DO AS I SAY ........... ?

In the light of the recently imposed pay freeze on all public sector workers earning a remotely reasonable salary, it is being suggested that MPs should forego the 1% increase that has been unaccountably awarded to them by the Senior Salaries Review Body.

Forgive me for seeming naive, but aren't MPs 'public sector workers' and, accordingly, subject to the same pay freeze as all the others ? If it is deemed that they are not, is it not still the height of hypocrisy for them to even give house-room to the idea of a pay rise for themselves while so many others will receive nothing ? After all, it is MPs, as our representatives and being paid their salaries and expenses from our pockets, who have presided over the disastrous collapse of our economy in the last few years; should they not bear their share of the pain ? 

Our Parliamentary representatives appear to have learnt nothing from the events of the last couple of years and seem to continue to be motivated by personal ambition and greed, and little else. Their perpetual whining about the operation of the expenses body, IPSA, while their may be some justification, is simply another manifestation of this. They do themselves no favours by these actions. 

SUFFER THE LITTLE CHILDREN - AND THE PARENTS, TOO.

Ever since the invention of the 'Welfare State', the Government and its ever increasing armies of do-gooding employees have been inveigling their way into our lives at every opportunity. They tell us, ad nauseam, that they know what is best for us and, in particular, best for our children.

Today, it's reported that a Government-commissioned report, written by Labour MP Graham Allen, is recommending 'regular assessments of all pre-school children, focusing on their social and emotional development'. This is, apparently, in the cause of improving the lives of 'vulnerable' children and will help to 'break the cycle of dysfunction and under-achievement'. Mr Allen also wants a 'national parenting programme' to be introduced.

As well as being anathma to any sane human being, this type of Government sponsored micro-management of the lives of individuals is a recipe for social breakdown on a massive scale. Parents have been looking after their children for milennia  without ever needing to be introduced to the recently invented jargon of 'parenting'; words such as this are invented purely to separate 'those who know best' from the rest of us. It's meaningless twaddle and we do not need a national programme in it.

The prospect of a vast new army of interfering social work types knocking on doors and demanding to be allowed to assess our children is grossly offensive but is typical of socialist thinking. Children develop at different speeds and every home is different; how on earth are these 'experts' going to be able to tell whether a child is progressing well or otherwise ? What will they be empowered to do should they find a child who is not, in their opinion, progressing properly ? Will they remove the child to a state-run institution where all will magically be put right ? How many such institutions will be needed in order to deal with the hordes of 'dysfunctional' children and how many homes will be torn assunder in the vain attempt to raise a generation of state indoctrinated clones ?

Mr Allen's proposals are imbecilic and the Government should reject them out of hand. It is for parents to bring up their own children, it is not the for the Government to set down guidelines, rules and assessment criteria - that is the way of Maoist communism. The more the self-appointed intelligensia try to make everyone the same, the worse the situation will become. We thrive on difference and opportunity, not on sameness.

To borrow from Henry II, "Who will rid us of these troublesome lefties ?". Please God, someone do it, and soon.

DOCTORS IN CLOVER

I read with some amusement of the surprise and even horror that's being expressed over the 'discovery' that some NHS medical consultants are milking the system to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds. Having been a senior NHS manager, I don't have the rose-coloured glasses that many do when discussing this national treasure.

As a senior manager, I was paid a salary, a reasonable though far from excessive one, which was to compensate me for doing my job, no matter what hours I worked. My salary was significantly less than that of a consultant and there was NO OVERTIME. For doctors, it is not like this.

Most medical consultants work an arcane system of 'sessions' 11 sessions of 3½ hours each equating to full time. Many consultants choose to limit their NHS contracts to 10 sessions, making them in the jargon, 'maximum part time'. This status allows them to carry out as much private work as they like as long as they fulfill their basic NHS committments. Very recent consultant appointees work a basic 10 'programmed activities' (more jargon), each of 4 hours and, if they engage in private work, they 'may' be required to also provide an additional 1 period of 'programmed activity' to their Trust, paid at their basic rate. Beyond either arrangement, consultants are free to negotiate whatever additional payments they can for working extra hours.

The clear difference between the contract I had and that of medical consultants is that mine was for doing a job while their's is for working a very specific number of hours. Egged on by their Trade Union, the BMA, many are far from slow to exploit their employers for all their worth - the simple fact is that while their are many good and committed consultants, there are many who are mean-spirited and avaricious in the extreme. 

