FREE BANKING NEVER DID EXIST.

The usually sensible organisation 'Which ?' has just announced that the concept of "free banking" is a myth. This announcement has come after 'Which ?' conducted a detailed investigation into the banking servces that are offerred to the public.

That the conclusion reached is a "statement of the bleedin' obvious" hardly needs to be stated. Anyone who has the temerity to go overdrawn knows full-well that there are charges attached to maintaining their accounts. Most banks try to encourage customers to opt for accounts that carry a wide range of wholly unnecessary extras, mostly insurance based, for which there are monthly charges, while those who choose to use a basic account find that there is no interest paid on their positive balances.

The modern world makes it almost impossible to exist without having a bank account. Salaries, pensions and benefits are no longer paid in cash and recipients must have bank accounts in order to receive their income. Many companies impose financial penalties on customers who do not pay their bills by 'direct debit' and anyone without a functioning bank account will find it virtually impossible to obtain a loan of any sort.

While it may be that the ways in which our banks raise their vast profits are currently skewed against those who go overdrawn, opt for additional services and products or prefer not to use the direct debit system for payments, when interest rates return to more normal levels those who maintain a healthy positive balance will find that it is more likely to be they who are most disadvantaged. This latter group has no alternative but to accept the loss of interest, while the former has choices - should I go overdrawn ? Do I really want the additional products ? Why don't I use direct debit for paying my bills ?

By all means get the banks to identify the real costs of their services and even have them move towards more targeted charges, but implement this alongside proper recompense for those who maintain healthy balances and with a recognition that having a bank account is no longer an option but a necessity.

RAIL FARE RISES POINT TO MORE FUTURE PAIN.

Today is 'inflation day' with the publication of the estimated rate of inflation for the 12 months to the end of July 2012. The 'Consumer Price Index' or CPI rose by 2.6% and the 'Retail Price Index' or RPI rose by 3.2%.

The Government has recently changed how these numbers are used and most state benefits and other payments are linked to CPI while charges to users are linked to the RPI. Historically, CPI has usually been lower than RPI, meaning that the government wins hands down most of the time.

These latest figures are also used to determine the rise in rail fares to be implemented next January. In England, the figures mean that fares will rise by an average of 6.2%, this being in line with a formula of RPI+3%. How such an increase can be justified at a time of economic crisis escapes me.

When I was a child, our railway stations were clean and bright, always open and staffed by friendly people who were on hand to help in any way that they could; fares were also afffordable. Today, our stations are mostly dirty and dingey places, frequently lacking staff even in the ticket office, and looking for help with luggage or in any other way is a hopeless task. This shocking fall in service has, nonetheless, been accompanied by a vast increase in prices, to such an extent that many people undoubtedly find train travel unaffordable.

The government tells us that the increased fares are necessary in order to fund badly needed investment across the rail network, though were this occurring is a mystery to me. If such investment actually is needed, why has it not been made over the recent decades rather than suddenly being needed now ? Is driving people off of the railways through huge prices rises really the course to follow ? Why is it that so many places remain unconnected by the rail network and the car is still the only realistic mode of transport for so many journeys ?

The sad truth to all of this is that successive governments have made a total mess of our economy over so many years that the position is now all-but irretrievable. They've robbed us blind with a range of taxes and other charges and borrowed until their eyes watered, while squandering every last farthing on bolstering up their own images and egos. A 6.2% increase for rail fares is simply another insignificant shot in correcting the balance and there's much, much more pain and misery to come yet.

TIA LET DOWN BY FAMILY AND INCOMPETENT POLICE.

The shocking mess that the police seem to have made of their investigation into the disappearance of a 12 year old girl in Surrey makes one wonder what was going on.

When children go missing, the usual starting point is with the parents and other close family members. In this case and for some as yet undiscovered reason, the police actually did start in the right place but failed to draw the right conclusions; it was only after a return to the starting point and a second bite of the cherry that they found the girl's body, apparently hidden in the house which they had 'thoroughly searched' only a few days before.

Having got it so wrong, the police have now charged the boyfriend of Tia Sharps's grandmother, a relationship which itself raises questions in one's mind' with the murder of this poor child. This sounds like yet another dysfunctional family - while we have heard much of Tia's 46 year old grandmother, her parents have been invisible, at least in my reading of the story. This story also has echoes of the recent tragedy in Derbyshire in which several children were burnt to death in a housefire started by their own family; once again, we have seen tearful and apparently heartfelt television appeals for information from the perpetrators of these horrific acts.

