CARE HOMES UNDER FIRE AGAIN.

The BBC has uncovered more poor care at a care home, this time the "Old Deanery" in Braintree, Essex. Shock, horror, some residents were taunted and roughly handled and one was slapped. Representatives of the home said they were shocked and saddened and the CQC hasn't really said anything.

What is really worrying is not that elderly residents of this home have been subjected to poor treatment and abuse, but that this type of story breaks regularly. Care home owners have glitzy websites that promise the earth and their managers tell potential clients how wonderful life will be if only they move in. The sad truth is that most care homes are understaffed, most of the staff are poorly paid, undertrained and disinterested, and the management is abysmal.

I write this from some detailed knowledge of 4 care homes in my local area. What is most surprising is that more are not discovered to be delivering 'care' that is at the bottom end of what is acceptable, not that the odd one is found to be sub-standard. I, for one, will never willingly enter a 'care home'; I value my dignity, person and life far too highly for that.

CAMERON'S DIVISIVE CHRISTIANITY.

David Cameron has apparently said in recent times that the UK should be "more confident about our status as a Christian country". Now a rag-bag group of 'public figures' has claimed that Cameron risks being divisive and causing alienation in our society as a direct result of his remarks.

How all of these people can be so wrong escapes me. Britain was a Christian country in the days when its people believed in ghosts and goblins, when they feared for their eternal souls and had no understanding of science. Today, we are at best a nominally Christian society with only a handful of those professing Christianity attending church other than for marriages or funerals; even baptism has largely ceased to be the ritual it once was. Additionally, with the vast influx of Muslim, Hindus, and others we now have whole areas of our larger towns and cities that owe no allegiance whatsoever to Christian values.

Cameron is correct only in so far as the dominant heritage of our nation remains Christian and the values of most of the population continue to be based on that heritage. However, to claim that we are a Christian country is nonsense. Likewise, for the signatories to a letter sent to the Daily Telegraph to claim that Cameron's comments may be seen as divisive and alienating is ridiculous. Cameron has done no more than state his point of view, a view based on the history of this country, and that can hardly be seen as divisive; any divisiveness can only come from the influx of settlers who do not, and will not, share that history. The divisive influence derives solely from the immigrants who refuse to mix in with the established society but, instead, set up their own enclaves where they continue to behave exactly as if they had never left Calcutta, Jerusalem or Islamabad.

The recent issues raised with regard to schools in parts of Birmingham are a clear example of divisiveness being caused by immigrant groups. Here we have Muslims apparently attempting to ignore national rules and guidelines and imposing their own cultural values on British state schools. Previously, we've seen issues relating to the wearing of traditional Muslim and Sikh clothing being used to batter holes in our laws and to introduce special concessions for non-Christians. How long will it be before we begin to introduce special arrangements allowing Muslims and others to set up their own legal and education systems and exempt themselves from the state ?

Many will say that my comments are rubbish; all I can say in response is "Wait and see". Just as George Orwell's 1984 got its time frame wrong, so did Enoch Powell. In every other respect, both made accurate predictions of the shape of things to come. 

RAJ MATTU NOT LOUGHTON'S ONLY VICTIM.

Listening to 'Radio 4' this morning, I heard the story of a doctor who had finally been able to clear his name some 13 years after he was initially hounded, harassed and bullied by his employers, before being suspended in 2002 and sacked in 2010 from his post with the Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust.

Dr Raj Mattu was a consultant cardiologist who raised serious concerns about the treatment of some of his patients, 2 of whom died due to poor safety procedures at the Walsgrave Hospital in Coventry. It seems that the hospital management did not take kindly to his actions and did everything they could to discredit him. Ultimately, he was paid for 8 years while on suspension, costing the NHS well over ½million pounds, and the Trust also incurred huge legal costs. Dr Mattu will now also receive a substantial compensation payment in respect of his treatment, loss of earnings and reputation, damage to his health and so on.

What drew me to this story is that I also suffered from the bullying behaviour of the Trust's then chief executive, David Loughton. During a merger of 2 neighbouring Trusts, Loughton attempted to drive me from my senior post and declare me redundant, quite illegally as was confirmed when I took basic advice. In my case, he very quickly backtracked to a degree, though I was still levered out of my post and out of the Trust little more than a year later although I did gain alternative employment and still within the NHS. Sometime later, during an important meeting, Loughton even referred back to these events, something which was utterly inappropriate and clearly designed to try to intimidate me; it was clear that he had no limits as to what he would do to anyone who crossed him. The overall experience is not one I would care to repeat and I have great sympathy for Dr Mattu whose ordeal has lasted for so many years.

