The Scottish Parliament seems to be undecided about seals, in the run up to the Marine Bill.
On the one hand, we have Robin Harper, the Green MSP, who has, according to news reports, issued a call for a moratorium on the shooting of seals for the foreseeable future, in respect of the fall in the numbers of common or harbour seals in Scottish waters.
There are those who would argue that this is a Scottish matter, to be discussed by and on behalf of Scots only. But I hope those in charge of Scottish legislation, including the Marine Bill which has sparked this debate, will appreciate there is a much wider constituency beyond the borders of Scotland, in the form of people like my wife and I who visit Scotland on holiday every year, and who contribute lifeblood to the tourist economy.
As the author of a book on Arran, an island my wife and I visit each summer to photograph, document and sketch the seals, I think it needs to be made clear to those in power in Holyrood that the answer to this problem lies not in shooting the seals -who, after all, were around long before the fish farmers – but rather in better technical barriers to protect the salmon and to allow fish farmers and seals to continue to co-exist.
This would include making it clear to people such as Michael Russell, the Scottish Environment Minister, who was - rather sadly - noncommital about the issue when quizzed recently by Eddie Mair for Radio 4's PM programme. And certainly to those who in the past have been backing the idea of a seal cull off Scottish waters, this time in conjunction with European Union Fisheries Commissioner Joe Borg.
You have probably divined by now that I have a great admiration for these noble creatures. However, even if seals were not such a photogenic proposition, and an asset to Scotland’s tourist industry, I still believe that culling them is not the answer to the problems besetting Scotland’s fisheries.
The real problem has to be seen as part of a world problem, in context. We simply cannot carry on allowing factory ships of all nations to hoover up anything larger than a stickleback without the inevitable consequence that the human race will run out of fish. This will not be solved by killing seals. Even if all of the seals in UK waters were culled, this wouldn’t stop the overfishing which is the real cause of the problem, as set out in the recent report which predicted that we would run out of fish altogether by 2050.
Unfortunately, EU law probably prevents us from culling Spanish fishermen, but I must observe that the time of MSPs would probably be better spent in lobbying for EU fisheries reform, or for alternative employment for the fishing industry, than in the minimal effect that would result from killing seals and interfering with the natural food chain. Please stop using seals as a scapegoat for man-made problems.
This is the same in Canada, where every year the Canadian government ignores please from hundreds of thousands of people like me who are so disgusted with Canada's annual harp seal pup cull, that we would never dream of contemplating going on holiday to their backward uncivilized and barbaric country 'til they drag themselves into the 21st century.
Even if it was necessary to cull seal pups every year, even accepting for a moment the spurious premise of the fishing lobby that the seals are responsible for the depleting fish stocks, surely even they can see there must be a more humane way of culling an animal than clubbing it to death? And skinning it while it is still alive, in some cases?
Once again, this spring, I will be emailing everyone I know suggesting they join in a total trade and tourism boycott of Canada. Let's hope we don't have to add Scotland to the list. Again.
Wednesday, 31 December 2008
It's (Not) That Man, Again!
In the second world war, there used to be a long-running radio series called ITMA which stood for “It’s that man again”. Such is the identikit interchangeability of the apparatchiks in the present government, that this was my first reaction on hearing of their intention to police, curb and generally censor what is available on the internet. I was confusing Andy Burnham with James Purnell. An easy mistake to make, since neither of them appear in many photos. (At least, not when the photo was taken, anyway.)
Andy Burnham has, apparently, spent £1,986.84 of taxpayers’ money on “media training” during 2008. Judging by his latest sally, we should be asking for a refund.
Now, no-one is defending the sick and illegal sites that show abuse happening to children, or adults for that matter, or animals. But these sites are generally illegal anyway and can be quickly shut down, and/or their adherents pursued through credit card records. Beyond this criminal hardcore, which I again stress is illegal, lies a whole hinterland of “softer” material which some would also wish to ban. There are compelling arguments both ways; those who maintain that pornography on the internet cheapens and demeans the status of women, versus those who argue that its presence sublimates a desire which exists anyway and which, were it not for the “safety valve” element of the internet, would manifest itself in other, darker, more concrete forms. I suspect that no one knows for sure.
The internet, though, can generally be relied upon to police these sites itself, and there are now increasingly sophisticated ways in which responsible adults can prevent children in their care from viewing it. The problem there is not the technology but the irresponsible adults. They could also take a look at the access children have to computer games, particularly violent ones with a pornographic tinge, rather than worrying about the chances of an impressionable teenager stumbling on a home movie of a chartered accountant from Droitwich bonking his wife.
But the government, of course, despite the fact that no-one “owns” the internet, is not content to let matters be. Oh, no.
“There is content that should just not be available to be viewed. That’s my view. Absolutely categorical,” says Mr Burnham, proposing a cinema-style rating system for sites.
