Cllr. Gavin Ayling

Anyone who saw NewsNight tonight should know this:

What Nick Hynter (sorry if that’s a mispelling, I was roused to write this upon his final comment and there is also the spelling Hytner on the internet for the same chap)…

I’ll try again:

What Nick Hynter said — that’s what I believe.

If someone wants to say something objectionable, bigotted or wrong, that’s their choice and they should not be compelled to not say it by the law. Well said My Hytner/Hynter.

Oh, and as Shami Chakrabati has just been on - you’re wrong, wrong, wrong.

I’m sorry for the lack of posts both here and at the Cameron Leadership but I cannot find anything interesting to say!

Maybe I’ll be stirred by the religious hatred legislation (thought-crime legislation)…

You’ve seen him adding comments, and now he’s on the blog roll…

Welcome, Slinging Ink!!!!

I sort of semi-promised something to Leanne, but I want to just point your attention to this…

We may laugh and jeer at the bible-belt schools, but how bad is our science teaching: link.

Brown: The Scottish Raj

I think it is shocking that the supposedly left-wing media and Labour/Liberal Democrats continually say that those from ‘disadvantaged’ (a synonym for “poor”) social backgrounds would be excluded by academic selection. Why must it be the case that people from poor backgrounds are mentally less capable?

The mobility of people between classes (or wealth brackets these days) is a stark indicator that intelligence is not a simple average of the parent’s intellect. There’s no reason to write off the children of less academically able parents. But by declaring selection unfair on the poor Labour are claiming that these people have no natural ability.

It is also alleged that trust schools would “squeeze out” poorer or less able pupils.

Source: BBC

I also see lives which are shaped too much by wider social factors - where their parents come from; their ethnicity, income, gender or class.

Source

This is why self-improvement among the lower-income families was higher under the Tories and has been reducing since 1997 — Labour genuinely believes that the poor are less able while the Tories believe in allowing people to excel. Anyone who associates themselves with the anti-selection lobby and condones this attitude, should be ashamed.

A discussion at work the other day highlighted just how local, colloquialisms are. Twitten, for non-Sussex readers, is a small alleyway or path between properties.

A brief poll showed the following:

Your comments, I am sure, will expand on this… And I’d love to know what your equivalent word is.

… other than that he lied (which is probably more sad that he felt he had to than objectionable), it doesn’t matter.

And that’s all I’ll say on the matter.

And if you’re stuck for something different, how about these chocolates which pay me commission on sales?

It’s something I’ve seen other people do, and I thought I’d share it with you…

Someone found my site yesterday by searching for “nearly new clothing” and “duck’s arse hair cut photo”…

Bizarre!

A bizarre and amusing, but interesting, link: VHEMT.

Thanks John.

Scottish Raj

If you believe in democracy, which most people brought up under it do, then you must not be in favour of having a Prime Minister sitting in a Scottish constituency.

In fact, the vast majority of English people accept that the creation of a Scottish Parliament has caused imbalance within the UK. If you don’t, you probably need to read about and join the Campaign for an English Parliament.

If you have any gripe about any government policy in England and you want to see it reversed, modified or changed, there is absolutely no point debating that actual case, you should be more concerned about the system of government which gives a vote in the House of Commons to those who’s electorate will not be affected…

But this is the case at the moment. What would be worse about a Scottish-constituency Prime Minister is that he would be drawing up legislation and proposing new laws that won’t affect his constituents… He could even be a leader representing a party that failed to achieve a majority in England if Labour manages to win the next General Election.

And the bizarre thing is that none of this is open for debate. No-one is saying “The West Lothian question, yes that’s fair”.
No-one is saying, “Let’s allow a minority party to legislate for England without English involvement”. No-one, that is, except Labour MPs and those with a vested interest in denying England self-rule.

There are three solutions on the table:

English Votes (English MPs) on English Matters

This would still allow a minority party in England to be in government and would still involve a second House (unlike Scotland).

Regions

This is a EU-organised idea which would dilute England’s eurosceptic tendencies and has no basis in cultural ties except in Cornwall…

An English Parliament

This would work, does not need to be expensive like the Scottish disaster and would answer all the constitutional problems.

I would really welcome your comments if you can find a logical argument for the status quo!