The Cornerstone Group

One in ten military exercises have been axed, raising fears that British troops are not being properly prepared for war.

Defence chiefs have scrapped 38 training deployments for soldiers, sailors and airmen in 2009 – 9 per cent of those planned.

Former military commanders and opposition MPs branded the decision ‘ regrettable’ and warned it could jeopardise the safety of service personnel.

Live exercises are crucial because they allow troops to hone their skills by simulating war zone situations. They offer an opportunity to get used to kit, weapons and vehicles before they are sent on operations.

But figures uncovered by the Tories reveal a raft of exercises have been shelved for financial reasons. Read in full in the Daily Mail.

Month after month, I see first hand countless shoplifters as they face Justice in the Magistrates Court. As our bench contemplates the best course of sentencing by reference to the sentencing guidelines there is no mention under mitigating factors of ” severe poverty” as one we should consider.

However, I always wonder about the life history that has led the convicted individual to go into a large store to steal, often for money for drugs, alcohol or food. Never does my compassion and sadness lead me to conclude that their crime is justified. Therefore, news of the Yorkshire vicar’s conclusion that to shoplift, in moderation from a large store is permissible leaves me mystified.“My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift,” 

I can see how, in areas of deprivation, with a very poor congregation set amidst a culture which prizes so much consumer wealth that a vicar could be moved, momentarily, to dream up radical redistributive measures. But I cannot grasp how anyone could then justify it from the Bible and then preach it from the pulpit. Rev Tim Jones, epitomizes the spirit of the age. By a sentimental assessment of a human state he has drawn the wrong conclusion and then sought to back it up with a muddle-headed application of Biblical teaching.”Thou shalt not steal “is pretty unambiguous to me. Read in full at Conservative Home.

It seems that almost every day we hear of new ways in which the government has managed to waste tax payers money through inefficiency and at times pure absurdity. I cannot be alone in feeling that Francesca Walker’s housing benefits of over £90,000 a year are ludicrous. This is not a tirade against single mothers or ethnic minorities. I simply want to protest at the way in which this government spends money in a totally irresponsible way and have already bankrupted the country and still insist on spending like it is going out of fashion.

I am very pleased that Miss Walker and her eight children have a roof over their heads but I cannot understand the logic of housing them in a four story villa in Notting hill which costs taxpayers £7,600 a month. Last month, it was revealed that a Somali family of nine are living in a £1.8million central London house costing £1,600 a week. A family of eight Afghan immigrants have been housed for the last 14 months in a £ 1.2million house in Ealing, West London, at a cost so far of £168,000.

Some might think it very noble of the Government to sacrifice so much for those in need but it is totally irresponsible to spend a penny more than is necessary. These figures abuse all those who work hard and pay their taxes. I do not blame those living off these benefits. I do not want them to be made homeless, but there is no excuse for the Government who squander these enormous amounts of money on a few while there are still children living in poverty in this country.

The state of public finances is appalling, this Labour Government has run the country into the ground and still to want dig deeper. It is time for a new era of responsibility where the Government respects the money which is earned by the people and stops insulting us with this waste.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235604/Single-mother-living-2-6m-mansion–Labours-housing-benefit-crackdown.html

Politicians are often criticised for not acting honestly in their dealings with the electorate. Giving a straight answer can seem beyond their remit, but the truth is that giving a straight answer is almost always what the public want to hear, however unpalatable. One only has to look at the public reaction to the contrast between David Cameron’s honest assessment of the budget deficit and the subsequent need for cuts and the stalling tactics employed by Gordon Brown on the subject.

Perhaps if politicians realised that honesty about their religious beliefs wasn’t such a bad thing either then the stigma which has been created in recent times towards Christianity in particular would be reduced. As the Archbishop of Canterbury observed recently, Labour have done Christianity a huge disservice by treating religion as an “oddity” and a “problem” rather than as a tool that can be a force for good. Indeed, Tony Blair’s infamous spin-doctor famously quipped that “We don’t do God”, despite the then Prime Minister being a man of faith.

