Did We Have To Brexit?

As we head for Brexit we have to start asking what went wrong between us and the EU. Who really stands to gain?


There is no real argument, the EU is a crazy project but how is it different from the Union of 52 States with Governors that can overrule the Federal Government? Some would say that EU legislation from Brussels cannot be overruled and we have to go along with it. If we take the example of Poland…

The Constitutional Tribunal of Poland ruled that while EU law may override national statutes, it does not override the Constitution. In cases of a conflict between EU law and the Constitution, Poland can make a sovereign decision as to how this conflict should be resolved (i.e. by changing the Constitution, leaving the EU or seeking to change the EU law). (Ref. Wikipedia)

So as stated above a member state can retain sovereignty in decision making. So what was the big idea on Brexit? Various member states have reviewed EU law in accordance with their own constitution and have found it to be compatible. In other words Brexit was unnecessary.

The solution for me was a review of anti-terror laws if they were not strong enough, a review of welfare policy to prevent welfare tourism. On the subject of terrorism, we could exercise stop and search powers more (less on Black kids and more on terror suspects), we could also utilize deportation of hate preachers and anti-terror detention laws more strongly (not forgetting rendition, EU law had no bearing then). On the subject of welfare, well it is clear that welfare systems in other member states are not as good, so there was definitely a legal argument on the basis of unequal availability of welfare means in other states, so if a Briton can’t find equivalent welfare coverage in one member state then the EU cannot possibly claim discrimination, most of Europe is in agreement that Eastern Europeans are poorer thus cannot offer equal welfare opportunity. This could have been successfully negotiated.

The fact remains, Brexit was about trade wars and military control by external actors. The US was under siege from Chinese, Mexican and Japanese imports, they have struggled to compete against European global exports and the one anglophone market, the UK was part of the EU and not able to effectively discuss favorable trade terms with the US. See below EU directive.

In 1981, with Directive 81/602/EEC, the EU prohibited the use of substances having a hormonal action for growth promotion in farm animals. Examples for these kind of growth promoters are oestradiol 17ß, testosterone, progesterone, zeranol, trenbolone acetate and melengestrol acetate (MGA). This prohibition applies to Member States and imports from third countries alike. The legal instrument in force is Directive 96/22/EC as amended by Directive 2003/74/EC.

The above is one of many European directives that restrict US imports. Russia must also have a vested interest in seeing a weaker Europe, A Brexit means a weaker NATO which gives them more leverage against NATO’s defense of Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Hungary not to mention Latvia and the newer states. Is it a wonder Russia is accused of election meddling? If Europe falls who will gain? The future is impossible to see but the end of the EU could spell the end of environmental protection, global human rights, a resurgence of religious violence and possibly global war. We would all look bar and say the catalyst was Brexit.

The Politics Of Feminism

As someone who grew up in the 80’s, in a family where my Mum was just as influential as my Dad on matters of the home and matters out of the home, I often ask what is it with this aggressive form of feminism now eating at every facet of society?

There was probably a healthy form of feminism  in the 1920’s. The Flappers of the 1920’s.

A sense of social liberation, having fun, partying, having to take the risks that come with going wild in a multi-gender society. They embraced the freedom of falling in love with the opposite sex without feeling that the act itself is shackling. Arguably men have been allowed to go wild to the envy of their female counterparts but we also consider that men also had the responsibility of defending the nation. In the First World War, 6 million men took part and over 700,000 were killed. It can be argued that the surge of feminism in the 1920’s was as a direct result of the ‘surplus women’ idea. There were 2 million more women than men by 1921. Whether this was the result of feminism in those days, is not what we are talking about, the reality is that women were becoming risk takers and acknowledging that life comes with risks in the absence of the male husband.

Today’s modern feminism is immature, centers itself by diminishing male importance in society and relies heavily on influencing state institutions to support this agenda. As Steve Biddulph points out in his amazing book, Manhood. 


