An icy lack of clemency

Of course, China had the right to execute Akmal Shaikh, under its own judicial system - but it did not need to exercise that right. It was clear that Mr Shaikh was mentally ill but the Chinese, who held him for two years, displayed a flagrant disregard for his mental health. They refused to let him undergo a mental check before executing him. This is utterly unforgivable - especially from a new superpower.

Perhaps there is a feeling that the Chinese authorities refused to show clemency because they wanted to seem strong in the face of international condemnation. They wanted to show that they would stand by their judicial system and not appease interational diplomatic pressure. There is a strong sense that in this case, the authorities were not directly considering the case at hand, but making an audacious statement that China will not bow to international pressure.

However, regardless of this case, there is a serious need for reform in China. Even if they do not acknowledge that Mr Shaikh's human rights were flagrantly disregarded, they cannot hide from their abominable human rights record.

Britain's Achilles' Heels

It is a depressing thought: billions have been splurged on a myriad of anti-terrorism measures overseas and domestically - yet we have not adquately addressed the dilemma of radicalization in our own backyard. This is our Achilles' heels. All other measures are rendered futile if we do not tackle the problem of alienated young people groomed by radicals.

The Christmas Day airline bomb plot suspect was one of those targeted. He studied in UCL, London and was presumably taken advantage of and brainwashed. A 23 year-old graduate was just a few seconds away from killing hundreds.

This underlines a deeper problem in our society. If educated young people are susceptible to radicalisation in the heart of London, there a grave problem. We must not allow these people to have such easy access to impressionable young people.

RBS bonuses: a necessary evil.

RBS and the Treasury have reached an impasse, with key executives threatening to quit if their bonuses are capped.

Last year, when RBS sunk, the government had two options: let it sink and risk a 1930s-style Depression or face "moral hazard." They were tossing a two-headed coin when tails was being demanded - an invidious position.

Now, comes the question about bonuses. It is the widespread belief that it is utterly immoral to fill the pockets of the executives when the rest bear the brunt of the recession - even more so when the taxpayer kept RBS afloat.

Nevertheless, however vehementely we disagree with bonuses in such a sombre period, it is in our interests. RBS needs to remain competitive. 84% of the bank is state-owned, and thus, if the bank is to return our money in the long-term, they must be competitive. This will not happen if the Treasury meddles with their bonuses: those at the top will leave and the bank will crumble. They will go to the other top four banks - exactly what the government do not want. So although we despise bonuses, it would be counter-productive to cap them.

However, that does not mean to say that bonuses by its very nature is a good thing. That would be grossly wrong. The insidious culture of bonuses needs to be reformed - but that cannot be achieved by targeting one bank by itself - the whole system needs to be changed collectively.

Just as the smoke dissipated...

Just as the smoke started to dissipate...the fire was re-lit. A debt-laden Dubai state corporation, Dubai World, has suggested it may need to default on its interest bill.

The panic and uncertainty was fuelled by the fact that it a national holiday in the Middle East and USA, celebrating Eid and Thanksgiving respectively.

Shares plunged; weak currencies were hit; and £14 billion was lost by UK banks. Speculation and low confidence was not helped when a computer crash at the London Stock Exchange stopped trading for more than three hours (!)

However, it has to be noted that these debt of $80 billion are just chicken feed in comparison to bank bailouts. Therefore, if British Banks like HSBC and Standard Chartered did have to write off their loans, it would not dent their balance sheets beyond repair. What will be burnt to ashes is confidence: investment in Dubai could totally dry up.

Although this disaster has taken place in Dubai, there could be major repercussions around the world. Not only have British banks lent to businesses in the Gulf, but Dubai owns lots of assets in Britain - from part of the London Stock Exchange to Legoland to Travel Lodge.

For now we just have to hold our breath and wait for their emirate brother, Abu Dhabi, to put out the fire.

Fit for a hero?

Where are you based? "Airports around the world." Not a fugitive, not a homeless person or a lunatic; this was the response from Shirin Ebadi, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, who has campaigned against infringements of human rights in Iran.

A character of this calibre has been effectively "threatened with death" by the Iranian government because she is a prominent figure who continues to denounce the regime. Officials in Iran have beaten up her husband and brother telling them to mute Dr. Ebadi.

