England, my England.

A recent example of those ubiquitous 'repost this if you agree' messages on Facebook made the case for maintaining 'English' traditions in the face of FIFA's ban on the England team wearing poppies, not being able to recite 'Baa Baa Black Sheep' without changing 'black' to 'rainbow' and having in our midst those who would wish to impose 'their' laws on us. It concluded by saying that those who did not want to accept 'English' rules could choose to live elsewhere (I paraphrase slightly - it was actually closer to 'fuck off').

It set me thinking about how people perceive the concept of ‘being English'. For the person that came up with the original post, the concept of Englishness seems to under threat and the root cause is Johnny Foreigner. In their eyes, nursery rhymes are changed so they don’t offend non-white children, Eurocrats have rendered us powerless and the imposition of Sharia law is just a heartbeat away. For the original poster, maintaining one’s English identity is a struggle in the face of impossible odds, but struggle he will and his valiant rallying cry of ‘live somewhere else if you don’t like it!’ will rival anything Shakespeare committed to paper. We English are immutable, unchanging, timeless and our Empire extends…..

Except ‘we English’ are a mongrel race formed out of centuries of invasions by European forces (the horror!) and subsequent settlement and intermarriage. The Normans, the last invaders of these shores, imposed French as the national language, but it never really extended beyond the King’s court and, although it took three hundred years, English prevailed as the mother tongue (Edward III became the first English monarch to address Parliament in English in 1362). Things change: things don’t change. And as for the Empire…well, that’s all gone and we are living with the consequences, both psychologically (hey, it’s not that long ago that the world map was still predominantly “ours” and it takes time to accept that we are no longer a superpower – please note Mr Blair and Mr Cameron!) and physically – the demise of industry and rise in immigration from the 1950s onwards. Things have certainly changed but, over time, things will work out. If…

A couple of days after the Facebook post, the infamous ‘racist mum on a tram’ video went viral: a woman berating the other passengers for being non-white and non-English, her language thoroughly peppered with expletives and throughout, her small son sat on her lap (the chilling fact is that he doesn’t bat an eyelid or get upset – he’s obviously used to it). The full extent of her bile can be seen here. Again, it made me think about Englishness. Hence…

My tips for being English
Reserve. When abroad, do not constantly bang on about being English if you are dressed in a St George’s cross t-shirt, getting loudly drunk and throwing up everywhere. That’s not being English, that’s being a dick. A return to English reserve and understatement, please! Which brings me to…

Civility. Your mother probably told you that politeness costs nothing. There is no cost in saying ‘please’ and ‘thank you’. It is part of acknowledging that there are other people in the world apart from you. And no, it is not acceptable to say ‘I’m not doing it because nobody else does’. We all have to start somewhere. Oh, and it extends to road use as well: there are other road users out there and they are all probably in just as much of a hurry as you.

Tolerance. Ok, some people worship at a mosque or a chapel or a synagogue. Fine – they have their beliefs and I have mine. Your next-door neighbour likes to dress as a Klingon. Great – it’s not your cup of tea, but he’s harmless and it’s not hurting you. Yes, there are a few idiots out there who might preach hatred, who might advocate the UK should be subject to Sharia law, who might say that we should all wear sky blue pink on a Sunday. But they are just that – a few. People have the right to speak freely in this country and that should be cherished. If you don’t like what you hear, you have the right to have your say too.

Pride. Being proud of your country of birth is a difficult thing. There is a fine line between ‘pride’ as something that helps bind a people together and ‘pride’ as embodied in jingoism or xenophobia. Being proud of your country does not give you the right to denigrate others. Pride is not about superiority.

Political correctness. “Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep” really happened, albeit only in a couple of SureStart centres back in 2006, I believe. The press (well, certain titles which are obsessed with PC) finds another story every once in a while that outrages people. Do not be outraged. In the same way that the haters and religious fanatics of all creeds are few (see above), so the PC zealots who are supposedly sucking the life out of life are also few. Anyone in their right mind is going to sing ‘Baa Baa Black Sheep’ to their little ones rather than try to crowbar the word ‘rainbow’ in there (it doesn’t even scan, for God’s sake!) or chose another colour such as ‘green’ (that’s not going to be disturbing to the kids is it?). Has anyone ever considered that ‘BBBS’ was in any way linked to race? No. You know what is right (if you are applying ‘Politeness’ and ‘Tolerance’ above) and you don’t need the sometimes bizarre worldview of PC to live by.

