(c) List five local contacts you would approach for quotes to give this a local angle and give reasons for your choices.
Local resident: to find out what his/her opinion about the constitutional monarchy in this country in general.
Leader of the local council: to find out what view he/she holds, in favour of the monarchy or oppose the monarchy.
Another senior councillor: if the 1st councillor was in favour of the monarchy I will try to find one who held an opposing view, not necessarily against the monarchy as such, but sceptical about its role in a democracy and its cost. And vice versa.
Local taxpayers' group: to find out if they think the monarchy is good value for money.
Professor/senior lecturer from a local university or college: to ask about the technicalities of the monarchy and whether a republic would be any cheaper.
Showing posts with label UK. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UK. Show all posts
Wednesday, 9 June 2010
Issues related with central goverment - Monarchy (part two)
(b) The monarch's sources of income include:
Civil List:
A sum of money voted for annually by Parliament to pay for the Queen's duties as Head of State and head of the Commonwealth and for the royal household.
This income in not taxable. Other members of the Royal family are included on the Civil list, although Prince Charles gets all of his income from the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall (famous for its biscuits etc sold under the brand Duchy Originals). He voluntarily pays tax on this.
The Queen, since April 1993, has refunded part of the Civil List money to parliament, using her personal pot of money, the Privy Purse, which will be discussed later.
In broad terms, the Civil List funds the following expenses for both the reigning monarch and his or her spouse:
around 70 per cent pays the salaries of the 645 servants, butlers, and other employees of the Royal Household;
most of the remaining 30 per cent covers the costs of royal garden parties (attended by some 48,000 people each year) and hospitality during state visits.
Grants-in-aid:
Money granted by Parliament to pay for the upkeep of the inhabited royal palaces owned by the state, such as Windsor Castle, and transport for official duties.
The cash comes respectively from the budgets of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Department of Transport, and is not taxable (DfT).
For example, the DCMS pay £15.3m a year (fixed until at least 2011), the DFT paid £6.2m in 2007 – 2008.
Privy Purse:
The income of the Duchy of Lancaster, used mainly to fund other members of the Royal Family. Some of the money is handed over by the Queen to reimburse some of their civil list payments. It is taxable, after some deductions for official purposes.
Personal Income:
The Queen's private resources for non-official activities. Legally untaxable, but the Queen now voluntarily pays some income tax, at a rate privately agreed with the Treasury.
Civil List:
A sum of money voted for annually by Parliament to pay for the Queen's duties as Head of State and head of the Commonwealth and for the royal household.
This income in not taxable. Other members of the Royal family are included on the Civil list, although Prince Charles gets all of his income from the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall (famous for its biscuits etc sold under the brand Duchy Originals). He voluntarily pays tax on this.
The Queen, since April 1993, has refunded part of the Civil List money to parliament, using her personal pot of money, the Privy Purse, which will be discussed later.
In broad terms, the Civil List funds the following expenses for both the reigning monarch and his or her spouse:
around 70 per cent pays the salaries of the 645 servants, butlers, and other employees of the Royal Household;
most of the remaining 30 per cent covers the costs of royal garden parties (attended by some 48,000 people each year) and hospitality during state visits.
Grants-in-aid:
Money granted by Parliament to pay for the upkeep of the inhabited royal palaces owned by the state, such as Windsor Castle, and transport for official duties.
The cash comes respectively from the budgets of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Department of Transport, and is not taxable (DfT).
For example, the DCMS pay £15.3m a year (fixed until at least 2011), the DFT paid £6.2m in 2007 – 2008.
Privy Purse:
The income of the Duchy of Lancaster, used mainly to fund other members of the Royal Family. Some of the money is handed over by the Queen to reimburse some of their civil list payments. It is taxable, after some deductions for official purposes.
Personal Income:
The Queen's private resources for non-official activities. Legally untaxable, but the Queen now voluntarily pays some income tax, at a rate privately agreed with the Treasury.
Issues related with central goverment - Monarchy (part one)
An Outspoken local MP has voiced the opinion that the monarchy has no place in a modern democratic society. Your editor has asked you to research the role played by the monarchy for a piece in next week's paper.
(a) Describe the role played by the monarchy and explain how it is funded.
The UK is a constitutional monarchy, which means that its head of state is a king or queen whose power is defined and limited by the constitution, in contrast to “absolute monarchies (as this country once was).
