The Times reports: [US] Judge wipes out $500,000 debt to punish 'repulsive' bank!
Before cheering this apparently heart-warming story - think through the consequences if this ruling was applied to large swaithes of sub-prime mortgages.
Lots of people who borrowed more than they could ever hope of repaying would have their debts annulled.
The banks would have to write-off those debts so further impairing their balance sheets. Governments would have to step in with more bailouts (unless you want the banking system to collapse and to lose any money you have on deposit).
To fund the bailouts the governments will have to borrow and tax more - so raising the cost of borrowing for even more people (so making many more unable to pay their debts) - so further impoverishing those prudent enough to save and not to overspend.
Now let me see - how many hurrahs was that?
Thursday, 26 November 2009
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
Votes for Clunkers scheme proves counter productive
Come on Telegraph Financial Team - when are you going to pick up on the ONS observation that one of the main reasons we stayed in recession in Q3 was because of (not despite) the much vaunted Votes for Clunkers scheme.
Surging imports of new cars (some 80% of new cars sold come from abroad) have effectively taken money out of our economy and so reduced discretionary spending on goods and services produced in the UK.
Also worth remembering that the rise in inflation was caused largely by the sharp rise (of some 13%) in the price of second hand cars.
And what caused that sharp rise (asks one very puzzled Mr Darling) - oh yes the state funded scrapping of perfectly good cars as part of its Votes for Clunkers scheme has caused supply to fall faster than demand.
So now some of the poorest in society (those who can't afford brand new cars) are having to pay more for a set of wheels. This also has probably helped reduce growth and productivity (as well as social mobility) by forcing more people to use unreliable public transport (so delaying their arrival at work) and dissuading people from taking jobs that require them to drive to work.
That's called the law of unintended consequences - and demonstrates the dangers of letting the socialists meddle with the free markets.
Father Ignatius Brown
Surging imports of new cars (some 80% of new cars sold come from abroad) have effectively taken money out of our economy and so reduced discretionary spending on goods and services produced in the UK.
Also worth remembering that the rise in inflation was caused largely by the sharp rise (of some 13%) in the price of second hand cars.
And what caused that sharp rise (asks one very puzzled Mr Darling) - oh yes the state funded scrapping of perfectly good cars as part of its Votes for Clunkers scheme has caused supply to fall faster than demand.
So now some of the poorest in society (those who can't afford brand new cars) are having to pay more for a set of wheels. This also has probably helped reduce growth and productivity (as well as social mobility) by forcing more people to use unreliable public transport (so delaying their arrival at work) and dissuading people from taking jobs that require them to drive to work.
That's called the law of unintended consequences - and demonstrates the dangers of letting the socialists meddle with the free markets.
Father Ignatius Brown
Energy saving bulbs - environmental disaster waiting to happen?
In response to an article in the Telegraph about the dangers of energy saving bulbs - one reader stated that "if you use the expensive/reliable brands of energy saving light bulbs, then they won't burst" - well in my opinion theyare talking rubbish unless they don't count Philips as one of those brands.
I only buy Philips and I too have had a couple of bulbs blow and five turn dim and red - all in the space of 4 years. My electrician tells me that there is nothing wrong with the wiring or the fittings - it's just that these new bulbs are like in-bred labs - very good while they work but highly strung and liable to go badly wrong when they fail.
So don't tell me to spend more money - I for one am switching back to old style bulbs. Simple, cheap and very effective.
PS: No one mentions the environmental hazard that we are storing up here - what happens when people start throwing these new bulbs away in large numbers - they don't last forever - most people will chuck them in the usual bin - so the mercury will end up leaching into the landfills.
Either that or we pay even more in council tax for the local authorities to install expensive recycling facilities. So the govt should get ahead of the curve on this one and impose a 100% environmental tax on the bulbs to cover the cost of safe disposal.
I only buy Philips and I too have had a couple of bulbs blow and five turn dim and red - all in the space of 4 years. My electrician tells me that there is nothing wrong with the wiring or the fittings - it's just that these new bulbs are like in-bred labs - very good while they work but highly strung and liable to go badly wrong when they fail.
So don't tell me to spend more money - I for one am switching back to old style bulbs. Simple, cheap and very effective.
PS: No one mentions the environmental hazard that we are storing up here - what happens when people start throwing these new bulbs away in large numbers - they don't last forever - most people will chuck them in the usual bin - so the mercury will end up leaching into the landfills.
Either that or we pay even more in council tax for the local authorities to install expensive recycling facilities. So the govt should get ahead of the curve on this one and impose a 100% environmental tax on the bulbs to cover the cost of safe disposal.
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
Why we need a referendum on the EU now.
The really sad thing about the EU referendum debate, is that UK politicians have been consistently mendacious cowards when it comes to discussing the EU with the people. Rather than explain where the EU project was heading, openly and honestly, and what this would mean for our country they chose to dissemble and prevaricate and mislead.
