OLYMPICS : TROOPS GEAR UP IN THOUSANDS.

When I wrote about Olympic security issues earlier, I was unaware of quite how great the deployment of service personnel is going to be.

Apparently, we will have 17,500 assorted servicemen and women undertaking security duties. Pardon me for wondering, but are we putting on a sporting event or countering a foreign invasion ? If the Olympics really need this level of military involvement in order to maintain security and order, is it not time the whole shenanigans was dumped ?

OLYMPIC SECURITY : A RECIPE FOR DISRUPTION

Hearing of the debacle over security for the forthcoming Olympic Games raises a number of issues.

Firstly, is it not shocking that an inherently peaceful sporting event demands a vast amount of security staff ? Worse still, it seems that much of the security will be provided by thousands of troops, rendering us more of a military dictatorship than a free nation.

Secondly, if the Games are actually so fraught with danger, why are we holding them ? Years ago, Olympic Games were surrounded by none of the modern-day 'hype' and were held in an atmosphere of calm and peace, with the notable exception of the Berlin Games of 1936. In those days, the individual sportsmen were the centrepiece of the Games, now it is all about national kudos. Consequently, the Games have become a target for fringe groups of all complexions and we have to accept huge security operations and restrictions on our normal movements in order to cater for the now grossly overblown nonsense that is the modern Olympic Games.

Thirdly, the costs associated with these Games are an appalling burden on an already stretched economy. Any thought that the Games would actually prove a financial benefit has surely disappeared as London hotels and theatres have experienced huge falls in bookings and Londoners, faced with traffic chaos and security restrictions for weeks, abandon the capital in droves for the duration of the Games.

These Games are a jamboree for the vast number of dignitaries who have free tickets and a huge imposition on the people of London and the other parts of the country where they're taking place. They will cost us a huge amount of money that we do not have and will cause enormous disruption to the everyday lives of millions of people. Please God they never come her again.

WE SHOULD ALL PAY FOR OUR OWN CARE.

The recent discussion about the funding of social care for the elderly provides a great example of politicians attempting to be 'all things to all men'. Even though they have no money to play with, our leaders still want to pretend they can provide us with everything we desire, in this case largely free care when we are old and unable to look after ourselves.

That universal free care is a nonsense is abundantly clear to those of us with a brain who are not politicians. From a political perspective, however, such a standpoint is unacceptable and some effort has to be made to at least dress up the system so as to appear to be providing the usual political nonsense of 'something for nothing'.

Ignoring all of the current chat, there is one basic issue that no politician seems willing to tackle. It is the notion that we should all be allowed to pass on whatever wealth we accumulate during our lifetimes to our children and should not have to spend our savings on care homes and the like. Why this has become such an accepted norm is a mystery to me.

During our working lives, we save if we can. Some of these savings should be directed towards a pension for our old age; if anything is left, that should be available to pay for the social care services we need in our old age. There is no reason at all why we should expect the state to pay for our care while we pass on our savings - house and all - to the next generation. Any such arrangement is a ludicrous nonsense. For the state to pay for those who cannot pay for themselves is one thing; for it to be expected to pay for those who are well able to pay for themselves is ridiculous.

Such logic, of course, does not find favour with politicians as it implies telling voters that they will not get something they want are, these days, see as a right. With any luck, one day there'll be a political leader with the balls to do what's right rather than what's expedient, but don't expect any of today's bunch of liberal socialist do-gooders to take the lead.

TERRY, FERDINAND & A FEW RUDE WORDS.

According to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), John Terry, a footballer, called Anton Ferdinand, another footballer, a few rude words. In any sane world, such an incident would have passed virtually unnoticed and probably have been resolved by a quiet apology and a handshake. Sadly, the world we all now live in is anything but sane.

In today's world of ultra-political correctness and socialist claptrap, Terry finds himself in the dock, charged with some sort of racially motivated 'crime'. When I was a child, one mantra we were taught was 'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me'; today, words seem to have gained a far greater level of importance, particularly when used in a manner that the 'thought police' consider to be 'anti-social'.