Yes, well, we all think that, but the problem is, who decides what should just not be available? I would much rather rely on the collective weight of international law then the decision of one Andy Burnham or his civil servants. Plus, in one of his media interviews (£1,986.84, remember) Mr Burnham used the chilling word “unacceptable”.
This is the crux of the problem. Not “illegal”, which no-one would have an issue with, but “unacceptable”. When we get to the stage of people in government deciding what we can and can’t see on the internet on the basis of what is acceptable and “unacceptable”, then it’s time to worry. That is the thin end of a very large wedge. What is “unacceptable” can grow and change – once the government gets the power of veto over what is acceptable or unacceptable for you and I to look at on the web, then basically anything the government does not like could find itself on the “unacceptable” list. Sites criticizing government policy. Sites promoting animal welfare, even, if they contravene the government's unquestioning support for big pharma and vivisection.
Hermann Goering once memorably said, “When I hear someone mention ‘culture’, then I reach for my revolver” and I’m getting a similar twitchy feeling. Though in my case it would involve adding the words “secretary, Andy Burnham” into that sentence, at the appropriate point.
Andy Burnham has, apparently, spent £1,986.84 of taxpayers’ money on “media training” during 2008. Judging by his latest sally, we should be asking for a refund.
Now, no-one is defending the sick and illegal sites that show abuse happening to children, or adults for that matter, or animals. But these sites are generally illegal anyway and can be quickly shut down, and/or their adherents pursued through credit card records. Beyond this criminal hardcore, which I again stress is illegal, lies a whole hinterland of “softer” material which some would also wish to ban. There are compelling arguments both ways; those who maintain that pornography on the internet cheapens and demeans the status of women, versus those who argue that its presence sublimates a desire which exists anyway and which, were it not for the “safety valve” element of the internet, would manifest itself in other, darker, more concrete forms. I suspect that no one knows for sure.
The internet, though, can generally be relied upon to police these sites itself, and there are now increasingly sophisticated ways in which responsible adults can prevent children in their care from viewing it. The problem there is not the technology but the irresponsible adults. They could also take a look at the access children have to computer games, particularly violent ones with a pornographic tinge, rather than worrying about the chances of an impressionable teenager stumbling on a home movie of a chartered accountant from Droitwich bonking his wife.
But the government, of course, despite the fact that no-one “owns” the internet, is not content to let matters be. Oh, no.
“There is content that should just not be available to be viewed. That’s my view. Absolutely categorical,” says Mr Burnham, proposing a cinema-style rating system for sites.
Yes, well, we all think that, but the problem is, who decides what should just not be available? I would much rather rely on the collective weight of international law then the decision of one Andy Burnham or his civil servants. Plus, in one of his media interviews (£1,986.84, remember) Mr Burnham used the chilling word “unacceptable”.
This is the crux of the problem. Not “illegal”, which no-one would have an issue with, but “unacceptable”. When we get to the stage of people in government deciding what we can and can’t see on the internet on the basis of what is acceptable and “unacceptable”, then it’s time to worry. That is the thin end of a very large wedge. What is “unacceptable” can grow and change – once the government gets the power of veto over what is acceptable or unacceptable for you and I to look at on the web, then basically anything the government does not like could find itself on the “unacceptable” list. Sites criticizing government policy. Sites promoting animal welfare, even, if they contravene the government's unquestioning support for big pharma and vivisection.
Hermann Goering once memorably said, “When I hear someone mention ‘culture’, then I reach for my revolver” and I’m getting a similar twitchy feeling. Though in my case it would involve adding the words “secretary, Andy Burnham” into that sentence, at the appropriate point.
Wednesday, 24 December 2008
63,000 reasons to be ashamed to be British
According to figures I have seen on the news this morning there are 63,000 families homeless in Britain, this Christmas.
There should be no more rejoicing until this figure is zero, and instead of giving the banks another bucketload of money to waste on junketing, the Government should give local authorities the money to build low rise, low density, eco-friendly housing at socially affordable rates, and renovate existing brownfield sites, until the evil of homelessness is banished from our streets.
Plus, building a new generation of social housing will provide a much-needed stimulus to the construction industry.
Oh, and could somebody hand the Pope and Branson a trowel each. It'll keep them out of mischief too.
There should be no more rejoicing until this figure is zero, and instead of giving the banks another bucketload of money to waste on junketing, the Government should give local authorities the money to build low rise, low density, eco-friendly housing at socially affordable rates, and renovate existing brownfield sites, until the evil of homelessness is banished from our streets.
Plus, building a new generation of social housing will provide a much-needed stimulus to the construction industry.
Oh, and could somebody hand the Pope and Branson a trowel each. It'll keep them out of mischief too.
