined successes by managerial incompetency.
The only quality assurance a society should need is to protect it's citizens.
Social policy should follow this by ensuring that children's needs are met to allow them to grow up with access to education, a safe and stable family environment, no poverty and a meritocratic system of reward and achievement.
The social agencies are so focused on meeting stringent targets, they miss the bigger picture. When children die, or commit serious offences, they retreat behind excuses of poor facilities or resources.
What about the poor resources the children are left with that leave them in a state of criminal behaviour with no morality and no future?
10 May 2009
Abominable Lack of Suffering
MP's expenses are leaving a bitter taste in everyone's mouths this week.
Not least of all the MPs who realise how much they could have got away with claiming if they'd followed their colleague's examples.
If Brown valued his job, or, if Cameron really wanted to be elected, they would be up in public forum [NOT YouTube] apologising to the public and giving ideas of how this could be reconciled.
They would be pleading to understand the bitter betrayal of public trust at a time when more than 2 million are unemployed and the financial crisis is moss on a rolling stone.
They would be identifying the suffering off those on pensions, those in chronic debt, those with no career or job prospects, those who are living hand to mouth because of fuel price rises.
The list of people suffering financial hardship at the hands of this government AND the shadow cabinet and their lack of empathy, compassion and commitment is unexhaustable. The expenses issue is a cherry on the cake off the suffering of the British public at the hands of their MPs. And the images of an antique fireplace is the epitome of this.
I have learned two lessons in my life: first, there are no sufficient literary, psychological, or historical answers to human tragedy, only moral ones. Second, just as despair can come to one another only from other human beings, hope, too, can be given to one only by other human beings.
Elie Wiesel
Not least of all the MPs who realise how much they could have got away with claiming if they'd followed their colleague's examples.
If Brown valued his job, or, if Cameron really wanted to be elected, they would be up in public forum [NOT YouTube] apologising to the public and giving ideas of how this could be reconciled.
They would be pleading to understand the bitter betrayal of public trust at a time when more than 2 million are unemployed and the financial crisis is moss on a rolling stone.
They would be identifying the suffering off those on pensions, those in chronic debt, those with no career or job prospects, those who are living hand to mouth because of fuel price rises.
The list of people suffering financial hardship at the hands of this government AND the shadow cabinet and their lack of empathy, compassion and commitment is unexhaustable. The expenses issue is a cherry on the cake off the suffering of the British public at the hands of their MPs. And the images of an antique fireplace is the epitome of this.
I have learned two lessons in my life: first, there are no sufficient literary, psychological, or historical answers to human tragedy, only moral ones. Second, just as despair can come to one another only from other human beings, hope, too, can be given to one only by other human beings.
Elie Wiesel
9 May 2009
Before we can condone holding information of innocent people, we must review the systems
While MP expenses are stealing the headlines with "cheque book journalism", I think the leak is potentially a well positioned distraction from the concepts of DNA Databases and ID Cards.
I happen to be a supporter of DNA databases and ID Cards. But I do not advocate them in a country where the Police Service are maintained by target meeting. If we provide the police with a DNA database of every citizen, you can gurrantee that the hierarchy of the Police will feel the pressure to induce more and more use of the system in order to gain funding each year.
But a system that provides a deterrent in both evidence collection and in punishment is of practical use for a democracy.
The other conditions ought to be that DNA evidence is maintained correctly in the chain of command before being submitted, that correct PACE proceedures are met and that DNA evidence is NOT the sole evidence on which to base a prosecution case. Any more than a single witness or character evidence should be.
But the police and the CPS are without morals when faced with the options of hitting targets and getting good press or not hitting targets.
The same applies to the Local Authorities and NHS. Public services should be based on quality and fairness, not revenue and quantative data. This is one Thatcher Legacy I cannot support.
I happen to be a supporter of DNA databases and ID Cards. But I do not advocate them in a country where the Police Service are maintained by target meeting. If we provide the police with a DNA database of every citizen, you can gurrantee that the hierarchy of the Police will feel the pressure to induce more and more use of the system in order to gain funding each year.
