It seems to be the time for brand new policy making, however paradoxically, the time for thought has yet to step into real time: KC has proposed that prisoners ought to be given the opportunity of full time work, and allowed up to £12k a year for so doing.
He has made the suggestion that for those prisoners who agree to work full time, they would be paid in line with the minimum wage, but allowed only to keep £20 a week. The rest it is suggested, should be shared amongst the victims' families, victim groups, and a contribution to the prison service for their upkeep.
If all prisoners joined the scheme it would contribute around £1bn to the economy, and for high category prisoners such as murderers and rapists, the money may be put into a 'pot' for them.
Excuse me for interposing, but it raises several key questions: firstly, how much is this going to cost the Prison Service to administer, and to pay NIC and Income Tax on behalf of the prisoners. Can the Prison Service afford to undertake such an investment on this kind of scale? If so, why are they not building new prisons?
Is this employment likely to be worthwhile? Surely this will be on-site employment due to the risk to the public. Which leads to another important question: is it right to offer prisoners the choice of employment at an hourly rate that meets the minimum wage, when there are millions of unemployed civilians, who do not necessarily have that same choice?
It is entirely wrong to allow prisoners to build up a nest egg for release, or to have any sort of disposable income. Certainly no scheme which would reappropriate these earnings to the families of the prisoners would be considered acceptable. Whilst it is entirely reasonable that the victims be compensated for the subjection to crime, many would argue that the justice system does not go far enough for the majority of victims.
Perhaps these prisoners should be working hard labour without reward? To think that if this idea took off, they would be able to form a union, gives them rights to which some would say they are not entitled to receive.
Tuesday 5 October 2010
Monday 4 October 2010
1 OFF BMW E24 V16 TO BE PRODUCED
German motorsports manufacturer Super Leistung AG have announced that they are to produce a 1 off BMW E24 using a BMW supplied E24 chassis, and performance engineered parts. The biggest show stopper, is a brand new BMW V16 9.0l engine which will mated with a 6 speed Auto transmission.
Originally the engine, supplied by BMW, was designed for the Rolls Royce 100EX prototype, but never made it beyond a concept car.
Apparently the E24 was chosen for its design, as the engine is a massive 223 inches long. Wolfgang Deuter the Technical Director at Super Leistung, has stated that the original E24 will be heavily modified to adapt the kind of changes that will be necessary. Modern technology will be at the forefront of this super car, but is being developed to mark the 35th anniversary of the release of the E24.
No figures have been released, but it is expected that the car will exceed 322kph!!!! It is due to be finished in August 2011, although sadly, it will not be offered to the public for sale.
Originally the engine, supplied by BMW, was designed for the Rolls Royce 100EX prototype, but never made it beyond a concept car.
Apparently the E24 was chosen for its design, as the engine is a massive 223 inches long. Wolfgang Deuter the Technical Director at Super Leistung, has stated that the original E24 will be heavily modified to adapt the kind of changes that will be necessary. Modern technology will be at the forefront of this super car, but is being developed to mark the 35th anniversary of the release of the E24.
No figures have been released, but it is expected that the car will exceed 322kph!!!! It is due to be finished in August 2011, although sadly, it will not be offered to the public for sale.
I'VE HAD AN EYEFUL OF YOU...
A bizzare story: a bedouin from Yemen was found beheaded in the vast and desolate Wadi Hadramaut.
It is understood that whilst preparing a sheep at a cook out, he became peckish and ate an eye without express authority. The meal was specially prepared to reunite tribal members, and his mark of disrespect escalated in severity after an elder, who took exception to the matter, was subsequently lied to under questioning.
CHILD BENEFIT SCRAPPED
So Chancellor George Osborne has announced that child benefit will be axed for either parents if their earnings reach the threshold for 40% income tax. Iain Duncan Smith has described it as 'bonkers' for those earning more than £50,000 a year to be in receipt of it. DC has suggested an overhaul of a system that has remained unchanged through successive administrations.
The debate has swept across the political agenda with a similar affect to that of the crazed reaction to the vuvuzela, or popularity of the intensely annoying 'crazy frog' tune. So whilst the topic seems to be current, lets have a look at what these announcements mean exactly.
For those parents who come into the 40% bracket, and earn £44,000 a year, they will lose their entitlement to child benefit: on the surface of it, it is a superfluous concept to be paying this out anyway. It has always been seen as just an entitlement, and does not carry the same stigma as other benefits, so perhaps is viewed as 'fair game'.
What we should understand, is that nothing can be interpreted within context from the surface, and that there are a plethora of more variable and intricate cases whereby, yes, a couple may be beyond the threshold. What if they are supporting older children through university, but also have much younger children: and lets say for instance, only the one parent is working, and at this threshold. Does it become proportionately fair to assume that there isn't a validity or necessity to this entitlement?
We are of course in an age where the reverberations of movement has fallen upon us, and there is general opinion and disdain towards the quite unacceptable culture of those who are in receipt of benefits through some sort of lifestyle choice: economic times such as these, provoke a renewed interest in value for money, and resentment towards the stereotype we have in mind. For that reason, it is essential that we shake up the system, and for those who are not in financial need of child benefit, to be separated from those who are in need.
There needs to be a proper financial assessment carried out on an individual basis, commensurate to the varied circumstances that may exist between claimants. There cannot be an assumption based on the premise that there is a stereotype. It should be irrespective of salary, but applied sensibly. It makes no sense to provide child benefit for a couple earning £60,000 between them. That seems obvious, but to save contradicting myself, unless each claim is assessed accordingly, then a particular claimants application cannot be fairly assessed.
