Should there be tighter rules on abortion, in certain aspects of it, definitely, in other's no.
If there is a risk to the mother, or the foetus itself, then yes obviously abortion is the only way.
Another reason for abortion is if the foetus has a strong possibility of being disabled, and whether the mother feels she can handle bringing up a child with disabilities, or whether the quality of life will be good enough, or if you already have other children whether it would fair on them.
Another reason might be because the mother became pregnant through rape.
However, they are the only reasons I personally would ever consider getting an abortion.
When it comes to women getting abortions because they've had a one night stand, or just not careful enough with her partner, and the foetus is healthy, then no, I don't believe they should be given an abortion.
Not one person on this planet asked to be born. Therefore if you're not careful enough, you'll have to grow up and face the consequences, which I believe majority of people do!
A girl I went to school with fell pregnant at the age of 17, but knew she would not be able to bring up a child in the life she was living. Did she have an abortion? No, she gave her daughter up for adoption.
Not only did she, in my view at least, give a couple something so precious in giving them a baby, but she also gave her daughter the chance to have a safe upbringing, one filled with happiness, joy, and safety.
I know for a fact she thinks about her every day, yet she never regrets a single minute of her adoption, yes it was hard, but she knows that her daughter is having the best out of life, one she could never have given her, and has made two people extremely happy.
So for me abortion is a matter of life and death, not because I wasn't careful enough.
Friday 27 December 2013
Thursday 19 December 2013
Opinion Polls
I hate opinion polls, for me they are fleeting moments of what people think, and not only that, they are bloody confusing!
Today's opinion poll (YouGov/Sun poll) says: Govt's approval rating Con 34, Lab 38, LD 10, UKIP 11.
Another poll they have produced is: Which of these would make the best Prime Minister:
David Cameron 35, Ed Miliband 20, Nick Clegg 5, and Don't Know 39
How can Labour beat the government, but Ed Miliband can't beat David Cameron? Surely he must be leading Labour in the right direction for them to win opinion poll after opinion poll? Or am I missing something?
To me it just looks like we are heading to another hung parliament for 2015, and I'm not too sure who will have the majority to form another coalition government, are you?
Today's opinion poll (YouGov/Sun poll) says: Govt's approval rating Con 34, Lab 38, LD 10, UKIP 11.
Another poll they have produced is: Which of these would make the best Prime Minister:
David Cameron 35, Ed Miliband 20, Nick Clegg 5, and Don't Know 39
How can Labour beat the government, but Ed Miliband can't beat David Cameron? Surely he must be leading Labour in the right direction for them to win opinion poll after opinion poll? Or am I missing something?
To me it just looks like we are heading to another hung parliament for 2015, and I'm not too sure who will have the majority to form another coalition government, are you?
Food Banks
It's a terrible thing when the 7th richest country in the world's people have to rely on food banks.
But does ALL the blame lay on the shoulders of the government, or should the people take some of the blame too?
Personally, I think it's 50/50.
Yes, obviously government has a lot to do with the reason why people need food banks, however people also need to start financing their money better.
I half blame credit cards. People seem to think the money on a credit card is theirs, when in actual fact it's the banks.
Credit Cards lead you into a false sense of security, you think you've paid for the items, when in actual fact, your bank has paid for the items, and they want their money back.
I'm sure some people are quite shocked at how high their credit card bill is, then feel the need to use loan sharks such as Wonga, and unless you can pay off the loan sharks in one full swoop, you'll never get out of debt.
I've known two people to use loan sharks. They both only borrowed £600, but after paying off £400 worth of their owed amount, ended up owning over £1000 due the high % of the APR.
I also blame people wanting their kids to have everything, instead of buying within their means. When I was growing up, my parents couldn't afford most toys, but I never felt like I was missing out on anything, in fact even if my parents were panicking about the financial situation, they never let us know about it, nor did make out we were poor, or couldn't afford stuff.
So why can't other parents do the same?
Once your in debt with a loan shark, theirs no going back. The debt mounts up tremendously quick, and before you know it you need food banks so you can pay off as much as possible each month, and let's not forget it was a Labour government who introduced food banks.
Credit cards should be given to people who can pay it off, and to be honest, people who can pay off credit cards mostly won't need to use one.
Loan sharks should either be made illegal, or their % of APR should capped at a reasonable %.
Also, people should learn to spend within their means, I know I do. If I can't afford, I won't buy, I'll save up for it, or wait until the price has dropped a little and usually when that happens there's a nice discount on top.
But does ALL the blame lay on the shoulders of the government, or should the people take some of the blame too?
Personally, I think it's 50/50.
Yes, obviously government has a lot to do with the reason why people need food banks, however people also need to start financing their money better.
I half blame credit cards. People seem to think the money on a credit card is theirs, when in actual fact it's the banks.
Credit Cards lead you into a false sense of security, you think you've paid for the items, when in actual fact, your bank has paid for the items, and they want their money back.
I'm sure some people are quite shocked at how high their credit card bill is, then feel the need to use loan sharks such as Wonga, and unless you can pay off the loan sharks in one full swoop, you'll never get out of debt.
I've known two people to use loan sharks. They both only borrowed £600, but after paying off £400 worth of their owed amount, ended up owning over £1000 due the high % of the APR.
I also blame people wanting their kids to have everything, instead of buying within their means. When I was growing up, my parents couldn't afford most toys, but I never felt like I was missing out on anything, in fact even if my parents were panicking about the financial situation, they never let us know about it, nor did make out we were poor, or couldn't afford stuff.
So why can't other parents do the same?
Once your in debt with a loan shark, theirs no going back. The debt mounts up tremendously quick, and before you know it you need food banks so you can pay off as much as possible each month, and let's not forget it was a Labour government who introduced food banks.
Credit cards should be given to people who can pay it off, and to be honest, people who can pay off credit cards mostly won't need to use one.
Loan sharks should either be made illegal, or their % of APR should capped at a reasonable %.
Also, people should learn to spend within their means, I know I do. If I can't afford, I won't buy, I'll save up for it, or wait until the price has dropped a little and usually when that happens there's a nice discount on top.
Wednesday 18 December 2013
Third Runway is a good idea
I might be slightly biased to the idea of a third runway as that's where the company I work for get's majority of it's work.
I can not actually see anything bad in having the third runway.
Firstly, like I just pointed out, it will create more work, and more jobs. Which, in our current climate, will be brilliant for people.
Secondly, obviously people will have to move, therefore it will create social housing, councils will be forced to build more houses, and another good thing about that is, more work!
More social housing, more work is exactly what the left are screaming out for, not only that, it should hopefully make delays of flights a little less frequent.
For the people who will have to move, not only will they get a nice new house, but they will get paid for losing their house.
All I can personally see is a win-win situation.
I can not actually see anything bad in having the third runway.
Firstly, like I just pointed out, it will create more work, and more jobs. Which, in our current climate, will be brilliant for people.
Secondly, obviously people will have to move, therefore it will create social housing, councils will be forced to build more houses, and another good thing about that is, more work!
More social housing, more work is exactly what the left are screaming out for, not only that, it should hopefully make delays of flights a little less frequent.
For the people who will have to move, not only will they get a nice new house, but they will get paid for losing their house.
All I can personally see is a win-win situation.
Thursday 12 December 2013
I'm completely torn on legalising Cannabis
There are brilliant points for and against legalising Cannabis.
However, I am completely town because of one fact.
Back in 2006, I was arriving at school and I could see a bunch of my friends crying. Obviously I went up and asked if they were OK, and was told that our friend had been killed by being hit by a car.
The driver of the car had smoked Cannabis, not a heavy amount, probably just a few drags of someone else's spliff, got in his car, and killed my friend, he was only 16.
He had his whole life ahead of him, he was funny, he was lovely, and we all still miss him to this day.
The problems with legalising it is, for me, as follows:
However, I am completely town because of one fact.
Back in 2006, I was arriving at school and I could see a bunch of my friends crying. Obviously I went up and asked if they were OK, and was told that our friend had been killed by being hit by a car.
The driver of the car had smoked Cannabis, not a heavy amount, probably just a few drags of someone else's spliff, got in his car, and killed my friend, he was only 16.
He had his whole life ahead of him, he was funny, he was lovely, and we all still miss him to this day.
The problems with legalising it is, for me, as follows:
- After the initial high wears off, some people start to look for something stronger
- If it is legalised, will there be laws surrounding it like there is for alcohol?
- Will you be able to smoke it during working hours in the smoking areas?
- Will you be allowed it 24 hours before you work heavy machinery?
- How will it be sold? Chemist? Along side normal cigarettes?
- Where will the government purchase it from? Or will they be growing their own?
- Can pilots, train drivers, taxi drivers, bus drivers, lorry drivers, and driving instructors smoke it before they take control of their vehicles?