Whatever story eventually comes out, a 12 year old child is dead, murdered by someone close and whom she trusted and let down by her blood family. After death, she was also let down by the police, at least partly because they're too stretched chasing people for a whole variety of minor 'social crimes'

and simply unable to apply the highest and most rigorous standards to the most important crimes.

CAMERON JOINS COMMUNIST PARTY !

According to today's news, Prime Minister David Cameron, the idiot from Eton, has announced that he intends making it compulsory for all primary school children to partake in competititve team sports. When this will actually happen seems unclear but it is quite clearly a typical 'knee-jerk' reaction to an assortment of criticisms about the nature of the 'Olympic Legacy' which we are supposed to experience in the future.

Forgive me for being cynical and not a little angry about this nonsense, but wasn't this type of central control and direction a principal characteristic of Communist Russia ? Didn't this country and many others roundly condemn the old Soviet Union for its excesses in this area ?

That Cameron is an idiot for this announcement will gradually become clear as people realise that providing access to a range of sports, team or otherwise, will require the involvement of a huge number of trained coaching staff who will, no doubt, look for appropriate financial reward. That many sports require playing fields which no longer exist and specialist equipment which will be unaffordable for many has obviously not been considered.

That many sports are not of a team nature - most athletics, gymnastics, tennis, golf, boxing, swimming, cycling and so on, has been ignored. That many children will have no aptitude for football, cricket, rugby, hockey, or netball, has been ignored; so have the undoubted screeches of the 'health and safety' lobby which will object vehemently to small children being put a risk by playing almost any sports.

Making involvement in 'team sports' compulsory is ludicrous. It will do nothing to encourage the next generation of Mo Farahs, Jessica Ennis's or Rebecca Addlingtons and others who prefer individual competition. Cameron's announcement is nothing more than a pathetic piece of political spin, designed to keep him ahead of the game - in this case he's unlikely to win a medal of any colour and may well find himself disqualified.

WIGGINS IN THE NEWS AGAIN.

Now that he has become a fully paid-up sporting celebrity, Bradley Wiggins seems to have started down the road of using his status to tell the Government what they should be doing.

Wiggins is a cyclist so it's unsurprising that his particular cause for concern is cyclists. The story is that he's calling for more legislation to be introduced, compelling cyclists to wear helmets and have proper lights, and prohibiting the use of iPods and mobile phones whilst cycling, and so on. This all comes following the death of cyclist who was in collision with a bus close to the Olympic Park.

I have to say that Wiggins comments seem to make perfect sense, unlike the public utterances of many similar 'celebrities', but none of it will make any difference. The laws in place to control motorists are largely unenforced and unenforceable. Drivers who are 'caught' speeding, drink-driving, failing to wear a seat belt, driving with uninsured or untaxed vehicles, jumping traffic lights and the rest are the unlucky ones. Generally, the police have far more important things to do than bother with such trivia. Attempting to introduce similar laws for cyclists will be even more unenforceable.

Bicycles do not have number plates and do not require road tax or insurance; there is no central register of cyclists and they do not have to pass a test before being allowed on the roads. Consequently, they are a law unto themselves. Cyclists routinely ride an and off the pavement, picking and choosing whether to use pavement or road on a whim; they frequently ignore traffic lights, rarely make hand signals and often have no lights. Very few seem to wear high-visibility clothing and others sometimes veer wildly across the road without warning; younger children and teenagers ride with gay abandon, seemingly daring motorists to knock them down.

Wiggins is absolutely right that something needs to be done but new laws controlling the behaviour of cyclists are not the answer. What is needed is more discipline, starting at home and being continued in schools; no bike should be sold unless it has proper lighting attached and working, and no bike should be sold unless a helmet goes with it. If parents have to pay for these things, are they not more likely to ensure that they are used ? Schools should return to the old days of running 'cycling proficiency courses' which could even be seen as a first step on the way to a driving licence, and cyclists should be required to have insurance, exactly the same as other road users.

These measures may not be a universal panacea but they would go someway to starting to bring in a more sensible regime for cyclists and might help to prevent at least some of the accidents in which they are involved and the injuries that result.

GOLD MEDAL FOR FARCE GOES TO "LOCOG".

As the Olympics finally get underway, the expected raft of 'cock-ups' has started to surface.

How all the so-careful and competent organisation managed to mix up the flags of the 2 Koreas has to be a mystery as does the announcement of a footballer as being English when he is actually Welsh. These types of errors are ones which no self-respecting offical should ever have allowed and their occurence raises serious concerns about the overall management of the Games.