Dr. Ebadi has raised awareness of the recent alleged electoral fraud and fought against the brutality towards protestors, opponents and the plethora of other grave human rights abuses. They claim she is conspiring against the state.

The Recession's Winners

Sub-prime mortgages have been the catalyst for a disastrous recession: bank loans dried up; consumer confidence and demand plummeted; large and small firms went into liquidation; and unemployment is still rising.

However, for some companies, their adroitness has taken advantage of this recession. It was the most poignant moment of the recession when, one year today, Woolworth's crumbled - an unrivalled loss for customers and the high street. However, it left a gaping gap the market. Woolworth's held 14% of the market share for toys received. Those boots were quickly filled by competitors. Amongst many others, a notable beneficiary, was HMV who saw a rise in profits by 17%.

It is debatable how much of this rise can be attributed to competitors closing down: the government have pumped billions into the economy as part of the quantitative easing programme to bring liquidity to the markets, and thus increase lending and consumer demand.

Behind the Curtains: Secret Loans

Today the Bank of England revealed that it lent RBS and HBOS £61.6bn, in an attempt to rescue the banks, last autumn. The move was rightly done in order to "prevent a loss of confidence spreading through the financial system."

The country has been treated like little children. The shocking truth has been kept from us for so long.

However, these measures must be seen in context. The loans were given as a "lender of last resort" at the height of the panic, just two weeks after the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

The Bank of England also announced an increase in its quantitative easing programme to inject liquidity into the market, and thus encourage banks to loan responsibly to the public.

Not going up in an upturn.

We were told to worry about the recession. Now, worry about the upturn.

When it comes, it will not be as rosy as some might think. Just like unemployment, insolvencies are also a lagging economic indicator. Begbies Global Network, an insolvency firm, predicts an increase in insolvencies next year. This was the case after downturns in 1974, 1980 and 1990.

The biggest punch will be landed on small firms who risk a severe lack of working capital when they start growing again. This dilemma is exacerbated by the fact that there is very little competition between lenders. Foreign institutions have gone home and our domestic market is dominated by four banks. This is why the government refused to sell Northern Rock's lending assets to these banks.

Small firms do not have the best range of sources of finance. Apart from banks, their only saving grace is the government's loan guarantee scheme for enterprises.

In the upturn, they must hope for tax cuts - which is unlikely, considering our vast debts.

Pound Foolish

It is a truth universally known that climate change is happening now, and is inextricably linked to human activities. Carbon dioxide levels have sharply risen as we have industrialised over the last 300 years. In this context, it comes as a shocking, unwelcomed revelation that less than half the population believes that human activities are to blame for global warming, according to a poll from The Times.

The British public have proved to be foolish - but this also reveals a stark political failure. Politicians at Westminister have miserably failed to convey how serious our situation is. Until they achieve this, we have no chance of combating climate change. The fight against global warming is one that needs to start at grass-roots level: from switching off the lights to saving water to lobbying governments to change their ways.

The Wall fell, now the inequality needs to.

Yesterday, at the Brandenurg Gate, there was a sense of jubilation - that 20 years ago, Germans were audacious enough to hack the Berlin Wall down. When West Germany was unified with the East Germany, they were also unifying themselves with an economic mess.

In 2009, that mess has yet to be cleared. East Germany still depressingly lags behind West Germany. They are significantly poorer with high unemployment rates. There is still much work to be done.

When the Wall fell, inequality did not fall with it.

Should the BNP have been allowed on Question Time?

The fundamental basis of our society and at the heart of British values is democracy. It is this notion that is Mr Griffin's biggest asset - his weapons against all those who want to deny his party a democratic platform.

For many years, Britain has prided herself as the pinnacle of democracy. A society where the right to free speech is treated with utmost respect, care and dignity. However, without doubt, there is a line: the right to free speech ceases to exist when it infringes on other people's rights. This is the case with the BNP. They have made a string of gratuitously provocative and mendacious statements about immigrants. By permitting the BNP to appear on Question Time, whether we like it or not, we are condoning hate speech. This is utterly unacceptable.

