A True Inspiration...

Like many across the world, I was deeply shocked and saddened at the news of Benazir Bhutto's assassination in Pakistan today. To hear of such an intelligent, strong, inspirational woman being ruthlessly murdered at the hands of such cowardly and very evil terrorist organisations has truly made me wonder whether or not the country is ready for democracy at all. It is obvious in my opinion that the countries upcoming presidential elections should be cancelled, and I genuinely hope that current President Pervez Musharraf will resume his position as General despite the wide spread critisicm he may face. Afterall pressure from America and Britain to step down his position as General of Pakistan's Army was largely done in support of Benazir Bhuttos campaign, and not I believe properly thought through.

I suppose the West have been nieve in thinking that Pakistan really could handle democracy, depsite the many assurances of Musharraf that it could not, just seeing the Presidents opposition to democratic elections as a political move to retain power over the country. But Pakistan is a country vastly unlike our own, it has existed independently for only 60 years and has little or no history of stable democracy comparible to our own. We have had centuries at perfecting democracy with much blood spent at its development and maintainence, and it is now so deeply weaved into our society and history that very few of us could imagine life without it, let alone conceive of its reforming or abolishing. Pakistan is a country not yet founded by independent historical foundation, there is nothing really to hold it together in terms of national ideology, every day Pakistans history is being written and consequently it is still open to new ideas and revoluntionary concepts, an environment in which extremists thrive. We being the West would like to think that one of these concepts could genuinly be democracy, and of course a successfully democratic Pakistan would be a truly wonderful thing, but we as a collective superpower have a duty to be realistic. Democracy as a whole has to be earned, it has to be wanted enough by a countries people to be implemented successfully and protected from those who would wish it ill. With regard to Afghanistan, this is a country which has had 260 years worth of independence, and the overall stability to sustain a successful democracy with the support of its people. It is largely a country divided by ethnicity, race, language, and tribe, but largely maintains peace through means of negotiation and compromise. Its communities are close and the once ruling extremist Taliban are slowly being defeated by Western and Afghan forces. It would seem that the people of Afghanistan are simple people that have had enough of war, they just want to support the side that can bring them peace the quickest, democratic or not. Strategically a democratically stable Afghanistan could improve the region in terms of security, and provide an all important model for the people of Pakistan and neighbouring Iran to aspire to.

It would seem from the point of view of most Westerners that the Pakistanis themselves are not doing enough to fight anti-democratic extremism. If there was, for example, an anti-democratic Christian terrorist organisation within Britain, who attacked political candidates with bombs and machine guns, they would be no doubt hounded out by vigilantes. Every man, woman, and child in Britain would be brought together by the powers that be, and encouraged to find and bring justice to such a group. We have already seen this is response to the rise of fascists in Britain, who in fact oppose our democracy altogether, and are subsequently hunted down by the press and members of the public to be exposed as the subversives that they are, even those who are not necessarily violent. The IRA however could not be seen in this light, as the IRA effectively operated outside of Britain, smuggling weapons and terrorists within our borders to specifically attack. They were also fighting for supposed freedom of the island of Ireland, not the destabilisation of British democracy. Pakistan has large numbers of seemingly uncontested terrorist organisations operating and attacking from within its borders, who essentially want Pakistan to submit to a regime similar to that of Taliban ruled Afghanistan, in which the country was ruled entirely by Islamic Sharia law.

With Benazir Bhutto gone, President Musharraf must reclaim his status as General in order to see Pakistan protected from the ever growing extremist threat. His declaring of Pakistan as being in a state of emergency only a few months ago was the type of action which proves he is willing and competent enough to prevent extremists taking control of the country. Should Musharraf ever step down or in turn be assassinated, Pakistan's nuclear capabilities could be entrusted to anyone, and we know from past experience that there are always worse people lurking in the background. Musharraf is no threat to the West, in fact i'm sure he admires our democratic structure as a society, and for any Western government to oppose decisions made by him from now on would be folly. If anything we should support a man who, although may not have been democratically elected, has the military strength and will to control the population of his country. It would seem that for now Pakistan must conform to its current state in order to survive.