The other issue which has now come to the fore is a fairly obvious one to anyone who's watched any of the events so far; arenas have been half-empty. Watching some of the tennis yesterday, it was clear that the Wimbledon courts were less than half full and the absence of atmosphere was tangible. Considering the vast amount of effort that went into 'ticketing' and the vast number of people who seem to have been disappointed, this is a total mess.

Sebastian Coe and his pals on the organising committee have been busily blaming the sponsors who were allocated large numbers of tickets that appear to be unused; the sponsors are busily at work denying they have any culpability. Whatever the problem and whoever is to blame, the reuslt is a farcical situation for which LOCOG have to carry the can, as they do for every other 'cock-up'.

CAMERON'S POOR JUDGEMENT MIGHT OPEN DOOR FOR BORIS.

On Tuesday eveing I caught a minute or two of a speech being given by Boris Johnson. It was something to do with the Olympics but, in true Boris style, was also a mixture of the serious and the humorous.

Boris has, on occasion, been mooted as a future leader of the Conservative and I, no doubt along with many others, tend to laugh out load at such a suggestion. How could this buffoon ever be put in a position in which he could become Prime Minister ?

However, the question that occurs is 'Is he any more of a buffoon than any of his challengers for the role ?' David Cameron's standing has been seriously damaged by this week's announcement that not only his close friend, Rebekah Brooks, but also his hand-picked choice as his Head of Comminications at Downing Street, Andy Coulson, are among those to be charged with further offences in connection with the 'phone-hacking' scandal. This develeopment raises further questions over Cameron's judgement and must bring his long-term future into question also.

The potential challengers for the Tory leadership have, one by one, also managed to shoot themselves down in flames; Liam Fox and Jeremy Hunt have done themselves no favours in recent times and the lacklustre, if not downright hopeless performance of George Osborne has surely ruled him out of contention. Other senior Tories such as Theresa May, Andrew Lansley and Philip Hammond have also got themselves into a variety of pickles, as has Eric of that ilk.

All this leaves Boris as a shining beacon, seemingly untouched by the farcical events surrouding the Olympics and simply being 'Boris'. Is it really so impossible that he might emerge as the principal contender for Cameron's job, perhaps sooner rather than later ? In the great series 'Yes Minister' Jim Hacker, a likeable though distinctly second rate minister became Prime Minister in almost identical circumstances, with those around him being initially horrified by the thought, then dismissive of it; finally, they realised that it was a possibility and, Lo !, Jim became PM.

The more one thinks about it, the more one comes to the conclusion that perhaps, just perhaps, Prime Minister Boris might not be such a bad choice. If nothing else, he'd be different and would brighten up our lives !

LICENCES AT 21 TO REDUCE ROAD DEATHS.

It's been reported today that the Transport Select Committee of the House of Commons has been criticising the government for a supposed lack of leadership on road safety issues. This criticism comes after it's also been reported that the number of road fatalities has shown its first increase in almost a decade. It seems that road accidents are also the main cause of death amongst people aged 16 to 24 and the Committee has demanded 'more help to keep young drivers and cyclists safe and to improve the design of roads'.

While the Committee's aims may seem very laudable, it also appears to be yet another example of the 'Nanny State' interfering unreasonably in the lives of the population. Leaving cyclists aside, for their seem to be very few of them these days, to my mind, if someone is old enough to be driving on our roads, they are also old enough to look after their own safety; if they cannot keep themselves safe, they should not be on the roads, and it should not be for the Government to impose special road designs or motoring restrictions in order to 'keep them safe'.

What may also have been ignored by the Committee is the ever-increasing population and the increasing congestion on our roads. With 3.7 million extra people in the country since 2001, it is surely inevitable that there will be more cars, more congestion and more accidents; the appalling state of our public transport system also leads to more people being driven to use the roads for journies that have become far too long winded by other means. All of this increase in road traffic must inevitably lead to more fatalities.

When we consider younger motorists, how many of their fatalities are a result of anything other than their own recklessness ? We all know about the indiscipline and arrogance of modern youth and we've all seen the way in which some young drivers behave, racing around the streets at breakneck speeds and with total disdain for for other road users. It can be no coincidence that insurance costs for this group of motorists are so much higher than for older age ranges.

If the Government is to reduce road deaths among the 16-24 age group, it has an easy and obvious option. At present children can legally drive a car on our roads at the age of 17; while, 50 years ago, this was an age at which these young people had experienced a disciplined upbringing and the majority had left school and were engaged in the adult world of work, today they have been fed nothing but drivel about their rights, with no discipline and no thought of responsibility. Many have never even contemplated the idea of work and are still wedded to an infantile life of childish pursuits. To allow these mentally immature individuals to get behind the wheels of potentially lethal weapons is a recipe for disaster.