They kept promising that there was no federalist agenda - no plans for a state to replace the free trade area that most people thought we had joined.
They denied that "ever closer union" meant just what it said. The talked about op-outs and red-lines - giving people the impression that somehow we could be half in and half out of a club that actually required full commitment.
They presumably hoped to lull the population into a resigned submission to the future. But instead they have simply stoked the resentment, anger, bitterness, hatred and contempt of the British people for our own politicians the the European institutions. They have fed the fires of bigotry and hatred by treating the people with disdain - and they wonder why the people reciprocate.
Consequently the politicians have become more and more scared of consulting the people - and more conniving in their dealings with their European partners (saying one thing, doing another and pretending that they have said and done something completely different depending on who they talk to).
It could have been so much easier - and it could still be put right. What is needed is courage and conviction. Now I am a Euro-sceptic and I want a referendum on "in or out" - and I think we (and Europe) would be better off out.
But here's the rub - because I am a democrat I will live with the result - so long as the campaign is fair and both sides agree to respect the result. If the outs win then the politicians must be prepared to act quickly to implement the will of the people. But if the ins win, I would hope that we could put the whole argument behind us and throw ourselves willingly and wholeheartedly into the EU project as willing partners.
They kept promising that there was no federalist agenda - no plans for a state to replace the free trade area that most people thought we had joined.
They denied that "ever closer union" meant just what it said. The talked about op-outs and red-lines - giving people the impression that somehow we could be half in and half out of a club that actually required full commitment.
They presumably hoped to lull the population into a resigned submission to the future. But instead they have simply stoked the resentment, anger, bitterness, hatred and contempt of the British people for our own politicians the the European institutions. They have fed the fires of bigotry and hatred by treating the people with disdain - and they wonder why the people reciprocate.
Consequently the politicians have become more and more scared of consulting the people - and more conniving in their dealings with their European partners (saying one thing, doing another and pretending that they have said and done something completely different depending on who they talk to).
It could have been so much easier - and it could still be put right. What is needed is courage and conviction. Now I am a Euro-sceptic and I want a referendum on "in or out" - and I think we (and Europe) would be better off out.
But here's the rub - because I am a democrat I will live with the result - so long as the campaign is fair and both sides agree to respect the result. If the outs win then the politicians must be prepared to act quickly to implement the will of the people. But if the ins win, I would hope that we could put the whole argument behind us and throw ourselves willingly and wholeheartedly into the EU project as willing partners.
Transexuality is not a disease or a sin
How sad to still see comments like Mr Ford's in this apparently modern and enlightened age.
Such views sound woefully ignorant and deliberately insulting - do most men feel incomplete because they cannot give birth? Probably not.
Such views seem to be based on a superstitious belief that sexuality has god-given clarity - black and white - all man or all woman - which is patently ridiculous and at odds with the evidence of nature and science.
I don't know April but I suspect from what she says that she feels complete as the person she is - in the same way that plenty of women feel complete not having children and plenty of men feel complete despite not siring children.
The completeness comes from within - your state of mind and attitude to life not because of some physical plus or minus score.
Blessings for a little more understanding and a little less limited thinking.
Father Ignatius Brown
www.father-ignatius-brown.com
Such views sound woefully ignorant and deliberately insulting - do most men feel incomplete because they cannot give birth? Probably not.
Such views seem to be based on a superstitious belief that sexuality has god-given clarity - black and white - all man or all woman - which is patently ridiculous and at odds with the evidence of nature and science.
I don't know April but I suspect from what she says that she feels complete as the person she is - in the same way that plenty of women feel complete not having children and plenty of men feel complete despite not siring children.
The completeness comes from within - your state of mind and attitude to life not because of some physical plus or minus score.
Blessings for a little more understanding and a little less limited thinking.
Father Ignatius Brown
www.father-ignatius-brown.com
Sunday, 22 November 2009
Freedom in education
Vouchers, Vouchers, Vouchers.
Break the back of the teaching unions - abolish central pay bargaining.
Abolish the LEAs and the vested interests of the educational establishment.
Make all state schools independent - self governing - free to stand alone, merge or fail according to the demands of parents.
Give all Parents a voucher worth £10k a year per child to spend on any school or in any educational environment/training colleges on the service that in their opinion (however misguided) best meets the needs of their children. Home educators should be able to use the same vouchers to buy courses and other training services from a range of providers just like any other parent.
Give children control of those vouchers when they reach adult hood at 17 (complete with the right to vote) - continue with those vouchers until the individual is 25.
This gives you competition to drive standards and service. This gives you freedom to choose and to make mistakes (a necessary part of becoming a mature adult). This gives you social mobility in spades (and an equitable redistribution of wealth that helps bind society together). This frees you from centralised dogma. This gives you a dynamic and adaptive workforce educated according to their needs and interests.
