Tests are easier, so students are smarter

The government is congratulating itself because the number of schools with low performance has significantly dropped.  The government had set a threshold level of 30% of students achieving five good GCSEs (including English and Maths) as the mark for performance.  They are extremely happy with this summer’s exam results.

Well, given that the tests have been dumbed down, all the government really needs to do is dumb it down even more.  That way, the remaining 270 struggling schools would meet target by next year.  Then, they can go into the elections talking about the wonderful success of schools during their administration.  Oh, wait, the election is scheduled to take place before the exams.  Oops!  Well, they could always say that given the trend of the past few years, it is likely that all students would perform well on the tests.

Given that the GCSEs are dumbed down, how is it that some schools can’t even achieve the target of 30%?  What is “good GCSEs” anyway?  At least a “C”?  That’s terrible.

Does anyone in this government know what they’re doing?

First, we had Alistair Darling asking for tax advice.  He’s the Chancellor, so he should understand the intricacies of the tax code better than anyone, with the exception of Gordon Brown, the former Chancellor, who was probably most responsible for the current tax code.

Now we have Baroness Scotland breaking the very law that she drafted and pushed through Parliament.  The law makes it punishable to hire an illegal immigrant.  And being ignorant is not an acceptable defense.  So, what was her excuse when she hired an illegal immigrant?  Not that she was unaware, that would have been walking into her own trap.  No, the problem is a technical one.  She did all the appropriate checks, but she did not photocopy any of the documents. That was required by law.

Does it mean that if she had photocopied the documents, she would not be in breach of the law.  No, I think it just means that she could have proved her point that she looked at the documents.  Which then leads us to question, if the documents were in order, why was the worker illegal?  Were they forged?  If a government minister could not identify real from faked documents, how can the ordinary employer?

If the worker is not illegal, why was Baroness Scotland fined?  Just simply that she did not keep a copy of the documents?  Has she admitted to unknowingly hire an illegal immigrant?  If she did so, is this enough reason for her to be sacked?

Gordon Brown does not intend to sack her, and it’s questionable whether any of the other parties will push for it to happen.  Apparently, Baroness Scotland is well-respected all around.  However, if she wants to preserve that reputation of respectability, she should have offered to step down, especially after breaking her own law.  Had it been an ordinary citizen, he/she would have been treated like a down and dirty criminal.  What’s good for the goose in this government is not always good for the gander in the public.

The BBC’s bullying tactics

I actually find myself applauding Simon Cowell’s diplomatic approach to this silly battle between ITV and the BBC.

The BBC is funded by the general viewing public, with the TV license fees.  Therefore, it does not rely on commercial advertising.  It has a distinct advantage over its competitors and it knows it.  Despite being taxpayer funded, though, it does not seem that the BBC is serving the people.

First, the BBC prevented Barbara Windsor from appearing on Piers Morgan’s show on ITV (afraid of competition).  So, in revenge, ITV banned Ant & Dec from appearing on Jonathan Ross’ BBC show.  Now, the BBC are putting Strictly Come Dancing in direct competition with The X Factor, the two most popular TV shows.  For the record, I couldn’t really care less about any of these celebs or shows, but the actions of these rival networks are childish.  And, in the BBC’s case, it is almost a monopoly.

The BBC does not need TV ratings.  It will survive regardless.  ITV is in trouble due to the recession.  It’s almost like the BBC is out for blood and trying to destroy its closest competitor.  They’re even trying to woo celebs like Dec & Ant to join them after their ITV contract expires.

It surprises me to find that Cowell wants to avoid a clash and suggests that ITV (his network) back down.  That’s one way to avoid being torn to pieces by a bully.  But, it also makes you more vulnerable the next time.  The BBC should be accountable to their viewers and behave in a more dignified way.

Hair straighteners to encourage girls to participate in PE?

What is this about adding hair straighteners in schools to encourage more girls to participate in physical education?

Isn’t PE required of all students?  Can girls really opt out just because it would ruin their hair?  Why hair straighteners?  Is that the new fad?

When I was in school, you had to participate.  Depending on the sports involved, you also had to shower.  Of course, that was in the US.  But, my husband’s experience on this end was similar, or even more intense.

I’m not complaining about the expenditure.  It wasn’t much for a trial run.  But what will this lead to?  I know schools want to do everything to promote a positive self-image for everyone, but the idea that allowing girls to primp themselves after PE will get them to participate is silly. 

My daughter is in gymnastics.  All the girls there have to tie their hair back.  In their workouts, their hair will come loose and they will have to fix it.  But, they bring in whatever they need to take care of it.  I’m sure if “hair” is the real excuse for these other girls, they would do the same.  However, if the motivation for avoiding PE is something different, adding hair straighteners will not solve the problem.  It may take away one excuse.

