The Burma cyclone disaster just keeps getting worse.

What started as a natural catastrophe quickly turned into a humanitarian crisis. 

David Milliband – a ‘natural disaster’ is turning into a ‘humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions’.

If small steps had been taken – and if the Burmese government were a bit more flexible – then this crisis could have been stemmed.  If:

• The Burmese government had made it easier for aid workers and US military to enter the country
• The Burmese army had targeted their support to the worst hit areas – instead of just around the capital
• The government had speeded up aid processes once it became clear how the crisis was escalating and how many people were dying in the aftermath – due to lack of water and food

And now the government could be doing more to help adequately manage the dead bodies – to prevent spread of infection among other things.

When will they learn?

Smaller class sizes do not help pupils perform better in school. 

A recent report with comments by the deputy director of the Institute of Education, Professor Dylan William said that cutting class sizes was not a cost effective way of boosting grades.

Classes needed to be reduced to 15 or less to have a significant impact, he said.  - This is impractical in most schools. 

Apparently – continuous monitoring of pupils’ assessment is a better way of teaching.  – Some schools now do this by offering a ‘traffic light’ system – where pupils hold up coloured cards to indicate whether they have understood what the teacher has said. 

Smaller classes help if children are unruly and hard to manage. 

But William has called for a complete over-haul of teaching methods – if we are to really get to the nitty gritty of the problem – and tackle it head on.

Tecahers need to allow more time for pupils to respond to questions, and take more trouble to check that they have fully understood what has been said.

So why are we still trying to reduce class sizes?

And why aren’t teachers taking more note of these and similar recommendations?

Perhaps the problem – relating to the latter point particularly – is one of ‘ego-teaching’.  Teachers think they know best.  Period.  Even if the way in which they are teaching is actually detrimental to students’ progress.  And pupils are really at their mercy.

Teachers need to listen to education chiefs when they say something isn’t working.  Because – chances are – they’re probably right. 

The role of the monarchy is largely – if not entirely symbolic.  Its powers form part of convention, not practice. 

Any real powers have been gradually eroded over time.  It has formal powers of Crown in the executive process of British Government.  But in practice these are largely exercised by Ministers as part of constitutional monarchy. 

These amount to ‘official’ appointment of ministers – but not in reality (Prime Minister’s job).   They give Royal Assent to all  Government Bills – but again, this is largely convention.   They ‘officially’ open and dissolve Parliament – convention again.  And ‘declare war’ – Prime Minister again in reality. 

These insignificant roles hardly seem enough to justify such a seeming worthless and hugely expensive institution.  And just because it has been there for so many years does not make it a good idea. 

We should scrap the royal family – once and for all – because:    

- The concept is outdated

- They perform no real function – of any real importance

 - The monarchy is expensive – a drain on tax-payers’ money

The criminal justice system in this country is bonkers.
 
Three men walk free after a well organised fraud of a 90 year old woman totalling £185, 000 - but a 16 year old boy is remanded in custody for failing to produce a valid TV licence.  And a 19 year old boy is remanded in custody for failing to produce a valid car insurance certificate. 
 
And a 37 year old homeless man – in court for failing to turn up to 3 meetings out of 17 with his court supervisor is denied bail and sent back to jail until his trial becuase he has nowhere else to go. 
 
Meanwhile, a rich and famous football player, arrested on suspicion of rape after police were called to the boutique hotel in which he was staying after a club party is given bail until his trail in two months, but a 41 year old father, a solicitor is jailed for 20 months for trying to take back his seven month old daughter from interim foster care – who was put into care because of ‘mental health difficulties’ of his wife. 
 
And today – a British born man who’s served 20 years of a life sentence on death row – having narrowly avoided being given the death sentence – for unintentionally starting a fire in which a young girl was killed – is released  after serving 20 years ond death row, while three 13 year old boys who started a fire on purpose in a warehouse - but said they thought it had been put out when they left - causing the death of a 33 year old man - were cleared by a jury. 
 
This is wrong.  Because:
 
Jailing young offenders, or indeed older/repeat offenders does not solve the problem.  – Prison is not an effective rehabilitation for offenders.  
 
So what is the purpose of Prison?
- To punish?
- To keep away from society so no more harm to others can be done?
- To rehabilitate?
 
Are any of these aims compatable?  Are some of them, perhaps, counteractive?  And are they really achieved by jailing offenders? - And if not – what’s the point, excatly?