This is liberty - this is justice - this is democracy - anything else represents the dead hand of totalitarian misrule
Blessings for opportunity for all who care to take it.
Father Ignatius Brown
www.father-ignatius-brown.com
Break the back of the teaching unions - abolish central pay bargaining.
Abolish the LEAs and the vested interests of the educational establishment.
Make all state schools independent - self governing - free to stand alone, merge or fail according to the demands of parents.
Give all Parents a voucher worth £10k a year per child to spend on any school or in any educational environment/training colleges on the service that in their opinion (however misguided) best meets the needs of their children. Home educators should be able to use the same vouchers to buy courses and other training services from a range of providers just like any other parent.
Give children control of those vouchers when they reach adult hood at 17 (complete with the right to vote) - continue with those vouchers until the individual is 25.
This gives you competition to drive standards and service. This gives you freedom to choose and to make mistakes (a necessary part of becoming a mature adult). This gives you social mobility in spades (and an equitable redistribution of wealth that helps bind society together). This frees you from centralised dogma. This gives you a dynamic and adaptive workforce educated according to their needs and interests.
This is liberty - this is justice - this is democracy - anything else represents the dead hand of totalitarian misrule
Blessings for opportunity for all who care to take it.
Father Ignatius Brown
www.father-ignatius-brown.com
We don't need a monarch or a president
Whenever a monarchist tries to argue against a republican they invariably come up with some lame comment such as "So what would you replace the Queen with, a President Blair/Bush/Latest number one bad guy?"
This is a false dichotomy - Monarch or President - we don't need neither.
Instead accept that the people are sovereign - they elect a parliament - the parliament chooses a prime minister from its elected members (the one who can command a majority for a stated manifesto) and the prime minister chooses the executive to effect policy according to the manifesto. The civil service serve the people by remaining above politics but obedient to the executive.
To echo Frederick The Great's description of the role of a monarch, the prime minister should be "The first servant of the state."
We don't need grandeur, pomp and ceremony. We just need an efficient administrator that knows they serve to lead.
This is a false dichotomy - Monarch or President - we don't need neither.
Instead accept that the people are sovereign - they elect a parliament - the parliament chooses a prime minister from its elected members (the one who can command a majority for a stated manifesto) and the prime minister chooses the executive to effect policy according to the manifesto. The civil service serve the people by remaining above politics but obedient to the executive.
To echo Frederick The Great's description of the role of a monarch, the prime minister should be "The first servant of the state."
We don't need grandeur, pomp and ceremony. We just need an efficient administrator that knows they serve to lead.
Friday, 20 November 2009
Learning to live within a European state
I hate to say this but we need to wake up to the reality that, whether we like it or not (and I don't) we are in Europe and will stay in Europe. The reason is simple: because there is no electoral majority in the country for withdrawal.
True there are plenty of very angry people who shout loudly and say the EU is unfair, undemocratic, totalitarian, a socialist plot etc. I empathise with much of this anger and think the EU project in political terms has major flaws (though, as a free trade enthusiast, I applaud many aspects of the single, open market).
But how I feel and how you feel is actually beside the point. The political and economic reality is that all the major parties wholeheartedly (yes Conservatives included) support the EU project and have accepted the contract of "ever closer union". And the business community (both corporate bosses and trade union leaders) accept, support and demand our membership of the EU - and derive much benefit from it for their efforts.
A contract is considered accepted in law if you abide by the terms of the contract or accept the benefit of the contract even if you haven't signed it and even if you consider it unfair. Both Labour and Conservatives administrations (and by association the UK) have gone further and signed treaties that implicitly derive from the stated aim of ever closer union - and so have, de facto, accepted the inevitable creation of a legal entity and political state called Europe.
Equally many businesses and sections of our society have demanded financial, legal and political support from various elements of the EU and have got it (think farmers, trade negotiations, development funding etc). The result is that there is a large constituency in this country that will swallow any concerns it may have about loss of liberty, sovereignty and democracy in order to continue to derive financial and political benefit from the EU.
Now you may argue that if we had an “In or Out” referendum the “Outs” would win. Maybe – but so what? We are not going to have that referendum. No party is going to promise it – or at least no main stream party will (or needs to) promise it – and no minority party will ever command sufficient electoral support to force such a referendum.
This brings me back to my contention that there is no “electoral majority”. The simple fact is that 50-60% of the population don’t care enough about their future to vote – or are satisfied enough with whichever party is in power not to vote. All elections come down to a motivated 45% of the population: of which more than half will vote for the same old party regardless of policies or performance. So of the total population only some 20% could be considered active swing voters – and most people will always vote in their comfort zone – a little left, a little right but never for a revolution.