Benazir Bhutto studied at Harvard and Oxford, and always maintained pro-western values throughout her presidency and 8 year exile. She was, in my eyes, a perfect candidate to share power with for Musharraf over the ruling of Pakistan, and a great personal inspiration. She often showed her support for pro-western values within the British Muslim community, readily appearing on programmes such as Question Time, Newsnight and BBC News 24, and had she have stayed in the United Kingdom could have taught our government a think or two about community cohesion. No doubt that her strength, pro-western values and intelligence, combined with Musharrafs power and military strength, might have given Pakistan a better chance in fighting extremism and paving the way for future democracy. I just hope that the tragedy of todays horrific events will hit home to many ordinary Pakistanis that they themselves must conquer the extremism within their country if they wish to see Pakistan be taken seriously as a world player.

God bless you Benazir Bhutto, may your soul rest in peace...

The Age of Separatism

On Monday of last week, Edinburgh saw Conservative party leader David Cameron make a speech on why he thought the Union of Britain was key in bettering the future of the country. He made clear the well known intentions of the SNP to make Scotland independent within ten years, and told of the growing English patriotism which, it could be argued, is largely in response to growing regional patriotism north and west of English borders. Cameron (who is known to be of Scottish descent) outlined that his party would make all efforts to preserve the Union as long as he was party leader, and that if elected PM he would ensure Scotland remained part of Britain.

The act of Union between our two countries has for three centuries ensured that these islands are recognised throughout the world as some of the wealthiest, economically stable and culturally richest around, and together nothing in modern times has benefited us more. We now live in an age where physical and/or genetic differences should no longer be an issue for bettering relationships in society. By allowing our primitive, pre-evolutionary, tribal instincts to define our modern day political views (whatever the topic), we are unequivocally erasing millions of years worth of human advancement in intelligence, and essentially succumbing to separatism. The need to define ones identity and to therefore have the ability to make decisions based on that identity is something that we all have to go through. Football, one of the most successful arena sports, which I might add often mimics that of a roman gladiatorial sport, is largely designed to feed tribal instincts among the population. Choose a team, wear the colours and unite with those who support the same as you, disapproving those who don’t. This is similar in politics and in international affairs, but generally speaking separatism is most commonly defined in modern times by three major things: Language, Religion and Culture.

The Scots are ultimately English speakers and are traditionally most likely to be Protestants or Catholics, but the small differences between our two cultures, like accent and diet, are some of the reasons why so many believe that we should not be united by union. The SNP are now promoting ‘Scottish Gaelic’ in their schools (which I do actually approve of for non-separatist reasons), and many are seemingly resorting to pre-union History to legitimise the idea of Scottish independence more and more. A prime example ,of this use of History to increase political gain, within the past two decades would be that of the 1995 film Braveheart, in which Australian director Mel Gibson portrays himself as a common Scot and the English as lying, pompous, thieving rapists who have forcibly taken the independence of Scotland. I must admit that the film did host some artistic content and at times made me think of my Scottish ancestry, in retrospect however I later discovered the film was largely historically inaccurate, and I now believe that it did more damage to the Anglo-Scottish alliance than anything else has within my generation. It made even me feel anti-English at the sight of a scared, vulnerable, heartbroken Gibson being disembowelled before a jeering crowd, and whatever the arguments of those who claim it was a non-biased film portraying simply the heritage of Scotland, it was clearly politically motivated.

Cultural identity today has never meant so much to so many people. With the continued dubbing down of our patriotic, Anglican, Royalist traditions, the closure of hundreds of long established post offices and local markets, and the promotion of celebrated multiculturalism increasingly on the lips of teachers and television journalists, people just don’t know where to turn. The Government has in recent years failed the British people in rekindling the countries identity, and despite the fact that half of Parliament may attribute their accents to the Scottish highlands, the Scots have had enough. But then again why blame them? Independence of Scotland would in theory mean that they could control their own borders, dictate their own laws, and celebrate their own cultural identity without restriction. Of course whether or not the left-wing SNP would be fond of such things should they ever gain Scottish independence is arguable. Even the Welsh have had enough; they have now decided that Wales is in fact NOT part of England at all, seemingly deeming the Statute of Rhuddlan as never having existed.