That’s it. I’m sure I could add more given time and more tea (oh yes, almost forgot that one! Drink tea – lots of it). My point, I guess, is that we should not lose sight of the qualities that we need in order to live together. We can choose to sit on a tram and moan about how powerless and ignored we are. We can choose to post messages on social networking sites about how our Englishness is being taken from us. Or we can actually go back to living some of the values that I recognize as quintessentially English. It might actually make the world a better place.

What does the poppy mean?

For most people, buying a poppy in November each year is just something that one does. We might be aware of the connection with Rememberance Sunday and the fallen war dead, but did we really think about what it meant as a symbol. Did we realise that the poppy was political?

Probably not, but as of this week, we suddenly found out that, according to FIFA, the governing body for world football, the poppy is a political symbol and, as such, cannot be worn on the England football kit in an international match. Of course, this triggered a mountain of press vitriol to crash down on FIFA (and Sepp Blatter in particular) and letters to be sent to FIFA from David Cameron and Prince William (the Sun credited William with changing FIFA's ruling, but in fact it was a compromise arrived at by a Tory MP and qualified referee which probably actually effected the change). FIFA 'backed down' in the face of the outcry and the England team will sport poppies on black armbands for the match against Spain.

So, the poppy is not a political symbol. Unfortunately, two protests organised by the EDL seem to demonstrate that, for some people, the poppy is definitely political. The first EDL protest was the occupation of the rooftop of FIFA's HQ in Zurich. The photos show an EDL member holding a banner where the "English Defence League" is bigger than any other wording protesting FIFA's poppy ruling. The second instance is the EDL choosing Armistice Day to launch their march on the protesters in the St Pauls 'Occupuy LSX' camp. In both cases, the EDL is attempting to appropriate what they see as symbols of 'Englishness' for their own ends. Both are entirely political acts. The FIFA rooftop protest actually seems to prove FIFA's point!

A little history lesson for the EDL. The poppy was first adopted as a rememberance symbol by an American woman, Moina Michael, and imported to Britain by a French woman, Madame Geurin, who was present when the poppy was adopted as the official symbol of remeberance of the US. The latter sent French women onto the streets of London to sell rememberance poppies in 1921 and we adopted the poppy from there. Secondly, the two minutes silence was the idea of a New Zealand officer who was unhappy with the idea that the scenes of jubilation seen at the end of the Great War would be repeated each year, leaving the dead amd their sacrifice forgotten. So our quintissential 'English' traditions are, perhaps, a little more international in their origins.

I don't want the EDL to hijack the poppy in the way that the far right 'stole' the flag of St George for so many years. The poppy should be a symbol of rememberance, something that makes us aware of the ultimate sacrifice that others made on behalf of future generations. It should be about reflection and contemplation, not bone-headed jingoism and xenophobia. And, dare I say it, to make it truly non-political, it should be about remembering that it is not just about 'our' dead, but should be about ALL casualties of war - our, theirs and the millions of civilian casualties - and questioning why we are still choosing to settle national differences through the medium of war.

The Departed

Until a few short months ago, I was a complete West Wing virgin. One of the most critically-acclaimed shows of all time had passed me by almost entirely (I think I recall seeing a brief moment of one episode on Channel 4 a long time ago, but upon finding out I was in the middle of a series, I turned over to another channel). I knew nothing of the lives of the best President that America never had, Jed Bartlet, and the dedicated staff of the White House. I was missing so much.

Recently, I was talking television shows with an acquaintance and I mentioned this lack of WW to him. Lo and behold, he just happened to be a massive fan of WW (and, as it turned out, all things Aaron Sorkin, the show's creator). He immediately supplied me with the boxed set of Series 1 and after one episode, I was hooked! Not just "Hmm, this looks interesting, let's try another episode" and building over time to an addiction. No, this was straight in there "WOW! Where has this show been all my life? Give me another episode now - hell, give me another five!" kind of TV rush. I think the bulk of that first season disappeared over the course of a weekend. And then, when you get to the end of the last DVD in that box it ends on a cliffhanger....and you haven't got Season 2 to start on - that's cold turkey, right there!

And so it went on, DVD after DVD, season after season. As we embarked on Season 7, the final season, there was a feeling of loss already starting to build in me, knowing that soon - too, too soon - it would all be over. And that day is now upon me. I have seen the final DVD, had a little tear as the characters faded from the screen for the last time. It has been a fabulous journey: crackling dialogue, some brilliant stories - often maintained over the arc of a season or more - and some unforgettable characters.