Conversely, there are those who vehemently argue that by denying the BNP a slot on Question Time, it would be counter-productive. If the government are perceived to be hiding the BNP from the public, it gives their party credibility. They will be able to claim that the only reason they were disallowed is because the government cannot challenge them. It would be disastrous to give them this validity. Instead, by drawing them into a reasoned and open debate, we can highlight their flaws and hypocrisies. Besides, their support is a symptom of ignorance. People lend their support to the BNP because they do not realise that this is a racist party, not an innocuous nationalistic one. Question Time has helped to cure this problem.

Perhaps it did educate some people - but probably, their appearance on Question Time, fuelled new support as well. The programme last week captured record audiences; amongst this were many impressionable young children. Their exposure to Mr Griffin's fallacious claims might not have been such to them. Innocently, they may have believed what he said - and now, those beliefs could be instilled in them. It is an unforgivable crime, on our behalf, that we are exposing our children to such views.

Furthermore, the BNP on Question Time will have undoubtedly undermined Britain's reputation. We have given the BNP a platform to attack our own citizens. The world will look at this decision with disdain. Britain is the melting pot of the globe, a haven for many immigrants. This makes the decision even more surprising.

Although there are reasons for allowing the BNP on Question Time, I believe it was the wrong decision. Mr Griffin is a distasteful figure who has great offence to the British public. He has been given a patina of legitimacy that he does not deserve.

Checks and balances

Power to the people - this is what democracy is about. Thus, it is absurd that the Parliament is the highest authority that exists in Britain. If it passes a law, it is law. The only checks and balances for Parliament, are inside Parliament instead. This is a pressing problem that must be addressed.

It is time for a codified constitution ratified by the public, just like every other liberal democracy (apart from Israel and New Zealand.) Otherwise, politicians have the power to treat us with contempt. It is in this context that there needs to be something higher than statute law to really keep Parliament in check.

The death of trust.

After a long patrol, hot and tired, they took of their armour. Then there was chaos. A British-trained Afgan policemen sprayed bullets that would not only kill 5 British soldiers but also, the most crucial element of the handover to the Afgan police - trust.

When these men were assigned missions in Helmand, Afghanistan, they knew the dangers. They could be kiled by a roadside bomb, insurgents or even taken hostage. But what they could not expect was to be killed in their own base - the safest area in miles.

Gulbuddin, the man who fired the shots, was trained by the British. He is one of many that are being trained by NATO troops so that Afghanistan can tackle insurgency and crime on their own, when foreign troops widthdraw. His actions will instill fear in British soldiers who will not be able to even trust their own side because it could be that the Taleban has infiltrated into the Afghan police force

The Final Signature

It is official: more powers will be centralised in Brussels; member states will have less of a right to veto EU laws; and we will have a pesident and foreign minister of Europe. The Treaty of Lisbon has been ratified.

Yesterday, the Czech Republic finally put pen to paper, ratifying the treaty. It marked the end to years of setbacks after setbacks in the campaign to reform the EU.

The EU exists to serve the people of Europe. However, the Lisbon treaty has been nothing short of a democratic nightmare - the electorate did not have a say. When they did, they were ignored until they gave the "correct" answer. David Cameron, who fought for a referendum, has now closed that door, citing that it would be futile now that it was locked in EU law.

Now comes the next question: who will be the President of Europe? But first, the role needs to be defined. They have yet to decide whether it would be a "chairman or chief" position. If the EU wants to pump its political muscle around the world, with easy access to Washington, Moscow and Beijing, Blair is our man. However, it seems that EU leaders, especially France and Germany do not want someone with bigger political clout than them. If this happens, Europe will have missed a vital opportunity.

Does private tuition really create a two-tier education?

New figures show that 1 in 5 children receive private tuition. There are worries that this is creating a education divide - a social injustice where families who are well-off can afford to give their children an edge but poorer working class families cannot. I vehemently disagree.

Success does not come just because you have a good teacher. Yes, it helps, but more important, is the child's attitude and commitment to his academic work. My philosophy is that if you work hard - no matter what standard of education you get at school - you can get to the top. Teachers at school or even tuition is not intended to feed you all those A grades. It is merely a budge in the right direction.