- Will you be allowed to smoke it around children?
Not sure many people have been thinking of these other issues that come with it.
For children to be breathing is normal cigarette smoke is bad enough, but to add another element to the dangers of second smoke to it as well, for me, seems worse.
Wednesday 4 December 2013
Why supporting whistle blowers is a dangerous game
Although whistle blowers probably have the right intention, their actions are extremely dangerous and wrong.
They are wrong for our men and women in the armed forces.
Edward Snowden knew, even before he had given the secret information away, that his career and freedom would be over with, so surely he knew he was putting his fellow men and women who were in the American Armed Forces at risk too?
Just because you don't agree with the measures that your government is going to take, does it give you right to put others at risk with their lives?
The left seem to be in favour of these whistle blowers. Owen Jones recently said at an anit-war conference we should "Salute them because they lift the veil in Iraq and elsewhere, and stripped the veil the secrecy on Western power."
Now, I understand we may not agree with what our government plans are, but there different measures of doing this, and I think not so long ago, our MP's proved this by voting against intervention in Syria.
I was extremely proud of every MP, no matter what side of the house they sat, who voted against, a democratic way of showing the leadership what the people really want.
Whistle blowers are a danger not just to themselves, but to their colleagues, who they unfairly put in the firing line, allowing the extremist this information does not help anybodies cause, least of all our own.
If he really, really disagreed with the measures that the American government were taking I'm pretty sure Edward Snowden could have thought of better ways than doing it, definitely more democratically at least.
Allowing a newspaper such as The Guardian to print such top secret plans is a disgrace to himself and nobody else.
People need to start thinking of the consequences before they action. He had obviously thought of the consequences against himself, but not for his fellow country men. What if the plans he had leaked had gotten some of them killed? How would he have felt? How would Owen Jones have felt if these, also innocent, people had died because of one man's actions.
If Tony Blair is a sham, then surely that would have made Edward Snowden one as well?
Maybe the leftwing need to get off their high horse, yes the war in Iraq and Afghanistan I believe was wrong, and I'm glad that the MP's voted against intervention because it seems to have had a domino affect (so much the small island no one pays attention to Mr Putin).
However, unlike the Iraq and Afghanistan intervention, we weren't told a bunch of lies about the reasonings to go in their, we had the truth told to us, and we decided what was best.
I do believe majority of these whistle blowers have the best of intentions, but their actions have dire consequences outside their lives, and maybe they should take their heads out of the clouds, and start thinking of others within their own country as well as other countries around the world.
I hope other wanna be whistle blowers think it thoroughly through before leaking such information, not only ending their own freedom, but possibly that of the others around them too, maybe one day someones life which to me makes them just as extreme and the Islamist extremist their colleagues are fighting on a daily basis.
They are wrong for our men and women in the armed forces.
Edward Snowden knew, even before he had given the secret information away, that his career and freedom would be over with, so surely he knew he was putting his fellow men and women who were in the American Armed Forces at risk too?
Just because you don't agree with the measures that your government is going to take, does it give you right to put others at risk with their lives?
The left seem to be in favour of these whistle blowers. Owen Jones recently said at an anit-war conference we should "Salute them because they lift the veil in Iraq and elsewhere, and stripped the veil the secrecy on Western power."
Now, I understand we may not agree with what our government plans are, but there different measures of doing this, and I think not so long ago, our MP's proved this by voting against intervention in Syria.
I was extremely proud of every MP, no matter what side of the house they sat, who voted against, a democratic way of showing the leadership what the people really want.
Whistle blowers are a danger not just to themselves, but to their colleagues, who they unfairly put in the firing line, allowing the extremist this information does not help anybodies cause, least of all our own.
If he really, really disagreed with the measures that the American government were taking I'm pretty sure Edward Snowden could have thought of better ways than doing it, definitely more democratically at least.
Allowing a newspaper such as The Guardian to print such top secret plans is a disgrace to himself and nobody else.
People need to start thinking of the consequences before they action. He had obviously thought of the consequences against himself, but not for his fellow country men. What if the plans he had leaked had gotten some of them killed? How would he have felt? How would Owen Jones have felt if these, also innocent, people had died because of one man's actions.
If Tony Blair is a sham, then surely that would have made Edward Snowden one as well?
Maybe the leftwing need to get off their high horse, yes the war in Iraq and Afghanistan I believe was wrong, and I'm glad that the MP's voted against intervention because it seems to have had a domino affect (so much the small island no one pays attention to Mr Putin).
However, unlike the Iraq and Afghanistan intervention, we weren't told a bunch of lies about the reasonings to go in their, we had the truth told to us, and we decided what was best.
I do believe majority of these whistle blowers have the best of intentions, but their actions have dire consequences outside their lives, and maybe they should take their heads out of the clouds, and start thinking of others within their own country as well as other countries around the world.
I hope other wanna be whistle blowers think it thoroughly through before leaking such information, not only ending their own freedom, but possibly that of the others around them too, maybe one day someones life which to me makes them just as extreme and the Islamist extremist their colleagues are fighting on a daily basis.
Monday 2 December 2013
Tom Daley's 'Coming Out'
I'm glad that Tom Daley is a happy relationship, whether it be with a man or a woman.
I've seen a few homophobic tweets towards Tom Daley, after his video, but I'm not sure why they feel the need to be so nasty.
Firstly, during the 2012 Olympics I bet they watched his diving with baited breath and could't have cared less whether he was straight or gay, and I bet they watched Clare Balding present the swimming events without giving it a second thought that she is in a relationship with another woman.
Why does being gay have still such a bad stigma?
My idol is Freddie Mercury, I absolutely adore everything that man has done. For me Freddie Mercury is a once in a lifetime genius, and I'm only sad that I was so young when he passed away.
Does him being bisexual bother me? No, couldn't care less, as long as he was happy.
Another hero of mine K.D Lang, another fantastic musician.
Does her being a lesbian bother me? Nope, once again, couldn't give a damn, just as long as she's happy.
Does Tom Daley being gay bother me? No, because all I care about is him getting medals for Team GB, and first and foremost, being happy.
Why would anyone want to take away someones right to live a happy life? Who has that right to make that decision?
No one, therefore, whether you're straight, gay, bisexual, or transgender I just hope you are happy.
I've seen a few homophobic tweets towards Tom Daley, after his video, but I'm not sure why they feel the need to be so nasty.
Firstly, during the 2012 Olympics I bet they watched his diving with baited breath and could't have cared less whether he was straight or gay, and I bet they watched Clare Balding present the swimming events without giving it a second thought that she is in a relationship with another woman.
Why does being gay have still such a bad stigma?
My idol is Freddie Mercury, I absolutely adore everything that man has done. For me Freddie Mercury is a once in a lifetime genius, and I'm only sad that I was so young when he passed away.
Does him being bisexual bother me? No, couldn't care less, as long as he was happy.
Another hero of mine K.D Lang, another fantastic musician.
Does her being a lesbian bother me? Nope, once again, couldn't give a damn, just as long as she's happy.
Does Tom Daley being gay bother me? No, because all I care about is him getting medals for Team GB, and first and foremost, being happy.
Why would anyone want to take away someones right to live a happy life? Who has that right to make that decision?
No one, therefore, whether you're straight, gay, bisexual, or transgender I just hope you are happy.
Sunday 24 November 2013
Those who shout the loudest are usually most scared.
I always find it hilarious when Labour supporters such as Owen Jones, and Sunny Hundal, and even Labour politicians put the blame on the Tories whenever something bad happens to a Labour donor.
It's either the Tories smearing Labour's name, or the Tories who did something worse.
Owen claims he often has a go at the Labour leadership when it's called upon. Well why is he writing about the Tories smearing instead of Labour making a huge mistake with Rev Paul Flowers?
If they knew he was taking drugs, surely they knew one day he would inevitably be caught, therefore, you cut all strings attached to him.
But not Labour, not Ed Miliband, they don't mind shifting the blame onto Tories, saying it's all smears. Why not put your hands up and admit it was wrong to keep with him?
Be too easy, Labour seem to like going the long way around things. Admittedly so do the Tories. For instance, instead of believing in Andrew Mitchell (plebgate), he was sacked from his position, and now it's proven he was right, they want Labour apologising when they also should do a public apology to him.
However, they do admit when they are wrong, which David Cameron has done many times, sometimes embarrassingly and sometimes I'm proud of the apologies he's made. Such as the Hillsborough Disaster.
For some reason, neither Tony Blair nor Gordon Brown wanted to give the families the answers they had long been searching for.
He's also apologies fro Bloody Sunday.
He's apologised for many other things, in fact, I don't think any other Prime Minister has apologised for so much in one term of office before.
I've only ever heard Ed Miliband apologise for one thing; Invading Iraq.
