Wednesday, May 31, 2006
31/05 - AL GORE SPEAKS OUT AGAINST BUSH (GUARDIAN)
Al Gore has made his sharpest attack yet on the George Bush presidency, describing the current US administration as "a renegade band of rightwing extremists".
In an interview with the Guardian today, the former vice-president calls himself a "recovering politician", but launches into the political fray more explicitly than he has previously done during his high-profile campaigning on the threat of global warming.
Denying that his politics have shifted to the left since he lost the court battle for the 2000 election, Mr Gore says: "If you have a renegade band of rightwing extremists who get hold of power, the whole thing goes to the right."
In an interview with the Guardian today, the former vice-president calls himself a "recovering politician", but launches into the political fray more explicitly than he has previously done during his high-profile campaigning on the threat of global warming.
Denying that his politics have shifted to the left since he lost the court battle for the 2000 election, Mr Gore says: "If you have a renegade band of rightwing extremists who get hold of power, the whole thing goes to the right."
But he claims he does not "expect to be a candidate" for president again, while refusing explicitly to rule out another run. Asked if any event could change his mind, he says: "Not that I can see."
Mr Gore, who appeared at the Guardian Hay literary festival over the bank holiday weekend, is promoting An Inconvenient Truth, a documentary and book detailing the climate change crisis that he warns "could literally end civilisation".
The new levels of attention he is receiving have led some Democrats to call on him to run again for president, while others have responded with anger that Mr Gore did not show the same level of passion in the 2000 campaign.
He has since acknowledged that he followed too closely the advice of his consultants during that campaign, and - before he started to scoff at the idea of running again - swore that if he ever did so, he would speak his mind.
In the years since, he has been a steady critic of specific Bush administration policies. He opposed the war on Iraq at a time when most prominent Democrats were supporting it, and more recently spoke out against what he called "a gross and excessive power grab" by the administration over phone tapping.
In the interview Mr Gore also distances himself from Tony Blair on the subject of nuclear power, which the prime minister has insisted is "back on the agenda with a vengeance". Mr Gore says he is "sceptical about it playing a much larger role," and that although it might have a part to play in Britain or China, it will not be "a silver bullet" in the fight against global warming.
In the US, Mr Gore's environmental campaign has sparked a backlash from some on the right who accuse him of scaremongering. A series of television advertisements, launched by a thinktank called the Competitive Enterprise Institute, argue that carbon dioxide emissions are a sign of American productivity and progress.
Mr Gore's true attitude towards a potential return to the White House - or, at least, a potential battle with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination - remains unknown.
At the weekend, Time magazine reported that he was telling key fundraisers they should feel free to sign on with other potential candidates. The magazine quoted unnamed Democratic sources as saying that the former vice-president had also been asking the fundraisers to "tell everybody I'm not running".
Mr Gore would not find it difficult to raise millions of dollars, if he did decide to run. But while public denials might prove a wise campaign strategy - not least by prolonging the period of positive attention Mr Gore is now receiving - actively turning away fundraisers does suggest a firmer resolve not to re-enter electoral politics.
It is significant, however, that Mr Gore refuses to go beyond saying that he has no "plans" for such a campaign. "I haven't made a Shermanesque statement because it just seems odd to do so," he has said - a reference to the famous announcement by the civil war general William Sherman, who unequivocally refused to stand in the election of 1884. "If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve," General Sherman said.
Jonathan Freedland's interview with Al Gore will be aired on More4 on Saturday June 3 at 4.55pm.
Mr Gore, who appeared at the Guardian Hay literary festival over the bank holiday weekend, is promoting An Inconvenient Truth, a documentary and book detailing the climate change crisis that he warns "could literally end civilisation".
The new levels of attention he is receiving have led some Democrats to call on him to run again for president, while others have responded with anger that Mr Gore did not show the same level of passion in the 2000 campaign.
He has since acknowledged that he followed too closely the advice of his consultants during that campaign, and - before he started to scoff at the idea of running again - swore that if he ever did so, he would speak his mind.
In the years since, he has been a steady critic of specific Bush administration policies. He opposed the war on Iraq at a time when most prominent Democrats were supporting it, and more recently spoke out against what he called "a gross and excessive power grab" by the administration over phone tapping.
In the interview Mr Gore also distances himself from Tony Blair on the subject of nuclear power, which the prime minister has insisted is "back on the agenda with a vengeance". Mr Gore says he is "sceptical about it playing a much larger role," and that although it might have a part to play in Britain or China, it will not be "a silver bullet" in the fight against global warming.
In the US, Mr Gore's environmental campaign has sparked a backlash from some on the right who accuse him of scaremongering. A series of television advertisements, launched by a thinktank called the Competitive Enterprise Institute, argue that carbon dioxide emissions are a sign of American productivity and progress.
Mr Gore's true attitude towards a potential return to the White House - or, at least, a potential battle with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination - remains unknown.
At the weekend, Time magazine reported that he was telling key fundraisers they should feel free to sign on with other potential candidates. The magazine quoted unnamed Democratic sources as saying that the former vice-president had also been asking the fundraisers to "tell everybody I'm not running".
Mr Gore would not find it difficult to raise millions of dollars, if he did decide to run. But while public denials might prove a wise campaign strategy - not least by prolonging the period of positive attention Mr Gore is now receiving - actively turning away fundraisers does suggest a firmer resolve not to re-enter electoral politics.
It is significant, however, that Mr Gore refuses to go beyond saying that he has no "plans" for such a campaign. "I haven't made a Shermanesque statement because it just seems odd to do so," he has said - a reference to the famous announcement by the civil war general William Sherman, who unequivocally refused to stand in the election of 1884. "If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve," General Sherman said.
Jonathan Freedland's interview with Al Gore will be aired on More4 on Saturday June 3 at 4.55pm.