Parents who cannot afford tuition need not fret. If your child is encouraged to study hard at school and home - they will achieve.

I do not have tuition, and have survived. Whether you have it or not - to be honest, it does not make too much difference.

What is point of Quangos?

Advisory Quangos are specialists, who not from the elected ranks, that advise and guide the government to shape public policy.

If the government have already made their decision, then what's the point of having these advisers in the first place? Alan Johnson has scored an own goal by sacking Professor Nutt from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD). He was sacked because he did not stick to the government line.

It is a disgrace that the government has the audacity to sack an expert because his views based on scientific evidence are not in line with the government. In July, David Nutt gave a lecture on drug harms and the current legislation. He does not agree with the class rankings for cannabis and Ecstasy.

The appropriate response from the government would have been to engage in critical debate to ascertain the suitable class for the drugs in question. These advisory boards are specialists, who are better informed than politicians - not a group of raving lunatics.

I feel the principle of quangos has been fatally undermined. These boards are there to help make the right decisions that are not politically motivated. It seems as if they are only wanted if they agree with the current government policy. A waste of time and money.

Unemployment will keep rising.

There are more than 230 million people unemployed across the world, according to the UN's International Labour Organisation. This accounts for 7% of the world's workforce. Some countries are even worse off, like the USA, who have recorded high unemployed at 9.9%.

These depressing figures will not be changing any time soon - even though some countries, from Germany to France to Brazil, have come out of the recession. This is because unemployment is a lagging indicator. Once demand in the economy increases, and companies start to produce more, there is a certain time period before they start to actually expand and employ more people. Thus, even though some countries like France have recorded 0.3% growth this quarter, it will be a while before the social costs of the recession go away.

Tackling irresponsible lending and borrowing

A major cause of the financial crisis is often attributed to subprime lending. Banks irresponsibly gave money to those who could not pay back and consumers irresponsibly borrowed money that they could not realisitically pay back. Then, the banks realised (!) - and had to write off all that money. Confidence plummeted and loans dried up.

The lenders were trying to give these high risk categories with poor credit ratings access to the credit market. But now look at the mess we are in.

To combat this problem, the FSA have announced a string of new proposals to ensure that mortgages are only given to those who can afford to pay it back. Self-certified mortgages will be banned - customers will have to prove their income before taking out a loan. This new rule will be vital in the next boom to save ourselves from getting into another crisis like this.

From an economic recession to a political recession.

Yes, our debt levels are unsustainable - but that does not warrant curbing the quality of our democracy. A myriad of new proposals from the Justice Ministry including reducing polling stations and voting hours will have substantial adverse effects, which is unjustified just to save "a few peanuts," as described by the Electoral Reform Society.

General and local election turnouts have been falling steadily since the end of the war, with only 61% of the electorate voting in 2005. Many more have become apathetic towards the political process since the expenses scandal. In this context, the government still has the audacity to say that it is willing to, in effect, compromise democracy in an effort to save some money.

By closing many polling stations will mean voters, including the elderly and disabled, will have to travel further to access their nearest polling station. Further, closing polling stations earlier will mean that some workers will not get back home in time to register their vote. This is not the democracy I know. Ultimately, less people will be able to vote.

This is, to say the least, a bit ironic. For years, the government has been trying to engage people and encourage them to vote, but now they are doing the opposite.

I understand our debt is very high and we need to make savings. If we can reduce how much we spend on the elections, without compromising voter turnout, I am all for it. Unfortunately, these proposals will affect the quality of our democracy.

We are in an economic recession; let us not make it a political one as well.

Too big to fail?

Hank Paulson has revealed that Alistair Darling effectively vetoed the acquisition of Lehman Brothers by Barclays Bank last year because he did not want to "import America's cancer." If this revelation is true, it was certainly an audacious move by the Chancellor.

Although Britain is America's closest ally, British interests must remain at the heart of our decision. Thus, it was right that the Chancellor wanted to stop Lehman's toxic assets infiltrating into the British markets. Especially when details about the deal were very vague in terms of taxpayer support, it was wholly understandable why the British government were reluctant.