The fringe parties (and I don’t mean to be derogatory – just stating an electoral fact) are fringe because they cannot – and never will command a national electoral plurality (let alone an electoral majority). That is why Dan and others who support a more liberal economic agenda are quite rational in their decision to support the Conservatives even though they do not agree with every policy and even fundamentally disagree with a major policy such as the one on Europe.
Politics is all about trade-offs – about maximising your winnings – accepting the realities on the ground and working for change from inside the machine (rather than standing in the cold and howling at the moon). If you don’t want another five years of Brown you have to support Cameron!
True there are plenty of very angry people who shout loudly and say the EU is unfair, undemocratic, totalitarian, a socialist plot etc. I empathise with much of this anger and think the EU project in political terms has major flaws (though, as a free trade enthusiast, I applaud many aspects of the single, open market).
But how I feel and how you feel is actually beside the point. The political and economic reality is that all the major parties wholeheartedly (yes Conservatives included) support the EU project and have accepted the contract of "ever closer union". And the business community (both corporate bosses and trade union leaders) accept, support and demand our membership of the EU - and derive much benefit from it for their efforts.
A contract is considered accepted in law if you abide by the terms of the contract or accept the benefit of the contract even if you haven't signed it and even if you consider it unfair. Both Labour and Conservatives administrations (and by association the UK) have gone further and signed treaties that implicitly derive from the stated aim of ever closer union - and so have, de facto, accepted the inevitable creation of a legal entity and political state called Europe.
Equally many businesses and sections of our society have demanded financial, legal and political support from various elements of the EU and have got it (think farmers, trade negotiations, development funding etc). The result is that there is a large constituency in this country that will swallow any concerns it may have about loss of liberty, sovereignty and democracy in order to continue to derive financial and political benefit from the EU.
Now you may argue that if we had an “In or Out” referendum the “Outs” would win. Maybe – but so what? We are not going to have that referendum. No party is going to promise it – or at least no main stream party will (or needs to) promise it – and no minority party will ever command sufficient electoral support to force such a referendum.
This brings me back to my contention that there is no “electoral majority”. The simple fact is that 50-60% of the population don’t care enough about their future to vote – or are satisfied enough with whichever party is in power not to vote. All elections come down to a motivated 45% of the population: of which more than half will vote for the same old party regardless of policies or performance. So of the total population only some 20% could be considered active swing voters – and most people will always vote in their comfort zone – a little left, a little right but never for a revolution.
The fringe parties (and I don’t mean to be derogatory – just stating an electoral fact) are fringe because they cannot – and never will command a national electoral plurality (let alone an electoral majority). That is why Dan and others who support a more liberal economic agenda are quite rational in their decision to support the Conservatives even though they do not agree with every policy and even fundamentally disagree with a major policy such as the one on Europe.
Politics is all about trade-offs – about maximising your winnings – accepting the realities on the ground and working for change from inside the machine (rather than standing in the cold and howling at the moon). If you don’t want another five years of Brown you have to support Cameron!
Wednesday, 18 November 2009
First Lincolnshire then the UK
More evidence - as if it were needed - of the totalitarian tendencies of this socialist administration -
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1228716/Big-Brother-quiz-new-school-parents-Officials-launch-83-point-probe-families-lives.html#ixzz0XCzc3bOM.
All justified (under the Human Rights Act) on the grounds of "national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
Sadly today's Queens speech will give government even more powers to intrude into your home.
The Education bill will allow inspectors to enter the homes of parents who choose to home-school (as is their legal right under the Education Act 1996 - "Education Otherwise").
The inspectors will be able interview your child ON THEIR OWN without another adult present.
You may think home-schoolers are deviants (they are not) and that this law does not apply to you - but it will. This government writes its laws so that it can extend their scope without further parliamentary scrutiny.
First the home-schoolers then all families. First one liberty then all liberties.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1228716/Big-Brother-quiz-new-school-parents-Officials-launch-83-point-probe-families-lives.html#ixzz0XCzc3bOM.
All justified (under the Human Rights Act) on the grounds of "national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
Sadly today's Queens speech will give government even more powers to intrude into your home.
The Education bill will allow inspectors to enter the homes of parents who choose to home-school (as is their legal right under the Education Act 1996 - "Education Otherwise").
The inspectors will be able interview your child ON THEIR OWN without another adult present.
You may think home-schoolers are deviants (they are not) and that this law does not apply to you - but it will. This government writes its laws so that it can extend their scope without further parliamentary scrutiny.
First the home-schoolers then all families. First one liberty then all liberties.