So, thank you Mr Sorkin for bringing to life President Bartlet, C J Cregg, Toby Ziegler, Josh Lyman, Donna Moss, Sam Seaborne, Leo McGarry, Charlie Young, Matt Santos, Arnold Vinick and all the other major and minor characters whose lives intertwined on screen over seven brilliant seasons. And thank you to John Fox for the loan of the DVD sets. I'd love to mention how pleased I am about the way some stories resolved themselves, but then I'd be depriving *you* of enjoying the outcomes for yourselves. If you have never seen the show, treat yourself. Go on - it really is just that - a treat!

Wimping out

Aaaagh! I just wrote about 600 words for a blog and then I deleted it because....well, I'm not sure why.

On the one hand, it was not too well constructed as an argument - it got a little disordered in the central section - but, that could probably have been sorted out. On the other hand, the bigger problem was that it was my thoughts on the hacking hoo-hah! I think this was the truly significant factor - I suddenly realised that, as things stand, it has all been said. Until we have a new, juicy revelation, we have said all that we can say on the subject. So, in the immortal words of Talking Heads, "When I have nothing to say/My lips are sealed/Say something once/Why say it again?"

Bon soir!

Random

Just had to commit these to (virtual) paper...

A caller to Any Answers on Radio 4 has just said "Well, it's just another nail in the catalogue of this government..." WTF?

A while back, there was a report on R4 (I do listen to other stations too, honest!) from the BBC's correspondent in Germany. He was doing a piece on Angela Merckel's problems and how she was no longer seen as unassailable in parts of Germany that were her strongholds. He reported that the German press had said that she no longer gave the impression of being the Iron Chancellor. The BBC man said that this was making reference to Margaret Thatcher. Really? The German press still make references to a former British PM who left office over 20 years ago? So, absolutely no connection then to Otto von Bismarck, the Prussian aristocrat who unified Germany in the 1870s and was known as the Iron Chancellor? Of course not. No parochial attitudes or dumbing down at the BBC...

What interests the public?

The whole Twittersphere is apparently awash with the identities of the people who currently have superinjunctions in place to stop the press exposing their extra-marital activities. In fact, because they are SUPERinjunctions, the press can't even mention that these restrictions are in place! No, I haven't seen any Tweets detailing the names (although I have heard who some are from other sources). The press is apparently ticked off that it cannot publish the lurid exposes that it wants to and we had the former editor of The Sun on PM on Radio 4 tonight telling us why it was awful that we, the public, were being denied access to this prime gossip and how it was going against "the public interest".

"Gossip" was the term he actually used and I think that the use of the term exposes a couple of problems with the Fleet Street (!) press. Firstly, "gossip" is speculation, hearsay, possibly tenuous, the product of Chinese whispers, mangled through retelling. There has always been a place for such rumours - the original newspapers popular in the coffee houses of the 17th century were awash with tittle-tattle and innuendo. However, until recently, we had taken to separating what is 'factual news' and comment from the gossip column: the latter was clearly delineated and in reading it, one knew what one was getting. Nowadays, with the ongoing cult of celebrity (in fact, mini- or micro-celebrity if truth be told), many of our 'newspapers' are little more than cover-to-cover lazily-fabricated rubbish about the lives of the (not very) rich and (hardly) famous. These so-called celebs probably don't even care what is written about them, because, having one's name in the paper by any means is counted as a win. Occasionally, the tabloids get caught out when their poetic license overtakes the available facts and the victim of their fantasy objects to a less than factual depiction (e.g. Max Mosley may enjoy an S&M orgy but NOT involving a Nazi theme). News - involving 'the real world' rather than Chantelle, Will'n'Kate, Jordan (sorry, Katie Price) et al - has pretty much disappeared from most tabloids.

Secondly, where is the "public interest" in a footballer or an actor having an affair? It just seems a bit immature to be filling papers with this stuff: some adults who happen to be slightly famous have had sex with people other than their marriage partners and the papers have to point this out. To what end? How do you, me or anyone else benefit from this knowledge? Do we feel better because their 'perfect' lives have been exposed as a sham? I don't - I just feel a bit grubby, a bit less good for knowing, as if I have intruded on a moment of private grief. Actors, footballers, Big Brother contestants and so forth have not set themselves up as moral beacons, giving us instructions as to how to lead a pure and blameless life. They are just some people who we kid ourselves we know because we have seen them on TV. We don't know them at all, but I know that they will suffer all the human failings and foibles that you, me and everyone else displays. There is no 'public interest' in exposing such failure in the press. If it was a politician who set him- or herself up as a moral crusader who got caught in flagrante then, by all means, point out their hypocrisy but even then, we don't need to gloat and drool over every last detail.