I do hope that Al Gore runs for President it seems that he might actually have the idea's that could help resolve (or at least to begin to) America's dependence on oil and poluting.
¶ 12:50 PM 0 comments
links to this post
Saturday, May 27, 2006
27/05 – EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION, TAKE III
I am getting increasing tired of my ‘Education, Education, Education,’ series of posts, however, here is the third instalment.
OCR exam bored (note – this series is not just about the incompetence of one exam board, but of a plethora of exam boards over the entirety of the British education system – EEE1 referred to universities, EEE2 referred to GCSE level of examinations, and now EEE3 refers to an AS level exam, an A2 exam and that is the entire set) has issued AS level exams without the map necessary to answer questions on a geography paper.
Now you have to wonder why, if this map was so integral to the exam, it was not printed in the exam question paper itself, however, I can not be expected to reason for all of their idiosyncrasies. But why when it was so important to a question (unlike AQA in EEE2 where the entirety of the paper was affected, from what I can ascertain it was only one question affected by this mistake) did they omit the crucial material needed!
Again why are these companies so incompetent as not to check their product before dispatch, why haven’t these companies invested in quality assurance regimes (which can be as basic as offering incentives for employees to tell management when the see a mistake, at any stage of the production). Although I suppose that we must congratulate OCR on having a more pragmatic response, instead of reassuring the students that they are “all in the same boat” they constructively told them to leave the question that they didn’t have the materials for. Not ideal but a darn sight more reassuring than well don’t worry because your all screwed (paraphrasing).
I still can not fathom why we believe that these people are able to tell us how intelligent and competent our children are (and we ourselves are) if only we had a three strikes rule, we’ll be motoring through the labour education ministers then!
Education, a top labour priority – could have been, should have been, obviously it isn’t.
OCR exam bored (note – this series is not just about the incompetence of one exam board, but of a plethora of exam boards over the entirety of the British education system – EEE1 referred to universities, EEE2 referred to GCSE level of examinations, and now EEE3 refers to an AS level exam, an A2 exam and that is the entire set) has issued AS level exams without the map necessary to answer questions on a geography paper.
Now you have to wonder why, if this map was so integral to the exam, it was not printed in the exam question paper itself, however, I can not be expected to reason for all of their idiosyncrasies. But why when it was so important to a question (unlike AQA in EEE2 where the entirety of the paper was affected, from what I can ascertain it was only one question affected by this mistake) did they omit the crucial material needed!
Again why are these companies so incompetent as not to check their product before dispatch, why haven’t these companies invested in quality assurance regimes (which can be as basic as offering incentives for employees to tell management when the see a mistake, at any stage of the production). Although I suppose that we must congratulate OCR on having a more pragmatic response, instead of reassuring the students that they are “all in the same boat” they constructively told them to leave the question that they didn’t have the materials for. Not ideal but a darn sight more reassuring than well don’t worry because your all screwed (paraphrasing).
I still can not fathom why we believe that these people are able to tell us how intelligent and competent our children are (and we ourselves are) if only we had a three strikes rule, we’ll be motoring through the labour education ministers then!
Education, a top labour priority – could have been, should have been, obviously it isn’t.
If you see any of this type of news story please could you draw my attention to it, Alternatively, if you have experienced such things (this exam session) please let me know and i'll post it.
Many Thanks
¶ 1:41 AM 0 comments
links to this post
Thursday, May 25, 2006
26/05 - CORRECTIONS, POLICE CLEARANCE OF ANTI-WAR PROTEST
In furtherance of the story I posted on the 25/05, it appears that there were some mistakes; Firstly, the Daily Mail reports that there were 78 police officers not the 50 I stated, a more suitable amount of officers to supress a peaceful anti-war protest I think we will all agree; Secondly, bloggerheads reports that the Westminster traffic camera was redirected at 2am on the night in question (35 minutes before police operations began - which would have picked up the incident).
¶ 11:28 PM 0 comments
links to this post
25/05 - ANTI-WAR SIGNS SEIZED BY POLICE (BBC ONLINE)
Police have removed placards from peace activist Brian Haw at the scene of his five-year vigil outside Parliament.
Officers went to Parliament Square in the early hours of Tuesday to deal with alleged breaches of Mr Haw's demonstration conditions.
Mr Haw, 56, from Worcestershire, said he will fast in protest at the action.
Earlier this month Court of Appeal judges overturned a ruling that allowed him to carry out his protest, which he began in June 2001.
It meant he had to apply for police permission - which was granted on 9 May.
But he was told to keep his numerous anti-war placards to within three metres - police say he has repeatedly breached his conditions.
Mr Haw said: "It seems I am going to die in this place now because I'm going to be fasting and praying.
Officers went to Parliament Square in the early hours of Tuesday to deal with alleged breaches of Mr Haw's demonstration conditions.
Mr Haw, 56, from Worcestershire, said he will fast in protest at the action.
Earlier this month Court of Appeal judges overturned a ruling that allowed him to carry out his protest, which he began in June 2001.
It meant he had to apply for police permission - which was granted on 9 May.
But he was told to keep his numerous anti-war placards to within three metres - police say he has repeatedly breached his conditions.
Mr Haw said: "It seems I am going to die in this place now because I'm going to be fasting and praying.
"They have left me with just one placard. All of my personal belongings have been taken and dumped in a container along with nearly all the displays.
"They have completely destroyed all the expressions of people who opposed the war in Iraq."
Police overpowered two supporters who had climbed on top of a metal container at the side of the square to blow whistles and wave a banner declaring "Freedom of expression over political repression".
Officers removed the placards at 0235 BST, saying Mr Haw had breached conditions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
"They have completely destroyed all the expressions of people who opposed the war in Iraq."
Police overpowered two supporters who had climbed on top of a metal container at the side of the square to blow whistles and wave a banner declaring "Freedom of expression over political repression".