He's never apologised for Labour's fantastic 13 year spending spree, nor the deficit they mounted up, or the debt they put the country, or for selling gold at it's lowest ever value, or for Afghanistan, or bumming up President Bush's backside, nor for making the gap between the rich and the poor even bigger than before, nor for allowing the Hacking Scandal to go in during a Labour government which he was part of!
Ed Miliband needs to have a long hard look in the mirror and think about what Labour really achieved in 13 years of office.
Whereas David Cameron can hold up his hands for past governments mistakes, can Ed Miliband? I personally doubt it, like I've said before whether you put 'New' or 'Old' in front of it, you still have the same old Labour Party behind it.
It's either the Tories smearing Labour's name, or the Tories who did something worse.
Owen claims he often has a go at the Labour leadership when it's called upon. Well why is he writing about the Tories smearing instead of Labour making a huge mistake with Rev Paul Flowers?
If they knew he was taking drugs, surely they knew one day he would inevitably be caught, therefore, you cut all strings attached to him.
But not Labour, not Ed Miliband, they don't mind shifting the blame onto Tories, saying it's all smears. Why not put your hands up and admit it was wrong to keep with him?
Be too easy, Labour seem to like going the long way around things. Admittedly so do the Tories. For instance, instead of believing in Andrew Mitchell (plebgate), he was sacked from his position, and now it's proven he was right, they want Labour apologising when they also should do a public apology to him.
However, they do admit when they are wrong, which David Cameron has done many times, sometimes embarrassingly and sometimes I'm proud of the apologies he's made. Such as the Hillsborough Disaster.
For some reason, neither Tony Blair nor Gordon Brown wanted to give the families the answers they had long been searching for.
He's also apologies fro Bloody Sunday.
He's apologised for many other things, in fact, I don't think any other Prime Minister has apologised for so much in one term of office before.
I've only ever heard Ed Miliband apologise for one thing; Invading Iraq.
He's never apologised for Labour's fantastic 13 year spending spree, nor the deficit they mounted up, or the debt they put the country, or for selling gold at it's lowest ever value, or for Afghanistan, or bumming up President Bush's backside, nor for making the gap between the rich and the poor even bigger than before, nor for allowing the Hacking Scandal to go in during a Labour government which he was part of!
Ed Miliband needs to have a long hard look in the mirror and think about what Labour really achieved in 13 years of office.
Whereas David Cameron can hold up his hands for past governments mistakes, can Ed Miliband? I personally doubt it, like I've said before whether you put 'New' or 'Old' in front of it, you still have the same old Labour Party behind it.
Wednesday 16 October 2013
Should convicts get the vote?
Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats are trying to make it that convicts of 6 months or under still get to vote if they are in jail during an election.
Surely the whole point of becoming a 'convict' is that your privileges are taken away from you, so that you aren't tempted to do it again?
So if the petty criminals get the vote back whilst incarcerated surely the other inmates with long term sentences will also want the vote?
Also what are they going to learn if privileges aren't taken away?
Maybe petty criminals such as Vicky Pryce, and her estranged husband Chris Huhne should have just been given some grueling community service instead of a prison sentence? Maybe non-violent criminals should be treated differently, depending on the crime.
Maybe Britain really just needs to re-form it's justice system, because quite frankly, it isn't serving its purpose at the moment.
Surely the whole point of becoming a 'convict' is that your privileges are taken away from you, so that you aren't tempted to do it again?
So if the petty criminals get the vote back whilst incarcerated surely the other inmates with long term sentences will also want the vote?
Also what are they going to learn if privileges aren't taken away?
Maybe petty criminals such as Vicky Pryce, and her estranged husband Chris Huhne should have just been given some grueling community service instead of a prison sentence? Maybe non-violent criminals should be treated differently, depending on the crime.
Maybe Britain really just needs to re-form it's justice system, because quite frankly, it isn't serving its purpose at the moment.
Monday 7 October 2013
Shadow Cabinet re-shuffle
Quite embarrassing for Dave Cameron today as the Shadow Cabinet re-shuffle has taken over the Cabinet re-shuffle (that or it's a blessing in disguise)
Ed Miliband has obviously taken a large lurch to the left, sacking off the remaining 'New' Labour ministers.
Stephen Twigg, Liam Byrne, and Jim Murphy. All strong supporters of 'New' Labour, and Tony Blair.
Now to me this looks like a nice lurch to the left, but to some, like Owen Jones:
@OwenJones84 Bonfire of the Blairites? Tories - bear in mind 'Labour shifts left' narrative won't wash with voters who care about issues, not left/right
Now I do agree with what Owen is saying, but all his dreams must be coming true right now, getting rid of the Blairites, sticking with Brownites, (although not sure he is in favor of that), and making sure Unite The Union Leader, Len McCluskey (who told Miliband to sack these individuals) is a happy man.
Maybe Ed has done this as a peace offering over wanting to 'reform' their dealings with the Trade Unions.
To me it just looks like the same old Labour Party doing the same old schmoozing; Tony Blair wanted to make Gorge Bush happy, Ed Miliband wants to make Len McCluskey happy.
Either way, neither are actually interested in the opinions of the voters, just that of the money and power!
Ed Miliband has obviously taken a large lurch to the left, sacking off the remaining 'New' Labour ministers.
Stephen Twigg, Liam Byrne, and Jim Murphy. All strong supporters of 'New' Labour, and Tony Blair.
Now to me this looks like a nice lurch to the left, but to some, like Owen Jones:
@OwenJones84 Bonfire of the Blairites? Tories - bear in mind 'Labour shifts left' narrative won't wash with voters who care about issues, not left/right
Now I do agree with what Owen is saying, but all his dreams must be coming true right now, getting rid of the Blairites, sticking with Brownites, (although not sure he is in favor of that), and making sure Unite The Union Leader, Len McCluskey (who told Miliband to sack these individuals) is a happy man.
Maybe Ed has done this as a peace offering over wanting to 'reform' their dealings with the Trade Unions.
To me it just looks like the same old Labour Party doing the same old schmoozing; Tony Blair wanted to make Gorge Bush happy, Ed Miliband wants to make Len McCluskey happy.
Either way, neither are actually interested in the opinions of the voters, just that of the money and power!
Tuesday 1 October 2013
The Daily Mail vs Ed Miliband
As we all know the Daily Mail published an article written by Geoffrey Levy about Ed Miliband's dead father, claiming he hated this country.
To which Ed Miliband has come out fighting against this article claiming his father loved this country, his father enrolled in the Royal Navy saying;
'He did so because he was determined to be part of the fight against the Nazis and to help his family hidden in Belgium. He was fighting for Britain.'
Now I can absolutely understand why Ed Miliband is angry. Firstly, someone writing about a parent that has passed away, and didn't know them s, I'm sure, pretty annoying. Then claiming that that parent hated the country you want to govern would push you over the edge.
So for Ed Miliband his anger is justified, but now do the left see how hurtful it can be when you bring up someones background?
The left are always bringing up David Cameron's background, Boris Johnson's, George Osbourne's. You never hear them bring up Harriet Harman's background do you?
One rule for one hey?
No one can help where, who and how they were brought up. As a child you have no say over your life, adults make the decisions for you.
So I hope it's a lesson for political sides out there, leave the politician's childhood out of it, as it has nothing to do with how good they can run a country.
Thursday 29 August 2013
Defeat for Cameron: But I'm glad it happened
Last night MP's voted against any military intervention from the UK into Syria, a massive blow to Cameron, but one I am extremely glad of, and I think secretly so is Cameron.
Firstly I think lessons from Iraq have been, even though DC tried to persuade us 'This is not like Iraq', how has Iraq fared since the Western world intervened? Probably more hostile now than ever before.
What's happening in Syria is awful, vile and down right plan disgusting. The pictures, and videos of men, women and children dying is just horrendous, and sickening to see someone do that to their own people.
How would military intervention help them? How would warfare help them? How would the added risk of bombs hitting, and killing them help them? How can anymore blood shed help them?
I'm proud of every MP who voted against last night, I don't care what party, I don't care if you did it just to have a pop at David Cameron, or Tony Blair, it was the right choice to make.
A few months a go I spent a week with ex-military soldiers, wounded soldiers injured from Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked them their opinion on whether we should intervene, as they are the ones who see would, and have seen what happens when the West intervene.
Every single person told me it was the worst thing to do, not only for them, but for the people of Syria, and I couldn't agree more.
One the wounded soldiers said to me the old saying 'You can't fight fire, with fire.'
They also spoke about the cost of intervening militarily, not only in lives, but in money, our economy is starting to head in the right direction, this would put us back trillions upon trillions of pounds, and we owe it to ourselves not to put our hard working class families through anymore hardship.
War only brings blood, death, and sorrow, never peace.