But, if PE is required, why do schools need to encourage more girls to participate?  Why is there so much obsession over looks?  Generations have had to deal with that and they got by. Everyone knows that the more strenuous the physical activity, the more likely that your hair will be messed up; and no one can criticise your hair if you have been working out. On PE days, don’t dress your hair like you’re going out on a hot date.

Maybe the best way to promote positive self-image is to encourage girls to accept their looks and not doll themselves up.  After all, it can be a shocker for some people to discover what’s under all that makeup and hair.

Is Osama bin Laden really ready to talk?

I’d like to believe that Al-Qaeda is willing to sit and talk.  It seems somewhat hopeful, even if they are still suspicious of Barack Obama.  I know you don’t negotiate with terrorists, but would it be considered negotiation at this stage?

We seem to have reached the point of stalemate with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Though the Iraqi war is “over”, there are still hostilities and Afghanistan is nowhere near a position of stability.  It’s a tug o’ war effort.

The message that Osama bin Laden has supposedly sent to the US seems to imply that he may have come to realise that all this warring may be fruitless to both sides.  Many of us have seen that light for a while, even if we still hold on to our stance of support for war, because to do otherwise would be to give in to the terrorists.  However, if the other side is showing signs of relenting, should we not reconsider?

Any steps should be carefully measured though.  The Islamic extremists want Israel on the table.  Quite understandable – it has been a raging battle for generations.  The Israelis and the Palestinians both belong to the region.  Something does need to be done to give the Palestinians their own land and their own government.  However, there needs to be some guarantees of Israeli safety in a region that is predominantly Muslim.  Unfortunately, the Middle Eastern world sees the western support and protection of Israel as a direct opposition to them.  Furthermore, the new Israeli government appear to be entrenched in the old mindset and rigidly unbending.

So, would it be wise to call a truce and discuss moving onwards with peace in the region?  I would gladly welcome the day when we can be able to do that, because I believe that the Middle East as well as Afghanistan/Pakistan could benefit greatly if both sides were to work together and improve conditions for the peoples there.  The hardest part would be to put aside all the prejudices and suspicions on all three sides: the western countries, the Islamic world, and Israel.

Rights and Responsibilities Part 2: Travel

No one will deny that everyone has a right to the pursuit of happiness.  One of those pursuits may be travelling.  However, with that right, there should be some responsibilities.

Take, for example, the British woman (Samantha Orobator) who was caught in Laos with too much cocaine.  Never mind the legality of using or transporting cocaine, which she admitted to.  She had the right to choose the life she led.  However, when she got into trouble through her own fault, she expected her country to come to her aid.  Of course, that is why there are embassies around the world.  But, charities working on her behalf, rushing to her aid, getting everyone worked up about her rights, when she put herself in that predicament, was unbelievable. It wasn’t as if she was innocent and needed people to stand up for her.

Then, there were the two Americans (Laura Ling and Euna Lee) who crossed into North Korea and arrested.  They were reporters, so they should have understood the tensions in North Korea.  Heedlessly, they entered and it took Bill Clinton, the former US president, to intercede on their behalf.  Perhaps, the diplomacy involved may have helped not only Clinton, but US-North Korea relations as well.  On the other hand, it may have given North Korea an upper hand.

And, very recently, we have the British-Irish New York Times journalist (Stephen Farrell) who was kidnapped by the Taliban.  He had been kidnapped previously and rescued.  He was warned about entering the Taliban stronghold, yet risked his own as well as his translator’s life.  And, in the end, his rescue effort cost three people their lives.

None of these people took responsibility for their actions.  They do not seem to understand the adage, “You made your bed, now sleep in it.”  I have absolutely no sympathy for people who create their own problems, then expect others to bail them out.  They might think they were being heroic, they might think they were invincible, but I think they were all idiots.  When people do stupid things, they deserve to suffer for their irresponsible behaviour.  I have no sympathy for them.  I won’t say I’m perfect.  In fact, I’m not.  I make mistakes, do stupid things, and I face the music.  Why can’t these same people do likewise?  Instead, they get their fifteen minutes of fame.  And they make their governments look ridiculous.

Vetting volunteer parents is going overboard

This idea of requiring parents who voluntarily drive children around for clubs, schools, and other organisations to be vetted properly is utterly ludicrous. 

Yes, I agree that preventing paedophiles from having access to our children is important, but isn’t this idea rather extreme and an over-reaction to an incident where a school caretaker murdered two children?  In that particular case, it was the school’s fault for not investigating allegations against the caretaker.