That boys are being failed by schools and now solidly lag behind girls. Female teachers dominate schools and label over active boys as disruptive and quickly throw them into segregation rather than engage them. This modern feminism so perverse aims to demonize children that are innocent and full of raw human emotion. Today’s feminism redirects desire from male to female to female to female; a female starer is an admirer and a male starer is a pervert. The male gaze that was once welcomed is now reduced to simple perversion. While some mature strong female personalities don’t hold to these views, the vast majority of younger women are growing up with these ideas. See http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-et-st-female-gaze-television-20170505-htmlstory.html.

21st century feminism has invaded our schools, institutions, government and homes. Divorces are the highest they have ever been, for the first time the institution of marriage is under threat and would likely not survive into the 22nd century. Men in marriages and relationships are considered “walking wallets“. In contrast to the feminism in the 1920’s, modern feminism attempts to completely eradicate inter gender crime and simply refuses to acknowledge crime is crime. A man attacks a woman for her purse, it has to be assault rather than a robbery. A woman attacks a man, he must have done something wrong. This is a viral youtube video of a beautiful lady assaulting strange men for comedy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayXexKvaV3A. I’ll let you decide if this is sexual harassment or not. Why are we not having this debate?

It is no wonder, the extremists in our midst are openly attacking women. Donald Trump as a high profile example. The immaturity of modern feminism continues to shape our basic interactions and continues to blur the lines of what is acceptable in interaction and not.


Women need to be more practical and accept that the world has moved on. Women in the western world can have the same jobs, today they make up 52% of the workforce. They can own property, even marry each other. It is time men are allowed to be men and boys are allowed to be boys.

This means men will admire women from afar and stare. Boys will want to play outside and shun the female styled classroom activity, classrooms need strong male role models beyond the PE teacher.

Sexual harassment should be a closely monitored word. Women who falsely accuse people of this act must suffer long jail sentences. The rules around child custody have to change, the initiation of divorce must be closely monitored and rules around dividing assets should not be just one way, women today can command a lot of wealth. It still matters what the circumstances of a divorce are. Men are also victims of entrapment.

Feminism should not be extended to institutions. Meritocratic ideas is the way forward.





Is Their Housing Crisis In London?

If you lived in London in the early millennium, you would notice that house prices were considerably low. You could rent a 2 Bedroom apartment in Hither Green for roughly £650 per month. In 2017 in the same local it will cost you just about £1500. While this unprecedented growth may be exciting to some, it is simply unrealistic and unsustainable for what is basic human necessity.


United Kingdom House Price Index

The average city wage stands at a little over £25,000 per annum and has not risen with inflation. While some Government jobs pay London weighting the vast majority of private sector jobs, that is three quarters of the work force have to accept a meagre wage. So how can the many afford to pay rents that have skyrocketed more than 100% in just over a decade? Core Inflation which does not include housing has itself grown less than 3% over the same period meaning business who benefit from high prices have simply not been that well off to keep wages rising to meet the cost of shelter.

United Kingdom Core Inflation Rate

The end result is many tenants face evictions for not affording the rent. Migrants with larger savings push UK nationals out of their homes, parents of millennials have to re-mortgage to support children with deposits for mortgages, while lower income families have swelled the waiting lists for non-existent council houses that are now given as priority to asylum seekers. At the same time the Chinese, Russian and Middle Eastern owners of these properties continue to make handsome returns.

Don’t get me wrong, I am as progressive as they come but the reality is that we are ruining our society for the next generation. So what can be done?

I believe that using house ownership as a means of gaining citizenship is wrong. How to gain UK residency article.

The above BBC article shows the constraints of the regular non-EU migrant wishing to move to the UK and super rich non-EU migrants. If I am not mistaken with housing being an investment, the super rich simply need one or two Mayfair homes to qualify, this causes an influx of “we don’t want to know where the money came from” investment. This kind of investment should be restricted to individuals who are bringing certain type of business investments and skills rather than just being super rich.