Tuesday, 23 December 2008
Scilly Buggers' Outing
Well, it's been another week for exponents of Cornish offshore electronic surveillance.
Pope Benedict - gay people are a bigger threat than the destruction of the rain forests? What's that all about then? He needs to get off his throne, take the jiffy bag off his head, and read what it says in the Bible about loving each other.
I cannot believe, in a world where people are dying because they don't have enough food and clean water, or being slaughtered in arbitrary wars in Africa and the Middle East, that this is all the Catholic church has to concern itself with.
Richard Branson - the NHS can be freed of MRSA by simply isolating the staff who are MRSA sufferers and keeping them in the back room? And presumably feeding them through a grille in the door? Why not go the whole hog and paint a red cross on the entrance with "Lord Have Mercy On Our Souls"? Has anyone worked out how the front line staff are to avoid coming into contact with the back room staff? Or how we're going to manage with surgeons doing the filing?
Idiot. Shut up, you beardy fool.
All we need now is for Cameron to suggest putting rubber wheels on the Underground again, and we'll have a set!
Pope Benedict - gay people are a bigger threat than the destruction of the rain forests? What's that all about then? He needs to get off his throne, take the jiffy bag off his head, and read what it says in the Bible about loving each other.
I cannot believe, in a world where people are dying because they don't have enough food and clean water, or being slaughtered in arbitrary wars in Africa and the Middle East, that this is all the Catholic church has to concern itself with.
Richard Branson - the NHS can be freed of MRSA by simply isolating the staff who are MRSA sufferers and keeping them in the back room? And presumably feeding them through a grille in the door? Why not go the whole hog and paint a red cross on the entrance with "Lord Have Mercy On Our Souls"? Has anyone worked out how the front line staff are to avoid coming into contact with the back room staff? Or how we're going to manage with surgeons doing the filing?
Idiot. Shut up, you beardy fool.
All we need now is for Cameron to suggest putting rubber wheels on the Underground again, and we'll have a set!
Saturday, 20 December 2008
Barclays Wank
So, the boss of Barclays says we'll be lucky if the banks start lending again before 2010. OK, then, I might just stop paying my loan back to Barclays til 2010, since the fat smug bastard is already sitting on a huge pile of money. I can't say "taxpayers' money" since Barclays declined the government handout in favour of still being able to award themselves huge bonuses, which is presumably why they haven't got any money to lend.
It makes you want to go round and do an unauthorised withdrawl at the point of a sawn-off shotgun. I really don't know how these people have the brass neck to show themselves in daylight. At least Dick Turpin wore a mask. This is the set of stripeyarsed bastards who made me do cash flows and forecasts and management accounts that kept me up until 2 and 3 in the morning sometimes, and all the while they were pissing away our money on dodgy hedges.
If there was any justice, they'd all be struck by lightning
It makes you want to go round and do an unauthorised withdrawl at the point of a sawn-off shotgun. I really don't know how these people have the brass neck to show themselves in daylight. At least Dick Turpin wore a mask. This is the set of stripeyarsed bastards who made me do cash flows and forecasts and management accounts that kept me up until 2 and 3 in the morning sometimes, and all the while they were pissing away our money on dodgy hedges.
If there was any justice, they'd all be struck by lightning
Wednesday, 17 December 2008
The Last Post
No, don't get excited, I am not giving up this blog. This is about the Post Office. And I am afraid it will probably turn into a bit of a rant.
People often complain about Royal Mail. Usually the sort of predictable stuff, whipped up by tabloid journalists who complain that the post doesn't get delivered in Notting Hill until lunchtime, and lamenting the great days of the Penny Post when they could have sent a postcard to their Auntie in Tulse Hill to say that they were coming round for tea, and it would be delivered before they got there. Etc, etc.
And so, off the back of this sort of thinking, a few years ago, in some misbegotten corridor of government, was born the idea of "privatising Royal Mail".
Now, I will nail my colours to the mast here, and declare some more fundamental policies of The Bolshy Party. I believe very strongly that there are certain parts of our society that belong to us all and should be owned by, and operated for the benefit of, all British people.
These are Hospitals, Schools, Courts, Prisons, The Emergency Services, Public Transport and the Postal System. There may be others. I am in mid-rant right now.
Of course, if you are going to set up a "competitive" market in an area where there has previously been a state-owned monopoly, you would of course make sure that the process was scrupulously fair and that all concerned had a level playing field, yes?
Well, er no. Because someone must have realised, pretty early on, that if Royal Mail's competitors were to truly compete for the work, then they too would have to wind time back to 1848, invent the Penny Black, and the Railway network, and build a load of sorting offices etc etc. Oh no, that will never do. So the first indignity heaped on the Royal Mail was that they were forced to accept the idea of their "competitors" using Royal Mail staff and infrastructure for the so-called "Last Mile" delivery.
