HOW do we HELP and CHANGE the CHILDREN of the INNERCITIES

[scottycelt]

No 10 could have been got straight out of a leading article in a Beaverbrook Comic over half a century ago ..

Simon, you reckon the future of our inner-city children lies with abandoning our main trading partners (and the largest economic bloc on the planet) and then trying to do business with some of the poorest countries around many of whom have long ago found new trading partners anyway?

How on earth is such economic madness and political naivety going to help our inner-city children or anybody else in the UK for that matter?

Incredible!

[scottycelt]

Good point about disestablishing the Church, ariosto.

I'd go further and abolish faith schools and end charitable status for the promotion of religion.

Great idea, Ams ... and charitable status for organisations like Stonewall should be abolished as well ... :cool2:

[Anna]

you[/I] disagree with?

Oh, offhand, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 10

[amateur51]

Great idea, Ams ... and charitable status for organisations like Stonewall should be abolished as well ... :cool2:

Why so, scotty? Stonewall is a policy organisation addressing the needs of certain minority groups in UK who have been at a distinct disadavantage & they seek to rectify this through, research, information services, campaigning ( in the charitably legal sense) etc. Well within the bounds of charity. They do not get charity status for being gay, whereas religious groups get charitable status just for being religious. It's quite unnecessary for the reasons I've given earlier

[Lateralthinking1]

Keep Stonewall as a charity. Keep the church as it is. End faith schools.

[scottycelt]

Oh come on, amateur ... don't be so picky ... we are so near to full agreement here ... let's abolish 'em all so we can be fair to everybody and then concentrate trying to help the inner-city kids!

[amateur51]

Keep Stonewall as a charity. Keep the church as it is. End faith schools.

If you keep an established church, lat, you keep 27 seats in the House of Lords exclusively for Bishops of the Church of England.No Catholics, no Hindus, no Muslims. The Chief Rabbi tends to be ennobled but it is not as a right, I think. Thusd there is a huge advantage given to CoE. There are two options: offer similar memberships to other relgious groups (how would you come to a nummber?0 or disestablish the CoE. The latter is the obvious and 21st century course of action.

Depending on how the HoLords' structure/membership is revised, individual bishops, priests, rabbis, imams could be appointed/elected on merit.

[ahinton]

1. Get rid of the ridiculous humans rights legislation - we don't need it

Flawed though current human rights legislation may be (and, after all, what legislation isn't flawed?), dispensing with it would be tantamount to claiming that humans either do not have or do not need rights. I agree wholly with you that with every right comes a responsibility, so doing away with human rights legislation may as well mean dispensing with human responsibility. I could not possibly endorse such a notion. David Cameron was about to go down that dangerous road in the lead-up to the last UK General Election; one of those who successfully persuaded him to drop such a pursuit happens to be the MP who represents the constituency in which I reside temporarily. I have heard it said that a Conservative Prime Minister who advocates and seeks to encourage the abolition of the Human Rights Act is one who is prepared to abolish his own political party; I suspect that Sir Winston Churchill would have agreed.

2. Bring back corporal punishment, to teach that boundaries are there for a reason and that overstepping them causes pain. In other words, apply meaningful sanctions to lawbreakers. This would also reduce most of the current problems faced by schools.

A return to so barbaric a method of punishment would absolutely guarantee a rise in violent activity. I began my eduction in my Scotland at a time when such punishment methods pertained. I was subject to this once only; I cannot now for the life of me recall whether what I'd done was actually punishable and frankly couldn't care less but, when the strap was administered to my six-year-old hand, I grabbed it and promptly strapped the woman who'd administered it to me with the words "if I've done somthing wrong, tell me what it is and help me put it right - and don't ever do that to me again!". She didn't do either. Corporal punishment teaches only that physical violence is deemed by some to be acceptable in certain circumstances provided that those doing the deeming and who mete out the punishment determine the circumstances in which they consider it acceptable. I agree with applying meaningful sanctions to lawbreakers but disagree entirely that inhuman acts of violence can ever constitute "meaningful sanctions".