Worse still, instead of the real police spending time catching real criminals for the courts to try, they waste their efforts investigating social misdeameanours which have been dressed up as crimes by a succession of namby-pamby governments. After months of investiagtion, they then bring the offenders, such as Terry, to court in order to waste even more public money and resources. Apparently, Terry's trial is expected to last 5 days - FIVE DAYS to decide whether or not one footballer called another footballer a few rude words.

Is it any wonder that our nation is bankrupt and our society crumbling ?

DOES 'THE SHARD' HAVE A POINT ?

Today's news includes bits and pieces about a new building in London which has been nicknamed 'The Shard'.Not having seen the building, I have no idea why it's acquired this moniker, however, the only thing that seems to be of interest to most of the media is its height, which is something around a thousand feet.

No one has yet explained why we need such a monstrosity in central London, apparently built on top of a railway station and slap bang next door to a major hospital, or what its purpose is. All that I've heard is that it has a mere 48 parking spaces, mostly for the disabled according to Ken Livingstone, getting to the top for a bit of sightseeing will cost a family of 4 £90, and iit has an assortment of multi-million pound luxury penthouse apartments atop its structure.

In a city which, by all accounts is desperately short of affordable housing and parking space, one has to wonder which pillock gave this idiotic scheme the go-ahead. Reportedly, most of the finance has come from Arab investors and the design is by some Italian with a silly name; KL's involvement in an item this morning makes me think that he probably had his fingers in the pie somewhere too.

To answer my initial question, of course it has a point, the point being to bring kudos to the city of London; that, at least, is what the politicians and others who've been involved will say. In truth, it's a colossal waste of money designed to promote the designer and architect and the politicians who backed the scheme, and to provide ludicrously wasteful and expensive accommodation for a few super-rich bankers or oil tycoons. The vast bulk of the people will gain nothing from it.

And so to answer my initial question again, of course it has no real purpose. It is about self-aggrandisement and nothing more. It is yet another pointless blot on our landscape.

DIAMOND JUST THE FIRST OF MANY ?

Bob Diamond's departure from Barclays, announced yetserday, was no more than had to happen. He had clearly failed miserably in his management of the bank and, before that, in his management of the investment division which was intimately involved in the LIBOR fixing scandal.

What we now need to to hear is that this man's termination package is minimal in size, and not the tens of millions such things so often are. Then we need to hear that any other bankers who had a hand in this financial manipulation are sent packing as well. Finally, it would be quite nice to hear that a few of these greedy and corrupt people, wherever and whoever they are, were going to face criminal charges.

Not much hope there.

ALL BANKERS ARE GREEDY & INCOMPETENT; DISCUSS.

As the scandal in our banking sector receives huge media coverage, I wonder how it is that the grotesquely overvalued chief executives of these organisations have obtained, and retained, their jobs.

Banks across the world have 'suffered' in the last few years as a result of the modestly named 'banking crisis'. This crisis was, of course, a result of bankers playing fast-and-loose with investors' money, inventing assets and trades that no one understood and yet were apparently approved by senior managers. It is also the case that Governments connived in this behaviour as it seemed to be creating a world in which everlasting economic growth could be achieved, to their own benefit. That a crash was inevitable passed them by, as it did the 'experts' employed to run the banks, as well as those employed to oversee their activities.

In the UK, we have seen banks destroyed while their Chief Officers, together with other senior managers and traders, have enjoyed vast bonus payments which they laughably term as part of their 'compensation'. The 'compensation', what the rest of us call pay, of these people has been set at levels per annum that most of us won't even earn in a whole career, the justification being that such amounts are essential if the banks are to attract the 'best people'.

I don't recall the name of the Chief Executives of Northern Rock, Bradford and Bingley and Halifax, but whoever they were they oversaw the destruction of their companies, no doubt while taking home vast 'compensation'. How can these have been considered to be the 'best people' ?

