Pupils should not be taught Twitter

The government's new dumbing-down plan? Teach primary school children how to use Twitter.

First of all, I'd be rather insulted at the patronising attitude they are using if they have to be taught how to type text into a box. And that said, do we really need to teach such obvious, common sense logic to children? No.

Even more sickening is that British history is being removed. These children will have no sense of national identity, no patriotism, little idea of what their forefathers did for their nation. But that's what the PC lefties want - they want some multicultural utopia.

In the long run this is going to make our population, and indeed our workforce, deficient. In economic terms it will shift long run aggregate supply inwards. That is a major cause of concern for anyone - Labour only care about short term gain over long term requirements. They've ruined my education, and I don't want them to ruin anyone else's.

Please, please, get rid of this awful government. Bring in free schools that are able to set their own curriculum, and let parents decide where to send their kids. That way this rubbish and any other loony-left nonsense will be obliterated. Funny that the National Curriculum was introduced to stop this sort of rubbish being taught to kids, but it's now infiltrated the system.

McBroon in Strasbourg today

Indeed. But the old Beeb didn't report about this excellent speech by Daniel Hannan.



Since he's outside the EPP, he was actually able to speak - another reason to leave the EPP. I've seen him as an excellent politician for some time now who's wasted in that joke Parliament - speaking the truth!

A breath of relief

Some good news - the Conservatives are to leave the EPP after the 2009 elections. They had no place in that federalist grouping and to create a grouping that seeks reform and power to the people, as opposed to too much power to Brussels, is welcomed. Hopefully this will create some real opposition in the chamber and the childish integrationists will learn to accept it, rather than just walk out.

The gun control loons are out again

They love these massacres, don't they? It gives them a chance to further their agenda, while accusing those who disagree of a "lack of compassion".

What if a teacher had a handgun under a desk, and was trained to use it? May well have decreased the death toll significantly.

It's an incredibly saddening event in any case, and RIP to all those killed, and condolences to their families.

The Bank of England is irresponsible

The Bank of England has cut rates to 0.5% and has started quantitative easing today, in a bid to ease the recession.

Clearly they haven't recognised that the cuts so far haven't worked, and will solve nothing. You cannot solve a crisis creating by borrowing too much by encouraging even more borrowing.

Quantitative easing is an incredibly risky, irresponsible tool. Last time it was used in this way we had 27% inflation, and it took a long time to get us out of it - luckily we had Thatcher. To increase the money supply will inherently cause inflation, since more money chasing scarcer goods will push prices up. Take 1920s Weimar Republic or present-day Zimbabwe as an example - wheelbarrows anyone?

We are quite literally staring at huge debt and a hugely devalued currency in the face. I don't trust the BoE to be responsible with how much it changes the government's accounts to, or with encouraging more borrowing.

Not to mention it's a further nail in the coffin of savers, who are getting very little interest (which will probably be reduced to zero) and the value of savings evaporating by inflation.

A better way would be to encourage saving now with higher interest rates, then after a few months when confidence is higher reducing them and encouraging investment and spending then. That way banks will have money to lend - real money - and is the reason why building societies don't go bust.

I'm changing my money into whichever foreign currency is the strongest, asap.

Surveillance is not compatible with presumption of innocence

Presumption of innocence has been one of the foundation stones of fair justice since the Middle Ages in Britain, and has made us respected around the world for our constitutional liberty ever since.

However it is under attack, not completely by the law but from the surveillance state that has slowly been created in the past 11 years.

We are the most watched country in the UK, with one camera for about every 14 people. Do we really need that many cameras when, according to a chief constable, they only help with 3% of crimes?

The government has many databases, including the DNA database that holds your details whether convicted of a crime or not - so you could be locked up on pure suspicion of an offence that you would never be convicted of, but still lose your liberty. We have a database of phone calls coming soon, which is simply an infringement on personal liberty. It might catch petty offences or minor instances that might make the headline of the Sun (take an MP calling another woman regularly, for example) - but criminals are far craftier - and not to mention the ease at which they can be left on trains, or lost in the post.

The real point is that such surveillance, and I only include 3 examples, treat every normal citizen as a criminal. They have to be watched to make sure they do nothing wrong. That is a presumption of guilt, not a presumption of innocence. Believe the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" brigade if you want to, but these people are simply naive.

Ever so democratic

Vaclav Klaus, the Czech Eurosceptic President of the EU has given a speech to the Parliament, supposedly the EU's cradle of democracy.

It's about time that European integration was criticised by the President. It is not good that MEPs decide to walk out on this speech. I don't remember the eurosceptic MEPs walking out on Sarkozy, or any of the other integrationists. How ironic that when he talks about the need for opposition, that those that oppose him just walk out? When he compared the EU to the old communist states (undemocratic and elitist), the ever-so-mature federalists walked out; when he asked for tolerance, he was told to shut up.

The immaturity of the federalists strikes me, not to mention their opposition to free speech and democracy. Let's get rid of these immature fools on the 4th of June.

Localism: about time

Since I read Daniel Hannan and Douglas Carswell's excellent book, The Plan, I've become a great supporter of localism - and it's good to see that David Cameron has adopted it to some extent as official party policy.

Taking more power from Whitehall to local referenda is certainly a welcome sign, and should concentrate power in the hands of local people as opposed to bureaucrats and civil servants who are totally isolated from the real world.

Scrapping the Infrastructure Planning Commission is another shift of power to local people - it exists very nicely for the executive to push through Heathrow expansion without a Parliamentary vote, and it's about time the local peoples' views were taken seriously.

It's now clear that the Right care more about democracy than the Left and New Labour, who have centralised power either in Whitehall or Brussels, while creating the illusion of devolution by simply creating more levels of waste in Wales and Scotland.

Unrealistic equality

The Olympics Minister has called for "equality in the number of sports" saying it isn't fair that women can't take part in sports like heavyweight wrestling and boxing, and men synchronised swimming and rhythmic gymnastics.

The real point is that these ministers are clearly trying to pursue outdated feminism in a way that is so detached from reality. How many women box? How many men do synchronised swimming? That's the whole point. These sports are partaken by a certain sex, and not by the other. That's reality, that's life, and the Olympics shouldn't be forced to change because of it.

Geert Wilders is harmless

Yes, some may say his views are islamophobic, abhorrent and stupid. The PC brigade prefer the simpler term "racist". But he's not inciting violence. Lord Ahmed is by threatening to "mobilise 10,000 Muslims" to stop Wilders getting in the Lords.

At the end of the day, it's about free speech. Silencing someone to gain a few cheap votes doesn't work. Why should the state tell us what we can and can't say, what is offensive and what isn't? What defines offensive? Does it go as far as 1984-style renaming black coffees?

The only limit to free speech should be self-censorship, and even that should be used in moderation.