They must have assessed the situation, and concluded that the world could cope with the the collapse of Lehman Brothers. But then, why did they rescue other banks later on, but not Lehman?

At this point, we must note that Lehman was an investment bank. However, the banks the government bailed out also had a retail sector. This is the crucial difference. The government had a solemn duty to protect retail banks because their collapse would be truly catastrophic to the public. People had vast amounts of savings in Northern Rock and RBS - this is why they could just not collapse. Although, Lehman Brothers sinking would affect the world market with confidence and lending, other retail banks would have a direct effect on British consumers.

The Kelly Review proposals - not in our interests.

Gordon Brown anticipated the MPs expenses scandal and decided to set up the Kelly Review to investigate and reform the sytem. Now, his findings are published. MPs will be banned from claiming on mortgage interests and claiming for a second home if their constituency is within 60 minutes of Westminister. Most inconveniently, they will not be allowed to employ their family members. This last proposal is irrational.

Being a MP is not a regular job. It requires irregular hours and sometimes working on weekends. A job of this nature requires a secretary that is flexible and almost always available - who better than a family member? Currently, over a 100 MPs employ their spouse or children to work for them. This makes sense because MPs are in a better position to fulfil their role efficiently because they will have a fully functioning team catered to their needs.

So not only is it a matter of convenience for MPs, but also a matter of necessity for the public. If this enables MPs to be more productive, then we are the ones who benefit. Problem?

The rebirth of true economics.

If the recession is remembered for anything but misery, it will be remembered for reinventing the nature of economics. It was announced on Tuesday that George Soros will start the Institute for New Economic Thought (INET).

The financial crisis exposed the failings of modern economics bogged down so much by mathematical models that it could no longer take account of reality. When policymakers and politicians looked to economists last year for advice, it proved futile. Economists could only conclude that our crisis was impossible because their theories say that the situation could not exist. The economists who believe in the vigorous use of orthodox mathematical models are from the 1980s. Their theories are in line with the Thatcher-Reagan ideals.

The first ideal is known as "rational expectations". This means that capitalist economies with competitive labour markets do not need to be interfered with by the government.

The second ideal is the notion of "efficient markets" which assumes that resources will always be allocated efficiently when the market is competitive.

Lastly, there was the belief that economics was no longer a descriptive study of human behaviour, but had to be expressed using algebraic formulae. If not, it was irrelevant.

These ideas could cover up income inequalities and huge bonuses in the city as vast impersonal scientific forces rather than being a political issue. This way of thinking prevents economists from accepting that the markets and the world are by its very nature, unpredictable and not consistent.

But now, with INET, there is an opportunity to revert back to original thinking that explains reality to offer solutions. INET is not shackled to the confines of mathematical models. The great economists of the 20th century, Keynes and Adam Smith did not speak only through complicated maths, but were still able to uncover some of the greatest theories. INET will bring back this thinking.

(Précis from The Times, Wed 28th Oct 09)

New jobs - a breath of fresh air.

The social costs of the recession are biting hard as unemployment levels worsen. Since the fall of Lehman, we've been suffocated with depressing headlines about the downturn and its dire consequences; but now, things are changing ...hopefully!

News today that Tesco's banking sector will recruit 1,000 people for its new customer service centre in Newcastle comes as a breath of fresh air. Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary welcomed the news as invaluable for the North East of England.

The announcement from Tesco Bank, comes as the EU today approved of government plans to divest itself of the nationalised Northern Rock's lending assets. With the top 5 retail banks forbidden to purchase these assets, there is rife speculation that Tesco will be the buyer. The government has specifically said that it wants a new entrant to the financial services market to buy these assets as a means of increasing competition.

The problem with universal health care.

There has been a large furore over Obama's health care reform. So, what are the merits of a privatised health care system?

Privatisation, contrary to popular belief, can be seen as a fairer system. Those who live illicit lifestyles, eat unhealthily and don't exercise are more likely to fall sick. Thus, it is right that they pay a higher premium than those who live healthy lifestyles. With universal health care, the healthy, safe people are effectively subsidising the dangerous who use hospitals much more. The healthy are paying for those with bad habits like smoking through taxes. A health care system needs a sense of responsibility - you pay for what you need, not for what others need.