Eric Daniels, then Chief Executive of LloydsTSB, miserably failed to ensure adequate examination of the books of Halifax before he agreed to the merger of the two. Consequently, Lloyds found itself almost ruined and its shareholders lost most of their money; Daniels still took home bonuses, though with some withheld or returned, and then left the bank. He may also have engaged in a bit of tax avoidance during his time at Lloyds. Was he one of the 'best people' ?

Fred Goodwin oversaw the collapse of another major banking conglomerate, Royal Bank of Scotland, which suffered even more savagely than Lloyds. Goodwin initially went off with all his own cash, not to mention his knighthood, while his shareholders saw their investment, of which he was a major custodian, decline to almost nothing. If I recall correctly, 'Fred the Shred' did suffer some eventual penalties, though nothing as dramatic as was suffered by those whose assets he was supposed to be protecting.

Now, we have more in the firing line. Bob Diamond, Chief Executive of Barclays has overseen the 'LIBOR' fixing scandal, while receiving huge payments for his expert leadership of this bank. It seems likely that a few more big names will eventually fall into the gaping maw of this new banking crisis, but Diamond is the man in everyone sights for the moment. This arrogant yank has apparently already stated that he will not resign, even though he has overseen one of the worst banking scandals in history; this refusal to go may, of course, be more about ensuring that he retains financial rights under his contract rather than anything else.

In recent years we have also seen the PPI scandal, another example of the 'best people' working out schemes to fleece the public while ratcheting up large profits and, hence, bonuses, for themselves. Caught out, the banks have had to make huge financial reparation.

How can any of these people have been considered to be the 'best people' for their jobs ? They have jointly overseen the ruination of several UK banks, not to mention a huge blow to the prestige of the City Of London's financial pre-eminence. Other major banks in other parts of the world have also suffered similarly, revealing their own grossly overvalued executives to be nothing but greedy and incompetent.

The word appears to be that very little can be done about this clearly immoral and unethical behaviour; in this country, at least, it is being said that the perpetrators have not actually done anything that comes within the purview of the criminal law and are likely to escape any real penalties. If this is the case, then I would have to revert to the words of Mr Bumble in 'Oliver Twist' : "If the law supposes that, the law is a ass -- a idiot".

It is time for a complete change of culture but whether anything will change will depend on the actions of the Government in the next few weeks. Don't hold your breath.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM MUST PROCEED

As the Government unveils its proposals on reform to the House of Lords, listening to the bleating of various current members of this august body really is becoming painful.

Of course, you can't expect turkeys to vote for Christmas, but these are supposed to be intelligent and trustworthy people, appointed to the House specifically because they are so. Hearing so many of them trot out every possible reason why the House should not be reformed tells me that the majority are simply self-serving politicians who will fight tooth-and-nail to protect their own exalted status.

'There are far more important things for Government to deal with'

'We will lose so much expertise'

'There will be a blurring of responsibilites with the Commons'

'It's a mechanism for the LibDems to gain a permanent advantage'

'We will lose the 'voluntary' ethic that currently exists'

'It will be much more expensive'

'The membership will be more 'politicized''

These are only a few of the nonsensical reasons that I've heard used in the last couple of days - there are many more. What drivel. For a democratic country to have half of its Parliamentary system composed of a huge number of politically appointed individuals, is ridiculous, whatever the reasons that are given for its continuation. Failed and retired members of the Commons can frequently rely on the patronage of their Party to grant them 'elevation' to the 'Upper House' together with a fancy title and ermine robes; the right to attend all manner of state functions and a status that they never enjoyed as elected representatives.

What rubbish is this ? Whatever one's political persuasion, the House of Lords as it is currently configured is unsustainable and must go. Governments have been promising full reform for more than a century and little real progress has been made other than to make the House evermore political in nature. The nay-sayers should be silenced and the House should be reformed as a matter of urgency; despite the claims made, it is an important issue, indeed it is a vital one in any nation that calls itself 'Democratic'.

BANKING IS CORRUPT - OFFICIAL.