United Kingdom GDP Growth Rate

This is the UK’s GDP growth rate over the past 3 decades with the exception of a few spikes in the 1970’s it has never really exceeded 3%; so what is all the fuss about the super rich? They simply add no value to the economy because of their tax hiding habits.

A welcome idea is rent controls and restrictions on the buy-to-let market. An individual should not be allowed to burrow money at exorbitant rates simply because someone will pay the rent. I am in favour of a fixed interest rate on buy-to-let mortgages and council led price caps on rent in London boroughs. There should also be accessibility for first time buyers to get on the housing ladder, meaning like the United States a mortgage should be a given and homeowners should be restricted from renting first homes for profit under these special mortgages. This will drive house prices down and the value of houses will rise in line with excess demand.

Councils should relax rules on greenbelt land similar to what is happening in Wales and encourage more innovative eco self-build projects on such land. Telegraph article on Greenbelt development.

This may seem far fetched but if we are going to solve the housing crisis in London we have to start thinking out of the box.

Is Hinkley Point C The Right Choice?



It is handy to open with the thought of Fukushima and Chernobyl, both disasters. Chernobyl saw the fallout kill sheep in Cumbria. The point is Nuclear power is dangerous and in a disaster could cost lives as we have seen in the past and present. The disturbing thing for me is, the government is making long-term plans to keep the UK on nuclear power despite the obvious global push towards renewable energy, which is becoming more mainstream and cheaper than nuclear power. So the question remains, why is the government getting cosy with EDF and its Chinese backers?

Image result for fukushima

EDF runs 8 nuclear plants in the UK, 4 were shut down in 2014 as a result of safety and functional issues, in France EDF has major issues, from faulty reactor parts to outages. Full story

So this is a firm with a bad track record in managing nuclear power, in reality a troubled organisation. The May government clearly can’t see what is plain, the UK’s nuclear story is a disaster. The Chinese partners are looking to build new plants in Sizewell and Bradwell, investing in Hinkley just paves the way. No disrespect but do we really want China managing our nuclear power stations? I know what my answer is. Is it that we are so desperate to deal with China that sense has exited the building? First it was steel that cost 8,000 jobs, now nuclear power. While some will sight the upside of 20,000 new jobs created but EDF has a history of cutting new jobs created to save cost of managing, so I am doubtful of the long-term benefit. The EU has already sighted safety concerns for the continent and demanded they be consulted on future projects, which the UK government has agreed.

Let’s look at the cost to the tax payer. Power would be supplied at £92.50/MWh over 35 years, double the current wholesale price. There is also inadequate insurance liability, meaning the tax payer would likely cover the shortfall in the event of accidents that will occur not to mention the £10m loan guarantee. Hinkley is a bad deal, a desperate bid by EDF to boost its already tarnished image at the expense of the UK consumer.

So why is the UK not looking at renewable, seeing nuclear accounts for 10% of power supply? On-shore wind comes in incredibly cheaper than nuclear and there is a lot of innovation in renewable energy, it is unfair to commit the country to a very expensive deal that benefits only China and EDF for 35 years without us knowing the future. See article on renewable’s

Let’s face it, this could be the disaster of the 21st century, Hinkley has resumed development after delays based on court decisions in France against some of EDF’s failing plants amidst safety concerns. It is time we all asked the question… Do we want a Chernobyl?


Preventing Grenfell


It takes an event like this for people to realize that there is a tale of two cities. The problem with the kind of divisive politics that separates the rich from the poor and uses this to gain votes is those with money will always largely end up winning. They pay our wages, they control our politics and in some cases the very air we breathe, if we think of pollution from big business. This is a global problem that should not exist in the 21st century. How many times did you hear as a child that poverty will come to an end, “technology will bring prosperity”. Instead what we have is Dickensian inequality. There are some parts of London where a bottle of Champagne costs £250,000 and individuals spend £20,000 in one night at a party. On the same token there are people who can’t afford the basics and are being told their welfare of £2000 a month must be reduced because they are not contributing to the economy.