3. Pull out of the wasteful and corrupt EU and put the billions saved into initiatives to teach parenting skills and to increase the number of trained social and youth workers, to expand the vocational skills programmes for those not academically-gifted, and to expand the public sector of elderly care homes and pay those working in them a decent wage for the vital jobs they do.

Whilst not disagreeing with you in principle, I'm not sure that this could or should be contemplated before sorting out the parallel waste and corruption at home; self-righteousness is of itself no answer to anything that needs answering.

4. Stop all but essential immigration, leading eventually, one hopes, to a net loss of people - we haven't the resources for any more. Spend some money insisting that those of different cultures who are already here integrate, rather than set up inner-city ghettos.

What is "inessential immigration", how is it specifically distinguished from "essential immigration" and who should be charged with evaluating and determining the difference? If you want a "net loss of people", should you not be persuading the powers that be to advocate and encourage mass emigration as far as is possible? Who in any case should determine - and on what grounds - the mean UK population figure at any given time? I hope that you can back this up with a precise and provable answer to that, becuase I certainly couldn't do so!

5. Impose a fair level of tax on everyone, and tax heavily the obscene bonuses and salaries received by some. They threaten to leave? - good, let them go. Others will do just as well, eventually.

I have little problem with this, except that there is no way in which fair levels of taxation could ever be guaranteed for "everyone", particularly in a climate in which HMRC's collectors get it all so drastically wrong for so many millions of taxpayers. I don't see how a tax on bonuses is feasible, however popular it might be as a concept; it would be far better for bonuses not to be paid to anyone other than in recognition of actual and provable good performance, but if a government ever stepped in to try to determine and enforce such an idea, it would immediately identify itself as the kind of dictatorship that none of us wants.

[QUOTE=Simon;74674]
6. Try, whenever possible, to ensure that new houses are built in smaller community areas, like "new villages", rather than increasing population density in cities, where people don't talk to each other.[/quot]
Not a bad idea at all, though one that seems in its very principle at rather absurd odds with your desire for a reduction in the net UK population!

7. Stop sending "aid" to countries that don't need it, and send what we do send with strings attached so that it doesn't just go into the Swiss account of whatever corrupt general is in power at the time, but rather goes direct to those who really need it.

A laudable aspiration but one that can never be implemented with any guarantees by a government that has and can have no control over the legislature (or otherwise) in any country to which it sends it.

8. Renationalise the Post Office/Royal Mail and get rid of the foreign firms who have cherry-picked the most profitable bits. The local PO is a vital resource for all kinds of services, as is the mail service, and if supported and used properly is a major asset to all communities. The realisation that there are some things not measured by profit alone is a good place for a government to start from!

Why renationalise something that will almost certainly continue to make thumping losses because times have changed and the need for their services has drastically reduced? If they are renationalised, the taxpayer will have to fund those losses; I see no reason why already strapped taxpayers should be expected to do that. The kinds of services for which you claim the local PO to be a "vital resource" are almost all available online - car tax, state pension payments and heaven alone knows what else and, when sought online, are usually more secure than their non-online equivalents. OK, people need a reliable broadband service everywhere in order for that to work for everyone and I accept that this is not yet in place but, once it is, who needs the local PO?

9. Renationalise the railways. They can be profitable, and are another public service. Go the way of the other countries in Europe, many of which have a national rail service to be proud of.

I'm not going to get into arguments about nationalisation of major service industries as I don't care a toss who owns and runs them as long as they serve their customers well and make the best possible profit in order that such profit be reinvested to continue to improve the service. Traditional "thinking" seems long to have been that if an industry is nationalised, it'll make a loss but, because it's only "responsible" to taxpayers rather than specific direct shareholders, that doesn't matter. It's important that all industries run well and make thumping profits in the interests of their sharholders, whether those shareholders are the kind that we would usually describe as such or whether they are taxpayers; taxpayers are shareholders in nationalised industries and, as often as not, they are also those industries' customers, so they have a right to expect of those industries efficiencies of service production and the generation of decent profit.

