STATUTORY RAPE IS STILL ON THE BOOKS.

A child named Megan Summers has apparently run away with her teacher. The couple were caught on CCTV and have been in France, though now captured and Megan, at least, has been returned to the UK.

 

That this was a truly newsworthy story is debatable. Many young girls 'take up with' older men and few are pursued with the determination that this couple were deemed worthy of. The 'child' is aged 15 and I dread to think what proportion of 15 year olds are sexually active with the tacit approval of their parents, guardians and others, notwithstanding that engaging in sexual intercourse below the age of 16 remains a criminal offence.

 

There was a discussion on BBC television this morning in which various participants discussed the rights and wrongs of naming people, particularly teachers, who have been accused of wrongdoings, specifically when it involves young people. There appeared to be a view that teachers should be accorded some special status as they were very open to false accusations which could ruin their careers and even their lives. The suggestion also seemed to be that the teacher who'd run away with Megan Stammers was being unfairly treated, being publicly named and shamed in the press and other media.

 

Without being drawn on the main subject here, it seems that this man has effectively been his own worst enemy. He is a person who had responsibility for the child and he used that responsibility inappropriately. No one has yet mentioned the unmentionable fact that sexual intercourse with a minor is illegal and deemed to be 'Statutory Rape' under the UK's criminal law and yet the assumption must surely be that this couple have been involved in such activity; why else would they have run away so far ?

 

Of course, the escapade may be entirely innocent though the chances that this is the case appear slim. There is no doubt that the teacher did accompany the girl to France without the knowledge or agreement of her family and that constitutes a prima facie offence of child abduction; as such the guy is guilty as hell and naming him makes no difference. It's not as though it's one person's word against another's. 

 

The much bigger issues here are those that involve the behaviour of youngsters, particularly those who seem to believe that they are much more 'grown up' than they really are. Girls of 14 and 15 have been indoctrinated to believe that virginity is something to be despised and they willingly give in to the boys who can't wait to 'shag' every girl in town. Few of these so-called relationships produce anything lasting except those which produce a child, usually left to be dealt with by the girl and her parents.

 

This Stammers child running away with her teacher is a consequence of the modern society which has created such opportunities. The girl is an idiot and the teacher should be in prison, but they are far from being the only such couple. Our society is a mess and will remain so until someone shows the balls to buck the trend and sort it out.

WHO WILL SAVE US FROM MILIBAND ?

Listening to Ed Miliband this morning makes one fear for our futures. Interviewed, if that is the right word, by Andrew Marr, Miliband gave a clear indication of his pretty extreme left-wing agenda for the future - rob those who have anything and destroy our businesses.

 

Miliband talked grandly of all manner of things that are simply aimed at gaining votes, with no real consideration of the impact of his proposed policies. Imposition of higher taxes on the so-called 'rich', introduction of a 'living wage' rather than the 'minimum wage' paid for, of course, by employers, reversal of the current government's changes to the NHS and so on. Where the money for all of this will come from and what effects it will have on inflation, interest rates and our general economic health were ignored, by both Miliband and his interviewer. He did say that he would retain 'iron control' over public spending, but we all know how brittle raw iron can be when stressed.

 

Miliband is clearly of a generation which knows little of the socialist mess of the 1960s and 1970s (he was only just 10 at the end of 1979) and sees nothing mistaken in returning to the policies of those days. He was a member of the Blair and Brown Governments which destroyed our economy in more recent times and now he wants us to elect him so that he can do it all over again in his own name.

 

As a an atheist I can't really pray for deliverance from this man and his madness, but I'd still like to hope that there's some greater power which will save us all from him. Sadly, I can see no sign of anyone riding to the rescue, least of all the present boys in power, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, and so a Miliband Premiership continues to look a genuine possibility from 2015.

 

 

CAMERON FAILS LETTERMAN TEST.

Why a serving British Prime Minister would demean his office by appearing on a chat show is a mystery to me. That he should choose to appear on a satirical show in the United States is even more inexplicable. I know that other senior figures have previously been guests on the same show, but these were not serving Prime Ministers. Cameron's appearance could only have been matched by a US President choosing to be a guest of, say, Jonathan Ross, something which I don't think ever has, or ever will, happen.