Let’s transcend party political ideology and access individual welfare based on facts, the facts surrounding distribution of wealth in modern Britain. 20% of all wealth in the UK is controlled by 1% of the population and 50% of all wealth is controlled by 10%. Full data

We are not talking about income distribution. These figures are even more shocking with the median income a mere £21,000 per annum before housing costs. This means that minority ethnic groups are more likely to earn less than £20,000 per annum.

Equivalised Household Income Distribution before Housing Costs

Income by occupation

The tables below shows the ten highest and ten lowest paid occupations in the UK respectively, as at April 2014.

Occupation Median full-time gross weekly pay (£)
Aircraft pilots and flight engineers 1,746.6
Air traffic controllers 1,549.4
Chief executives and senior officials 1,533.3
Marketing and sales directors 1,298.7
Advertising and public relations directors 1,289.5
Information technology and telecommunications directors 1,226.7
Legal professionals (not included elsewhere) 1,217.3
Medical practitioners 1,167.1
Brokers 1,149.9
Financial managers and directors 1,143.0
Occupation Median full-time gross weekly pay (£)
Cleaners and domestics 285.5
Nursery nurses and assistants 285.2
Other elementary services occupations (not included elsewhere) 279.9
Retail cashiers and check-out operators 278.7
Leisure and theme park attendants 272.7
Kitchen and catering assistants 268.4
Hairdressers and barbers 267.8
Launderers, dry cleaners and pressers 259.3
Waiters and waitresses 257.6
Bar staff 253.6

Let’s focus on Grenfell now. The residents were largely ethnic minorities, living in an area that has seen house values rise as a result of foreign investment that has been unchecked and uncontrolled. These individuals investing in these areas are merely parking ill gotten gains from corrupt countries, these properties are attracting Capital gain that government cannot realize in tax because the properties remain unsold, this kind of gain does not create employment, it drives local prices up and does benefit the government at all. The cheapest property in Mayfair is £1m, it stands empty with no tenants, the capital growth is 15% per annum. Council housing in these neighborhoods are quickly sold to force residents out to poorer areas and ghettos, developers will snap up the smallest piece of land to build more expensive high rises. Council houses that remain cease to be invested in, as a they get written off to be taken over by private developers in the future. All because of artificially inflated land value. Sadly, we become aware when Grenfell tower happens and we realize that the councils, the government and the developers are all in league.


Address the level of inequality by improving labor laws and forcing companies to pay more. Wages need to be in line with living costs in the capital. It makes no sense if an individual pays 70% of their earnings on housing and council tax.  As a company if you can’t afford to pay London wages, then relocate to other parts of the country, this will stop over crowding in the capital, and limit migration of workers to the capital. Many companies have re-located with the internet it is not necessary to be in London. It’s time all companies paid London weighting.

We need to address education. It is unfair that foreigners abroad can educate themselves for under £10,000 to masters level, studying medicine in the Czech Republic is a mere £12,000. As these are skilled worker not even leaving the EU will prevent this kind of labor flow. It is time we can all access education affordably and at a descent standard. Teachers need more flexibility to develop good curricular and not bureaucracy. Their needs to be reform to how teachers are recruited, most teachers today hate their job because they were in it for the pay and realize that dealing with young minds is challenging. It is better to recruit teachers direct from the workforce like the United States and let people who want the job, bring their passion allowing for a certification process rather than the current teacher access programs.

We need to invest in technological infrastructure and make a commitment to put a computer and fast internet in every home in Britain. Internet speeds in Romania are over 1gb in speed, in the US we have T1 connections, in the UK we can only notch 20mb internet speeds at a whopping £30-£40 a month. Statisitics show that black children are unlikely to be found in IT jobs in the future based on poverty. In other words they can’t afford to study the subject. IT is still one of the highest paid jobs in Britain but the field is dominated by Asians and white males over 40.