Loughton was effectively forced to resign from the Coventry Trust in March 2002, after he was the subject of intense criticism for his behaviour and the Trust's performance. In addition to the bullying of staff, it was the case that the Trust had routinely manipulated figures relating to its activities, claiming far better results than were the case. Insiders told me at the time that this was done on the direct instructions of Loughton but everyone was far to scared of him to do or say anything about it. Matters came to a head only when the then NHS 'watchdog', the Commission for Health Improvement' gave the Trust the lowest possible rating in 2001.

Shockingly, even after all of this, Loughton resurfaced in August 2004 as chief executive of another NHS Trust in Wolverhampton, where he is now facing similar accusations. Unfortunately, as he is now 60, he is quite able to walk away with his substantial pension and any sanctions against him are likely to be little more than window dressing. He is also unlikely to be deprived of the C.B.E. which he was awarded, quite inexplicably, in the 2010 New Year's Honours List.

GRADUATES LEARN ABOUT SUPPLY AND DEMAND - THE HARD WAY.

Shock, Horror ! The pay of graduates has fallen over recent years and by as much as 11% between 2007 and 2012. Is it really any wonder ?

Some academic has discovered that the salaries paid for newly recruited graduates in professional posts have fallen continuously since 2005 with the rate of decline accelerating since 2007. That this has come as a surprise is, perhaps, more surprising than the fall itself. The world has been in something of a financial mess for the last 6 or 7 years and budgets have been squeezed; it is not only graduates who have felt the pinch. However, in their case, they have been subject to another pressure, that is, the inexorable rise in graduate numbers from an increased number of universities. As any economist ought to know, price is related to supply and when the supply goes up, the price goes down.

Sending hundreds of thousands of our teenagers off to university never was a good idea and this is just one of the consequences. Leaving aside all of those whose degrees from fourth-rate institutions are unlikely ever to be of any value, there must be many others who are now competing for jobs which previously attracted no more than a handful of candidates; 'head-hunting' for the very best has not changed and they will still demand a premium, but the rest are now in a fight. Employers can hardly be blamed for taking advantage of this, nor for taking a cautious approach when appointing someone from a less than prestigious establishment.

Yet another glorious Socialist ideal gone haywire.

'SHELTER' HAVE IT ALL WRONG.

Today's news carries a claim being put about by the left-wing housing organisation 'Shelter' which defies belief. They say that there are 3.8 million families in Britain who are no more than 1 month from homelessness as they would simply not be able to pay their rent or mortgage if they were to lose their jobs. The organisation wants the Government to 'provide better short-term support' for those who fall into such need.

What annoys me particularly is that anyone in work and earning a relatively low wage can qualify for 'working tax credits' and, if they have children, 'child tax credits' and support with childcare costs as well. If they're income is deemed insufficient, they also get financial help with childcare costs and let us not forget child benefit. On top of all of this, there is housing benefit and council tax support.

With all of this a family with 3 children may expect to gather in an overall total of around £28,000 a year in earnings, tax credits and the rest. To claim that this is 'living on a financial knife-edge' as do Shelter, is ludicrous; while it may not allow for stately living, it is far from penury.

My personal knowledge tells me that the real problem is a cavalier attitude adopted by far too many of these supposed 'poor'. Rather than making sure that bills are paid and money is put aside for holidays, Xmas, occasional demands and rainy days, they waste their money, much of which may well come from the taxpayer, on cigarettes, alcohol and gambling. They do not seem to care that a packet of cigarettes now costs around £7, nor that a pint of beer may be in the region of £3.50; they smoke a packet or more a day and drink excessively. It is far from difficult for 2 adults in a family to get through £10,000 a year in this way, wasting more than a third of their total income. If they also gamble on horses, dogs or the lottery, things get even worse.

Such families have no savings and are in perpetual debt. They may be, as Shelter claims, less than a month from homelessness but it is nobody's fault but their own. There may, indeed, be outwardly wealthy families who are in as much of a mess as my example but, again, this will almost certainly be a result of spending money they do not have and of failing to put anything aside. In the event that they fall on hard times, it should not be for the government, meaning other taxpayers, to bail any of these profligates out. If necessary, children must be protected which could mean removing them from their parents; the parents have no defence and should suffer the full consequences of their actions. A few nights on a hard floor in a hostel or in a cardboard box under some cold bridge is likely to have greater impact and long term effect than providing still more government hand outs.

Harsh, yes. Unreasonable, no.

MARIA MILLER GOES, BUT FOR HOW LONG ?

So, after several days of hanging on by her fingernails, Maria Miller has gone.

That she didn't go at the outset is testament to the way in which MPs try to cling to power and privilege at the expense of all else. Even now, Miller has put her supposed resignation, which is more likely to have been an effective sacking, down to the distraction caused by events rather than admitting that she did anything wrong. She has shown no contrition and her apology in the Commons was nothing short of a farce.