And the postal services regulator was also given the power (misguidedly again in my opinion) of stopping Royal Mail increasing its prices, so Royal Mail was forced to adopt a "price minus" model of charging these people, instead of a cost plus model. In other words, the regulator said to Royal Mail - you can't add a mark up on to what it costs and then charge your competitors that, instead you have to give them a discount off the fixed price.
So, not only was Royal Mail forced to accept unfair competition, and accommodate that competition (even to the extent of having to widen the gates of its local delivery offices to accommodate the vans owned by the competition) but it was prevented from increasing its prices to maintain its own margins.
Now, Royal Mail has not been entirely blameless in its own demise. Its management have made some dumb decisions (Elton John fronting an ad campaign, anyone?) but you have to feel sorry for them, ultimately they have been handed the shitty end of the stick. The government was of course happy to keep taking money out of Royal Mail, money that could have been invested in better sorting machinery for instance, all the time this was happening. In fact successive governments of differing hues have starved Royal Mail of investment.
So much so that in August 2006, Royal Mail took the decision to move to a system of pricing called "Pricing in Proportion" which rigged the pricing structure to price penalise "large letters" and "packets" in fact, anything that the Royal Mail could not machine-sort. Anything larger than extended C5 size. Of course, all Royal Mail's competitors followed suit. So the overall result of this particular segment of Royal Mail privatisation is already a worse service to the general public at large.
So, since January 2006, Royal Mail has been steadily losing custom in the areas of bulk mail to companies like TNT, UK Mail and DHL, while Royal Mail has still been forced to shoulder the "universal delivery obligation." In other words, with the task of delivering a letter to the remote Highlands of Scotland for 36p. Royal Mail are not stupid, and have already been making exploratory approaches to the regulator about "zonal" pricing - ie pricing more for that delivery to the Highlands than for a delivery to a town centre office, for instance. This hasn't yet come in, but if it does, this will be another way in which Royal Mail privatisation will inconvenience the public it is supposed to serve.
Then there is the question of VAT. Postage in the UK is currently VAT-exempt. But of course, once Royal Mail's monopoly is gone for good, and we have to "harmonise" with other EU countries, this may not remain the case. (As a short aside, why do we always end up harmonising with other EU countries, rather than vice versa?).
So, now we have a situation where Royal Mail has been losing money, and now needs "outside help" in the form of investors from abroad. And we can all guess who those are, can't we? TNT, UK Mail, Deutsche Post, et al.
So, let's sum up, shall we:
it's a self fulfilling prophecy. First you open the bulk mailing market to "competition" - though if it was real competition, the likes of TNT would have to wind the clock back to 1848 and invent the Penny Black and Railways and stuff, then you watch Royal Mail's revenue from bulk mailing fall while you insist (via a regulator) that they can't put their prices up AND they must still deliver to the back of beyond for 36p and you also continue to cream off cash from their pension fund (if you are the government that is)
Then, when, surprise surprise, they get financially weaker, well, the only option is to sell them off to one of their "rivals" People in the property world have been using the same principles of "benign neglect" to get rid of old troublesome and unwanted listed buildings by letting them deteriorate to the point of no return for years, now it's going to happen to the post office, courtesy of Mandleson.
Yet we can seemingly find bottomless buckets of squillions of pounds to keep the banking system in the luxury to which it has become accustomed, but we can't have a publicly owned and publicly funded socially useful postal system operated and owned for the good of all British people, no siree. The EU wouldn't like it, or something. Well, if they don't like it, they can bloody well invade, or at least they can try for nowt. I am just about ready for them today.
I hear as I am typing this that a junior government minister has resigned over the issue. Good for him, let's hope it's the first of many.
In other news of course this week we have had the wonderful Mr Madoff, who made off with all the money, and someone has discovered a black hole in the pensions calculations dating back to the 1970s which has gone undetected for three years. Oh, and the Financial Services Authority is inciting people to ring them up and tell them if they suspect financial shenanigans. Pardon me, but I sort of thought that was their job.
The more I look at the bunch of boobies who are in charge of the financial system, the more I think it should be official Bolshy Party Policy to liquidate the Hedge Funds and give all the money to hedgehogs.
People often complain about Royal Mail. Usually the sort of predictable stuff, whipped up by tabloid journalists who complain that the post doesn't get delivered in Notting Hill until lunchtime, and lamenting the great days of the Penny Post when they could have sent a postcard to their Auntie in Tulse Hill to say that they were coming round for tea, and it would be delivered before they got there. Etc, etc.
And so, off the back of this sort of thinking, a few years ago, in some misbegotten corridor of government, was born the idea of "privatising Royal Mail".
