UNIVERSAL DISCONTENT ?
Government Minister Mr.Willetts, inexplicably nick named two brains, is quoted as saying:
'Universities will be told they should recruit more white, working-class boys in the wake of figures showing a massive slump in applications from men for courses.'
Very PC! How did Governments manage to massacre not only our Universities, but in the process all those fine Technical Colleges? There was a time one went to University or College on Merit, not for fulfillment of an ethnicity or gender quota, nor because having attended an inadequate Secondary School one wasn't able to Matriculate. One reads in the Press this Sunday Morning that an Oxford University Academic has criticised its whole entry technique. Maybe he has a point for as previously mentioned three of my immediate neighbours children failed to be selected at Oxford interviews, but then gained First Class Degrees at Bristol and Edinburgh, whilst the third could be presumed would have got a first from Edinburgh, if Medical Degrees were rated.
'One way working class students got to University was through the Grammar Schools. All might have hoped that the Conservative element of our coalition Government would be in favour of the restoration of Grammar Schooling, however it isn't.
It isn't a matter of too few attending University, the problem was that too many inadequate' brains' have been kidded into the belief that scraping through Modular Exams and doing Course Work equipped them for a University Education. Too many sought entry to one, at a time Tuition was free, and basic living allowances were given.Who wouldn't want some of the action ? Most who made it had one hell of a time, and all too many of them came out with either an exceedingly poor Degree, or an over inflated Degree from Haunts of Coot and Hern. ( This is not a cryptic reference to any particular University.)
Conservatives used to tell that one couldn't 'level up' in life only 'level down''. How right that opinion was, and how unfortunate it is that such a truism is now ignored. When I was younger fewer went to University, and most young men did National Service, and then found themselves a job at the going rate. If such a pittance meant living at home or abstaining from the pleasures of life, worse things were said to happen at sea. In those days one didn't reach ones majority until the age of 21.
WHAT RELEVANCE IS THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND ?
Mine is not a Partisan Comment, for I have long been dissociated from anything other than Ecumenism. However when one reads that a whole Phalanx of Nuns defected from a Cof E Convent in Wantage and associated themselves with the Catholic Church, one wonders why that should be, can it be because the Church Of England is a discredited concept ? It has of course always been a very Broad Church, but there is comes a 'tipping point' where at members may think the best thing to do is 'Jump the Ship and Flounder.'Take this business of Gay Bishops. Either the Cof E. has a disregard for those who practice Homosexuality, or it doesn't. If it does then surely 'fessing up' to having been a practicing Homosexual, or even stating ones intent to be a non practicing one in future, should preclude one from being either a Priest or a Bishop. Leopards do not change their spots. People are different in life and I am happy that others should be allowed to do their own thing. What I find objectionable is the Mealy Mouthed approach of the Bishops' Conference. Tts attitude is so different from the attitude of RC. Archbishop V. Nicholls, who seemingly isn't prepared to compromise over his Church's attitude to Doctrine. The Church of England puts me in mind of that apocryphal joke of the Sailor, who after hearing a recitation of the Ave Maria in a Catholic Church, thought that what had been said was 'All my eye and Betty Martin.'
May 'God' be with practicing Christians, and those who follow all other Faiths, and attend their appropriate places of Worship. HOWEVER THOSE WHO REMAIN LOYAL TO THEIR FAITH SHOULD RECOGNISE THE POSSIBILITY THAT DIMINISHING CONGREGATIONS MIGHT NOT BE AS A MOTE IN THE EYE OF OTHERS.
CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS VERSUS MARRIAGE ?
Neither are matters unrelated to the above. However my Law Lexicon defines marriage as the Status of a man and a woman conjoined in matrimony.( Marriage Acts 1811-1934.) It makes no mention that the term applies to the partnership of either two men or two women. One can not doubt that Parliamentary Opportunists can amend any law they choose to amend, however opportunism isn't any excuse for unnecessarily debasing the Status Quo . Civil Partnerships rightly gave the same concessions to those in the Partnerships as are enjoyed by those who are married.Whichever tune opportunists play on their fiddle, Marriage will remain Marriage, and Civil Partnerships Civil Partnerships. Governance is not about semantics, nor to misquote the late Robin Day, the plaything of ' here today and gone tomorrow Politicians' As if we'd be so lucky! Our Prime Minister is a pleasant enough chap, however if what we have seen of his Government so far, is as good as we can hope for in the second half of his administration, possibly he'd do better to move on. Our Shambolic Government in its inadequacy, is touching on Shoddiness. As an example, this mess up that has been made concerning Child Allowances. Whosoever was responsible for the mathematics of that, should be the first for the chop.
