Dr Proles Social Sciences

Did I hear correctly on Aunty Beeb's News 24 a moment ago? Is the latest attempt to solve the looming pension crisis is to force us to save towards our retirement when we are working for an employer? Forgive me if I am wrong but isnt that scheme already in place? Isn't that part of what our compulsory National Insurance contributions are for??????? Perhaps I am a cretin, but I had presumed that National Insurance was for a whole set of social insurances Health Care, Sick Pay, Unemployment Benefit and oh yes PENSIONS! Yup there it is I knew it, soooo whats this about forcing us to save for our pensions then? We are already being forced to save for our pensions NI isnt voluntary is it???

Far be it from me to want to pat Tony B. Liar on the back and say well done chap! But after hearing his speech today in Bristol on Criminal Justice I felt like doing just that!

I have always considered myself to be non-partisan, preferring to vote on issues as an independent thinking lassie should and today I felt a wee connection with Mr Blair - He spoke sense, he was saying what most people think - the end of this traditional liberalised nonsense in Criminal Justice terms where the focus is on the rights of the convicted criminal and a 21st century system which restores the balance of rights - those rights of the victim who has had his or her liberty in someway impinged upon by another person.

What Mr Blair failed to tell us today was how a return to victimcentric criminal justice is to be achieved - his rumblings included the New labour mantra tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime and yes we need this very much in our post modern society, the balance has to be restored. But how? May I be so bold as to suggest compulsory citizenship classes for every child until school leaving age, classes that teach that in our society we all have rights as long as we abide by the law - with rights come responsibility. A responsibility not to commit crime, a responsibility to have respect for the other people in your society. Lets teach the children and their parents that if you choose to commit a crime or indulge in what has been labelled anti-social behaviour that you will pay a penalty, that your rights will be removed to a certain extent until you can prove yourself worthy to have those rights restored. Rights should be automatic but they must also be able to be removed if certain criteria are fulfilled. Utilitarianism teaches us that certain things are done for the greater good, Deontology teaches us that we have a duty to do or not do certain things - these things need taught in schools in relation to rights and responsibility,
Hobbes thought that we needed Govt to give us laws to protect our rights and unless you are a hardline libertarian in the mould of Nozick you would agree with Hobbes.

I would like to be the first to congratulate Mr Blair on his speech, on the introduction of reality into the feild of criminal justice/human rights and I would like to label this tiny step into reality - REAL WORLD CRIMINAL JUSTICE.

Real world criminal justice should recognise that there are good and bad people, that the rights of the law abiding citizens must come before those convicted of an offence ( NOT THOSE ACCUSED OF AN OFFENCE). Real world criminal justice recognises that we are not living in the days when we sent children up chimneys and had people enslaved in factories for 20 hr days - this is the 21st Century. Real world criminal justice knows that giving evidence is a frightening experience for a victim, especially if that victim lives in the same vicinity as the accused and is liable to be subjected to retalliation of some sort for giving evidence. Real world criminal justice should metre out appropriate sentencing and appropriate rehabilitation during a custodial sentence, with criteria to be met that if not fulfilled will lead to a longer sentence. Real World criminal justice will recognise that crime itself is changing and that the causes of crime are also changing. Real world criminal justice should also focus on tougher penalties for those who commit crimes against the person - the emphasis on crimes against property has been to the fore for too long.

Well done Mr Blair , you have opened the debate, lets hope you have also opened your ears, part of the skill of debating is actually listening.
If these changes are nothing more than a media attention grabbing scam in which you will adopt your normal dictorial style of government, well then Mr Blair you have lost the fight against crime in the 21st Century.

The infamous 'West Lothian Question' is again raising its head. In laymans terms it is the problem of Scottish MP's at Westminster voting on English Issues, those issues which are devolved to the Scottish Parliament but retained to westminster for England only e.g. the NHS, Education etc.

There is a simple solution which doesnt need the break up of the Union to resolve.
1. Establish an English Parliament outside of London with its own set of devolved issues.
2. Allow the Scottish Parliament, the English Parliament and the Welsh Assembly to raise the taxes in their part of the UK
3. These 3 parliaments send a percentage of their taxes to the Westminster Govt which will only have power in relation to retained issues such as defence, foreign policy and social security.
4. Reduce the numbers of MP's at Westminster so that it costs less to run.
5. Introduce proportional representation in all of the Parliaments

Such a solution would create jobs in Govt outside of London both directly and indirectly. There would be no squabbling over MP's from Scotland and Wales voting on English only issues because Westminster would only vote and discuss matters which affect the entire UK.

Perhaps this solution seems too simplistic - the only thing that I would say is imperative in this solution is that English Tax payers fund the building of their parliament in the same way that Scottish and Welsh tax payers had to fund the building of their own devolved parliaments

The newspapers in Scotland today predominately led with a story of attacks on a young boy in Edinburgh and a disabled man in Aberdeen, the reason for them being victims of physical violence? Nothing more than wearing ENGLAND football shirts!

Jack McConnell our first minister should be hanging his head in shame at his comments regarding supporting the English football team - comments from such a prominent politician have only given teeth to the already simmering racial hatred of the ENGLISH from certain factions of Scots.

300 years of the Union have done nothing to quell this vile hatred, bred from generation to generation and often supported by the media and politicians.... SHAME ON YOU ALL! The violence suffered by these two innocent people on Scottish streets at the hands of Scottish thugs is as much your fault as if you had committed the act yourselves.