The very idea that we can simplify the system with a one-for-all universal payout needs to be thoughtfully conceived.
The debate has swept across the political agenda with a similar affect to that of the crazed reaction to the vuvuzela, or popularity of the intensely annoying 'crazy frog' tune. So whilst the topic seems to be current, lets have a look at what these announcements mean exactly.
For those parents who come into the 40% bracket, and earn £44,000 a year, they will lose their entitlement to child benefit: on the surface of it, it is a superfluous concept to be paying this out anyway. It has always been seen as just an entitlement, and does not carry the same stigma as other benefits, so perhaps is viewed as 'fair game'.
What we should understand, is that nothing can be interpreted within context from the surface, and that there are a plethora of more variable and intricate cases whereby, yes, a couple may be beyond the threshold. What if they are supporting older children through university, but also have much younger children: and lets say for instance, only the one parent is working, and at this threshold. Does it become proportionately fair to assume that there isn't a validity or necessity to this entitlement?
We are of course in an age where the reverberations of movement has fallen upon us, and there is general opinion and disdain towards the quite unacceptable culture of those who are in receipt of benefits through some sort of lifestyle choice: economic times such as these, provoke a renewed interest in value for money, and resentment towards the stereotype we have in mind. For that reason, it is essential that we shake up the system, and for those who are not in financial need of child benefit, to be separated from those who are in need.
There needs to be a proper financial assessment carried out on an individual basis, commensurate to the varied circumstances that may exist between claimants. There cannot be an assumption based on the premise that there is a stereotype. It should be irrespective of salary, but applied sensibly. It makes no sense to provide child benefit for a couple earning £60,000 between them. That seems obvious, but to save contradicting myself, unless each claim is assessed accordingly, then a particular claimants application cannot be fairly assessed.
The very idea that we can simplify the system with a one-for-all universal payout needs to be thoughtfully conceived.
GROUND ZERO TRANSFORMED INTO A MOSQUE...
It seems relatively bizzare that a futuristic 16 storey building has been proposed near to the 9/11 site, and it is to be a mosque.
New Yorkers, legitimately, have voiced opposition to the plans, although Sharif El-Gamal, the developer has stated that [they] wanted to have a marriage between Islamic architecture and New York City, and that it is intended to be green and cool.
Those particular comments, quite understandably, have been received with disbelief.
Along those lines, you may expect to see a ground floor Lebanese restaurant/bakery. Perhaps even a Maroush.
New Yorkers, legitimately, have voiced opposition to the plans, although Sharif El-Gamal, the developer has stated that [they] wanted to have a marriage between Islamic architecture and New York City, and that it is intended to be green and cool.
Those particular comments, quite understandably, have been received with disbelief.
Along those lines, you may expect to see a ground floor Lebanese restaurant/bakery. Perhaps even a Maroush.
BORIS STRIKES BACK
Boris Johnson is expected to tell ministers at the Conservative Party conference, to pass anti-strike laws.
It surely comes to something when you get dressed for work, unlock the front door, and are met by a grimaced smiling guy with rolled up sleeves shaking his head and flicking a cigarette with his teeth. "No. Not today. It's a day off".
It is clear that we are facing difficult times: we are in recession; there isn't anybody in the mainstream of society who hasn't been affected in one form or another. Yet the Trade Unions still wave the influence over many working people, who mindful of the pressure to conform and reluctant of the ostracism, tow the line. Throughout the recession, employees have worked above and beyond their normal expectations in order to contribute to the scaling of the problem. Striking completely undermines those efforts.
If there is anything we should have learnt from the BA experience, is that strike action + a fragile economy = doesn't work.
The issue becomes clearer, when we hear the inimical rehetoric message of the unions: no, they vehemently abhore - and arguably quite rightly - the slightest corporate inadequacy when it a matter of working conditions, yet hypocritically conduct themselves with behaviour that is unhelpful to the strengthening of our economy, and does not in any realistic shape or form, share any resonance with the attitude or opinion of the wider public.
A meagre 33 per cent of the workforce brought the London underground to a halt, causing chaos for millions of commuters. It makes the overall strike action seem quite disingenuous. We look forward to seeing some of this anti-strike legislation put into place.
It surely comes to something when you get dressed for work, unlock the front door, and are met by a grimaced smiling guy with rolled up sleeves shaking his head and flicking a cigarette with his teeth. "No. Not today. It's a day off".
It is clear that we are facing difficult times: we are in recession; there isn't anybody in the mainstream of society who hasn't been affected in one form or another. Yet the Trade Unions still wave the influence over many working people, who mindful of the pressure to conform and reluctant of the ostracism, tow the line. Throughout the recession, employees have worked above and beyond their normal expectations in order to contribute to the scaling of the problem. Striking completely undermines those efforts.
If there is anything we should have learnt from the BA experience, is that strike action + a fragile economy = doesn't work.
The issue becomes clearer, when we hear the inimical rehetoric message of the unions: no, they vehemently abhore - and arguably quite rightly - the slightest corporate inadequacy when it a matter of working conditions, yet hypocritically conduct themselves with behaviour that is unhelpful to the strengthening of our economy, and does not in any realistic shape or form, share any resonance with the attitude or opinion of the wider public.
A meagre 33 per cent of the workforce brought the London underground to a halt, causing chaos for millions of commuters. It makes the overall strike action seem quite disingenuous. We look forward to seeing some of this anti-strike legislation put into place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)