The Celtic and the English civilization.

Recent events in the UK, have given me pause to reflect on one very obvious issue. Almost every media organ referred to the riots as “UK riots”...yet, it is most clear when one looks at the list of locations of the riots – which were many, incidentally – that this was NOT a British problem – but an English one. An unavoidable conclusion comes to me: English civilization has declined in relation to Celtic civilization and now, at this time, the Celts (that is the Irish, the Scots and the Welsh) are most definitely more civilized than the English. The further question that this prompts me to ask is: was this always so?

The Irish, as an example of the Celts, are noted for their friendliness and ease of conversation. The English are traditionally noted for aloofness, to a degree and reluctance to engage with strangers (at least, a certain class of Englishmen). Could it be that the disengaged English are not working together to create an inclusive civilization, whereas the friendly Irish etc are being more inclusive and more, thereby, civilizing?

It is funny, in a way – darkly funny – for you see the English, that is a certain class of English, have long looked down on the Irish – they think of themselves as “superior” to the Irish. This is, of course, an English delusion since the Irish are among the most creative and intelligent people I know (that is I can produce specific examples of creativity and intelligence from among the Irish population). On the other hand, England has spent the last few generations breeding a new class of people, for whom “intelligence” is an unspellable word (yes, my computer suspects that to be a neologism, but never mind). This new class of Englishman is, perhaps, more violent, more resentful, more ungrateful, more parasitic and more criminal than any other similar group in any country I care to think of. They are the New Englishman. Now, it seems to me, that if England does not confront the implications of the existence of this large group of largely unemployable individuals, that England faces ruin in the long term: these people have the power to bring down that once great nation. You see, one big problem is that this group appears quite fertile: they are having lots of kids. There are many accounts of great fecundity among them. Yet, what kind of children are they having? Generally speaking, they are in the mould of their parents: low IQ, unskilled, uneducated, and, it seems, quite often, violent. Does England really want to be over-run by hordes of low IQ youngsters, who think that burglary is a respectable profession and mugging is an enjoyable hobby?

The problem the English now face, is made particularly difficult by the nature of the English State. There are particular obvious solutions to this problem which would be politically impossible. For instance, any significant reduction in benefits for this “underclass” would result in said underclass, numbering in the millions, voting out the existing government and replacing it with any party who promised to reinstate their benefits. Yet, it cannot be doubted that the benefit system, as is, has paid for the creation of this underclass. Unless difficult decisions are made and implemented and unless the various parties can agree, together, to maintain these changes, this underclass will only grow and grow until it becomes a dominant force in England. At that time, England, as we think we know it, would be at an end. The nation that would be in its place, would be a very ugly one indeed. The recent riots would be as nothing compared to the chronic condition of such a nation.

I hope that England’s present leaders, find the strength to face up to this problem and address it intelligently, even if their approach causes short term pain, as long as it ameliorates the situation, in the long term. Until then, however, it seems safe to say that Celtic civilization is more civilized than the English have now become.

Disclosure: I am Irish – but that doesn’t change the validity of what I have observed.

Posted by Valentine Cawley.

(If you would like to support my continued writing of this blog and my ongoing campaign to raise awareness about giftedness and all issues pertaining to it, please donate, by clicking on the gold button to the left of the page.

To read about my fundraising campaign, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-in-support-of-my.html and here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-first-donation.html

If you would like to read any of our scientific research papers, there are links to some of them, here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/02/research-papers-by-valentine-cawley-and.html

If you would like to see an online summary of my academic achievements to date, please go here: http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11136175

To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 5, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

There is a review of my blog, on the respected The Kindle Report here:http://thekindlereport.blogspot.com/2010/09/boy-who-knew-too-much-child-prodigy.html

Please have a read, if you would like a critic's view of this blog. Thanks.

You can get my blog on your Kindle, for easy reading, wherever you are, by going to: http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/B0042P5LEE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1284603792&sr=8-1

Please let all your fellow Kindlers know about my blog availability - and if you know my blog well enough, please be so kind as to write a thoughtful review of what you like about it. Thanks.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at:http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/

Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/

Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is athttp://www.genghiscan.com/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

Of responsibility and humanity.

The level of a civilization may be determined by the degree of care people have for each other. By that measure, Great Britain is in severe decline.

Last night, Scotland was hailing three 18 year old students as heroes, for saving the life of a drowning woman. Graham McGrath, Rosie Lucey and Rhys Black spotted a 37 year old woman in the water near the Albert Bridge in Glasgow. She was crying out for help and getting lower and lower in the water. She was obviously drowning. Lifebelts had been thrown towards her, but she was too far from them, to reach them. This lady had mere moments to live.

Luckily, one would have thought, the police had reached the scene. I say "would have thought" for a reason. What do you think the Strathclyde police did when faced with a drowning woman? Have a good think.

Well, they decided to hold back the crowd. Apparently, saving a drowning woman is "not our responsibility...it is for the fire and rescue service to go into the water."

Wonderful. So, what do we have here? A variation on: "That is not my department".