Tuesday, 17 November 2009
Six super simple suppers
OK here are six super simple suppers (yes suppers before 8-o'clock and involving only one course - tea if you are eating tea and toast at 5pm with baked beans (on the toast not in the tea) - Dinner after 8pm formal (and definitely not a synonym for lunch!) - so Six Super Suppers from one recipe:
First make basic mince and onion (add chopped pepper, toms etc to taste - plenty of garlic for the Italian sounding dishes) then
- Monday Spag bol,
- Tues Cottage Pie (every other week use minced lamb and call it Sheppard's pie),
- Weds Lasagna,
- Thurs Chilli (add some spice but not drinking choc - though some grated raw pure 100% coco is good),
- Friday Tacos,
- Saturday Mince and Mash with peas
(add home-made thick-cut chips or jackets to all of the above - if pasta is not enough carbs).
To really boost your veg intake only use 100gsm of mince per person and add onions, toms, peppers, finely diced carrots, sweet corn, garlic (even when not doing the Italian stuff because it is really good for you) plenty of fresh basil and oregano from your window box - extra chopped chives on everything for decoration and extra iron. One portion will contain the best part of your five a day and it will taste delicious.
Wash down with glass of fresh orange or apple juice (the Vit C helps you absorb the iron).
Sunday go for a nice veggie option such as roast lamb (they eat veg don't they?).
Blessings for hearty home food and no fancy stuff.
Father Ignatius Brown
www.father-ignatius-brown.com
Saturday, 14 November 2009
You have a simple choice
The government will back down on the VAT rise in January (as they have done on scrapping scrappage allowances and will do on the stamp duty holiday) as an election sweetener - they will say they are postponing the rise to the end of the tax year to help "hard working families" but in fact will be doing it so they can hold an election in mid-March with the economy still looking as though it might recover. This is a way of handing the next conservative administration a poisoned chalice.
This administration seems to me to be composed of delusional cowards and power hungry fools. The only way they can see of controlling the economy is by controlling more and more of our private lives and by taxing more and more heavily us to fund their burgeoning client state. Soon we will all be serfs in our our country.
You have a simple choice - join the system and exploit your fellow countrymen (either as spongers or administrators) or challenge the system by supporting radical low tax, libertarians (if you can find them - Dave says he is not one). Sadly most people will settle for the easy option so long as they watch the X-factor and not take any responsibility for their own lives or their community.
This administration seems to me to be composed of delusional cowards and power hungry fools. The only way they can see of controlling the economy is by controlling more and more of our private lives and by taxing more and more heavily us to fund their burgeoning client state. Soon we will all be serfs in our our country.
You have a simple choice - join the system and exploit your fellow countrymen (either as spongers or administrators) or challenge the system by supporting radical low tax, libertarians (if you can find them - Dave says he is not one). Sadly most people will settle for the easy option so long as they watch the X-factor and not take any responsibility for their own lives or their community.
Monday, 9 November 2009
What have you ever done to defend your rights?
How many of the people posting here have ever joined a political party or pressure group of any sort. How many of you have joined a business lobby or any other interest group that shares your views - and how many of you have actually made any effort to support those groups in getting those views across?
How many of you have actually done anything more to influence the debate in anyway other than sounding off on these notice boards and in the pub?
Have you ever written to your MP (do you know who they are) - have you joined your parish council - have you ever stood for elected office or helped others whose views you do support get elected (other than voting once every few years - if you even bother to do that)?
How may of you have actually used the Internet to set up your own political party - to put up for debate a platform, manifesto or set of ideals to which you subscribe and that you want other people to support?
There is no use simply complaining - there is no good in simply saying it won't change - of course things won't change unless you try to change them.
When was the last time you went on a march - or wrote a letter for Amnesty International, or signed a petition from Liberty on the erosion of our fundamental freedoms.
What have you done to actually try to hold you elected representatives to account.
I have sat as a volunteer on a parish council - and I can tell you that most people expect their little world to keep turning without anything more from them than the occasional whinge. It is not good enough.
If you don't like it start a petition, start a march - start a new political party that isn't bigoted, racist or lunatic but actually seeks a liberal, free market, democratic, socially mobile society that rewards hard work and education and maximises personal choice while minimising centralised direction.
Above all, make sure that you have a damned good answer when your grandchildren ask you: "What did you do to support the fight for liberty and democracy?"
I'm a hypocrite too - but at least I admit it and at least I have a couple of blogs that I use to promote my views (however incoherent and inchoate they may be).
Blessings for a little less conversation and a little more action.
Father Ignatius Brown
www.father-ignatius-brown.com
How many of you have actually done anything more to influence the debate in anyway other than sounding off on these notice boards and in the pub?
Have you ever written to your MP (do you know who they are) - have you joined your parish council - have you ever stood for elected office or helped others whose views you do support get elected (other than voting once every few years - if you even bother to do that)?
How may of you have actually used the Internet to set up your own political party - to put up for debate a platform, manifesto or set of ideals to which you subscribe and that you want other people to support?
There is no use simply complaining - there is no good in simply saying it won't change - of course things won't change unless you try to change them.