 

Cameron must be largely unknown to the population of the US and his appearance can have done nothing to raise his profile; Letterman's audience for the programme has been reported as being around 3 million, hardly enough to make Cameron a household name across the 'Pond'. Presumably his motivating force waas the recent appearance of his arch-rival, Boris Johnson, on the same show, but Boris is a natural televisual performer whereas Cameron is not.

 

While our PM apparently answered questions about the world situation competently, he also seems to have failed miserably when quizzed on a few historical facts. I've known that 'Rule Britannia' was written by Thomas Arne, not Edward Elgar, for more years than I can rememebr though Cameron did not. While I did not have the benefit of attending Eton, where I presume the 'Classics' are still a requirement, I certainly had no trouble with the English meaning of 'Magna Carta' which is, of course 'Great Charter'; how Cameron, who must surely have taken Latin at school and studied every aspect of politics ever since, did not know this is beyond my understanding. Boris, as he often demonstrates, uses odd Latin phrases regularly and with aplomb, and I bet he knew about 'Rule Britannia' too.

 

The one thing that this appearance has shown us is that Cameron is not as well educated or clever as he'd like us all to believe. He may have gone to Eton and and gained a first in PPE at Oxford but when it comes down to a bit or knowledge about the real world, he doesn't have it. Cameron is simply another rich kid whose money, rather than any talent, has taken him to the top of the greasy pole.

 

Compared to Boris, Cameron is staid, dull and pedestrian. Boris is sometimes mad and frightening but he has real brains and ability. If he truly wants to be Tory leader and Prime Minister, all he has to do is whistle; "You do know how to whistle, don't you, Boris ? You just put your lips together and blow !"

ANDREW MITCHELL; A PERFECT CHIEF WHIP !

Why is it that so many of our politicians seem to be so 'accident-prone' ?

 

The current furore over what was actually said by the Tory Chief Whip, Andrew Mitchell, to a police oficer on duty at the gate to Downing Street is simply another in the long line of appalling gaffs committed by our Lords and Masters. Whatever Mitchell did ssay, he felt it necessary to issue a personal apology to the officer concerned and to make that apology public knowledge; this action on its own suggests that the man knows he's very much in the wrong.

 

It seems probable that Mitchell did swear at the officer and quite probably did refer to him as being a 'pleb', a contraction of the Latin word for the common folk but more often used these days to indicate that someone is a lowgrade idiot and not really fit to lick one's boots.

 

Although Mitchell has vehemently denied swearing or calling the officer a 'pleb', he clearly said something derogatory and offensive on being refused egress through the Downing Street main gate. Whatever happened, he was obviously angered by it and expressed his anger in words. This all leads me to the conclusion that the man is arrogant, rude and probably foul-mouthed; as such, he is probably a perfect Chief Whip for today's politics. However, where Mitchell has gone wrong is in letting his true personality out into the real world where people have much thinner skins than those who inhabit the corridors of power; the general public now know what he is really like and some, at least, find his behaviour unacceptable.

 

The remaining issue is whether or not he should now be forced out of a job he has been in for only a few days. In a perfect world, he would have recognized his blunder and resigned within hours; in today's political world, he will hang on for dear life and only go if the furore refuses to die down. My money is on the whole issue being drowned out by more important matters over the next few days and Mitchell will slink back into Parliament to vent his spleen on his party fellows.

CLEGG'S NAUSEATING APOLOGY IS LAST GASP OF A DESPERATE MAN

Hearing Nick Clegg make his apology regarding his party's failure to abide by its promise on student tuition fees will make most people feel one of 2 ways. Either they will feel that Clegg has shown himself to be the most decent and honest politician to walk the earth or they will see his abject apology as being one of the most nauseating and cynical actions ever perpetrated on a gullible population.

 

Given that no one, including Clegg, has ever really made it clear to the population at large that the fuss over student loans is really an 'Aunt Sally' invented for political purposes, one has to gravitate towards the second belief. Also given the extent of dissatisfaction with him in his own party, and Vince Cable's clear positioning of himself as a potential successor one has to wonder just how long Clegg has.

 

My guess would be that he might well be gone before next year's conference season though the chance of Cable being his successor is slim..

 

 

DEATH PENALTY HAS TO RETURN.