By the beginning of the 20th century, real political power had been transferred to Parliament through the development of the ministerial system.
But the monarch still plays a number of important roles in the governing of the UK, although most of the Royal Prerogative powers are now exercised by others in the name of the sovereign.
The government, although elected by the people, is still known as Her Majesty's Government (HMG) and we still get official notifications from the state OHMS (On Her Majesty' Service).
The role of the monarchy:
The queen is said to “personify the nation”, standing above party politics as Head of State, but is not head of government, a role in the UK by the prime minister. She represents the “unity and standards of the nation” (as opposed to the state).
By law, the monarch is:
Part of the legislature;
Head of the executive;
Head of the judiciary;
Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces;
Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the established church;
Head of the Commonwealth (and head of state of 15 of its 53 members);
he authority from which the Royal Mint derives its licence to coin and print money
(at present, in his or her image).
The roles and the power that go with them are derived from the Royal Prerogative.
In an age when government holds sway over most key political decisions, the prerogative powers that monarchs personally still exercise are through the following roles and duties:
Reading Queen's Speech at the annual State Opening of Parliament or shortly after a general election;
Governing the Church of England;
'Creating' peers, and conferring knighthoods and honours in person;
Meeting the prime minister once a week usually on Tuesday to discuss Cabinet business and to offer advice on affairs of state;
Entertaining visiting foreign heads of state at Buckingham Palace;
Visiting other nations on official state visits – including those of the Commonwealth – as Britain's premier overseas ambassador;
Chairing meeting of the Privy Council;
Attending the 'Trooping the Colour'
A series of the prerogative powers held by the queen, but normally exercised by others, or by her 'on the advice of her ministers (all government ministers, including the Prime Minister, are Minister of the Crown)'.
It means in most case it is ministers and the prime ministers to take the necessary decision. The powers include:
Dissolving and summoning Parliament, that is, calling election and forming new parliaments after the results are in;
Giving the Royal Assent to Bills passed by Parliament;
Appointing ministers and other senior public officials, including judges, diplomats, governors, officers in the armed forces, police chief constables, and Church of England bishops and archbishops;
Devising the legislative agenda for each parliamentary session (year of Parliament) and writing the Queen's Speech, which will make these proposals public at the State Opening of Parliament;
Declaring war and peace;
The prorogation of Parliament, that is, the suspending of the activities of Parliament (if not Parliament itself) for the duration of holiday periods, such as the Summer Recess, and the annual Christmas and Easter breaks;
Drawing up lists of nominations, in consultation with the leaders of opposition parties, for peerage, knighthoods, and other honour in the New Year Honours List and the Queen's Birthday Honour List;
Issuing 'Royal Pardon';
Raising taxes;
Making treaties;
Dealing with emergencies;
(a) Describe the role played by the monarchy and explain how it is funded.
The UK is a constitutional monarchy, which means that its head of state is a king or queen whose power is defined and limited by the constitution, in contrast to “absolute monarchies (as this country once was).
By the beginning of the 20th century, real political power had been transferred to Parliament through the development of the ministerial system.
But the monarch still plays a number of important roles in the governing of the UK, although most of the Royal Prerogative powers are now exercised by others in the name of the sovereign.
The government, although elected by the people, is still known as Her Majesty's Government (HMG) and we still get official notifications from the state OHMS (On Her Majesty' Service).
The role of the monarchy:
The queen is said to “personify the nation”, standing above party politics as Head of State, but is not head of government, a role in the UK by the prime minister. She represents the “unity and standards of the nation” (as opposed to the state).
By law, the monarch is:
Part of the legislature;
Head of the executive;
Head of the judiciary;
Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces;
Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the established church;
Head of the Commonwealth (and head of state of 15 of its 53 members);
he authority from which the Royal Mint derives its licence to coin and print money
(at present, in his or her image).
The roles and the power that go with them are derived from the Royal Prerogative.