Now, I will nail my colours to the mast here, and declare some more fundamental policies of The Bolshy Party. I believe very strongly that there are certain parts of our society that belong to us all and should be owned by, and operated for the benefit of, all British people.
These are Hospitals, Schools, Courts, Prisons, The Emergency Services, Public Transport and the Postal System. There may be others. I am in mid-rant right now.
Of course, if you are going to set up a "competitive" market in an area where there has previously been a state-owned monopoly, you would of course make sure that the process was scrupulously fair and that all concerned had a level playing field, yes?
Well, er no. Because someone must have realised, pretty early on, that if Royal Mail's competitors were to truly compete for the work, then they too would have to wind time back to 1848, invent the Penny Black, and the Railway network, and build a load of sorting offices etc etc. Oh no, that will never do. So the first indignity heaped on the Royal Mail was that they were forced to accept the idea of their "competitors" using Royal Mail staff and infrastructure for the so-called "Last Mile" delivery.
And the postal services regulator was also given the power (misguidedly again in my opinion) of stopping Royal Mail increasing its prices, so Royal Mail was forced to adopt a "price minus" model of charging these people, instead of a cost plus model. In other words, the regulator said to Royal Mail - you can't add a mark up on to what it costs and then charge your competitors that, instead you have to give them a discount off the fixed price.
So, not only was Royal Mail forced to accept unfair competition, and accommodate that competition (even to the extent of having to widen the gates of its local delivery offices to accommodate the vans owned by the competition) but it was prevented from increasing its prices to maintain its own margins.
Now, Royal Mail has not been entirely blameless in its own demise. Its management have made some dumb decisions (Elton John fronting an ad campaign, anyone?) but you have to feel sorry for them, ultimately they have been handed the shitty end of the stick. The government was of course happy to keep taking money out of Royal Mail, money that could have been invested in better sorting machinery for instance, all the time this was happening. In fact successive governments of differing hues have starved Royal Mail of investment.
So much so that in August 2006, Royal Mail took the decision to move to a system of pricing called "Pricing in Proportion" which rigged the pricing structure to price penalise "large letters" and "packets" in fact, anything that the Royal Mail could not machine-sort. Anything larger than extended C5 size. Of course, all Royal Mail's competitors followed suit. So the overall result of this particular segment of Royal Mail privatisation is already a worse service to the general public at large.
So, since January 2006, Royal Mail has been steadily losing custom in the areas of bulk mail to companies like TNT, UK Mail and DHL, while Royal Mail has still been forced to shoulder the "universal delivery obligation." In other words, with the task of delivering a letter to the remote Highlands of Scotland for 36p. Royal Mail are not stupid, and have already been making exploratory approaches to the regulator about "zonal" pricing - ie pricing more for that delivery to the Highlands than for a delivery to a town centre office, for instance. This hasn't yet come in, but if it does, this will be another way in which Royal Mail privatisation will inconvenience the public it is supposed to serve.
Then there is the question of VAT. Postage in the UK is currently VAT-exempt. But of course, once Royal Mail's monopoly is gone for good, and we have to "harmonise" with other EU countries, this may not remain the case. (As a short aside, why do we always end up harmonising with other EU countries, rather than vice versa?).
So, now we have a situation where Royal Mail has been losing money, and now needs "outside help" in the form of investors from abroad. And we can all guess who those are, can't we? TNT, UK Mail, Deutsche Post, et al.
So, let's sum up, shall we:
it's a self fulfilling prophecy. First you open the bulk mailing market to "competition" - though if it was real competition, the likes of TNT would have to wind the clock back to 1848 and invent the Penny Black and Railways and stuff, then you watch Royal Mail's revenue from bulk mailing fall while you insist (via a regulator) that they can't put their prices up AND they must still deliver to the back of beyond for 36p and you also continue to cream off cash from their pension fund (if you are the government that is)
Then, when, surprise surprise, they get financially weaker, well, the only option is to sell them off to one of their "rivals" People in the property world have been using the same principles of "benign neglect" to get rid of old troublesome and unwanted listed buildings by letting them deteriorate to the point of no return for years, now it's going to happen to the post office, courtesy of Mandleson.
Yet we can seemingly find bottomless buckets of squillions of pounds to keep the banking system in the luxury to which it has become accustomed, but we can't have a publicly owned and publicly funded socially useful postal system operated and owned for the good of all British people, no siree. The EU wouldn't like it, or something. Well, if they don't like it, they can bloody well invade, or at least they can try for nowt. I am just about ready for them today.
I hear as I am typing this that a junior government minister has resigned over the issue. Good for him, let's hope it's the first of many.
In other news of course this week we have had the wonderful Mr Madoff, who made off with all the money, and someone has discovered a black hole in the pensions calculations dating back to the 1970s which has gone undetected for three years. Oh, and the Financial Services Authority is inciting people to ring them up and tell them if they suspect financial shenanigans. Pardon me, but I sort of thought that was their job.
