Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread

[Pettytyrant101]

I see Grove has refined his position from striking would harm "hard-working families and single parents" to "hard-working families, single parents and in particular working women."
Even with the buckie I am not by nature a violent person, a Glasgow Kiss doesn't count, thats just saying hello with attitude, but every time I hear Grove talk I want to punch something (preferably him).

[Kafria]

All the politicians are p%$£& me off at the mo! As I've mentioned before, I am not militant and have mixed feelings about striking, but this is making me more determined. (Milliband, stiking is not a good thing comments......Bah!)

The Gove working single mum comments don't wash with me, I am one, in a profession chosen as it allowed me to have time to be a mum to my child and build up a secure future as a single parent. This is at risk now, (Even on a teachers salary I can only afford a house due to a government scheme.)

The most telling thing about this strike is the fact that the ATL voted for action at all, they never have before and have a conscience clause for those who don't want to strike. Speaking to an ATL collegue even the e-mail about voting to strike was in no way over militant (NUT language can occasionally make me feel uncomfortable). If they think this is a step too far and the governement is refusing to talk in any way about the three big issues (and they are!) then this is a big issue.

[Pettytyrant101]

Well todays the day in the Uk. Strike Day!
An estimated third of schools are shut and another third only partially open (England and Wales) no teachers strike in Scotland, the SNP seeme to have come to a deal with our unions. However the Civil Service strike is affecting here with all sorts of stuff short staffed from Driving Licence lot to the Scottish Parlaiment.
I don't know why the government think we will just take these swinging cuts whilst at the same time those responsible for our predicament (the Banks) continue to rake in cash and award one another obscene bonuses. Its time something gave.
What decision did you come to Kafria if you don't mind me asking?

[Pettytyrant101]

More poor bashing from the Tories. They have proposed a cap on housing benefit for those who are unemployed but a letter has been leaked which says the following;

'the cap could cause some "very serious practical issues".
"Our modelling indicates that we could see an additional 20,000 homelessness acceptances as a result of the total benefit cap," it said.
"This on top of the of the 20,000 additional acceptances already anticipated as a result of other changes to Housing Benefit."
It outlined concerns that an estimated £270m a year in savings from the measure did not take into account the additional costs to local authorities through homelessness and temporary accommodation.
"In fact we think it is likely that the policy as it stands will generate a net cost," the letter stated.
And it said the department was worried about the impact of the policy on its ability to build social housing for families.
"To fund new affordable housing development providers need to be able to charge rents of up to 80% of the market levels but the impact of the overall benefit cap will prevent them from doing so in many areas greatly reducing their financial capacity," it said.
"Initial analysis suggests that of the 56,000 new affordable rent units up to 23,000 could be lost."- BBC News

So at a time of recession the government seem to planning to make roughly 40,000 people homeless and their policy will mean a reduction in nearly 50% of new houses being built. Are we still 'all in this together?' Its getting hard to tell.

[Kafria]

In answer to your queston I was out, supporting my union. Didn't attend a picket as there wasn't a local one. To be honest, the more rubbish the press and government spin the more annoyed I get. Equally on a personal level the people I saw/spoke to were all suportive. May not mean anything, but I was suprised no one even mildly expressed disapproval.


As to the housing benefit thing, if any of them had anything to do with the system they would know it is difficult to afford a house as it is. Rates do not cover private fees in many areas and there are not enough local authority houses avaliable as it stands (I know someone currently in emergency housing as there are 6 of them the authority managed to find a house, but for a while it looked like they would be in a single room at the emergency accomadation unit.)

[Pettytyrant101]

I don't think anyone is buying the government line on these strikes. I watched QT on Thursday and everytime the government representative trotted out the 'this will hurt working families and single mothers' the deriously calls from the audicience matched my own feelings very well.

On the housing thing,there aren;t enough, simple as that.I have a privately rented flat I can only afford because my best mate is the landlord and gives me a good deal (I pay 400 a month in an area where the going rate is between 450-550) but I have been on the housing list now for the better part of 15 years and still never been offered a place.