In an age when government holds sway over most key political decisions, the prerogative powers that monarchs personally still exercise are through the following roles and duties:
Reading Queen's Speech at the annual State Opening of Parliament or shortly after a general election;
Governing the Church of England;
'Creating' peers, and conferring knighthoods and honours in person;
Meeting the prime minister once a week usually on Tuesday to discuss Cabinet business and to offer advice on affairs of state;
Entertaining visiting foreign heads of state at Buckingham Palace;
Visiting other nations on official state visits – including those of the Commonwealth – as Britain's premier overseas ambassador;
Chairing meeting of the Privy Council;
Attending the 'Trooping the Colour'
A series of the prerogative powers held by the queen, but normally exercised by others, or by her 'on the advice of her ministers (all government ministers, including the Prime Minister, are Minister of the Crown)'.
It means in most case it is ministers and the prime ministers to take the necessary decision. The powers include:
Dissolving and summoning Parliament, that is, calling election and forming new parliaments after the results are in;
Giving the Royal Assent to Bills passed by Parliament;
Appointing ministers and other senior public officials, including judges, diplomats, governors, officers in the armed forces, police chief constables, and Church of England bishops and archbishops;
Devising the legislative agenda for each parliamentary session (year of Parliament) and writing the Queen's Speech, which will make these proposals public at the State Opening of Parliament;
Declaring war and peace;
The prorogation of Parliament, that is, the suspending of the activities of Parliament (if not Parliament itself) for the duration of holiday periods, such as the Summer Recess, and the annual Christmas and Easter breaks;
Drawing up lists of nominations, in consultation with the leaders of opposition parties, for peerage, knighthoods, and other honour in the New Year Honours List and the Queen's Birthday Honour List;
Issuing 'Royal Pardon';
Raising taxes;
Making treaties;
Dealing with emergencies;
Friday, 24 July 2009
UK anti-semitism records rise
Anti-Semitic attacks in the UK have doubled in the first half of this year compared with the same period in 2008, prompted by Israel’s invasion of Gaza, Jewish groups told the BBC.
The Jewish Community Security Trust (CST) recorded 609 anti-Semitic incidents between January and June – up from 276 last year.
From the Daily Telegraph, much of the surge took place in January - there were up to 286 incidents occurred in January alone.
The security body said in the BBC a disproportionately higher monthly number of attacks and abuse continued into spring.
There were more than nine incidents happened since February in the UK every single day. Most of the incidents were abusive behaviour, but there were also 77 violent acts.
The CST said the rise of anti-Semitism had been driven by anger over Israel’s military campaign against Hamas in Gaza last year.
The conflict between December 2008 and January 2009 was followed by an almost immediate rise in anti-Semitic incidents in the UK.
The CST added, according to the BBC, the total number of incidents for the first six months of this year was worse than the previous record of 598 incidents for the whole of 2006, apart from a big rise compared to 276 incidents happened in 2008, as previously said in the article.
The attacks recorded so far, include 77 acts of physical violence and two life-threatening assaults, one of which was an attempt to run over with a car.
Mark Gardner, of the CST said in an interview with the BBC: “British Jews facing ever higher levels of racist attack and intimidation that threaten the well-being of our otherwise happy and successful Jewish community.
“There is no excuse for anti-Semitism, racism and bias, and it is totally unacceptable that overseas conflicts should be impacting here in this way.”
Liberal Democrats Home Affairs spokesman Chris Huhne told the Daily Telegraph: “Britain is setting a shameful new record in anti-Semitic incidents this year, which are running at double the annual rate of the previous record.
“It is completely abhorrent that anyone should be intimidated on the grounds of their race, colour, gender, sexuality or creed.
“We must stand firm against intolerance shown to any minority if we are to preserve a civilized society.”
Foreign Office minister Ivan Lewis said: “I am deeply concerned by the rise in the number of anti-Semitic indicents as reported by the CST today.
“The British government is firmly committed to tackling and reducing all forms of racism including anti-Semitism.
“We simply cannot tolerate those who seek to use foreign conflicts to justify racism and criminal acts against any UK citizen.
“The UK’s Jewish community is an integral part of the rich fabric that makes up modern Britain and must be able to live free from fear of verbal or physical attack.
“The Government was in regular contact with senior community figures and the CST during the Gaza conflict and remain alert to their concerns.”
The BBC and the Daily Telegraph both published the comment made by Shahid Malik, Minister of Cohesion, one of two Muslims in government.
He said: “This rise in anti-Semitism is not just concerning for the British Jewish communities but for all those who see themselves as decent human beings
“It may be legitimate for individuals to criticise or be angry at the actions of the Israel government but we must never allow this anger to be used to justify anti-Semitism.