Officers removed the placards at 0235 BST, saying Mr Haw had breached conditions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
She said: "This action follows a number of requests to the applicant to adhere to the conditions, which he has failed to comply with."
The legislation bans unauthorised protests within a 1km zone of Parliament Square.
It was brought in last year with the specific intent of forcing Mr Haw to abandon his post.
But so far, it is only placards that have been moved, not Mr Haw himself.
It is understood that any decision on eviction may be decided at Bow Street Magistrates' Court next Tuesday when he will face allegations that he breached protest conditions.
In the meantime, Mr Haw plans to petition the Law Lords directly in an attempt to take his case further.
Doug Jewell, from civil rights group Liberty, said: "The government's intolerance has surely reached a fever-pitch when 50 police are sent in to dismantle one man's peaceful protest in the middle of the night."
Mr Haw has slept in Parliament Square among a large display of anti-war banners, placards and flags, many presented to him by well-wishers.
But such a permanent fixture proved an irritant to his neighbours in the House of Commons.
¶ 5:06 PM 1 comments
links to this post
The legislation bans unauthorised protests within a 1km zone of Parliament Square.
It was brought in last year with the specific intent of forcing Mr Haw to abandon his post.
But so far, it is only placards that have been moved, not Mr Haw himself.
It is understood that any decision on eviction may be decided at Bow Street Magistrates' Court next Tuesday when he will face allegations that he breached protest conditions.
In the meantime, Mr Haw plans to petition the Law Lords directly in an attempt to take his case further.
Doug Jewell, from civil rights group Liberty, said: "The government's intolerance has surely reached a fever-pitch when 50 police are sent in to dismantle one man's peaceful protest in the middle of the night."
Mr Haw has slept in Parliament Square among a large display of anti-war banners, placards and flags, many presented to him by well-wishers.
But such a permanent fixture proved an irritant to his neighbours in the House of Commons.
25/05 – NAKED SUNBATHING
So why was this video evidence allowed by the courts? 67.3.A states that a person commits an offence it he records another person doing a private act. Sunbathing in the nude in ones own back garden should be considered a private act.
Moreover, the neighbour told magistrates that "I was renovating the back of my home with a local builder when Ms Burgess appeared in her garden. She walked back and fore completely naked - I went to get my video camera to record the incident.” (now would be the time to point out that I am not a lawyer but) doesn’t this contradict 67.4 which states, a person commits an offence if he adapts a structure or part of a structure, with the intention of enabling himself or another person to commit an offence under section (1) surely.
I really hope that the defendant pursues this avenue with her accuser would be interesting to see his defence – has to be careful not to purge himself. ¶ 4:39 PM 0 comments links to this post
The beeb reports that a naked sunbather was cleared of indecent exposure after being videoed sunbathing naked in her back garden in Cardigan.
Cardigan Magistrates declared that, "We do not accept you intended to cause harm or distress and therefore find you not guilty." I always thought that what ever you did in the confines of your own property were up to you (with the possible exception of your front garden, which can be considered public, because of roads and pavements etc…)
What I don’t quite understand is how this case managed to reach court especially since the videotape evidence (yes the neighbour videoed the defendant) should have been ruled inadmissible because well, its voyeurism, under the Sexual Offences Act (2003) which states:
Cardigan Magistrates declared that, "We do not accept you intended to cause harm or distress and therefore find you not guilty." I always thought that what ever you did in the confines of your own property were up to you (with the possible exception of your front garden, which can be considered public, because of roads and pavements etc…)
What I don’t quite understand is how this case managed to reach court especially since the videotape evidence (yes the neighbour videoed the defendant) should have been ruled inadmissible because well, its voyeurism, under the Sexual Offences Act (2003) which states:
67 Voyeurism
(1) A person commits an offence if-
(a) For the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he observes another person doing a private act, and
(b) He knows that the other person does not consent to being observed for his sexual gratification
(2) A person commits an offence if-
(a) He operates equipment with the intention of enabling another person to observe, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, a third person (B) doing a private act, and(b) He knows that B does not consent to his operating equipment with that intention.
(3) A person commits an offence if-
(a) He records another person (B) doing a private act,
(b) He does so with the intention that he or a third person will, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, look at an image of B doing the act, and
(c) He knows that B does not consent to his recording the act with that intention.
(4) A person commits an offence if he installs equipment, or constructs or adapts a structure or part of a structure, with the intention of enabling himself or another person to commit an offence under subsection (1).
(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable-
(a) On summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) On conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.
68 Voyeurism, Interpretation
(1) For the purposes of section 67, a person is doing a private act if the person is in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy, and-
(a) The person's genitals, buttocks or breasts are exposed or covered only with underwear,
(b) The person is using a lavatory, or
(c) The person is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public.
(2) In section 67, "structure" includes a tent, vehicle or vessel or other temporary or movable structure.
So why was this video evidence allowed by the courts? 67.3.A states that a person commits an offence it he records another person doing a private act. Sunbathing in the nude in ones own back garden should be considered a private act.
Moreover, the neighbour told magistrates that "I was renovating the back of my home with a local builder when Ms Burgess appeared in her garden. She walked back and fore completely naked - I went to get my video camera to record the incident.” (now would be the time to point out that I am not a lawyer but) doesn’t this contradict 67.4 which states, a person commits an offence if he adapts a structure or part of a structure, with the intention of enabling himself or another person to commit an offence under section (1) surely.
I really hope that the defendant pursues this avenue with her accuser would be interesting to see his defence – has to be careful not to purge himself. ¶ 4:39 PM 0 comments links to this post
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
24/05 – GWYNEDD COUNTY COUNCIL
Vary rarely do I do this but, I can’t for the life of me reason why Gwynedd County Council has taken such an interest in my blog – which for some reason makes me nervous.
