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.
Rights and Responsibilites Part 1: Healthcare
We hear so much about “rights” in the media. Somebody fighting for some basic “rights”, debates about personal “rights”. But we hear so little about “responsibilities”. When you apply for jobs, or get a bill, or get statements about accounts, you see a section called “Rights and Responsibilities”. That is because the two go hand-in-hand. Yet, it seems that most people don’t think about “responsibilities” when they think about “rights”.
Most people can’t even differentiate because rights and privileges. That is because there really is no such thing as privilege anymore. Anything seen as a privilege is instantly shot down in this politically correct world. So, everything has become a “right”.
With that in mind, let’s just look at some of these “rights”. We all have rights to health care. Fair enough. But, how much of it is a right? Some would argue that all health care is a “right” and that no one should be turned down for anything just because of lack of funds. That is a noble stand. I agree that it is a shame to withhold medical treatment for purely financial reasons. But, is there enough funding to continue with that stand? Residents are entitled to free NHS care “because they pay their taxes” is an argument for free healthcare. But, what about those who have never paid taxes? Surely, they are not excluded? Don’t they have a “right” to free healthcare? And how far can we take treatment? Is it a “right” for anyone and everyone to get life-extending treatment even when it is futile and costly? These are ethical questions that then become legal battles.
On the flip side, what about responsibilities? If you have a “right” to free health care, shouldn’t there be accompanying responsibilities to ensure that you maintain your health? Such as following instructions by your doctor to take medications, follow treatment plans and follow-ups, and proper diet and exercise. There is flagrant abuse of the system when people destroy themselves and then expect the healthcare system to fix everything.
Case in point (an extreme case): recently, a young man was hospitalised for acute liver failure after a binge-drinking session. While in hospital, he walks out and enters a pub across the street, attempting to order alcohol. He was not served alcohol and authorities were alerted and he was taken back to hospital. His father is understandably upset by the incident, and furthermore, as a good father, he is fighting to overturn a recommendation that liver transplant patients must abstain from alcohol for at least 6 months before getting a transplant. This young man’s life is in acute danger. Doctors have given him 2 weeks. Therefore, he would be dead before he can get a transplant. He is a binge-drinker, not a chronic drinker, and he may have been suffering some confusion related to the acute liver failure. Or, he may have some psychiatric disturbance. Either way, he has no idea why he left the hospital and attempted to get alcohol. I feel for the father. It is obvious he is concerned enough to fight for his son to get a liver transplant to save his life. But, does he have a “right” to this transplant? The number of liver donors is low; With alcoholism being a serious problem in the UK, that number becomes even lower. Is it right to give a transplant to someone who may not be able to live up to his responsibilities to protect that transplant?
Of course, the answer to this case is not to make it available only to those who can afford it. That would only lead to black market transplants. But, the reason that recommendations are in place is to ensure that those who receive these scarce but life-saving measures are the best candidates. Too many people die waiting for transplants as it is.
Another case in point: An American woman has been granted a rich payout from a tobacco company, on behalf of her mother, who died from longterm tobacco use. Or, in other words, tobacco abuse. Of course, the argument was that the tobacco company was liable for the effects of tobacco and fraudulent in its advertising. Though I would never defend the tobacco industry, is it right that they should pay out to survivors of those who smoked? The health effects of smoking and tobacco have been highlighted for so long now, that those who really wanted to quit, could have sought help. Smoking is addictive and it may be very difficult to quit. Furthermore, lung damage from smoking takes years to reverse, if at all. So, tobacco companies may be liable for some of the problems, but $13-million worth?
Some people assert their right to smoke, or their right to decline medical treatment, or their right to make poor choices. Where is the responsibility in that? Then, when they run into trouble, they expect that medical treatment will put them right again?
Despite what one believes about fundamental rights to healthcare, it should be acknowledged that many specialists practice outside of the NHS and receive higher pay from private insurance and individuals. This is an attractive option for many specialists who are at the top of their field, so is access to medical care really equal for all? Should it be?
English proficiency required
I know that people responding to blog articles may not necessarily spell-check everything they write, but they should at least read over what they’ve written before posting it. It is very irritating reading a bunch of misspellings and incorrect words and trying to get an understanding of the writer’s thoughts. If this is what the English education has churned out, it’s no wonder people complain about the standards of education declining. If you think Americans speak pidgin English, you should read some blogs and their responses.