The brutal murder of 2 policewomen in Manchester was a shocking event. Everyone knows our police are unarmed and yet their murderer appears to have deliberately lured officers to a house by using the pretext of a hoax burglary report and then killed them in cold blood.

 

Norman Tebbitt. a long standing supporter of the death penalty, has suggested that this ultimate penalty should again be considered in cases such as this. Indeed, it is difficult to understand why the death penalty cannot be reintroduced given the advanced state of forensic examinationas available in this modern era.

 

The driving force behind the abolition of this sentence was the fear of making mistakes. Cases such as that of Timothy Evans were used to raise such terrors in the minds of some people that abolition became a 'cause celebre' ; when the left-leaning wets who govern so much of our lives took up the cause en masse, abolition became inevitable.

 

For many years after the abolition, friends and family of the 'A6 murderer', James Hanratty, argued fiercely that he was innocent and had been a victim of another atrocious miscarriage of justice. Eventually, the authorities agreed to an exhumation of his remains and the conducting of DNA tests, which the family were sure would prove his innocence; what the tests showed was that Hanratty was guilty after all. In other words, the justice system of the time had got it right.

 

If the system of 1962 could be right, even in such a high profile and contentious such as Hanratty's, how can it be argued that we cannot risk having the death penalty today when science and surveillance are so much more spophisticated ? Perhaps it is the case that this is no longer the principle argument against capital punishment and that it's now all about compassion and rehabilitation even for the most heinous of crimes; we are told that the death penalty is simply barbaric and not for use by a modern, civilized society.

 

What the murderer of those 2 policewomen did was vicious and cold-blooded; it was barbaric. Such a person has, in my view, forfeited their right to life and, if proven guilty, should be executed. Why should the state be required to maintain such killers for the rest of their lives, now likely to be many decades ? Killers such as Ian Brady and Myra Hyndley, Donald Neilson, Peter Sutcliffe, Fred West, Harold Shipman and many others have no place in our world and arranging their exit from it does all of society a serious service.

 

Being civilized does not mean being soft and stupid; it means making proper reasoned judgements. Lord Tebbitt should be listened to and his words acted upon.

IVF PLUS; MUMMY, DADDY AND WHAT ?

Today's news includes a story about the launching of a public consultation over a subject which has been dubbed 'three-person IVF'. This is a laboratory technique which would enable babies to be created in a laboratory using genetic material, DNA, from 3 different people.

 

According to a woman who was interviewed during the 'Today' programme on radio 4 this morning, all that the public needs to concern itself with is the ethics of the process as the science has already been thoroughly reviewed and found to be what she described as 'safe'. In her interview she refused steadfastly to be drawn on the science and wouldn't even explain why this three-person approach might be needed; presumably she didn't feel that the public either needed to know the 'why?, or that they wouldn't understand it if it was explained or that they would understand it and would decide to reject the idea. To me, it was a studied exercise in trying to manipulate public opinion in order to gain the desired outcome, i.e. a positive result to the consultation.

 

The woman who was so lacking in candour is currently head of the HFEA, the body which oversees such matters, Professor Lisa Jardine. Astonishingly, Profesor Jardine is not a scientist but a historian who has spent most of her life in academia and, in recent times, has been a member of a whole range of institutions, both public and private; she is a regular contributor in the media also, but despite all of this one has to wonder what are her qualifications for chairing the HFEA and, in particular, for taking such an arrogant stand in respect of this consultation.

 

The actual reasoning behind this 'three-person IVF' is to eliminate genetic conditions which derive from errors in the mitochondrial DNA of the mother's cells. Basically, an embryo is formed when the sperm from a man enters the egg from a woman, something of which most people will be well aware. The egg is a full cell containing not just a nucleus but also all of the surrounding material which is found in every other cell in a human body while the sperm is little more than a nucleus. Although most of the genetic material which is passed on from parents to their children comes from the nuclear material, a tiny proportion comes from the mitochondria, tiny organelles which are only passed on by the mother. In some rare instances, the genetic material in these organelles can become damaged and give rise to serious illnesses.

