|
THE
BITCH ARCHIVES
THE BLACKPOOL
GAY DIRECTORY
|
09/11/07 - to date
Well Darlings,
I want you all to have a big cough now, and to clear your
throats. Later on we shall be singing.
Yes, it is that time again. Once more the season is over for
the tourist trade here in Blackpool now the illuminations have
been switched off, and the general consensus is that it was
yet another poor year. Some new ideas from the now
Conservative council did bring in a number of visitors, but
for much of the year the weather was so unkind it would be
unfair to try to judge the true success of some of them. How
many more might have come here were they not at home dealing
with the widespread flooding the country suffered this year,
we shall never know. Nevertheless I doubt the number would
have been substantial enough for anyone to be celebrating.
In May, Blackpool's second Pride brought a lot of people in.
The big Saturday was a momentous day filled with stars and
entertainment, but the weather was hardly welcoming. It was
cold, wet, and the terrific overnight winds prevented much of
the regalia being erected, forcing too the stalls that should
have adorned the length of North Pier to find refuge under the
theatre where they were crammed in too tight for comfort, and
for the carnival of "camp and colour" which paraded the full
length of the promenade to race along at such a rate of knots
it arrived early only to then cause panic and confusion
amongst the organisers. But at least most of the events took
place under cover in various venues on the pier, and were
thoroughly enjoyed by thousands of people. Most of the hotels
and venues were full to capacity that weekend, with some even
running out of refreshments and having to beg or borrow off
others.
The same success can hardly be claimed for the (free, I
believe) open-air show put on by the council and tourist board
just a week or so later when poor Gareth Gates was only one of
the notable artistes who sang his heart out to a wet and
windswept promenade of barely a hundred people, many of them
with blown inside-out umbrellas.
These two days alone should be more than enough to reveal to
everybody one of the resort's major shortcomings: the lack of
a sheltered space large enough to hold such events. It is
perhaps the greatest shortcoming the resort has, as without
any guarantee an event or a holiday can be enjoyed without
being at the mercy of the elements few people will risk
coming. They may, if we're lucky, decide to come as a day
tripper should the weather look good enough, but that is of
little use to the accommodation providers or to many of the
entertainment venues. Putting on a free show for those who
come pretty much just for that and then leave on the very next
train isn't doing much to help Blackpool at all. Any hopes of
the people's second choice to a casino, Storm City, providing
that much needed enclosed space which would entice the visitor
to stay for a few days have all but evaporated as the project
now looks to be a non-runner. Sadly that may prove to be a
bigger loss to the resort than the casino itself.
The local paper, the Gazette, has carried out a poll again
this year in an attempt to discover what people, visitors and
residents alike, find amiss with this famous seaside town that
once played host to twenty million holidaymakers annually, but
now arguably only sees a third of that number - with few of
them staying for long. Perhaps suggestive of many locals
believing the patient has already expired, the published
results of this awaited with trepidation survey are
affectionately referred to as: "The Autopsy". However as Pride
has shown, Blackpool is far from being deceased - but it has
got to the stage where it only gets up and dances well when
the song is right.
Are you ready for it? With apologies to South Pacific, here we
go then . . . All together, from the top:
♫ Happy talk, keep talking happy talk
Talk about things you like to do
You got to have a dream, if you don't have a dream
How you gonna have a dream come true?♫
Hmm . . . It wasn't that good, was it? Were we all singing the
same song?
The day we do all sing the same song, and we have all united
behind a common dream, is the day Blackpool will turn the
corner and be on the way back up. We don't need a casino to be
successful, nor even Storm City or a funny-shaped shiny
building for a conference centre - we just need to have a
common goal. We will never unite as one behind a casino, so it
would be in everyone's interest if the few dogmatic council
officials still holding on to that dream woke up and
concentrated more on some of the inefficiencies and
shortcomings commonly attributed to their council. Cleaning
for one; planning for another. And if a third is needed: this
obsession of late of being dictatorial, hostile and punitive
to our guests.
In the twenty-first century there really is no excuse for
stinking blocked drains and filthy streets at a tourist
resort. Excuses don't clean streets, but an efficient council
can and will. It is no use the council telling us other towns
are filthy too. That solves nothing. We are not other towns.
We are the one and only Blackpool of any importance, and if we
want the people to come here again then we have to be better
than all the other towns. We used to be, and we still could
be.
With no coherent overall plan, certainly not one that appears
to be sensible or adhered to, of who and what can go where, we
have landed up with alcoholics, drug addicts, and vagrants in
the very heart of our tourist area. Yes, I know these poor
unfortunate people do have to be catered for - but not at the
cost of the resort's lifeblood. These are the people that we
hear the tourist complain about time and time again - so what
on Earth possessed the council to site a drug centre in
Dickson Road, an area densely packed with hotels? And why do
these people have to pick up their prescriptions at a
designated pharmacy in the heart of the tourist area? Those
that congregate around the Funny Girls - Wilkinsons Store
area, often to be seen openly urinating up against these
buildings when they are not drinking out of the bottles hidden
in their brown paper bags, are intimidating enough to our
locals, let alone our visitors. A little thought here -
planning? - may easily have translated into keeping thousands
more of our visitors. When it comes to planning, the clue is
in the word!
Lack of a sensible planning policy is responsible for
something like eighty percent of our local people being too
frightened to go into town of an evening. Venues for a young
and volatile generation have been allowed to grow almost
unrestricted within an area of theatres, shops and
restaurants, so forcing differing cultures to merge. They
won't merge easily, especially after dark, and the result is
for much of the time we have half-empty theatres that can only
afford second-rate shows, and holidaymakers not returning here
as they go in search of somewhere where they can visit a
theatre, see a decent show, and have a nearby drink and a meal
afterwards without being besieged by thousands of unruly
drunken youngsters making their way to a nearby large and
popular nightclub.
Most of what is wrong with Blackpool can be traced directly
back to the council. For years it hasn't had a realistic
dream; a picture of what would make an ideal and popular
resort. Without that it has gone along with just about
anything that would put a quid in the coffers in the desperate
hope it was a step in the right direction. Mostly it wasn't,
and now we have an unholy mess to untangle. But untangle it we
must if we are to survive as a major resort.
Beneath the dirt and grime, and all the vomit of the
undesirables we attract, Blackpool has just about everything
anybody could ever want, perhaps more so than any other resort
in Europe. It only needs for the council to get everything in
its rightful and sensible place - the people and their venues
or support centres, to do a little housework, and to stop
penalising the tourist for it to again become the popular and
successful resort that it was once.