Certain groups due to religious belief don’t work or are not allowed to participate in the labor pool. This should not be allowed in a modern society, such practices cannot be supported by the state, it takes away affordable homes from those who work the hardest and sends them into overcrowded accommodation. The groups with this belief also limit their ability to earn income and are likely to live in poverty more permanently. This issue needs to be addressed at community and council level. Let’s start talking about the big elephants in the room.

The cash buying housing market must be regulated. Individuals wishing to make cash purchases must either reside in the property or lease it out at a reasonable rate, I am proposing rent controls or they must lease to the state at a below market rate if they intend it to remain inactive or unable to find a tenant or sell. This will ensure that cash parking is reduced and the number of Britain’s empty homes is reduced. Estate Agents must be regulated and held responsible for unreasonable high valuations and they must be prevented from cornering the market by declaring their own investments separately from their agency work, similar to what was proposed for banking.

There are tons of things to address beyond fire safety rules, etc. This is a problem that goes beyond fire safety or cladding and has more to do with attitudes towards the poor and those forgotten because their wallets are just not big enough. I hope the Prime minister recognizes that incidents like Grenfell demand her resignation and people involved must go to jail. A full inquest is necessary.







A Sledge Hammer To Kill A fly

I have long believed that exiting the EU was unnecessary to control benefit tourism, immigration and healthcare. The far right has largely succeeded in convincing the less educated in political affairs that the only solution was to exit the EU. This was a lie and still is.

The Conservatives initially launched their campaign on giving the British people a referendum on Europe with a key focus on austerity. UKIP claimed freedom of movement was hurting public services and British jobs. Of course both these parties had good points but let’s face it, one party was racist and the other was simply fighting for power they had been deprived for a decade, neither party was willing to implement any real solution. Sadly to say the coalition government was right to push for a re-negotiation of our position in Europe, let’s face reality, Cameron would have succeeded. If you have any doubts then you should review the European Directive governing free movement. Extract below:

To be fully covered by the European right of free movement, the EEA citizen needs to exercise one of the four treaty rights:

  • working as an employee (this includes looking for work for a reasonable amount of time),
  • working as a self-employed person,
  • studying,
  • being self-sufficient or retired.

These rights are named after the Treaty of Rome, which defines the freedom of movement for workers. They have been extended over time, and are mainly of historical significance by now, since being self-sufficient has been added to the list. As long as a citizen has sufficient money or income not to rely on public funds and holds comprehensive health insurance, he/she exercises one or more treaty rights. If no treaty right is exercised, the right of free movement is limited to three months. [ref. wikipedia]

Full directive

We can clearly see from the above directive we could have easily negotiated a revision of any laws allowing benefit claimants from EU states to unreasonably claim welfare, other issues surrounding jobs required a reform of labor laws, so employers were not allowed to discriminate against local workers on the basis EU workers are paid less and work more or simply give incentives to companies who hire local British workers or even put in affirmative action in the form of quotas. In my opinion the issue was purely domestic. Do you still think we needed to Brexit?

In any case we have and now we realize the effect on trade and quite possibly we would still remain in the EU in all but name. So what are our options to table to the EU?

Option 1 

We exit the Union without a trade deal.

Effect: We will most likely end up having to do bilateral trade deals with countries like India, China and the USA which will take years. What does this mean? Well, the USA is known for growth hormone meat which at the moment is banned by EU law, read this article. China imports to the UK more than they export from the UK, this means no real change, India imports labor, has a population of 1 billion people, they have also taken lower level jobs that have completely migrated to the Indian mainland. A trade deal with India would definitely involve more movement of skilled and unskilled labor and this will be worse than the EU movement.

Option 2 

We become an EFTA (European Free Trade Association) member like Norway, Switzerland and Iceland.