 

The proposed way to prevent such occurrences is to fertilise an egg with sperm in a test tube in a normal IVF procedure but then to remove the nucleus from the fertilised egg and transplant it into a denucleated cell (one from which the nucleus has been removed) obtained from a third party. This third-party cell would then provide the mitochondrial component to the developing baby along with all of the other material from outside of the nucleus. The resulting baby would therefore have its main features and heredity derived from its 'parents' although elements of its cellular structure, including its mitochondrial DNA, would be derived from the third party. One thought that occurs to me, and something which I have not seen mentioned as a possibility, is that the 'third-party' material could, in fact, be derived from the father's cells thus removing the need for an actual third party, though I don't know if this would be a practical solution.

 

I always become a little cynical, to say the least, when scientific types try to persuade me to accept some new technique but are unhappy about providing a proper explanation of the process or, as in this case, appear to consider that we are not even worthy to be told the facts. We are expected to accept what we are told without debate, simply taking the word of the scientific community and others with a vested interest on trust. As I stated earlier, in this case, the public are being canvassed only for their views on the ethics of the process, the science already having been 'approved'.

 

To my mind this all sounds a bit like Dr Frankenstein creating his monster, although it may be more scientifically reasonable. Over the centuries, scientists have often claimed something to be true or safe only for later generations to discover some other awful and real truth; antibiotics that no longer work, the dangers of X-Rays and nuclear radiation, the addictive properties of many antidepressant drugs, the supposedly beneficial qualities of smoking tobacco and the dangers of steroids. Thalidomide.

 

Scientists are not always right, indeed they are probably more often wrong. For the general population to be refused a proper explanation of this proposed new practice is unacceptable. For us simply to be told that the science has been confirmed as being 'safe' is unacceptable; the people who have drawn this conclusion are the very ones who will be using it and profiting from that use should it be approved. Ethically, I simply feel that this would be a step too far in creating manufactured human beings.

 

Overall, I don't like it and the general public should tell the self-appointed experts to forget it.

LEAVE AFGHANS TO KILL EACH OTHER, NOT OUR TROOPS.

For a reason only really known to our political masters, British troops remain in Afghanistan. Unsurprisingly, some get killed from time to time though it is pretty disgusting that most recent deaths appear to have been the result of actions by supposedly friendly Afghans.

 

Afghanistan has always been a disaster area and numerous invasions going back at least 200 years have all ended in failure. The tribal culture of the country is such that attempts at 'westernization' or even any form of civilization are doomed; for some reason, we seem to keep forgetting this and our troops keep dying.

 

Why on earth don't we just leave the Afghans to fight amongst themselves as they have done for countless generations ?

DUCHESS GETS HER TOP OFF FOR THE PAPARAZZI.

Oh Dear, Oh Dear !

 

The Duchess of Cambridge has finally been caught out and her boobs have appeared in some sleazy French magazine. Why anyone should actually be interested in ogling the mammary glands of this young woman is something of a mystery, as is the reason why some grubby little journalist should have crawled around the undergrowth with his telephoto lens sticking out, hoping to catch such a glimpse; presumably it's just about the cash.

 

All that said, will this family never learn ? They know better than anyone the lengths to which the paparazzi will go to get a few grainy pictures or a smutty story about them; why do they insist on putting themselves in potentially doubtful situations ?

 

We've just had the events of the latest 'Harry-gate' in Las Vegas and past decades have brought us an assortment of dirty little stories about Princess Diana, the Duchess of York, Prince Charles, Princess Margaret and others. What is wrong with the intelligence of the Royal Family that allows them to continue to put themselves in these positions ?

 

It may be difficult and annoying but they have to accept either that they must lead extremely restricted lives or that they will be subjected to such unpleasant events from time to time. It's one or the other.

NETANYAHU; MADMAN ON THE PROWL.

For once in his rather lacklustre Presidency, Barack Obama seems to have done something genuinely controversial.

 

It's been reported that the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, requested an audience with Obama during a recent visit to the United Nations in New York and was rebuffed by the President's aides, claiming that a meeeting couldn't be accommodated in his crowded schedule. This was apparently only the second time that the Israeli Premier had not met with the Unted States President during such a visit and it seems to have caused a bit of a diplomatic row.

 

Netanyahu clearly wanted to talk about his country's imagined problems with Iran and Obama equally clearly did not want to be put in a difficult corner a mere two months shy of the next Presidential election. There seems little doubt that Israel is trying to build up support for possible, even probable, military action against the regime in Tehran and was looking for a green light from Washington; Obama obviously didn't want to enter the final days of a very close electoral race having committed his country in any way to yet another conflict in the middle east.

