An American woman is bringing her charity work to the UK. It involves paying drug addicts to be sterilised.
Some may see this as a bribe at worst, or feel that the sad point is that the £200 she is offering to each addict will be wasted on more smack, crack or whatever. The thing is, these people will be finding a way of funding their habit. It's their choice to feed their addiction. At least the hits paid for by in this manner might mean someone isn't mugged or burgled.
As long as those who choose to undergo such extreme measures do so having sat down with a medical professional, and the full implications are given to them, such measures should surely be encouraged. Bringing unwanted children into the world, to be provided for by The State is the alternative. Adult addicts can make choices; babies can't.
Of course, sterilisation is an option available on the NHS, and could be sought out by responsible drug users. However, anyone who has tried to get such treatment, regardless of their status and social lifestyle, will tell you it's not that easy.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Outrage at the gym...
The decision to cut Child Benefit for high earners has clearly upset the Yummy Mummies and Ladies What Lunch at my gym. The changing room this morning was full of high pitched bemoaning. One member, as she put her Radley bag into a locker, said "if I'd known the Tories would take away my Child Benefit, I'd never have voted them in".
I overheard another angry mother telling her friend that her husband and her "were thinking of trying for a boy this time, but it doesn't seem worth it, not now they're taking Child Benefit off of us". I didn't think it was the right time to express my relief that the changing room would be missing out on another perving little boy.
One of her companions said that "it seemed wrong that the Government [the previous administration, I hasten to add] wanted to increase birth rates, but were doing everything possible to put people off having children". I really wanted to point out the irony in this statement; I lost the feeling in the end of my tongue stopping myself. I wanted to ask what she thought about young, single mothers using the system, but I knew she wouldn't spot the hypocrisy in her own attitude. She then went on to say that her husband's pension would suffer because of this. Apparently, it's one of those stakeholder ones, and the credit crunch has depleted it enough without this on top of everything. I couldn't make it up.
Another friend joined in the tirade against this treachery committed by her beloved Tory party. "It's like we're being penalised because my ***** earns over £60,000 a year". I was surprised I got out of there alive, my heart was bleeding so much.
Child Benefit isn't great. It's £20.30 a week. For each extra child you have, you get £13.40. Considering the take home pay of someone earning £45k a year is around £631 a week, are these women really going to be missing out? They don't realise just how lucky they are that they have the choice not to work. Many families don't have that option, earning too much to claim any other benefit, but not enough to keep them in Per Una.
Also, this argument that the cuts are penalising mothers who choose to stay at home just doesn't stack up. Some of the knee jerk reactions in the media are pointing towards young mums and single parents. I hate to be the one to point it out, but these aren't the people who are going to be affected. Someone earning over £45 a year is likely to be over 30. Their partner, most likely, will be working until she decides to have kids. Then there's that important factor; it's a decision to have kids. They've made that choice.
As stated above, this cut will affect people taking home over £630ish a week. If that isn't enough to live on, even with 2 or 3 kids, then I'm sorry, what is? If someone is really struggling, then what are they spending their money on? Most of the Moaning Minnies at the gym drive new MPVs, usually Range Rovers, Mercedes, or BMW. Everything they wear is a label. If you can't afford to feed your kids, or keep a roof over their heads (surely number one priority as a parent) AND maintain a particular lifestyle TOUGH. Downsize to a smaller car, buy a semi-detached house, or serve own brand instant at your little coffee mornings. Grow your own nails. Just don't moan when you lose out on £20-£30 a week you clearly aren't going to miss.
I overheard another angry mother telling her friend that her husband and her "were thinking of trying for a boy this time, but it doesn't seem worth it, not now they're taking Child Benefit off of us". I didn't think it was the right time to express my relief that the changing room would be missing out on another perving little boy.
One of her companions said that "it seemed wrong that the Government [the previous administration, I hasten to add] wanted to increase birth rates, but were doing everything possible to put people off having children". I really wanted to point out the irony in this statement; I lost the feeling in the end of my tongue stopping myself. I wanted to ask what she thought about young, single mothers using the system, but I knew she wouldn't spot the hypocrisy in her own attitude. She then went on to say that her husband's pension would suffer because of this. Apparently, it's one of those stakeholder ones, and the credit crunch has depleted it enough without this on top of everything. I couldn't make it up.
Another friend joined in the tirade against this treachery committed by her beloved Tory party. "It's like we're being penalised because my ***** earns over £60,000 a year". I was surprised I got out of there alive, my heart was bleeding so much.
