Many people may see this as a decision driven by the parties financial advisor, one more about cost than actual public interest. Personally, I believe this is a decision which has been taken with careful consideration for public safety. Theresa May was right to ban the group from marching, especially when the United Against Fascism organisation was planning a march on the exact same day. One can only imagine the level of violence that could have resulted if the two groups clashed with one another. The government has a responsibility to maintain public order. It is essential if we are to avoid seeing repeated riots comparable to those witnessed in Bradford in 2001 or in Birmingham back in 1985.

Of course, some will consider this an infringement of ’freedom of speech’, however hateful and despicable the rhetoric of these far-right groups may be. Everything has its limits - no freedom is without responsibility and the government cannot simply ignore or permit an event from taking place simply because of the need for freedom of expression. Freedom of speech is supposed to enlighten us, it is supposed to be an essential component of a free world, in which people can have a free say on issues that matter to them. It gives people the liberty to let the government know that they want change and that something needs to be done on a wider scale to help solve major social issues.

Using freedom of speech to express hatred to such an extent that it puts the emotional well-being of different groups at serious risk is a serious abuse of this liberty. The Home Secretary’s role is to monitor and to take action against an individual or a group which poses a realistic threat to public safety. While the Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition has its flaws and has a great deal of challenges to face in the future, I am pleased to see that on this matter Theresa May is clearly doing her job.

David Milliband, leadership candidate for the Labour Party accused former Prime Minister Gordon Brown of failing in his promise to restore public confidence in Labour through his public relations. He claimed Mr Brown lacked the ’moral crusade'to win public support during his quest to solve the banks crisis and urged Labour to renew its political morality and to promote a more open, honest conduct in the future.

Speaking at the Keir Hardie lecture in Mountain Ash in the valleys of South Wales, Milliband said that Labour had lost the trust of the British people and that this was a serious problem for a government of a democracy. The leftwing MP John Cruddas, who had considered standing up for the party leadership bid said that Milliband’s speech was ’the most important speech'made by a Labour MP for many years, although he stopped short of endorsing anyone for the leadership challenge.

In regards to the Brown years, Milliband said that he supported Brown when he desperately tried to instil change in Britain after 10 years of Blair. He also agreed with his efforts to reduce child poverty and inequalities and the need for party reform, as well as his attitudes to global initiatives such as the G8 and G20 summits. However, Milliband stated that Labour lacked ’democratic discussion'and made families feel like ’consumers’, rather than ’partners'of a welfare state. He also complained that under Labour, the Treasury did not enact enough reforms in order to save the banks during the recession, claiming that they had not reinvested in the country.

The Brown government was plagued by the economic slowdown and the subsequent global financial crisis, which sealed Labour’s fate as it struggled to deal with the impacts of the recession.

Milliband also warns of the new Tories'plans to establish a ’bigger society’. He believes that a ’big society'depends on the mutual efforts of both the state and the individual to work towards a common goal. He believes that the greater the role of local communities and voluntary organisations, the greater the role the government has in supporting such groups and providing them with the necessary funds to continue their services.

A recent new story where the body of Bobby Fischer was to be exhumed in order to determine whether a nine year old girl is his daughter had me thinking about paternity testing in this country and the legal issues associated with it.

When it comes to paternity testing here in the UK, there are some legal issues involved, and they should never be overlooked. Given the circumstance of the paternity testing, you may have a different situation versus the next person, but even still these are questions that need to be answered and abided to. One of the more common issues that arise is, how accurate is it? Very accurate. Trust me, you won’t get the wrong answer. And if you do, sue them.

That however, isn’t necessarily a legal issue, so let’s touch base on some of those. Privacy is key here, and whoever is conducting your paternity testing must respect that like no tomorrow. If they don’t, once again, sue them. It’s no joking matter and it must be followed amongst strict guidelines and never be broken at any point or time without your permission.

Another issue is who has custody of the person receiving the paternity testing? If it’s not you, then forget about it. You’ll need extensive permission from the guardian, or even better, have them conduct the test. If they for whatever reason refuse to do so, then it’s time to give up, or fight for custody and long term care. Very rarely will you get the chance to have a paternity test administered without their permission or custody.

Now, if you make it this far and the paternity test is administered and you aren’t happy with the results, I would highly recommend counseling and never tamper with the results. That is a serious offense, and it’ll cause more problems than it will solutions. Trust me, tampering is never the answer when it comes to these things. It’s best to just live with the results, and hopefully, the results will be in your favor, or beneficial to both parties.

I hope you’ve learned a bit about the legal issues involved with paternity testing, and I even more so, I hope you abide by them. After all, you don’t want to get in trouble, or worse.

The new UK coalition government is only a few days old and on its honeymoon so to speak. But once this ‘getting to know you’ period is over, it’s down to the seriousness of the situation the UK is in. With both sides of the coalition having different views on certain things how will they resolve them for the good of the country? To that end will the new government hold together?

If you listen to what the leaders of the two parties making up the coalition say, then everything is alright now and a lot is being done to keep things together.