 

Netanyahu is a crazy fanatic and, with the military force at his disposal, probably more dangerous than the madmen who rule Iran. Why the rest of the world doesn't come down on both lots of lunatics like a ton of bricks is the only real question.

TUC AND BARBER ON PLANET DAFT.

Brendan Barber, current General Secretary of the TUC, is quoted today as saying that the Government should "learn from the Olympics" in creating policies to boost the economy. He has reportedly said that the success of British athletes funded by public money shows that "private isn't always best and the market doesn't always deliver"and is also of the view that the coalition Government has failed to learn the lessons of the 1930s and 1980s.

 

Which planet Mr Barber is on isn't stated in the reports but it's presumably somewhere pretty far away from the planet on which most of us live. Where he has gained the notion that the expenditure of a vast amount of public money, by itself, proves that private is bad and the market is flawed is a mystery;.how the success of a bunch of athletes can be translated into economic success is another one. If my recollection is correct, retail sales actually fell during the period of the main Games, something diametrically opposite to the claimed economic boost claimed by Mr Barber. In truth, we won't really know what, if any, effect the Olympic jamboree has had on our economy until all of the numbers have been worked over by independent economists, that is those who owe no allegiance to any political party or affiliaited organisation. My own suspicion is that any boost has been minimal at best and almost certainly transitory.

 

Barber has apparently gone on to compare today's woes with those of the 1930s and 1980s. In the period after the First World War and leading up to the economic disasters of the late 1920s and 1930s, the world was a very different place than it is today. The economic structure of our society was very different and our economy was tied to the 'Gold Standard' until 1931. Arguably, it was leaving 'Gold Standard' that allowed the UK to manage itself out of the problems of the 1930s and laid the foundation for later expansionist policies. That this also led directly to the later problems of the 1970s and 1980s through allowing Governments to simply print money which had no assets behind it is, to my mind, so obvious as to require no further explanation but then I'm no economist.

 

In his comments, Barber has studiously avoided referring to the near catastrophic consequences of Labour economic policy from 1964 through to 1979, Ted Heath's administration of 1971 - 1974 admittedly doing little to help things. Barber being a good and true 'Leftie' concentrates instead on the measures which had to be taken under the Conservative Govenments form 1979 to 1997 and which he and his ilk dislike so much. The fact that it was the Tory measures of these years which restored the British economy to a semblance of health is ignored; that it was a Labour Government under the management of Blair and Brown which systematically destroyed our economy after 1997 is also ignored, the crash and ongoing recession being blamed on the horrid bankers.

 

Barber's disingenuous comments are typical of the tripe spouted by trades' unionists and it's frightening to think that anyone takes such people seriously. The very simple truth is that our country has lived off of the 'fat of the land' for far too long and the chickens are now coming home to roost. Our public sector has become grotesquely inflated, with armies of public servants employed in non-jobs; shocking inefficiency abounds. The private sector is more and more cencentrated on 'service industries' which have nothing to do with industry and little to do with service. We make very little and create very little genuine new wealth. We have paid ourselves too much for doing too little, hence our manufacturing industries - cars, ships, aeroplanes etc - have dwindled and all but died. We do still assemble cars, but how many do we make from scratch ? 'Red Robbo' and his like made sure that all of these industries were largely destroyed in the 1960s and 1970s.

 

Barber is hinting at strikes by public sector workers as protest against current Government policy. Interestingly he hasn't mentioned private sector workers, perhaps because they know which side their bread is buttered. Trades' Unionism in the private sector is all but dead and the TUC's only remaining bastion of power is the bloated public sector; even here, most workers seem to take little interest in union activities and few vote in strike ballots or for anything else. Barber and his kind are an anachronism that needs to be stamped on once and for all.

 

The true lessons of the 1930s and 1970/80s are that you can't have something for nothing and you can't pay for today by robbing from tomorrow. Limited and controlled borrowing backed by tangible assets and with a clear repayment plan is one thing, unsecured borrowing simply to pay today's wages is quite another. If this means so-called austerity, so be it; any other strategy is plain daft.