A health care system where you get the treatment you need without paying for it creates a moral hazard. If those who choose to live dangerously are always assured of getting the care when they need it, they are more likely to be careless. However, if they know they have to pay for their own action, we are encouraging sensible behaviour.

Tony Blair: A global statesman

The zenith of Tony Blair's political career was at a time when I was too young to understand the world of politics. However, I have taken a particular likening to him over the years since. His charisma and standing in the world makes him the perfect global statesman to lead the EU.

If the role of the President is more than chairing meetings, then Tony Blair should be the one to do so. As Miliband says, he is the only man with the clout to stop the traffic in Washington and Beijing. He will have easy access to the leaders of the world.

Years ago, when he was our Prime Minister, he paid a visit to my tennis club (and played with my racquet!) After that, I decided to find out more about him; his record was just amazing. After his landslide victory in 1997, he introduced the minimum wage, established Scottish Parliament, Welsh and Northern Ireland Assembly and signed the Good Friday Agreement.

After his premiership, he remained in the front line, becoming an official envoy of the Middle East. How can such a diplomat with these credentials be denied any role?

Youth democracy at its best! A year as Deputy Young Mayor

Amidst a cacophony of screaming and shouting, the Returning Officer declared the newly elected Young Mayor and Deputy Young Mayor of Newham 2009/10. Handing over the baton on stage was a very poignant moment because after a year of hard work, we were no longer the directly elected representatives of young people in Newham.

Taking up a public role has given me a refreshing experience of local government and democracy. We were able to work closely with elected politicians and control our ₤25,000 budget.

We have interacted with the community at local events, identified crime hotspots and immensely raised the profile of youth democracy. After live appearances on BBC News 24 and on radio programmes, I think it is fair to say we have shown that young people are not apathetic about politics. The fact that there was a 43% election turnout attests that young people are enthused by the political process.

I am confident that the new Young Mayor, Deputy and Youth Council will do an equally good job to strengthen the voice of young people.

The individual vs society - a History Masterclass

Who has been more important in shaping the world - great leaders or society? Can we draw scientific laws to predict the future? Does history repeat itself? After reading E.H. Carr's What is History?, I thought it was appropriate for me to attend Debate Chamber's History Masterclass in London to probe these questions further.

The masterclass was primarily attended by those applying for History at Oxbridge next year; so to be in the company of these able, older students was challenging. I had the opportunity to contribute to discussions on a wide range of questions.

I was particularly interested by the notion that the historian is a product of his own era. Therefore, his facts and interpretation of them, are in fact, a reflection of society's views. This is aptly illustrated by the great German historian, Meinecke, who's views change as Germany went through a period of rapid change from the Bismarck to the Weimar Republic to Third Reich.

The day was thought-provoking, and a valuable opportunity to widen my horizon. Perhaps some topics for the "i-history Society" at school...

Immigration is not that bad.

Spongers, criminals, terrorists - these are the headlines of tabloid newspapers. This insidious, narrow-minded view has infiltrated into many people's heads. According to them, immigration can only have negative, undesired effects. There always seems to be the assumption that immigration is a bad thing.

The notion that immigrants "steal" our jobs could not be more wrong. When Poles started to come to Britain in 2003, there were over 700,000 unfilled vacancies in Britain. Further, foreigners stimulate the economy. The money they earn is spent purchasing goods and services in the UK. Thus, they increase domestic demand - and with that, create more jobs for everyone!

The BNP are attracting many supporters by creating a false fear that the country is heading for disaster. Yes, immigration needs to be capped, but that does not mean there needs to be some sort of national panic.

Is it really a criminal justice system?

Today I read a shocking article in The Times about our prison service. Sure, I knew our prisons were fiercely overcrowded but not to the extent that convicted criminals were immediately freed to ease crowding. No wonder there is very little faith in the justice system.

It is a shambles that the jail sentences of those who terrorise our streets are determined by the population of our prisons - it should be the other way round.

