Homelessness on the rise as recession and cuts bite

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jun/10/homelessness-rise-recession-cuts

Homelessness is rising as the effects of the recession get more serious, government figures find. Over the first three months of this year 26,400 people have approached a local housing councils, less than half of which could be helped.

Relationship breakdowns and rejection by family and friends remain key causes of homelessness. Rent arrears and mortgage defaults are responsible for the increase in amount of people without home.

The biggest increases are in London, where homelessness rose by up to over 90% in areas like Bromley, Hammersmith and Fulham.

Homelessness figures are expected to rise even further in the following months as a result of government made changes in housing benefit policies.

It seems to me that whenever the economy is doing less well it’s usually the bottom end of society that gets to live with less means of existence than they already have, whereas the top end of society keeps receiving their bonuses, which to me seem somewhat out of proportion.

I’ll happily acknowledge though that I’m probably too dumb to understand how things really work and that it probably wouldn’t be possible to have wealth distributed slightly less unequally, or the consequences would be worse than the original problem, or would they?

Injured at protest, the student now in court for violent disorder

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/injured-at-protest-the-student-now-in-court-for-violent-disorder-2294934.html

Today 21 year old philosophy student Alfie Meadows is going to appear in court on charges of violent disorder during a protest against government plans concerning tuition fees last December. Meadows could face up to five years in prison for the offence. There is no mention in the article of what precisely he did.

At the same protest Meadows was hit on the head by a policeman’s baton. He had to go through brain surgery as a result of the injuries he sustained by the hit. In the article there is no mention of charges against the policeman who delivered the hit.

Apart from Meadows, 43 other students will appear in Westminster City magistrates' court over the next two days, all facing similar charges. Outside the court building, hundreds are expected to protest for the right to protest.

I too am for the right to protest and I find some gaps of information in the text to be somewhat suspicious. Why is there no mention of what precisely Meadows did? And why is there no mention of charges against the policeman who hit him? Or aren’t there any?

Of course protesting is no justification for violence, or any form of crime whatsoever, but it most definitely isn’t a justification for a policeman to hit a protester in the head. Even if Meadows violated laws while protesting, hitting him on the head so hard it causes the kind of injuries he sustained seems a little overdone. Or did Meadows’ behaviour perhaps form a danger to the health of others around him? Is that something a 21 year old student who’s protesting against fee policies would do? Seems unlikely, doesn’t it. And again, why is there no mention of circumstances at the moment the policeman decided to hit Meadows? Or even a mention of why such information is not available?

If you ask me, there’s a suspicious odour to this case.

Pay gap is too wide, say two-thirds of Britons

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/05/pay-gap-is-too-wide-say-two-thirds-of-britons

According to a report by some think-tank, over two-thirds of Britons think the government should take stronger action in reducing the gap between high and low earners in both the public and private sectors.

The difference between what the majority of people think people in higher ranks of society should earn and what they actually earn is more than significant. This shows from one question this think-tank asked people, namely what the salary of a chief executive of a large national company should be. The average of answers was £350,579, whereas the average earnings in reality is £1m, which is nearly three times as many.

One might wonder how democratic a country is if the difference between what the majority of people think the distribution of wealth should be like, and what it actually is like, is so big.

I must say I’m not one bit surprised by these results, I consider this kind of picture to be self-evident in any country where the free market plays a significant role in the economical system.

There is always an often vast majority of people who seem either idealistic or begrudges towards people that are “more successful” in getting themselves paid, often somewhat naïve as well (I’m the first to admit I’m in this category). On the other hand there is an elite few who are both intelligent and opportunistic, one might say a bit self-centred as well, who are able and willing to use the system for their own personal gains.

Student numbers could be cut to cover spiralling cost of loans

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jun/07/student-loan-demand-may-force-cuts

Quotas on student numbers may have to be introduced as a result of the government’s plans to raise the maximum tuition fees English universities can charge to £9,000. The amount of universities that are now going to charge the maximum fees turned out higher than was expected by the ministers responsible for these plans, directly resulting in the bill to fund the interest-free student loans turning out much higher than was expected as well. The funding gap caused by these miss-estimations will either require further cuts in higher education or further resources from the Treasury, said Margaret Hodge, who’s chair of the committee that reported this problem.

Some universities have announced their disapproval with the potential consequences of the government’s plans, Oxford university has even gone as far as to take a vote of no confidence in the higher education minister, David Willetts.

I consider education, together with (at least a fair degree of) aid for the less privileged in both home and foreign countries, to be the top priorities for any country that has the means. Consequently I am in favour of having the funding gap filled by extra resources from the treasury. I don’t quite know what the most logical options would be for what to cut spending on to provide for these extra resources. To mention one thing that might be part of the solution I would always be in favour of having the strongest shoulders bear the heaviest burden (within certain limits).

British Apache helicopters strike Gaddafi's forces for first time

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/british-apache-helicopters-attack-libyan-targets-2292971.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/04/apache-helicopters-strike-libya-targets

Britain enrolled in the Nato campaign in Libyan for the first time. Two British combat helicopters attacked and destroyed a radar installation as well as a military checkpoint. One of the two choppers was attacked by forces loyal to Colonel Gaddafi, but both safely made it back to Royal Navy helicopter carrier.

The operation was planned simultaneously with other operations by Nato allies, one of which was a an operation by French attack helicopters who struck 15 military vehicles and 5 military command buildings.

Both foreign affair secretary William Hague, who flew into Benghazi to further pledge Britain's backing for the anti-Gaddafi National Transitional Council, as well as defence secretary Liam Fox, who is in Singapore attending a security conference, have already responded to the operation. Both made clear that Britain will stay actively involved in Nato’s Libya campaign as long as Gaddafi keeps attacking and killing his own people.

The operations are much hailed by the rebels, according to the the head of the rebel council, Mustafa Abdel Jalil the rebels "welcome any measures that would expedite the departure of Gaddafi and his regime."

For all I personally know of the situation in Libya the way Gaddafi runs his country should be strongly frowned upon by any democratic nation. If that on itself would be reason to declare war on a country or government that might well cause a lot more bad than it does good. Yet when a people comes into protest against its leader and the leader strikes back as hard as he can, killing many, I think it’s the duty of the western world to defend the people. And so I think it is good that the Nato clearly chooses a team now.

The situation in Libya has been going on for quite some while now, it did take Nato quite some while to get a campaign started. I don’t know what reasons there were not to take action earlier, it seems to me acting earlier might have prevented many innocent civilian casualties. But then again, I don’t think I have the knowledge to judge. At least action is being taken against the horrible dictator Gaddafi is.