Firstly I think lessons from Iraq have been, even though DC tried to persuade us 'This is not like Iraq', how has Iraq fared since the Western world intervened? Probably more hostile now than ever before.
What's happening in Syria is awful, vile and down right plan disgusting. The pictures, and videos of men, women and children dying is just horrendous, and sickening to see someone do that to their own people.
How would military intervention help them? How would warfare help them? How would the added risk of bombs hitting, and killing them help them? How can anymore blood shed help them?
I'm proud of every MP who voted against last night, I don't care what party, I don't care if you did it just to have a pop at David Cameron, or Tony Blair, it was the right choice to make.
A few months a go I spent a week with ex-military soldiers, wounded soldiers injured from Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked them their opinion on whether we should intervene, as they are the ones who see would, and have seen what happens when the West intervene.
Every single person told me it was the worst thing to do, not only for them, but for the people of Syria, and I couldn't agree more.
One the wounded soldiers said to me the old saying 'You can't fight fire, with fire.'
They also spoke about the cost of intervening militarily, not only in lives, but in money, our economy is starting to head in the right direction, this would put us back trillions upon trillions of pounds, and we owe it to ourselves not to put our hard working class families through anymore hardship.
War only brings blood, death, and sorrow, never peace.
Wednesday 28 August 2013
Syria: Reasons not to intevene
What is currently happening in Syria is an awful, and vile act human kind. It shows what too much power can do to one person.
However, do I believe that Britain, or any other Western country should intervene? No.
How would bombing from the USA, UK, and any other Western Country help the people of Syria? How would it help bring peace the Syrians? Would calm, or anger the Assad Regime? Would it save or kill more lives? And last but not least, can we, or they, actually afford another war?
By the last question I'm not just talking about money, what about lives lost. Can either country really afford anymore lives lost to a war? Can the mother's, children, siblings, and friends afford more heartache at watching their loved ones fighting a war with no real end in sight?
These are the things I hope David Cameron is thinking about, otherwise we might as well have just kept Tony Blair as Prime Minister, because I cannot see a lot of difference between either man at the moment.
However, do I believe that Britain, or any other Western country should intervene? No.
How would bombing from the USA, UK, and any other Western Country help the people of Syria? How would it help bring peace the Syrians? Would calm, or anger the Assad Regime? Would it save or kill more lives? And last but not least, can we, or they, actually afford another war?
By the last question I'm not just talking about money, what about lives lost. Can either country really afford anymore lives lost to a war? Can the mother's, children, siblings, and friends afford more heartache at watching their loved ones fighting a war with no real end in sight?
These are the things I hope David Cameron is thinking about, otherwise we might as well have just kept Tony Blair as Prime Minister, because I cannot see a lot of difference between either man at the moment.
Thursday 20 June 2013
'A Fleeting Moment'
The Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, seems to have got himself in a bit of a pickle over his choice of words.
Earlier this morning, on LBC 97.3, the Deputy PM was asked is he would have intervened if he had been a witness to the incident between TV Chef Nigella Lawson and husband Charles Saatchi.
Mr Clegg's answer was: "You are asking me to comment on photographs everyone has seen in the papers - we don't know if it was a fleeting moment, so I'd rather not comment"
Now, I am certainly not Mr Clegg's biggest fan, but I'm hoping for his sake, it was just a case of choosing the wrong words.
To me a fleeting moment is raising your voice, or swearing, a fleeting moment isn't placing my hands around someones neck.
It's not the first Clegg has been in hot water this year thanks to Lord Rennard, who sexually harassed some Liberal Democrats' members, and even though he received the complaints about Lord Rennard, he didn't do much about it at the time.
I have to say I am completely shocked at Mr Clegg's response on LBC, especially as the leader of the Liberal Democrat, the party who wants equality for all, and the way he handled the Lord Rennard case before it came to the public's attention.
It seems to me Clegg doesn't want to treat everyone as equal, especially woman, to me, he comes across as a man who likes women as lovers, rather than colleagues and friends.
If I were Nick Clegg, I'd be doing everything in my power to prove otherwise right now.
Earlier this morning, on LBC 97.3, the Deputy PM was asked is he would have intervened if he had been a witness to the incident between TV Chef Nigella Lawson and husband Charles Saatchi.
Mr Clegg's answer was: "You are asking me to comment on photographs everyone has seen in the papers - we don't know if it was a fleeting moment, so I'd rather not comment"
Now, I am certainly not Mr Clegg's biggest fan, but I'm hoping for his sake, it was just a case of choosing the wrong words.
To me a fleeting moment is raising your voice, or swearing, a fleeting moment isn't placing my hands around someones neck.
It's not the first Clegg has been in hot water this year thanks to Lord Rennard, who sexually harassed some Liberal Democrats' members, and even though he received the complaints about Lord Rennard, he didn't do much about it at the time.
I have to say I am completely shocked at Mr Clegg's response on LBC, especially as the leader of the Liberal Democrat, the party who wants equality for all, and the way he handled the Lord Rennard case before it came to the public's attention.
It seems to me Clegg doesn't want to treat everyone as equal, especially woman, to me, he comes across as a man who likes women as lovers, rather than colleagues and friends.
If I were Nick Clegg, I'd be doing everything in my power to prove otherwise right now.
Tuesday 4 June 2013
350 mile bike ride
On Monday the 27th May to the 2nd June I cycled from Paris to London with Help for Heroes, an event and charity I think politicians should probably get involved in, and not on a political stance, but on a moral one, so that they realise what war can do to our men and women.
I met some courageous people on this ride, and I wouldn't change it for anything in the world.
I met a triple amputee, double amputees, and single amputees, also met silver medalist paralypian Jon-Allen Butterworth.
When my shoulders and knees were starting to give way, or my backside hurt to the point I wanted to stop, a hand cyclist would pass me, and boy oh boy did it motivate me to keep going.
I think all politicians, especially leaders, should spend a day with these people, and ask them how they feel about the war in Afghanistan, and Iraq, ask them if we should intervene in Syria, ask them how it felt to lose their limbs because of 'their' decisions.
Tony Blair, and now David Cameron, have both tried to emulate Margaret Thatcher's glorious victory in The Falklands, and have both failed dramatically.
There is one reason why they have failed: All glory, no real reason for going out there.
I have to say meeting the wounded soldiers, some were from Canada and America, none of them said they regretted joining the armed forces, and were proud of their achievements, and so am I.
Blair and Cameron don't give off the same amount of pride of our armed forces that Thatcher did, and maybe they should spend sometime with these men and women without camera's, without any advisers, just them and our wounded heroes, and hear their voices, hear their words of pain, hear what they have put them through, or might put them through.
No politics, no camera, no advisers, just their ears and compassion, maybe they'd feel differently towards war.
I met some courageous people on this ride, and I wouldn't change it for anything in the world.
I met a triple amputee, double amputees, and single amputees, also met silver medalist paralypian Jon-Allen Butterworth.
When my shoulders and knees were starting to give way, or my backside hurt to the point I wanted to stop, a hand cyclist would pass me, and boy oh boy did it motivate me to keep going.
I think all politicians, especially leaders, should spend a day with these people, and ask them how they feel about the war in Afghanistan, and Iraq, ask them if we should intervene in Syria, ask them how it felt to lose their limbs because of 'their' decisions.
Tony Blair, and now David Cameron, have both tried to emulate Margaret Thatcher's glorious victory in The Falklands, and have both failed dramatically.
There is one reason why they have failed: All glory, no real reason for going out there.
I have to say meeting the wounded soldiers, some were from Canada and America, none of them said they regretted joining the armed forces, and were proud of their achievements, and so am I.
Blair and Cameron don't give off the same amount of pride of our armed forces that Thatcher did, and maybe they should spend sometime with these men and women without camera's, without any advisers, just them and our wounded heroes, and hear their voices, hear their words of pain, hear what they have put them through, or might put them through.
No politics, no camera, no advisers, just their ears and compassion, maybe they'd feel differently towards war.
Wednesday 22 May 2013
Woolwich
Today and disgusting incident happened. A young man, supposedly in the army, was brutally murdered in what could be a terrorist attack.
There's a video showing one of the murderers talking to a by stander who was filming, showing his blood soaked hands, saying 'Your government doesn't care about you.'
This incident is utterly appalling, and something needs to be done about our boarders, and how we deal with such cases.
Firstly I would like to point out that EDL, and BNP are NOT the people to turn to, they are racist and just as bad as the people who commit these crimes.
We do, however, need to make sure that our service men and women aren't targeted, and nor are normal innocent people.
The family of this young man need support, not anger, they comforting, fighting, and they will need strength, not hate.
I feel sorry for ethnic communities, because people like these two murderers will tar them with the same brush, and that isn't fair, and by going with the likes of the EDL and BNP, we are taking away any dignity they have in this country.
