Prayers At Council Meetings? I Pray Not!

 Politics, Religion  No Responses »
Feb 192012
 

To be honest I don’t pray to any gods – I don’t feel the need to speak to imaginary friends.

In a recent court case, an atheistic ex-councellor and the National Secular Society won a court ruling that a local council was wrong to put prayers on the official meetings agenda. Not because anyone’s human rights were being abused, but because the council was not empowered to do so under an interpretation of the old law governing local councils which explicitly prohibits that which is not explicitly permitted.

Given that this law is currently being revised to give far greater powers to local councils, the brouhaha that has exploded from the moral minority (I’m thinking of Eric Pickles) ever since is really rather uncalled for. This ruling (unless someone interferes) is a really rather temporary victory.

But without considering the legal position, it is time to consider whether it is really appropriate to have public prayers to begin a council meeting. One councillor interviewed about this situation said that her council brought back public praying as a way of bringing the council members together. Undoubtedly it works for those who believe in a certain god.

But what might be easily overlooked is that it is also a very good way of excluding those who don’t believe in that god – atheists or people with a different religion. Whilst this country has a christian past, there is no reason for going out of your way to making others feel uncomfortable. Even if the others are in a minority, or even especially because they are a minority.

After all praying out loud before a council meeting is totally unnecessary.

There is no trouble with having a minute of quiet contemplation where those who choose to do so can talk with their imaginary friends silently if they choose to do so.

 

The Government’s “Anti-Business” Bias …

 Politics  No Responses »
Feb 062012
 

If you read certain articles, you might believe that the current UK government is anti-business. The Tories ? Anti-business ? That is simply preposterous – the Tories would never let the government be anti-business. They are after all in politics to help their business buddies.

What certain bankers don’t understand is that there is a certain level of anti-banking here – which is not anti-business. Banks are merely a subset of business, and given that many banks are “too large to fail” comprise a rather special category of business that is not very business-like.

And the government is not really anti-bank at all, but anti-preposterous banking bonuses. Banking bonuses seem to have risen out of proportion to the value that people add to a bank. As mentioned before, no person is wholly responsible for the success or failure of a bank – a CEO may come up with a great plan, but his or her underlings have to carry out that plan. And the success of the CEO is dependent on how effectively his or her plan is carried out.

Personally I do not have a problem with bankers earning millions in bonuses (and I’m very unlikely to ever get such a bonus), providing that :-

  1. They are properly taxed.
  2. They are proportional to the bonuses given to every other employee in the firm.

It is interesting to see that the bosses of National Rail have voluntarily given up their bonuses into a fund for improving the safety of railway crossings. Whilst there was some pressure about the potential size of their bonuses, it was nowhere near as much as that received by the banking bosses, and they gave up their bonuses a lot quicker – nice to see that some business leaders see that their bonuses may be a little excessive after all, rather than whinging about how the government is “anti-business”.

ICT To Include Programming! At Last!

 Computing, Politics  No Responses »
Jan 112012
 

According to the BBC it has been announced that the current curriculum for computer training (ICT) in schools is to be torn up and replaced. And curiously enough the new curriculum is to include programming to a certain extent – as people have been urging for decades.

The first programming language intended for use by children was the Logo programming language first developed in 1967. So it is not as if this is a new idea.

To many of us, the most interesting aspect of computers is not that they allow us to use applications such as word processors, web browsers, and the like – all very useful tools that I would not want to give up – but that they can be controlled by programming. This could be as low-level as writing a device driver in C, or could be using some application macro language to automate a tedious task.

It is perhaps an over simplification to say so, but to a certain extent programming is that last bit – automating tedious tasks. Computers are good at tedious tasks; humans are not. We should be “teaching” computers to perform tedious tasks for us, and that is called programming.

Programming can of course get rather tricky particularly the lower the level you are getting to, but it can also be quite easy with an interactive language with more or less immediate results. For instance the old BASIC :-

10 for i = 1 to 80
20 print "Hello"
30 next i

Can be quickly typed in and then run gives an immediate result – the computer “says” hello to you. A simple example that can be typed in quickly, modified to give a more personal result … or enhanced to give different and slightly more interesting results. The immediacy is important to hook people in and interest them in programming.

And programming is not just useful for those who want to become programmers. Someone who has been introduced to programming may well be better able to :-

  1. Better specify to an IT department what they need, or the error they’re encountering. This will save time and money.
  2. Better appreciate what is and what is not possible.
  3. Be capable of automating computing tasks themselves – not quite programming, but very similar.

John Terry’s Potentially Risible Penalty for Racism

 Politics  No Responses »
Dec 232011
 

In the news this week was the announcement that the Crown Prosecution Service will prosecute John Terry (apparently a famous footballer) for an allegedly racist verbal assault during a football game. Now I have no idea whether the alleged offence took place, whether John Terry is or is not the kind of person to make such remarks, or much idea on what football is.

What prodded me into thought was the potential fine he faces for his offence – as much as £2500. That’s quite a bit of money for me – certainly I’d think twice about doing something that might cost me that much. And there are those for whom such a such is much more significant. Yet for John Terry, such a sum is risible – according to one report, it is about the amount of money that he earns in an hour!

This is not the place to go into the ridiculously high salaries that some footballers earn for an activity whilst it brings enjoyment to some, is really just kicking a ball around. But to point out that the variation that a particular fine means to different people on different incomes, effectively means our criminal justice system punishes the poor rather more heavily than it punishes the rich.

Fines should be a proportion of our daily income – a racist remark should cost us 30-days worth of income whether that means 30-days worth of income support, of 30-days worth of John Terry’s salary. Similarly for other fines.

Is The Aidan Burley Sacking Going Too Far ?

 Politics  No Responses »
Dec 182011
 

Now as you may have guessed by now, I’m hardly the Tories biggest fan; on hearing the news this morning of a Tory getting caught doing something embarrassing, I couldn’t help but give a nasty smirk. It is always a bright start to the day when the Tory party is caught out demonstrating beyond any shadow of a doubt that they are the party of the über-rich which only gives lip-service to the middle-classes and has nothing but contempt for the working-class.

And running around dressed up as a member of the Nazi party is no joke – which is why certain foolish young people do it of course. Running around offending the sensibilities of their parent’s and grandparent’s generations is one of the all but irresistible pleasures of youth. These things go too far sometimes – it’s all very well running through the centre of a town naked, but dressing up as a member of the Nazi party is a step too far.

But Aidan was merely at a party where the offensive actions took place – he didn’t himself dress up as a Nazi, and it is not claimed that he did anything offensive himself. If you lined up all of the people who have ever been at a party where someone has done something incredibly foolish and offensive, then not many of us would not be lined up – and one suspects that most MPs would be in the queue trying to look inconspicuous.

 

 Older Entries  Newer Entries