[Kafria]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-14013982

Just seen this! It caught my attention as one of the teaching assistants at school was part of the production and was excitedly telling me about it last week.

So my question, does this show how little we have moved on in terms of acceptance? Or is it right that children are 'protected' from these kind of references?

As a teacher currently dealing with trying to prevent the complete isolation and tormenting of a pupil who admitted she might be bi (at 11) I have to say this over protecting attitude worries me. However I also agree with a parents right to choose when their kids are exposed to certain ideas/ facts.

[Orwell]

I think children should only be exposed to the things I think they should be exposed to. My morals are sound, my eye is clear, and my opinions are of a high standard. Sex education and religion are things to be taught only with parental agreement -- go away, Big Brother. Umm... religion should not be taught at all....

[Kafria]

What about tolerance?

And how do you teach it if you don't expose students to other ideas?

And what about those kids whose ideals are formed by neglectful/ abusive parents, do they not have the right to access other ideas?

(A quote, from an aussie, at a recent behaviour conference about disruptive pupils has stuck with me quite forcibly, could apply here
"These kids have already been victimsed once, are we going to victimise them again?")

[Pettytyrant101]

My view on this is that its madness. Stopping a play becasue it has a gay character? Hold on while I go check my calendar. Mmmm odd, I'm not in the middle of the nineteenth century. Yes parents should be the prime informer for these things, but that is not always going to be possible because there is nothing stopping very stupid or very bad people from having children. Schools therefore as places of education should take on some of this, and in particular schools are institutes of society and should reflect to the pupils what society deems acceptable and not. If gay people can legally become a couple I really don't see why a gay character cannot sing and dance a bit in some play. I would not advocate banning literature, and there is plenty of classic literature that deals with strong subject matter which is read in schools, so I see no justification for banning any other art form on content, especially when, as in this case, the content seems to be very mild indeed. An over reaction at best, something far darker at worst.

[Orwell]

Big Brother thinking, my friends? But my last post was more in jest than serious. Learning about all sorts of things is usually valuable. Sex leads to reproduction, religion leads inevitably to mental laziness, psychological depravity and perpetual childishness (one needs to grow up at some time or other!) Kids need to know these things, but at what age?

[Pettytyrant101]

I don't think kids need to be told about homosexuality at any age any more than they do hetrosexuality. Young kids see males and females in films, tv, plays, music videos etc engaging in hetrosexual activity all the time, from holding hands to kissing and plenty more, and no one seems to think thats a problem. If homosexual characters appear in dramas etc, not with their homosexuality as a plot device or a feature, just as how they are then I can see no possible harm in that save to reduce over time ignorant prejudices.

[Gandalf's Beard]

Alrighty then; it's been somewhat of a painful week for me. So I tend to ignore my computer--mainly because it's supposed to be a laptop but refuses to behave like one--when I am sick, have pain, or generally stressed. Of course I am well behind on the current topics on this thread.

But what I have to offer is in keeping with the general thrust of my (Anti-Corporate Police State) arguments on this thread. I am however; having some trouble embedding the video as it is not a Youtube. It ought to work with the flash button, but I haven't quite figured it out. Anyway, If our Resident CPU Whiz Kid Eldo can give me a hand, the video is quite illuminating.

<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/hopCgeaRXwI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="390" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" ></embed>

Okay Eldo, show me how it's done.

There are a number of videos in this series taken from a political conference I had the pleasure to attend when it was held in my local county. Most of the speakers are credible University Professors, Researchers, Journalists, or Insiders turned Whistle-blowers. The few that aren't any of the above are not to be trusted as reliable sources of information, and I will not post the videos of their talks (except maybe as entertainment on another thread). My friend with the radio and telly programmes is currently running these as the video of the conference has recently become available.