There’s really no way of telling. If it will stand the test of time, great, if it doesn’t, I’m sure many will not be surprised. Their economic program seems to lack many key items that a lot of people are extremely upset about. There is to be wide scale cuts in terms of social programs and jobs and some of these has already begun.

The government is also expected to propose the privatization of certain government owned institutions and this is not going down well with many workers and unions.

Many of the economic measures are geared towards cutting the current UK deficit over the short term. Some new legislation will likely be tabled towards the financial sector to restrict their operation and bonuses given to its managers.

Another pressing concern is that of the environmental policies introduced by the new UK coalition. It is definitely one of the strong points, as it focuses on home energy improvement, new regulations for kerosene suppliers, saving marine energy, ideas for emissions performance, and wildlife, but again the general public seems to feel as if it just isn’t enough. Do I think it’s enough? Sure, I think it’s definitely a start, but no plan is perfect. It’s certainly something to build upon, and from there you can only grow.

I don’t see the new UK coalition failing outright, but I also don’t see it pleasing everyone anytime soon. If they keep at it, and work hard, it’ll all come together one way or another. For every pressing concern, there are also positive elements, and with that, they can help knock out the bad.

And I think that this will work, just not overnight. Give it some time, and expect the best. Afterall, thinking negatively usually means bad results.

With the way that the American economy is it is hard to decided to support the new Arizona immigration law or not. In some ways it could be good and in some ways bad. There are some people who are suggesting that illegal immigrants who are already here and living a law abiding life should be allowed to stay in the United State and become legal Americans. Other people are saying that these people should be sent back to their country because we do not have room for them. Right now with so many Americans without work, homes, or long term care insurance it seems very difficult to support allowing more people to become legal citizens.

When some people say that illegal immigrants, who are living a law abiding life and not causing trouble in the United States, should be allowed to become citizens they are forgetting something. They are forgetting that being an illegal immigrant is just that, illegal. They are not law abiding citizens. They are getting paid under the table and not paying taxes. They can not be paying taxes because they do not have a social security number. They do not have a social security number because they are not citizens. They are not supposed to be in the United States to begin with.

Right now, Americans are having a hard enough time taking care of our own. We have many that are living on the streets because they have no source of income. Immigrants will work for significantly less than Americans. Americans are making less and thus having to pay less. Many business owners are now taking the risk of paying immigrants for labor because they can not afford to pay Americans. Until we can put the pieces back together we should not be inviting more people to come here. We should be telling them thanks for visiting but we need to take care of our own first.

Lord Hanningfield, David Chaytor, Jim Devine, and Elliot Morley have all denied these charges and plan to defend themselves against such accusations. John Devine has pronounced just how ‘distraught’ he is about the decision that’s been taken. Also in the same vain, Lord Clarke released a statement which expressed his relief at the ending of the probe into the claims he made which lasted for close to nine months. The claims were made under the existing Allowances Scheme of the House of Lords. He also expressed his added relief that there were no criminal charges brought against him and that he was cleared of any wrongdoing.

All of the four accused will receive summons to appear in the magistrate’s court in Westminster on 11 March and will not be held in prison.

The two charges against Scunthorpe MP Elliot Morley pertain to the ￡30,000 in mortgage interest on his real estate in Winterton for three years up to 2007. Bury North MP, David Chaytor, faces charges over several dishonest claims, such as ￡1950 in Information Technology services, and ￡12925 on rent claims that he allegedly owned. John Devine, MP of Livingston, is being charged over similar dishonest claims, pertaining to cleaning services.

One concern is the role of Parliament privilege, which guarantees MPs immunity to such claims as this, including slander. The lawyers of the accused MPs feel that this privilege should extend to this case, stating that it is “an issue that the parliamentary commissioner should have dealt with and who is there to enforce any breach of the rules”.

According to the DPP, there is enough evidence for criminal charges to be brought. The DPP also feels that the public interest warrants that the persons concerned be charges. All of the accused have resigned their posts.

It is doubtful that in spite of these charges that any of these MPs will end up in prison, which is what the public may want to see. It is more than likely that a deal may be struck or the case not proven in the courts.

The General Election is looming, our political leaders are announcing their slogans and drawing up the battle plans, opinion polls are being published on a daily basis and the United Kingdom is a mass of political– apathy!

This promises to be one of the most exciting and closely contested election for decades. Just six months ago the Conservative Party had a lead of over twenty percentage points and seemed guaranteed to win a large majority in the 2010 mandate. Labour have now started to take big chunks out of the opposition’s lead and the latest polls indicate that there will be a hung parliament with no single party having an overall majority. This would lead the prospective Prime Ministers, Messrs Cameron and Brown, scrabbling for support from the likes of the Liberal Democrats, SNP and Plaid Cymru like so many hens frantically pecking at the farmyard floor to pick up every last piece of seed.

Political analysts are having a field day picking through all the possible connotations and discussing whether PM Gordon Brown will wait until the last possible date, May, for the poll or call a snap election in March or April.