Knowing our council officials - those that we don't elect -
it's a dream, isn't it? But you got to have a dream, haven't
you?
Oh, alright then, just once more from the top:
♫
Happy talk, keep talking happy talk
Talk about things you like to do
You got to have a dream, if you don't have a dream
How you gonna have a dream come true?♫
"The Bitch!" 9/11/07.
|
| |
|
Well Darlings,
It will soon be
Christmas - at least it will be in my house. However that is
hardly going to be the case at the Evan James school in
Pontypridd where the primary school kids have been banned from
swapping Christmas cards. Apparently the pupils will only be
allowed to swap their cards outside of the school gates this
year.
Nicholas Daniels -
could he be the original Old Nick, the adversary of God,
tempter of mankind, and the master of Hell? - the deputy head
of the primary school claims the ruling has been made on
"environmental and moral" grounds, but that hasn't appeased
any of the angry parents who have accused the school of acting
against the spirit of Christmas.
Old Nick is reported
as saying: "The reasons for not having cards are endless and
we are sticking to our guns. We are asking parents to
contribute the money they would have spent on cards to the
school's charity. Cards in school cause litter problems and
can become a popularity contest about who gets the most, with
the risk some children could be left out."
Really? I can just
imagine how many cards this old Scrooge will be receiving
himself at Christmas! Litter? The kids take the cards home
with pride, don't they? Left out? It is the likelihood of that
which helps to teach the kids social skills - it is learning
how the real world operates, and how to come to terms with it;
a natural lesson in how to become liked, and to receive cards.
These parents simply cannot allow this sad school to envelop
their children in cotton wool, it is not fair to them and it
will harm their development.
This banning of the
Christmas card swapping is quite obviously a "politically
correct" move, and yet another case of the misguided trying to
impose THEIR stupidity on all others. It cannot, and it must
not, be tolerated. As Christian and non-Christian people alike
we have happily celebrated, either avariciously or religiously
- and sometimes in both ways, the Christmas festivities for
nigh on two thousand years. I suggest any person who cannot
come to terms with this "normality" most definitely should not
be teaching children. The word "perversion" leaps into my mind
- and that definitely should not be allowed anywhere near
children!
Children need to
grow up learning about, and accepting, all the different
cultures that exist in the world. Denying them, or trying to
hide them, can only promote resentment and hatred. Long-time
readers will remember the story of how I once accidentally got
caught up in some Chinese (religious, I believe) celebration,
one complete with a prancing dragon, in Chinatown just off
Soho. There was a group of us that got dragged along - we
couldn't understand a word they were saying, and they couldn't
understand us - nevertheless we had an absolutely marvellous
time. Should this celebration of theirs have been banned
simply because we were not all of the same culture? Of course
not! But what does need banning are sad people like this
schoolteacher promoting their perversions, especially to
children. Get a life, Mr Daniels! And let those kids have
their lives!
If this school is
anything to go by, is it any wonder that children in Wales
are, according to British Council research, less aware of
world affairs than their counterparts around the globe?
Youngsters aged between 11 and 16-years-old in Wales have an
international knowledge that is only marginally better than
those in the United States – and that is a country which is
often held to ridicule for having the least awareness of other
cultures.
I don't know how
well anagrams work in Wales, what with all that strange
spelling, but in English "Evan James School Pontypridd" can
quite aptly become: "The disapproval condemns joy", and
perhaps even better: "Sycophant ended jovial romps." I was
going to put: "Good Evans!" here, but I fear there might be
very little good about this school at the moment!
Moving on: a major
survey "TellUs2", carried out for the government by Ipsos Mori
who questioned 111,000 children in years six, eight and ten at
school, has revealed that at least one in seven secondary
school pupils has tried illegal drugs - commonly cannabis, but
LSD, ecstasy, cocaine, and even heroin were featured too. One
in five of the 10 to 15-year-olds were prone to regularly
getting drunk, with one in six of the 14 and 15-year-olds
having been drunk at least three times within the previous
four weeks. On seeing the results Ofsted's chief inspector of
education, Christine Gilbert, is alleged to have commented:
"The survey presents much that is positive about life for
children and young people today."
Hmm . . . I'm
guessing this is a case of: how to crochet a crisis with one
dropped stitch. Put the knitting down and try to concentrate,
gal - before Gordon draws a line, head-butts you, and says:
"Stitch that!" in his broad Scottish accent. One not to be
sniffed at. You appear to have selected "spin", when "neutral"
would have been far safer with so much traffic around!
And finally, if you
live in the UK, the BBC's Children In Need Appeal cannot have
escaped you. Please support it, and give generously. We were
all kids once, and it only happens to anybody once so, even if
your own childhood wasn't that great, please donate and help
to make some needy children's lives that much better.
You can donate here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pudsey/donate/index.shtml
Thanks!
"The Bitch!"
16/11/07.
|
|
(TOP OF PAGE)
|
|
Well My Hearties,
Have you all enjoyed the past week, with HMS Great Britain
continuing to career around the icy seas from one disaster to
another? As if the Northern Rock crash weren't bad enough, one
could now be forgiven for believing that, with the Master
Gordon Brown at the helm ill-ably assisted by his First Mate
Alistair Darling, we were actually out searching for icebergs
to hit in some sick attempt to outdo the Titanic. When on
taking over the premiership Gordon talked about "open
government", few of us realised it would be so open as to
allow HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to put at risk of exposure
to the whole world some of the most sensitive data imaginable,
including the bank account details of some 25 million people
and 7.2 million families.
No doubt you will already have noticed I did not on opening
address anyone as a "Darling" this week - it is not the best
of words to use at the moment, is it? Ministers gasped in the
House of Commons on Tuesday as the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, Alistair Darling, had to confirm and reveal the
true severity of the latest of the three (known) recent
security lapses. In an age where even young children know the
importance of security and encryption of personal data, and
where reliable software enabling this is available and easily
affordable by a government, almost half of the population's
most intimate details were sent unencrypted on two discs
across the country by some postal firm at their bog-standard
pop-it-in-Pete rate without even a proof of delivery being
requested. Not noticed to be missing for three weeks, and the
loss not made public for long after that on some feeble
excuse, the potential now exists for every crook and terrorist
organisation in the world to have their very own copy of this
data.
Tuesday was a day on which, I'm guessing, no Labour MP wished
to be recognised as a Brown man - that would likely have
suggested far more about the state of their underpants than
their allegiance! We cannot forget that until quite recently
Gordon Brown was in charge of this incompetent department -
and this is his legacy.