GB

[Orwell]

Are you becoming a Political Activist, GB? Sure sounds like it... Whilst I enjoy reading, and sometimes join in, these serious discussions, I much more appreciate people who put their feet where their mouths are and pursue their democratic reforms... So long as, of course, you're not planning to kill people to realise your democratic goals.

[Gandalf's Beard]

Are you becoming a Political Activist, GB? Sure sounds like it... Whilst I enjoy reading, and sometimes join in, these serious discussions, I much more appreciate people who put their feet where their mouths are and pursue their democratic reforms... So long as, of course, you're not planning to kill people to realise your democratic goals.

Good Lord!!! I thought it was quite apparent from the beginning that I am a political activist. You've been around this forum in various guises for so long, I'm surprised you missed it. I'm pretty sure I've mentioned it more than once.

And I don't plan on killing anyone to oppose the Plutocrats. I plan on not being killed by them.

*****
I've noticed on forums that people tend to be much more inclined to watch or read something embedded in the actual post than they are to follow links. Once Eldo sorts me out, I'll post a couple more of the videos from last year'conference.

The above video is particularly illuminating because an insider turned whistle-blower (ex MI-5 agent) gives us a peek behind the curtain at the workings of various governmental institutions in the hands of a Plutocracy and their relationships to each other and the Corporate Media.

GB

[Eldorion]

I don't think that the auto-embed feature works for blip.tv, GB. Does blip.tv have their own embed code you can copy and paste?

[Gandalf's Beard]

You're right Eldo. The auto-embed feature doesn't work with the bliptv videos. But the code for flash embedding is contained in the link I posted. I just can't remember how to rearrange the bits of the code.

I know where height and width are supposed to go, but I'm not sure how they should be written ([flash= ? ?]). I think the http is supposed to be in between the flash begin and flash end, but I'm not sure where the code at the end (hopCgeaRXwI) should go.

I guess I should try a few more combos.

<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/hopCgeaRXwI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="390" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" ></embed>



GB

[Gandalf's Beard]

Yay!!!!

I finally figured it out. Thanks for dropping by anyway Eldo.

The length of each video is roughly an hour, which I know is asking a lot; but the evidence and political analysis provided by the various speakers is quite compelling and well worth your time. Particularly the three main talks I will be posting, which all complement each other and together provide a very complete analysis of the current state of Political Economy.

I won't post the others right away. I want y'all to have time to watch each one and ruminate before posting the next ones.

GB

[Orwell]

I didn't realise you were out on the streets, GB, I knew you were on the internet a lot. I guess I just did not think of the internet as feet marching on the streets or being on the hustings supporting candidates at the polls, or chaining oneself to guardrails outside your houses of government. It's been a long time since I was Union Shop Steward. Things have changed.

Listened to Anne. Lovely generalism and speculatarism, and such freedom without responsibility. Who could argue with what she says? Look forward to the next...

[Pettytyrant101]

Can't say as I found her the most engaging speaker but tried to give the content of what she was saying a fair hearing. It certainly highlighted some oddities in the law, in particular that the convlted nature of the anti-terrorism laws combined with Official Secrets act can mean you can be put on trial but unable to submit any defence because it has all been deemed secret.
The scale of CCTV in the UK is also a cause for concern, I will need to check her figures but if correct then only aiding in 3% of crimes would not seem to justify the quantity of them on crime prevention grounds. Even living in a small town on the West Coast of Scotsdale I pass at least three state run cameras, and several private ones on my way to work everyday.
I suppose the question is do I mind that? I don't for a minute believe anyone is watching, they just go back and check if something happens most of the time I reckon. Where I do have a problem with it is in the potential it has for governments of the future who may have more extreme ideals than the current generation, and worryingly the rise of the far right seems to be underway in several European countries. Under those circumstances they could be a dangerous tool used to prosecute breaking of curfews or any number of other things.

[Gandalf's Beard]

I didn't realise you were out on the streets, GB, I knew you were on the internet a lot. I guess I just did not think of the internet as feet marching on the streets or being on the hustings supporting candidates at the polls, or chaining oneself to guardrails outside your houses of government. It's been a long time since I was Union Shop Steward. Things have changed.