The news that 'Barclays' bank has been fined a substantial amount, almost £300m in fact, for manipulating interest rates might be shocking but doesn't really come as any surprise. Anyone who's used any bank in the last 30 years cannot be anything but well aware of the way in which 'service' has declined and management-speak, opacity and greed have become all.

Every time I pay in any significant sum, I'm asked if I have plans for the money, this being a programmed mechanism designed to see if the bank can get its grubby little hands on the money. If a withdraw anything significant, there is a similar reaction; my own main bank even takes to ringing me or writing to me on such occasions, asking if I'd like to attend a financial appraisal meeting, but couching the invitation in such a way as to suggest that the meeting has already been arranged. 

In recent years, I've experienced a number of problems with banks and it's usually needed a letter to the Chief Executive to get matters resolved; the resolution is frequently accompanied by a degree of financial compensation which is really a sweetener to get me to go away and not make any more fuss.

The fines that have been imposed on Barclays, and the bits and pieces that such banks regularly pay out as compensation for screwing their customers' accounts up, aren't a charge on the bank. These monies all come out of the profits that the bank would otherwise make and, therefore, are paid by their shareholders rather than those who are actually responsible for the mistakes, be they innocent or, as in the manipulation of interest rates, morally if not actually criminal. In the case of Barclays, some of their senior directors have announced, in an attempt to save their own reputations, that they will forego this year's bonuses; what will happen about the pay and bonuses of those who are no longer employed, if anything, has yet to be announced. 

As I write, a further twist in this story has come to light, with the revelation that a number of major international banks have been discovered to have been manipulating the LIBOR rate, an interest rate benchmark that is relied on by banks worldwide. If anyone wanted proof that banking is a corrupt business, they now have it. We should expect some very big names from some very big banks to find themselves in prison before very long - much more likely is that more shareholders' monies will simply be paid out in fines and the criminal behaviour of the super-rich banking officials will simply be brushed under the carpet.

ARE TORIES TURNING THE CLOCK BACK ?

As the coalition government totters from crisis to crisis and its members make increasingly disunited statements, 'Dave' has now decided to start setting out the Conservative Party's vision for the years after the next election, even though this is still some 3 years away.

Last week, we had the sight of Michael Gove being dragged to the House of Commons to explain a leak about his plans for the future of secondary education and today, apparently, Dave is going to make a speech about reforms to the welfare state. Gove's leaked plans have been seen as the beginning of his campaign to replace Dave as Tory leader so, perhaps, Dave's speech today can be seen as part of his effort to keep the job himself.

It's reported that Dave will suggest, among other things, that housing benefit for single people under the age of 25 should be reduced or stopped altogether. My reaction is to ask why it is that it's ever been paid to this group in the first place. Not very many years ago, it was the norm for young people to remain living in the family home until they left to marry and establish their own household; those who did not manage to achieve this within a reasonable time, or who simply didn't want to carry on living with ma, pa and the 6 younger brats, went into lodgings. In neither case did the state pay them anything for the cost of their housing and they were expected to make provision for their rent as a 'first call' on their earnings. If this left them with insufficient to support the lifestyle they would have liked to have had, that was just tough.

Today, children as young as 16 are often desperate to leave home and to get away from what they see as the interference of their parent(s). Older young'uns are not prepared to contemplate living in lodgings of the type their predecessors endured - small dingy rooms in old houses - and demand to be given flats or houses of their own, whether they have the wherewithal to pay for such accommodation or not. In our excessively generous welfare society, the government now falls over itself to provide what these groups want. As well as the huge financial burden this places on the state in supporting the large number of claimants who are either unemployed or whose income is deemed insufficient to pay the rent, this has resulted in a substantial increase in the requirement for accommodation, thus contributing to the supposed, but largely mythical, housing crisis.