As if losing these two discs containing all that confidential
and sensitive data were not enough trouble for the government
and HMRC, they have also at the same time come under fire from
the BBC's Watchdog programme which has uncovered cases where,
unrelated to the present fiasco, in other mistakes made by
HMRC they have caused potentially damaging personal details to
be sent to the wrong people. Julian Evans, an expert in
identity fraud, has told viewers that with these details
wrongly sent out someone could easily apply for a credit card,
loan or mortgage in another person's name. Should they wish
to, they could even access that person's bank account and
withdraw money.
Another day; another crisis. Damage limitation seems to be the
order of the day for the government - everyday. With this loss
of data crisis they have told a deeply worried nation: "Don't
panic, folks - there is no need to rush out to change your
bank account details. There is no evidence the data has fallen
into criminal hands." Hmm . . . Really? We've discussed this
"no evidence" excuse used by authorities before on here. It's
a cop out. If it all goes tits-up they can say: "Well you
can't blame us, there was no evidence, was there?" Pray tell:
is there any evidence then to suggest that this data has NOT
fallen into unsavoury hands? For if there is not, then would
it not be far safer to be acting as if it had, rather than
simply waiting in the hope that the worst won't happen?
Should this data with its whereabouts unknown, either now or
in the future, get into the wrong hands, knowing that the
banks have flagged all those accounts and are watching them
for suspicious behaviour - 7.5 million of them? Yeah, right! -
what is to stop those people sitting on the information for a
couple of years until the heat dies down? I know if I were
directly affected, once I heard those awful words that spread
fear and alarm: "there is no evidence", I would have closed my
account straightaway and opened up another one - and with a
different bank as an extra precaution. Having watched on a
television news programme a similar disc password being
cracked within seconds, and from the data thereon the
interviewer's identity profile discovered to the point of
actually being able to use it to trade as that person within a
matter of a few minutes, I make no apologies for this
revelation.
George Osborne, Shadow Chancellor, in parliament claimed that
such incompetence as we have witnessed should mark the "final
blow" for the government's identity card programme, saying:
"They simply cannot be trusted with people's personal
information." Alistair spluttered back an almost incoherent
reply to the effect that information on identity cards would
be much safer as they would be biometric and therefore only
accessible by the rightful owner. This was perhaps the most
ludicrous statement to be heard (so far?) throughout this
whole affair. If the information was really only available to
the rightful owner of the card - and we know that to be
untrue! - then what is the point of the card? Of what use
would it be? We all know that what is on them will quite
obviously be checkable against an enormous government database
somewhere. Were it not to be, then it would it leave it
wide-open for any terrorist groups with the (easily found)
right resources to simply make their own cards.
I say we really cannot afford for any more of our private and
personal details to be held by the government. Large
centralised databases are dangerous, and as recent events have
shown: an accident just waiting to happen. The government
already know far more than they need to about us, and yet they
are less safe than we are at holding that information. Where
few of us will give out our personal details to someone who
should not have that knowledge, they appear to have a long
record of doing just that - and yet despite this, and against
the advice of top security experts, they still want to go
ahead with identity cards.
Knowing how insecure anything related to the government or
government bodies and computers can be, already many doctors
(six out of ten was reported today!) are refusing to upload
their patients' records onto the NHS database for fear of
making those people vulnerable. After the billions spent on
it, and it was all our money again, they tell us the system is
"not fit for purpose." I think we are hearing "not fit for
purpose" a little too often these days, aren't we? It must be
in danger of becoming the government's catchphrase. Perhaps we
are only missing the novel tune to accentuate it.
Bomtiddlyompom-pom-pom! That do? Of course I could always take
out a few bits, a couple of "om"s here and there, and then
merge it with something else, but I shan't do that because I
have enough sense to see it won't work as well - unlike Gordon
Brown with (to name just one) HM Revenue and Customs!
The five disastrous months under Brown's premiership, with
cataclysm after cataclysm, has some people now actually
wondering whether a year is at all achievable with him at the
wheel before the ship finally flounders and goes down. Still
firmly embedded in our stern is the Northern Rock crisis, with
the bank's shares freefalling to an all-time low as Gordon
Brown's puppet Chancellor stood accused in the Commons on
Monday of making a secret loan to it - one which some legal
boffins believe will leave the taxpayers footing the bill. It
has now emerged we may have to prop up this bank for another
three years, and that could yet possibly involve a hell of a
lot more public money. That's nice, isn't it? I don't even
bank with them and they want my money! I'm left to wonder: how
many taxpayers does it take to provide an amount equal to the
executive's salaries drawn from the bank's funds? Having
cocked it up, shouldn't these people who have become rich on
the back of other people's money be forced to work for
nothing?
The US private equity firm JC Flowers is one party said to
have made an offer for Northern Rock, theirs backed to the
tune of £15 billion by various banks so they say, but that
would still leave three years before that estimated £24
billion borrowed from the taxpayer could be repaid, if it
indeed were at all as doubtless they would try for "deals".
Plainly intended to impress, we're told that if successful
they have the former Marks & Spencer chairman, Paul Myners,
lined up to be chairman of the company. Really? Well I have to
tell you: the prospect of this dead-in-the-water hulk going
even more pants does absolutely nothing to impress me!
There are many who believe Alistair Darling's job should be on
the line, he has in a very short time been the man responsible
by office for too many disasters, but at the moment that
appears not to be the case. When challenged about this the
Prime Minister claimed he had “full confidence” in Mr Darling.
At least that is what most people think he said, but when it
is oral you can never be sure, can you? However I'm told it
has been recorded in Hansard spelled as "full", so I guess
that must be right even if it is incorrect.
When a government refuses to learn from its mistakes and
carries on making them, and like some un-listening stern
matriarch pursues policies the public don't want, adamantly
don't want, steam-rolling them through parliament over screams
of horror, then I believe its time in office is limited. I
predict that under Gordon Brown, a man who talks of having a
vision but doesn't and who careers along madly in the dark
from one catastrophe to another, there will be disasters
severe enough to encourage votes of no confidence. We may yet
see one quite soon. MPs of all parties who have any
aspirations of continuing in a political career may need to
consider carefully the feelings of the public. They may be
unforgiving of those who attempt to bolster the government.