Actually I have taken to the streets on more than one occasion. But getting beat up by coppers (who aren't you ) in the streets isn't the only thing activists do you know.

Listened to Anne. Lovely generalism and speculatarism, and such freedom without responsibility. Who could argue with what she says? Look forward to the next...

I was not aware that giving us an inside view of how the institutional and political system (in the hands of the Plutocrats) in the UK works constitutes "generalization and speculation." Anne provides a very clear and specific accounting of the events that she and and her partner got caught up in. And Anne also proffers a clear and specific accounting of many of the other tawdry and illegal acts of the UK's Intelligence (Dirty Tricks) Services that she and her partner had the goods on.

Her testimony is credible and supported by other accounts on the public record; your dismissals are not.

However; I am jolly glad that you took the time to watch the video. Thanks for that.

Frankly--though I was already aware of some the particulars of the case due to accounts in (foreign) mainstream news sources--until I heard her direct testimony, I had not fully realized how much further along the path to Fascism the UK has gone than the US in some respects. At least in the UK, the less conservative elements of the UK's Plutocracy still believe in the Social Contract and are willing to stand by much of what remains of the economic safety net which protects the populace from the worst ravages of Capitalist Neo-Feudalism.

The Fascist and Conservative wings of the Plutocracy in the US aren't even willing to provide that. Not to mention that the US plutocrats are far less restrained in the homicidal brutality of their police state than the UK's. In this respect, the violence instigated and perpetrated by the US Security State by far outstrips the worst excesses of the UK's Police State.

The irony of the whole situation is that most people, including me, wouldn't give a fig about the the wealthy lording it up a bit as long as their own basic needs are provided for, and as long as the wealthy didn't steal the resources and labour of their own populace (profit=theft) and the populaces of other nations through invasion, war and occupation, and as long the Ruling Class didn't use such a violently heavy hand to protect the Plutocracy's interests, and as long as the Plutocrats actually allowed the Plebeians a seat at the table of democracy.

But all of that is obviously an airy fairy pie in the sky dream that will never be fulfilled as long as the Plutocratic Oligarchy rampages across the planet destroying economies, the environment, and democratic institutions.

Anne was bang on target about the naivete of many "commoners" who are unable or unwilling to recognize the truth of the situation.

GB

[Gandalf's Beard]

Can't say as I found her the most engaging speaker but tried to give the content of what she was saying a fair hearing. It certainly highlighted some oddities in the law, in particular that the convlted nature of the anti-terrorism laws combined with Official Secrets act can mean you can be put on trial but unable to submit any defence because it has all been deemed secret.
The scale of CCTV in the UK is also a cause for concern, I will need to check her figures but if correct then only aiding in 3% of crimes would not seem to justify the quantity of them on crime prevention grounds. Even living in a small town on the West Coast of Scotsdale I pass at least three state run cameras, and several private ones on my way to work everyday.

I suppose the question is do I mind that? I don't for a minute believe anyone is watching, they just go back and check if something happens most of the time I reckon. Where I do have a problem with it is in the potential it has for governments of the future who may have more extreme ideals than the current generation, and worryingly the rise of the far right seems to be underway in several European countries. Under those circumstances they could be a dangerous tool used to prosecute breaking of curfews or any number of other things.

Thanks for checking out the video (though personally, I found her an extremely engaging speaker).

This is precisely the main point Anne was making. As of this moment the Conservatives of the UK still have a hand on the rudder, slipping as it is by the pull of the UK Fascists. The people most likely to be caught up in the Police State Nightmare are, for the most part, the poverty stricken, political activists, regional separatists, and ethnic minorities. Most people won't know they are living in a Police State until the Buttle's and Tuttle's of the middle classes get caught up in the Net.