When was the last time you went on a march - or wrote a letter for Amnesty International, or signed a petition from Liberty on the erosion of our fundamental freedoms.
What have you done to actually try to hold you elected representatives to account.
I have sat as a volunteer on a parish council - and I can tell you that most people expect their little world to keep turning without anything more from them than the occasional whinge. It is not good enough.
If you don't like it start a petition, start a march - start a new political party that isn't bigoted, racist or lunatic but actually seeks a liberal, free market, democratic, socially mobile society that rewards hard work and education and maximises personal choice while minimising centralised direction.
Above all, make sure that you have a damned good answer when your grandchildren ask you: "What did you do to support the fight for liberty and democracy?"
I'm a hypocrite too - but at least I admit it and at least I have a couple of blogs that I use to promote my views (however incoherent and inchoate they may be).
Blessings for a little less conversation and a little more action.
Father Ignatius Brown
www.father-ignatius-brown.com
Sunday, 8 November 2009
Is Badman a badman?
You be the judge - the following is a submission to the House of Commons Select Committee for Children, Schools and Families :
Memorandum submitted by Dr Paula Rothermel FRSA, Educational psychologist expert witness:
1. I am one of the leading academics in the field in the UK and the only expert witness specialising in court cases where home education is an issue. My 2002 research involved 1099 children and remains the largest and most in-depth and authoritative independent of home education carried out in the UK. The research involved 419 survey questionnaires to families and 238 targeted assessments (with 196 different children) to evaluate the psychosocial and academic development of home-educated children aged eleven years and under.
2. I was invited on two occasions to meet with Mr Badman.
3. At our first interview Mr Badman was interested in what I had to say. His opening question was to ask me if home educating mothers suffered from Munchhausen's by Proxy. I thought this to be a curious starting point - that of questioning whether home education is a symptom of mental illness. I am not medically qualified, but I was able to inform Mr Badman that there is no research evidence available that I am aware of, which makes this link.
4. At our second interview Mr Badman was dismissive of my work. He insisted that my study covered just 30 children. He indicated that someone had told him this and insisted that my conclusions and findings, therefore, were of little significance. Nothing I could say would sway him from this view. He had clearly not informed himself about my work by reading it.
5. I consider the review to be seriously flawed. It should be a matter of concern to the Select Committee that the person commissioned to carry out the review could so easily be influenced by a lay person hostile to my work. I question the rigour applied to the Review.
6. All the tests I conducted were overseen by two senior professors and employed established methods for reliability and validity. Articles published following my research have appeared in peer reviewed journals. My work has thus been judged to be rigorous enough for the wider academic population and I have presented papers on my work to academic and professional audiences in London, Manchester, Edinburgh, Malta, Ghent, Estonia, Geneva and to broader audiences through BBC television and radio news, and many radio interviews. Next week I am presenting a paper in Vienna, and the University of Bogota have invited me to speak there in November.
7. I was not notified of the Select Committee despite having participated in the Review.
8. I have many observations to make regarding Mr Badman's recommendations but the absence of numbers in his bulleted recommendations makes this reference laborious. Overall the recommendations are, in my opinion, complicated, expensive and unworkable.
September 2009
Thank you to Patch of Puddles for the link. As I said on that site:
The suggestion that parents who care enough to home educate (or have the temerity to ask for help) are potentially mentally ill is a disgraceful smear.
Sadly such methods reflect the socialist mindset of this administration with its tendency to rely on innuendo and fear to discredit and control those who don't subscribe to its dogmatic, authoritarian world-view. Time and time again we have seen their refusal to accept scientific evidence when it does not support party-policy.
Such actions are, in my humble opinion (if that is still allowed), reminiscent of the Stalinist misuse of psychiatry to frame, shame and detain dissidents. It is a deeply worrying development that is symptomatic of a desperate, "do anything and whatever it takes" to stay in power government.
However, home educators, you must realise that you are seen by the bureaucrats as subversives, non-conformists, radicals and potential revolutionaries. You show a marked unwillingness to submit your families to state control - you resist standardised education and encourage your children in independent thought - such actions are a danger to a centralised state since there is no telling what dangerous concepts you might support - concepts such as liberty, justice, and truth.
Blessing for freedom to choose and freedom of thought.
Father Ignatius Brown.
Memorandum submitted by Dr Paula Rothermel FRSA, Educational psychologist expert witness:
1. I am one of the leading academics in the field in the UK and the only expert witness specialising in court cases where home education is an issue. My 2002 research involved 1099 children and remains the largest and most in-depth and authoritative independent of home education carried out in the UK. The research involved 419 survey questionnaires to families and 238 targeted assessments (with 196 different children) to evaluate the psychosocial and academic development of home-educated children aged eleven years and under.