Typos are common. Even the best typist can sometimes interchange letters while typing very fast. Not all these mistakes can be caught right away. Incorrect usage of homophones are also very common, but they are usually quite apparent if you read over it once. Some common mistakes are “their” and “there”, or “your” and “you’re”, or “its” and “it’s”. However, sometimes when I read some of these blogs and responses, it appears that the writer doesn’t even have a clue that they’re using the wrong homophone, because they are continually making the same mistake. Another mistake is the incorrect usage, or lack thereof, of the apostrophe. One of the biggest mistakes I’ve read involve the word “of” when the correct word (whether the writer knows it or not) is “have”. Examples: “they should of” instead of “they should have”. The correct contraction is “should’ve”, pronounced “should of”, but is really “should have”.
I’m not an English teacher, and I learned American English. So, of course, there will be differences in spelling and pronunciation of many words, not to mention the differences in vocabulary. But I cannot believe that some basic English rules, such as the above, could possibly be that different. For other things, such as, “noone” and “no one”, I still don’t know if the British accept alternate spellings. No one in the US would spell “noone” on purpose unless it was someone’s name, and it would be pronounced “noon”.
Why do I bother? Because English was not my first language, but it has become my primary and only language. I can understand if someone is learning the language and genuinely makes a mistake; but for native speakers to make those mistakes is aggravating. If they don’t bother to learn it well, why should a foreigner? If I have to prove to prospective employers that I can read, write, speak and listen in English proficiently, just because I’m an immigrant in this country, I’d like to see that the natives can do even better.
Al-Megrahi’s hero’s welcome is disturbing
So, the Lockerbie bomber has received a hero’s welcome back home in Libya. I know the US is not happy about that, and I wonder how others who supported his release feel about it.
I did not lose a loved one in the Lockerbie bombing, but I did have a friend in college who lost her brother. I did not follow the trial and can only accept that Mr. Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was found guilty and imprisoned. For those who cannot understand how cold Americans can be regarding Mr. al-Megrahi and how angry they are at his release, let me point out a few things.
Mr. al-Megrahi was the only one convicted – he probably was not the only one involved, he may not have been the ringleader, but most likely, he had a hand in it. Whether he was a scapegoat or not is a different matter. His government handed him over and he was found guilty. The Americans were not the judges. They accepted the verdict. Had he been found innocent, they would have continued the quest for justice. He is something tangible for them to take their anger and frustration out on.
A sentence was delivered. To cut the sentence short, out of compassion, feels like a betrayal to these people. It does not seem like justice. People may preach compassion all they want, but victims’ families have a hard time hearing it. Also, in the US, prisoners get better health care than the general public. So, releasing him on compassionate grounds would not be considered “compassionate” – though Americans don’t view keeping him in prison as compassionate, they just think it’s justice. However, if you wanted to argue compassion, they would argue that he would get free medical care in prison. Was he getting that in the UK? Is it more compassionate to send him home to Libya where medical care may not be as good?
I’m sure Gaddafi and the Libyans now pretend to show great friendship to the UK (especially Lord Mandelson), but deep down inside I wonder what their feelings are regarding the UK’s “compassionate” stand. I don’t refer just to Mr. al-Megrahi. The UK (I am not separating Scotland and England) has shown compassion to several prisoners who are terminally ill. Do the people in the Middle East admire that trait, or do they scorn it? Will they be grateful, or will they take advantage of it? Of course, most people in the UK are probably not as cynical as I am, so they will not care. They may claim to be atheists, but they show a more Christian-like attitude by turning the other cheek and proving that they can rise above resentment and revenge by showing compassion to someone they feel may be a mass murderer.
But, even so, the fact that he received a hero’s welcome, rather than house arrest, almost comes across as if the Libyans want to stick it to the western world that they can get away with murder.
Addendum: The fact that al-Megrahi’s solicitor, Tony Kelly, made the following statement (according to BBC online):
seems to imply that al-Megrahi had prior knowledge of his release, even before the decision was made. And Mandelson denies he had a discussion with Gaddafi’s son regarding this issue?
Is an independent candidate the right way to go?
Though the media have not commented further on MP expenses, it seems the anger has not abated. In fact, some very public figures are involved in the fray. Esther Rantzen has already declared her intentions and is happy with the warm reception from Luton South. Martin Bell, well-known for having been a successful MP when he stepped in as an independent against a sleaze Tory MP, is now possibly considering standing again. Terry Waite is using his high profile to recruit other possible independent candidates.
But, the question is, will it really make a difference? Yes, there’s public anger, but some more reasonably minded people still support their MPs. Not all of them, of course. Even though many MPs were named and shamed, not all their offences were equally offensive. So, some of them still have supporters. Not only that, despite their iniquities, some MPs still did a very good job for their constituents (according to their constituents). So, in the end, the whole brouhaha amounted to very little.