Some authors have already felt insulted enough by the idea that they will stop making school visits.  How many parents will be turned off so that they will not volunteer to help with transportation?  It is the principles of the plan that is absurd and insulting.

The plan does not cover informal arrangements by parents, so why can’t the government just leave the parents and schools to work out these informal arrangements rather than expecting regular parent-transporters to be registered with the Vetting and Barring Scheme? 

And how will this scheme be enforced?  Will there be additional people employed at schools to guarantee that the procedures are followed?  Will there be additional people employed to register the millions that will need to be vetted under this scheme? Is this part of the government’s job creation scheme?

In science and medicine, studies determine how many people need to be treated or screened before the benefit justifies a medication or test.  If we were to apply the same principles to government, will the Vetting and Barring Scheme be worth the cost?  How many people need to be vetted in order for us to prevent one case of child murder or catch a paedophile? 

Paedophiles and murderers do not commit their crimes so obviously by kidnapping a child when everyone knows that the child was in their care.  Of course, proponents will argue that this scheme will prevent such criminals from having access to vulnerable children.  But, the case above excepted, how many paedophiles and murderers in the past actually had easy access to children?  The majority of cases will be committed by strangers who may have been stalking or taking advantage of an opportunity.  Had we had a rash of cases committed by school visitors or parents, I would be the first to argue that such a scheme would work.  But, as it is, this is just another example of unnecessary government interference.  Why can’t they come up with more useful ideas?

Public nudity is legal?

A man posed nude on a plinth in Trafalgar Square as part of an arts exhibit.  When a complaint was made, officers decided not to intervene.  The complainant was told that the man did nothing illegal.  Very interesting.

The man had checked to make sure before he undressed in public, so it’s highly likely that there is no law against public nudity.  However, I find that shocking. 

I have nothing against the human body, but modesty should be preserved in public.  How could it be wrong for nudity to be present on TV during times that children may be watching, yet it’s okay for someone to be nude in public?  How could it be wrong for people to be nude on the beach in Brighton, except in the designated naturist beach, but okay in London?

Will suing the BNP accomplish anything?

The BNP is going to court.  Though I am not a supporter, as I’ve stated many times before, I still do not see the point of all this.

If the BNP are illegal, why were they granted the right to be a political party in the first place?  And, once granted, why were their members discriminated against in the job market?

And, let’s say that they lose their court battle and are forced to change their stance against other races.  Will any other race want to join?  Their political aim is for the advancement of the White British race.  Will members of other races work to support that?

What is the real purpose of this court case?  To eliminate the BNP as a political party once and for all?  What will happen to the two seats they’ve won in the EU Parliament?  Is this another instance of wasting taxpayers’ time and money?

If they want the BNP to include other races in their workforce/membership, that should be easy for the BNP to comply.  If they want them to change their political agenda, that’s intimidation.  No one is forcing any other political party to accept or reject a particular agenda.  And, the BNP is a minor party with a nil chance of ever forming a government.

And, once they’re done with the BNP, will they go after other groups, like the Christian Alliance? Maybe the Christian Alliance doesn’t discriminate against race or anything else; but would Muslims and Hindus join the Christian Alliance?

Lesbians’ rights on birth certificates is ridiculous

Equal rights is a good thing.  But, sometimes, I feel as if it gets completely out of hand.  There are certain rights that are indisputable and everyone should be treated equally in accordance with those rights.  But, there are other things that everyone needs to accept that will never have an equality.  And one of those things is parentage.  A woman will never be a father, nor a man a mother.

That is not to say that they cannot be accorded certain privileges that they are now entitled to, in accordance with many of the equal rights laws that have come into effect.  But, those laws need to be defined in better terms.  For example, a lesbian should be given her maternity leave as appropriate.  Her partner should be accorded similar parental rights as a father – that means paternity leave, not maternity leave.  Similarly, when a gay couple adopt a baby, both may be able to get paternity rights.  Why not maternity?  Because, neither gave birth and neither can breastfeed.  They should be treated the same way as a single father.

But, to allow both partners of a homosexual relationship to declare themselves as parents on a birth certificate is beyond belief.  A birth certificate serves as a legal document, detailing the natural parentage of the child.  In this day and age, when people have a lot of interest in discovering their lineage, it would be impossible for a child to discover his/her ancestors when this document only serves to further the rights of the parents.  (How will the kids reconcile this when they learn about sex and procreation when they grow up?) The rights of the lesbian partner takes precedence to the rights of the sperm donor on the certificate.  The partner can assume this right, even if she is not even in a civil relationship with the birth mother. 

What next?  Will homosexual males who ask a woman to be a surrogate mother then be able to have both their names on the birth certificate, excluding the birth mother?  After all, if it’s to be equal rights, what’s good for the lesbians should be good for the gays.