Effect: This would require, the maintaining of the freedom of movement, as it will be impractical to have tight border controls with European partners. This will be a very soft Brexit but this will be a much safer option but certainly would render the referendum pointless.

Option 3 

We threaten Europe with going Offshore.

Effect: This would certainly be the worst outcome, first off, this will create a lot of animosity within the Isles and would likely open old wounds. It will also create massive inequality as price inflation takes hold, the government would have to reduce taxes on the working class to compensate for the elite crowd that will pour in, we have already seen similar effects in Kensington and Chelsea. This will  affect the capital account hugely with 60% of £716.5 billion revenue from taxes coming from income tax and national insurance contributions. More data on tax receipts here.

It is time we think long and hard about our future. The best option is to push for EFTA membership with an exit of EEA. This will take us out of the European Court Of Justice but keep us in the EFTA court, this would give us some flexibility in terms of dodging the directives that seem to imply that we have no control of our laws. We should not need to make those expensive contributions as well, this will be the best possible outcome in light of the circumstances.









A Story Of Immigration

The United Kingdom is one of the most diverse countries in the world and no stranger to migrants. Migration has been happening to the Island since recorded history. The Saxons invaded and settled in the 1st millennium AD, to be followed by the Danes and the Normans, by the 19th century the United Kingdom boasted a diverse set of European and African migrants. Border controls in the 19th century were not as sophisticated and the Victorian era was bristling with poverty and inequality, it is no surprise people cared little for the presence of migrants. In the 1960’s post war era, indentured labour became necessary, so Caribbean migrants sailed to Britain and despite living under terrible conditions, they made valuable contributions to Britain’s public service sector, from housing development, railway, to energy and healthcare. Pakistani migrants also came to the UK developing a 24 hour local economy that today is invaluable to Britons. Despite this migration, non-white immigrants and all their descendants still make up less than 5% of the British population, their contribution in the face of senseless hate through the post war years is astonishing, especially when you think of their contribution to development proportional to numbers. A big blow for the Enoch Powell crowd.

Britain is the 5th largest economy in the world. Many European nations like Spain and Italy have 30% youth unemployment and somehow always claim the rich North are seeking their demise. Let’s face facts, Spain had an empire similar the Britain, they participated in the slave trade. Their failure to emerge as a power in Europe was based on their attitude to migrants and former colonies under their charge. Britain and France still maintain close ties with their former colonies as a consequence France is the 6th largest economy in the world.  If Le Pen has her way, France could be staring into the abyss and may even turn out worse than Spain and Italy. Britain’s growth and success in the world is dependent on strong immigration that needs to be underpinned by a good legal framework to ensure we attract the right sort of migration.

In a world where education is becoming wide spread and wealth is global, migrants are aspiring and have the means to compete, so it is impossible to attract indentured labour as even poorer countries now have well educated migrants. Take David Sengeh, a Sierra Leonean migrant to Sweden who studied Engineering, earned a scholarship to MIT and developed the first perfect fit bionic limb, he was inspired by the civil war in his home country (Ref. CNN African voices). His development would aid British, American and other amputees around the globe, his tax bill is likely to be worth 10 times that of the average jobber. There is no argument that migration adds a net  benefit to any nation lucky enough to attract migrants.

Let’s take a detour to Eastern Europe, still trying to shake its racist, bigoted and anti-Semitic roots. Women in Ukraine and Russia are treated as commodities to be bought and sold to the highest bidder, their value reduced to the curse of their Slavic beauty, the Ottoman legacy. Other former Soviet block states like Serbia and Romania are also wrestling with the prospect of being more open to attract business. Let’s face it, hardly anyone wants to migrate to Eastern Europe no matter where you are from, the stories of open dislike for migration and failing systems is a deterrent. That said, these countries are one of the poorest in Europe and continue to scramble for EU handouts and run the risk of being absorbed back into Russia or simply used as a work house for the EU.

