Job Protection

I welcome last week's decision to allow academy schools to employ real, un-indoctrinated, people to teach. And of course there is now the inevitable response.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19076852

"An education expert has condemned a government decision to let academies in England hire unqualified teachers."

"Professor Chris Husbands, director of the Institute of Education at London University said the plan contradicted national and international evidence."

"There is simply no research evidence at all to suppose that lowering the bar and recruiting significant numbers of unqualified teachers will do anything other than lower standards."

However public schools already employ teachers who have not been through the indoctrination system and funnily enough these schools achieve better results.

As far as I can see Husbands comments are a blatant attempt to keep monopoly control of teaching so as to protect the pathetic, qualified, specimens from the rigour of being exposed as useless. I am sure he also wishes to make sure all teachers are indoctrinated in the correct socio-political views.

Poverty?

The Government along with the guilt trip organizations such as the Child Poverty Action group use relative poverty as a guide to child poverty in the UK.  The poverty line is set at 60% of average earnings.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18436795

Child poverty down as household income drops shouts the BBC.

The number of children living in poverty in the UK fell by 300,000 last year as household incomes dropped, official figures have revealed.

Only the innumerate, such as all the media, will be surprised that in a recession poverty decreases. Wages have dropped and more people are unemployed so the average wage has gone down but benefits haven't. Hey presto 300,000 less poor.

Are the new un-poor better off than they were? Were they even poor in the first place?

Business and borrowing

Watching question time and for the umpteenth time heard some muttering idiot (Caroline Lucas) claim growth was held back because businesses can't borrow money.

Good businesses rarely need to borrow money. A good business makes profits. A good business should raise money, when required, from it's shareholders. We have been through an aberrant period where business has raised money from banks rather than investors.

Many big companies sold their business premises and leased them back. How mad was that? Blowing your capital and increasing your overheads, the economics of the madhouse. They deserve to go broke.

We have done everything possible to run our businesses without debt. We do not have to pay interest to the banks. We don't care what the banks think of us. We are free.

Our only concern is should we be lending to the banks? Are they a safe place for our money? Years ago I saw a statistic, bearing in mind that 93% of statistics are invented, that said 90% of owner operated businesses had no borrowings and had savings in the bank. The only sane way to operate.

Racists? Only Us Whites - 2

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9253250/Rochdale-grooming-trial-Police-accused-of-failing-to-investigate-paedophile-gang-for-fear-of-appearing-racist.html

"This is an absolute scandal. They were petrified of being called racist and so reverted to the default of political correctness," she said.


Girl A told police that she had been raped and provided DNA evidence from her attacker, however the CPS twice decided not to prosecute him.

Her ordeal only ended when her teachers forced social workers to intervene after she fell pregnant and they became concerned by the number of Asian men picking her up from school.

Girl A said that in a six-hour interview she gave police details about her abusers and where the attacks took place. Crucially, too, she handed officers underwear that proved she had been raped by two men in a single attack.

When GMP did finally pass a file on Girls A's rape to the CPS the following year, a Crown lawyer decided not to charge anyone because he said she would not be a sufficiently credible witness to put before a jury. A second CPS lawyer backed that opinion.

As far as I am concerned everyone involved in this case is criminally culpable for the everything that happened since August 2008. The relevant people in Social Services, the Police and the CPS should be charged and tried. None should remain in their current or any other job in the public sector. Pour encourager les autres.

Racist? Only us whites.

Rochdale grooming

Nine men have been convicted of being part of a child sexual exploitation ring in Greater Manchester.

The men, from Rochdale and Oldham, "groomed" girls, some as young as 13.

Liverpool Crown Court heard the men plied their victims with drink and drugs so they could "pass them around" and use them for sex.

The case, involving Asian defendants and white victims, sparked protests by far-right groups but police insist the grooming was not "racially motivated".

If it is not racially motivated why don't "Asians" groom "Asian" girls?

And why is Asian a synonym for Pakistani?

Copyright sanity

Copyright sanity by the European Court of Justice. As I read it a small business playing music on the radio will no longer need to pay an annual fee to the multiple parasites claiming to need the money despite already having been paid by the BBC.

Just waiting to hear the bleating from the PRS et al.

Work for free

Confused I am.

One of the ways for a graduate to get ahead these days is to do an unpaid internship.  That is to be a dogsbody for a city institution, charity, or political organisation.

So good are the benefits of internships that the politicians are trying to make sure they are fairly allocated rather than being allocated by the old boys network or raffled for fundraising.

Clearly unpaid work is seen as a great way to start your career.

The Government has various schemes to get the unemployed into work which are basically internships for the oiks. So why are same bien pensant Gaurdanistas that want free access to internships opposed to work experience schemes for those further down the social ladder?

Work scheme benefit

Today the BBC reports:


Ministers have dropped the threat of sanctions for unemployed youngsters on a controversial work experience scheme.

I have to agree, no loss of benefits if people don't want to  complete a work experience scheme placement.

The right answer is simple. No dole, unemployment benefit for anyone, ever.

Bring in work fare.  Jobs for anyone unable to find one for themselves. No one should have to do work fare but no money for not working.

Not enough jobs for work fare?  There is always more than enough that needs doing.  Are the city streets clean? Are the country byways litter free with manicured grass verges and hand trimmed hedges?  If the worst comes to the worst 1 week a team can dig a football pitch size hole and the next week another team can fill it in again.

There is never a reason for an able bodied person being unemployed.

Minimum wage

 The cartoon says it all really.

Watching question time and they are arguing about youth unemployment.

Simples. Most 16-20 year olds aren't worth £3 an hour let alone the minimum wage. So I don't offer jobs to youngsters.

As it is we are working flat out and could use a few more pairs of productive hands. Trouble is most of the Yuff that wonder through the door are shoved straight back out again.

Elocution and education

I was listening to Radio 4 and caught a programme about failing primary schools.

About half the heads interviewed were unintelligible. How the hell can anyone expect to learn when the teachers and heads are unable to speak properly?

Fred the Shred and the Disgusting BBC

The only good thing I can say about bankers is they are better than banking regulators (and their political masters) so I have little regard for the likes of Fred Goodwin.

I was listening to the BBC this morning and to put it bluntly they got right up my nose.  The BBC seemed to support the idea that bankers bonuses should be repaid if the bank didn't actually make money in the long term. However this morning they were attacking the withdrawal of Sir Fred's knighthood.  But hang on, Fred got the knighthood as a cherry on his pension for services to banking and his bank didn't make a profit in the long term.

So Fred has been forced to repay his knightly bonus which seems to be exactly in line with BBC thinking.  Makes you wonder if all the great and the good at the Beeb who are expecting their honours in due course are worried by the precedent.