Results, exams and hoops.

They're all out now, A-level and GCSE results have been distributed, celebrated (and in some cases mourned) and they have, of course, been criticised by the Don't-make-em-like-they-used-to never-have-happened-in-my-day Brigade in the media and politics.

I find it insulting to the effort that I and my fellow students put in to get these results that these people claim that "standards are slipping" and that the exams are "too easy". Ladies and Gentlemen, they're not, and I challenge any one of those who claim that they are to sit them in the next exam season and get the top grade. People put real effort into these exams, and then they are told that they are worth nothing, that all that effort is pointless because they are "too easy". It's enough to make you not want to bother.

Now, that's not to say the exam system is perfect, it isn't. Not because it's too easy, but because it's too rigid. There are set criteria, things you have to write in order to get certain marks. Because of this, they mean that people can't show off, that they can't show how brilliant they really are because if they don't fulfil the criteria written on the examiner's mark scheme, it doesn't matter how clever or how brilliant they are.

What the education system is supposed to be about is education, instead it's about teaching people stock answers to standard questions. What we need an education system that educates people, that teaches them to think for themselves. What we have is an education system designed to make pupils jump through hoops.

And how did I do? 9A*s, 2As and an A in Additional Maths (the highest grade, as it's not actually a GCSE). And I'll be damned if anyone's going to tell me that GCSEs or any other exam is "too easy".

A Sad Day for Cricket

On Sunday, Chaos gripped the Oval. The Pakistan team, having been accused of ball tampering (a form of cheating), refused to come out of their changing room after the tea break. When they eventually came out, the Umpires Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove refused to come out of their changing room, having decided that, by refusing to play, Pakistan had forfeited the match. The ICC have backed the Umpires, England were awarded the Test Match (winning the series 3-0) and the Pakistani Captain, Inzamam-ul-Haq has been accused of bringing the game into disrepute.

Cricket is a very English game. It encapsulates typical English values like fair play. It is also very English in the sense that you must play by the rules or you don't play at all. The truth is that
the Umpires were perfectly within their rights to award England 5 runs when they thought that ball tampering had occured and they were following the Laws of Cricket when they decided to award the match to England.

This dogmatic aproach to following the Laws is bad for cricket. The unwillingness to bend the rules after a deal had been reached by the English and Pakistani cricket boards meant that not only was Pakistan's honour insulted (a grave thing in their culture), leading to the current crisis, but the fans were disappointed, and the primary goal of every sport should be to entertain the fans.

So yes, we need rules for every game, and yes they should be followed, but if bending the rules keeps the game going with no real harm to anyone, then they should be bent.

Lords Reform

Some of you may have noticed the image on my sidebar. It's the huge one under the "Save Parliament" one. It says "Elect the Lords". It's a campaign supported by Charter 88 (www.charter88.org.uk) and, if it is successful, will result in a massive Constitutional change for the UK.

For those who do not know, the House of Lords is the Upper House of the British Parliament. It used to be very powerful. It was able to block Government legislation, introduce its own and basically do everything the House of Commons could, except take part in the formation of a Government (although the Priem Minister could be a Lord, until Douglas-Holme). After Asquith's "People's Budget" ws rejected, Asquith, in 1911, passed the Parliament Act limiting the power of the Lords. The Lords could no longer block legislation, only delay it. The basis for this was that the Lords were not democratically elected and therefore had no right ot interfere with the business of the people's representatives. However, the preamble to that act said, among other things, this:

"And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation"

That was 95 years ago (for the exact period of time, see thign on sidebar).

I believe that now, it can be put into operation.

We need two things to funciton as a proper Democracy:

1. An upper house with the power to place checks and balances on the Government and review legislation.

2. We need an elected upper house, so that it has the mandate and the right to do this.

In order for this to be the case, we need to scrap the House of Lords and replace it with a democratically elected institution.

Now, there will have to be laws governing this and here is my suggestion:

1. The upper house is elected by proportional representation on a fixed term basis. This is to ensure that it represents the will of the whole people, but also to ensure that we don't just get a carbon copy of the House of Commons, which would be no good when it came to reviewing legislation.

2. The upper house cannot take part in the forming of a Government, nor can it block the great financial bills (these being very important). This is also to preserve the seniority of the House of Commons.

The Parliament Act of 1911 was only ever supposed to be temporary, as the preamble suggests. It is time we got an elected upper house that can actually do its job. For more information about the Elect The Lords campaign, go to www.electthelords.org.uk .

It's time we got some more democracy in this country.

Policy of Appeasment

Today, I saw a book. This book, in fact:

Just in case you can't see what it says, I'l write it here in slightly larger font:

MICHAEL GOVE

CELSIUS 7/7

How the West's policy of appeasement has provoked yet more fundamentalist terror - and what has to be done now.

Right then. Michael Gove is, in fact, Michael Gove MP, Conservative Member for Surrey Heath and Shadow Minister for Housing. Here is his website: http://www.michaelgove.com/index.php.

I would now like to talk about the front of this book. Particularly 5 words on it, specifically these words: "The West's Policy of Appeasement". I would like to know exactly what Mr. Gove thinks appeasement is.

Is this "appeasement"? Is 40094 Iraqi civilians dead "appeasement?" If Mr. Gove considers these thing to be "appeasement", I shudder to think at what he means by "What has to be done now". Could it be this, perhaps:

Constitutional Crisis?

Firstly, let me say this: The United Kingdom has a Constitution. However much people say that we don't, we do. Part of this constitution is contained in Magna Carta. Now, we've all heard of Magna Carta, and those of us that live in England have all been told about it in our history lessons, but here is an interesting fact:

Magna Carta is still law.


Yes, after all these centuries, the original Constitution is still, technically, in force. Now, what does this mean, and why am I bringing it up now? Well, contained within Magna Carta is a very important article. Article 39 states (in translation) that:

"No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised [deprived of property] or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."

This is key. At this point in time, we are all "freemen". However, due to the ignorance of Magna Carta, this article, which guarantees our right not to be imprisoned without trial, is being ignored by Her Majesty's Government.

In their various rushed-through, quasi-totalitarian anti-terror legislation, the Labour Government have made provisions for people to be imprisoned without trial. To me, this seems unconstitutional. In fact, this is unconstitutional.

It isn't the first breach (or attempted breach) of the Constitution that Labour has made. Their "Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill" nearly destroyed Democracy in this country (see the "Save Parliament" button on the sidebar for more details). What surprises me is that very few people noticed, or even cared. However, while that may be a breach of Constitutional Convention, this is a breach of codified law. As such, can someone with legal knowledge tell me whether we can take her Majesty's Government to court for breaching the Constitution?