On one occasion, years ago, I was telephoned at home by a general surgeon who'd been asked to go into the hospital to see a patient. He didn't think it was 'his job' as a more junior doctor should have taken the responsibility, however, the hospital was busy and the juniors were all fully occupied. Doctor 'X' told me, somewhat aggressively, that he was prepared to go in but only if I agreed to him being paid £250 for doing so. Even though he lived no more than ½ mile from the hospital and was the on-call consultant, I had little choice but to agree as I'd been told the patient needed urgent medical attention. Although all this was at around 2 in the morning, I received nothing for my part as I was simply the 'on-call Senior Manager' and it was part of my job.

I've known other consultants to query an apparent discrepancy of a few coppers in their travel or other expenses, and quibble over pence in the calculation of pay ward arrears. Be in no doubt, there are some very unpleasant people in the medical profession. All that said, I've also met many other consultants who were the exact opposite; these would treat their job as a job and not adopt the hidebound attitude of some of their colleagues. These were the doctors who would put the patient first, always, and regardless of their own inconvenience.

The moral of this story really is simple; if the system allows exploitation, their are always mean-minded and greedy people who will take advantage.

ARE YOUR TWITTERS LEAKING ?

I read that the US Government, that bastion of civil rights and liberties, is demanding access to the names, addresses, telephone numbers, connection records and payment details of numerous people connected with WIKILEAKS who have used the TWITTER website.

Now, while the Yanks may have some case for asking for the records of Julian Assange, how can they possibly justify asking for the records of others against whom no charges have been made ? Even Mr Assange has, as yet, not been charged with any offence by the US authorities, as far as I am aware, and one wonders what grounds the Government has for asking for what is his personal information. This seems to be a monumental case of 'fishing' for anything that might be vaguely incriminating or helpful to the Government in its attempts to close his annoying website.

JO YEATES

Police in Bristol hunting the murderer of Jo Yeates seem to be stumbling around with very little to show for three weeks of effort. Apart from the abortive arrest of Miss Yeates landlord, which seems now to have been a desperation measure, what have they done ? What evidence have they uncovered ? How close are they to identifying and arresting a genuine suspect ?

Given that Miss Yeates movements on the day of her disappearance seem to be well established, how is it that so little progress seems to have been made ?

MEN OF STRAW

Following a court case involving two Asian men abusing girls in Derby, former Home Secretary, Jack Straw, has been quoted as saying that some UK Pakistani men see white girls as "easy meat" for sex abuse. Keith Vaz, Labour chairman of the House of Commons' Home Affairs' Committee, says this is not a cultural problem and it is wrong to "stereotype" a whole community.

Unless I've missed something, Jack Straw's comments do not stereotype anyone and Mr Vaz is, therefore, making an unnecessary remark. It is also the case that Mr Vaz is treading on very dodgy ground with his own comment about this not being a "cultural problem".

If the positions were reversed and we had white men praying on Asian girls, Mr Vaz would be one of the first to shout "Racism" from the rooftops, clearly stereotyping the activity as a cultural issue. In fact, it seems that any adverse action by a white person against a coloured one is automatically labelled "racist", while the opposite rarely is. Why is this ?

The indigenous white population of the UK is regarded by certain left-leaning elements in our society as being inherently racist and every action is scrutinised for possible racist undertones. Conversely, those of recent immigrant backgrounds are portrayed as being the downtrodden underdogs and their actions are excused whenever possible, racism is rarely advanced as a reason for their actions and the courts fall over themselves to protect them. Witness the recent insane decision not to deport a failed asylum seeker with various convictions including driving while disqualified and failing to stop after an accident in which a 12 year old child was killed.

I don't know whether the men jailed yesterday were guilty of any sort of racial motive in their crimes but it doesn't actually matter. Every crime should be treated on the evidence, not on the basis of some sort of manufactured beliefs about why people do certain things. We should not stereotype but that is exactly what Mr Vaz and his ilk do, while denouncing it when it suits them. They have established the idea of many communities existing side by side when, in reality, we are one community; the sub-divisions are divisive and should be swept away. What people do behind closed doors is up to them but on the streets and in the workplaces everyone should accept the same laws and customs of behaviour and abide by them. The vast majority of crimes would then naturally take place within the one real Community and could be judged accordingly. 

VAT RISE IS WRONG.

In this era of 'The New Politics', one might have hoped that Ed Milliband would have been a little more forthcoming about his alternative to the Government's VAT increase. Instead, Milliband minor simply whines that the increase coming into effect tomorrow is 'the wrong tax at the wrong time'.