I can’t decide if there is just some bored individual checking blogs for something interesting to read or whether there is another reason. However, the fact that that they’ve visited here 8 times in the past two days makes me think that this is an unlikely scenario.
I would be grateful if you could share your purpose.
¶ 3:34 PM 1 comments
links to this post
I can’t decide if there is just some bored individual checking blogs for something interesting to read or whether there is another reason. However, the fact that that they’ve visited here 8 times in the past two days makes me think that this is an unlikely scenario.
I would be grateful if you could share your purpose.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
23/05 - HOW LOW WILL LABOUR GO? (BBC ONLINE)
.Tory MPs are demanding a public apology from the Labour Party after it emerged embers, including ministers, took part in an auction for a copy of the Hutton report into the death of Dr David Kelly which was autographed by Cherie Blair..According to a Commons motion tabled by Peterborough's Stewart Jackson, the event took place at the Arts Club in Mayfair last week and raised £400 for party coffers..
The motion says the event was "in appalling bad taste, arrogant and crassly insensitive in seeking to make money, albeit indirectly, through hawking, as a novelty item, an official Government report into the death of a public servant"..
It "regrets the distress caused to the family and friends of the late Dr Kelly; and calls on the Labour Party to apologise for such tasteless and offensive conduct and to donate the money raised to an appropriate charity".
How much more crass can you get? It was Labour’s lies and deceit about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction that compelled David Kelly to commit suicide, every thing that he said turned out to be truthful, now Labour are dancing on his grave by auctioning off the report that investigated the circumstances of his death!
¶ 1:32 PM 0 comments
links to this post
Monday, May 22, 2006
22/05 – EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION (HONESTLY)
In furtherance of my comments dated 14/05, there appears to have been another mistake during the examinations, which has left 11,000 GCSE students incapable of answering their first exam.
AQA forgot to dispatch the source material on which all questions in the exam were to be based. Leaving the exam "absolutely impossible" to complete according to teachers – and they are usually right on these matters.
Nevertheless AQA have moved swiftly with its sympathetic words “One reassurance from AQA had been that at least they were all in the same boat.” Which will be music to the ears of stressed student, the article goes on to highlight other exam papers that AQA have already stated that there would be mistakes in.
WHY IS AQA SO LAX IN CHECKING ITS PRODUCT BEFORE IT IS DISTRIBUTED?
One has to wonder why, when they know that there is a problem with the material that they are dispatching, they dispatched it in the first place. Let’s think about this logically if they are telling schools that there are errors in the exam papers then surely would have discovered the errors before being sent out – otherwise the schools would be notifying the exam board, so you have to ask why are they so incompetent as to knowingly send out faulty products. Or conversely, why are they so incompetent to only proof read the material after distribution!
It fills you with great hope for the future generation that they are going to be assessed by people who are so senseless that they cannot even write an exam and check it for errors, a company that is so ineffective that it cannot even proof read the exams before they are distributed, and we consider these people qualified enough to judge how competent we are, we must be mad.
On the large scale though the government has recently announced plans to reform the examination and university application process, does any one here actually trust them to deliver this alteration effectively and without problems, if there is still this sort of thing going on in systems that are decades old.
¶ 5:08 PM 0 comments
links to this post
AQA forgot to dispatch the source material on which all questions in the exam were to be based. Leaving the exam "absolutely impossible" to complete according to teachers – and they are usually right on these matters.
Nevertheless AQA have moved swiftly with its sympathetic words “One reassurance from AQA had been that at least they were all in the same boat.” Which will be music to the ears of stressed student, the article goes on to highlight other exam papers that AQA have already stated that there would be mistakes in.
WHY IS AQA SO LAX IN CHECKING ITS PRODUCT BEFORE IT IS DISTRIBUTED?
One has to wonder why, when they know that there is a problem with the material that they are dispatching, they dispatched it in the first place. Let’s think about this logically if they are telling schools that there are errors in the exam papers then surely would have discovered the errors before being sent out – otherwise the schools would be notifying the exam board, so you have to ask why are they so incompetent as to knowingly send out faulty products. Or conversely, why are they so incompetent to only proof read the material after distribution!
It fills you with great hope for the future generation that they are going to be assessed by people who are so senseless that they cannot even write an exam and check it for errors, a company that is so ineffective that it cannot even proof read the exams before they are distributed, and we consider these people qualified enough to judge how competent we are, we must be mad.
On the large scale though the government has recently announced plans to reform the examination and university application process, does any one here actually trust them to deliver this alteration effectively and without problems, if there is still this sort of thing going on in systems that are decades old.
Sunday, May 21, 2006
21/05 - LORD ELIS-THOMAS CRITICISES THE ASSEMBLY (FROM BBC)
Presiding Officer Dafydd Elis-Thomas has strongly condemned the "horrendous time-wasting" and "worthless processes" of the Welsh assembly.
He said it was "exasperating" the full assembly sat only two afternoons a week, and then often finished early.
Lord Elis-Thomas said voters neither loved the assembly nor had value for money, and change was essential.
He also claimed both Welsh Secretary Peter Hain and First Minister Rhodri Morgan supported his views.
He said it was "exasperating" the full assembly sat only two afternoons a week, and then often finished early.
Lord Elis-Thomas said voters neither loved the assembly nor had value for money, and change was essential.
He also claimed both Welsh Secretary Peter Hain and First Minister Rhodri Morgan supported his views.
The Plaid Cymru AM also criticised what he called a civil service closed shop which prevented many of his constituents in Meirionnydd Nant Conwy from applying for a job with the Cardiff Bay body.
Lord Elis-Thomas told BBC One Wales' Politics Show that his "very strong views on the way our processes can be improved" were aimed at a review of the way the assembly is run.
"I think regional committees are a complete waste of time," he said.