We now face in Britain a threat from sepratism which has never before been seen. It is so diverse and complex that our very survival as a United Kingdom depends on its defeat sooner rather than later. The increasingly anti-British sentiments of the SNP and Plaid Cymru, British terrorist and sepratist organisations, organised criminals, liberal government officials, far-left groups, and worst of all the European Union can be defeated, and division I assure you plays no part in it. The union of Britain and the Commonwealth has always been our strength. It helped us to protect our allies in the Great War, it helped us defeat the fascist hoards of Nazi-Germany in the 1930s, surely it can still help us now in these dark days of suspicion and militancy. Community spirit is something we have to re-earn as a people, if we want to see the local village Post Offices, local bobbies, local butchers and personal accountability which once existed in Britain, uniting as a country is what we must do.

I often wonder about the true motives of the SNP and of its party leader Alex Salmond. Of course the SNP wants to be in control of its own land as any political party does, but do its members really believe that the bettering of Scotland can start with its independence? Or are its members desires to seperate Scotland from the Union part of an all together more sinister struggle for power? I really do sympathise with the average Scot, the Scot whose common sense is telling him that nonsense rules dictated by an English government are being forced upon his country, and that independence promised by the SNP might provide a way out. Afterall, so long as people in England are subject to Labours laws on immigration, inheritence and trade, so is he, but surely there is a more...conservative way out…

(Picture: Leader of the Scottish National Party Alex Salmond.)

Law & Disorder

Observing the introduction of new laws brought in under the Labour government to tackle crime, it would seem to many that the party genuinely does want to lower crime rates across the country. The success of things like Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) in recent years and the proposals of new anti-terror legislation being put forward this month, Downing Streets image of a power-base ‘for the law-abiding majority’ has really taken off. According to government figures, violent crime is down, burglary is down, as is drug related crime; peel back this face of statistics and spin however and what really matters to the government seems clear.

The image of a British government working closely with the ministry of justice and indeed the judiciary, would seem to many to be a government capable of bringing the rule of law to the forefront of its aims, as well as serving out justice to those who have committed unlawful acts. The values of law and order are now, and have been for centuries, an essential part of our society, which we recognise have to be respected for the protection and maintaining of the greater good. The idea of putting an ordinary person in prison, taking away their liberties and rights, and restricting where they can and cannot go initially seems illogical. However put into that equation that the person in question has committed a series of violent murders and it would be logical to say, as a society, that the person in question must be locked away for the greater good, for the protection of the remainder of the law-abiding public. Furthermore however it would also be logical for the mother of the criminal to object to her sons’ imprisonment, as she would expectedly have emotional ties to him and would (in instinctive terms) naturally hope for the continuation of her sons genes.

It would seem that in recent years, the liberal core at the heart of the government has decided that the rehabilitation of prisoners should be a prime directive, and indeed that the spending of countless millions in this area is far better than its spending on the building of more prisons. Just look at the sentencing given out to convicted criminals today, what could be best described as a slap on the wrist for offences committed now, only two centuries ago would have either got you executed, deported to Australia or put on a prison-ship. Do you honestly think that armed gangs drugged-up to the eyeballs roamed the streets murdering people in those days and got away with it? Modern day criminals wouldn’t last a week in imperial Britain, and would certainly not be given the benefit of the doubt as is too often the case today.

To be fair it may well be that efforts have been made to put more ‘bobbies on the beat’, and to have more community officers roaming the towns and cities, but it would seem that only one card is being played here when two are needed. The introduction of more ‘lawful representatives’ is of course a small step in the right direction, but why bother using up resources trying to catch drug dealers when all they get at court is a nine-month prison sentence? The government has already concluded that the majority of offenders re-offend, hence their efforts to spend vast amounts of public money to ‘rehabilitate’ criminals. By doing this the government is sending out a signal to criminals, that if they commit a crime they will be put in prison for just the right amount of time they need to make criminal links, and will be treated with more recognition by society when they get out, ultimately being offered open arms and a clean slate at the expense of the ‘justice’ their victims expected to be delivered.