Let us show these murderers that we are a strong community, not one easily deterred by their disgusting crimes that they decide to commit.
RIP to the young, and my condolences go his family.
There's a video showing one of the murderers talking to a by stander who was filming, showing his blood soaked hands, saying 'Your government doesn't care about you.'
This incident is utterly appalling, and something needs to be done about our boarders, and how we deal with such cases.
Firstly I would like to point out that EDL, and BNP are NOT the people to turn to, they are racist and just as bad as the people who commit these crimes.
We do, however, need to make sure that our service men and women aren't targeted, and nor are normal innocent people.
The family of this young man need support, not anger, they comforting, fighting, and they will need strength, not hate.
I feel sorry for ethnic communities, because people like these two murderers will tar them with the same brush, and that isn't fair, and by going with the likes of the EDL and BNP, we are taking away any dignity they have in this country.
Let us show these murderers that we are a strong community, not one easily deterred by their disgusting crimes that they decide to commit.
RIP to the young, and my condolences go his family.
Monday 20 May 2013
Gay Marriage
Legalising gay marriage shouldn't be a huge issue, why would you want to stop two people in love getting married?
Half the reason gay marriage is being held back is because the Church of England is against it. Well seeming as the Church of England is based on Christianity, and to me Christianity stands for being equal, and a good Samaritan, they should be one of the forces backing FOR gay marriage, not against.
Of course not all couples are Christians, but seeming as the Church of England's Bishops sit in the House of Lords, expressing their views, it's the one entity we have try and get on side, or to get them to 'turn the other cheek'.
To stop two people in love getting married is an awful thing to do. It isn't fair, nor is it kind.
I think the government, and the Church need to look at what century we are living in, especially looking at my generation, and generations coming after us, because we aren't a homophobic generation, in fact gay couples is a part of life, we are more liberal in that sense, and I think the House of Commons needs to be as well.
Maybe it's time for the C of E to leave the House of Commons, especially as we are now a multicultural society, and most people today aren't that religious, should we be presented by an old constitution that doesn't represent a vast majority anymore?
Half the reason gay marriage is being held back is because the Church of England is against it. Well seeming as the Church of England is based on Christianity, and to me Christianity stands for being equal, and a good Samaritan, they should be one of the forces backing FOR gay marriage, not against.
Of course not all couples are Christians, but seeming as the Church of England's Bishops sit in the House of Lords, expressing their views, it's the one entity we have try and get on side, or to get them to 'turn the other cheek'.
To stop two people in love getting married is an awful thing to do. It isn't fair, nor is it kind.
I think the government, and the Church need to look at what century we are living in, especially looking at my generation, and generations coming after us, because we aren't a homophobic generation, in fact gay couples is a part of life, we are more liberal in that sense, and I think the House of Commons needs to be as well.
Maybe it's time for the C of E to leave the House of Commons, especially as we are now a multicultural society, and most people today aren't that religious, should we be presented by an old constitution that doesn't represent a vast majority anymore?
Thursday 9 May 2013
No to EU Referendum
For some reason Labour are reluctant to give us a referendum whether we want to stay in the EU or not. Labour really hate giving us, the electorate, a voice but you have to remember 'they're for the people'........
I personally want to leave the EU, unless David Cameron can make sure the EU doesn't treat us like a money bank for countries that are struggling and give them a few trillion Euros, I don't see how the EU has treated us fairly.
I know countries like Germany, and France like to abuse us is because we won't join the single currency, and why would we? It's failing before our very eyes, it was originally introduced to help smaller countries in the EU, not France and Germany who have dominated it since day dot, and now places like Greece, and Spain a drowning in their single currency issues.
Labour, as the party for the people, should all be for giving us a voice, allow us to say yes or no. Instead they are running scared of us, of their own voters, most of whom would probably vote to stay in the EU along with the Lib Dems.
So come on Labour prove to us you're a party that stands by its standards and give us the voice to tell you what we, your employers, want!
I personally want to leave the EU, unless David Cameron can make sure the EU doesn't treat us like a money bank for countries that are struggling and give them a few trillion Euros, I don't see how the EU has treated us fairly.
I know countries like Germany, and France like to abuse us is because we won't join the single currency, and why would we? It's failing before our very eyes, it was originally introduced to help smaller countries in the EU, not France and Germany who have dominated it since day dot, and now places like Greece, and Spain a drowning in their single currency issues.
Labour, as the party for the people, should all be for giving us a voice, allow us to say yes or no. Instead they are running scared of us, of their own voters, most of whom would probably vote to stay in the EU along with the Lib Dems.
So come on Labour prove to us you're a party that stands by its standards and give us the voice to tell you what we, your employers, want!
Barbara Hewson
Today Barbara Hewson has come out in support of lowering the age of consent to 13, so that old men like Jimmy Saville, and others, aren't prosecuted.
A decade ago I was 13, and although I knew what sex was, I certainly wasn't of mind to say yes to someone older man who asked me for sex!!
Some 13 year old girls do have sex, and some of my friends at school had sex at 13, but it didn't make it right because they agreed to it. I've asked them recently if they regret having sex at such a young, and they've all said yes, "I didn't know what I was doing to my body."
One friend hadn't even started her menstrual cycle when she lost her virginity!
I don't know much about Barbara Hewson, if she has any daughters or neices, other than the fact she thinks people like Saville shouldn't be prosecuted because 'Touching a 17 year old's breasts, kissing a 13 year old, or putting one's hand up a 16 year old's skirt are not remotely comparable to the horror's of the Ealing Vicarage assaults, or gang rape, or the Fordingbridge gang rape and murders.'
A 17 or 16 year old can give consent, and know that if a man touches their bodies they can do something about, but a 13 year old is still getting used to her changing body, her hormones, let a lone a 20, 30, or older man asking her for sex!!
When I was 16 if a man touched me in an area I didn't feel comfortable with and I had asked him to stop and he didn't, I know for a fact I would have kicked him so hard he would have wished he never got out of bed that morning, but if I was 13 and a man did that to me, I'm not exactly sure how I would have reacted.
I probably would have frozen in fear, just because these women are older now, doesn't mean that justice can't be done The only one's I have problems with are the girls who were 16 and over, because you can give consent, and by law, you know what is going on.
Any younger, I think it's disgusting, and he should be locked up for life.
I don't think she fully understands her proposal of lowering the age of consent what knock on effects that's going to have.
Imagine a 40 odd year old man comes up to a 13 year old in the park, asks her for sex to which she consents, he doesn't use protection and she ends up pregnant, and you never hear from him again, what kind of life is that little girl, and her now child, going to have?
What mental issue's might she go through? At the age of 13 your body might be ready for a baby, but your mind certainly isn't!
Barbara might argue that the girl could have an abortion. Has she ever had an abortion, does she know that it can be extremely mentally and physically quite draining?
They could give it up for adoption she might say. Does she know how long, and lengthy that process is? Does she know how mentally draining that can also be? What would it do to their academics?
Someone like Jimmy Saville who touched young girls who weren't only too young to give consent, but some were physically and mentally handicapped.
I Barbara needs to re-read what she has written, and maybe change her choice of words. More recently the deputy speaker of the House of Commons has been accused of raping a male. If he has, he needs to be brought to justice, if he hasn't he needs to prove his innocence, as Barbara seems to think it's an 'unfortunate coincidence'
If a man or woman touches you in a way that you don't feel is appropriate, make sure you tell them to stop, if they don't, hit them where it hurts and run to tell someone.
I do realise that Barbara is trying to point out there are women who fake such disgusting acts for attention, but that doesn't mean she needs to victimise 13 year old's.
A decade ago I was 13, and although I knew what sex was, I certainly wasn't of mind to say yes to someone older man who asked me for sex!!
Some 13 year old girls do have sex, and some of my friends at school had sex at 13, but it didn't make it right because they agreed to it. I've asked them recently if they regret having sex at such a young, and they've all said yes, "I didn't know what I was doing to my body."
One friend hadn't even started her menstrual cycle when she lost her virginity!
I don't know much about Barbara Hewson, if she has any daughters or neices, other than the fact she thinks people like Saville shouldn't be prosecuted because 'Touching a 17 year old's breasts, kissing a 13 year old, or putting one's hand up a 16 year old's skirt are not remotely comparable to the horror's of the Ealing Vicarage assaults, or gang rape, or the Fordingbridge gang rape and murders.'
A 17 or 16 year old can give consent, and know that if a man touches their bodies they can do something about, but a 13 year old is still getting used to her changing body, her hormones, let a lone a 20, 30, or older man asking her for sex!!
When I was 16 if a man touched me in an area I didn't feel comfortable with and I had asked him to stop and he didn't, I know for a fact I would have kicked him so hard he would have wished he never got out of bed that morning, but if I was 13 and a man did that to me, I'm not exactly sure how I would have reacted.