On the other hand, would it be smart to replace a productive MP just because of his/her indiscretions? Have they really learned any lessons from the scandal or is it all just lip service? With less than 10 months to go until a general election, how will the expenses scandal play into it? Will independent candidates be the answer? Or would anything change, even if independent candidates were to win? Will people’s anger mean that real changes can really take place? Or will the anger be misguided into choosing the wrong candidates? It remains to be seen.
Can the NHS do with some reforms?
This whole controversy about the NHS is so pathetically trivial. First of all, we know that the US has absolutely no clue about the NHS. I should know – I’m American. Yes, we heard all about universal healthcare and the waiting lists, but that doesn’t mean we know it. Unless you’ve experienced it, you would not know about it. And, unless you know about it, you can’t make informed decisions, nor can you make any judgments.
It was very obvious that the anti-reform campaign group in the US was ignorant when they mentioned Stephen Hawking. That should have been a red flag for anyone to laugh at them. But instead, we have all these MPs and MEPs getting involved. And on Twitter of all things. And the politicians comments are just drivel.
The NHS has been talked up in recent months and everyone says the same thing – there needs to be reform, more efficiencies, etc. So, when it gets attacked, why does everyone suddenly rush to its defense? Even those who have complained about the NHS are now defending it. Is it just because the ignorant Americans are criticising it? Do you think the American system is any better? Why can’t we admit there are things that are wrong, but it’s not as bad as the Americans think? Why do we have to suddenly present it as the best thing in the world? Of course, Mr. Hannan’s “I wouldn’t wish it on anyone” comment is extremely inappropriate as he has not experienced other healthcare systems, either.
And the comments that the public have left: “The NHS saved my life” – come on, now. Was it the NHS or was it the doctors? Give credit where credit is due. Do you suppose that if you had any different healthcare system you would have been left to die? Yes, you should be happy that you don’t have to worry about medical bills, but the NHS did not save your life.
I’m surprised to hear all this NHS support now. I don’t mean that people would want to abolish it, but I’ve heard the complaints, so I would have expected a more reasoned response and not this “I wouldn’t change a thing” attitude. I once needed emergency care and it was the doctors who talked me into going through the private route in order to be seen urgently. Afterwards, another doctor informed me that I qualified for NHS care and given that it was an emergency, I would not have been left to wait. So, even those on the inside have issues against the NHS.
Once again, the politicians are behaving so childishly by all this mudslinging that is meaningless. Who can you trust to save the NHS when none of them would dare to stand up and voice concerns about it?
Big Brother strikes again
Alan Duncan should have known better. I have commented before that we live in a Big Brother society. We know that members of the media, the public, even the MPs will secretly tape one another and attempt to discredit them because of some vendetta. It’s embarrassing to be caught, not to mention potentially career-damaging.
No one’s going to even listen to debate about whether it’s ethical, legal, or moral to use secret tapings as evidence. It may or may not be accurate, but there’s always the danger of taking things out of context. But it doesn’t matter to the rest of the public, does it?
I’m not defending Mr. Duncan. Nor do I believe the age-old excuse of it just being a joke. I don’t even know what expense reforms have really been put in place. All the talk seemed to amount to nothing, so I can’t even understand why he would complain. On the other hand, this whole expense thing was so laughable, that his complaints would only trigger an eyeball roll and a chuckle than outright anger. Then again, maybe I have a better sense of humour than Sir Alistair Graham gives credit to the general public.
Perhaps, Alan Duncan has shown his true colours. Perhaps, he’s not as good an actor as other MPs who have been in the limelight so long that they have become polished. Perhaps, he’s not a good judge of character and is too trusting. I doubt that his sentiments are unique to himself. He was just the first to be caught out. Now the others are forewarned.
And, of course, Mr. Heydon Prowse cannot escape criticism. As a member of the media, his reputation can never escape untainted. He was a vandal with a sense of humour, but a vandal, nevertheless. He was charmed by Mr. Duncan, yet was willing to stab him in the back. He was also dishonest enough not to mention that he was secretly taping him, so it’s doubtful that he even revealed his relationship with a magazine.
So, it would be good to remember, whether you’re a bigwig or a lowly Joe Public, that this is an intolerant, insecure, extremely sensitive and politically correct society. If you can’t change your attitude, then you will need to consider each and every word you utter, unless you really mean to stir up controversy.
Random Posts