IdleTymes Blog

This issue that Gordon Brown’s got a bee in his bonnet about regarding strengthening our national identity is definitely something that needs to be addressed, but having our children swear allegiance to the Queen every morning?  I think not!

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti-royal – although I await with baited breath to see if the royals have the sense to put William on the throne whilst his gran is still alive to guide him – but I thought the idea was to have civic pride, to show a sense of belonging to one nation.  That being the case, shouldn’t the children be learning how to serve, protect and bring honour to their birth land?  This makes sense to me.  The average UK home is lacking in a sense of unity, in civic pride; you need look no further than the recent statement that certain members of our Armed Forces weren’t recommended to wear their uniform in public for evidence of this! 

In the United States school children pledge their allegiance not to their country's president, but rather their flag – and America has to be one of the most patriotic, flag waving countries in the world.  The American people may not always bring honour their flag, and occasionally heap a pile of disgrace onto what it stands for, but overall it’s a symbol of a country that most Americans love and respect.  They bow to it, sign with it, even run national treaure hunts around it! A national flag is a very simple symbol of a country and it’s something that any school could incorporate into their daily activities whilst teaching their students about what it means to be British and how as a nation we need to act in order to preserve the democratic rights we have.  There’s huge potential here for a subject that could take very little time but if taken in age appropriate stages could create informed school leavers who have  basic understanding of the UK and how its judicial and political systems work.  School leavers who know how their country works, and how they can make a difference to it.   

Pledge allegiance by all means, but just make sure it’s a pledge of loyalty and duty to the country, and not a monarch who doesn’t rule the country! 

Finally we have had progress with the website.Well I've totally finished the vet insurance pages

Share This

Should Iraqi asylum seekers who have been refused asylum be sent home?  Probably.  I don’t have a problem with the Government sending out a letter that says their case has been reviewed and as they are not being granted refugee status they must leave the UK or risk losing housing or the benefits that are helping them to buy a house.  However Sky news is reporting that this letter of rejection is also asking the asylum seekers to sign a waiver that they agree to the UK Government taking no responsibility for what happens to them once they return home.  Isn’t that the Government saying that these people are probably at risk going back to Iraq – and that being the case, isn’t that the Government saying that the there is a reason why these people are here?  In which case, why are they being sent back? 

The fact that the Government is willing to return people to Iraq knowing that they’re in danger once they do so is shocking (not surprising, but shocking), but the fact that they want to be absolved of any guilt or responsibility should something happen to these people is disgusting.   Someone needs to think seriously about the implications of what they’re doing, and if they are going to send back rejected asylum seekers, they need to do so with absolute certainty that these people are not in danger – because if they were in danger of persecution, then they ought to have been granted their asylum status. 

On a more positive note. This is what I'm going to change next the mole removal pages

Share This

Well not if it’s got any sense!  According to the BBC news website the National Trust is ready to “challenge new developments and intervene in planning inquiries, even if it is not directly involved with the land being targeted for development”. This is in response to Gordon Brown’s pledge of building 3 million new homes within the next 13 years. 

On one hand it could, and should, be argued that the UK has a housing shortage and too many people are in low quality housing or even living on the streets.  On the other hand, if we are already so short of houses, why are we continuing to allow such a high volume of immigrants into the country?  This isn’t about racism, or being pro-British, it’s merely commonsense!  We’re already over-populated and under-resourced.  There ought to be an annual quota that is able to be absorbed into our current social infrastructure rather than a seemingly endless flow of people into the country.  Has anyone in the government noticed that we’re living on an island with geographic limitations?  I know that we’re part of the EU, but that’s just paper and red tape, we’re not physically attached!

How much of this proposed housing will address the problems of those in need of low priced good quality homes, and how much of it is going to be priced above the wages of those who really need the homes?   I suspect there’ll be very little that will help the needs of Britain’s homeless!

Yes we need housing, but we need to look at creating a solution for those who desperately need it before implementing such a huge property building project, and we also need to ensure that legislation is passed to stop further overcrowding from an over abundance of immigrants making things worse than they already are.  Until then, the National Trust should continue to distrust and intervene in the government’s planning inquiries until the government is forced to look at the causes and solutions for the current housing crisis instead of fixing broken bones with Elastoplasts!

Share This

Did Demi Moore have a facial as it was reported recently, or was it extensive plastic surgery?  More to the point, do we care?  She looks fabulous.  She’s in better shape than most of the women half of her age in a town where “fake” is in, and “real” is something you want to forget. 

Unlike some women, Demi admits to being under the plastic surgeon’s knife.  So what?  In an industry where looks count more than public conduct, decency and common sense, she’s doing what she has to do to keep on top of her game – and that’s where she is, right on top! 

Demi’s got >  It doesn’t matter when it comes to the young starlets so why should it matter for a woman who’s already a star? 

Seems to me there are almost as many double standards as there are double DUIs in this industry!

Share This