10. No EU would mean a vibrant fishing industry again, of course. Ally this with encouragement for British farmers and the country would become more self-sufficient in food, thereby also reducing the current trade deficit, which would soom become positive as we traded more with the Commonwealth and helped Africa get around the punitive trade restrictions imposed by the EU to benefit inefficient French peasants.

I'll ignore your thoroughly distasteful, unfair and unwarranted remark about "French peasants", particularly as I know several French people who struggle against the immense odds of French social charges to run small businesses, including agricultural ones, well; what you write here is profoundly insensitive and insulting to people who are far from well off as a consequence of their hard work. I am not anti-EU in principle but I do agree with you that vibrant industries in each ad every EU member state (27 so far - could increase eventually to at least 75) should be allowed to flourish without the kind of undue Eurocentric interference that ultimately benefits no one, whether in Bruxelles or Warszawa. Like you, I'm all in favour of greater British self-sufficiency in food production, but then I feel just the same about France! The sheer absurdity of your remarks about trading with "the Commonwealth" and (thereby?) helping Africa (that's a continent, by the way, not a country or group of countries - and it includes Libya, Tunisia and Egypt, Mauretania, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Togo, Côte d'Ivoire, Chad, the so-called "Democratic" Republic of Congo, the recently split Sudan, Eritrea, Somalia, Zimbabwe et al) to "get around the punitive trade restrictions imposed by EU" is far too self-evidently obvious for me to need to do more than merely mention it.

That would do for a start. Five years and we'd be buzzing again!

Why can I already hear swarms of killer bees?...

[ahinton]

Great idea, Ams ... and charitable status for organisations like Stonewall should be abolished as well ... :cool2:

What precisely do you mean in the present context by "organisations like Stonewall"? In answering that question (if you will), please provide other "like" examples and justify why their charitable status and that of Stonewall itself should be withdrawn whereas that of others that you do not cite as examples should be allowed to retain theirs.

[Lateralthinking1]

ahinton - I would be fascinated to know your means of earning a living. If it is the running of a restaurant, I have a feeling that the dish of the day rarely changes.

Maybe we should have a Human Responsibilities Act. Just a thought. You mention your MP twice and clearly like the person. Would it be Eton's Jesse Norman, not that he is particularly known to me?

am - I see what you mean about the C of E representation in the Lords. It does seem a little over the top. I would have thought that you could have about three from each faith following decent reform. The druid trio would be interesting.

[David Underdown]

The European Convention on Human Rights may only relatively recently have been incorporated directly into law in the United Kingdom, but British citizens have been able to cases to Strasbourg for years. In any case the convention was largely drafted by British lawyers, to Enshrune rights long considered to be present in British law

[mangerton]

ahinton #68 - HMRC might just get it less "drastically wrong" if their numbers had not been so drastically (c 30%) reduced by the last two govts, and if their leaders were not so inept. Read the Treasury select cttee report issued on 30th July.

[scottycelt]

What precisely do you mean in the present context by "organisations like Stonewall"? In answering that question (if you will), please provide other "like" examples and justify why their charitable status and that of Stonewall itself should be withdrawn whereas that of others that you do not cite as examples should be allowed to retain theirs.

My goodness ...

I was, of course, responding to Amateur51, citing Stonewall as an example of an organisation which also enjoys charitable status in common with the religious groups mentioned by the aforementioned valued member. Our robust engagement in vigorous debate on many important matters now stretches back some way, and I'm sure we both understand where each other is 'coming from' even if nobody else here does.

You may well be able to get a full list of UK charitable organisations from other sources, but I very much regret I do not have that full list in my immediate possession. I suggest the popular Google search engine might be a good place to start if you wish to pursue this particular matter further.