Lord Elis-Thomas told BBC One Wales' Politics Show that his "very strong views on the way our processes can be improved" were aimed at a review of the way the assembly is run.
"I think regional committees are a complete waste of time," he said.
"I think the way subject committees are structured does not allow us to have an opportunity to question ministers properly or to pursue policy areas properly.
"And it's not the fault of the members or the officials - it's the nature of the system."
Lord Elis-Thomas said there would be change next year when the assembly gains a greater law-making role under the Government of Wales Bill.
He said reform was needed because the assembly would "have to be able to make laws and be able to scrutinise laws as well as budgets properly."
He urged the assembly to follow local government, where councillors worked alongside officials in managing the system.
'Resisting change'
"We sit in plenary for two half-days a week and we often finish early and I find this absolutely exasperating," he said.
"We've got a wonderful chamber, the public come there to look at us, we've had 110,000 visitors [since the Senedd building opened in March], and yet it's very difficult to point out anything that has happened recently."
He said ministers often "got away with it," by trying "not to bring things at all to debate in plenary".
"And it's not the fault of the members or the officials - it's the nature of the system."
Lord Elis-Thomas said there would be change next year when the assembly gains a greater law-making role under the Government of Wales Bill.
He said reform was needed because the assembly would "have to be able to make laws and be able to scrutinise laws as well as budgets properly."
He urged the assembly to follow local government, where councillors worked alongside officials in managing the system.
'Resisting change'
"We sit in plenary for two half-days a week and we often finish early and I find this absolutely exasperating," he said.
"We've got a wonderful chamber, the public come there to look at us, we've had 110,000 visitors [since the Senedd building opened in March], and yet it's very difficult to point out anything that has happened recently."
He said ministers often "got away with it," by trying "not to bring things at all to debate in plenary".
The peer accused some fellow AMs of resisting change in such areas as hours of working and timing of debates because "there isn't an appetite on the part of members to be more efficient".
He went on: "And we are not really loved out there by the Welsh public, they are not getting value for money and therefore we need to do something about it."
"I know the Secretary of State [Peter Hain] supports entirely what I've been saying - he's very keen to see this happen. I know the First Minister [Rhodri Morgan] is up for it, but I hope the rest of my colleagues are up for it as well and indeed the people who work for us and with us."
Lord Elis-Thomas said the assembly could become "a proper institution" next year.
"What I'm saying to my colleagues is that we must take advantage of this opportunity - this is what the people of Wales expect."
¶ 2:21 PM 0 comments
links to this post
He went on: "And we are not really loved out there by the Welsh public, they are not getting value for money and therefore we need to do something about it."
"I know the Secretary of State [Peter Hain] supports entirely what I've been saying - he's very keen to see this happen. I know the First Minister [Rhodri Morgan] is up for it, but I hope the rest of my colleagues are up for it as well and indeed the people who work for us and with us."
Lord Elis-Thomas said the assembly could become "a proper institution" next year.
"What I'm saying to my colleagues is that we must take advantage of this opportunity - this is what the people of Wales expect."
Saturday, May 20, 2006
20/05 - POLICE MERGER SURVEY
Please click on the link in the title in order to register your views on the planned police merger in Wales.
Thanks to Peter Black for bring this to my attention.
¶ 9:18 AM 0 comments
links to this post
Friday, May 19, 2006
20/05 – COMPLAINT TO OFCOM.
Following up my outrage on the reprimanding of Welsh speaking housemates for using the Welsh language on the Channel 4 show ‘Big Brother’ I have dispatched a complaint to Ofcom (Communications Regulator), which is shown bellow.
I am appalled that housemates were reprimanded for speaking Welsh on 'Big Brother'.
I believe that this action is illegal under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of The European Union, 2000, Article 21. Which states; "Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited."
Additionally, this action is also forbidden by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, 1992, Article 2.1. Which states that; "Persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities have the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, and to use their own language, in private and in public, freely and without interference or any form of discrimination."
Therefore, I am asking you to take action against Channel 4 and Big Brother for an illegal, unethical and immoral attack on the Welsh language.
Many Thanks
.
I could have mentioned the European Convention for the Protection ofHuman Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950, Article 10.1, referring to freedom of expression, however, I think that I did quite well as legislation goes. It is just a pitty that the Welsh Language Act, 1993, does not give Welsh people the right to speak Welsh and not be discriminated against because of it.
¶ 11:45 PM 1 comments
links to this post
19/05 – BANNED FROM SPEAKING WELSH
BBC online carries this report about Big Brother reprimanding a housemate from speaking Welsh.
Big Brother has given one of the programme's two Welsh-speaking housemates a telling off - for talking in his native language.
Glyn Wise, 18, a part-time lifeguard, is spending his first day in the house on the hit Channel Four reality show.
He was told by the voice of Big Brother that speaking Welsh to fellow contestant, former Miss Wales Imogen Thomas, was speaking "in code".
A Big Brother spokeswoman denied there was a ban on speaking Welsh.
I can not help but wonder if the same would have been said by Big Brother if they were speaking Arabic, or French or some other language, however, that is currently unknowable and therefore I can not comment further.
Welsh is a recognised language in Britain with 20% of the population speaking it, Big Brother is shown on Welsh language TV channel S4C, so why is it inappropriate for it to be spoken? More importantly why do they deride it as a “code” and not recognise it as a language?
In fairness the article does go onto say that any further communication will be translated into English subtitles, so there’s a job for a translator probably several because of the 24/7 nature of the programme.
However, the way it was handled was still erroneous, and why was not predicted? Two Welsh speakers might want to speak to each other in their predominant language.
This got me thinking, why isn’t there a subtitle service for Welsh speakers we’ve heard of Ceefax ‘888’, Teletext ‘888’ so why then isn’t there a ‘889’ (for example) giving subtitles in the Welsh Language?