It isn't considered de rigeur to look back at earlier years and to suggest that we might actually turn the clock back a bit, but both Gove and Dave are suggesting exactly this and why not ? For years now this country has ben living well beyond its means and the people have enjoyed lifestyles that they could not afford without the support of the state. It is high time that this nonsense was stopped and we returned to a world in which individuals are responsible for their own economic well-being; for the state to be stealing around half of the income of those who have anything, to hand it out to thousands of ne'er-do-wells is no way to run an economy or to encourage personal responsibility.

If the Tories really do mean to attack the problems of our education and welfare systems as is being indicated, they will have my vote come 2015.

SO WHO DOES PAY THEIR TAXES ?

Given all of the recent talk about the tax affairs of a distinctly average comedian, one has to wonder why it is that the arrangements entered into by other high earners have not received more scrutiny.

Of course, we frequently hear about the 'excessive' salaries of senior managers in major companies but how often do we hear anything about the much larger earnings of a raft of entertainment and sporting personalities ? For instance, how much tax does Paul McCartney pay on what must be vast earnings from his career as a pop singer ? Then there's Elton John, Cliff Richard, Mick Jagger and many others. What about the grotesque salaries paid to Premier League footballers, at least some of which are undoubtedly arranged through complicated schemes specifically designed to avoid tax ? Why does David Cameron not condemn these arrangements and why does the Treasury not act to close the 'loopholes' that are exploited on behalf of the people concerned ?

If I, or any other ordinary individual, dares to make a mistake on our tax returns we can expect HMRC to come down on us like a ton of bricks; fines and even prison sentences can follow. Anyone who's in normal employment will find tax, and national insurance, removed from their salary even before they receive it; does the same apply to footballers and pop singers ? Of course not.

Ordinary people have very little opportunity to defraud the taxman and even if they find a way, the extent of the fraud is tiny when compared with the vast sums of tax that are avoided by rich 'personalities'. This is not to say that these people are acting illegally but, if David Cameron wants to make a stand about the morality of paying tax, these are the people he should be targeting. Tell the Treasury, and HMRC, to close the ridiculous loopholes that exist purely to enrich these parasites. If they then decide to go elsewhere, so be it; they pay little or no tax now, so we will be no worse off.

Perhaps someone in the Treasury could provide an estimate of the total tax avoided through the operation of these schemes that are apparently legal, while being what the Prime Minister would consider 'morally repugnant'. Publication of the figure might just be enough to stir the government into some form of real action.

JIMMY CARR, TAX, CASH & MORALITY.

I had rather ignored the issue of Jimmy Carr's tax arrangements until I heard a comment from Andrew Neil on Today's 'Daily Politics'. Mr Neil remarked that Carr had paid cash for his current home, and not just a little bit. £8,500,000 of cash, actually.

Forgive me for being a little shocked by this revelation but where on earth does a second rate comic like Jimmy Carr  get that sort of money, and in cash ? No doubt this is also a question that will now be persued by the tax authorities and it would not really surprise me if they found some naughtiness involved somewhere along the way.

I have no objection whatsoever to people paying only the tax that is due and the Government rhetoric about the unfairness and immorality of special arrangements passes me by. If the Government doesn't like loopholes in the tax laws, then it should close them; at the same time, I have some difficulty with the scheme that Mr Carr was apparently employing, one that involved him receiving his pay as loans from an off-shore company - this smacks of tax fraud, even if it isn't.

The Government finds ever more surreptitious ways of picking our pockets at every opportunity and now takes more of our hard-earned income than it ever did. Given this, it is perfectly fair that tax payers find, and exploit, legitimate avenues for minimising their own tax liabilities. One has to assume that the likes of Tony Blair have used every means under the sun to ensure that they pay as little as possible, as no doubt have the forebears of the likes of David Cameron, Nick Clegg and George Osborne, so why shouldn't the rest of us ?

The feigned outrage of Cameron is really pretty laughable. He has 2 free homes together with staff and all utilities, while being paid something like £142,000 pa plus expenses. He, of course, has little or no expenses and is free to invest most of his post-tax income in savings for his future, as is his wife who also enjoys a largely free life on the tax payer. So, Mr Cameron, I think you should shut up.

