Financially as well as Morally bankrupt

It happened. Of course it would, every extremist organisation is eventually sunk by its own cock-ups. Every organisation that sets itself up as a moralising force of zealotsis eventually found wanting. Just look to the American Evengelical preacher who was found taking crystal meth and sleeping with male prostitutes.

I am, of course, talking about the United Kingdom Independence Party, who have suffered not one but two revelations about their finances.

The first was some two or three days ago, when it was revealed that the electoral commission was ordering them to pay back the £360,000 they received from a man who was not on the electoral register. A little legal point here, in order to legally donate money to a political party, you need to be on the electoral register and if a party accepts money from someone who isn't, they have to give it all to HM Treasury. This is what is happening to UKIP.

Of course, they claim that they're being victimised. Pity the poor euroskeptic fools, the government is victimising them by making them obey the law. Of course, the Government has had its own fair share of alleged dodgy deals (just ask Lord Levy), and the idiots in UKIP are using this to try and excuse their own behaviour. Well, yes, the government should be investigated, but whether or not they sold cash for peerages doesn't excuse UKIP's breach of legal requirements.

The second was a revalation regarding emezzlement of EU funds. It turns out that a UKIP MEP, one Tom Wise, stole £40,000 or so into his own private account, claiming that he was paying one of his staff members. Of course, the fact that his party is opposed to the EU "gravy train" didn't hinder him in his efforts. Oh no.

But this is not the only way in which UKIP takes advantage of the EU funds that they are so opposed to. EU rules forbid party workers from being paid with taxpayers money. So what does UKIP do? It hires party workers as "advisers" or "assistants" to its MEPs, allowing them to draw salaries of up to £40,000. Corrupt? I think so.

And one final point on the electoral commission's ruling. One woudl think that UKIP would be proud that, after spending money on things detrimental to the UK (namely their existance and electoral campaign), their funds were instead going to go to the Treasury, from where they can be used to pay for schools and hospitals and other things that are actually beneficial to the United Kingdom.

A Terrible Culture

Ignore the rest of the blog in the link I'm about to give you (unless you happen to like explicit stuff). Actually, this article is fairly brutal, so if you're easily sickened, you might want to skip this one.

But first, some background. The author of the blog in this link has written about his many sexual conquests in China, much to the outrage of the Chinese morality police. He's received hostile e-mails and death-threats and was recently driven from the web, probably fearing for his own personal safety. I think he makes an excellent point.

http://chinabounder.blogspot.com/2007/02/new-girl.html

The moral? Make sure you apply your moral outrage proportionally and reasonably.

Acts of Journalism (IV)

The Price of Standing By

Among the more ridiculous pronouncements of the far-right is this one (courtesy of www.ukip.org):

“Our forces are not world policemen or international social workers.”

In 1994, 800,000 to 1,071,000 innocent people were slaughtered in an African nation while the West did nothing. No, that’s not true, weapons from France and the UK firm Mil-Tec supplied weapons to those carrying to the massacre. The country was Rwanda, and the massacre has become known as one of the most terrible genocides of the late Twentieth Century.
And now it looks set to happen all over again. Despite continued pleas from aid agencies, news organisations and various human rights groups, the killing in Darfur, Sudan continues. Now, this calculated slaughter of innocents (ridiculously called a “conflict” by some) is spreading to neighbouring Chad and the Central African Republic.

The UN is doing little, if anything. True, Kofi Annan has appealed to both sides to stop, and a mission is being contemplated, but while the situation is debated in the UN Security Council or the General Assembly, people are dying.

One would think that the US and UK, two nations who purport to be in favour of intervening in other nations for humanitarian reasons (known as “The Blair Doctrine”), would bypass the UN, as they did in Iraq, and save the people of Darfur. One would be wrong.
The far-right will claim that it’s not our problem. It doesn’t involve British interests and therefore we have no cause to act. However, this is both selfish and negligent. If you see a person being attacked in the street, do you shrug your shoulders and walk on by, ignoring the plight of your fellow man? Or do you step in?

It is extraordinarily callous of the far-right to say that these people do not deserve our help. Back in 1994, the West’s inaction condemned hundreds of thousands of innocent people to death. In saying that we should not help these people, we imply, at best, that we do not care whether or not they live or die, and at worst, that they deserve to die.The Monroe Doctrine of inaction, has no place in the modern world. A world that is interdependent. A world in which human rights exist. If we have the power to stop genocide, then we must act. We cannot pay the price of another Rwanda.

Acts of Journalism (Part III)

Why Test?

A-Levels, AS Levels, GCSE, SATs, IB, Internal Examinations – all part of normal school life, but at some point you’ve got to ask: What’s it all for? Especially when hacks in politics and the media are saying they’re worthless and Universities are saying that they’re not useful for admissions.

The truth is, schools are obsessed with results, the mere existence of a league table makes schools want to climb it. This is one of the many reasons why testing, particularly over-testing, is a bad thing.

The desire to climb the league tables puts pressure on both the teachers and, more importantly, the pupils. Everything is directed towards the exams in the last three years of school. It’s understandable – not only do these exams contribute to the school’s coveted league table position, but for the pupils, everything turns on these exams, their future rests on their ability to fulfil some very narrow criteria on a couple of days in the summer.