Earlier this year, Muslims leaders issued a joint statement denouncing anti-Semitism, amid fears that violent elements from within their own communities were responsible for the increase in attacks, the BBC has learnt.
The Jewish Community Security Trust (CST) recorded 609 anti-Semitic incidents between January and June – up from 276 last year.
From the Daily Telegraph, much of the surge took place in January - there were up to 286 incidents occurred in January alone.
The security body said in the BBC a disproportionately higher monthly number of attacks and abuse continued into spring.
There were more than nine incidents happened since February in the UK every single day. Most of the incidents were abusive behaviour, but there were also 77 violent acts.
The CST said the rise of anti-Semitism had been driven by anger over Israel’s military campaign against Hamas in Gaza last year.
The conflict between December 2008 and January 2009 was followed by an almost immediate rise in anti-Semitic incidents in the UK.
The CST added, according to the BBC, the total number of incidents for the first six months of this year was worse than the previous record of 598 incidents for the whole of 2006, apart from a big rise compared to 276 incidents happened in 2008, as previously said in the article.
The attacks recorded so far, include 77 acts of physical violence and two life-threatening assaults, one of which was an attempt to run over with a car.
Mark Gardner, of the CST said in an interview with the BBC: “British Jews facing ever higher levels of racist attack and intimidation that threaten the well-being of our otherwise happy and successful Jewish community.
“There is no excuse for anti-Semitism, racism and bias, and it is totally unacceptable that overseas conflicts should be impacting here in this way.”
Liberal Democrats Home Affairs spokesman Chris Huhne told the Daily Telegraph: “Britain is setting a shameful new record in anti-Semitic incidents this year, which are running at double the annual rate of the previous record.
“It is completely abhorrent that anyone should be intimidated on the grounds of their race, colour, gender, sexuality or creed.
“We must stand firm against intolerance shown to any minority if we are to preserve a civilized society.”
Foreign Office minister Ivan Lewis said: “I am deeply concerned by the rise in the number of anti-Semitic indicents as reported by the CST today.
“The British government is firmly committed to tackling and reducing all forms of racism including anti-Semitism.
“We simply cannot tolerate those who seek to use foreign conflicts to justify racism and criminal acts against any UK citizen.
“The UK’s Jewish community is an integral part of the rich fabric that makes up modern Britain and must be able to live free from fear of verbal or physical attack.
“The Government was in regular contact with senior community figures and the CST during the Gaza conflict and remain alert to their concerns.”
The BBC and the Daily Telegraph both published the comment made by Shahid Malik, Minister of Cohesion, one of two Muslims in government.
He said: “This rise in anti-Semitism is not just concerning for the British Jewish communities but for all those who see themselves as decent human beings
“It may be legitimate for individuals to criticise or be angry at the actions of the Israel government but we must never allow this anger to be used to justify anti-Semitism.
Earlier this year, Muslims leaders issued a joint statement denouncing anti-Semitism, amid fears that violent elements from within their own communities were responsible for the increase in attacks, the BBC has learnt.
Wednesday, 15 July 2009
Home Secretary refuses to cap the number of immigrants
Home Secretary Alan Johnson has refused to limit the number of immigrants coming to Britain, while his Immigration Minister Phil Woolas has pledged the population will not grow to 70 million, according to the Daily Mail.
Mr Johnson said he would not bring in a cap because it would harm the economy, and claims the economic contribution that immigration had made was ‘irrefutable’.
Johnson said: “I do not lie awake at night worrying about a population of 70 million.
“I’m happy to live in a multi-cultural society. I’m happy to live in a society where we not only welcome those coming to live and work in this country, but also where we can go and live and work in other countries.”
According to the paper, earlier this week, a poll found one in four Britons would like to see the population reduced by up to a third to ease overcrowding.
Seven out of ten told the Daily Mail the best way to curb population growth was to cut immigration.
The population at the moment stands at around 61 million. If it hits 70 million, it is most likely the other seven million immigrants will make up most of the rise.
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of think tank Migrationwatch said in an interview with the Daily Express: “Mr Johnson’s comments to the home affairs select committee were a seismic shift in Labour’s immigration policy and a humiliating blow to Immigration Minister Phil Woolas, who has promised to limit the population to below 70 million.”
