Now here is a book I am going to get. The Daily Telegraph has published a compilation of annoying phrases, cliches etc in the English language. It is entitled She Literally Exploded: The Daily Telegraph Infuriating Phrasebook.
Curious to know whether any of the cliches, phrases etc that annoy me the most, have made it into the book. At the moment, the following set my teeth on edge: ‘close down the debate’, and ‘capture the public imagination’. I even hate that I have had to type them out here.
The Conservative Party has been thinking about marriages involving non-EU spouses. According to the Telegraph, here are some of their proposals, in respect of entry into the UK:
In making these proposals, the Tories are thinking about immigration, sham marriages, and integration, but they need to tread very carefully.
Damien Green, the party’s immigration spokesman, is quoted as saying:
“Too many young women are brought to England to marry when they cannot possibly integrate with our society. They need better protection.”
If so, why increase the age from 18 to 21? Is it not better for the spouses to come in when they are younger, and have more chance of getting an education, perhaps going to a college, joining an apprenticeship, or learning a trade? Many employers looking for trainees will happily take on an 18 year old, perhaps more so than they would a 21 year old; so if it really is integration that the Tories are concerned about, they should not be raising the age of eligibility. The younger one is, the greater the chances of integrating, I would have thought.
I also suspect the Tories are on dodgy human rights grounds with these proposals. So if a bride fails the English test, she is to be sent back whence she came until such time as she can pass? Also consider these two scenarios: an English man who marries a Canadian woman who speaks only French, and an English man (from say, Bradford) who marries a non English-speaking girl from Islamabad? Both are non-EU foreign brides, but somehow I think that only one couple is the target of these proposals. What then happens? Will the immigration officers apply the law literally, and turn away the Canadian, in the name of ‘consistency’? Or will they disingenuously find some narrow grounds for admitting her, while turning away her Pakistani sister?
As for citizenship tests, I have no problem with them. Everybody applying for citizenship should sit a test, regardless of whether or not the applicant is a ‘non-EU spouse’. Perhaps a foreign spouse could be granted indefinite leave to remain, and then upgraded to citizenship on taking, and passing, the test.
These proposals come very close to interfering with the right to marry. Earlier this week, the Court of Appeal ruled that regulations requiring non-European citizens to obtain a certificate of approval before marriage were illegal, and breached the right to marry. Of course, the Tories would argue that they are not restricting the right to marry. Their argument would probably be that one may marry as one wishes, as the restriction is not on marriage per se, but on the right of entry to the United Kingdom. Maybe so, but these proposals, at the very least, interfere with family life.
Take another example: an English man marries an 18 year old girl from Islamabad, who speaks perfect English, and is in every respect ‘fit for UK society’. However, because she is only 18, they are told that she can’t come in until she’s 21. There is nothing he can do to fix that. All he can do is wait three years. Interference with family life? Most certainly, especially given the fact that in the United Kingdom, one may legally marry at 18. At least in the case of a 21 year old, non-English speaking Pakistani bride, a few months in a language school should ensure she passes the English test, and can therefore enter the country. In the case of her 18 year old sister, no such advantage. She stays out of the country until she ‘comes of age’.
My message to the Tories: it is good that you are thinking, although quite why one should credit you for doing that most basic of functions, I don’t know. Still, thinking is good, and there has not been much evidence of that in recent days. However, these ideas are still half-baked, and need a lot more work. Please think about them a bit more before putting them out for consultation.
Should Liverpool defeat AC Milan tonight, the media tomorrow will be full of reports about the ’superiority of English football’.
Interesting how this so-called ’superiority’ only manifests itself at club level, and never translates to the national team. Could it have a little more (than is acknowleged) to do with the skilled foreigners playing at club level? Perish the thought!
I would appreciate it if the media stop deceiving themselves. Superiority of English football? I think not. Superiority of foreign players in English clubs? That’s more like it.
UPDATE. Oh dear. It seems we won’t be seeing those headlines after all.
Sky News is very upset today. The Chinese have been abusing their animals again. There is footage of live animals being thrown to tigers in Chinese zoos. Onlookers revel in the spectacle of the hapless animals being set upon and torn to shreds. To add to Sky’s incredulity, the Chinese authorities don’t see anything wrong with the practice.
Animal rights campaigners are not happy either, although I can imagine the Chinese authorities would simply make the point that the zoos are merely replicating what happens out there in the jungle, anyway. It is perfectly normal to see a tiger chase down and kill a weaker animal out in the jungle, so the Chinese are wondering what all the fuss is about when they move the location of the killing and eating away from the jungle and into a cage.
Is it the rights of the animal being killed that we should worry about? Or is it the fear that little children watching such ‘entertainment’ may be traumatised?