Given that it was Mr Milliband's Government, of which he was a compliant member, which caused the enormous deficit that we now face through its profligate spending, it really is laughable that his only contribution to the deficit reduction debate is a negative one. I don't want VAT to rise, any more than I want any tax to rise, however, the legacy of the last Labour Government is such as to make tax rises and spending reductions essential. Of course, a rise in VAT will hit families, including those who are part of the so-called poor as well as those who are part of the so-called rich, but it is the families at the poor end of this equation that have been the main beneficiary of Government largesse in recent years, entirely paid for by anyone with a few coppers in their pockets. Income tax thresholds have risen much more slowly than either earnings or inflation and the upper limit, that determines when the 40% rate kicks in, has been held back to such an extent that vast numbers of people are now caught by it even though their salaries are modest; national insurance has been increased and savers have been horribly penalised by the artificially low rates currently on offer. On the other side, the 'poor' have too often had no incentive to seek work as the state pretty well guarantess them a reasonable income through its maze of benefits and less well-off families have benefited enormously from the insane tax credit system. 

If Milliband disagrees with this he should set out his alternative strategy, otherwise he should keep quiet. For my part, I say stop the benefits and cut all taxes, including VAT. Benefits should be only for those who can't find work or who are genuinely in need; taxes should be paid in order to allow the state to provide essential services, not for it to satisfy every whim of every bleeding heart. Sadly, neither suggestion is likely to be adopted as all our politicians are far too wedded to the notion of state support for all and sundry, whatever they might say in public.

COVICTED BY THE PRESS - 2.

So the landlord of murdered architect Jo Yeates has been released on police bail. Clearly, after almost 3 days of detention and questioning, the police have been unable to produce any evidence that he was guilty of anything more than being Miss Yeates landlord.

It is, of course, possible that this man did commit the crime but, in these days of in depth forensic analysis, it must now seem very unlikely; surely some concrete evidence would have been found by now. What looks more probable is that the police, in desperation, picked on the nearest available suspect and then went on a fishing expedition, more in hope than expectation. This was a high-profile crime and a result is needed.

What is left is the stench of the incredibly intrusive media coverage that virtually had the landlord convicted days ago. Even some of the BBC's reporting left much to be desired, with pictures and speech inflections aimed at letting us all know what an evil man this was. The Attorney General has indicated some concerns over the coverage, but he needs to do much more and ensure that this type of situation does not arise again.

THE HOUSE THAT RINGO LIVED IN.

I read that the Housing Minister, Grant Shapps, has asked Liverpool City Council to delay a regeneration scheme in order to allow conservation groups more time to put forward plans designed to preserve an old terraced house. Apparently, the house was the birthplace of ex-Beatle Ringo Starr, and his family lived there for 3 months after his birth.

Eleswhere in the news, Mr Shapps is found bemoaning the slow pace of house building and the inexorable rise in house prices. He wants more houses built and the introduction of an age of "house price stability".

What kind of dream world does this idiot minister inhabit ? One has to assume that Liverpool City Council is trying to do exactly what Mr Shapps wants by way of improving condiions in its area and yet this goon is interfering over a house once occupied for a very short time by a pop group drummer. Some things are certainly worth preserving but it seems that, in this case, Mr Shapps is simply bowing to moronic populist pressure.

Get real, Mr Shapps. This country has more than enough genuine problems for you to worry about without you playing populist political games over matters of no importance whatsoever.

CONVICTED BY THE PRESS ?

It's good to see that the Attorney General has finally decided to do something about the disgraceful media coverage of the Jo Yeates murder, though it seems he has yet to be convinced that anything more than a few words of warning is necessary.

The arrested man may be responsible but he has not yet been charged with any offence. Regardless of this, some of the media coverage appears to have equated arrest not only with charge but with undoubted guilt as well. The naming of the man is, itself, surely an invasion of his privacy and civil rights, while the general publication of his life's story is entirely unwarranted. Overall, the coverage undoubtedly threatens his right to a fair trial, if it comes to that.

The murder of Miss Yeates was a shocking event, but it cannot justify the current media coverage. A few years ago, we were subjected to something similar after the killing of Jill Dando, and we all know how that ended. Let's not have a repeat performance.

CHARITY BEGINS .......... EVERYWHERE ?