I probably would have frozen in fear, just because these women are older now, doesn't mean that justice can't be done The only one's I have problems with are the girls who were 16 and over, because you can give consent, and by law, you know what is going on.
Any younger, I think it's disgusting, and he should be locked up for life.
I don't think she fully understands her proposal of lowering the age of consent what knock on effects that's going to have.
Imagine a 40 odd year old man comes up to a 13 year old in the park, asks her for sex to which she consents, he doesn't use protection and she ends up pregnant, and you never hear from him again, what kind of life is that little girl, and her now child, going to have?
What mental issue's might she go through? At the age of 13 your body might be ready for a baby, but your mind certainly isn't!
Barbara might argue that the girl could have an abortion. Has she ever had an abortion, does she know that it can be extremely mentally and physically quite draining?
They could give it up for adoption she might say. Does she know how long, and lengthy that process is? Does she know how mentally draining that can also be? What would it do to their academics?
Someone like Jimmy Saville who touched young girls who weren't only too young to give consent, but some were physically and mentally handicapped.
I Barbara needs to re-read what she has written, and maybe change her choice of words. More recently the deputy speaker of the House of Commons has been accused of raping a male. If he has, he needs to be brought to justice, if he hasn't he needs to prove his innocence, as Barbara seems to think it's an 'unfortunate coincidence'
If a man or woman touches you in a way that you don't feel is appropriate, make sure you tell them to stop, if they don't, hit them where it hurts and run to tell someone.
I do realise that Barbara is trying to point out there are women who fake such disgusting acts for attention, but that doesn't mean she needs to victimise 13 year old's.
Wednesday 10 April 2013
Thatcher and her legacy
Three days after Baroness Thatcher's death, I've read a lot of support, and a lot of negativity.
Today Russell Brand wrote a piece in The Guardian about his views on Thatcher, and how he felt towards her.
He wasn't cruel, nor was he praising. He is obviously left wing, like so many in the Show Bizz industry,
Caitlin Moran tweeted, 'how children think of Thatcher'. What I think she means to say is, 'how children THOUGHT of Thatcher'.
Most of my school friends haven't got a clue who she is, in fact, most of my school friends haven't got a clue politicians are.
But people like Russell Brand, Caitlin Moran, Sally Lindsay, and others support anything against the right, seem to have forgotten what it was like before Thatcher came into No10.
Firstly it was a three day working week, as the Unions had the country on their knees striking every two seconds. Oh yes I'm sure that helped the country's debts a lot, I can see why she is such a bad person for bringing back stability.
Secondly, we were in extreme debt! The left decided, as usual, to spend, spend, spend our hard earning money for what? Nothing.
Owen Jones hasn't come up with one reason why Jim Callaghan would have been better to stay in the Cabinet instead of Thatcher, in fact nor has Russell Brand in his piece.
In fact, I can't see a reason why people today would vote for Labour. Firstly Ed Miliband is a shambles of a leader, and so is Cameron, and so is Clegg.
As I've made earlier points, it's embarrassing watching them sometimes.
Labour spent money we didn't have, and Cameron and his bodies aren't doing a great deal to undo that. Labour also start wars on false pretenses, sell gold for it's lowest value ever (bet Gordon was really pleased with himself when he did that), and for the fact that they had Peter Mandelson.
I understand why miners don't like Thatcher, in fact they have every right not to like, and to celebrate her death in the way that they feel fit.
She took away their lively hood, although lets be honest we are all glad she did, it was a very green thing to do for the planet.
She hit them hard and fast, however, by going on strike, and proving to the nation that we can keep going without them they almost dug their own miners graves.
Something the left don't like to admit, sometimes when you strike you make your own argument invalid.
All I have to say on Thatcher is, I thought she did the country better than any Labour party has done. The left have only ever had one thing to look back on and that's 'The Spirit of '45!" Makes me feel quite sad for them really.
Thursday 4 April 2013
People vs The Welfare System
It's been a huge debate that has split the country for decades, people who do and don't deserve to claim benefits.
Today Mick Philpott, Mairead Philpott, and Paul Mosely were given their sentences after the deaths of the Philpott's children in a house fire, that they caused.
Mick Philpott has 17 children by five different women, and claimed tens of thousands of pounds, and although it definitely wasn't the cause, nor the reason why he decided to set fire to his house, with his children still inside, it is people like him we need to reign in!
It's people like the Philpott's who abuse the system, and people like them who need to be stopped, they put an unjust stereo type cast over others who are deserved of their benefits.
However, for some reason, people on the left like Owen Jones, Lab MP Tom Watson etc, don't seem to think that these people need to be stopped! And if they do, and I'm not fully understanding their stance on this issue, how would they go about it?
Owen claims there's a was against people claiming from the right. Well I'm not against people claiming benefits, in fact I think it's awful that he doesn't want to get rid of the people who are completely and utterly abusing the system!
Tom and Owen would carry on the New Labour's way of life, who had more people on benefits under their government than any other.
Firstly, benefits are there to help people while they are out of a job, and looking.
Secondly, it's not there as a way of life for people, unless you are disabled, or have a disabled child, family relative who you look after, or are otherwise unable to work.
People like the Philpott's will carry on abusing the system if there are no consequences, there should be a system in place where its either pretty obvious that you are unable to work, or you go through a little process to prove so.
That way we can eliminate these abusers, and the people who need, and rely on the benefits would probably be able to receive a bit more.
I think the left need a long hard look at how many people were on benefits under the last Labour Government, and come up with a solution that would help the deserved, because all they are doing is feeding abusers like Mick Philpott.
Today Mick Philpott, Mairead Philpott, and Paul Mosely were given their sentences after the deaths of the Philpott's children in a house fire, that they caused.
Mick Philpott has 17 children by five different women, and claimed tens of thousands of pounds, and although it definitely wasn't the cause, nor the reason why he decided to set fire to his house, with his children still inside, it is people like him we need to reign in!
It's people like the Philpott's who abuse the system, and people like them who need to be stopped, they put an unjust stereo type cast over others who are deserved of their benefits.
However, for some reason, people on the left like Owen Jones, Lab MP Tom Watson etc, don't seem to think that these people need to be stopped! And if they do, and I'm not fully understanding their stance on this issue, how would they go about it?
Owen claims there's a was against people claiming from the right. Well I'm not against people claiming benefits, in fact I think it's awful that he doesn't want to get rid of the people who are completely and utterly abusing the system!
Tom and Owen would carry on the New Labour's way of life, who had more people on benefits under their government than any other.
Firstly, benefits are there to help people while they are out of a job, and looking.
Secondly, it's not there as a way of life for people, unless you are disabled, or have a disabled child, family relative who you look after, or are otherwise unable to work.
People like the Philpott's will carry on abusing the system if there are no consequences, there should be a system in place where its either pretty obvious that you are unable to work, or you go through a little process to prove so.
That way we can eliminate these abusers, and the people who need, and rely on the benefits would probably be able to receive a bit more.
I think the left need a long hard look at how many people were on benefits under the last Labour Government, and come up with a solution that would help the deserved, because all they are doing is feeding abusers like Mick Philpott.
Wednesday 3 April 2013
The Philpotts
The disgusting actions of two parents, Mick and Mairead Philpott, which resulted in the deaths of their 6 children.
Also just as disgusting, the headline of The Daily Mail.
Firstly, I agree with Owen Jones (it seems to be happening more and more!!!), don't blame the entire class, there have been many cases of rich men/ women taking the lives of their family and their own, in fact, I've probably read more cases of rich men/ women doing so.
Although it's obvious it wasn't the Philpotts plan for their children to die, it was their plan to frame someone else for the fire, and they are still trying to blame someone else!
But The Daily Mail is blaming an entire class. This isn't fair. Mick Philpott is a known abuser of the system, and is also a known violent, and controlling man.
So instead of The Daily Mail mourning the awful, and tragic death of these children, they point out the class in which these children were living in, not that class has anything to do with their death's, and how he had never worked a day in his life.
I feel for the six children that lost their lives, and I can't imagine how they would feel, had they survived, if they had found out their parents put them in such a dangerous position.
Let them rest in peace, and give them some dignity in death, that their own mother and father took away from them.
Also just as disgusting, the headline of The Daily Mail.
Firstly, I agree with Owen Jones (it seems to be happening more and more!!!), don't blame the entire class, there have been many cases of rich men/ women taking the lives of their family and their own, in fact, I've probably read more cases of rich men/ women doing so.
Although it's obvious it wasn't the Philpotts plan for their children to die, it was their plan to frame someone else for the fire, and they are still trying to blame someone else!
But The Daily Mail is blaming an entire class. This isn't fair. Mick Philpott is a known abuser of the system, and is also a known violent, and controlling man.