Child Benefit isn't great. It's £20.30 a week. For each extra child you have, you get £13.40. Considering the take home pay of someone earning £45k a year is around £631 a week, are these women really going to be missing out? They don't realise just how lucky they are that they have the choice not to work. Many families don't have that option, earning too much to claim any other benefit, but not enough to keep them in Per Una.
Also, this argument that the cuts are penalising mothers who choose to stay at home just doesn't stack up. Some of the knee jerk reactions in the media are pointing towards young mums and single parents. I hate to be the one to point it out, but these aren't the people who are going to be affected. Someone earning over £45 a year is likely to be over 30. Their partner, most likely, will be working until she decides to have kids. Then there's that important factor; it's a decision to have kids. They've made that choice.
As stated above, this cut will affect people taking home over £630ish a week. If that isn't enough to live on, even with 2 or 3 kids, then I'm sorry, what is? If someone is really struggling, then what are they spending their money on? Most of the Moaning Minnies at the gym drive new MPVs, usually Range Rovers, Mercedes, or BMW. Everything they wear is a label. If you can't afford to feed your kids, or keep a roof over their heads (surely number one priority as a parent) AND maintain a particular lifestyle TOUGH. Downsize to a smaller car, buy a semi-detached house, or serve own brand instant at your little coffee mornings. Grow your own nails. Just don't moan when you lose out on £20-£30 a week you clearly aren't going to miss.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Hey Big Spender
If I see one more social networking, "copy and paste" status that says that the public services and especially the military are facing cuts whilst our taxes are going abroad to other countries, I swear I will scream.
In 2009, 0.52% of public spending was overseas aid. Now, I know I'm not a professor in Maths, but that is not really a huge sum of money to go towards helping those who need it. Considering how much money it's estimated is going into the pockets of our own citizens who are more content to sponge off of the State, I shouldn't be surprised the public is quick to shift the blame onto Johnny Foreigner.
In 2009, 0.52% of public spending was overseas aid. Now, I know I'm not a professor in Maths, but that is not really a huge sum of money to go towards helping those who need it. Considering how much money it's estimated is going into the pockets of our own citizens who are more content to sponge off of the State, I shouldn't be surprised the public is quick to shift the blame onto Johnny Foreigner.
Friday, September 03, 2010
Why running?
I hated running at school. I hated the cold, I hated the pain, I hated the fact I could barely keep up with the slow, fat kids but most of all I hated running because I wanted to be bloody good at it. And I wasn't.
I've always enjoyed watching athletics. I can remember watching the first London Marathon on the TV as a kid. Every year after that, I would watch the coverage and tell myself "one day, I'll do it". I was right.
I said I was crap at running at school. I did have my moments. Usually on cooler, overcast days, with a fresh breeze in the air, and a low pollen count. I should have twigged something wasn't right when I clocked the best 400m time for our PE group (which was double my 100m time, run the week before in blistering sunshine, after which I collapsed fighting for breath), with seemingly little effort. I was 17 the day after my asthma was diagnosed. I wonder to this day, if it had been spotted earlier, could I have enjoyed distance running as much as I do these days?
I took up running in my mid-twenties as a way to keep fit. Since then, I've grown to love it. If illness or injury prevents me from going out, I get grumpy. I try to organise my day around a running session, not the other way around. It's easy to get addicted to. As well as the natural hormone release contributing to a feeling of well-being, for me, there's the feeling of self-improvement. Every time I run a route quicker, I don't just feel pleased with myself, it makes me want to go out and run it even more quicker. I like being able to say that I can run for miles; not from the perspective of belittling anyone who can't. I don't really care what anyone else can or can't do. No, I'm an asthmatic, exercise induced asthmatic at that, and one with dodgy joints. I might not be skinny, and I might not win any races. But I can run for miles. It's a sense of achievement that I personally feel proud of.
But I still want to do it quicker than last time ;-)
I've always enjoyed watching athletics. I can remember watching the first London Marathon on the TV as a kid. Every year after that, I would watch the coverage and tell myself "one day, I'll do it". I was right.
I said I was crap at running at school. I did have my moments. Usually on cooler, overcast days, with a fresh breeze in the air, and a low pollen count. I should have twigged something wasn't right when I clocked the best 400m time for our PE group (which was double my 100m time, run the week before in blistering sunshine, after which I collapsed fighting for breath), with seemingly little effort. I was 17 the day after my asthma was diagnosed. I wonder to this day, if it had been spotted earlier, could I have enjoyed distance running as much as I do these days?