It might be expected therefore that the great British public would also be caught up election fever but a straw poll among my acquaintances indicates otherwise: ‘what election is that then?’ or ‘oh is that happening this year then?’ are the most common responses on this matter.

Britain likes to think of itself as the country that gave democracy to the world (don’t mention the Greeks!) but a peculiarly British trait is our general indifference to politics. Our brave soldiers fought two world wars to preserve British democracy but now their grandchildren and great great grandchildren won’t vote unless they can stay in bed and do it by text message! The only time that we take any interest in politicians is when they are involved in a scandal: preferably sexual, although financial scandals will also do at a push.

Scandal is the very oxygen that we Brits thrive on! If you look at any of our popular tabloids this week only three people are dominating the front pages: Cheryl Cole, John Terry and Jordan. All three involved in marital strife and scandals and all three of vastly more interest to the public than the Chancellor of The Exchequer of the Shadow Foreign Minister.

So how do we overcome our collective political apathy? Well we also invented the modern talent show (Britain’s Got Talent, The X Factor, Pop Idol et al) so why not get Brown, Cameron, Clegg and all the other Downing Street wannabes and get them onstage to sing, dance and otherwise humiliate themselves for our vote. We could end up with Susan Boyle as our new Prime Minister (maybe after an appointment at Laser Hair Removal Manchester) but, hey, that’s democracy for you!

Home Secretary Alan Johnson MP today outlined tough new restrictions designed to clamp down on student visa abuse.

A growing number of overseas students enter the United Kingdom every year, and there has been widespread concern that the system was being abused by would-be immigrants who are staying in the country long after their temporary visas have expired.

In an earlier attempt to address the problem, the Government last year announced that it was introducing a ’poins scoring’ system whereby overseas students would be scored on various aspects and would not be granted a visa unless they scored 40 points. This plan was criticised by political opponents as being cumbersome and failing to stop suspected terrorists from entering the United Kingdom.

Unveiling his new plans, the Home Secretary announced that students from outside of the EU would need to be able to speak English to a high level and that those students who wish to study short, non-degree, courses in this country would not be able to bring dependants with them. In the academic year 2008/9 approximately a quarter of a million student visas were issued but it is expected that the new measures, effective immediately, will see this figure drop significantly, possibly by tens of thousands.

Whilst cutting down on the abuse of student visas is a popular move across the political spectrum, it is a delicate balancing act for the Home Secretary. Students coming from overseas inject a large amount of money into the UK economy, several billion pounds a year, and the government does not want to lose the prestige of attracting some of the greatest young brains from across the world to British Universities.

It was also announced, by Immigration Minister Phil Woolas MP that over 200 ’bogus’ colleges had now been closed. This follows increasing reports that these ’colleges’ were set up as a front to allow people to enter the UK, for a suitable fee, on a student visa without having to do any studying at all.

Mr Woolas said: “The latest proposals are a response to the moves by people who are trying to get round the system."The moves announced today by Mr Johnson and Mr Woolas should go some way to restoring Britain’s reputation as a centre for higher education excellence, whilst ensuring that we do not become a soft touch for those who wish to enter the country under false pretences.

All I need to say is that if we do start denying overseas student, the Secondary education job openings will drop dramatically based on the pure statistics of how much of the education system is currently funded by overseas students.

Sion Simon MP has represented the constituency of Erdington, in the West Midlands, for nine years and is currently a junior minister in the Department of Culture, Media and Sport.

The practise of electing mayors is relatively new in the United Kingdom but the success of mayoral elections in London and Doncaster has seen the idea spread to other cities. Mr Simon says that he had been sceptical about the necessity for elected mayors but his mind was changed by the success of Ken Livingstone, and latterly Boris Johnson, in their tenures as Mayor of London.

Birmingham does not currently elect a mayor and a poll taken in 2001 showed that voters in the city were broadly against the concept. Mr Simon believes however that perceptions have changed and that an elected mayor in England’s second largest city can serve local needs better than MP’s in Westminster.

It is believed that Mr Simon will stand down at the forthcoming General Election and then stand for election to Birmingham City Council. If successful, as seems likely, he will use this as a platform to campaign for an elected mayor and will then hope to be successful as the Labour candidate for this position. Mr Simon held a 9000 majority at the last election and was seen as having one of the safest seats for the coming poll. It seems however that Mr Simon has decided that the increasing media pressure, and public scrutiny, being placed on Members of Parliament has had a detrimental effect on life at Westminster. Recent curbs on MP’s expenses have proved very unpopular and have led many politicians to question their role in public life.

Mr Simon, in common with many other MP’s of all parties, came in for severe criticism during the Commons expenses scandal and had to repay £20,000 that he had erroneously claimed for a rented second home, owned by his sister, in contravention of Parliamentary rules. With elected mayors bringing real prestige and power, as well as a lucrative salary in excess of those that a junior minister could expect, then Mr Simon could be the first of many to swap Westminster for home comforts!

Before I go I have recently found this great Stratigic Marketing Enigin site that you would all really like, you should check it out.