2. I was invited on two occasions to meet with Mr Badman.
3. At our first interview Mr Badman was interested in what I had to say. His opening question was to ask me if home educating mothers suffered from Munchhausen's by Proxy. I thought this to be a curious starting point - that of questioning whether home education is a symptom of mental illness. I am not medically qualified, but I was able to inform Mr Badman that there is no research evidence available that I am aware of, which makes this link.
4. At our second interview Mr Badman was dismissive of my work. He insisted that my study covered just 30 children. He indicated that someone had told him this and insisted that my conclusions and findings, therefore, were of little significance. Nothing I could say would sway him from this view. He had clearly not informed himself about my work by reading it.
5. I consider the review to be seriously flawed. It should be a matter of concern to the Select Committee that the person commissioned to carry out the review could so easily be influenced by a lay person hostile to my work. I question the rigour applied to the Review.
6. All the tests I conducted were overseen by two senior professors and employed established methods for reliability and validity. Articles published following my research have appeared in peer reviewed journals. My work has thus been judged to be rigorous enough for the wider academic population and I have presented papers on my work to academic and professional audiences in London, Manchester, Edinburgh, Malta, Ghent, Estonia, Geneva and to broader audiences through BBC television and radio news, and many radio interviews. Next week I am presenting a paper in Vienna, and the University of Bogota have invited me to speak there in November.
7. I was not notified of the Select Committee despite having participated in the Review.
8. I have many observations to make regarding Mr Badman's recommendations but the absence of numbers in his bulleted recommendations makes this reference laborious. Overall the recommendations are, in my opinion, complicated, expensive and unworkable.
September 2009
Thank you to Patch of Puddles for the link. As I said on that site:
The suggestion that parents who care enough to home educate (or have the temerity to ask for help) are potentially mentally ill is a disgraceful smear.
Sadly such methods reflect the socialist mindset of this administration with its tendency to rely on innuendo and fear to discredit and control those who don't subscribe to its dogmatic, authoritarian world-view. Time and time again we have seen their refusal to accept scientific evidence when it does not support party-policy.
Such actions are, in my humble opinion (if that is still allowed), reminiscent of the Stalinist misuse of psychiatry to frame, shame and detain dissidents. It is a deeply worrying development that is symptomatic of a desperate, "do anything and whatever it takes" to stay in power government.
However, home educators, you must realise that you are seen by the bureaucrats as subversives, non-conformists, radicals and potential revolutionaries. You show a marked unwillingness to submit your families to state control - you resist standardised education and encourage your children in independent thought - such actions are a danger to a centralised state since there is no telling what dangerous concepts you might support - concepts such as liberty, justice, and truth.
Blessing for freedom to choose and freedom of thought.
Father Ignatius Brown.
Thursday, 5 November 2009
Don't think your liberties are protected by Human Rights laws.
Please do not make the mistake of thinking you can rely on the European Convention on Human Rights to protect your fundamental liberties.
The Convention is heavily caveatted (at the behest of centralising socialists and neo-fascists) with the following dirigiste phrase:
"except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
The likes of Ed Balls (the Dolores Umbridges of this world) have only to pin one of these labels to any piece of legislation and it becomes immune from legal challenge.
They are already doing this: see any recent government press release - the Convention is a convenient cover for increasing totalitarianism not a protection against it.
Re-read Hayek's The Road to Serfdom to see why people like Balls and Mandelson thrive in a socialist state. Then weep for your lost liberties and your children's lost innocence.
Blessings in your despair.
Father Ignatius Brown
The Convention is heavily caveatted (at the behest of centralising socialists and neo-fascists) with the following dirigiste phrase:
"except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
The likes of Ed Balls (the Dolores Umbridges of this world) have only to pin one of these labels to any piece of legislation and it becomes immune from legal challenge.
They are already doing this: see any recent government press release - the Convention is a convenient cover for increasing totalitarianism not a protection against it.
Re-read Hayek's The Road to Serfdom to see why people like Balls and Mandelson thrive in a socialist state. Then weep for your lost liberties and your children's lost innocence.
Blessings in your despair.
Father Ignatius Brown
Increasing VAT on small businesses won't help
Odd comment from ANN OTHER on the Telegraph today arguing that the VAT Threshold should be lowered so that more plumbers on £300 a day pay VAT. Not sure what she has against plumbers and the self employed but I have a message for ANN OTHER - small businesses don't need to be squashed by any more VAT thank you very much.
Furthermore, your argument makes little sense because the VAT threshold is currently £68,000 in any twelve month period and few plumbers on £300 a day will cross that threshold, here's why:
There are 365 days in the year, 104 of those are weekends and you can expect a self-employed plumber to take those off (or days off in lieu) plus at least 25 days holiday a year, plus 8 days off for bank holidays - that leaves 228 days to work - allow 2 day for sickness (far fewer than taken by many over-paid, over-privileged, under-worked public servants) and you have 227 working days, which at £300 a day is £67,800 a year. Allow for some clients not paying and work related injuries and you see that most plumbers don't get close to your magic figure.