Where for a long time people have been worried the
Conservatives were not up the job, I have this week sensed a
remarkable change. Such now is the underlying fear and hatred
of this government - and it is of the government, and not of
the Labour Party per se - I believe if push came to shove they
would be willing to risk electing the Conservatives. What is
out there being talked about, and repeatedly appearing on
forums and newspaper feedbacks, suggests nothing short of a
complete U-turn on many of their repressive policies and a
change of leadership could save Labour from total annihilation
were there an election today.
Already questions are being asked. How long can this
government stay afloat? Who is going down with Gordon Brown?
Where's the band?
If you enjoy politics, I suspect a lot of enjoyment is
imminent.
"The Bitch!" 22/11/07.
|
| |
|
Well Readers,
After seeing "darling" used twice on forums this week with a
new derogatory meaning, I am still avoiding my traditional
opening in case anyone should take it as an unsuitable
salutatory address. I do hope this new usage is only
temporary, a short-term fad, and the word not in danger of
suffering any permanent added or change of definition as that
would be sad. However such has happened before to words, "gay"
is an example, where they have changed almost overnight. In
this instance, just imagine what such a change might do to all
those treasured romantic love-letters of yesteryear. "My
Dearest Darling" becomes a bit of a travesty when interpreted
along the lines of: "My Dearest Well-Shafted Glove-Puppet",
doesn't it? One has to admit there is a certain loss of
endearment, but that's life, and I suppose we must carry on.
Has anybody been watching The Blair Years on television? No?
Well, I am suffering it. Tony Blair's television "confession"
this week that, despite Alastair Campbell telling journalists
"we don't do God", behind the closed doors of Downing Street
it was much to the contrary, cannot really be news to anybody,
can it? I find it strange such "a revelation" has been made of
this, when it is very old news. Tony tells us he was reluctant
to discuss his faith publicly whilst premier for fear of being
seen as "a nutter". Really? He thought it would take God to do
that? I am surprised!
So what has changed? Has he now accepted he is a nutter? I
mean, in this mini-series he appears to me to be rewriting
history everywhere he can - he DID discuss his faith with us
at that time. Who could ever forget the way in which, after
that incredible Sunday morning television interview, the
tabloids condemned him for telling us God guided his decisions
on Iraq? Hallelujah! Glory be! It was a miracle! We had a
chosen one to lead us who God alone spoke to and revealed the
truth. The weapons of mass destruction did exist, it was a
just war, and he was being given the strength to wage it.
Yeah, right! I guess that strength was the sickly Cheshire Cat
grin, those haughty eyes, and that egoistical waggling head
with which to convince (does it need Vince?) the rest of us.
No doubt it was God who arranged for that infamous dossier to
be sexed-up too! The Big Guy was certainly kept busy, wasn't
He?
One has to wonder: why are we being subjected to all this
claptrap now? Some may say these programmes have been
sanitised - I prefer: blatantly fictionalised! - but whatever,
they are about a bad time in Britain's history, one that
internationally many families won't want to remember, and
which are probably best left behind us. I find it all somewhat
in bad taste, and I am having difficulty in imagining why it
has been dished up now, so soon after we were pleased to be
rid of the man. Did perhaps Tony manage to convince somebody
because he was missing the limelight? Prima donnas do, don't
they?
If anyone ever needed a reason why religion and politics
should never be mixed, this war that Tony Blair dragged us
into must be the perfect example. It is bad enough that,
directly as a result of this war which with a little more
patience may have been avoided, thousands of people died or
were mutilated, and that is still going on today. We really
should not be making matters worse by claiming God had any
part to play in it. He didn't. We know there were no weapons
of mass destruction so, if there is a God and He by His very
definition would not lie to us, we must make no mistake about
it: anyone believing they were receiving Divine guidance
based on those weapons existing would likely have been
suffering some kind of a psychosis - in the vernacular: they
are "nutters".
Having a religion does not to most people automatically make
anyone "a nutter", not even in this country. Strangely it
often commands some respect, so perhaps Tony Blair has been a
little paranoid (a condition?) in thinking it would ridicule
him. Would anybody say Cliff Richard has suffered for his
beliefs? Of course not, if anything I think he has benefited.
There is nothing at all wrong with being a deeply religious
person, it is only what some people do with their religion
that can make them unacceptable.
When someone reveals they see signs, hear voices, or find
feelings and strengths are being gleaned from their religion
which guide them to do what others may consider to be either
stupid or bad, then that is when they become the "nutters" to
everybody else. It is not unknown for murderers to claim they
heard voices directing them, is it? Delusions are quite
common, and people who suffer from them may deserve our
understanding, help or pity, however I believe they should
never, never, never, not under any circumstances, be
encouraged. When later, as they invariably do, these people
try to justify themselves to their critics they will often
appear even more weird and unacceptable. Whatever is rightful
and truthful rarely needs justification.
For any religious readers - and if you are not one please
don't bale out now, this will be short and painless, I promise
you! - I would like you to consider this scripture that many
might say could have been written for a certain person:
Proverbs 6:16-19
16. There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are
an abomination to Him:
17. haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent
blood,
18. a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to
run to evil,
19. a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows
discord among brothers.
Considering where in the world that scrawny finger is wagging
today, and the delicate nature of that area, just in case this
man's convictions should again prove deceptive, would somebody
please take the limelight off him? If not for our sake, do it
for God's sake!
Phew! That all got a bit deep for a while, didn't it? Still
with me? Good! It is time to move on: I know, let us jump
aboard Gordon Brown's elevator again, but I must warn you:
some of the buttons don't appear to be working. It has become
a seemingly one-way vehicle - down!
If you remember, last week we stopped off at that titanic
floor marked: "Insecurity and Incompetence", so this week,
passing the one for: "Military Funding Shortages and Lack of
Appreciation" without stopping off - it was packed out, and
promising all the excitement of a grenade found with its pin
missing following the devastating attack launched by five
former army chiefs who claim the armed forces are ignored by
the government, unappreciated, and left to run on empty - we
have today descended further to arrive at the floor which with
all its flashing signs and howling sirens can only be:
"Sleaze".
Could this floor be larger than the previous one we visited?
It certainly appears much hotter. Oh, look! There's Gordon
Brown, but who is that stood behind him with the dagger? Is it
not that north-east property developer and financial supporter
of the Labour Party, David Abrahams? You can see from his face
he doesn't want to do it, but that arm seems to have a mind of
it own and he's having an awful hard time preventing it
plunging the knife between Gordon's shoulder blades. It must
be something to do with that £600,000 of donations which are
going to be returned to him - he'll have to pay taxes on that
money now, and you don't get much back for your taxes these
days, do you?