Why is it that the so called ‘justice system’ has in recent years dictated that to ‘serve time’ is to have your rights taken away for an allocated amount of time that is determined at your trial, which I might add is getting smaller by the year. Justice is no longer a fundamental principle of our society but a temporary gamble. It is a thing which was once successful in its aims, but has in modern-day Britain been mutilated and twisted to suit the needs and rights of the criminal rather than the victim. Where a breach of the law once had such a permanent affect on a criminal that he was stigmatised for life, fearful of the justice system and consequently resentful of his actions, it is now a badge of honour for many. It is time to acknowledge that there are some in our society who are naturally affected by the breakdown of traditional social values who cannot be affected by the ‘carrot’ approach. They have no morals, no parental guidance, and decide they will live by their own rules instead of the rules determined by law. They do what they want and do not fear either the police or the judicial system. The opposite is now the case; that members of the police force will not go into certain gang-controlled areas of the country out of fear, and I for one do not blame them, Justice is NOT prevailing in this instance and can certainly not protect them from harm.

The recognition of the authority and existence of gangs by our government is something which gives them status, and by the government practically showing that they can take no action further ensures that fear of the system will never again be imposed on criminals. It takes a certain mind-set to knowingly commit a crime, and by making the rights of the criminal your prime target you ensure they take your liberal kindness for weakness. From their point of view a television, daily access to a free gym, and a pool table is not a punishment, but a bribe in the hope that they will see the kindness of the government and not re-offend once out. Fear of the justice system is something which used to be essential to the safekeeping of the country as a moderate, law-abiding society, and in many parts of the world this is still the case. I do not necessarily advocate the use of amputation as a practical means of punishment, but I would bet my bottom dollar that the fear instilled by the consequence of stealing in Saudi Arabia has hugely affected the country’s stealing statistics; and that the implementation of such a punishment has ensured a lot less people have their possessions stolen. In today’s liberal, free-thinking Britain however, instilling fear into the minds of potential criminals is something which is frowned upon for some obscure reason. If the power of fear should be held by anybody it should certainly not be by those who roam the streets looking for vulnerable people to mug, or by drug-dealing gangs whom the police are too afraid and too under resourced to arrest. Surely the ends do in fact justify the means in this case, and that the retaking of the power of fear by the justice system is very necessary for the maintaining of the greater good.

Perhaps being safe to wander the streets here on the Isle of Man at any hour is largely down to (among other things) the fear of heavy sentencing given by judges, and the right to anonymity of the criminal denied by law, ensuring the fear of potential stigmatism by the community. Most if not all convicted criminals here have their names and addresses printed in the local newspaper at the time of sentencing and their right to parole is largely controlled by a system in favour of protecting the public. This could be tempting fate but we have not yet seen the arrival of left wing ‘do-gooders’ intent on reforming the system in favour of criminals, and I hope still that this will never happen.

I do look forward to the day when the rights of the law-abiding majority not to be mugged, burgled, conned, raped or murdered outweigh the rights of any criminal in Britain. Perhaps pensioners currently living in high-crime areas would be much safer in the knowledge that local drug-addicts dare not snatch a bag for fear of the repercussions of their actions, or indeed of the governments moral duty to protect the law-abiding majority at his/her expense.

This Week...Love & Hate.

For about a year or so now I have been watching, almost incessantly, BBC1's This Week, usually in the hope that it will fill my hunger for political banter last thing on a Thursday night. Stay put after BBC1's Question Time and you will be met by Andrew Neil, cracking well rehearsed quips about the 'Blue Nun' and of course our 'Great Leader' (A.K.A- Gordon Brown), and met by the sight of Dianne Abbott and Micheal Portillo sat comfortably on a dark mauve sofa. It would not be wrong to say that their innocent chuckling and gleaming facial expressions has always brought a spark of relaxation and light heartedness to the show, whether or not the current events of the week merit it. There is however an almost non-serious underlayer to the comments of the trio in reaction to some guest reports on the show, and an almost zealous criticism expressed by them that seems purely to be based on a matter of personal achievement rather than on reasonable argument. Of course politics can be relaxed, and it's good to see particular shows taking a different stace on current affairs, but surely the lighthearted atmosphere should stay lighthearted rather than turning into another fierce Paxman style interview.