His campaign group also warned the balance of those settling in the country would have to be reduced to 50,000 from the current level of 237,000 every year.
“The minister should be having nightmares about the impact on our schools, hospitals, environment and quality of life of another 10 million people,” Sir Andrew added.
In recent years, Labour has tried to give the impression that the party is talking tough on immigration, and tried to head off the rise of the British National Party (BNP), who defeated Labour in the Euro election last June.
The government’s points-based system is likely to cut immigrant numbers by around 8 per cent to 217,000. Tory immigration policies are likely to bring about a drop of 27 per cent to 172, 000.
Former Labour Minister Frank Field was dismissive of the Home Secretary’s claims ‘not to lie awake at night’. He said: “It must be a mis-quote because it should be."
Mr Field runs a cross-party group called Balanced Migration, which campaigns to limit the number of immigrants to manageable levels.
Mr Johnson said he would not bring in a cap because it would harm the economy, and claims the economic contribution that immigration had made was ‘irrefutable’.
Johnson said: “I do not lie awake at night worrying about a population of 70 million.
“I’m happy to live in a multi-cultural society. I’m happy to live in a society where we not only welcome those coming to live and work in this country, but also where we can go and live and work in other countries.”
According to the paper, earlier this week, a poll found one in four Britons would like to see the population reduced by up to a third to ease overcrowding.
Seven out of ten told the Daily Mail the best way to curb population growth was to cut immigration.
The population at the moment stands at around 61 million. If it hits 70 million, it is most likely the other seven million immigrants will make up most of the rise.
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of think tank Migrationwatch said in an interview with the Daily Express: “Mr Johnson’s comments to the home affairs select committee were a seismic shift in Labour’s immigration policy and a humiliating blow to Immigration Minister Phil Woolas, who has promised to limit the population to below 70 million.”
His campaign group also warned the balance of those settling in the country would have to be reduced to 50,000 from the current level of 237,000 every year.
“The minister should be having nightmares about the impact on our schools, hospitals, environment and quality of life of another 10 million people,” Sir Andrew added.
In recent years, Labour has tried to give the impression that the party is talking tough on immigration, and tried to head off the rise of the British National Party (BNP), who defeated Labour in the Euro election last June.
The government’s points-based system is likely to cut immigrant numbers by around 8 per cent to 217,000. Tory immigration policies are likely to bring about a drop of 27 per cent to 172, 000.
Former Labour Minister Frank Field was dismissive of the Home Secretary’s claims ‘not to lie awake at night’. He said: “It must be a mis-quote because it should be."
Mr Field runs a cross-party group called Balanced Migration, which campaigns to limit the number of immigrants to manageable levels.
Thursday, 9 July 2009
Housing not favouring migrants
This article I might need to do some slight changes, and just for now to keep it like this.
The perception of new arrivals jumping on council housing queues, and being given priority in the waiting list for council accommodation was wrong, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) told the BBC.
Mr Trevor Phillips, head of the EHRC said it is vital for social housing providers and policy makers to convince people the housing system is not in favouring of migrants.
He added: “We have to recognise that people's perceptions are powerful, and we need to foster understanding about what is really happening on the ground.”
He went on by saying public’s concern about the migration impact on social housing is the failure of social housing supply to meet the demands of the population.
“The poorer the area, the longer the waiting lists, therefore the greater the tension.” Mr Phillips told the BBC.
According to an Equality and Human Rights Commission report, once the new arrivals settled and are entitled to help, it adds, the same proportion live in social housing as UK-born residents.
64% of people who arrived in the UK within the last five years live in private rented accommodation.
However, after five years, when many immigrants are able to get residency and become entitled to government help, one in six live in social housing - exactly the same proportion as those who were born in Britain, the BBC has learnt.
Only 11% of new arrivals get help with housing - almost all of them asylum seekers.
On the other hand, the British National Party (BNP) has campaigned heavily on the issue, claiming that British people are being short-changed for housing in favour of newly arrived immigrants, according to the Independent.
Housing minister John Healey told the BBC the changes were designed to tackle the “myth” that the system was unfair.
He then added the changes would get council more “leeway” to deal with specific housing pressures in their areas.
The council will enable to help people who have been waiting the longest or those, in rural areas, who have strong local or family connections.