Gordon Brown's government, which I suspect suffers some
disability that prevents it learning by its mistakes, ran true
to form by repeating the mistake it made on being confronted
with the data-loss crisis - which incidentally has worsened as
discs are now being missed by other departments too! It hoped
to pass off the whole scandalous affair of these origin-hidden
donations as being the fault of one person, this time not some
insignificant junior but Labour's General Secretary, Peter
Watt, who doing the honourable thing immediately resigned.
However, like with the data-loss, the buck has refused to stop
at just one person. Many others are in danger of being
implicated including high-ranking names like: Jon Mendelsohn,
the chief fundraiser, and: Harriet Harman, the deputy leader
and party chairwoman - whose husband, Jack Dromey,
embarrassingly is the party's honorary treasurer. Some of them
are undoubtedly far too close to the prime minister for his
comfort, and people are already wondering how he could not
have been aware of the illegalities - we are, after all,
talking about some of their largest donations.
Perhaps at this time the only one we can be confident about
not knowing of the irregularities is fast becoming: Sybil, the
Downing Street cat. With the purrfect alibi - she doesn't do
anything for money - this feline must think she is living in
moggie heaven what with all the "fishy" goings on!
At Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, Gordon Brown
arguably suffered one of the most humiliating and ferocious
attacks known to a British premier. David Cameron went for the
jugular, suggesting he was a control freak with no control, a
man whose integrity was now under serious question and whose
arrogance prevented him from taking the latest crisis
seriously enough. With a noticeable venom he added that,
frankly, the prime minister was simply not cut out for the job
he had wanted for over a decade. And just when Gordon must
have been thinking: it cannot possibly get any worse - it did.
Vince Cable, the acting leader of the Liberal Democrats, came
out with a joke that may yet go down in the annals of
parliamentary history as one of the most apt of the moment. To
an eruption of riotous laughter from ALL sides, he
nonchalantly noted Mr Brown's "remarkable transformation in
the last few weeks from Stalin to Mr Bean, creating chaos out
of order rather than order out of chaos". Even members of the
prime minister's "inner circle" were openly seen to be
enjoying the joke - and THAT, not religion, should Mr Blair
still be interested, is true ridicule! Gordon Brown, a shadow
of himself, left the chamber an insignificant fading grey man
that day, with backbenchers commenting he may have a major
illness – and we all remember how it ended for John Major,
don’t we?
Two internal inquiries have been set up within the Labour
party into Mr Abraham's dubious donations, the Electoral
Commission will also be investigating, and it now looks
inevitable the police will too - and that only months after
they concluded investigating the "honours for cash" scandal
where, surprisingly - including to those who carried out the
actual investigation - the Criminal Prosecution Service (CPS)
failed to charge anybody.
There are weeping wounds here that will not heal for a very
long time, and the chances of them proving fatal cannot
entirely be ruled out at this stage. The government's whole
future could be resting on what the police and the internal
inquiries find out, what remains (successfully?) concealed
and, should there be a case for the CPS to prosecute, who
exactly is involved.
It's a Hell of a ride, isn't it? I wonder: has anyone yet
worked out how many more floors there are to go before we
reach the "Great Inferno" in the basement? Of course, if or
when we do finally arrive there, nobody should act surprised
to find the guy stoking the furnace is sporting a humungous
Cheshire Cat grin!
"The Bitch!" 29/11/07.
|
| |
|
Yo!
What a week it has been, hasn't it? Harold Wilson will be
forever remembered telling us: "a week is a long time in
politics", however with all the pettiness we have to suffer
these days, it is fast becoming a long time for everyone in
the UK regardless of their occupation. We are living in the
slow motion of an occurring disaster.
Consider: the angels in children's school Nativity plays may
no longer have wings, mince pies have been banned at school
Christmas fetes, pantomimes are having to be re-written into
being unrecognisable and unfunny, there are calls for our
National Anthem to be changed, an elderly grandmother is told
off by a council workman for sweeping the leaves from her
front doorstep, a young mother is fined £360 for not keeping
her wheelie bin full of rubbish within her tiny (8 foot by 4
foot) backyard where under the window the smell becomes
intolerable despite regular cleaning, the police were called
to a shopping centre because someone felt the schoolchildren
performing there were singing the Christmas carols too loudly,
a butcher has been banned from chopping meat after a new
neighbour complained to the council about the noise, and
despite the country footpaths across uneven grassy fields and
moorland being non-negotiable safely by the disabled in
wheelchairs, the kissing gates and stiles which allow access
to them have got to be replaced with expensive cattle grids -
presumably so anyone in a wheelchair can then sue the farmer
for having a field that isn't perfectly flat should they
suffer a tumble!
I could go on and on, the list of stupidities we live with
today is seemingly endless, but I am in danger of becoming
suicidal. Who wants to live in a world like this? What has
happened to society? Why has: "love thy neighbour" all too
often turned into: "persecute thy neighbour", with people
wanting to complain and report somebody for simply living or
doing their job? Where can anyone today use some common sense
and make up their own mind about what they want to do, and
what risks they are prepared to accept in doing it?
Political Correctness and Health & Safety issues have been
around for quite some time but, whereas once any new proposal
used to be ridiculed and dismissed were it not a sensible one,
under these past ten years of Labour government rules and
regulations to ensure we all live in exactly the same way, and
that is in accordance to some insignificant people's idea of
an ethical code, they have totally run riot. The freedom these
prats have recently enjoyed is now detrimentally affecting the
lives of every sensible person, and their self-given right to
enforce their wishes upon the rest of us is at risk of soon
becoming the only freedom left in the land. In our everyday
lives we are not only being told exactly what to do, but when
and how to do it and even the way in which we should be
feeling about doing it - and all too often now these imposing
rules become actual controls and are backed up by some ill
thought through law which will penalise us and put money into
either government or local authority coffers should we not
wish to conform. We live in a preposterous world where our
very own lives no longer belong to us. Give us back our lives!
Individuality? In this Nanny State we live in today, we may as
well remove that word from the dictionary! Anyway, judging by
how well the UK fared in the report by the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), where in reading
ability our 15-year-olds dropped from being 7th in 2000 to
17th today and now lag behind countries such as Estonia and
Liechtenstein, I doubt many could even spell the word! In
science the UK dropped from being 4th to 14th, but worse than
that in mathematics it was appalling news with the pupils
falling from 8th position to 24th, which for the first time
places our children below the international average. Having
been brought up and educated in a time when a UK education was
the envy of the world, I never thought I would live to see
this day - I am ashamed for my country!