This news will further undermine public confidence in the justice system. More needs to be done so that people see justice to be done. As the Deputy Young Mayor of Newham, this notion was the main focus of Newham Youth Council's response to a recent green paper on engaging communities, that we sent to Jack Straw. We highlighted the fact that many people do not report crime because they feel nothing will be done about it. This perception needs to be changed if we are to tackle crime and the fear of crime effectively.

We have already started that process. Since September 2008, lawbreakers doing community payback have worn fluorescent orange jackets to increase their visibility to the public. Perhaps we could take this one step further and publish recent convictions and sentences for crimes in local leaflets and magazines.

Justice needs to be done, and seen to be done.

Bring on Nick Griffin

Nick Griffin may be a distasteful figure, to say the least, but it is the right decision to host the BNP leader on Question Time next week.

We can no longer ignore the party, who brags a seat on the European Parliament. Instead, we must stand up and challenge his views. His supporters need to be shown how wrong they are. But, the only way is to bring the BNP into the public arena, and land the blowing punch there.

By blockading his route to the BBC Television Centre, as planned by some, is the wrong strategy to adopt. His greatest asset is to make the BNP seem as if they are being oppressed and swept under the carpet because we cannot challenge them. Really? We will see next week!

Fight against the Taleban - together

Pakistani security forces have mounted a fierce battle against the Taleban, in their stronghold of Waziristan. This fight affects us all. If we can keep the Taleban under control, we will be in a safer world - in the USA, Pakistan, India and of course here in Britain.

Therefore, we must help Pakistan's military action. The least we can do, from the Western world, is to offer humanitarian aid. Civilians are being caught in the cross-fire, as they try to flee the troubled region - and their medical centres lack basic resources.

From sweet to sour

Recently I went to Thorpe Park, and went on the rollercoasters - this has pretty much been the story for the Olympic games this week - a rollercoaster ride going from high to low in a second. They reached the summit when the 2016 games were awarded to Rio de Janeiro, the city of passion, but plummeted straight down when golf was accepted as part of the Olympics from 2016 onwards.

The Olympics symbolizes the pinnacle of a sportsmen's career - what they dreamt about since the age of 7. This is is not the case with golf. The four majors will be far more important to the golfers, which has a string of golden history. The Olympic games will just be a little extra. It will not be the competition of all competitions for them, which renders everything every other tournament insignificant. This defeats the spirit of the Olympic games - the Greatest Show on Earth!

Last week, the taste in my mouth was invigorated with the carnival from Rio, but became sour with the IOC's decision to include golf in the Olympic games.

Downright mendacious, but should Holocaust denial be criminalised?

The President of Iran has renewed his Holocaust denial claims at an address to the UN, sparking walk-outs from several delegations. Should these gratuitously provocative and utterly mendacious claims be criminalised?

I believe that we are entitled to the right to free speech until it infringes other people's rights. Many people say that it the denials have a significant harm to society. The denial is anti-Semitic, which encourages hatred of Jews. These people often advocate the idea that there is somehow some sort of "Jewish conspiracy".

Further, Israel was founded in 1958 because there was a need for a Jewish homeland after all the persecution they had faced. Therefore, denial of this persecution, debases the reasons for the establishment of Israel. This is encouraging hatred and opposition.

However, although I agree Holocaust denial is morally wrong and unfair, it cannot be criminalised. The right to free speech is at the heart of British values. Not all cases of Holocaust denial incite racial hatred. If it does, there are separate laws to deal with racial hatred.

Besides, criminalisation may well stifle academic discussion and investigation for fear of drawing the wrong conclusion. David Irving, a historian, was put behind bars in Austria, because of his interpretations from the evidence he examined. If this was the case in Britain, historians will be frightened of interpreting history in the wrong way. That is not the situation where Britain needs to be.

Now is our chance to support Iranians

Iranians are becoming increasingly fed up with the theocracy. Elections have been rigged; protests are brutally suppressed; and human rights are being unforgivably violated.

Since the re-election of President Ahmadinejad, thousands of protestors have surfaced, to stand up against the intolerable injustices of this dictatorial regime. The revolution of 1979, forcing the Shah to flee, was fought in the name of bringing Muslim morality and purity to their country - this can hardly be claimed now. The toll of fatalities has reached 200, many tortured to their death.