The more I look at the bunch of boobies who are in charge of the financial system, the more I think it should be official Bolshy Party Policy to liquidate the Hedge Funds and give all the money to hedgehogs.
Wednesday, 10 December 2008
Human Rights, Government Wrongs
I am used to the likes of the Tories attacking the Human Rights Act. However, when it gets to the stage when the likes of Jack Straw pop up saying that "its rights need balancing with responsibilities", then it's really time to worry.
Any attempts to row back from the Human Rights Act should be resisted.
Because these people want to untimately replace the Human Rights Act with a "Bill of Rights" (which is really another word for a limited list of things that you are actually allowed to do, signed Jack Straw. Everything else ist verboten.)
Any attempts to row back from the Human Rights Act should be resisted.
Because these people want to untimately replace the Human Rights Act with a "Bill of Rights" (which is really another word for a limited list of things that you are actually allowed to do, signed Jack Straw. Everything else ist verboten.)
Unfair Dismissal
I see that the witch-hunt for scapegoats over both the Baby P imbroglio and the Shannon Matthews case has gone up a notch, with the enforced departure of Sharon Shoesmith from Children's Services at Haringey, and the announcement of an enquiry into Kirklees social services.
By caving in to the mob mentality fostered by the likes of The Sun, the government has plumbed new depths. Thank God for the House of Commons committee today that showed up Ofsted as the hopeless boobies they are. Considering the crap job Ofsted have done in testing schools and fostering education by box-ticking in the pursuit of mindless targets, it is a mystery to me why anyone thought Ofsted could ever test anything.
I really hope Sharon Shoesmith sues for unfair dismissal.
By caving in to the mob mentality fostered by the likes of The Sun, the government has plumbed new depths. Thank God for the House of Commons committee today that showed up Ofsted as the hopeless boobies they are. Considering the crap job Ofsted have done in testing schools and fostering education by box-ticking in the pursuit of mindless targets, it is a mystery to me why anyone thought Ofsted could ever test anything.
I really hope Sharon Shoesmith sues for unfair dismissal.
Who Benefits?
Cui Bono used to be a latin tag used by lawyers when they were wanting to find out who was behind a certain set of nefarious circumstances. If they were unable to find out who was at the bottom of it, they were encouraged to look at who would benefit most. They were usually the guilty party.
The government, in the form of James Purnell, the man who did for photoshop what Ken Dodd did for tickling sticks, has been all over the media today, blethering on about how they are going to make people work for their benefits in future. I loved the quotation where he said, in effect that there was no room for freeloaders who "worked the system". There are 600-odd of them at Westminster - let's put them on workfare, thescrounging bastards!
Benefits are only the symptoms. Dewsbury Moor is the disease.I mean, fine, if people really do want to get a job and they can be helped to do so, and they will be better off, but personally I don't know where all the jobs are going to come from, even for able bodied people, when unemployment tops three million, as it will, mark my words - perhaps James Purnell could photoshop us a few
And I would feel much happier about it if I thought it was a genuine effort by government to right social wrongs, even though they ARE still treating the symptoms, not the disease, but I suspect it's more of a dog-whistle policy aimed at Middle England over the heads of Labour Backbenchers.
I often wonder what planet the government is on. They are inventing imaginary jobs in the same way as Hitler, cowering in his bunker, invented imaginary divisions coming to save him from the Russians. They can't really be that stupid, on a day when Woolies has gone tits up and people like Sony are announcing 8000 job losses worldwide, can they? Can they?
Who benefits? Certainly not those people already struggling who will now have the added stress of government agencies trying to harrass them to take on jobs that might make them £1.50 a week better off, just to tick a box and massage the unemployment stats.
The government, in the form of James Purnell, the man who did for photoshop what Ken Dodd did for tickling sticks, has been all over the media today, blethering on about how they are going to make people work for their benefits in future. I loved the quotation where he said, in effect that there was no room for freeloaders who "worked the system". There are 600-odd of them at Westminster - let's put them on workfare, thescrounging bastards!
Benefits are only the symptoms. Dewsbury Moor is the disease.I mean, fine, if people really do want to get a job and they can be helped to do so, and they will be better off, but personally I don't know where all the jobs are going to come from, even for able bodied people, when unemployment tops three million, as it will, mark my words - perhaps James Purnell could photoshop us a few
And I would feel much happier about it if I thought it was a genuine effort by government to right social wrongs, even though they ARE still treating the symptoms, not the disease, but I suspect it's more of a dog-whistle policy aimed at Middle England over the heads of Labour Backbenchers.