Ed-you-Kay-shun? Ed-you-Kay-shun? Ed-you-Kay-shun? Get it? No,
despite all that never-ending spin, it seems too few kids do
these days! And that point needs to be Laboured!
In an attempt to hide their shame the government has tried to
belittle the tests and performance tables which are a part of
the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment,
however as they are the same criteria praised by Tony Blair in
2000 as being evidence of how well we were doing at that time,
there is little credibility being given to their arguments. Of
course, those 2000 results would have been based on a time
only a couple of years after a Conservative government, so
therefore much of Labour's interference with their damaging
policies would not have had time to filter through the system,
take effect, and become apparent. Whoops! Get out of that one,
Gordon Brown. With apologies to the late and great Laurel &
Hardy: that's another fine mess Tony has got you into!
Another day, another disaster, and yet another apology having
to be begrudgingly spluttered out by the sorry bunch we, for
whatever reason, still call our government and not the Crazy
Gang. This one, following the Royal Air Force Board of Inquiry
report, by Des Browne the Defence Secretary to the families of
the 14 who died as a result of the 37-year-old reconnaissance
plane exploding over Afghanistan last year when leaking fuel
ignited moments after mid-air refuelling - probably, it is
thought, because the recommended fire suppression system had
not been fitted to the aircraft. The Nimrod, a museum piece
yet an aircraft so vital to the war, is only still flying
because as part of a package of cuts its replacement was
delayed - so this report by the Board of Inquiry goes a long
way in giving credence to all those vociferous military
chiefs' complaints of a lack of funding.
The government can, and often do in an effort to convince us
they are providing adequate funding, produce figures to show
they have increased the money allocated to the Armed Forces
year on year, however what they don't like to admit, or
perhaps are too incompetent to appreciate, is that these
increases are on an already severely cut defence budget - one
that was something like halved years ago in tune with the more
peaceful times. Since those happy days we have entered into
two lengthy conflicts, and our commitments have magnified to
breaking point - and all without even reinstating the original
budget of yesteryear. The increases we are being told of
today, when seen in those real terms, become plainly pitiful!
It seems neither Gordon Brown nor his predecessor, or anyone
in the present government, has realised that the minute a
country declares war or enters into a military conflict, if it
really means business and wishes to avoid prolonging the
action, it needs to write a blank cheque for its Armed Forces.
When our lads and lasses are putting their lives on the line
for us they must have EVERYTHING they need to do the job we
ask of them as safely, as quickly, and as efficiently as is
possible. To provide them with anything less is criminal, and
to my mind today we have a government of criminals. Our
engagements in both Afghanistan and Iraq have been plagued
throughout by stories of a lack of equipment and resources.
These stories have not gone away. Far from it, many have been
substantiated by investigative journalism and television
documentaries. I doubt I was alone in feeling ashamed of my
country when at one point in the Iraq conflict it was revealed
on a television documentary that it was only possible to have
just one creaky, old Nimrod aircraft in operation as all the
rest, having been cannibalised to keep that one airborne, were
grounded. Talk about going to war on a shoestring! Our
military lads and lasses have been performing miracles! But
perhaps I shouldn't have said that, it might encourage the
government to ask them to walk on water to get to the next
conflict - and there goes our navy!
Our troops have enough to do fighting the enemy, they should
not at the same time have to fight their government for rifles
that do not jam, suitable field weapons and the ammunition for
them, enough flak jackets to go round, the correct camouflage,
the (available) technology to protect them against roadside
bombs, enough helicopters (embarrassingly, in Afghanistan
there are stories we had to borrow some from other nations!),
reconnaissance and attack aircraft, and all the other many
items they need, but which have not been readily provided or
are easily obtainable.
If anyone should think these are all acceptable situations for
our service personnel to suffer and overcome, I beg to differ!
Finally, the Times newspaper's revelation that it has found
more than a 100 websites offering for sale the fullest details
of many thousands of the UK's bank accounts, including those
of a High Court Judge, with some of the rogues even providing
"free samples" to whet the appetite, is nothing short of
frightening. The newspaper claims it was able to download the
banking information of 32 individuals for free. Apparently one
of the sites has 30,000 British credit card numbers for sale
for as little as £1 each - which, as serious as this is, posed
a comical question for me: how would anyone buy them? Few
would be silly enough to pay for them with their Visa, would
they?
Strangely nobody has attempted to link this data with either
the widely reported two discs recently lost by HM Revenue and
Customs, or the subsequently learned about but less widely
reported others - those of an unknown quantity and length of
time missing, but which apparently contain similar unencrypted
information, and have been similarly "misplaced" by different
governmental departments.
As if all this potentially damaging and confidential
information being for sale on the internet isn't bad enough,
perhaps equally as frightening is the spokesman for Richard
Thomas, the Information Commissioner. After confirming the
data these websites are offering appears to be for currently
active accounts, this person went on to explain that if it had
been acquired fraudulently, or by theft, the matter would be
passed on to the police as a criminal inquiry. Hmm . . .
Really? That is considerate of them!
Now I don't class myself as a simpleton, but maybe I should
for I cannot for the life of me think of a way in which these
details that are subject to all the laws on privacy could
appear openly for sale on a public website without an
infringement of some law occurring somewhere along the line.
Why does the Information Commission want to waste time looking
to see if fraud or theft has been involved when so obviously
the police should be brought in immediately in an attempt to
protect the British people, their personal identities, and
their money? Do they intend sitting on this for months,
scratching their heads and throwing their hands in the air as
people's bank accounts are emptied? Am I missing something
here?
I shall just have to hope it is not soon going to be the Royal
Mews millions, won't I? With difficulty, I suppose one
possibly could learn how to survive without having a batman -
but without an occasional Robin? Have a heart - the weeks
would feel unbearably long!
Holy abstentions!
"The Bitch!" 6/12/07.
|
| |
|
Ho, ho, ho,
No, don't panic, I have not gone mad. I am merely exercising
my right to use the word in my own country. English is the
base language here, and in that the word: "ho" has no
derogatory meaning. Any country that uses a corruption of the
English language and finds the word offensive must either
change their definition or learn to live with it. I am not
prepared to prostitute the true English language, as the
politically correct brigade would have me do, in order to
avoid the meaning of "prostitute" in some foreign version.
Where would it all end? The Queen's English would be lost
forever. English Santas unite - it is: "Ho, ho, ho!" And
whilst we are at it: "tramps" are vagrants, and no man has a
fanny! Well, not outside Blackpool, anyway!