The sad thing is though, we seem to be buying into this crap as the red tops still sell in large volume. However, we truly have the press we deserve as long as we accept this shoddy fayre as 'journalism'. We have the power to do something about it - stop buying the offending rags (you know which ones).

A Deafening Silence

Not too long ago, we were told that we had to get involved in Libya because the ruthless dictatorship in control of that country was intent on murdering its own citizens. The very least that we in the West could do was to step in and protect those people. OK, whilst I was, admittedly, sceptical about that (no real plan about what to do once the Colonel's troops were stopped outside Benghazi; not enough leadership from Arab countries so that it looked like the West meddling (yet again) in the Middle East for example), it was probably the right thing to do plus we actually had UN backing for it too (that is, as long as we leave aside declarations of 'no mission creep' whilst targeting "command and control assets" that just happen to contain the dictator and his family. Of course it is not about regime change is it? No, leave that aside).

However, the inconsistency of the West in its dealings in the Middle East has come to the fore once again when we see the massive non-response to what is happening in Syria. As far as I can see we have a despot in power using the state machinery to try to crush fairly peaceful demonstrations against his rule. People are being arrested in large numbers (the adolescent males from all households in some places?!), whilst others are being killed and tortured. Um - what is the difference here? It sounds as if these people need 'protection' too. I'd hate to think that, just because Syria is counted as a rare ally of the West in the Middle East, it should be given carte blanche by the West to go about the mass murder of anyone calling for greater democracy in that country.

That couldn't happen, could it?

Man of the People 2

Oh dear, Ed. So short a time after Dave shot himself in the foot trying to be faux poor by jetting off to Spain on RyanAir, you have fallen into the same trap: being interviewed on a train and hoping no-one would notice you are in a first class carriage because the head rest cover had been removed. Stupid! You are the leader of the Opposition, for God's sake! People expect you to have a bit of clout, a bit of heft, a bit of (1st) class! I can think of any number of reasons why you might travel first class -space to work, security issues, hating the smell of the great unwashed - but don't try to pretend you were travelling econoclass: you will be found out and you will look all the smaller for it. Now, get back to kicking Dave'n'Nick's butt.

Man of the people

There can be fewer depressing sights than a politician trying to get down with the 'real' people. Photo opportunities involving pints of beer, cups of tea, fast food or any other perceived preoccupation of the man in the street are legion. In every one of them, the politician looks uncomfortable and desperate to run for the shower to wash away the stench of normality.

Dave and Sam took this to a whole new level of idiocy this week, flying Ryanair from Stansted to Spain. What was this supposed to prove - that we really are all in it together? Travelling alongside us plebs on Ripoffair does not make you real, normal or in tune with the working man. Dave - you are well off. Don't pretend you are not. It is patronising and insulting. Stop pretending that posing as Joe Schmoe will make you sympatico with the people that you are currently screwing. You look unhappy, Sam looks even unhappier and we can see you are proving nothing. Please get back to being the toff we all know you are.

Not our fault, guv!

I was listening to a spokesperson from the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) being interviewed on radio the other day. The interviewer was explaining to him a raft of concerns raised by train-using listeners, from the huge hike in ticket prices that are going to happen over the next three years (30% anyone?) to that lack of seats on trains. The answers that this PR-trained lackey intoned went something like this: "It's the government's fault", "That will be due to government rules", "We would, of course, like to do something about that, but those are the rules imposed by government" and so on. Until he reached the last question. A commuter had questioned the state of affairs that allows the rail company to take £4,000 from him for his season ticket and not once in the year provide him with a seat! That's right - four grand to stand everyday. And Mr ATOC's answer? "Well, it just demonstrates that the rail companies are victims of their own success!"

Leaving aside the notion that "successful" companies tend to invest in some capital items (carriages) rather than short-sightedly pocketing the profits, what a glibly cheap response that is, using the term "victim" to describe the train company rather than the poor sod who has been blatantly robbed. In fact, every one of his responses was the same: it's not our fault - it is all beyond our control. If that is the case and they can influence precisely nothing, what is ATOC for? Seemingly for nothing more than taking the money and running.

Yet another example of things being *so* much better since they were privatised.

Saving the NHS thousands of pounds!

