Archive | Politics RSS feed for this section

Hume & justice… Fair?

11 Aug

Chris Hume has found a job since leaving prison. A nice job reported at £100,000 per year for two days a week work (Telegraph). Whilst this job as an energy executive, it must be remembered that his political is over with no second chance according to almost all political commentators. So a new line of work was needed and Hume found one, in his area of expertise (being a former energy secretary).

Well done Mr Hume, who has succeeded in doing what many ex-prisoners struggle to do upon leaving prison: finding a job. In addition, considering his political background the job has been cleared by the Advisory Commission on Business Appointments, which advises the Prime Minister on new jobs for former ministers. So why are people in such uproar about this new job?

It is envy at the impressive salary for only two days work? Possibly but surely we should be both congratulating Mr Hume on finding work and not heading down the normal ex-con unemployment route. Also asking the question of why Hume is the exception rather than the norm.

When we, as a country, place our faith in restorative justice we should celebrate this success story of when restorative justice works. Are we envious that a man, out of prison, has found a good job? Hume has done his time, paid his dues to society and now in restoring himself as a valued member of society. A success story of restorative justice… If we want to complain, why not complain about why other ex-prisoners do not get jobs and thus hopefully seal their full returned back into society.

Advertisements

Miliband mansion, or is it a house?

21 Feb

Ed Miliband's Home

Did you know Ed Miliband lives in a London mansion worth £1.9 million? Actually, it’s more of a sturdy Victorian family house, but “mansion” is Miliband’s preferred word. Because we all know that only evil millionaires live in mansions, except when they are lived in by leaders of the Labour Party. Then they’re called “terraced house”.

If Ed and Justine decide to knock through their basement to create a playroom for the boys, they would push the value of their non-mansion over £2 million. It would then be eligible for Labour’s threatened mansion tax and the Miliband’s would have to pay at least £20,000 a year. That would serve them right for improving their house and giving lots of money to builders, paint manufacturers and makers of patio doors and family-friendly sofas and all those small firms that really, really need the business, even if it comes from evil millionaires or leaders of the Labour Party.

Nasty people for improving their house, investing in the local economy and doing well for themselves.

End of Adultery and more now?

2 Feb

A section of a blog from the Telegraph website  which I think is very pertinent to this issue, and adds to what I have earlier blogged:

The drafters have belatedly realised that, since there is no procreative act which defines homosexual behaviour, there can be no consummation, or non-consummation, and no adultery. These will not, therefore, be grounds for gay divorce. If your gay husband offers you no nookie, or if he avails himself of large amounts of nookie elsewhere (or both), he gives you no legal cause to divorce him.

So what they have ended up offering, strangely enough, is a law of marriage with no sexual element whatever. This has never happened before (although there have been plenty of sexless marriages). There is nothing in Mr Cameron’s new law to say that same-sex marriages must be between homosexuals. If I were a bachelor, I could marry a straight male friend just to get whatever tax advantages, travel deals and insurance discounts might be going. Incestuous marriage remains forbidden, but I don’t see why, in Mr Cameron’s vision of same-sex marriage, a mother could not marry her daughter or a sister her sister or a father his son. No sexual act is expected of them and even if – distressing thought – it did take place, it could have no genetic consequences. Why should such pairs not just agree that they fancy the married couple’s exemption from inheritance tax, and hurry down the aisle? How long before a same-sex, keep-it-in-the-family couple tries to make a fight of it, and wins a case against the British Government at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)?

Politics, Life and Theology

The current legislation around making gay marriage has popped out  a surprise – gay couples who are married under the new law will not be able to divorce on grounds of adultery, likewise having a gay  marriage annulled on grounds of non-consummation. Partners in same sex unions will instead have to divorce unfaithful partners on the grounds of “unreasonable behaviour”, as is currently the case with civil partnerships.

This developments seems to down to Government legal experts who failed to agree what constitutes “sex” between people of the same gender. Therefore the distinction created inequality between heterosexual and homosexual couples in the divorce courts.

Jonathan West, the head of family and marriage law at Prolegal, said: “In my view it is discriminatory. The test for discrimination is whether one section of society is treated differently from another. They are being treated differently.

It means that people in a same-sex marriages who discover that their spouse is unfaithful…

View original post 136 more words

Link

10 Reasons Why The Government is Wrong To Redefine Marriage

29 Jan
Houses of Parliament, London, England

Houses of Parliament, London, England (Photo credit: ** Lucky Cavey **)

 

10 Reasons Why The Government is Wrong To Redefine Marriage

 

The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill has had its first reading and due for its second reading on the 5th Feb (you can follow the progress here).

 

Both the Conservative and Labour party are allowing a free vote, so this means each MPs can vote as their conscience lead them. Part of this will include listening to the voices of their constituents.