So, in its desperation, the Government is considering a scheme whereby we would all be 'asked' to donate to charity every time we use our bank cards or cash machines, fill in tax returns or apply for passports or driving licences. Additionally, and joy of all joys, should anyone lucky enough to win a big Lottery prize give a chunk of it to 'Good Causes', they would receive, wait for it, a thank-you letter from a Minister ! WOW !!!

Before we all get carried away with excitement, let's pause for thought.

Charities are usually set up to fill gaps in areas where Government can't or won't provide particular services.

Before the Lottery was introduced, the 'Good Causes' were generally recipients of largesse from Government.

Government decides what is, and what is not, a 'Good Cause'.

Anyone shaking a tin under your nose in a public place is doing something illegal - they are begging.

What this adds up to is that the Government is actually considering the creation of a state-sponsored system of legalised begging, set up to provide funds for those services that it no longer wishes to provide itself, the funds accruing from the National Lottery no longer being sufficient.

Not bloody likely. When I give to charity, it's for something I, not the Government, believe in, it's on my terms and at a time of my choosing. These proposals are nothing less than the nationalisation of charitable giving and should be thrown out without further ado.

AIRPORT DISRUPTION FINES.

So the Government's response to the recent impact of the exceptionally rare and extreme of recent weeks is to consider fining airports for letting passengers down.

I despair. This type of knee-jerk reaction is designed purely for effect and to try to convince the electorate that Government is 'doing something about it'. Of course, if there is genuine failure on the part of organisations such as airports, there should be penalties, but these are already enshrined in various agreements and laws; travellers have rights and can exercise them, but the recent weather has been the most severe this country has experienced in decades.

Is the Aviation Minister, Ms Villiers, going to define what she means by the phrase 'let passengers down' ? Indeed, how can this phrase be properly defined, with its clearly open-ended wording ? Airports should be prepared and able to cope with conditions which occur with reasonable frequency but they cannot be expected to deal with all possible scenarios unless they also pass the additional costs onto their customers. Fining them will be no different, and the costs will ultimately appear as higher prices for travellers.

This Government originally said it was intent on sweeping away the mountains of red tape and bureaucracy created by the last lot; is it now simply planning to replace what it doesn't like with its own brand of crap ?

GREEDY TRAIN DRIVERS.

Train drivers on the London Underground have demanded triple time and a day off in lieu for working today, Sunday 26th December. London Underground has refused the request, so the drivers have gone on strike.

Sack the lot of them. Thousands of other workers have to give up the annual bank holiday and other days because their jobs demand it, and many get no extra pay, let alone the package demanded by these greedy wretches on the underground.

The travelling public suffers ever-less public transport during holiday times and pays ever-more for it. It is time this ridiculous situation was resolved once and for all.

NHS CUTS TO ENDANGER LIVES ?

The head of the nurses union, the RCN, says that job cuts in the NHS 'could endanger patients' lives'.

This is a typical remark from a union boss that is essentially meaningless. Anything 'could endanger lives'. Instead of bleating this sort of tripe, why doesn't this person make some suggestions as to how the grotesquely inflated budget of the NHS can be used more effectively WITHOUT endangering patients' lives ? That would be worth hearing.

WRITERS IN FANTASY LAND

I read that 'leading writers have condemned a government decision to withdraw funding from a charity that provides free books to children to encourage reading'.

My first reaction is to ask why such a charity should exist and my second is to ask why the Government should fund it. The Government pays for education in our schools and it is for parents to deal with the education of children at home. When I was a child, my mother sat with me and taught me to read; I gained an enthusiasm for reading and either bought books out of my pocket money or received them as presents for birthdays or Christmases. If this was insufficient, I borrowed books from the local library, another state funded body.

With all the billions of pounds spent on the education system and hordes of experts and, supposedly, highly qualified teachers that we have, why should it be necessary to have a charity that now takes on the role of encouraging children to read ? Is it that the parents no longer have the time, interest or ability to help their children with their learning and, if so, shane on them !

That this charity apparently receives £13m from the Government is astonishing. The whole notion of charity is that it achieves something Government cannot or will not and the modern practise of Government setting aside resources to give to charities is nonsensical. If a charity is needed, individuals will contribute and that's that. If individuals don't contribute, or don't contribute 'enough', it is not for Government to prop it it up and the charity should cut its cloth according to its available resources.

If there is a real need, this provision of books should be handled directly through the schools, doing away with the need for this charity and its no doubt costly administration. The writers who object so much to the Government's proposals can always contribute some of their own income to a new charity if they wish, though I doubt they will see that as an attractive option.