First, they said that housing prices were going up.  This was a marker that the recession was improving.  I really have not seen much improvement in the recession when the cost of living is so high compared to earnings.  The report had said that house prices were going up as fewer properties were available and more people were in the market to buy.

OK, if earnings have not gone up and cost of living is rising, how do people suddenly manage to have enough saved up to buy?  What am I missing?  Where did these people come from?  Are they the rich trying to buy up cheaper properties so that they can go on to rent it out at unreasonable rates?

Recently, a different report states that homes are now more affordable in more locations throughout the UK.  OK, if house prices are going up, how are they now more affordable? And where are they more affordable?  In locations that most people don’t want to live due to job opportunities, etc.  Therefore, people already living in those areas probably can’t even afford those homes.  It’s only people with money and a good job living outside those areas that can afford to buy into it.  And why would they buy into it?  The only reason would be to retire or as an investment opportunity.

Even those with a good job are unable to get onto the housing ladder.  I’ve only been working for 3 months, so I can’t lump myself in with those people, but my starting salary would be considered “extremely good”.  Unfortunately, I have no savings, and the current cost of living means that despite my high salary, we really are living “hand to mouth”.  How would someone like myself ever be able to get a mortgage?  Banks and the government are no longer in the business of helping people in the middle ground.  And the frustrating part is that if we were able to get a mortgage, our monthly mortgage may be lower than our rent, and we’d be gaining some equity (hopefully).

It’s interesting to note the latest comments – diammetrically opposed viewpoints that serve to highlight the opinions of the two people mentioned in the post.  Yet, the post itself did not express any particular prejudices against one group or the other.  However, the commenters chose to interpret them in their own way and therefore, have responded in kind.

It’s a very sad state of things when the three primary religions in the world – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – are constantly at each other’s throats.  Especially when these three have a common bond.  They share the same God, though their beliefs on what happens from Christ onwards varies.  The Jews do not accept Christ as a prophet nor a saviour.  Christians believe Christ is their Saviour.  Muslims believe Christ was a prophet and Mohammed was the greatest prophet of all.

I can’t help but think of an analogy between the three religions and a family of four – a father and three sons who move into a four bedroom house.  The father is proud of his eldest son, Abraham, and showers him with blessings.  Abraham considers himself the Chosen One.  Unfortunately, Christ grows up and becomes a strong man and soon outshines his brother Abraham.  They both declare their love for their father, but in different ways.  Now, little Mohammed has watched his older brothers and their sibling rivalry since birth.  He is growing up and longs to be a part of that rivalry.  Christ no longer considers Abraham a worthy opponent, so he turns to Mohammed.  The father tries to appease the discontent, but to no avail.  Each claims he loves his father the best, but all show an equal lack of understanding.

All three sons have their own rooms, yet they cannot seem to respect anyone’s privacy, so they are constantly spreading themselves about in their siblings’ rooms.  This leads to even more in-fighting.

Meanwhile, their neighbours, Buddha, Brahma, Zeus, Odin, Wicca and others just shake their heads at such a dysfunctional family.

Depending on whose statistics you listen to, the rate of teenage pregnancy is still unacceptably high.  So, the government has decided that the best way to approach this is by introducing sex education in school.  Of course, there has been some sex education in school for years, though this has always been in the later years.  Progressive thinkers have felt this to be inadequate, as children become sexually active at younger ages.  As a result, sex education has been introduced to younger and younger children.  The latest news is that the government would like children as young as 5 to have some form of sexual education.  This has met with much criticism.

I may be completely out of touch with the world, but when I hear about this, I have to give a big sigh.  It just seems that there is no hard and fast solution to the world’s problems.

I do not like to see my children become adults too soon.  Unfortunately, with the changes in society, I can no longer control that, unless I take them deep into the wilds and teach them at home.  I do not have the resources to do that.  But, I want my children to be children, to explore the world with a child’s innocence and gradually mature as they should, without worrying about issues such as the above.

In my own time and in my own way, I would like to be able to have an honest and open discussion about relationships and sex with my children.  I know that schools and teachers do their best to bring the subject up in a non-judgmental way, etc., but not all teachers have the same comfort level, and it also takes time away from more important educational instruction.  And the fact that parents have no opt-out in this decision takes control away from them.  Must all parents conform to the government’s idea of sex education?

The government’s response to criticism is that sex education prevents teenage pregnancy.  They point to the decrease in the pregnancy rates in other countries and conclude it is due to sex education.  Call me a skeptic, but show me the evidence.  In recent days, I have become more and more skeptical of “scientific research”, at least as it relates to human behaviour.  You can design research and ask questions and get data, but the interpretation of the data can vary from one person to another,

We have no data from the past regarding teenage pregnancy because of the stigma attached and the secrecy.  I can only surmise that in those days, sex education was not part of the school curriculum.  However, since statistics have become available, we have seen that teenage pregnancy rates have remained relatively stable with small fluctuations from year to year.  This, despite the increase in sex education, does not point to sex education as having a major impact.