 

Therefore this is a great time to contact your MPs (again if you have done so before) and express your views on the matter. Personally, the whole legislation concerns me which is why I have signed the Coalition for Marriage’s petition. You can find out who your MPs is and how to contact them here.

 

For is now becoming clear that Christian teachers with traditional views will have no protection from dismissal if they feel unable to promote the new norms. Many implications of the legislation will only become clear after the courts have become involved, but it is most likely that the assurances being offered will not hold, at least once the European Court becomes involved.

 

End of Adultery?

27 Jan
Christ and the Woman Taken in Adultery

Christ and the Woman Taken in Adultery (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The current legislation around making gay marriage has popped out  a surprise – gay couples who are married under the new law will not be able to divorce on grounds of adultery, likewise having a gay  marriage annulled on grounds of non-consummation. Partners in same sex unions will instead have to divorce unfaithful partners on the grounds of “unreasonable behaviour”, as is currently the case with civil partnerships.

This developments seems to down to Government legal experts who failed to agree what constitutes “sex” between people of the same gender. Therefore the distinction created inequality between heterosexual and homosexual couples in the divorce courts.

Jonathan West, the head of family and marriage law at Prolegal, said: “In my view it is discriminatory. The test for discrimination is whether one section of society is treated differently from another. They are being treated differently.

It means that people in a same-sex marriages who discover that their spouse is unfaithful to them would not be able to divorce for adultery – unless it was with someone of the opposite sex. Equally, it makes clear that straight people cannot accuse their partner of adultery if they discover they had a secret lover of the same sex. It could also ultimately lead to the abolishment of adultery in law under the basis of equality – fundamentally changing marriage law.

Some have claimed, if passed, this will open up a “Pandora’s box”. Likewise civil partnership will still be the exclusive right of gay couples, something Peter Tatchell calls, “flawed and wrong” and a “discrimination against straight couples”.

What a mess…

Why Cameron cannot have a Referendum in this Parliament

23 Jan
Twickenham United Kingdom

Twickenham United Kingdom (Photo credit: @Doug88888)

Unless you have been hiding under a rock, you can not of missed it. Today David Cameron promised an In or Out referendum on our membership of the EU. This is promised by the end of 2017 at the latest, 5 years, but there is one condition. The Conservatives must win the next general election. I assume this is a clear majority, not a coalition as we have now. For the situation now is why we have to wait so long for this promised referendum.

2017 does sound a way off but lets quick look at the context. The current parliament was elected in 2010, and with the introduction of the  Fixed-term Parliament Act 2011 mandate that the election will be held on 7 May 2015 (except in the event of a collapse of the coalition or a two-thirds majority of MPs voting for an early election). So now the end of 2017 from the next general election is only 2 and half years (longest wait situation).  If we look at last referendum in the UK, the Alternative Vote in 2011, the journey from presentation before the House of Commons and people voting roughly one year, with the legislative process taking 7 months. If we use this time frame as a guide, that gives Cameron upto one and half years space to work. One and half years to write, plan and consult.

Returning to the topic at hand, this can not happen in this parliament. The Conservative Party is generally eurosceptic, whilst the Liberal Democrats are europhile. In addition, Labour and the Liberal Democrats do not support or see the need to hold a referendum on the EU, as they believe it is a good thing. With both parties together holding a majority, the required legislation to carry out the referendum would never pass in the house. You need to pass a bill to hold a referendum and Nick Clegg would order his troops to vote against it, in spite of the manifesto promises made at the last election by the Liberal Democrats.

So unless there is a position reversal by Labour (unlikely) or the Liberal Democrats (and pigs may fly…), it would fail before it even started. Therefore we can not have a referendum vote on our EU membership in this parliament.

Video

Cornel West Explains Why It Bothers Him That Obama Will Be Taking The Oath With Martin Lurther King’s Bible

23 Jan

The guy make look a little eccentric but his point is profound. The summary of his argument seems to be if you are going to use MLK’s bible, then you must follow his ethos.

West uses the term of the “prophetic voice” of MLK to speak to society, and challenge the evils of that society. West seems to feel that Obama is playing politics with this heritage, trying to claim something that isn’t his to claim.

To this point, I understand West’s point but Obama is a product of MLK’s campaign, the first black President could only come about through the cultural and societal changes MLK started. Obama has a claim on that tradition as much as any black person in the US.

However, West also feels that Obama is lack the core concepts of this camping that brought so much for Obama. Justice, proof and peace are the hallmarks, with West going to to list where Obama, in his first term as president, fails on this.

I will leave the political judgement up to you on Obama. But it does challenge, it does ask questions of the method of this second and third generation of any liberation campaign. Does the campaign evolve into the likeness of the established way?