If they really want to reduce road accidents, the Government should increase the age for obtaining a driving licence to 21. This wouldn't be popular but it is not Government's job to be popular; it is to do what is right in given circumstances.

THEY SHOULD HAVE LISTENED TO ENOCH.

There was a most interesting juxtaposition of items on Radio 4 yesterday lunchtime when a talk by Jim Naughtie about the life of Enoch Powell was followed by a news story concerning the 2011 census.

As many will be aware, Enoch Powell was a man of strong convictions and unpopular views, at least amongst his political brethren. In 1968 he made a speech about immigration which caused huge anger and effectively ended his political career, not because what he said was wrong but because it was not in line with the liberal thinking of that time. Powell expressed serious concerns about the impact of mass immigration on our society and spoke against 'anti-discrimination' legislation which was then before Parliament. He warned that a continuation of the immigration being experienced at that time, which was much less than we have seen in more recent years, allied to the continuing growth of communities derived from these immigrants, would lead to serious imbalances in our society and implied that civil unrest might follow. At the time, he was roundly condemned by the intelligensia and, even today, his 'Rivers of Blood' speech is frequently misquoted and misinterpreted by those with a left-wing bias.

Immediately after Naughtie's biographical piece on Powell's life, came the 1 o'clock news, which included an item on the initial results of the 2011 census. Apparently, the population of England and Wales showed a greater increase between 2001 and 2011 than had ever been experienced before, somewhere in the region of 7% in the 10 year period. This increase was partly attributable to greater longevity but seems to have been largely due to the effects of immigration and general increases in the numbers of immigrant-derived communities. The enormous strain that this change is placing on our society is all too evident from the increasing emphasis places on all matters racial.

When Powell spoke in 1968, the number of recent immigrants in our society was small. In my own family's area, a coloured face was rarely seen and I recall the surprise when a boy of West Indian origin turned up at my secondary school, not that he was treated as being particularly different, neither was he discriminated against in any way. Since that time, the same area has become largely dominated by immigrant families; to revisit the area today is to trek through an alien world, one that has nothing in common with the place of my youth and is unrecognizable to me. Such change has been replicated across large swathes of our country with the major cities particularly affected; many now have areas where the local population is predominantly immigrant in origin and where the common language and customs are anything but English.

Whether or not Powell was right in his predictions of possible civil unrest, he was certainly right about the potential for growth in the immigrant population, a potential which successive governments have tried to ignore and even to hide from the native population. Powell was vilified for suggesting that the level of immigration should be reduced and even reversed; today, at least some of our politicians are saying these same things. Sadly, they are 40 years too late for their words to be of any use. 

G4S CHIEF FOR THE CHOP ?

Listening to the Chief Executive of G4S, the security company that's failed miserably to abide by its contract over the Olympic Games, one can only wonder how this organisation has grown to be the second biggest private sector employer in the world.

Nick Buckles may well be most appropriately named, for he certainly did 'buckle' when questioned on the 'Today' programme yesterday. Indeed, he demonstrated no real knowledge or understanding of the contract to supply thousands of security staff at the Games; he didn't know when problems had first been identified and didn't even know whether security staff would be required to speak fluent English.

Given the high profile nature of this contract, one can only assume that Mr Buckle will not long be in his job. Whoever is directly responsible for this debacle, the buck ultimately stops with him. 

TERRY'S RUDE WORDS NOT ILLEGAL.

After 5 days in court and heaven only knows how much wasted effort and money, one footballer, John Terry, has been found 'not guilty' of using rude words against another footballer, Anton Ferdinand.

That this nonsense ever got as far as a court says more than I ever could about the insanity of English law in these days of political correctness. Had both Terry and Ferdinand been white, the case would never have been brought; indeed, had Ferdinand been a white welshman whom Terry had been accused of calling a 'taffy sheep-shagger', it would not have come to court. Had Ferdinand been Scottish and Terry had called him a 'tight, haggis-eating jock' it would not have come to court.

So-called racist offences only occur when one of the parties, almost always the supposedly offended against, is coloured; this itself is clearly nonsensical and throws our law into disrepute. Making reference to 'garlic eating frogs' or 'sausage eating krauts' brings down little if any rebuke, while individual words such as 'paki', 'nigger' or even 'black' bring down the most draconian retribution.

No one should condone genuinely offensive behaviour but the extra emphasis placed on supposed offences committed by whites upon blacks is unnecessary, unfair and divisive. In short, it is wrong and should stop.

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 ?