BBC SOCIALISTS AT IT AGAIN.

Trust good old 'Auntie Beeb' to pick the left wing angle on any piece of political news.

 

Today a mish-mash of unions, charities and 'self-help' organisations have issued a report trying to pick holes in the Government's planned Universal Credit. The 'Beeb', true to its usual form, chose to cover this item on its lunchtime news as if it was obvious that the plan was flawed. Rather than take an unbiased approach they decided to interview a man who claimed to be on incapacity benefit of £60 a week and complained that this wasn't enough; what this had to do with what will happen under the Universal Credit was unclear. What wasn't stated in this interview was that, presumably, the interviewee was also having his rent and council tax paid and we were told nothing else about him, making any sort of proper assessment impossible.

 

Although the item was prefaced with a comment to the effect that this was not intended to be a scientific survey, it was nonetheless presented as being a foray into the 'real world'. In truth it was nothing of the sort, merely being a piece of left wing propaganda broadcast by the supposedly neutral state broadcaster.

 

I know nothing of the pros and cons of the new Credit but this was hardly a fair and unbiased report. The BBC should be roundly censured for it though, of course, they won't be; there is no one with the appropriate authority who has either the desire or the balls to do it.

ARCHBISHOP WILLIAMS ADMITS FAILURE AT LAST.

The ridiculous bearded wonder who is the Archbishop of Canterbury has blamed his abject failure over the last 10 years on the demands of the job; apparently, being titular head of the Anglican faith now requires 2 people rather than one, according to the outgoing Archbishop anyway.

 

Dr Rowan Williams, for that is his name, has really only ever been an academic; his forays into real church life have been limited and he his has clearly been an unhappy tenure. That his appointment was a mistake from the outset was obvious to many at the time but it has taken 10 long and turbulent years to get to a point at which the mistake can be rectified. The Anglican church has suffered greatly as a result.

 

In his call for a 2-man (or should that be person, given the Archbishop's liking for political correctness) leadership in Canterbury, Dr William's has obviously forgotten that the role of Archbishop has been a one-man show for more than 1,000 years. Indeed, it was a role that was sometimes merged with that of Chancellor of England; one is driven to the conclusion taht the incumbents who managed to 'double-up' in this way must have been far more capable than the sad Dr Williams who seems unable to carry out one part of the old job without help.

 

The sad fact is that it's unlikely that anyone will have learnt anything from this debacle. The easy answer will be for the powers that be to accept Dr Williams' suggestion and eventually go for a 2-man solution. This will not, of course, happen immediately; in common with all overblown public bodies, there will be a commission set up to look at the issues involved. They will report in, perhaps, 3 or 4 years and their recommendations will then be chewed over for a further 2 or 3 years. Finally, a decision will be taken though by then it will all be rather academic.

 

One wonders if the academic Dr Williams is really angling for chairmanship of the commission and continuation of a salary from the church while getting away from the 'nitty-gritty' which he dislikes and can't deal with. Time will tell, as it will also tell us who is to be the next Archbishop; my money's on the politically correct appointment of another  non-entity as no one in authority has the bottle to do anything else.

 

BUILDERS TO SAVE US FROM RECESSION ?

As the recession grinds on, the Government continues to scrabble around for things they can do to promote 'growth'.

 

The latest wheeze is a relaxation of planning laws aimed at allowing people to build larger extensions on the backs of their houses and giving shops and offices the ability to expand more easily. New housing developments will be excused from the current rules which require all such schemes to provide an element of so-called 'affordable housing'. It would appear that local government planning officers are to be sent to purgatory for a period of up to 3 years in order to allow all of this to happen.

 

I'm sure that many people will react in the same way as I will, and rush out to find a rogue builder who will add a vast new extension to my home; or, perhaps, neither I nor they will do any such thing. Equally, all of the empty shops in my local highstreet will suddenly be bought by developers who see extensions to these properties as the way to making a fortune - or perhaps they won't.

 

That this is a scheme which screams "Desperation !" seems fairly obvious. Perhaps it will achieve something though I doubt it. Some housebuilders may see the relaxed rules as providing an improved environment in which they may be able to profit but will this really provide the boost that the economy supposedly needs ? Highly unlikely.