¶ 5:48 PM 0 comments
links to this post
Welsh is a recognised language in Britain with 20% of the population speaking it, Big Brother is shown on Welsh language TV channel S4C, so why is it inappropriate for it to be spoken? More importantly why do they deride it as a “code” and not recognise it as a language?
In fairness the article does go onto say that any further communication will be translated into English subtitles, so there’s a job for a translator probably several because of the 24/7 nature of the programme.
However, the way it was handled was still erroneous, and why was not predicted? Two Welsh speakers might want to speak to each other in their predominant language.
This got me thinking, why isn’t there a subtitle service for Welsh speakers we’ve heard of Ceefax ‘888’, Teletext ‘888’ so why then isn’t there a ‘889’ (for example) giving subtitles in the Welsh Language?
19/05 – ENGLISH ATTACKING SCOTTISH DEVOLUTION
The BBC Online service cites an article in the Economist magazine that criticises Scotland and it attitude in the post devolution era.
I would like to point out to the author of the article that the idea of devolution was to enable Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to decide on their own affairs, make their own policies, and to develop their own political cultures. The idea that this needs the approval of the English (in general) or the English media (in particular) is simply preposterous!
England has no right to judge the direction of their former colonies; they are no longer under direct rule from London and therefore have no obligation to report to them.
Devolution has allowed cultures which were suppressed by England and the English – demonstrated by Chanel 4’s Big Brother programmes’ refusal to allow housemates to speak Welsh – to begin to re-establish themselves. Therefore his comments that “Devolution has not diminished this sense of being damn-well-not-British” are simply bizarre, devolution was never meant to lead to an increase of British nationalism. It was an attempt to give greater autonomy and representation of the minority countries that are on the periphery of England and are continuously exploited by England, In the case of Scotland, the nuclear, oil and gas issues.
The English media have to get out of this colonists attitude and begin to realise that England has no right to claim dominion over the Celtic fringe.
¶ 5:05 PM 2 comments
links to this post
I would like to point out to the author of the article that the idea of devolution was to enable Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to decide on their own affairs, make their own policies, and to develop their own political cultures. The idea that this needs the approval of the English (in general) or the English media (in particular) is simply preposterous!
England has no right to judge the direction of their former colonies; they are no longer under direct rule from London and therefore have no obligation to report to them.
Devolution has allowed cultures which were suppressed by England and the English – demonstrated by Chanel 4’s Big Brother programmes’ refusal to allow housemates to speak Welsh – to begin to re-establish themselves. Therefore his comments that “Devolution has not diminished this sense of being damn-well-not-British” are simply bizarre, devolution was never meant to lead to an increase of British nationalism. It was an attempt to give greater autonomy and representation of the minority countries that are on the periphery of England and are continuously exploited by England, In the case of Scotland, the nuclear, oil and gas issues.
The English media have to get out of this colonists attitude and begin to realise that England has no right to claim dominion over the Celtic fringe.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
16/5 - BBC NEWS STORY
Sharon Ebanks became Birmingham's first ever BNP councillor last week when she was officially declared to have won the poll in Kingstanding.
Officials announced her win after two recounts but later slashed her vote from 2,310 to 1,329. Rules mean the announced result can only be overturned in court.
It means Ms Ebanks was therefore able to take up the seat, even though she only came in third, according to the returning officer.
¶ 9:47 PM 0 comments
links to this post
From BBC Online (click on title to be re-directed)
.
BNP election result goes to court
.
The Labour Party has lodged a petition with the High Court to overturn a local election result which gave a BNP candidate a seat by mistake.
Sharon Ebanks became Birmingham's first ever BNP councillor last week when she was officially declared to have won the poll in Kingstanding.
Officials announced her win after two recounts but later slashed her vote from 2,310 to 1,329. Rules mean the announced result can only be overturned in court.
It means Ms Ebanks was therefore able to take up the seat, even though she only came in third, according to the returning officer.
16/05 – ENGLISH DEMOCRATS, IN WALES?
As a Welsh nationalist I am by default a supporter of English nationalism, however, now they’ve crossed a line – the border to be precise.
.
The English Democratic Party (according to their website ) is planning to field a candidate in Monmouthshire for the 2007 Assembly elections. In order to allow the people in Monmouthshire a referendum of whether they are Welsh or English.
.
This is as a result of centuries old myths that Monmouthshire is not a part of Wales, an assertion that is simply inaccurate; King Offa’s dyke, which was built to keep the Welsh out of Mercia, follows the river Wye which separates Wales and England and more importantly Monmouthshire and England, further history can be found at this website
.
The English Democratic Party (according to their website ) is planning to field a candidate in Monmouthshire for the 2007 Assembly elections. In order to allow the people in Monmouthshire a referendum of whether they are Welsh or English.
.
This is as a result of centuries old myths that Monmouthshire is not a part of Wales, an assertion that is simply inaccurate; King Offa’s dyke, which was built to keep the Welsh out of Mercia, follows the river Wye which separates Wales and England and more importantly Monmouthshire and England, further history can be found at this website
.
What does interest me though is their position towards the Forest of Dean, I know from growing up around there that there are a lot of Welsh place names, and if I had my ordinance survey map then I could give you some examples. Are the English Democrats going to recognise this more robust Welsh claim on that territory as well as the hearsay conjectures that are attributed to the most anglicised county of Wales; as expected there is no such sentiment expressed on their website. In stead they rely on the testimony of a 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica ignoring charters by Edward I, Henry VIII and Edward VI which expressly states that Monmouthshire was in the Welsh Marches and therefore in Wales.
.
The problems a poorly edited book can cause.