This weeks edition of the show featured bestselling author and former Islamic radical Ed Hussain, who basically did his take on the week. His report began with scenes from the streets of Kartoum, with members of the Sudanese public holding up placards and weapons calling for the death of British teacher Gillian Gibbons. His report praised the successful actions of Lord Ahmed and Baroness Warsi for their securing of her safe release, but urged the wider Islamic community in Britain to speak out more often against similar cases across the Islamic world. One of his main points was that although thousands of people from Britain each year go to Saudi Arabia to worship in places like Mecca and Mdina, when women are refused entry to certain areas on cultural grounds, the British nationals just accept it and do not speak out against the laws which are soley based on cultural, rather than Islamic, traditions. His main point was that British Muslims should know where they are from and be proud to be British, and that it took him a journey throughout the Middle-East, as a young radical, to finally discover that his place was Britain, and not the Islamic world state for which he had so long strived for. Watching Ed Hussains report really inspired me as a promoter of an intergrated Britain, and seeing an ex-radical like himself who now was so in touch with modern British values, almost made me think that he should be working for the Government on such matters. Fingers crossed Santa will be bringing me his book 'The Islamist' this Christmas.

Back to 'This Week' though, and Ed sat before the trio hoping to answer some questions and to go into more depth about his report as most guests do. He began to elaborate about what had radicalised him in his teens, and indeed what he believed other young muslims were feeling with particular regard to identity. He began to critisise the British Islamic community for not quite doing enough to prevent and condemn the preaching of extremists, and urged them passionately to do so with the realisation that they are British. Diane sat there cynically, as she usually does at this point of the show, and when asked what she thought about the report began to attack the views of Hussain. She was adamant that "in her constinuency" no such sects had infiltrated the Islamic community, and that "on the ground" people were happily living side by side with there fellow neighbours without any problem. "I dont really recognsie your very gloomy prognosis" she went on, commenting that because her muslim constituents had "womens projects", they were not part of the underlying problem highlighted by Hussain. She seemed to attack Hussain in a manner I thought quite rude and thoroughly offensive. The whole thing mimikced a broadcast earlier in the year when Ms Abbott told Peter Hitchens live on television that she thought his views were similar to that of the BNP, potentially destroying his career in one instant. Michael Portillo at this point tried to defend Mr Hussain and shift the emphasis onto his own personal views by spouting another obvious, highly agreeable comment almost to show his unhindered tantering to Diane. The debate however continued with Diane patronising Hussain as he began to quote the comments of MI5s Director Genral Johnathan Edmuds (who 3 weeks ago stated that an estimated 4,ooo British Muslims have already been radicalised) by simply smiling and shaking her head. Despite her cynisism and continued arrogance Hussain told Abbott that he had infact been radicalised in London and that he believes many muslims, even if not belonging to specific groups, share the mind set of separatism. He hit the nail on the head when he said to Abbott "There is a problem, and there's no point pussyfooting around the issue, what you do then is you allow that mind set to fester".

I mean for heavens sake, here is a man with experience of the extremo-Islamic movement in Britain being seriously contested by an arrogant Labour-rebel MP on matters which she can hardly comment on in comparison. The challenging of Hussains views were clear to me to be entirely political, clearly making sure that anybody from her constituency who also disagreed with his report would be voting her in at the next election. The debate continued further before Andrew Neil then ended it by making some sarcastic comment to Hussain, whom I thought had made his case very well.

To have such intellectuals on the show has undoubtably raised the kudos of the programme, but surely they have a responsibility to treat guests with a little more respect, even if they don't entirely agree with their personal views. Funny how guests like Toyah Wilcox, who featured at the end of the show, with a less controversial report seem to get treated with more respect by the trio. Such a love hate relationship I have for This Week, and even though broadcasts like last nights seem to be becoming more and more common, the non-inclusion of such guest reporters would be a great tragedy. I suppose guests on the show have to face a certain amount of criticism, more than anything to acquire credibility, afterall most political critics in society are widely known about thanks to such programmes.

Overall I would have to say that the comical performance of Andrew Neil, and the cheery smiles of Portillo and Abbott are a sort of addictive torture for me. This liberal specialist programme with a high value guests list is both my lover and my loathing.

Think i'll keep watching...for now...

Just Like Coca-Cola.