 

Set against this Tory / LibDem scheme is the latest Labour plan for solving our problems - a wealth tax. It really does defy belief that the lefties in our society still see higher taxation as the answer to our current malaise; for 13 years this lot increased taxation and borrowing in order to squander money they didn't really have on schemes that couldn't really be afforded and now they think more of the same will make things better.

 

In medical terms, what the Government is trying to do is find a panacea that will do the job; what Labour are proposing is a placebo, something which will appear to help for a time while actually doing nothing helpful. The Tory / LibDem panacea will not be remotely strong enough and the Labour placebo will result in the death of the patient due to the lack of real and effective treatment.

 

Which do you prefer ?

"BRAVE" BURGLAR ? STUPID JUDGE.

It's been reported today that a judge, Peter Bowers, has called a drug-addicted serial burglar 'brave' and refused to send him to prison for his actions.

 

Whether this comment has been taken out of context or not doesn't seem clear. However, on the face of things, the judge's remarks are surely among the most stupid ever uttered in a court of law and certainly by a judge.

 

There are many apocryphal stories of judges seeming to be disconnected from reality but this one clearly is.

CAMERON & MILIBAND CREATE NOTHING BUT DESPAIR.

It is depressing to watch Prime Minister's Questions and see how little either side actually cares about the country they claim to represent.

 

The entrenched party lines are no good to anyone. Ed Miliband and his pals simply ignore the undeniable fact that it was a Labour government which left the country in its worst economic state since the 1940s, at least if we ignore the mess created by the Labour government in the 1970s. For his part, Cameron never answers any questions from the principal opposition players and seems to be much more focused on the 'planted' questions from his own side.

 

We are, in truth, in such a mess that party lines should be put to one side in the pursuit of a real solution to our difficulties. Sadly, this simply won't happen as the politicians all trot out the hackneyed phrases which support their side and angle for the best possible position for themselves come the next election in 2015. Labour has no policy except to disagree with 'austerity' and argue for still more borrowing in order to stimulate 'growth'. That these are nebulous and virtually meaningless phrases and that following such a path will inevitably lead to catastrophic meltdown is irrelevant to them as they simply want to say the things that they believe will be best received by the electorate.

 

For their part, the Conservatives are hamstrung by their coalition partners and unable to do some of the things they really should. They are also unwilling to appear to be a 'nasty party', frit as they are of the consequences come 2015, and so they continue to totter forward trying to solve an impossible conundrum - how to really reduce government expenditure in the face of a Europe-wide recession while being held back by their coalition partners and their own fears, and faced by the hypocritical mouthings of the champagne socialists who sit opposite them.

 

The older I get, the more I despair. Is there really no light at the end of the tunnel ? 

CAMERON SHUFFLES THE DECK CHAIRS.

As anticipated for several weeks, David Cameron has reshuffled his cabinet, not that it will make much difference to anything.

 

All of the major roles - Chancellor, Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary - have been untouched as have been Education and Work and Pensions, though the latter post was reportedly the subject of a battle, with Cameron wanting to move Iain Duncan Smith but the incumbent refusing to budge. The biggest casualty has been the Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, whose many woeful performances have no doubt contributed to his demise. Surprisingly, Lansley's former department is to be taken on by Jeremy Hunt, a man with some very tarnished credentials after suffering more than one embarrassment in recent months.

 

Justine Greening has lost her job in Transport probably because of her opposition to a third runway at Heathrow, and Sayeeda Warsi has finally gone from her post as co-Chairman of the Tory party after years of under-performance. Poor Greening has been demoted to International Development, hardly a role for anyone with ambition, while Warsi seems to have been given a junior ministerial post of little account.

 

It appears that women are losers overall, with Cheryl Gillan and Caroline Spelman also losing their jobs, although Theresa Villiers has taken on the poisoned chalice that is Northern Ireland and Maria Miller (whoever she is) has replaced Jeremy Hunt as Culture Secretary.

 

The oldest stager, Ken Clarke, has found himself shunted out of Justice but given a roving role as Minister without Portfolio, remaining in the cabinet as a special adviser; one wonders if this is really what Cameron wanted or whether Clarke is simply too much of a loose canon to send him to the back benches. Clarke's old job at Justice has gone to Chris Grayling, a man whose charisma probably matches his name.