Putting aside the purely political issues, the fact that Carr has amassed such a fortune from so little must raise a few eyebrows. Let's hope that an investigation into the associated issues brings some explanations.

GREEDY DOCTORS CAUSE PAIN.

Today, some doctors have gone on strike in order to complain about their pension arrangements.

As someone who worked in the NHS for many years I have very mixed feelings about doctors. Some were undoubtedly very good and very caring; all-in-all very decent people who had no inflated view of their own position or importance. Sadly, there were others who were, not to mince my words, arrogant, ignorant, offensive, overbearing and greedy; some of this latter group treated nurses and everyone else around them, apart from their patients, with utter disdain and were even known to have reduced some of their nursing support staff to tears on a regular basis.

The state of the country's finances, allied to increasing life expectations, clearly requires addressing and there is no reason why doctors should be exempted from bearing their share of the pain to come. Doctors already earn much more than most in our society and their pensions mean that the vast majority are already amongst the wealthiest in retirement. That they should go on strike, causing misery to thousands of patients, is a digrace and simply shows many up for the greedy, grasping people that they are.

Make no mistake. Doctors are not gods and have no right to special treatment in any respect. After today's little episode, one can but hope that more people will realise this.

FALKLANDS OR MALVINAS : THE PEOPLE MUST DECIDE.

While attending the latest 'G20' party in Mexico, David Cameron seems to have had a spat with the Argentine president, a woman whose sole aim in life appears to be to initiate a second 'Falklands War'.

This lunatic, the Argentine not Cameron on this occasion, is hell bent on regaining 'Las Malvinas' for her country, presumably in order to get her hands on the oil that's now been discovered in their vicinity. She's tried to get backing from her South American neighbours and even sought to have British ships turned away from ports in other South American countries. Now, she's presented some sort of motion to the United Nations and, apparently, yesterday she tried to hand a copy of this to Cameron.

Sensibly, Cameron refused to have anything to do with the mad woman but she will no doubt be quite happy with the publicity that her actions gained. The most worrying thing about the whole affair is that it's clear the issue of the sovereignty of the Falklands is far from being resolved, at least as far as some in Argentina are concerned.

Next year, the islanders plan on holding a referendum on the question. There can be little doubt as to its outcome and the islanders will certainly vote, by a huge majority, to remain tied to the United Kingdom. There can be equally little doubt that the Argentine government, led by the barmy President Christina Fernandez de Kirchner, will refuse to accept the results of the ballot and will continue to demand the 'return' of the islands to Argentine control.

Perhaps it is time that Britain pointed out to the world that Argentina provided tacit support to the NAZI regime during WW2, and continued to provide a refuge for some of its most hideous members thereafter. It might also be timely to note that Argentina has a history of coups and military juntas with little real democracy until the last few years. What right do they have to lecture us on the rights and wrongs of history ?

WHO WILL BUY MY LUVERLY EURO-BONDS ?

The 'G20' meeting in Mexico ended with the usual meaningless words and very little, if any, action. However, Eurozone countries now appear to have come up with another bright idea aimed at preventing the collapse of their currency; they will, collectively, buy up vast amounts of bonds issued by the worst affected countries, initially meaning Spain and Italy. The intention of this action is to allow Spain and Italy to raise money at rates of interest that ignore market forces and the inherent weakness of their internal economies.

On the face of it, this ploy could work for a while. Unfortunately, all it really does is to spread the weakness of the worst affected around all of the others, creating an overall weakened group of nations. The final result is that nothing changes, the Eurozone as a whole stays in every bit as much of a mess as it was before the idea was mooted.

In an effort to avoid having to make the politically unacceptable decisions that the Eurozone problems really need, politicans are thrashing around trying to find evermore futile ways of shoring up a collapsing building. The amounts of money being committed have escalated from a few billion to, now, a reported 6-700 billion Euros; my understanding of the opinions of the wisest heads is that even this astronomical sum is nowhere  near enough to resolve the situation.

If it wasn't so terrifying, it would be comical.