Amidst the aparent growing concern in the past month over the comments of Morrissey in an NME interview, and the speaking of David Irving and Nick Griffin at the Oxford Union, several questions about the identity of Britain have once again been raised. The topic of immigration is very much like a shaken-up bottle of Coca-Cola, every now and again you unscrew the top just a little bit and all hell breaks loose. People panic, thinking back to the horrific events of Nazi Germany, and the tragic consequences caused by the extreme and intolerant opposition of a minority group. There is a huge media frenzy, and before any subsequent discussion on the issue can take place, the top is swiftly sealed again, forcing the pressure back inside, ensuring we forget all about it. Most hugely important issues are worked out by questioning followed by discussion, the assessing of overall competence in an area and its subsequent improvement via communication. Failing to reach this vital level on any matter could potentially have severe repercussions if ignored for long enough, and why is this issue any different? That's what parliament is for.

To quote Morrissey (a resident of Rome):

"Britain's a terribly negative place. And it hammers people down and it pulls you back and it prevents you. Also, with the issue of immigration, it's very difficult because although I don't have anything against people from other countries, the higher the influx into England the more the British identity disappears."

This comment has been interpreted in different ways by members of the public and free press, but assuming it was not of a malicious nature, perhaps we can examine in greater detail if and why this is in fact the case. I doubt very much that the majority of immigrants heading to Britain have it in their minds to destroy its identity, be they Australian or Ugandan, or indeed to kick up a fuss at the celebrating of St Georges Day as similar patron saints are celebrated elsewhere in Britain; but the failure to rekindle British Identity as it once was has led to the blaming of immigrants as the sole cause for the decline in our celebrating of being British. Leaving this to happen is a gross failure of the Governments public duty, leaving its people vulnerable to predator parties like the British National Party, and to the obsurd claims of David Irving. The union of Britain (and indeed the Commonwealth) has always depended on the uniting of it's people through celebration. Even when Queen Victoria died in 1901, the strong sense of patriotism of the British People was not lost, and every year on Empire Day thousands would flock to the streets in celebration. Celebration of Britishness is something the far-left would not like to see among the British people today for whatever reason, but if we take into account the union of the people of the United States, we will begin to see a model to which we can aspire to. Ask most Americans who its first President was, or of the Boston Tea Party and they'll be more than happy to tell you all about it. Go to Washington one 4th of July and see the unity of the people chanting in the streets. By contrast, ask most Britains (particularly the English) who their countrys first Monarch was, or indeed of the Battle of Edgehill, or even go London on St Georges Day and my point begins to take form.

One of the consequences in the Governments apparent failure to unite Britain is the unpopularity of the English in Scotland and Wales, and their subsequent hightened patriotism which is in essence based on their unhealthy dislike for the English. It is as though we have failed to unite our islands, and therefore its extra-regional peoples have decided to unite themselves, much to our disadvantage. To make matters worse, the continuation of ignoring the topic of British Identity could eventually mean you would need a passport to enter Scotland or Wales. The SNP and Plaid Cymru are both already succeeding to use this failure of our Government to their own political advantages, how long will it be before the two become seperate nations entirely. Scottish and Welsh schools openly teach their native languages without problem, and celebrate St Andrew and St David every year to ensure their children can identify with the land and people around them from an early age. These are the islands which we all live on together, and by not sharing that common value we are defining the future of the country as a whole.

Although it has been suggested, the celebrating of diversity in Britain would be a disaster, in essence we would be segregated as people, and segragation is the problem. The decline of British Identity is not all about immigration, but by the dubbing down of our own traditions out of fear we might be labelled as racists; yet if we all celebrated Britain together in the faces of the French and Irish our unity as a British people could once again flourish. In all fairness we have already seen this, and an increased desire by the British public to celebrate Britishness in recent years. To watch the BBC Proms on its final night is living proof that unity can succeed, it's just a tragedy that the BBC has organised the event to national proportions as oppose to the Government, succeeding in uniting Britain for one night a year.

Perhaps British Identity is currently being lost, and perhaps in 20 years the once great Commonwealth or indeed the very title of being 'British' will no longer be in existence. Can you seriously imagine the seperation of the United States into seperate countries within the next two decades, due to a lack of unionism among its people? The very thought is almost humourous to conceive.