Thanking you for your enquiry ..

[BetweenTheStaves]

I have been refraining from commenting for several days now as my feelings regarding this thread have gone from optimism to profound depression. Optimism that it should be raised in the first place and pessimism when I see the negative and rather pointless nitpicking by AHinton of Lat's suggestions. (Incidentally Lat, my apologies for an earlier outburst towards you on another thread). The constant carping from the same leftwing groupies and yet they offer nothing positive as an alternative...for the most part. Then there are the two line posts on 'fascist councils'. What's that all about? How does that contribute to trying to discuss solutions to the mess that we are in?

How did religion get in? And how did we get into a snide dig at the number of Lords from the CofE? What has that got to do with trying to help and change things for the kids in the inner cities (although I'd say 'all kids' that are in trouble or need help).

Simon posits a list of ten items. There are some good responses but how does 'I don't like 2,4,5' etc without any rationale or any alternatives help?

So lest I get hoisted by my own petard, here are a few of my own suggestions. It is very much carrot and stick. All intertwined so please, lefties, read it to the end before you start frothing at the mouth and hammering the keys.

I agree with many of the positive suggestions from Lat, 8thobstruction, Anna, Serial_A and Simon (except 8, 9 and 10 as I don't see what they have to do with the subject in hand).

My own proposals:

1) Prison stops being a soft option. No Xbox etc. Minimal TV. Privileges have to be earned. Basic grub only. Spend more money on trying to rehabilitate those who want (and can prove by results) that they want to change. If they are conning the system just for an easy life then next time they don't get the chance.

2) get rid of everyone on the Sentencing Guidelines Council. The current incumbents are so far out of touch with what's been happening and their sentencing policy has contributed much to the lack of respect for law and order

3) Beef up community service and make it more visible. Offenders have to wear a jacket saying 'Offender'. Tough if it is against their human rights. They forfeited those when they mugged or raped that old lady.

4) Get rid of anonymity in courts.

5) get rid of ASBO's and replace with (3). ASBO's seen as a badge of honour.

6) Free issue drugs. Decriminalise drugs. You are not going to stop those who want to take drugs from doing so. Nor do I believe that by free issuing drugs that the nation is suddenly going to become drug-riddled. That at a stroke will take the rug from under the feet of the gangs. What have they got to fight over? With the money saved by insurance companies on not having to pay out for thefts, muggings and the saving on the NHS, plough that back into more rehab programmes

7) Ban No-win-no-fee legal cases. Ban solicitors and lawyers from advertising. That will stop all those silly claims and help people start to take responsibility for their own actions. Tripped over a kerbstone? Well, you should have been looking where you were going.

There are a few more lurking but these will do for starters.

Sensible alternatives invited. Cant and rhetoric definitely not.

[Ariosto]

6) Free issue drugs. Decriminalise drugs. You are not going to stop those who want to take drugs from doing so. Nor do I believe that by free issuing drugs that the nation is suddenly going to become drug-riddled. That at a stroke will take the rug from under the feet of the gangs. What have they got to fight over? With the money saved by insurance companies on not having to pay out for thefts, muggings and the saving on the NHS, plough that back into more rehab programmes

7) Ban No-win-no-fee legal cases. Ban solicitors and lawyers from advertising. That will stop all those silly claims and help people start to take responsibility for their own actions. Tripped over a kerbstone? Well, you should have been looking where you were going.

I don't expect you will see this as your are in passover mode.

Now you have had your little rant I would say thatI would agree with Nos 6 and 7, although I don't see that you can stop solicitors from advertising, unless you mean advertising No win, then yes, I think that should be possible if its banned anyway.

So No 7 does not make a lot of sense as you have stated it, but I daresay you were foaming at the mouth a bit when you wrote it.

Anyway, I'm going to passover everyone's posts from about two hours time as I'm rioting in Aldeburg soon. (Joke in case you can't see it, and read between the lines and not just between the staves ...)