As to the ‘rights’ of the animal, it is easy to see what upsets the campaigners. However some might argue as follows: almost every weekend, there is some wildlife documentary on television in which animals (in their natural habitat, it must be said) are filmed attacking and killing their prey. This is also entertainment, but in what we no doubt think is a sanitised form. We are watching it in our sitting rooms, as opposed to going to the zoo to do so. And in addition, there is an educated voice in the background giving us such revealing gems as ‘the tiger circles his prey for the last time.’ Yes, this is entertainment, the civilised way.
I spent part of my early years in Africa. My parents worked all over the world and we ended up living in many exotic places. It was very common in those days for the zoos to put on the sort of entertainment that the Chinese are now doing. In one particular town, the lion was fed only on Saturdays. The meal never changed; one live goat. The time also never changed; midday. Eleven thirty on Saturdays therefore found the local (and also some expat) children and their parents waiting at the zoo gates for their weekly entertainment. And the lion never failed to disappoint. As for the goat, well, no one spared much thought for it, reason being that it would have been killed and eaten, anyway, whether or not by the lion. I never went to watch; my mother wouldn’t let me. However, the next Monday at school, the place would be abuzz with blow-by-blow accounts from the children who had attended the weekly proceedings.
Why am I telling this story? Who knows, actually? Maybe watching Sky News being so incredulous about it made me think. I am not making any judgement here, simply recounting my experiences. Perhaps the only point I will make is that, in places where human rights count for little, animal rights do not even enter into the conversation.
What happened to the lion in the end? Oh, it eventually died of starvation. As is the way with many African towns, poverty began to bite, and the zoo attendants began to baulk at feeding a whole goat to a lion when they themselves had very little to eat. At first the weekly entertainment was cancelled, as the lion began to receive only portions of the goat - the rest being diverted away by the attendants. Soon, even that was too much, and the lion stopped getting anything at all. Before long, the lion was dead, and by some bitter irony, its cage was occupied by two goats, so frail and advanced in years, that nobody had the heart to kill.
These were the words used to describe Parliament by an angry Norman Baker MP today on Sky News. He is disgusted with the vote by MPs to exempt Parliament from the Freedom of Information Act.
Well said, sir.
But I wonder, why is he surprised? Did he not know before today that this self-serving behaviour is exactly what the public have now come to expect of MPs? He says that for the first time ever, he feels ashamed to be an MP. What? Only now? Was he proud of Parliament when they voted to award themselves a £10,000 communications allowance? Or when they vote to award themselves all manner of perks out of the public purse? And has he been proud of Parliament when they have voted again and again to limit our rights and freedoms?
I don’t mean to criticise Norman Baker. After all, he was doing the right thing today by voting against the exemption. I also know he voted against the £10,000 communications allowance (see here and here). I am only wondering why it took something like this for him to experience the shame we feel in our elected politicians.
What exactly are they supposed to achieve? Do people just want to feel that they are ‘doing something’? Sometimes in life, circumstances arise in which there is very little we can do to help. Perhaps we would be better off acknowledging that. The yellow ribbons seem more than anything else to be ministering to the emotional needs of the wearer, that is, the need to feel useful in such a desperate case.
A different case if payment were actually being made for the ribbons, with the sums collected being added to a fund to find Madeleine. Now that would be a useful contribution.
Sometimes I don’t understand the mainstream media. Prince Harry has just been told that he cannot join his men in Iraq because of security concerns, and today, there is a story in the Daily Mail about the Prince’s ’secret new war role’. True, they don’t have a lot of detail, but do they not see the folly in revealing to the nation (and others besides) what they have learnt about where Harry may or may not be deployed in future? Yes, I know that there is an irony in my writing about it and drawing attention to the story, but I am getting fed up with the stories that regularly appear in the media. Some come dangerously close to compromising the security of British troops abroad. Perhaps those who write them do not think that our enemies also read newspapers.
As Gordon Brown waxes expansive on all the wonderful things he will do to transform this land into a paradise, he had better remember that he comes to office on the Labour party election manifesto of 2005. Any attempt to deviate from that manifesto (by introducing conflicting policies) must be accompanied by a general election.
I for one will be watching him keenly.
Following the news that Gordon Brown has received the support of enough MPs to ensure that there won’t be a leadership contest after all, Sky News have taken to referring to him as ‘Prime Minister-elect’. Elect? ‘Prime Minister-nominate’, perhaps.
Now I’ve heard everything. This from the Telegraph:
The Conservative Party will officially sever links with academic selection in the state sector today, accusing grammar schools of entrenching social advantage.
David Willetts, the shadow education secretary, will warn grammar supporters in the party that they cannot harp back to the past.
“We must break free from the belief that academic selection is any longer the way to transform the life chances of bright, poor kids,” he will say.
“This is a widespread belief but we just have to recognise that there is overwhelming evidence that such academic selection entrenches advantage, it does not spread it.”
On that note, I am terminating my membership of the Conservative Party. Someone let me know when they return to their senses. Failing that, I will be supporting any party that offers a true conservative manifesto. I think it’s time to take another look at Ukip.