Take into account the fact that the self-employed take more risks than the employed, have fewer benefits, little or no support and little public gratitude and there is a strong case for taxing them less not more.
Blessings that your pipes don't burst this Christmas.
Father Ignatius Brown
Furthermore, your argument makes little sense because the VAT threshold is currently £68,000 in any twelve month period and few plumbers on £300 a day will cross that threshold, here's why:
There are 365 days in the year, 104 of those are weekends and you can expect a self-employed plumber to take those off (or days off in lieu) plus at least 25 days holiday a year, plus 8 days off for bank holidays - that leaves 228 days to work - allow 2 day for sickness (far fewer than taken by many over-paid, over-privileged, under-worked public servants) and you have 227 working days, which at £300 a day is £67,800 a year. Allow for some clients not paying and work related injuries and you see that most plumbers don't get close to your magic figure.
Take into account the fact that the self-employed take more risks than the employed, have fewer benefits, little or no support and little public gratitude and there is a strong case for taxing them less not more.
Blessings that your pipes don't burst this Christmas.
Father Ignatius Brown
Wednesday, 4 November 2009
Govt minister leaves bitter taste in mouth!
To understand Mr Sugar's point you must first read Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. Hayek clearly explains that monopolies are bad but monopolies controlled by governments are the worst because any criticism of the monopoly is seen by Ministers as criticism of them.
The banks are all but state controlled monopolies - Ministers have made a big noise about the "need for banks to return lending to 2007 levels" but the banks aren't doing this because they, like Mr Sugar realise such lending was Theme-park folly (and that Mr Sugar is also right that many businesses are beyond help - thanks to this government's heavy handed business taxes).
As a result businesses complain that they aren't getting what was apparently promised, which makes the Ministers look bad (worse), so they send out Mr Spoonful of Sugar to help small businesses swallow some bitter medicine.
The banks are all but state controlled monopolies - Ministers have made a big noise about the "need for banks to return lending to 2007 levels" but the banks aren't doing this because they, like Mr Sugar realise such lending was Theme-park folly (and that Mr Sugar is also right that many businesses are beyond help - thanks to this government's heavy handed business taxes).
As a result businesses complain that they aren't getting what was apparently promised, which makes the Ministers look bad (worse), so they send out Mr Spoonful of Sugar to help small businesses swallow some bitter medicine.
Monday, 2 November 2009
Excellent proposal to scrap the BBC licence fee
Conservative Home has today posted a blog with an excellent proposal to scrap the BBC licence fee.
To which I wholeheartedly lent my support:
"Quite agree that we should scrap the licence fee (Cleethorpes Rocks makes particularly valid points).
TRG is also right that it falls most heavily on the poor (Patrick - the licence fee is just another form of taxation).
We could, as Ed said, simply privatise it - or we could give it a very large one-off endowment (equivalent to say 10 years of licence fees) that would be held in trust to be dispensed on submission of suitable budgets.
The BBC would be made legally editorially independent with a remit to provide high class (mainly education and news related) free TV to the domestic audience plus the world service. BBC World could remain as the semi-commercial arm (revenues supplementing and eventually totally replacing the endowment) selling new and old programs, merchandise and news to other audiences.
In the UK the BBC would be a more focused, specialist broadcaster, providing the sort of content not popular with the mass market (very Reithian) and restricted to traditional TV channels 1 & 2, Radios 1-4 and its website (particularly its free educational material) - all other UK-only services would be scrapped, sold or made subscription based (and would have to be self-funding).
Blessings for an end to the licence fee tyranny."
Father Ignatius Brown
To which I wholeheartedly lent my support:
"Quite agree that we should scrap the licence fee (Cleethorpes Rocks makes particularly valid points).
TRG is also right that it falls most heavily on the poor (Patrick - the licence fee is just another form of taxation).
We could, as Ed said, simply privatise it - or we could give it a very large one-off endowment (equivalent to say 10 years of licence fees) that would be held in trust to be dispensed on submission of suitable budgets.
The BBC would be made legally editorially independent with a remit to provide high class (mainly education and news related) free TV to the domestic audience plus the world service. BBC World could remain as the semi-commercial arm (revenues supplementing and eventually totally replacing the endowment) selling new and old programs, merchandise and news to other audiences.
In the UK the BBC would be a more focused, specialist broadcaster, providing the sort of content not popular with the mass market (very Reithian) and restricted to traditional TV channels 1 & 2, Radios 1-4 and its website (particularly its free educational material) - all other UK-only services would be scrapped, sold or made subscription based (and would have to be self-funding).
Blessings for an end to the licence fee tyranny."
Father Ignatius Brown
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