¶ 8:21 PM 0 comments
links to this post
What does interest me though is their position towards the Forest of Dean, I know from growing up around there that there are a lot of Welsh place names, and if I had my ordinance survey map then I could give you some examples. Are the English Democrats going to recognise this more robust Welsh claim on that territory as well as the hearsay conjectures that are attributed to the most anglicised county of Wales; as expected there is no such sentiment expressed on their website. In stead they rely on the testimony of a 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica ignoring charters by Edward I, Henry VIII and Edward VI which expressly states that Monmouthshire was in the Welsh Marches and therefore in Wales.
.
The problems a poorly edited book can cause.
16/05 – BLAENAU GWENT CONTINUED
While I was going through some old newspapers before I get rid of them, I came across this letter in the ‘Editorial and Opinion’, (5th May 2006, ‘Western Mail’, Page 21,)
But obviously since I’m blogging about it I have issues with this letter: Principally, the assertion that an independent representative is less effective than a representative from a major party, this is an erroneous assertion. The idea that a party backbencher would be more able to represent a constituency is simply wrong, political parties carefully marshal their backbenchers so that they follow the leadership in a homogenised mass, devoid of all independent thought and ability to speak freely about the matters that concern their constituents’, and very often from my experience they, when questioned, rely on party political spiel to avoid the question.
Is Mr Tovey honestly trying say that Mr Law was a less effective parliamentarian than a backbencher? If you watch PMQs then it is clear that backbenchers are just a tool to legitimise a rant about the success of the government, as opposed to a serious attempt to bring the government to account for serious issues in their constituencies.
I agree that you could argue that having duel role AM/MPs would deny you a full time representative in their respective locations, however, is this more of a problem than his MP Peter Hain, being both Secretary of State for Wales and Northern Ireland. Surely these extra commitments would prevent him from being as affective a representative for Neath that he would be if he concentrated solely on Neath.
As for his comments of a “protest” vote by the people of Blaenau Gwent, how arrogant is that? Effectively saying that Labour was not at fault in ignoring the people, but rather the people were at fault because they did not follow like mindless drones! And as for “this well-known disadvantaged community deserves the best possible political influence for its future development” labour have represented Blaenau Gwent since 1929 (and possibly before then, I can’t find out) and Mr Tovey is still describing it as a disadvantaged and proposing that a major party (most likely Labour) as the solution to the problems, they presided over them over them for the majority of a century and did not resolve them, why would they be able to do so if they were given a second chance.
You could argue that the propagation of independent representatives may mean that major parties were to begin to loose their influence and therefore their ability to form a government, which would result in chaos in British politics. That assertion would be correct if politics in this country didn’t evolve with the changing political climate, the proliferation of independent candidates would necessitate a change in political ethos to a more deliberative democracy where I debate and reasoning would result in policies being passed rather than dogmatic arguments and overwhelming majorities that we have now, which I think we can all agree is a horrendous thought!
¶ 1:09 PM 0 comments
links to this post
Voters’ decision
SIR – The late Peter Law will be fondly remembered by many for his pertinacious qualities and defence of democracy in local selection procedures.
The protest vote by the Blaenau Gwent electorate was a timely reminder to all politicians that in the end the people will decide.
However, that success did mean that the people of Blaenau Gwent were denied full-time representation at both Cardiff and London and any Independent representative is likely to be distances from the mainstream political process.
Another “protest” vote would appear to be counter-productive so it can be hoped that this electorate will not be guided by the mischief-making headlines generated by Martin Shipton and his ilk and will elect the mainstream party candidate of their choice for both houses. This well-known disadvantaged community deserves the best possible political influence for its future development.
ROGER TOVEY
Dyffryn View, Bryncoch, Neath
But obviously since I’m blogging about it I have issues with this letter: Principally, the assertion that an independent representative is less effective than a representative from a major party, this is an erroneous assertion. The idea that a party backbencher would be more able to represent a constituency is simply wrong, political parties carefully marshal their backbenchers so that they follow the leadership in a homogenised mass, devoid of all independent thought and ability to speak freely about the matters that concern their constituents’, and very often from my experience they, when questioned, rely on party political spiel to avoid the question.
Is Mr Tovey honestly trying say that Mr Law was a less effective parliamentarian than a backbencher? If you watch PMQs then it is clear that backbenchers are just a tool to legitimise a rant about the success of the government, as opposed to a serious attempt to bring the government to account for serious issues in their constituencies.
I agree that you could argue that having duel role AM/MPs would deny you a full time representative in their respective locations, however, is this more of a problem than his MP Peter Hain, being both Secretary of State for Wales and Northern Ireland. Surely these extra commitments would prevent him from being as affective a representative for Neath that he would be if he concentrated solely on Neath.
As for his comments of a “protest” vote by the people of Blaenau Gwent, how arrogant is that? Effectively saying that Labour was not at fault in ignoring the people, but rather the people were at fault because they did not follow like mindless drones! And as for “this well-known disadvantaged community deserves the best possible political influence for its future development” labour have represented Blaenau Gwent since 1929 (and possibly before then, I can’t find out) and Mr Tovey is still describing it as a disadvantaged and proposing that a major party (most likely Labour) as the solution to the problems, they presided over them over them for the majority of a century and did not resolve them, why would they be able to do so if they were given a second chance.
You could argue that the propagation of independent representatives may mean that major parties were to begin to loose their influence and therefore their ability to form a government, which would result in chaos in British politics. That assertion would be correct if politics in this country didn’t evolve with the changing political climate, the proliferation of independent candidates would necessitate a change in political ethos to a more deliberative democracy where I debate and reasoning would result in policies being passed rather than dogmatic arguments and overwhelming majorities that we have now, which I think we can all agree is a horrendous thought!
Monday, May 15, 2006
16/05 - BLAENAU GWENT
The Blaenau Gwent double by-election is coming up on the 29th June 2006 and, I think that all the candidates have been declared. (Listed with Assembly candidates first)
Independent: Trish Law and Dai Davies
Plaid: John Price and Steffan Lewis
Liberal Democrats: Steve Bard and Amy Kitcher
Conservatives: Jon Burns and Margrit Williams
Labour: John Hopkins and Owen Smith
Although I think that I can be reasonably confident in predicting a double independent win, it puzzles me how Labour will do.