When speaking about extra 20,000 affordable homes will be built up for the next years, in addition to 90, 000 are already announced, the critics say this is inadequate given the four million people now on a waiting list for homes.
Mr Healey also said it was “wrong” to say the government had been forced into action to counter the BNP's arguments after it succeeded in getting two Euro MPs elected.
The conservatives have accused Labour of “spin”, saying the forthcoming equality bill would make it legal for councils in favouring of local people.
The Lib Dems said the government was trying to "grab headlines" rather than deal with the underlying issues.
Housing spokesman Grant Shapps told the BBC: “Housing waiting lists are at a record high level because of Labour's historic failure to build enough social housing.”
According to the Times, the investigation of the immigration impact - housing allocation was launched in November 2007, after the Conservative Party called for a cap on migrants coming into the UK.
Mr Trevor Phillips, the head of the EHRC has proposed a joint study with the Local Government Association to examine whether immigrants are given any priority in the waiting list for council accommodation.
Local housing provision has become one of the most hotly contested areas of the immigration debate. Mr Phillips wants to assess comprehensively whether there is any truth behind the claim that local white families are discriminated against.
The perception of new arrivals jumping on council housing queues, and being given priority in the waiting list for council accommodation was wrong, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) told the BBC.
Mr Trevor Phillips, head of the EHRC said it is vital for social housing providers and policy makers to convince people the housing system is not in favouring of migrants.
He added: “We have to recognise that people's perceptions are powerful, and we need to foster understanding about what is really happening on the ground.”
He went on by saying public’s concern about the migration impact on social housing is the failure of social housing supply to meet the demands of the population.
“The poorer the area, the longer the waiting lists, therefore the greater the tension.” Mr Phillips told the BBC.
According to an Equality and Human Rights Commission report, once the new arrivals settled and are entitled to help, it adds, the same proportion live in social housing as UK-born residents.
64% of people who arrived in the UK within the last five years live in private rented accommodation.
However, after five years, when many immigrants are able to get residency and become entitled to government help, one in six live in social housing - exactly the same proportion as those who were born in Britain, the BBC has learnt.
Only 11% of new arrivals get help with housing - almost all of them asylum seekers.
On the other hand, the British National Party (BNP) has campaigned heavily on the issue, claiming that British people are being short-changed for housing in favour of newly arrived immigrants, according to the Independent.
Housing minister John Healey told the BBC the changes were designed to tackle the “myth” that the system was unfair.
He then added the changes would get council more “leeway” to deal with specific housing pressures in their areas.
The council will enable to help people who have been waiting the longest or those, in rural areas, who have strong local or family connections.
When speaking about extra 20,000 affordable homes will be built up for the next years, in addition to 90, 000 are already announced, the critics say this is inadequate given the four million people now on a waiting list for homes.
Mr Healey also said it was “wrong” to say the government had been forced into action to counter the BNP's arguments after it succeeded in getting two Euro MPs elected.
The conservatives have accused Labour of “spin”, saying the forthcoming equality bill would make it legal for councils in favouring of local people.
The Lib Dems said the government was trying to "grab headlines" rather than deal with the underlying issues.
Housing spokesman Grant Shapps told the BBC: “Housing waiting lists are at a record high level because of Labour's historic failure to build enough social housing.”
According to the Times, the investigation of the immigration impact - housing allocation was launched in November 2007, after the Conservative Party called for a cap on migrants coming into the UK.
Mr Trevor Phillips, the head of the EHRC has proposed a joint study with the Local Government Association to examine whether immigrants are given any priority in the waiting list for council accommodation.
Local housing provision has become one of the most hotly contested areas of the immigration debate. Mr Phillips wants to assess comprehensively whether there is any truth behind the claim that local white families are discriminated against.
My friends nickenamed us the United Nations says Mrs Nurse
A British family has nicknamed their kids as the rainbow children because of their completely different skin colours.
Ms Carla Nurse, 27 and her black husband Cornel, 31, had their first child Jermaine with a mixed race complexion, and a daughter Tanisha arrived with an Afro-Caribbean appearance, their second son Jayden was born with white skin and blonde hair.
They said they were not surprised with Jermaine’s mixed race complexion, but were amazed by their other two kids with totally different-coloured skin, according to the Daily Telegraph.