A genuine article from that bible of excellent health advice, the Daily Mail. Why are we spending money on all sorts of mental health therapies?

So there you have it. Simple! Next week, appendectomies with a penknife and liposuction with your Dyson!

Thanks to butireaditinthepaper.co.uk for signposting this gem

Er - come again?

One of the areas that has been put under the spotlight by the popular uprisings (are they revolutions? Not sure....) in north Africa is the British arms trade. Okay, it is not a forensic investigation, admittedly, but it keeps being mentioned.

In the same way that there was a rash of concern a few weeks back that drugs supplied by a pharmaceutical wholesaler in West London might be used to kill Death Row inmates in the US, the role (or non-role) of British-made weapons in the suppression of uprisings is regularly mentioned in news reports on radio and TV. In the case of the drugs, I was more interested in how the US penal system ended up contracting with the owner of a minicab business for such a major slice of business. Did he put forward a great bid when he tendered for the business? Were his rates so competitive that money-conscious public bodies could not say 'no' to his prices? Or were the buyers looking to purchase from a source seemingly far off the radar because they realise the deal is just a little bit grubby?

Likewise, in the past we may have congratulated ourselves that we have a thriving arms industry that exports lots and lots of 'goods'. Fantastic for the UK balance of trade just as long as we don't have to think what they are used for. But then along comes a set of popular uprisings against tyrannical and hated ancien regimes which we find ourselves willing to succeed (whilst worrying a little about future consequences - but that is for another day!) and then someone spoils the party. They mention that the ruling governments might be using the weapons that we supplied to put down the protesters, to kill demonstrators. Ooops! That's not what we wanted at all...

Which brings us to Alistair Burt, Foreign Office minister in the coalition government, going on record last week to say that there was no evidence that British-made tear gas canisters had been used against protesters in Bahrain. How did he know? Did he phone the government there and get them to promise, on their honour, that they would not use the weapons we sold them to do anything nasty? Did he "have in his hand, a piece of paper"? How a government minister can make a claim like this and expect the public to accept it at face value beggars belief. But he did and I suspect a lot of people thought no more about it.

The arms trade has always been a double-edged sword: great for exports, bad for the preservation of human life. Robin Cook, for the most part a fine politician, God rest his soul, rather lost the plot when he talked about the need for our foreign policy to have an ethical dimension. How was that ever to be achieved? Our enemies today will be our friends next week and thus has it ever been so. Mr Orwell was not predicting the future in 1984, he was commenting on what had been going on for ages but was starting to descend into the demonic barn dance of partner changing that characterises world politics today. Similarly, an ethical foreign policy cannot be reconciled with a buoyant arms trade; no-one can guarantee the weapons they sell will only be used against 'bad guys' because, once you've sold 'em, you are no longer in control of 'em.

So thanks Alistair Burt for trying to make us feel a bit better about ourselves. Great Britain was not in any way helping to stifle the popular uprising in Bahrain and no civilians involved were harmed with British weapons. Nor ever will be. It must be true - our government told us.

I Blame the Renaissance...

A pretty shocking report from the Health Service Ombudsman today exposed the lack of care given to frail, elderly patients in NHS units. There were a number of distressing case studies that highlighted neglect and contempt for dignity bordering on abuse. How can this happen in the new, modern NHS?

When more outright abuse of vulnerable people came to light (there were several high profile nursing home cases in the 80s), it had occurred in smaller units, away from the public gaze and was undertaken by a low paid staff who crossed the boundary between 'efficiency' and 'control'. The low status of the staff was, in effect, taken out on the 'difficult' clients, most of whom were severely confused through dementia. Ok, we can see how this situation might come about in such smaller units. But how does it happen in the public glare of NHS wards?

Some aspects are the same: the patients can be difficult because they are confused; the staff are probably stretched and striving to work 'efficiently' and the public are not on the ward most of the time to see what is happening. But what else has occurred?

I believe a few things have changed, albeit not overnight. The whole relationship between the carer and the cared for has changed through increased medicalisation. In the Middle Ages, treatment was based on a holistic principle: the sick person was just that - a person, first and foremost. They never lost their identity throughout any treatment they were given. The physician's diagnosis and treatment was all based on the needs of the person, the individual. The Renaissance began the revolution in medicine that led to the questioning of Galenic principles that had held sway in the field of medicine for hundreds of years. Certainly, change did not happen overnight and economic and social factors played their part, but over the years from that point, the patient as a person begins to disappear and become replaced with symptoms, a disease, a treatment. The individual is no longer present. Whilst this began with and was carried forward by physicians and surgeons, nurses too have followed the same path as their training becomes more medicalised. As the whole healthcare system has squeezed 'caring' out of the equation in favour of 'curing' (even though there are so many diseases we can do nothing about), so the needs of the elderly frail - who often really need CARE - have been marginalised.

