Catch21 - Our Charity ArmCatch21 is a charitable production company set up in 2005 which trains young people to make videos and engage with their communities.Catch Creative - Our Video Production ArmCatch Creative offers a complete video production service, from Conception to Distribution.Catch EngagementCatch Engagement is the new video interaction platform from Catch21 which allows you to run a campaign using both user generated films as well as professionally shot ones which are displayed via Video 'Walls'. Catch Engagement is all about using films to build an online community - welcome to the future of video.

We shoot cutting edge videos and provide a forum to give people a voice.
Engagement. Discussion. Empowerment.


All content featured on our charity site is produced by young volunteers with the support and mentoring of our professional production team.

Blog no image

Published on February 12th, 2012 | by The Editor
Image © [caption id="" align="alignleft" width="267" caption="©alquitos"][/caption] Let’s kick things off with Andrew Lansley’s continued push for reforms to the NHS, which as expected took another blow this week with the Lords defeat of the Health and Social care bill. After announcing reforms with much enthusiasm back in 2010, Lansley must now be feeling pensive with the Westminster support he held 18 months ago now appearing to be on the wane. This point is best highlighted by Friday’s editorial on Conservativehome,  a website generally regarded as the voice of the Tory grass roots. The piece called for the bill to be dropped all together and what could be more telling, were reports that it was written with the consent of three Conservative Cabinet ministers. So what exactly is a stake in this reform and what exactly is Lansley proposing?  Natalie Hodgson this week provided an excellent and point by point explaination of what each of the major changes will entail. Whether or not the bill makes it into law, it’s not looking good for Lansley, with growing speculation that he will be ‘moved on’ in a summer cabinet reshuffle. His troubles heightened when, as reported by our resident PMQ blogger Sam Hargreaves, an awkward David Cameron was forced to defend the future his health sectary Wednesday.  Undoubtedly there will be much more to come on embattled piece of legislation in the proceeding weeks. Web censorship, a topic that Natalie Hodgson debated last week has been back on the agenda for CatchBlog this week with Jack Ellis give us a superlative examination of the future of internet access in one of the world’s emerging superpowers, India.  The country is predicted to become the world's fastest growing economic by 2015 and surely has long term designs on overtaking China in the GDP stakes. The question Jack raises is wether India is harming its chances by adopting a similar authoritarian control over web like its Asian neighbour? The terms intervention and obligation have been mentioned a lot this week on CatchBlog. Will Dalhgreen looked at the role, or lack thereof, of the international community in averting humanitarian crises. Citing the academic and expert on global justice Thomas Pogge and his normative theory of ethics, he presented the argument that fault for such crises lies with the mechanisms of international law, not with those such as Glencore, who merely profit from it. Saira Khan this week has looked at applied ethics and considered whether direct intervention in on-going humanitarian crises can ever be justified. Her concluding points display a consenus with Will, with a similar call for a tightening of international law. The morality of interventionism has also served as this week’s question for CatchPoll. We asked you if the international community has a responsibility to intervene in the on-going trouble in Syria and the result showed 70% in favour of direct intervention. That just about warps things up this week, but do keep your eyes peeled to Catch21 this coming week for the official launch of our new show #StreetPolitics. Until then I'll leave you with this, no explanation needed. Godspeed  

0

This Week in Politics

©alquitos

Let’s kick things off with Andrew Lansley’s continued push for reforms to the NHS, which as expected took another blow this week with the Lords defeat of the Health and Social care bill. After announcing reforms with much enthusiasm back in 2010, Lansley must now be feeling pensive with the Westminster support he held 18 months ago now appearing to be on the wane.

This point is best highlighted by Friday’s editorial on Conservativehome,  a website generally regarded as the voice of the Tory grass roots. The piece called for the bill to be dropped all together and what could be more telling, were reports that it was written with the consent of three Conservative Cabinet ministers. So what exactly is a stake in this reform and what exactly is Lansley proposing?  Natalie Hodgson this week provided an excellent and point by point explaination of what each of the major changes will entail.

Whether or not the bill makes it into law, it’s not looking good for Lansley, with growing speculation that he will be ‘moved on’ in a summer cabinet reshuffle. His troubles heightened when, as reported by our resident PMQ blogger Sam Hargreaves, an awkward David Cameron was forced to defend the future his health sectary Wednesday.  Undoubtedly there will be much more to come on embattled piece of legislation in the proceeding weeks.

Web censorship, a topic that Natalie Hodgson debated last week has been back on the agenda for CatchBlog this week with Jack Ellis give us a superlative examination of the future of internet access in one of the world’s emerging superpowers, India.  The country is predicted to become the world’s fastest growing economic by 2015 and surely has long term designs on overtaking China in the GDP stakes. The question Jack raises is wether India is harming its chances by adopting a similar authoritarian control over web like its Asian neighbour?

The terms intervention and obligation have been mentioned a lot this week on CatchBlog. Will Dalhgreen looked at the role, or lack thereof, of the international community in averting humanitarian crises. Citing the academic and expert on global justice Thomas Pogge and his normative theory of ethics, he presented the argument that fault for such crises lies with the mechanisms of international law, not with those such as Glencore, who merely profit from it.

Saira Khan this week has looked at applied ethics and considered whether direct intervention in on-going humanitarian crises can ever be justified. Her concluding points display a consenus with Will, with a similar call for a tightening of international law. The morality of interventionism has also served as this week’s question for CatchPoll. We asked you if the international community has a responsibility to intervene in the on-going trouble in Syria and the result showed 70% in favour of direct intervention.

That just about warps things up this week, but do keep your eyes peeled to Catch21 this coming week for the official launch of our new show #StreetPolitics. Until then I’ll leave you with this, no explanation needed.

Godspeed

 

Tags: ,


About the Author



Back to Top ↑