You can try and teach kids about safe sex, etc., but at the end of the day, many of them will do as they choose.  Perhaps, the problem with behaviour is more deep-rooted.  The home environment will have a huge impact on this.  So, perhaps the government should focus more on home and family environments, giving support to those unstable home settings. Peer pressure is another important factor.  No amount of education can eliminate the impact of peer pressure.  Then, there are poor role models.  Even with the best parents, some children will look to others as role models for their behaviour (it is “uncool” to be just like your parents).  Unfortunately, pop icons and celebrities do not provide good examples.

While I do not oppose sex education in general (I do believe it is important and should be provided at the appropriate age), I don’t feel that 5 year-olds should be forced to start learning about relationships in school.  Many of them already have questions about where babies come from, and most parents have simple explanations for this, without going into details.  This should be adequate at their age.

There are many people out there who oppose children starting school at 5, saying this is too early and that they are more apt to learn at 6-7.  If that is the case, wouldn’t sex education at 5 be even more premature?

Well, given that the tests have been dumbed down, all the government really needs to do is dumb it down even more.  That way, the remaining 270 struggling schools would meet target by next year.  Then, they can go into the elections talking about the wonderful success of schools during their administration.  Oh, wait, the election is scheduled to take place before the exams.  Oops!  Well, they could always say that given the trend of the past few years, it is likely that all students would perform well on the tests.

Given that the GCSEs are dumbed down, how is it that some schools can’t even achieve the target of 30%?  What is “good GCSEs” anyway?  At least a “C”?  That’s terrible.

Now we have Baroness Scotland breaking the very law that she drafted and pushed through Parliament.  The law makes it punishable to hire an illegal immigrant.  And being ignorant is not an acceptable defense.  So, what was her excuse when she hired an illegal immigrant?  Not that she was unaware, that would have been walking into her own trap.  No, the problem is a technical one.  She did all the appropriate checks, but she did not photocopy any of the documents. That was required by law.

Does it mean that if she had photocopied the documents, she would not be in breach of the law.  No, I think it just means that she could have proved her point that she looked at the documents.  Which then leads us to question, if the documents were in order, why was the worker illegal?  Were they forged?  If a government minister could not identify real from faked documents, how can the ordinary employer?

If the worker is not illegal, why was Baroness Scotland fined?  Just simply that she did not keep a copy of the documents?  Has she admitted to unknowingly hire an illegal immigrant?  If she did so, is this enough reason for her to be sacked?

Gordon Brown does not intend to sack her, and it’s questionable whether any of the other parties will push for it to happen.  Apparently, Baroness Scotland is well-respected all around.  However, if she wants to preserve that reputation of respectability, she should have offered to step down, especially after breaking her own law.  Had it been an ordinary citizen, he/she would have been treated like a down and dirty criminal.  What’s good for the goose in this government is not always good for the gander in the public.

The BBC is funded by the general viewing public, with the TV license fees.  Therefore, it does not rely on commercial advertising.  It has a distinct advantage over its competitors and it knows it.  Despite being taxpayer funded, though, it does not seem that the BBC is serving the people.

First, the BBC prevented Barbara Windsor from appearing on Piers Morgan’s show on ITV (afraid of competition).  So, in revenge, ITV banned Ant & Dec from appearing on Jonathan Ross’ BBC show.  Now, the BBC are putting Strictly Come Dancing in direct competition with The X Factor, the two most popular TV shows.  For the record, I couldn’t really care less about any of these celebs or shows, but the actions of these rival networks are childish.  And, in the BBC’s case, it is almost a monopoly.

The BBC does not need TV ratings.  It will survive regardless.  ITV is in trouble due to the recession.  It’s almost like the BBC is out for blood and trying to destroy its closest competitor.  They’re even trying to woo celebs like Dec & Ant to join them after their ITV contract expires.

It surprises me to find that Cowell wants to avoid a clash and suggests that ITV (his network) back down.  That’s one way to avoid being torn to pieces by a bully.  But, it also makes you more vulnerable the next time.  The BBC should be accountable to their viewers and behave in a more dignified way.

Isn’t PE required of all students?  Can girls really opt out just because it would ruin their hair?  Why hair straighteners?  Is that the new fad?

When I was in school, you had to participate.  Depending on the sports involved, you also had to shower.  Of course, that was in the US.  But, my husband’s experience on this end was similar, or even more intense.

I’m not complaining about the expenditure.  It wasn’t much for a trial run.  But what will this lead to?  I know schools want to do everything to promote a positive self-image for everyone, but the idea that allowing girls to primp themselves after PE will get them to participate is silly. 

My daughter is in gymnastics.  All the girls there have to tie their hair back.  In their workouts, their hair will come loose and they will have to fix it.  But, they bring in whatever they need to take care of it.  I’m sure if “hair” is the real excuse for these other girls, they would do the same.  However, if the motivation for avoiding PE is something different, adding hair straighteners will not solve the problem.  It may take away one excuse.

But, if PE is required, why do schools need to encourage more girls to participate?  Why is there so much obsession over looks?  Generations have had to deal with that and they got by. Everyone knows that the more strenuous the physical activity, the more likely that your hair will be messed up; and no one can criticise your hair if you have been working out. On PE days, don’t dress your hair like you’re going out on a hot date.