I took up running in my mid-twenties as a way to keep fit. Since then, I've grown to love it. If illness or injury prevents me from going out, I get grumpy. I try to organise my day around a running session, not the other way around. It's easy to get addicted to. As well as the natural hormone release contributing to a feeling of well-being, for me, there's the feeling of self-improvement. Every time I run a route quicker, I don't just feel pleased with myself, it makes me want to go out and run it even more quicker. I like being able to say that I can run for miles; not from the perspective of belittling anyone who can't. I don't really care what anyone else can or can't do. No, I'm an asthmatic, exercise induced asthmatic at that, and one with dodgy joints. I might not be skinny, and I might not win any races. But I can run for miles. It's a sense of achievement that I personally feel proud of.
But I still want to do it quicker than last time ;-)
Monday, August 30, 2010
Fit firefighters? Fat chance
Oh dear, I've ripped off a previous title; but nothing else seems appropriate.
Almost 40% of Leicestershire's firefighters failed a fitness test at the first attempt. Of those, 35% managed to pass second time around. Their union rep has said that the reason for the failure is because the standard has been set "too high". Apparently some "really fit" firefighters have failed the test. Based on that logic, some really unfit firefighters have passed the test. Or maybe they just blagged it. I'm surprised he didn't go further and suggest that the wrong sort of test was being used.
In an attempt to overcome this, failures are being given advice on nutrition and exercise. Perhaps those "really fit" firefighters are doing the wrong kind of exercise? Or eating the wrong kind of healthy food? Or perhaps, just maybe, they are doing the typical thing of overestimating their own fitness? It's human nature, after all. No really, it was just the one kebab. Honest, guv.
If I was ever trapped in a burning building, aside from the jokes about being rescued by a hunky man in uniform, I would be distraught to see a lard arse struggling to come to my rescue. But that could just be me.
Almost 40% of Leicestershire's firefighters failed a fitness test at the first attempt. Of those, 35% managed to pass second time around. Their union rep has said that the reason for the failure is because the standard has been set "too high". Apparently some "really fit" firefighters have failed the test. Based on that logic, some really unfit firefighters have passed the test. Or maybe they just blagged it. I'm surprised he didn't go further and suggest that the wrong sort of test was being used.
In an attempt to overcome this, failures are being given advice on nutrition and exercise. Perhaps those "really fit" firefighters are doing the wrong kind of exercise? Or eating the wrong kind of healthy food? Or perhaps, just maybe, they are doing the typical thing of overestimating their own fitness? It's human nature, after all. No really, it was just the one kebab. Honest, guv.
If I was ever trapped in a burning building, aside from the jokes about being rescued by a hunky man in uniform, I would be distraught to see a lard arse struggling to come to my rescue. But that could just be me.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
The Death Of Public Transport
Arriva yet again is doing its utmost to kill off public transport in Leicester. The bus company has announced that so called "saver" tickets will be subject to a price increase this weekend. Nice one, and thanks for the warning.
Prices will be going up by over 10%; well over the rate of inflation, however this has not deterred the transport group from stinging the general public even more than it does now. Arriva blame the increase on "running costs", and that the company has "reached the point where it is inevitable that we must pass on some of the additional costs to customers in order that the services remain sustainable". It's hard to reconcile this statement when Arriva:
In short, Arriva is one of the worst public transport providers I have ever had to endure. Only Cross Country Trains challenges for the top, or bottom, spot. Oh, wait a minute .... Cross Country is owned by Arriva, isn't it.
The company is still making profits; rather than using them to slap shareholders on the back, these should be ploughed back into the communities that Arriva is supposed to serve, otherwise how on earth are more people going to be persuaded to ditch the car? As it stands, it is now cheaper for me to drive into the city centre and pay for a car park. I have always supported public transport, but this price increase now means I will be reconsidering my stance. I am lucky to be in a position to do this. It's those who aren't, and the ones who are the most reliant on buses, but who will eventually priced out that I feel sorry for. Not Arriva's profit margin.
Prices will be going up by over 10%; well over the rate of inflation, however this has not deterred the transport group from stinging the general public even more than it does now. Arriva blame the increase on "running costs", and that the company has "reached the point where it is inevitable that we must pass on some of the additional costs to customers in order that the services remain sustainable". It's hard to reconcile this statement when Arriva:
- cannot ensure that buses run on time
- cannot run enough buses at times when demand is high
- cannot run a frequent service after 6.30pm, and in some areas, no service at all after this time on a Sunday
- cannot run a night service, something other cities of a similar size can sustain
- employs some of the rudest and most ignorant drivers known to mankind (okay, this doesn't affect the cost as such, but it's one more nail in Arriva's coffin as far as I am concerned)
In short, Arriva is one of the worst public transport providers I have ever had to endure. Only Cross Country Trains challenges for the top, or bottom, spot. Oh, wait a minute .... Cross Country is owned by Arriva, isn't it.