There! I feel all the better for that! So, what has been
happening in the world this past week? Well, I see Calamity
Jane - sorry, our most unfortunate Prime Minister Gordon Brown
- has stuck his head over the parapet again. At least I think
it is his head, but by what is coming out of it I might just
have the wrong end.
As a hallmark of his premiership he says he wants to reform
our public services, making them: "wider and deeper".
Throwing: "diversity" (a politically over-used word) into his
speech a couple of times, along with a notable scattering of
his latest favourite: "one-to-one", he tells us we will be:
"talking not just about public services but about personal
services". Really? Personal services? That sounds rather fun,
doesn't it?
This greater focus he wants on one-to-one relationships
between individuals and doctors, teachers, and other
professionals like those involved with the unemployed, the
sick, the elderly, and the drug addicts etc all sounds okay, I
suppose - until he tells us it is more than the public sector
could provide for us, so it will involve using the voluntary
sector. In other words he is saying: "I want to make it so you
look after yourselves, folks." We already have the voluntary
sector straining under the load of trying to cope with a lot
of what the government should be providing, and now he intends
to increase their burden. Thanks a bundle!
This is so obviously nothing more than a verbal deodorant, a
load of waffle with no substance, intended to take away the
smell of failure. It seems our prime minister is not half the
man his predecessor was at pulling the wool over our eyes.
Tony would at least have had us all wondering for a while, but
with Gordon the truth is immediately evident and as plain as
that dislocated jaw.
More bad news for Gordon Brown is the damaging revelation that
the government was warned of serious flaws in the security of
child benefit data three years ago - at a time when he was the
Chancellor. A letter circulated by Treasury risk manager,
Richard Fennelly, in March 2004 raised concerns over junior
staff having access to the database, and about the information
not being encrypted. So twenty-five million people now know
exactly who is to blame for the potentially dangerous loss of
their personal details, don't they? They will be asking: why
did Gordon not heed those warnings and act on them? This
crisis could easily have been avoided - it was incompetence at
best, or negligence at worst.
Also out of favour today is the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith.
It seems that more than one in three of the applications made
by non-European Union nationals to the Security Industry
Authority (SIA), the department whose checks allow successful
applicants to work as security officers on pub and club doors,
as well as in more sensitive security posts, should not have
been granted. Something like 11,100 (illegal?) immigrants who
should not have these licences have been granted them - and in
August Jacqui Smith accepted Home Office advice not to
disclose these mistakes. So much for Gordon Brown's
"transparent" government!
As if that wasn't bad enough, we now have the unprecedented
call by police leaders for the Home Secretary to quit over the
wage rise fiasco, and the prospect of the police demanding the
right to strike. The Metropolitan Police Federation, the UK's
largest police federation, has declared its officers were now
"at war" with the government. That's nice, isn't it?
I'm sure the government ministers would miss the police a lot
more than we, the general public, would if they went on strike
- we rarely see them, but many of them enjoy round the clock
protection! Psst! Guys, you may not be able to strike, but you
do have the right to self-certify a few days off sick. No
bobby available for duties outside No.10 for three days would
soon provide the necessary focus, albeit a secondary one - I
guess the underpants would have to come first. Why don't you
all throw a sickie together and come up to Blackpool? It's
nice here at this time of the year.
Oh, I forgot! You don't like Blackpool anymore, do you?
Something to do with the lack of police on our streets, I
believe. I know at the last conference here some of you didn't
like going out at night. It has improved a little recently, I
can assure you. We have lots of PCSOs to look after you now.
They can always get a policeman if there's trouble. No, really
they can - they just scream something into their squawk box
and one usually arrives within the hour.
I am jesting, of course! Our police forces (I refuse to use:
"services" - it reminds me of the fast food wallahs on a
motorway, and they deserve better than that!) are, on the
whole, a good enough bunch and they do their job, one that
most of us wouldn't want to do, to the best of their ability -
an ability that is severely hampered by a lack of proper
resources and an ever-growing mountain of crap being rained
down on them by the government. Considering what we sometimes
ask of them, they do it for a pittance.
I am happy to see the police "at war" with the government, and
I support them. I hope they do not give in. And whilst they
are at it, this betrayal by the government might be an
appropriate time for them to return to being the impartial
force they once were, and to cease being the enforcing arm of
the government of the day. They became that, and in doing so
lost much of the public respect they had enjoyed since
conception, when they backed down to Mrs Thatcher and fought
the miners almost as her own private army, often totally
disregarding laws and public freedoms held for centuries.
The miners' strike was handled badly. The result may have been
needed by the country, but the method of achieving it should
have been a different one. The police have suffered
drastically for the part they played in that political affair.
Even today they are still seen by many people as merely being
puppets of the government, and that straightaway has the
possibility of somewhat alienating them to more than half the
population; those who did not vote for the government.
The police and the judiciary should not be an extension of the
political system of this country. Both should be totally
impartial and, working with each other, have a duty only to
upholding the law. They should not be swayed by politicians,
or yield to political pressure. Sadly that is not always the
case these days, and that is why we have had so many stupid
laws passed lately - laws that are almost totally
unenforceable but which criminalise whole sections of the
population and divide society. Criminals don't support their
police forces. A divided society is no good to anyone - that
is perhaps other than to a political party that uses such
divisions as a clever ploy to stay in power. Once upon a time
Chief Constables would say a proposed stupid law was not
feasible to uphold, and that would be the end of it. Today the
government pass laws, hundreds of them, almost willy-nilly.
Most of the police around today will be too young to remember
the days when those who did critical work like themselves,
fire personnel, ambulance staff, and nurses etc were
represented by a public that wholeheartedly supported them.
They didn't need to strike then, the public or another group
of workers would demonstrate for them - and they usually won.
However today it is not that easy to demonstrate. That freedom
is now loaded with laws, rules and regulations, which make it
impossible for another group to demonstrate on their behalf,
or for any group to do it in great numbers where it will have
the most effect. The voice of the people has been stifled. And
being these laws, infringements of rights enjoyed for
centuries, have been enforced by our puppet police force on
many occasions, who today would want to demonstrate for them?
As events have shown, agreements mean nothing to some
governments. If the government refuse to back down over this
pay rise difference, then the police are either going to have
to lose face and uncomfortably accept it, lying in a bed of
their own making, or be bold enough to break an agreement
themselves and strike as a matter of principle.