So, the Strathclyde police force think that because jumping into the water to rescue drowning people doesn't fall into their job description, but is the job of "fire and rescue" that they should stand idly by and watch a woman drown? The fire and rescue service had not reached the scene. By the time they did, this woman would be dead. But what did the police force do? Control the crowd (because that IS in their job description).

Fortunately, three students, who didn't have jobs or job descriptions to limit their behavioural choices, decided that, since no-one else was doing anything to help her, that they would save her. Graham McGrath and Rosie Lucey, jumped into the water, swam out to the lady and pulled her back to the bank, as far as they could. Mr. Rhys Black then waded in to help them pull her out.

Now, the formerly drowning lady's lips were blue and her tongue was white. This is not surprising since, according to Mr. Rhys Black, she had been under the water for two minutes. She was in dire need of CPR.

Who do you think stepped forward, at that moment, to save this woman's life? Was it the policemen, all of whom were, no doubt, trained in CPR? No. The students set about performing CPR on the woman. At first they could find no pulse, no sign that she still lived - but they persisted. After a few minutes of CPR, she gurgled and a large amount of water came out of her mouth. She was alive.

The lady was taken to hospital where she is now recovering. Throughout all of this, the policemen took no steps to save her life.

Please reflect on that. Reflect on what it says Britain has become. Somewhere, along the way, it has lost its soul. Once upon a time, the lowest policeman would have done his utmost to save that woman. Indeed, once upon a time, anyone in the land, would have jumped in, to stop her from dying, unaided. Not anymore...now, several members of the police force and a WHOLE CROWD of onlookers, can stand idly by, curious to see, perhaps, what a drowning person looks like - but NONE of them tried to help - until three young students, perhaps too young to have been indoctrinated by the national indifference, jumped in to save her life.

Once people were guided by their basic humanity, in their conduct with others. They made moral choices, based on moral centres, built up through a life's experience of what is good and right and moral. Now, however, we have "public servants" without any heart or soul at all. They are guided, not by a common inner morality, but by RULES and REGULATIONS and JOB DESCRIPTIONS. They are no longer human. They have become a variety of fleshy automata.

Any policeman who can stand by and watch someone drown just because it is not in his "job description" and is not his "responsibility" therefore, is inhuman. Life is the most precious gift any of us have. To stand by and watch someone lose that...lose EVERYTHING, just because nothing in their job description says they have to save her, is beyond belief. Those policemen have forgotten the most basic ideal of their profession "to serve and protect". To stand by, whilst a lady drowns, neither serves nor protects. It, in fact, shows an indifference to the value of human life, an attitude of cold uncaring for one's fellow humans, that is quite beyond belief.

When I was younger, the news papers were filled with stories of the heroism of police officers, fire officers and other public servants in the course of their duties. Remarkable acts of courage were quite commonplace. Now, we have, in their stead, a regulated indifference to human life - a police force that will first check its rule book, it regulations and its job descriptions, before intervening on the behalf of another human life imperilled. This just cannot be right. Worse, perhaps, than active evil, is passive indifference. At least the evil man acts out of some kind of inner principle, or motive force - all those policemen were acting out of, was a self-justified cowardice. The most likely underlying truth of the situation is that not a one of those policemen wanted to jump into the water, to save her, lest they might endanger themselves. So, what did they do? Checked their rule books for a reason to GET OUT OF DOING SO. Their job description didn't include such tasks - so they wouldn't do it, even though a woman was busily dying whilst they discovered that they didn't have a conscience to argue with.

I don't know why those policemen became policemen. I know this, though: it cannot have been for the reasons that policemen, of the past, used to do so. Policemen of earlier generations, genuinely seemed to have a certain nobility about their role in society: they were there to fight crime, protect and serve the people - and generally do what good they could, to ensure that the nation was safe to live in. Any policeman of earlier generations would, most definitely, have jumped in to save her. Not now...now they would rather not get their clothes wet: after all what does the life of some stranger matter to them?

Technically, it may not have been their "responsibility" in terms of job description and division of labour, to have jumped in to save that woman. Technically, it may, indeed, have been the "responsibility" of the fire and rescue service. However, MORALLY, it WAS their responsibility to save her. It was essentially wrong for them to do nothing to help her, when not doing so would mean her death, when they were, quite clearly, in a position to help: they were standing by the body of water, in which was drowning. Basic humanity, and concern for our fellow human beings, should have guided them to save her. Yet, they had neither responsibility, nor humanity. They did not feel bound either by the rules under which they worked, or any sense of the value of human life. These policemen lack basic humanity.

It concerns me that they felt their job descriptions took precedence over their humanity. No job description should take precedence over humanity. That is the route on which the Nazis trod. They justified their inhumanity, by their job descriptions. So, too, were these policemen. Their indifference to that woman's life, was just as much a crime, as anything Germans managed to do a few generations before. The same thought process is at work: they justified their lack of action to save a life, based on their job descriptions and the division of labour in the emergency services. The value of a life, had no value for them. Only the rules under which they operate had value. There is something profoundly disturbing about that.