I often wonder what planet the government is on. They are inventing imaginary jobs in the same way as Hitler, cowering in his bunker, invented imaginary divisions coming to save him from the Russians. They can't really be that stupid, on a day when Woolies has gone tits up and people like Sony are announcing 8000 job losses worldwide, can they? Can they?
Who benefits? Certainly not those people already struggling who will now have the added stress of government agencies trying to harrass them to take on jobs that might make them £1.50 a week better off, just to tick a box and massage the unemployment stats.
Sunday, 7 December 2008
Rusty lane Redux
I realise that last week, my anger about the continued existence of Dewsbury Moor may have led me into incoherence. The reference to Rusty Lane, West Bromwich, comes from a stirring passage in English Journey by J B Priestley (1936).
It's one of those touchstone texts, along with George Orwell's The Road To Wigan Pier, which I keep coming back to, every time I feel I am going soft and maybe David Cameron has some kind of point.
Anyway, here's the full text of the passage:
The whole neighbourhood is mean and squalid, but this particular street seemed the worst of all. It would not matter very much - though it would matter - if only metal were kept there; but it happens that people live there, children are born there and grow up there. I saw some of them.
I was being shown one of the warehouses, where steel plates were stacked in the chill gloom, and we heard a bang and rattle on the roof. The boys, it seems, were throwing stones again. They were always throwing stones on that roof. We went out to find them, but only found three frightened little girls, who looked at us with round eyes in wet smudgy faces. No, they hadn't done it, the boys had done it, and the boys had just run away. Where they could run to, I cannot imagine. They need not have run away for me, because I could not blame them if they threw stones and stones and smashed every pane of glass for miles. Nobody can blame them if they grow up to smash everything that can be smashed.
There ought to be no more of those lunches and dinners, at which political and financial and industrial gentlemen congratulate one another, until something is done about Rusty Lane, and about West Bromwich. While they still exist in their foul shape, it is idle to congratulate ourselves about anything. They make the whole pomp of government here a miserable farce. The Crown, Lords and Commons are the Crown, Lords and Commons of Rusty Lane, West Bromwich... and if there is another economic conference, let it meet there, in one of the warehouses, and be fed with bread and margarine and slabs of brawn. The delegates have seen one England, Mayfair in the season. Let them see another England next time, West Bromwich out of the season. Out of all seasons, except the winter of our discontent.
Amen
It's one of those touchstone texts, along with George Orwell's The Road To Wigan Pier, which I keep coming back to, every time I feel I am going soft and maybe David Cameron has some kind of point.
Anyway, here's the full text of the passage:
The whole neighbourhood is mean and squalid, but this particular street seemed the worst of all. It would not matter very much - though it would matter - if only metal were kept there; but it happens that people live there, children are born there and grow up there. I saw some of them.
I was being shown one of the warehouses, where steel plates were stacked in the chill gloom, and we heard a bang and rattle on the roof. The boys, it seems, were throwing stones again. They were always throwing stones on that roof. We went out to find them, but only found three frightened little girls, who looked at us with round eyes in wet smudgy faces. No, they hadn't done it, the boys had done it, and the boys had just run away. Where they could run to, I cannot imagine. They need not have run away for me, because I could not blame them if they threw stones and stones and smashed every pane of glass for miles. Nobody can blame them if they grow up to smash everything that can be smashed.
There ought to be no more of those lunches and dinners, at which political and financial and industrial gentlemen congratulate one another, until something is done about Rusty Lane, and about West Bromwich. While they still exist in their foul shape, it is idle to congratulate ourselves about anything. They make the whole pomp of government here a miserable farce. The Crown, Lords and Commons are the Crown, Lords and Commons of Rusty Lane, West Bromwich... and if there is another economic conference, let it meet there, in one of the warehouses, and be fed with bread and margarine and slabs of brawn. The delegates have seen one England, Mayfair in the season. Let them see another England next time, West Bromwich out of the season. Out of all seasons, except the winter of our discontent.
Amen
Mean Streets
Following on from Rusty Lane, West Bromwich, and while I have still got a bee in my bonnet about things which should not be allowed to exist in Great Britain in the 21st century, here is another one - homelessness.
Last Christmas, Westminster Council stopped the soup run to homeless people in Westminster on Christmas day. Ostensibly, this was because they wanted to encourage people to seek professional help and also because they said that some people from hostels had been turning up and claiming soup to which they were not entitled.
Of all the miserable parsimonious penny-pinching bastard scrooges.
The real reason of course is that rich people in Westminster don't like to be reminded that there are poor and homeless people, often on their very doorstep.
I feel really, truly, sorry for anyone sleeping rough these bitter nights, in the frost and snow we're having at the moment. I've spent some pretty cold and uncomfortable nights in our oldcamper van, when we've been out and about, but even that is luxury compared to sleeping on cold concrete in a cheap nylon sleeping-bag with only a cardboard box between you and the damp. Or sometimes, just the cardboard.