Even in the face of death, courageous Iranians have defied the Government and Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, the Supreme Leader by coming out onto the streets to seek justice - and now we have our chance to show our support. Ahmadinejad is set to address the UN in New York, the perfect opportunity for Westerners to protest against his behaviour.

Ahmadinejad has closed his doors to the West to influence politics in Iran. But when Ahmadinejad comes to New York along with the world's eyes, anyone who cares about democracy has their chance to vent their anger.

Our debt is utterly unsustainable

The day has come - Gordon Brown has made the admission we have been waiting for - withdrawing his mantra of "Labour investment" for a more modest plan of cuts in public spending when the economy gets back on its feet.

Forecasts for this financial year show public borrowing levels at untenable levels, levelling at 12 per cent of our GDP reaching £175 billion. Understandably, public spending has increased sharply, in line with Keynes' thinking, to stimulate demand. However, our deficits are becoming worrying.

Rest assured, we will be paying for the cost of the recession for years to come. Increases in taxation will be the way to compensate for those huge deficits.

Recessions will always come and go. But, what we can do is learn from our mistakes - to afford public borrowing, we need to build up surpluses in times of economic growth for times of depressing economic meltdowns.

We hate the recession - Primark don't.

I like buying good-quality clothes from the likes of Debenhams and TopShop - but now, in a recession, we have to be a bit more prudent with our spending. However, I still need new clothes from time to time either because they get worn out, trends change or I grow! But when I go to the high street, instead of popping into the high-end, expensive shops, I choose Primark. Cheap and value for money. My situation is not unique. This recession has not just decreased spending, but changed where we spend money. People are opting for cheaper substitutes - sacrificing a bit of quality to save money.

Thus, it is no surprise that Primark's sales have gone up. In the last year, sales have gone up by 7%. The recession has been a headache for most of us, but it is a blessing for Primark

"I like Germany so much I would prefer to have two of them" - Mitterand

20 years ago, Mitterand's apprehensions were echoed by the British and the Poles - would the unification of Germany be as suicidal as letting a lion out of its cage?

Files of Thatcher's discussions with Gorbachev were leaked, revealing Thatcher's obdurate private stance - and perhaps rightly so. It was a country that had started two world wars in the space of 21 years; it was the unification with East Germany who had had no experience of any other political system since 1933 but that of Nazism and Stalinism. Who could blame her?

But, now, with the luxury of hindsight, we know much better. The fears have been rendered unfounded. As Germany gears up for their general elections this month, they have proved to be a strong, free democracy and a key ally for the EU and NATO.

Germany out of the recession before Britain.

Germany are the world's biggest exporter. Surely then, in a recession, where aggregate demand falls drastically, Germany would be hardest hit?

This is true. In the first three months of the year, Germany's economy contracted 6.7% whereas Britain only contracted by 4.9% because Germany's growth is largely fuelled by exports.

However, they came out of the recession first because they were able to stimulate domestic demand better than Britain. Britain's consumers are in bigger debt than the average German. Thus, we could not just spend our way out of the recession, like Germany did. Germany saw increased domestic demand, which created better profits for companies. Then, companies were able to expand and employ more people. Unemployment decreased, the economy picked up - and yes, Germany had come out of the storm - just. A lesson to learn: individuals and the government alike need to build up a cushion of savings in times of boom, so we can spend in a recession.

Secondly, and perhaps, more importantly is the fact that Britain are heavily reliant on the financial sector whereas Germany is not. This was a financial crisis - hence, when approximately 7% of Britain's GDP is created by the financial sector, we were always going to be worse off.

Young People's Board

Newham strives to create a borough where its services are of the highest calibre in every aspect. With a very young population in Newham, it is even more critical that services for young people are of the highest quality.

In this context, a consultation board, consisting of young people has been set up. Our aim is to discuss and evaluate the services provided in Newham for young people. Essentially, we will give feedback on our experiences and views. From this, improvements can be made to ensure that the needs of young people in Newham are adequately catered for.

At the latest meeting at Beckton Globe, we continued our discussions and started to finalise our presentation. It goes without saying that our input will be invaluable, as part of the ongoing transformational change to services for young people in Newham.