Ruth Kelly has a deeper voice than Alan Duncan.

There's no real point to this post, it's just an observation.

But it is actually extremely disturbing to listen to and watch.

Especially since Ruth Kelly has grown her hair and actually looks slightly feminine. Well, until you hear her talk anyway.

Bloody hell, the government really is just crap at looking after our data, isn't it!

My details were almost certainly among those lost, and I am by no means pacified by Ruth Kelly apologising for “any uncertainty or concern” caused, especially since sorry seems to be the easiest word for Labour minister to say under Brown.

They were lost in May for crying out loud! Why did they not at least tell us that they had lost it? This isn't however the fault of Ruth Kelly, who was only informed of this on 28th November. Stephen Ladyboyman most certainly can be, however, as he was told of this loss of data on June 4th, and whatever he did didn't tell people like me whose details are more than likely to have been lost and potentially in the hands of fraudsters. What is staggering , however, is that even though nothing had been done about this loss of data on the government's behalf, they only told the new Secretary of State after the government had lost the details of 25m other people.

I wonder, if that hadn't have happened, would she - let alone us - ever have been told?!

What this does is demonstrate categorically that the State cannot be responsible for any more of our personal data than absolutely essential. Even what it currently holds is too much, and certainly even the thought of this incompetent bunch of morons ever getting hold of enough information to make an ID card should make all intelligent people very, very scared.

UPDATE: Ladyboy defends doing bugger-all about this because he "assumed the new minister would've been told about it." Why didn't you do something about it yourself? Or would that have meant that you would actually have to had earned your pay? Read Mr Eugenides' comments on this issue.

The amount of money spent on providing documents translated into foreign languages should be cut, says Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary. She said that:

"I think speaking the language is absolutely key... [L]ocal authorities can ask really hard questions about whether or not we are providing a crutch and supporting people in their difference, or whether translation is being used in the appropriate circumstances...
I do think translation has been used too frequently and sometimes without thought to the consequences. So, for example, it’s quite possible for someone to come here from Pakistan or elsewhere in the world and find that materials are routinely translated into their mother tongue, and therefore not have the incentive to learn the language."

It is good that she also points out that in some places such translation is essential - such as in casualty wards - and as such translation levels should not be reduced.

Kelly certainly does have a point. Immigrants should be encouraged to learn English of they come to live in the UK. In fact, it should be pretty much a requirement for permanent residence. Without being able to speak the language of the nation, how can they properly live in society as a whole? Not being able to speak English properly means that that person is massively restricted in social and economic means, and cannot act independently outside of a small certain group - and they cannot ever integrate properly without being able to communicate.

An immigrants who makes a choice to come to Britain makes the choice to come here. They are not made to, although they may be directed by economic imperatives - but it is still a choice. I have no problem with immigration to a certain extent, but those who do choose to come must learn our language, as I would if I chose to emigrate to a non-English speaking country.

I know that I suffer from a certain level of linguistic arrogance, as I can't speak another language and I could never really see the point of learning them at school [about all I can remember of my French is that "piscine" means swimming pool, and of my German GCSE that "fahrt" means journey, "gespeilen" is to verb "to play" and I can count to ten]. However, I don't - and won't - move to other countries and expect them to speak my language. Speaking loudly and slowly doesn't work. Those who move to foreign non-English speaking countries and don't learn the language are at least as bad as those who come to Britain and don't learn English. If anything they are worse, as they expect everyone in their new country to speak English as well!

Money that would otherwise be spent on short-term fixes such as translated documents should instead be spent on providing classes for people to learn English in.That is a long-term solution, and helps everyone - especially the immigrant themselves. Britain is a linguistically homogeneous country - certainly there are no significant linguistic minorities, such as the Spanish speakers in the US - and so English really must be learnt to at least a certain extent by immigrants. Without it, how can they function in general British society?

Source: BBC, The Times