No rule should take precedence over human life. No job description should ever lead to inhuman acts. Yet, for the British police, rules do take precedence over life - and they do lead to inhuman acts, or inhuman inaction.

I must say, I don't recognize what Britain has become since I left it, in 1999. The place has been transformed into something I do not know, anymore. I feel the country of my birth has died, since I left it. It is no more. In its place we have something rather disturbing, if you care to look at it, with any perception.

I hope the publicity attached to this near drowning leads to a change in the rules that govern police action and inaction. Those rules cannot be allowed to stand unchanged if they lead, directly, to an indifference to basic humanity and the value of human life.

All Britain has to do, is to remind its public servants, that humanity should take precedence over any rule or regulation that has been, is, or shall be ever invented. Call that Rule No. 1.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 6 and Tiarnan, 4, this month, please go to:
http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at: http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/
Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/
Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is at http://www.genghiscan.com/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

Crime in the UK and Singapore.

Violent crime is the type that people most fear: property can be replaced, life and limb cannot.

I have lived in both the UK and in Singapore. There are many differences between these two countries. Most people are of the view that Singapore is less free and that one's life is less restricted in the UK. There is some truth to this, but there is another side, too. In the UK, there is an epidemic of violent crime afflicting the nation - in Singapore there is no such thing.

In 2006, the Metropolitan Police released a statement that 52 teenagers a week, in London, were subject to knife related crime. That is an astonishing figure and indicates that London is no longer the safe place it was, when I was growing up there. I have seen no figures for Singapore, but in the six years I have spent here, I have only heard of a handful of cases of knife use, in the media, or by word of mouth. It is rare, here.

Why is the UK suffering an epidemic of knife-related crime - and Singapore is not? Well, one key reason is the way the state responds to violent crime. The UK takes a softly softly approach: the penalties for knife crime are really very minor, there. Singapore takes a harsh line, on all crime.

In the UK, in 2006, the Violent Crime Reduction Act increased the maximum penalty for carrying a knife from a pathetic two years in prison, to an almost as pathetic four years in prison. I am not able to find the corresponding penalty for Singapore but, as an indicator, a comparison can be made with gun possession. The possession of any weapon in Singapore is severely punished with lengthy prison sentences and caning (which causes terrible wounds). The use of any weapon in a crime results in life imprisonment and caning. Should anyone be killed by the weapon, the penalty is death - and death is almost inevitable in the Singaporean system. I have never seen anyone "let off".

I have watched the Singaporean legal system now, for several years: punishments for all crimes tend to be severe - and I have never seen moderation in the state's response to crime. In the UK, however, in 60,000 incidents of knife use, only 9 offenders received the maximum penalty. So, the Singaporean state responds aggressively to an individual with a weapon. The UK state does not. Singapore has no violent crime problem; the UK has a terrible one. It is reasonable to conclude that the UK problem is partially caused by its judicial leniency - were they to adopt a harsh response to the possession of weapons, the problem would most probably decline.

In a very real sense, the UK has chosen to have a knife crime problem. They have chosen to have the problem because they have chosen to respond too leniently to the criminals. Imagine that they adopt a harsher penal regime. Imagine that to be found carrying a knife, or any other weapon, would lead to a mandatory penalty of 15 years in prison without parole or bail. Imagine that using the weapon in a crime would lead to a mandatory penalty of life without parole. Imagine that killing someone with the weapon would lead to a mandatory death sentence for the killer. How much knife crime (or other weapon related crime) would the UK have once a few criminals had been sentenced under the new regime? I would think that they would have very close to NO KNIFE CRIME AT ALL.

So, it is up to the government of the UK and its judiciary to solve this problem. All they need to do is come down harshly on the weapon wielders - doing so will make the UK a safe haven, once more, as once it used to be. I really rather hope they do something akin to what I have suggested.

Yesterday, news of the latest teenager to die in a knife-fight in London broke across the world. Rob Knox, an upcoming actor, with a role in the next Harry Potter film, was stabbed to death defending his younger brother and friends from an enraged knife-wielding 21 year old man, outside the Metro pub, next to Sidcup railway station. Rob was stabbed four times, while trying to disarm the man and several others were injured, too. Had the UK a Singaporean style response to crime, it is most likely that this young actor would not have died. It is most likely that his killer would have thought better of the penalty he would receive and not carried a knife in the first place.

Fourteen teenagers have been stabbed to death in London so far this year. How many more must die before the UK adopts a civilized response to knife crime? By civilized response, I mean a response that protects the people of the nation and refuses to tolerate such crime. So, in a sense, one should be as uncivilized as possible to the criminals, so as to preserve the quality of life for everyone else.

Rob Knox's death has brought the knife issue in the UK to the attention of the world. Let him not have died in vain. It is time for the UK to act. Knife crime is easy to stop. All they have to do is make the penalties truly substantial - then it will quickly become a problem of the past.

For the sake of the UK, I hope the government there chooses a better future for its people: stiffen the law, to save the society.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and five months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and ten months, and Tiarnan, twenty-seven months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind, niño, gênio criança, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)