Anyway, Westminster Council, I am watching you, this year. More on this will follow. In the meantime, how do we get to the point where no-one is homeless in Great Britain in the 21st Century?
Last Christmas, Westminster Council stopped the soup run to homeless people in Westminster on Christmas day. Ostensibly, this was because they wanted to encourage people to seek professional help and also because they said that some people from hostels had been turning up and claiming soup to which they were not entitled.
Of all the miserable parsimonious penny-pinching bastard scrooges.
The real reason of course is that rich people in Westminster don't like to be reminded that there are poor and homeless people, often on their very doorstep.
I feel really, truly, sorry for anyone sleeping rough these bitter nights, in the frost and snow we're having at the moment. I've spent some pretty cold and uncomfortable nights in our oldcamper van, when we've been out and about, but even that is luxury compared to sleeping on cold concrete in a cheap nylon sleeping-bag with only a cardboard box between you and the damp. Or sometimes, just the cardboard.
Anyway, Westminster Council, I am watching you, this year. More on this will follow. In the meantime, how do we get to the point where no-one is homeless in Great Britain in the 21st Century?
Thursday, 4 December 2008
Sympathy for the Devil?
I know this will probably count as "sympathy for the devil" and it's very easy to put the boot into Karen Matthews now she's on the floor, but I think the question we should be asking right now is how, in Great Britain, yes, that's GREAT Britain, in the 21st century, we allow such places as Dewsbury Moor and such societies/communities to exist?
I go every day to South Yorkshire and I see similar places. Places where unemployment has been the main industry since the pits closed. I can quite easily understand how - to someone like Karen Matthews and Mike Donovan, someone with limited skills and no abilities, someone who has never known anything but the crushing boredom of the benefits culture, it might seem a plausible wheeze to do what they did, and to people like them, £50,000 reward money is the equivalent of a lottery win - enough to get themselves and the kids away from Dewsbury Moor forever.
Just because I understand it, doesn't mean I condone it. I can understand why Margaret Thatcher felt the need to wage class war instead of being Prime Minister for the whole of our country, it doesn't mean I agree with her. What Matthews and Donovan did to that girl was terrible, shameful, and they must be punished, and what happened to Shannon will scar her for life, but what a desperate hole-in-the-wall existence, what a corner must they have been driven to, to even consider this as a "way out". And how bad must Dewsbury Moor be, if this is a "way out".
So now Karen Matthews will serve many years in prison, her food will be spat in, Michael Donovan will never be the partner she wanted him to be, he will spend many years in prison, watching his back, as a "nonce", and the family is broken up for ever, those poor kids.
All these people have souls and all these people are now suffering in their own way. There are no winners here.But while we're all putting the boot in to Karen Matthews, Mike Donovan, and the social workers, no doubt, eventually, if Jeremy Vine has anything to do with it, we need to also ask
WHAT IS WRONG WITH OUR SOCIETY??????????????
AND HOW MUCH LONGER, seventy two years after J.B.Priestley first described this sort of society in his English Journey ARE WE GOING TO HAVE RUSTY LANE,WEST BROMWICH???????????
I go every day to South Yorkshire and I see similar places. Places where unemployment has been the main industry since the pits closed. I can quite easily understand how - to someone like Karen Matthews and Mike Donovan, someone with limited skills and no abilities, someone who has never known anything but the crushing boredom of the benefits culture, it might seem a plausible wheeze to do what they did, and to people like them, £50,000 reward money is the equivalent of a lottery win - enough to get themselves and the kids away from Dewsbury Moor forever.
Just because I understand it, doesn't mean I condone it. I can understand why Margaret Thatcher felt the need to wage class war instead of being Prime Minister for the whole of our country, it doesn't mean I agree with her. What Matthews and Donovan did to that girl was terrible, shameful, and they must be punished, and what happened to Shannon will scar her for life, but what a desperate hole-in-the-wall existence, what a corner must they have been driven to, to even consider this as a "way out". And how bad must Dewsbury Moor be, if this is a "way out".
So now Karen Matthews will serve many years in prison, her food will be spat in, Michael Donovan will never be the partner she wanted him to be, he will spend many years in prison, watching his back, as a "nonce", and the family is broken up for ever, those poor kids.
All these people have souls and all these people are now suffering in their own way. There are no winners here.But while we're all putting the boot in to Karen Matthews, Mike Donovan, and the social workers, no doubt, eventually, if Jeremy Vine has anything to do with it, we need to also ask
WHAT IS WRONG WITH OUR SOCIETY??????????????
AND HOW MUCH LONGER, seventy two years after J.B.Priestley first described this sort of society in his English Journey ARE WE GOING TO HAVE RUSTY LANE,WEST BROMWICH???????????
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)