The Surveillance Society wouldn't be such an awful and undemocratic tool if it was two way and caught out Corporate Government Criminals as well. But it doesn't. There are no CCTV cameras and Listening Devices in the offices and resorts of the Ruling Elites and their Government Lackeys.

The other big fat problem with it is that there are too many trivial and nonsense laws on the books to hang people with. Someone caught smoking a joint or shooting up on camera is plausibly prosecutable.

The following article doesn't provide the 3% of prosecuted crimes caught on camera figure that Ann provides, but the figures of prosecution rates in districts with CCTV well supports her point that the reliability of CCTV in capturing crooks is practically nil. The only purpose CCTC has is to keep the populace afraid of the government (in the hands of the plutocrats).

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23412867-tens-of-thousands-of-cctv-cameras-yet-80-of-crime-unsolved.do

Your initial point regarding the Kafkaesque laws used to prevent whistle-blowers from defending themselves are straight out of the US Judicial playbook. One is not allowed to provide evidence for their innocence if the evidence is actually true and would indict the criminal acts of the persons or institutions bringing the charges.

GB

[Gandalf's Beard]

Going back a couple of pages to catch up.

Best summing up- Andrew Marr- "So you are saying to new teachers, 'we are making it harder to become a teacher, you'll have to work longer hours, for longer for a smaller pension, your pay isn't going to go up and don't go on strike."

I couldn't have said it better myself...so I won't.

Just another case in point that supports my assertions.


GB

[Gandalf's Beard]

To be honest it is populist policy from someone who as far as I know hasn't worked in schools. 'The exams are getting easier, lets make it harder'. Negates how hard these top end students work, the extras they do and the great people they are turning into!

Actually, when analysed with a class analysis, I would suggest that the opposite is the case. It is not "populist" to downgrade education standards (populism would be making certain that all students regardless of income have equal access to quality education, and to provide a sturdier financial and educational support system for poverty stricken youths so that they are actually able to learn without the added stress of Economic Injustice).

Rather, I think the downgrading of standards is a Right Wing ploy sold to sympathetic teachers (who are generally more liberal per capita than the general public at large) as populist when it is not. The downgrading of educational standards is actually a means to keep the lower classes in their place.

The Wealthy kids will go on to Higher Education whether they merit it or not--despite lower standards--and then on to obscenely well paying jobs in the private sector or sponging off their trust funds and investments for the rest of their lives.

The less wealthy and poor kids who receive a lower standard of education will have lower expectations to match. Thus making them less employable in the upper echelons of the private sector, and more employable as menial labour. Only the most ambitious and intelligent youths from the lower classes will succeed despite the educational roadblocks placed in front of them.

It is just the same in the US, except the US has appallingly low educational standards and a horrible (what little of it there is) financial and educational support system to give under-privileged children a fighting chance at a decent education. The already hefty costs of Higher Education in the US and the UK are being jacked up through the roof. This is a further disincentive for children from lower middle and poor classes to achieve a fair standard of education. Which is why the Students in the UK protested in the streets a short time ago.

His comments though are fairly indicitive of how the majority of society seem to view us as a profession!

Arrrrggghhhhh!
Crabbit now!!!!

I think his comments are more indicative of how the ruling classes would LIKE the rest of society in the UK to view education professionals and education in general. I think the macho anti-intellectual stance of education as something only for the effete is far more prevalent in the US. Though even British Youth are propagandized to some degree (despite the generally higher standards of UK education) to view exceptional students as "swotters" (do the kids in the UK today still use that term? Or am I hopelessly out of date?).

GB

ETA: Kafria, my apologies, in re-reading your post I appear to have misconstrued which arguments you viewed as "populist." If that is indeed the case--though my analysis stands in its own right--my post isn't properly a response to your post.

[Pettytyrant101]

"do the kids in the UK today still use that term? Or am I hopelessly out of date?"- GB

I asked my brother who is a teenager and got this 'Know-it-all, Geek, Dweeb, Nerd. No one says swot.'- How American our language becomes!