Britain will likely be leaving the EU, a campaign won as a result of  the hubris of Londoners and city dwellers that take things for granted and the strong far-right message targeted towards the Islamic threat and European open borders. The poorer Eastern Europeans who shun migration in their countries hoped to takeover British industry with their industrious nature and repatriate those resources back to their home countries. It seems like the competition from this kind of uncontrolled migration is too much for Britain. There is a lesson in all of this, cultural understanding is an important aspect of migration, The UK needed an immigration policy friendly to former English speaking African, Caribbean and Asian colonies whom since the 16th century have offered a net benefit to the Island. They speak the same language and feel more of affiliation to the UK. It is clear that while Eastern Europeans are white Europeans and are genetically similar, they are culturally miles apart and feel no allegiance to the United Kingdom not ignoring the wave of Middle Eastern migrants that practice a completely different religion at the core and have always had strained relations with the West. Modern immigration policy must take into account cultural differences and in turn put measures in place that don’t jeopardize our place in the world but at the same time preserve our cultural identity.

Politicians needed to acknowledge that cheap European labour was going to hurt manual labour industries. They should have blocked access to Welfare and other healthcare facilities for new EU migrants, they should have made access rules for Commonwealth countries easier, this would have stemmed the need for companies to grab at the cheap labour pool. there should have been US affirmative style action, that is companies must consider UK citizens first for skills, this would have stopped ordinary citizens regardless of race being forced out of their jobs. It was just too easy for corporations to choose cheap European labour over domestic. While Britain is all about freedom of religion, people from Islamic backgrounds needed monitoring, a Chinese style community relations officer should have been appointed to observe what is being said in places of worship, this would deter terrorists from using mosques as meeting grounds and radical preachers would have been picked up earlier. Cyber security, remains paramount, companies like Google should be made to take down sites and videos citing racial or religious hatred, we have no 1st amendment in the UK. Some of these measures would be hard to enact but public support would definitely have swayed the political elite without the need for a nuclear option like Brexit. Immigration will be a never ending story it is question of what kind of immigration do we need and how do we manage it.

Education Is Failing Boys In The UK

Building on a trend that began more than a decade ago, girls are outperforming boys at every level in education. They get more and better GCSEs and A-levels, win more places at top universities and gain better degrees

Daily Mail Online Excerpt

As the father of a son and a daughter, I have a special interest in how the sexes are educated in our schools. Somewhere down the line girls are coping better than boys at school. Boys are labelled as disruptive largely by female teachers who simply don’t have an understanding of the male psyche. It is universally known that boys develop slower than girls and tend to lean more towards outdoor activities, one of the reasons why boys tend to get on better with the PE teacher.  Does it make any sense, knowing this to put boys under the same pressure to learn at the same pace as girls?

Girls are very well supported in the classroom while boys though having access to the same level of support, are unlikely to utilize it in the same fashion as girls especially when that support comes from the dreaded female teacher. So what’s the answer?

Steve Biddulph famous author and activist, who has written several bestsellers on the subject of boyhood and manhood highlights the problem as a global one. The absence of strong male figures in the classroom has led to boys being feminized. The Telegraph claims that one in five teachers is a man in primary school. There is an argument that abuse towards children is still associated with male figures. There have been several high profile cases in the past that have involved males in classrooms accused of inappropriate behavior. It is possible that most men prefer a peaceful life, so would likely not want to be associated with small children in a society that is obsessed with child safety.

All said and done, it is evident that this exclusion of older male influence in schools is having a direct impact on the performance of boys in school. If we continue to ignore this trend, boys will soon be unable to function effectively in the workforce and the myriad of social issues like domestic violence, fatherless children will only continue to intensify. The number of divorces from the 1930’s has risen at the same time the number of marriages has declined according to the Office for National Statistics. These kind of statistics highlight the gulf between the sexes. Women think most men are childish and selfish, most men think women only care about money and their kids yet 59% of women in the UK would choose marriage over career. So there is still hope. If society is going to produce men who are respected it starts in the classroom.