The company is still making profits; rather than using them to slap shareholders on the back, these should be ploughed back into the communities that Arriva is supposed to serve, otherwise how on earth are more people going to be persuaded to ditch the car? As it stands, it is now cheaper for me to drive into the city centre and pay for a car park. I have always supported public transport, but this price increase now means I will be reconsidering my stance. I am lucky to be in a position to do this. It's those who aren't, and the ones who are the most reliant on buses, but who will eventually priced out that I feel sorry for. Not Arriva's profit margin.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Raising the age of criminal responsibility....
The Law Society has said that the age of criminal responsibility is too low. As you can imagine, I disagree.
The way children are viewed can be seen as two extremes. On the one hand are the feral offspring of uncaring parents, allowed to roam the streets of our nation, striking terror in the heart of law-abiding citizens. On the other, are precious little innocents, who even as teenagers, shouldn't be subjected to the harsh realities of modern life, and need to be wrapped in cotton wool. Metaphorically speaking. When commentators say that the age of criminal responsibility is too high, I am convinced that they have the latter in mind. Even where they consider the former, their behaviour is written off as a product of society, and that they have been failed, and couldn't possibly be able to know right from wrong. The reality is, children fall somewhere in between.
The article keeps referring to young children, and yes, it's right that young children aren't criminalised. Despite popular myth, a 10 year old does have some idea of what is right and what is wrong. I was 10 years old, I can remember what it was like. Hitting other people? Wrong. Stealing? Wrong. If kids didn't know the difference, then surely more children would be committing crimes. They don't because they know it is wrong. At the age of 10, kids are on the verge of joining 'big' school. Some are close to reaching adolescence, physically, so why is it hard to imagine they cannot be intellectually? In my opinion, 10 is the right age for children to accept responsibility for their actions. To qualify this further, there are many parents, middle-class and supposedly upright, who on the one hand molly-coddle their kids, yet are happy for their little girls to wear make up and clothing more suited to women twice their age. Hmmm....
As well as this, could raising the age lead to some children playing the system to get out of being punished? Children of all ages can be manipulative with adults, and can say things that help their own situation. An older child/young teen who is used to lying may find it even easier once they've been exposed to the criminal justice system. At times, it seems like adults underestimate the capabilities of those under 18, this could be a big mistake in the long run.
Would re-introducing doli incapax help? Possibly, but if a child between 10-14 years of age doesn't understand the nature of their actions, in terms of criminal responsibility, then surely they don't have the necessary mens rea for the offence in the first place? And if this is the case, then why should the age of criminal responsibility be increased?
The way children are viewed can be seen as two extremes. On the one hand are the feral offspring of uncaring parents, allowed to roam the streets of our nation, striking terror in the heart of law-abiding citizens. On the other, are precious little innocents, who even as teenagers, shouldn't be subjected to the harsh realities of modern life, and need to be wrapped in cotton wool. Metaphorically speaking. When commentators say that the age of criminal responsibility is too high, I am convinced that they have the latter in mind. Even where they consider the former, their behaviour is written off as a product of society, and that they have been failed, and couldn't possibly be able to know right from wrong. The reality is, children fall somewhere in between.
The article keeps referring to young children, and yes, it's right that young children aren't criminalised. Despite popular myth, a 10 year old does have some idea of what is right and what is wrong. I was 10 years old, I can remember what it was like. Hitting other people? Wrong. Stealing? Wrong. If kids didn't know the difference, then surely more children would be committing crimes. They don't because they know it is wrong. At the age of 10, kids are on the verge of joining 'big' school. Some are close to reaching adolescence, physically, so why is it hard to imagine they cannot be intellectually? In my opinion, 10 is the right age for children to accept responsibility for their actions. To qualify this further, there are many parents, middle-class and supposedly upright, who on the one hand molly-coddle their kids, yet are happy for their little girls to wear make up and clothing more suited to women twice their age. Hmmm....
As well as this, could raising the age lead to some children playing the system to get out of being punished? Children of all ages can be manipulative with adults, and can say things that help their own situation. An older child/young teen who is used to lying may find it even easier once they've been exposed to the criminal justice system. At times, it seems like adults underestimate the capabilities of those under 18, this could be a big mistake in the long run.
Would re-introducing doli incapax help? Possibly, but if a child between 10-14 years of age doesn't understand the nature of their actions, in terms of criminal responsibility, then surely they don't have the necessary mens rea for the offence in the first place? And if this is the case, then why should the age of criminal responsibility be increased?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)