So instead of The Daily Mail mourning the awful, and tragic death of these children, they point out the class in which these children were living in, not that class has anything to do with their death's, and how he had never worked a day in his life.
I feel for the six children that lost their lives, and I can't imagine how they would feel, had they survived, if they had found out their parents put them in such a dangerous position.
Let them rest in peace, and give them some dignity in death, that their own mother and father took away from them.
Monday 18 March 2013
Press Regulation
I think today has been pretty embarrassing for all of the main three parties.
The Lib/Lab coalition for Press Regulation has been awfully organised, mainly due to that dreadfully British actor Hugh Grant.
Hugh Grant's phone was hacked, yes, but do I care about his feelings towards it? No.
Firstly because he is on the public eye, and chose to be so, no one forced him become an actor. Secondly, Milly Dowler's parents have every right to be so angry at the press, and how they abused their daughter's case. Also Sara Payne, who's daughter Sarah Payne was kidnapped and murdered, was given a phone by News Int's Rebekah Brooks which was obviously hacked.
These people have absolutely 100% right to hate, and be completely disgusted by our press, and the way they used their tragedies just to sell some papers.
So how can Hugh Grant even stand next to these people, who have gone through tragedies he couldn't even imagine how the felt, or even feel today.
Hacked Off are a brilliant voice for the real victims of hacking, and a fantastic driving force to get the people responsible brought to justice.
I also agree with Owen Jones, (and I thought pigs would fly before I ever typed that sentence), is correct in saying that the 'free press' we have at the moment, is largely run by millionaires, who think they are above the law, and can bribe anyone into doing what they want.
Such as News International, and Trinity Mirror. Both have had journalists arrested for hacking phones, therefore both as bad as each other.
I don't believe the press need regulating, but I do believe justice will be brought to those who deserve it, such as the Dowler family, and the Payne family. Hopefully people like Rebekah Brooks, and Andy Coulson will be punished, and the journalists from the Daily Mirror as well.
The Lib/Lab coalition for Press Regulation has been awfully organised, mainly due to that dreadfully British actor Hugh Grant.
Hugh Grant's phone was hacked, yes, but do I care about his feelings towards it? No.
Firstly because he is on the public eye, and chose to be so, no one forced him become an actor. Secondly, Milly Dowler's parents have every right to be so angry at the press, and how they abused their daughter's case. Also Sara Payne, who's daughter Sarah Payne was kidnapped and murdered, was given a phone by News Int's Rebekah Brooks which was obviously hacked.
These people have absolutely 100% right to hate, and be completely disgusted by our press, and the way they used their tragedies just to sell some papers.
So how can Hugh Grant even stand next to these people, who have gone through tragedies he couldn't even imagine how the felt, or even feel today.
Hacked Off are a brilliant voice for the real victims of hacking, and a fantastic driving force to get the people responsible brought to justice.
I also agree with Owen Jones, (and I thought pigs would fly before I ever typed that sentence), is correct in saying that the 'free press' we have at the moment, is largely run by millionaires, who think they are above the law, and can bribe anyone into doing what they want.
Such as News International, and Trinity Mirror. Both have had journalists arrested for hacking phones, therefore both as bad as each other.
I don't believe the press need regulating, but I do believe justice will be brought to those who deserve it, such as the Dowler family, and the Payne family. Hopefully people like Rebekah Brooks, and Andy Coulson will be punished, and the journalists from the Daily Mirror as well.
Sunday 10 March 2013
Cameron vs Clegg
This weekend Nick Clegg has portrayed the Tories as 'extreme'.
The Deputy PM is obviously trying to win back some Lib Dem voters, and no one can blame him. After all they have made a shamble of themselves.
First the tuition fees, now bedroom tax (if they weren't in office they would protest), and not to mention Chris Huhne, and Lord Rennard.
It's been an embarrassing and awful three years for the Lib Dems, I'm not a fan of them, and never will be, but it's been pretty embarrassing for the Conservatives too.
As a tory supporter, I am embarrassed by David Cameron's inability to stay calm at Prime Ministers Questions, it's not as f Ed Miliband really grills him! He also never seems to fight back when the Lib Dems call the tories, and as a looker on, I find it quite sad.
I do belive, if the Lib Dems want to save any dignity they have left, they should leave government, but they won't as Nick Clegg, like Gordon Brown, enjoys the power too much.
I also think it would do the tories a great deal as well. The Conservative voters I speak to can't stand the Lib Dems being office, and the Lib Dems I speak to, can't stand the Lib Dems siding with the tories.
They should be separate, become themselves again.
David Cameron should learn to stand up for the party, and be a true leader, Nick Clegg, should take them out of government, show his dwindling supporters that just because their party colours are yellow, doesn't mean he is.
Of course David Cameron won't retaliate, and won't stand up for the party, for some reason he sees them as a fall guy, someone to blame, someone for the public to hate instead of him. Of course he doesn't realise, majority of the public already do hate him.
Nick Clegg, if he thinks the tories are so 'extreme', that the Lib Dems can't handle them should leave, be a leader, a man to look up to, but sadly for him, majority of us hate him as well.
But then I say to myself, where's the alternative. Ed Miliband? Ed Balls? Any of the old 'New Labour' lot that are the Shadow Benches? Nah, they haven't even got round to getting their policies out yet, there's only two years left kids, look how quick the first three have gone for the current bunch!
Ed Miliband is weak, has no alternative, just a nice flat hand from his sidekick Balls, and a demeaning smile from Harman.
And it hasn't been a nice three years for the opposition either. One, they picked the wrong brother, two they have no policies, and three, the hacking scandal happened under their government.
I tweeted John Prescott, ex DPM, about the hacking scandal, I pointed out that it happened under his nose, and all he could answer with was "We didn't know. Covered up by police and News International". Sorry Ed, you've lost all credibility, if that's the best and ex colleague can come up with, your in dire straits.
What a sorry bunch we have, and how sad that that's all we have to vote for!
The Deputy PM is obviously trying to win back some Lib Dem voters, and no one can blame him. After all they have made a shamble of themselves.
First the tuition fees, now bedroom tax (if they weren't in office they would protest), and not to mention Chris Huhne, and Lord Rennard.
It's been an embarrassing and awful three years for the Lib Dems, I'm not a fan of them, and never will be, but it's been pretty embarrassing for the Conservatives too.
As a tory supporter, I am embarrassed by David Cameron's inability to stay calm at Prime Ministers Questions, it's not as f Ed Miliband really grills him! He also never seems to fight back when the Lib Dems call the tories, and as a looker on, I find it quite sad.
I do belive, if the Lib Dems want to save any dignity they have left, they should leave government, but they won't as Nick Clegg, like Gordon Brown, enjoys the power too much.
I also think it would do the tories a great deal as well. The Conservative voters I speak to can't stand the Lib Dems being office, and the Lib Dems I speak to, can't stand the Lib Dems siding with the tories.
They should be separate, become themselves again.
David Cameron should learn to stand up for the party, and be a true leader, Nick Clegg, should take them out of government, show his dwindling supporters that just because their party colours are yellow, doesn't mean he is.
Of course David Cameron won't retaliate, and won't stand up for the party, for some reason he sees them as a fall guy, someone to blame, someone for the public to hate instead of him. Of course he doesn't realise, majority of the public already do hate him.
Nick Clegg, if he thinks the tories are so 'extreme', that the Lib Dems can't handle them should leave, be a leader, a man to look up to, but sadly for him, majority of us hate him as well.
But then I say to myself, where's the alternative. Ed Miliband? Ed Balls? Any of the old 'New Labour' lot that are the Shadow Benches? Nah, they haven't even got round to getting their policies out yet, there's only two years left kids, look how quick the first three have gone for the current bunch!
Ed Miliband is weak, has no alternative, just a nice flat hand from his sidekick Balls, and a demeaning smile from Harman.
And it hasn't been a nice three years for the opposition either. One, they picked the wrong brother, two they have no policies, and three, the hacking scandal happened under their government.
I tweeted John Prescott, ex DPM, about the hacking scandal, I pointed out that it happened under his nose, and all he could answer with was "We didn't know. Covered up by police and News International". Sorry Ed, you've lost all credibility, if that's the best and ex colleague can come up with, your in dire straits.
What a sorry bunch we have, and how sad that that's all we have to vote for!
Monday 25 February 2013
Disability Benefits
The left are proclaiming that the Coalition are taking the Disability Benefits from 500,000 people in the UK.
That is a huge number of people, and in an economic crisis, it is probably quite a scary prospect for some people.
However, one thing he left always forget to mention, or think about, or give numbers on are, out of the 500,000 people getting stripped of the Disability Benefits, how many are actually deserved of it.
In May 2012 there were more than 2.5 million people claiming incapacity benefits.