But a system that provides a deterrent in both evidence collection and in punishment is of practical use for a democracy.
The other conditions ought to be that DNA evidence is maintained correctly in the chain of command before being submitted, that correct PACE proceedures are met and that DNA evidence is NOT the sole evidence on which to base a prosecution case. Any more than a single witness or character evidence should be.
But the police and the CPS are without morals when faced with the options of hitting targets and getting good press or not hitting targets.
The same applies to the Local Authorities and NHS. Public services should be based on quality and fairness, not revenue and quantative data. This is one Thatcher Legacy I cannot support.
8 May 2009
Football and Fanaticism
I'm not a football fan but no one could avoid this story yesterday.
What caught my attention was the number of media quotes demanding "more security" for referees. Referees should not need more security. As far as I am aware, death threats are a criminal offence and it is down to the public protection service to investigate.
We are in a recession. Recession breeds boredom, violence, and football hooliganism. For all the factors in Hillsborough, I sincerely doubt it would have occurred in a profligate period of time.
Other countries with poor economic climates provide a similar example, such as the levels of "Organised Hooliganism" seen in Poland with strong ties to Neo Nazi and fascist organisations.
Just as the middle class become more right wing in an economic downturn, so the working classes embrace aggression and fascist regime. Without wanting to digress into a sociological lateral analysis aggregating the negative impacts of a lack of money in society, I can sadly say that this will not be the last outburst in Football, nor the last BNP member to be voted in, nor the last ludicrous resolution plan to appease one person instead of maintaining risk.
I will, however, make the point that in every economic slump, governments slash public spending to within an inch of it's life. The result is a widening gap between the rich and the poor, resentment in the unemployed and welfare state and further inducement of aggression towards the welfare state. If the government had the sense to invest heavily in public spending, regulate and manage society so less people were deprived, more people were compensated during financial instability then this would temper aggression, right wing temperaments and illogical justifications for lack of development. Look at the Scandinavian States for example.
To surmise, football hooliganism is the problem, as a result of the economy. Not the levels of security Chelsea may or may not provide for their referees.
What caught my attention was the number of media quotes demanding "more security" for referees. Referees should not need more security. As far as I am aware, death threats are a criminal offence and it is down to the public protection service to investigate.
We are in a recession. Recession breeds boredom, violence, and football hooliganism. For all the factors in Hillsborough, I sincerely doubt it would have occurred in a profligate period of time.
Other countries with poor economic climates provide a similar example, such as the levels of "Organised Hooliganism" seen in Poland with strong ties to Neo Nazi and fascist organisations.
Just as the middle class become more right wing in an economic downturn, so the working classes embrace aggression and fascist regime. Without wanting to digress into a sociological lateral analysis aggregating the negative impacts of a lack of money in society, I can sadly say that this will not be the last outburst in Football, nor the last BNP member to be voted in, nor the last ludicrous resolution plan to appease one person instead of maintaining risk.
I will, however, make the point that in every economic slump, governments slash public spending to within an inch of it's life. The result is a widening gap between the rich and the poor, resentment in the unemployed and welfare state and further inducement of aggression towards the welfare state. If the government had the sense to invest heavily in public spending, regulate and manage society so less people were deprived, more people were compensated during financial instability then this would temper aggression, right wing temperaments and illogical justifications for lack of development. Look at the Scandinavian States for example.
To surmise, football hooliganism is the problem, as a result of the economy. Not the levels of security Chelsea may or may not provide for their referees.
14 Apr 2009
A Few Thoughts on Legislating on Alcoholism
Labour spin continues in the sidelines to the email scandal.
This current initiative, while not as detrimental to freedom as the enforced community service for adolescents, is illogical and impractical. The assertion that Labour "are going to look at the arrangements for alcoholics on benefits, just as [we] did for problem drug users, so that people get the help they need to get sober" is missing fundamental information about both drug users and alcoholics.