Ms Nurse, a part-time model from Lowestoft, Suffolk, said she lives in a predominantly white town, and she finds it is pretty strange when she walks around with her brood of rainbow children.
Her major concern is that many people assume the children to have different fathers.
She told the Daily Telegraph when giving birth to each of them at the hospital, and all the doctors where looking at her doubting she had all these children to different men.
“When people thinking I’ve cheated, it makes me so angry, but I would never stray from Cornel.” Ms Nurse added.
Mr Nurse, who was born and breaded in Suffolk village of Halesworth, has a white mother coming from London and an Afro-Caribbean father from Barbados.
He said he definitely believes all these three children are his, “They all have our facial features, it’s just the colour of their skin which is different – it’s hard to believe.” He told the Daily Telegraph.
He went on saying Tanisha was dark from the beginning, but when the boys got older one has gone darker, the other has gone whiter, and the whole thing is just a freak of nature.
Mr Nurse also said in an interview with the Daily Mail, all the three kids were planned – Jermaine was conceived on holiday in Florida, Tanisha and Jayden were conceived at home.
The mixed race couple did not forgetting the joke sent by their friends, who nicknamed them – the couple and their children “the United Nations”, the Daily Telegraph said.
According to the Daily Mail, the British Society for Human Genetics (BSHG) said it was highly unusual for one family give birth to three totally different skin-coloured children.
Dr Jess Buxton, the BSHG spokesman said he has never heard of this before, but several different genes control skin colour in a similar way to eye and hair colour.
Children from the same parents only shares about 50 per cent of their parents’ genes.
If one parent has several “light skin” gene variants, the other has several “dark skin” variants, then their children can have a skin colour anywhere in between, but it depends on which the combination of variants they receive.
Because it is a random process, it is certainly possible for the same parents to have children with completely different-coloured skin.
Dr Jess Buxton went on saying they do not know all of the genes involved, and it is impossible to predict when this will happen, “there is still a lot we do not know about individual genes and how they govern characteristics.”
Ms Carla Nurse, 27 and her black husband Cornel, 31, had their first child Jermaine with a mixed race complexion, and a daughter Tanisha arrived with an Afro-Caribbean appearance, their second son Jayden was born with white skin and blonde hair.
They said they were not surprised with Jermaine’s mixed race complexion, but were amazed by their other two kids with totally different-coloured skin, according to the Daily Telegraph.
Ms Nurse, a part-time model from Lowestoft, Suffolk, said she lives in a predominantly white town, and she finds it is pretty strange when she walks around with her brood of rainbow children.
Her major concern is that many people assume the children to have different fathers.
She told the Daily Telegraph when giving birth to each of them at the hospital, and all the doctors where looking at her doubting she had all these children to different men.
“When people thinking I’ve cheated, it makes me so angry, but I would never stray from Cornel.” Ms Nurse added.
Mr Nurse, who was born and breaded in Suffolk village of Halesworth, has a white mother coming from London and an Afro-Caribbean father from Barbados.
He said he definitely believes all these three children are his, “They all have our facial features, it’s just the colour of their skin which is different – it’s hard to believe.” He told the Daily Telegraph.
He went on saying Tanisha was dark from the beginning, but when the boys got older one has gone darker, the other has gone whiter, and the whole thing is just a freak of nature.
Mr Nurse also said in an interview with the Daily Mail, all the three kids were planned – Jermaine was conceived on holiday in Florida, Tanisha and Jayden were conceived at home.
The mixed race couple did not forgetting the joke sent by their friends, who nicknamed them – the couple and their children “the United Nations”, the Daily Telegraph said.
According to the Daily Mail, the British Society for Human Genetics (BSHG) said it was highly unusual for one family give birth to three totally different skin-coloured children.
Dr Jess Buxton, the BSHG spokesman said he has never heard of this before, but several different genes control skin colour in a similar way to eye and hair colour.
Children from the same parents only shares about 50 per cent of their parents’ genes.
If one parent has several “light skin” gene variants, the other has several “dark skin” variants, then their children can have a skin colour anywhere in between, but it depends on which the combination of variants they receive.
Because it is a random process, it is certainly possible for the same parents to have children with completely different-coloured skin.
Dr Jess Buxton went on saying they do not know all of the genes involved, and it is impossible to predict when this will happen, “there is still a lot we do not know about individual genes and how they govern characteristics.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)