Immigration, union, national identity, perhaps we need to go from Coca-Cola to Evian, and as ironic as it may sound I will finish with one of Labours most used phrases: 'United we stand, divided we fall'

Please Mr Brown take notes, or someone else just might...

For the Fallen

For The Fallen
(Laurence Binyon- 1914)

With proud thanksgiving, a mother for her children, England mourns for her dead across the sea. Flesh of her flesh they were, spirit of her spirit, Fallen in the cause of the free.

Solemn the drums thrill; Death august and royal Sings sorrow up into immortal spheres, There is music in the midst of desolation And a glory that shines upon our tears.

They went with songs to the battle, they were young, Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow. They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted; They fell with their faces to the foe.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.

They mingle not with their laughing comrades again; They sit no more at familiar tables of home; They have no lot in our labour of the day-time; They sleep beyond England's foam.

But where our desires are and our hopes profound, Felt as a well-spring that is hidden from sight, To the innermost heart of their own land they are known As the stars are known to the Night;

As the stars that shall be bright when we are dust, Moving in marches upon the heavenly plain; As the stars that are starry in the time of our darkness, To the end, to the end, they remain.

Universities...who needs them?

This morning at exactly 2:25am, I completed the third but final edition of my university personal statement. I found it suprisingly difficult to "blow ones own trumpet" whilst writing, but in the end had to rely on my relaxed, late night, creative state to make sure the third edition was going to be the best. Whilst racking the archives of my memory on what I had and hadn't done in relation to the course I was applying for, a thought suddenly struck me. I was basically writing out a manifesto, a record of achievement, an assurance to the reader that I deserved a place on the course for the seeming lucrativity that is the simple ownership of a piece of paper, which indeed most people these days have already acquired. Now whatever your view on education, it's always nice to have higher academic qualifications, and of course a pleasure to study subjects which you enjoy, but the fact is most professionals these days have them. It could even be argued that a vast number of non-professionals have them too, simply because the degree is no longer for the highly educated elite. One might say that if a person works hard for their higher academic qualifications then by God they deserve to have them, and by all means I agree; but the overall value of higher academic qualifications has dropped incredibly over the years, with nothing to take its place of high standing.

Its seems that Labours policy of 'getting more people in to universities' has undermined the very merit of having a place there at all, and such concequences in nearing years will undoubtably result in the need for an even higher educationary establishment to be implemented. It's kind of like inflation in the sense that the more available something is the less value it has, and therefore something which is less available at the time increases in value. For example, years ago in the 1920s, only a minute proportion of the populus had the opportunity (and indeed ability) to obtain a degree compared with today, which at this time almost undoubtably offered these people a high ranking position in employment as well as society. Today however, we see vast amounts of medical, dental and law graduates being pumped out of universities like they're on somesort of production line; whom are essentially considered (from an employment perspective) to be '10 a penny'.

Labours agenda on the subject could well be attributed to the mere moderate socialistic principles of equality for all, or the attempt to increase average intellect per head of the country, more likely however it can attributed to the removal of large parts of the population from the unemployment register for as long a time as possible. The government knows that students who are prepared to work hard for at least 3 years, just to obtain a degree, are not going to wallow at home on state benefits once they realise that the jobs they are trained for are scarce. No, they're going to work harder to find any job which pays in order to pay off their student loans, thus ensuring they stay off the unemployment register further. We know from personal experience that most people usually get settled in long term jobs, and hence the government meets its target on unemployment for everyone to see.

Universities...who needs them?
Well, most people actually. Despite the rise in the number of graduates, the decline of appropriate employment positions, and the complete de-valuing and undermining of our education system, we have no choice but to conform. However, to gain the equivalent social value of a Degree from the 1920s today might just involve the acquiring of a Phd...

(Photo: 1st 2nd and 3rd editions of my personal statement.)

Across The Water is open!

Welcome to Across The Water, where the political analysis' of British politics and current affairs will be reported upon from within the confines of the Isle of Man from the excedingly informed keyboard of none other than Martin David.

I would like to thank all those who have given me inspiration and support for the site, and would like to wish the site and its subscribers a long and glorious future.