The care and treatment of older people has always been a cinderella service, indeed it has not always been seen as 'health' care, being under local authority control in the past. I am sure there must be examples of excellent practice, but it seems that the whiff of the 'second class service' still hangs around. Perhaps it is the focus on cure (again, thanks you Renaissance pioneers) that is at fault; 'caring' seems so passive, so...unexciting. All the money goes into the sexy end of medicine - trying to find cures for things. Trying to get money to improve end of life care, aiding people in choosing where they die and so forth, is bloody hard! Of course, we all want to live for ever and not think about the other thing...

Maybe it is time to return to a greater degree of holism in the NHS. Perhaps if, from the moment one entered the the hospital system, one was dealt with as an individual and treated (medically and socially) as such, perhaps then it would lead to better care: it is surely hard to treat a person with whom you have a caring relationship with the kind of disregard today's report exposed. If the people on one side of the healthcare equation see only a disease or condition to be treated, beds to be freed-up and targets to be met, then those on the receiving end of 'treatment' may well be terribly let down.

Slightly worrying?

David Cameron, worried that we either don't get the idea of the Big Society or that it has been trampled by the stampede of stories of cuts, redundancies and general gloom, has tried to breath new life back into his pet project in a piece written for today's Observer.

Now, don't get me wrong - I am not opposed to much of what the Big Society proposes: there is nothing intrinsically wrong with encouraging more people to become involved in their communities through volunteering, for example. I do have some problems around the fact that it is too closely allied to the cuts, that we are looking to replace statutory services with charitable provision, something that just won't fly because of the cuts and the reduction if funding to charitable bodies. Dave can argue until he is (Tory) blue in the face that he had the idea if the Big Society long before it was realised that cuts would need to be made, but it still feels like a cover for a fundamental change to welfare systems. If that's what it is, then just say it - don't argue that the two are only coincidentally linked.

Similarly, some of the schemes as outlined seem a bit barking like the volunteer workforce for 16 year olds aimed at fostering ideas of citizenship and community involvement. Which 16 year olds are going to join this? The ones who really need to learn something about being part of a community - the stereotypical tracksuited ASBO kid - or the middle class kids who realises that something like this will look good on their CV when it comes to getting into Uni or that first post-degree job?

But the real kicker in Dave's piece is this:

"And if someone wants to help out with children, we will sweep away the criminal record checks and health and safety laws that stop them."

So those Criminal Records Bureau checks are just useless red tape are they, Dave? You would be quite happy for anyone to walk in off the street and look after your children? I realise that this is an exaggeration, but even so, if these checks are swept away, whose word will we have to take in future that someone wanting to work with children is fit and proper to do so? The previous system was not perfect: a single person working with several agencies might need to have the check repeated for each workplace (a nice moneyspinner for the CRB no doubt) and anyone changing jobs, likewise, needed a new check before starting at their new place of work. This should have been streamlined and could have been quite simply. Similarly, a little more common sense could be applied to who actually needs a check. If you are willing to help out with kids' activities are not left unsupervised with them, do you need a full check for this?

To severely downgrade these checks is dangerous. Whilst there are some aspects of childhood that have become too wrapped up in cotton wool, knowing about those who act in loco parentis with our children is vitally important. Dave's rather blase statement seems to suggest cases such as the one involving Ian Huntly never happened or will ever happen again.

Distracted

Bloody hell! I've managed to keep my resolution less time than the average for a promise to give up fags/booze/sex/all of these made on New Year's Day! Not proud at all. Instead of coming here and writing about how pig-headed MPs have been in supporting the total ban on prisoners voting, I spent all evening debating it on Facebook. And with someone who holds the polar opposite to my views. A bit like voluntarily slamming ones head in the oven door repeatedly...

So - back to the blog tomorrow!

Oh - one moment of surreality on the radio today. David "Two Brains" Willets spoke of the British tradition of meritocracy. Almost choked at that point. How many members of the current cabinet went to public school and Oxbridge?

Goodnight!

Restarting....

Well, I have had a little time away from the blog: it started strongly, faltered and fell away. So now it is time to go for it once more. I promise to write a little something every night from now on. Here's to the rest of the year!