It is bizarre that exams taken in late adolescence define the scope of your life for decades. It would be risible if it were not so serious. For, while it may be hard for the intelligentsia at Dulwich College to imagine, there are many for whom failure at GCSE is a very real possibility, and for these people, there is little hope of respite from the life of drudgery to which they are doomed. The consequences of such a failure could be, and in many cases, is catastrophic.

However, for those who do pass, even for those who pass with flying colours, there is little benefit. The formulaic nature of these exams and the strict criteria which one must fulfil are so dogmatic as to render the educational benefit of the examinations system nil. Lessons are no longer about learning, they are about jumping through hoops while the ringmaster of the examinations circus cracks his whip. Schools are no longer produce educated people, but parrots and trained monkeys.

The problem with exams is not their supposed ‘easiness’, as the hacks would have us believe, but their sheer lack of value. Students are unable to explore subjects in depth, only what is needed is taught as the deadline of the examinations season approaches. Exams, far from helping, have failed schoolchildren on a catastrophic level.

Acts of Journalism (Part II)

Is It Still The Silly Season?

The summer months, when Parliament breaks up for its summer recess, are called the “Silly Season”. It is a time for the media, and people in general, to do silly things in the absence of serious matters. After Silly Season comes the Conference Season, there the major political parties, and the smaller ones, have their conferences.
This season was particularly interesting, with the two main opposition parties having the first speeches from their new leaders, and even Labour had a speech from heir-apparent Gordon Brown. But they were not the only leaders giving speeches, for UKIP has a new leader, Nigel Farage. And Nigel Farage spoke to the UKIP conference for the first time as Leader. Listening to his speech, one would think it was still the Silly Season.
It was a speech of populist sentiments. It was designed to stir the hearts of the aging UKIP membership, who yearn for “the good old days” (whenever they were) and gain new voters by making them sound reasonable. The trouble with populism is that it is not practical, a lesson which Mr. Farage is yet to have learnt.
The thing that looms largest about UKIP is their anti-EU sentiment. They detest the EU, they see it as the source of all our troubles, they see it as subjugating the British people, as bringing dirty hordes of horrible foreigners to our shores (a terrible thing in the view of Mr. Farage). As the epitome of the Little England mentality, they don’t like foreigners, never mind the fact that the NHS (an institution which they support) needs these people to function. Never mind the fact that they provide this country with vital services at affordable prices, leaving people with more money (another thing that UKIP like). What services? Well, how about the Polish builders that renovated former UKIP leader Roger Knapman’s home, the builders that could only work there thanks to an EU treaty?
While I’m on the subject of money, the UKIP tax policy makes for interesting reading. First of all, he wants to impose a flat tax of 33%. In his populist manner, he passes it off as a “tax cut”. Well, considering that the lowest rate of tax in this country is 10%, the basic rate 22%, this is hardly a “cut”. What it is, is a break for the richest in our society, and a tax increase for the poorest. In fact, under Farage’s tax system, everyone earning between £14,585 and £75,657 will pay more tax under Farage. So much for three quarters of the population paying less tax. Among those hardest hit by Farage’s tax plan will be young families and junior professionals, some of those that can least afford it. Good choice, Mr. Farage.
Mr. Farage’s main claim, though, was that his party had the support of “the majority” of British people, that most people supported his ridiculous EU policy, and his punitive taxation scheme. I have one question for Mr. Farage:

If the majority of the British people support you, why aren’t you in office yet?
[Originally published in the DC Voice]

Acts of Journalism

A School, Not a Sports Club

It cannot have escaped your notice that, at Dulwich College, sporting achievement is greatly praised. A whole magazine, the Sporting Alleynian, is devoted to sport (nothing else has this honour). Assemblies, particularly end of term ones, are filled with reports on how our sporting teams have fared recently (this being the majority of those assemblies). And, with perhaps one or two exceptions (and I stress: perhaps), our School Captain is a boy of great sporting prowess.

I do not mean to say that sportsmen are bad people, or that I do not respect them; they are good at something and work hard at it. Nor do I mean to say that Games lessons are unimportant; in the age of the expanding waistline, physical fitness is very important. However, Dulwich College is a school, an academic institution – it is not a sports club.

As an academic institution, its primary role is to educate. Everything else must be secondary to this. Sport, while worthwhile, should not come before lessons and sporting achievement should not come before academic achievement.

The reason for the first is due to the school’s role as a place of education. Sports must not be a reason for missing academic lessons. Scholarships should not be handed out for the sole purpose of strengthening our 1st XI, nor should places be offered for this reason. The money spent here should be spent recognising academic achievement and furthering the teaching potential of the College.

The reason for the second is one of messages. Much time and praise is given to sporting achievement, more so, in my opinion, than to academic achievement. This sends out the message to students that, at Dulwich College, sport is more important than academics. Here, at a school, where academic achievement ought to be, must be, held in the highest regard, sport is seen by many as the most important thing. This creates the impression that if someone isn’t good at sport, they are inferior to those that are. In a world already prejudiced in this way, the school is feeding this prejudice, a prejudice that any school should be stamping out. This is not idle speculation, this is fact, I have seen it.

My conclusion is this: academics, at school, must come first in all things; sport must be no more than an extra-curricular activity.

[Originally published in the DC Voice]