Measuring the "treatment" of heroin addicts is quantifiable. They go to the doctors once a week and get methadone. This replaces the heroin in their system and they are "ticked off". I they fail to collect methadone then it is assumed they are back on heroin (unless they are in work of course) and the benefits are ceased.
What exactly are the government prescribing to subsidise the addiction of alcohol?
They also fail to consider that alcohol is readily and cheaply available. All the time, thanks to the 24 hour drinking scheme initiative.
How can they tell if someone is off alcohol if there are not regular visits to a professional?
Is there even a measurable form of alcoholism? I know plenty of people who may drink every day, and plenty of people who consume so much alcohol in short periods they should be pickled.
This is without touching on the expense, bureaucracy and time investment that it will weight the NHS down with even further. Let alone valid points made by Theresa May and Steve Webb.
Looking at the story in more detail also reveals that it will be the Job centres that will refer the alcoholics for treatment. Ironically at the same time the Scotsman reports that alcoholics have the right to claim disability benefits such as Incapacity. So they wont be going to the job centre anyway will they?
Although alcoholism is cited as the main reason for claiming benefits, alcoholics getting disability benefits are also likely to have other health problems, such as mental health issues, which prevent them working.
So would being an alcoholic with mental health problems negate the removal of benefits if they refuse treatment? And which is the greater problem anyway? Will this extend to removing benefits of people with serious mental heath impairments if they refuse to attend counselling?
As an aside, the constant degradation of smokers aggravates me. I used to manage wine merchants. It always confused me that smokers were penalised more heavily than drinkers, and as staff, I would be penalised to the tune of £5000 if I sold cigs to an underage smoker. But if I sold a bottle of whisky to someone under 18 and they got in a car and killed someone I would only be fined £2000. This seems illogical. The argument, of course, is that smoking causes long term irreversible damage. Although, getting killed in a car accident is not exactly reparable!
This current initiative, while not as detrimental to freedom as the enforced community service for adolescents, is illogical and impractical. The assertion that Labour "are going to look at the arrangements for alcoholics on benefits, just as [we] did for problem drug users, so that people get the help they need to get sober" is missing fundamental information about both drug users and alcoholics.
Measuring the "treatment" of heroin addicts is quantifiable. They go to the doctors once a week and get methadone. This replaces the heroin in their system and they are "ticked off". I they fail to collect methadone then it is assumed they are back on heroin (unless they are in work of course) and the benefits are ceased.
What exactly are the government prescribing to subsidise the addiction of alcohol?
They also fail to consider that alcohol is readily and cheaply available. All the time, thanks to the 24 hour drinking scheme initiative.
How can they tell if someone is off alcohol if there are not regular visits to a professional?
Is there even a measurable form of alcoholism? I know plenty of people who may drink every day, and plenty of people who consume so much alcohol in short periods they should be pickled.
This is without touching on the expense, bureaucracy and time investment that it will weight the NHS down with even further. Let alone valid points made by Theresa May and Steve Webb.
Looking at the story in more detail also reveals that it will be the Job centres that will refer the alcoholics for treatment. Ironically at the same time the Scotsman reports that alcoholics have the right to claim disability benefits such as Incapacity. So they wont be going to the job centre anyway will they?
Although alcoholism is cited as the main reason for claiming benefits, alcoholics getting disability benefits are also likely to have other health problems, such as mental health issues, which prevent them working.
So would being an alcoholic with mental health problems negate the removal of benefits if they refuse treatment? And which is the greater problem anyway? Will this extend to removing benefits of people with serious mental heath impairments if they refuse to attend counselling?
As an aside, the constant degradation of smokers aggravates me. I used to manage wine merchants. It always confused me that smokers were penalised more heavily than drinkers, and as staff, I would be penalised to the tune of £5000 if I sold cigs to an underage smoker. But if I sold a bottle of whisky to someone under 18 and they got in a car and killed someone I would only be fined £2000. This seems illogical. The argument, of course, is that smoking causes long term irreversible damage. Although, getting killed in a car accident is not exactly reparable!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