Maybe the best way to promote positive self-image is to encourage girls to accept their looks and not doll themselves up.  After all, it can be a shocker for some people to discover what’s under all that makeup and hair.

We seem to have reached the point of stalemate with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Though the Iraqi war is “over”, there are still hostilities and Afghanistan is nowhere near a position of stability.  It’s a tug o’ war effort.

The message that Osama bin Laden has supposedly sent to the US seems to imply that he may have come to realise that all this warring may be fruitless to both sides.  Many of us have seen that light for a while, even if we still hold on to our stance of support for war, because to do otherwise would be to give in to the terrorists.  However, if the other side is showing signs of relenting, should we not reconsider?

Any steps should be carefully measured though.  The Islamic extremists want Israel on the table.  Quite understandable – it has been a raging battle for generations.  The Israelis and the Palestinians both belong to the region.  Something does need to be done to give the Palestinians their own land and their own government.  However, there needs to be some guarantees of Israeli safety in a region that is predominantly Muslim.  Unfortunately, the Middle Eastern world sees the western support and protection of Israel as a direct opposition to them.  Furthermore, the new Israeli government appear to be entrenched in the old mindset and rigidly unbending.

So, would it be wise to call a truce and discuss moving onwards with peace in the region?  I would gladly welcome the day when we can be able to do that, because I believe that the Middle East as well as Afghanistan/Pakistan could benefit greatly if both sides were to work together and improve conditions for the peoples there.  The hardest part would be to put aside all the prejudices and suspicions on all three sides: the western countries, the Islamic world, and Israel.

Take, for example, the British woman (Samantha Orobator) who was caught in Laos with too much cocaine.  Never mind the legality of using or transporting cocaine, which she admitted to.  She had the right to choose the life she led.  However, when she got into trouble through her own fault, she expected her country to come to her aid.  Of course, that is why there are embassies around the world.  But, charities working on her behalf, rushing to her aid, getting everyone worked up about her rights, when she put herself in that predicament, was unbelievable. It wasn’t as if she was innocent and needed people to stand up for her.

Then, there were the two Americans (Laura Ling and Euna Lee) who crossed into North Korea and arrested.  They were reporters, so they should have understood the tensions in North Korea.  Heedlessly, they entered and it took Bill Clinton, the former US president, to intercede on their behalf.  Perhaps, the diplomacy involved may have helped not only Clinton, but US-North Korea relations as well.  On the other hand, it may have given North Korea an upper hand.

And, very recently, we have the British-Irish New York Times journalist (Stephen Farrell) who was kidnapped by the Taliban.  He had been kidnapped previously and rescued.  He was warned about entering the Taliban stronghold, yet risked his own as well as his translator’s life.  And, in the end, his rescue effort cost three people their lives.

None of these people took responsibility for their actions.  They do not seem to understand the adage, “You made your bed, now sleep in it.”  I have absolutely no sympathy for people who create their own problems, then expect others to bail them out.  They might think they were being heroic, they might think they were invincible, but I think they were all idiots.  When people do stupid things, they deserve to suffer for their irresponsible behaviour.  I have no sympathy for them.  I won’t say I’m perfect.  In fact, I’m not.  I make mistakes, do stupid things, and I face the music.  Why can’t these same people do likewise?  Instead, they get their fifteen minutes of fame.  And they make their governments look ridiculous.

Yes, I agree that preventing paedophiles from having access to our children is important, but isn’t this idea rather extreme and an over-reaction to an incident where a school caretaker murdered two children?  In that particular case, it was the school’s fault for not investigating allegations against the caretaker.

Some authors have already felt insulted enough by the idea that they will stop making school visits.  How many parents will be turned off so that they will not volunteer to help with transportation?  It is the principles of the plan that is absurd and insulting.

The plan does not cover informal arrangements by parents, so why can’t the government just leave the parents and schools to work out these informal arrangements rather than expecting regular parent-transporters to be registered with the Vetting and Barring Scheme? 

And how will this scheme be enforced?  Will there be additional people employed at schools to guarantee that the procedures are followed?  Will there be additional people employed to register the millions that will need to be vetted under this scheme? Is this part of the government’s job creation scheme?

In science and medicine, studies determine how many people need to be treated or screened before the benefit justifies a medication or test.  If we were to apply the same principles to government, will the Vetting and Barring Scheme be worth the cost?  How many people need to be vetted in order for us to prevent one case of child murder or catch a paedophile? 

Paedophiles and murderers do not commit their crimes so obviously by kidnapping a child when everyone knows that the child was in their care.  Of course, proponents will argue that this scheme will prevent such criminals from having access to vulnerable children.  But, the case above excepted, how many paedophiles and murderers in the past actually had easy access to children?  The majority of cases will be committed by strangers who may have been stalking or taking advantage of an opportunity.  Had we had a rash of cases committed by school visitors or parents, I would be the first to argue that such a scheme would work.  But, as it is, this is just another example of unnecessary government interference.  Why can’t they come up with more useful ideas?