As a politician who is not afraid to speak publicly about my religious faith, (I am a practicing Roman Catholic) I write regularly on religion and politics and have also edited and contributed to a book entitled The Nation that Forgot God. The book contains a series of essays which explore how the gradual secularisation of Britain has caused a number of social and cultural problems. I suggest that it would make good reading for any potential or current ambitious politician as it attempts, amongst other things, to disprove the notion that reason and religious faith are mutually exclusive. This mutual exclusivity has been a key component of Labour’s politically correct sideling of religion from the political spectrum, much to the detriment of modern society. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6792088/Archbishop-of-Canterbury-Labour-treats-us-like-oddballs.html

The case of the battered (as in deep fried in batter) Bible, a work by two young artists attempting to represent Glaswegian culture and recently sold at a public gallery in Glasgow, highlights the double standards practiced in Britain today.
 
One suspects that had the exhibit been of a curried Koran perhaps as a representation of Bradford or Leicester, for example, there would have been a public outcry with not only politicians, but religious leaders and the mainstream media scrambling to condemn it. And rightly so.
 
Unfortunately, with no national media coverage and little political comment or condemnation this case seems to emphasise the reluctance of the media and people of influence to defend the religion of Britain.
 
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/bible-deep-fried-in-batter-sold-in-public-art-gallery/

I recently received an extremely interesting letter from James Barrington an Animal Welfare Consultant and former Executive Director of the League Against Cruel Sports which brought to light an important view of the hunting ban and what effect it has had. Hunting itself is far from a simple issue of people acting in a barbaric way solely for their sport. The accusation of “bringing back cruelty” will no doubt be widely used in various debates by certain animal groups who would like the public, media and politicians to see hunting as a simple “cruelty – for or against” matter. The reality is very different.

Mr Barrington points out that with the benefit of being involved with some scientific research and working with the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management, the use of dogs in wildlife management is, in his view, vital. The Hunting Act rather than improving animal welfare, has actually made it worse and a detailed analysis of this law reveals illogical and unprincipled conditions that in no way can be argued as welfare- friendly. A method that is selective and non wounding has been curbed and simply because most people do witness the results it does not mean that the wildlife is not been damaged.

I believe that we must look at hunting with hounds in this light and discount those other factors – the humans, their motives, the sporting elements and the red coats – that are all completely irrelevant to this natural animal – to – animal process. Opponents of hunting now seem to argue that taking part in this activity is morally wrong. This is nonsense, as the animal welfare benefits of using scenting hounds in wildlife management should be obvious to the objective observer. Further, the “sporting” element for riders and followers funds the “management” element (the hunting element) hunting being a combination of the two.

A recent public opinion poll commissioned by the League Against Cruel Sports and IFAW, which shows a fairly high degree of support for the Hunting Act, has been strongly condemned for the way in which the questions were framed. Questions about legalising badger baiting and dog fighting led into the main part of the poll, thereby setting the tone of the survey by asking about “sports where animals are set upon other animals to fight or kill them.” Yet scenting hounds are not “set on” their wild quarry, which is free running and in its natural environment. They find their quarry through their scenting ability. This is not so in the “baiting” sports which involve a captive animal and are conducted purely for the sadistic pleasure of the spectators. There is no wildlife management or control benefit in such activities. Mr Barrington points out that despite being an advocate of hunting with scenting hounds he has proudly prosecuted badger baiters.

Mankind has developed the countryside and has a duty to manage it and the wildlife populations it supports. In doing so we should certainly not exclude the perfect tool that nature has provided in the dog. The Hunting Act should be repealed.

A disabled campaigner will launch an 11th hour challenge to plans to relax the laws on assisted suicide at the Supreme Court today.

Alison Davis claims that a legal ruling that forced the change was unsound, alleging the “apparent bias” of one of the judges, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, now the Supreme Court’s president, who later expressed strong personal views on the subject in an interview with The Daily Telegraph.

In July, Lord Phillips, with four other Law Lords, supported a call to clarify the law on assisted suicide from Debbie Purdy, a multiple sclerosis sufferer. The ruling forced the CPS to draw up new prosecution guidelines.

The deadline to challenge the Purdy ruling is today and in legal papers Miss Davis claims that Lord Phillips’ personal sympathy played a role in the Purdy ruling, on the basis of the interview he gave to The Daily Telegraph several weeks later.

As a result of the ruling, which overturned two earlier decisions by more junior courts, Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, is proposing a new “tick box” approach for prosecutors to decide whether to prosecute someone for assisted suicide. Read in full in the Telegraph.