 

While the reshuffle has been principally about Tory ministers, the LibDems are also reported to have made a change with David Laws being brought back as a junior Education minister in place of the egregious Sarah Teather. Laws, of course, was forced to resign from the Government within days of being appointed Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 2010, after revelations about his highly suspect expenses claims. Inevitably, all is now forgiven and his career is well on the way to being resurrected. Exactly what Teather's ever done, other than make a dreadful fool of herself at a LibDem conference, is a bit of a mystery but I doubt many will be sorry to see her go.

 

Whether or not all this shuffling around will achieve anything is anyone's guess, though I doubt it. It does allow for some previously entrenched positions to be unpicked, particularly in Health, Transport and Justice, but we probably won't see much benefit whatever is done, or undone. This reshuffle was much more about the Conservative Party positioning itself in readiness for the election in 2015 than anything else, something which is probably a total waste of time.

GCSEs : A WHINGE TOO FAR

All the furore about exam results has made me wonder if I should ask for a remarking of my 'O' and 'A' level papers.

 

I've always been convinced that some of my teachers didn't like me and my grades were, accordingly, marked down unfairly. This stopped me getting to Cambridge with some of my classmates who were more in favour with the teachers; I have no doubt that I was adversely affected and have suffered long term depression as a result.

 

Perhaps I should ask 'OFQUAL' if I can resit my exams in a fairer setting or, perhaps, they can dig out my old papers and remark them. I wonder if they still have papers from the 1960s ?

 

I wonder if I might be able to claim compensation !

 

 

THALIDOMIDE; TIP OF A VERY LARGE ICEBERG

The manufacturers of the now notorious drug 'thalidomide' have issued an apology to the many people alive today who sufferred shocking birth defects as a result of the drug's side effects. Inevitably, the apology has been condemned as inadequate by various campaign groups who continue to demand more compensation from the company.

 

Without knowing all of the details it's hard to comment on the rights and wrongs of the campaigners' demands or the company's actions. However, it is very clear that thalidomide did have some very unpleasant effects which are still felt today, more than 50 years after the drug was withdrawn from use.

 

In common with all industries, drug companies want, and need, to make profits in order to survive. Proper drug research can very very expensive and take a very long time, which renders taking a few short-cuts highly desirable. In the 1950s, when thalidomide was developed, pharamceutical knowledge was much less than it is today and there was much less control over the activities of such companies. Exactly what research was undertaken in respect of thalidomide and what, if any, knowledge about side effects was suppressed are matters of which I am unaware though there seems to be strong evidence that the company did knowingly market a suspect drug.

 

Over the years the demand for ever more potent drugs to fight ever more resistant bugs has grown; so has the demand for drugs to combat conditions such as cancer, arthritis, heart disease and the rest. Today we appear to want pharmaceutical companies to produce drugs to help us stay thin, live longer, keep our hair and a thousand other things that are desires rather than medical needs; the companies will happily oblige if they can as "there's money in them thar products". The problem is that no one actually wants to pay the costs associated with carrying out the comprehensive research that's necessary before a new drug is brought to market and so corners are cut. Everyone connives in this, from the companies, through the regulators and government to the people.

 

I have no doubt that the manufacturers of thalidomide were wholly responsible for the long term effects of their drug and that they should make proper reparation to those who were affected. Equally, companies should be made to shoulder responsibility for the effects of more recent drugs that have been shown to have deleterious side effects, drugs such a librium and valium and a whole range of steroids spring to mind. These drugs have long lasting effects that may only be noticed over a period of many years, but many people have been affected. There are many others that have been introduced and then suddenly withdrawn, always because of the discovery of latent side effects; I've heard very little said about any of these, presumably because the side effects were considered relatively mild or affected patients were silenced with large pay outs.

 

The bottom line to all of this is that we can't have whatever we want at the price we'd like. If we want ultra-safe drugs, we must expect to pay much more than we do now and be prepared to wait much longer for them to be developed. If we're happy to accept a 90 or 95% likelihood that there'll be no serious side effects, then we can have the drugs sooner and at lower cost. The difference between now and the 1950s is that we're all much more involved today through our own demands and a maze of government inspired regulation; while today's pharmceutical giants must shoulder most of the responsibility when things go wrong, we and the government have to accept our own share and even the occasional disaster.