That is a lot of people, and when you think the number will only go down to 2 million still claiming, surely that means the 500,000 people who are most likely to lose their benefits, are probably benefit cheats!
How is that fair on the remaining people who are deserved of benefits?
I feel awful for those, who are being 100% honest, and have complete right to claim their benefits, because Labour allowed people to claim for years, and years without being checked properly.
Labour allowed this to spiral out of control, they allowed thousands of fraudsters get away with it for years.
What would Labour do to crack down on these cheats? What would Labour propose?
How can we reduce our spending if there are 500,000 people claiming on disability benefits when they could be working, helping the economy, and themselves.
How is it fair on disabled people, that these fraudsters are claiming benefits they have no right to, and because of these fraudsters, and Labour, are now being punished because of it.
It isn't fair on them, on the economy, or on us people. So surely, and sadly, harsh regulations are having to come into place to get these cheaters off of benefits.
I have family who are on the disability benefits, and are backing the government 100%, because they are fed with being penalised for other people.
That is a huge number of people, and in an economic crisis, it is probably quite a scary prospect for some people.
However, one thing he left always forget to mention, or think about, or give numbers on are, out of the 500,000 people getting stripped of the Disability Benefits, how many are actually deserved of it.
In May 2012 there were more than 2.5 million people claiming incapacity benefits.
That is a lot of people, and when you think the number will only go down to 2 million still claiming, surely that means the 500,000 people who are most likely to lose their benefits, are probably benefit cheats!
How is that fair on the remaining people who are deserved of benefits?
I feel awful for those, who are being 100% honest, and have complete right to claim their benefits, because Labour allowed people to claim for years, and years without being checked properly.
Labour allowed this to spiral out of control, they allowed thousands of fraudsters get away with it for years.
What would Labour do to crack down on these cheats? What would Labour propose?
How can we reduce our spending if there are 500,000 people claiming on disability benefits when they could be working, helping the economy, and themselves.
How is it fair on disabled people, that these fraudsters are claiming benefits they have no right to, and because of these fraudsters, and Labour, are now being punished because of it.
It isn't fair on them, on the economy, or on us people. So surely, and sadly, harsh regulations are having to come into place to get these cheaters off of benefits.
I have family who are on the disability benefits, and are backing the government 100%, because they are fed with being penalised for other people.
Monday 21 January 2013
Do the left need another think tank?
Although Owen Jones is stating he doesn't want to start a new political party, and I do believe him, he is, however, wanting to start a new left-wing think-tank.
Surely there are enough think-tanks for people to turn to Owen such as:
The Fabian Society
Institute for Public Policy Research
Demos
Compass- Direction for the Democratic Left
These are just a few, I'm sure there are more think tanks our there that are just as useful for people.
But there aren't just think tanks, but smaller politcal parties, if Labour aren't doing or saying what you would like them to, to turn to:
SWP
The Green Party
The Liberal Democrats (Although we can all speculate there)
Respect Party
Social Democratic and Labour Party
Then there are blog sites:
Left Foot Forward
Liberal Conspiracy
Next Left
Labour Uncut
Progree Online
Young Fabians Blog
The Green Benches
Penny Red
I could go on, and on, and on.
Then of course you have the Unions, if you feel you need to back up whether it be for political reasons or legal reasons, they are there:
TUC
Association of Flight Attendants
Musician Union
EQUITY
National Union of Teachers
NUJ
UNISON
VOICE
There are a lot of voices on the left, I've only mentioned a few here, do they really need another voice, shouting out, trying to 'unite' the left together?
I can see what he's trying to do, he is a brilliant PR spokes person for Labour, he's trying to get all of the left back on Labour again, but sadly, no amount of think tanks, and blog sites, and Unions will change the faces of Labour: Ed Miliband, Ed Balls, Harriet Harman, all three people that we, the general public, lost faith in after 13 years of absolute dishonesty, and power.
Surely there are enough think-tanks for people to turn to Owen such as:
The Fabian Society
Institute for Public Policy Research
Demos
Compass- Direction for the Democratic Left
These are just a few, I'm sure there are more think tanks our there that are just as useful for people.
But there aren't just think tanks, but smaller politcal parties, if Labour aren't doing or saying what you would like them to, to turn to:
SWP
The Green Party
The Liberal Democrats (Although we can all speculate there)
Respect Party
Social Democratic and Labour Party
Then there are blog sites:
Left Foot Forward
Liberal Conspiracy
Next Left
Labour Uncut
Progree Online
Young Fabians Blog
The Green Benches
Penny Red
I could go on, and on, and on.
Then of course you have the Unions, if you feel you need to back up whether it be for political reasons or legal reasons, they are there:
TUC
Association of Flight Attendants
Musician Union
EQUITY
National Union of Teachers
NUJ
UNISON
VOICE
There are a lot of voices on the left, I've only mentioned a few here, do they really need another voice, shouting out, trying to 'unite' the left together?
I can see what he's trying to do, he is a brilliant PR spokes person for Labour, he's trying to get all of the left back on Labour again, but sadly, no amount of think tanks, and blog sites, and Unions will change the faces of Labour: Ed Miliband, Ed Balls, Harriet Harman, all three people that we, the general public, lost faith in after 13 years of absolute dishonesty, and power.
Wednesday 9 January 2013
The Benefits Cap
Yesterday we saw the Chamber vote on the Benefits Cap proposed by this government, and we have also seen the anger that it has caused the left wing.
I have also seen utter lies, and misconception in the left wings anger of this new cap.
Here are the expemtions from the cap:
Disability Living Allowance
Personal Independence Payment
Attendance Allowance
Industrial Injuries Benefits
Employment Support Allowance, if paid with the support component
Armed Forces Compensation Scheme payments
War Pension Scheme payments (including War Widow’s/Widower’s Pension and War disablement Pension).
There are a few others who are also exempt, such as claimants who have been employment for 52 weeks will be exempt from the cap for a grace period of 39 weeks.
Please, oh please tell me that so far the facts I have given you are unfair or unjust?
When I was out of work, I never claimed, I didn't feel I had a right to take peoples hard earned taxes, and spend it on whatever I felt like. I hadn't earnt it, I hadn't a right to this money, I was more than happy to try and find work, and eventually I did find work.
If there is no pressure on you, you won't go out of your way to do anything. When money is handed to you on a silver platter, why would you want work? Why would you get up, make yourself look presentable, and try and find a job.
Whether the job be part time, full time, or just seasonal at least you've proved to yourself, you can go out there and get a job.
Not sit on a computer, searching jobsites, posting about 5 to 10 C.V's a day hoping you will get a reply.
People who tend to just post C.V's on these websites never chase up, never ring that company to make sure they received their C.V, and if so if there is anything they could do to better their C.V, or themselves!
So why should people who work, from morning til evening 5 days a week, get taxed even more because the government need pay out for people who haven't worked for months, or even years. Why should these hard working families, single parents, have to pay for people who just don't want to work?
These single parents might be on some benefits themselves, some of them might be receiving the exemptions, there for won't be affected badly.
What I am hoping that this new cap helps is less taxing on the working.
The left are meant to be for the WORKING class, not the 'non-working' class. I don't call people who don't work 'skivers' or 'shirkers'. I don't really like labelling people like the left do.
I have also seen utter lies, and misconception in the left wings anger of this new cap.
Here are the expemtions from the cap:
There are a few others who are also exempt, such as claimants who have been employment for 52 weeks will be exempt from the cap for a grace period of 39 weeks.
Please, oh please tell me that so far the facts I have given you are unfair or unjust?
When I was out of work, I never claimed, I didn't feel I had a right to take peoples hard earned taxes, and spend it on whatever I felt like. I hadn't earnt it, I hadn't a right to this money, I was more than happy to try and find work, and eventually I did find work.
If there is no pressure on you, you won't go out of your way to do anything. When money is handed to you on a silver platter, why would you want work? Why would you get up, make yourself look presentable, and try and find a job.
Whether the job be part time, full time, or just seasonal at least you've proved to yourself, you can go out there and get a job.
Not sit on a computer, searching jobsites, posting about 5 to 10 C.V's a day hoping you will get a reply.
People who tend to just post C.V's on these websites never chase up, never ring that company to make sure they received their C.V, and if so if there is anything they could do to better their C.V, or themselves!
So why should people who work, from morning til evening 5 days a week, get taxed even more because the government need pay out for people who haven't worked for months, or even years. Why should these hard working families, single parents, have to pay for people who just don't want to work?
These single parents might be on some benefits themselves, some of them might be receiving the exemptions, there for won't be affected badly.
What I am hoping that this new cap helps is less taxing on the working.
The left are meant to be for the WORKING class, not the 'non-working' class. I don't call people who don't work 'skivers' or 'shirkers'. I don't really like labelling people like the left do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)