Sharing a bed with the government has not been beneficial to
the police. Agreements, nods and winks, are no substitute for
some of the freedoms they have helped to remove. The day they
wake up to that fact and do something about it will be a good
day for everyone, especially themselves.
"The Bitch!" 14/12/07.
|
| |
|
Well My Christmas Bunnies,
It has been a tough year, hasn't it? Tony Blair stepped down,
as predicted a long time ago in this column, just before the
house of cards started to collapse. Countless more laws have
been passed to infringe on our freedoms even further, and some
really bad ones are now in the pipeline. Some already passed,
like the victimisation of those people who choose to smoke
have cost untold amounts of money - ours, the taxpayers' money
- and have divided the nation. Nevertheless they have done
very little to reduce smoking and everything to make smokers
second class citizens and group them along with lepers.
Forget all the government and the NHS spin, the facts are in
the actual sales of cigarettes. According to The Grocer - and
who would know the true facts better? - total cigarette sales
have increased by 4.4% in value this year to £9.75 billion and
only fallen by a mere 2% in volume. These figures do not take
into account the still growing and sizeable black-market in
cigarettes which some believe may very well easily have
accounted for that 2% fall in volume.
If all these harsh laws on smoking are not now plainly seen to
be proof of victimisation, a punitive imposition of people's
freedoms for some ulterior motive, along with a complete and
utter misappropriation of all that taxpayers' money, I do not
know what could be! They are quite obviously just another way
for the government and local authorities to collect money.
Make a law and someone will fall foul of it and a revenue can
be collected. They are in effect just another means of
taxation - in an extremely underhand way. Were they not that,
then there can be no reason for the law not permitting smoking
and non-smoking venues, staffed by smoking and non-smoking
people, as they do in many other countries. We should have the
freedom to choose what we wish to do with OUR lives and OUR
bodies. We have not, and there is worse to come.
An obesity taxation on soft and fizzy drinks (it is starting
now in the US!), sweets, cakes, junk foods etc may yet be
backed up within a few years by laws to prevent overweight
people buying them. Like with tobacco it will be the
unfortunate, and deceived by a carefully selected agent
provocateur, retailer who will be fined and provide a
lucrative revenue. It is unlikely the retailers could weigh
people before serving them, so many believe this is one of the
49 things those ID cards could be used for - we will all be
categorized by the NHS and those in a certain category must be
refused a sale if their scanned card says so. Don't worry if
you can see all the flaws in such a system working correctly -
like tobacco, it would still produce a sizeable revenue in
fines, and that is all that really matters.
Still want those ID cards? They will do nothing what the
government tell you they will - they are no protection against
terrorism or even ID fraud - but in the future they could
easily be used to prohibit what you can do, where you can go,
and when. They are implement with which an unscrupulous
government could gain total control of its people. As such I
believe they should never be allowed to come into being, for
should the worst happen one day there would be no way in which
the people could ever regain their freedoms. And if you think
it could never happen in our country, consider how
unbelievable much of what we suffer today was to us just ten
short years ago.
All of us taxpayers go into 2008 in the knowledge that the
Northern Rock crisis has cost us about £2,000 each to date,
with no surety the money will ever be recovered by the
Treasury. There is not even a surety it will not cost us a lot
more - in the present economic climate, who can say our £60
billion already used without our permission is enough to keep
it afloat? Property prices continue to fall month on month,
cases of negative equity are rising, and repossessions of
property worth less than what is owed on it is increasing. The
already "dodgy" mortgages that are our "security" are becoming
more and more worthless, with more and more people defaulting
on their payments. It is not good news.
Credit card charges are to be lowered by banks in an attempt
to instil some confidence, but that will do little to pay off
the vast sums of money people owe on them, money they were
encouraged to borrow to keep the economy looking good whilst
Gordon Brown was at the Treasury, and the move may yet speed
up the need for banks to pursue recovery proceedings in the
event of a default. At this time they need every penny
themselves - what they give with one hand must come back into
the other hand in some way or another or else they are in
trouble. Keeping all the balls in the air at the same time can
sometimes work - until there are just too many balls up there!
Yes, we shall all be entering the New Year that much poorer
this time, and in so many ways. Once the merriment of the
festive season is over, we will all have something to be
unhappy about. Our trade deficit has started to soar
alarmingly, shocking the money markets, and believe me we
don't want to go through all that again! Ask anyone who lived
through the last time a Labour government was forced to take
our begging bowl to the European Monetary Fund what it was
like and they will probably tell you today's society would
never be able to cope with such times. We had all better pray
it doesn't get that bad this time. Been fighting to get a Wii
for Xmas, have we? Just wait until you have to fight to get a
bar of soap and a toilet roll! Bread Saturday with luck,
cheese and sugar - next month, if you can afford it! And going
abroad on holiday with a maximum amount of £50 spending money
allowed out of the country. The Good Old Days!
This Christmas is not a good time for some of our children
either. Latest research shows 130,000 children in England
alone will be homeless this year. This represents a staggering
128% increase since 1997 when Labour came to power. It is an
appalling number. Shameful. The chief executive of Shelter,
Adam Sampson, has said: "Britain is the fourth richest country
in the world and it's a disgrace that we cannot guarantee all
our children a home." How much worse will it become for them?
If you haven't already donated to Children In Need you still
can here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pudsey/
or if you prefer you can donate to Shelter here:
http://landing.shelter.org.uk/brand.
More and more children these days are being let down by the
authorities and are having to rely heavily on people's
generosity. Please give until it hurts - many of the kids your
money helps will be hurting really bad this Xmas.
We are also that much poorer this year for losing some much
loved people. Amongst many notables from the world of
entertainment no longer here to celebrate the New Year with us
are: Mike Reid, Barbara Kelly, John Inman, Luciano Pavarotti,
George Melly, Ned Sherrin, Moira Lister, Deborah Kerr, Betty
Hutton - and dare I say? - Bernard Manning. Some were a
one-off - irreplaceable, others are going to be hard to
replace, and in common all of them will be greatly missed.
No, overall 2007 has not been a good year for us, and
everything suggests 2008 will be far worse. Perhaps it is a
good time to forget it all for a week or two and get on with
the seasonal celebrations. So whatever you choose to
celebrate, or don't, this festive season, I wish you all
exactly what you would wish from it yourselves.
May the New Year be kind to you.
"The Bitch!" 21/12/07.
Subject to the proposed airport strikes etc, the Bitch column
will return mid-January 2008. Have a good one!
|
| |
|
|
|