Isn't it about time that racism of this kind were taken seriously - racism against those of a different skin colour or those who speak a different language is always taken seriously - but racism against the English is not only tolerated here north of the border , but it appears actively promoted by sports commentators and their ilk and supported by the establishment.

In Scotland the Executive has been promoting ONE SCOTLAND NO PLACE FOR RACISM and yet when its racism against those south of the border it appears there is a place for it and that place is SCOTLAND!

The Scots are well known for their national pride and they are right to have pride in their nation, but they are swift to condemn the English whenever they show a bit of English Pride. Remember when Scotland was going to Argentina - the National Pride was phenomenal - We shouted about Scotland and its forth comming expected and hoped for triumph to everyone who would listen - and rightly so. But when the English sing and show pride in their team going to the world cup do we smile and wish them well, do we support our southern brothers and sisters and wish them the best of British - NO! We turn on them like a pack of wolves - sneering and making racist comments. Is anti-Englishness the last non-pc to remain an accepted part of our lives here in Scotland - I hope not.

Be warned - such actions could provoke anti Scottish sentiment south of the border - Scotland by her faliure to condemn Anti-English Racism and to convict those responsible with the same vim and vigour that we attempt to stamp out other forms of racism here could be opening a pandora's box.... is the complete and utter destruction of the union something that all Scots really want? We have had a few chances in the past to vote on independence from the UNION and yet we have consistently said NO its not what we want. We recognise that the United Kingdom is a UNION not the domination of Scotland by England - this was not as common folk lore would have it colonisation of Scotland by the back door. It was after all the Scottish King who inherited the English throne, it was the faliure of the Darien Project and a bankrupted Scotland which agreed to the Act of Union in the early 1700's - we may have been bought and sold for english gold - but it appears we are still a parcel o' rogues in a nation - and not loveable rouges but hateful, insular, tribal, racist rogues - SHAME ON US!

According to the Glasgow Herald, One Cathie Jamieson has taken it upon herself (as minister for Justice), to decide that parents do not have the right to know when a paedophile is living among them. Apparently she fears lynch mob mentality on the streets of scotland if such a policy were to come to fruition.

As a parent Cathie I want to protest in the strongest possible terms. If there is a paedophile living near me I WANT TO KNOW. I wouldnt want to lynch the paedophile, I would want the paedophile returned to custody or housed on an island far far away, with no chance of contact with any child, where he could pose no threat to the children of scotland.
Its very very simple, either you let the people of Scotland know if a paedophile is in their community or you stop letting them out of prison and back into the community. A sexual attack on one child by a paedophile who has been released is one attack too many, the murder of a child by a convicted paedophile cannot be tolerated. To tolerate this by having a system which releases such people back into our communities without warning the people of scotland where they are is an INJUSTICE TO THE VICTIMS AND POTENTIAL VICTIMS of this type of crime.
A sensible person like the Minister of Justice for Scotland must recognise that for paedophilia there is no real effective treatment and no cure - it is a drive, those who have this drive will seek to satisfy it, just as we satisfy our other drives like hunger. Until we can treat this or cure paedophiles with absolute certainty of them posing no danger to children, there should be a policy of automatic life sentences - where life means life, for an individual convicted of paedophilia.

If only we could be sure that those who we elect to represent us were listening.

The internet is a wonderful tool and should aid the democratic participation of you and I in the daily running of our countries. It could enable us to participate in the decision making process. It would be so simple - central govt or local govt emails everyone to go to a central website and give their opinion on a subject or perhaps vote in a wee referendum ( each person has their own password and name for this act). We could get to decide on lots of things - after all we are apparently trustworthy enough to decide who will represent us ergo surely we are able to decide on all the big decisions like pay rises for the politicians - if they should get perks such as grace and favour homes and cars. Should the forces which protect us go to war? How our tax money is spent - how much and where. We could even decide online if we need another ASDA or TESCO or if we want another hospital to close, or if we want a windfarm..... We could press yes, no or don't know, if we dont know as a collective then the representative could give us more information to allow us to make an informed choice. Seriously, the internet is here and it should be used to involve us all in the democratic process. It wouldnt be expensive and could be easily achieved - so why arent the politicians doing this?
It could well be that they think that they know whats best for us.
It could be that they worry that it might do away with their jobs - if we could represent ourselves we wouldnt need to elect a representative.
or it could simply be that they dont give a damn what we think about anything as long as we trot along to the polls to elect them when the time comes.

Surely the powers that be cannot wish to imply that Glaswegians have the mental capacity of a two year old, needing to be removed from the danger of drinking from glass recepticles? Is this the intent? Is there a fear that a Glaswegian may bite the glass he is drinking from and therefore the risk should be removed and replaced with the toddler freindly plastic beaker. Are Glaswegians more at risk when drinking from glass recepticles than Aberdonians, Dundonians, Invernesians or Edinburgh Folk?
Or perhaps the message conveyed is a warning to outsiders it could read "Please don't come to Glasgow, the people in Glasgow are uncontrollable and will attempt to assault your person with anything to hand including but not confined to Glass drinking recepticles"

How much more of this over protective nonsense can the people of Scotland take? It appears there is a a never ending list of thou-shalt-not-for-your-own-good legislation being churned out of the offices of the Scottish Executive and the offices of Local Government. FOR GOODNESS SAKE YOU ARE OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES NOT OUR PARENTS - PUT THE COTTON WOOL AWAY AND LET US LIVE OUR LIVES - YOUR JOB IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PLASTERS ARE AVAILABLE IF WE SHOULD CUT OURSELVES, NOT TO MOLLYCODDLE US.