The principle problem in Welsh politics is a blind loyalty towards a single party, namely Labour. This inhibits any real competition during elections as Labour victory is near-enough-to-damn-it guaranteed in many constituencies. Therefore, we often end up with substandard representatives, Peter Law broke this mould but did he throw away the pieces or can labour recast them?
I think that there is little doubt that it was only a candidate of Peter Law’s talent, capabilities, integrity, principles and experience that could have pulled off that outstanding election defeat for labour, but was it his previous association with the labour party that made him elect able? After all it was a break from labour but it was only a break with labour in name only. Mr Law was a devoted socialist who still represented many of the values that people associated with labour so it wasn’t a complete break; in fact you could argue that it was labour who evolved and that the loyalty was still held to old labour, represented by Mr Law.
As for why labour will not win this election, I think that there are many reasons: firstly, the labour candidate’s speech at Mr Law’s victory; Secondly, the contrived labour apology to Blaenau Gwent which was only issued (cynically) in the run up to this by-election campaign; thirdly, sympathy vote; finally and most importantly, I believe that there has been a switch in loyalty away from labour, and if Ms Law is a good parliamentarian (for want of an assembly equivalent of the word) then this could be made to be permanent.
Labour is increasingly being seen as out of touch with the communities of Wales, riding rough shot over them, and their wishes. Therefore, the ability of Ms Law could pre-empt a turn in the tide for labours fortunes in Wales, it will not be a swift turn in fortunes but a noticeable one nevertheless.
¶ 11:31 PM 2 comments
links to this post
Independent: Trish Law and Dai Davies
Plaid: John Price and Steffan Lewis
Liberal Democrats: Steve Bard and Amy Kitcher
Conservatives: Jon Burns and Margrit Williams
Labour: John Hopkins and Owen Smith
Although I think that I can be reasonably confident in predicting a double independent win, it puzzles me how Labour will do.
The principle problem in Welsh politics is a blind loyalty towards a single party, namely Labour. This inhibits any real competition during elections as Labour victory is near-enough-to-damn-it guaranteed in many constituencies. Therefore, we often end up with substandard representatives, Peter Law broke this mould but did he throw away the pieces or can labour recast them?
I think that there is little doubt that it was only a candidate of Peter Law’s talent, capabilities, integrity, principles and experience that could have pulled off that outstanding election defeat for labour, but was it his previous association with the labour party that made him elect able? After all it was a break from labour but it was only a break with labour in name only. Mr Law was a devoted socialist who still represented many of the values that people associated with labour so it wasn’t a complete break; in fact you could argue that it was labour who evolved and that the loyalty was still held to old labour, represented by Mr Law.
As for why labour will not win this election, I think that there are many reasons: firstly, the labour candidate’s speech at Mr Law’s victory; Secondly, the contrived labour apology to Blaenau Gwent which was only issued (cynically) in the run up to this by-election campaign; thirdly, sympathy vote; finally and most importantly, I believe that there has been a switch in loyalty away from labour, and if Ms Law is a good parliamentarian (for want of an assembly equivalent of the word) then this could be made to be permanent.
Labour is increasingly being seen as out of touch with the communities of Wales, riding rough shot over them, and their wishes. Therefore, the ability of Ms Law could pre-empt a turn in the tide for labours fortunes in Wales, it will not be a swift turn in fortunes but a noticeable one nevertheless.
Sunday, May 14, 2006
14/05 – EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION
I remember Blair’s promise, “Education, Education, Education”, but all I have experienced from Blair is, Incompetence, Incompetence, Incompetence!
.
It is unfortunate for some of those who are in their final year of university that, they are the ones that were most severely affected by the A level fiasco in 2002, now they are at the precipice of a graduation fiasco! If you haven’t guessed by now I was one of the students who was downgraded by the exam board, and was upgraded in the subsequent inquiry; and now I am in the final year of a degree faced with the prospect of not graduating because of a lecturers strike action.
.
Blair has destroyed the education system of this country, and is completely untrustworthy at the helm of our future.
¶ 4:15 PM 0 comments
links to this post
It is unfortunate for some of those who are in their final year of university that, they are the ones that were most severely affected by the A level fiasco in 2002, now they are at the precipice of a graduation fiasco! If you haven’t guessed by now I was one of the students who was downgraded by the exam board, and was upgraded in the subsequent inquiry; and now I am in the final year of a degree faced with the prospect of not graduating because of a lecturers strike action.
.
Blair has destroyed the education system of this country, and is completely untrustworthy at the helm of our future.
SUPPORT TAFFIA DON: MERCHANDISE
DAILY CARTOON
- WE SHALL REMEMBER THEM
- 08/06/07 – THEATRE REVIEW
- 02/06/07- THE WELSH LANGUAGE IS BEING OVER PROMOTE...
- 22/05/07 – IS THIS THE SWIFTEST RENEGED PROMISE IN...
- 22/05/07 – QUESTION, DOES PETER HAIN’S LEFT HAND K...
- 11/05/07 - LIB DEMS CRY FOUL
- 10/05/07 - ABHORRENT MADNESS, ABHORRENT DISCRIMINA...
- 10/05/07 – CONGRATULATIONS S4C
- 10/05/07 – COALITIONS
- 10/05/07 – BLAIR ANNOUNCES HIS RETIREMENT
ARCHIVES
- June 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- November 2007
- Current Posts
- SMILING UNDER BUSES
- BRITISH NATIONALISTS IN WALES WATCH
- BIG STICK SMALL CARROT WORLD
- WALES COMMENT
- INSIDE SWANSEA COUNCIL
MAP