Shockingly, Cameron has already intimated that she may well return to high office before long, another indication of the appalling arrogance of our political masters. The only way we, the people, can show our disgust is at the ballot box. Whatever our individual political beliefs we should all use the Richard Prior approach and vote for "None of the Above" when it comes to the next General Election. That way, these arrogant crooks might finally get the message.

MARIA MILLER : ANOTHER DODGY MP.

The so-called 'Culture Secretary', Maria Miller, is someone of whom I'd never heard before she was hoisted from obscurity to a seat in the Cabinet.

While in her job, she has done nothing of note other than upset the newspaper industry. Now it transpires that she'd also been fiddling the MPs expenses system for all it was worth over a protracted period, getting the taxpayers to cough up for the mortgage on a house inhabited by her parents before selling the same house for a mere £1m profit. When caught, her MP colleagues reduced the independently determined punishment to almost nothing and Miller's apology in the House of Commons was an exhibition in arrogance and lack of sincerity. For reasons known only to himself, David Cameron has supported her throughout this shameful episode and now refuses to sack her.

If I'd been caught doing anything similar in my career, I'd have been sacked, probably had my pension withheld and quite possibly gone to prison. Why are MPs treated so differently ?

STATISTICS DESTROY OUR FREEDOMS.

In recent days we've been told that Governments must do various intrusive things in order to save our lives. Amongst these has been the proposed banning of smoking in cars in which children are travelling, a suggestion that e-cigarettes should be banned or, at least, controlled, and a plan to make cigarette manufacturers use a generic form of packaging smothered in nasty pictures and slogans. In support of all of these measures, our political masters claim that hundreds, if not thousands of lives will be saved.

When I was a young squab, I was taught the old adage that "there's lies, damned lies and statistics". Sadly, today's politicians bombard us with statistics in their misguided efforts to bamboozle us all into accepting their paternalistic approach to government. With no real supporting evidence, they merrily claim that killing all badgers will save 100 lives or that banning cars will save a million. They are, of course, merely spouting the bogus statistics provided to them by compliant supporters of whatever measure they want to impose on us and those opposed to the plans can quite easily produce contrary figures to support their side of the argument. All-in-all, it is all nonsense.

Time and again, we are forced to accept restrictions on our freedoms by the government's use of manufactured statistics. People are frightened into accepting bans on everything and anything by the torrent of worthless numbers thrown at them. Over a period of years and decades, the people have been worn down and now seem to accept almost every restriction that governments of whatever hue wish to impose. Theoretically, our country is a democracy but, in reality we have no freedom and our democracy is a sham; come what may, the main political parties will have things their way, whatever the people really want, believe or would believe if they had the true facts. Of course, they are never allowed to see the true facts unless these support the objectives of the party in question and, even then, the facts may well be dressed up to put the best possible gloss on them.

Why is it that we let this happen ? Why do the people not stand up and fight ? The simple answer is that in this poor, tired old country, now rapidly filling up with hordes of foreigners, we can't be bothered. Anyone who can still be bothered has their own simple answer - VOTE Ukip.

FARAGE CLOBBERS CLEGG ; WHAT DOES IT MEAN ?

Pro-European Union Nick Clegg must be rueing his decision to enter into a debate with Anti-EU Nigel Farage after his mauling in the second meeting of the two last night.

After the first debate, opinion polls gave Farage a win on the night by around 55% to 35%; the second debate saw Farage increase his vote to close to 70% while Clegg's sank to around 30%.  Obviously, such polls are largely self-selecting and their accuracy can be debateable but the message does seem clear - Farage won by a margin.

Whether the result of this will affect anything in the world inhabited by those who actually decide things on our behalf is questionable. Sadly, Farage is the only even remotely serious political leader in this country who is in favour of a withdrawal from the EU. Clegg is 100% committed to the EU come what may, Cameron has no real intention of doing anything that would lead to us withdrawing and Miliband will do whatever he believes will get him into 10 Downing Street. While Farage may reflect the views of the a majority of the people of this country, our relationship with the EU will be decided by one or more of the other three.

The only hope is that Farage's showing in these debates will encourage many more people to vote for Ukip in the European and Council elections in May. There seems to be a good chance that Ukip will come top in the European polls and this is what is needed; last time, in 2009, Ukip came a good second in the polls with 16.5% but were still a long way behind the Conservatives with 27.7%. If Ukip can reverse these positions it would send a strong message to the main parties and leave Labour and the Liberal Democrats well behind.

In the council elections we can expect the three main parties to dominate but if Ukip can improve from their performance of last year when they gained 23% of the vote they could start to make a real impact in domestic politics by winning a significant number of seats and, even, one or two councils. Such a performance would certainly improve their chances of doing well in next year's General Election.

Nigel Farage is the only serious political figure in this country who is making progress. If the people give him the chance, he may be able to help the whole country to progress. VOTE Ukip !