|
THE
BITCH ARCHIVES
THE BLACKPOOL
GAY DIRECTORY
|
16/01/08 - 22/02/08
I won't say I am
happy to be back after the (extended) holiday I usually take
at this time of the year, for I am not. There is little to be
happy about.
The economy continues to worsen; the high street stores have
all turned in disappointing seasonal figures which, with the
credit crunch, has put the financial markets in turmoil once
again - the money is now going on gold and all the shiny
metals, as it always used to in times of crisis - and most of
our gold reserves were "given away" by the present government
on coming to power in 1997; the housing market is still
tottering precariously - will it; won't it? - on the edge of a
crash; the NHS is coming under more and more criticism, and
seemingly justifiably so; nothing to prevent our education
system remaining the butt of Europe has yet been put into
place; our transport infrastructure has been studied and found
to be not fit for purpose; the cost of energy (petrol, diesel,
gas and electricity) has rocketed and continues to do so;
taxation is increasing alarmingly, with most local community
charges to go up this year by at least £150 per annum; the
Northern Rock fiasco remains a mortal wound, now with puppet
and master openly arguing over how best to deal with it in a
way to lose the least face; and our food prices are soaring
faster today than since records began. Rises of up to 25% are
already not uncommon - e.g. in our local supermarket: £1
packets of beef & onion slices are now £1.25p, £1 cartons of
milk are now £1.16p, and 2 sliced loaves previously for £1.20p
are now £1.50p, etc. These are not luxury foods but
necessities, and taken over a week the increases make a
noticeable difference to a shopping bill.
Welcome to Brown's Britain 2008 - the ride of a lifetime!
Pepsi Max, eat your heart out!
With an increasing number of pensioners today already having
to choose between a decent meal or heating their room, I am
left to wonder from where they will find all the extra money
that is to be demanded of them this year. The rich - poor gap
has widened dramatically in the past decade. Poverty has
increased notably - with child poverty now spiralling, and so
it will not only be the pensioners in trouble: there will be
many others too. The massive electricity, gas, food and
council tax rises alone may increase a single person's bills
by more than £10 per week (so far!), with their income,
whether it be earned or government provided, not increasing
proportionately, if at all. To Gordon Brown a tenner a week
does not necessitate a second of thought, it is a sum that he
can easily afford, but to many people it is a tearful amount -
one that undoubtedly will force some to consider suicide as
they quite simply do not have that extra weekly tenner or so
needed in order to survive, and even then with just the
minimum of dignity.
Welcome to Brown's Britain 2008 - the beginning of the payback
years! The bill for New Labour has arrived at the table, and
it seems the plastic doesn't work anymore!
A report from Policy Exchange, produced in co-operation with
task management company Serco and law firm Bevan Brittan LLP,
has found Britain's transport infrastructure is "not fit for
purpose" and it warns that the cost of congestion is soon
likely to exceed the current figure of £20 billion a year.
Amongst all the leading industrialised countries, Britain has
some of the worst public transport to be found, the most
congested roads, and the fewest motorways. Calling for road
charging schemes (even more taxation!) the report suggests a
six-hour peak time weekday charge of 10p per kilometre on a
six-lane motorway, and a charge of 5p per kilometre for
cars and light vans and 10p per kilometre for goods vehicles
on ALL roads. This, they claim, would raise more than £25
billion per annum.
Welcome to Brown's Britain 2008 - with even more smoke, and
the mirrors having been cleaned! Rollup! Roll up! The
illusions are to go on; you will be mesmerised!
If road charging and more taxation sounds like a good idea to
you, then consider this: in 2006 our private motorists
alone paid out £32 billion in transport-related taxes, with
only £8 billion of that money actually being spent on the
roads. I say: only when they have spent the other £24 billion
of that money on our roads, and it isn't enough, should they
come back and ask us for more! What are they doing with such
vast sums of our money? What is there to show for it? And
while we are at it: why has the report suggested an amount
sterling per kilometre for Britain? We travel and measure in
miles here, not kilometres. Is it perhaps in order to squeeze
that little bit extra out of us when it is converted to miles?
Hmm . . . Shades of decimalisation day in 1971 I fear, when a
lot of what we earned was rounded down and what we paid out
was rounded up.
Welcome to Brown's Britain 2008 - the Chinese Year of the Rat,
and I am thinking they are not alone in that one! I smell a
rat too!
Moving on - I can only take so much of the Brown stuff in one
go! - but still staying with China: I see 190 of their
products had to be recalled last year. The offending items
ranged from consumer goods and food to pharmaceuticals, with
more than half being the consumer goods - many of them the
potentially dangerous toys we entrusted to our children. Mark
Kendall, partner and spokesman for City law firm Reynolds
Porter Chamberlain, is reported as saying: "We have been
warning for years of the risks in uncontrolled out-sourcing to
China and other developing countries." He warned: "While
lessons will have been learned from the Mattel recall, the
problem will not be solved overnight. We expect to see more of
the same."
To many of us this is déjà vu: we can remember the "Jap Crap"
of the fifties and sixties - but just look what Japan has
built from all that rubbish we imported in those days. It has
progressed to become a world leader in the latest technology,
and it now produces quality goods, ones that everybody seems
to want to own. In doing this, the Japanese have acquired
enormous controls in the western world. Even in the country
that invented television the BBC use Sony equipment, and
pretty much everything to do with entertainment here and in
America will have some link to a Japanese company, their
technology, or their money. So one day soon it will be with
the Chinese. The only difference is: they are already
acquiring a lot of clout, some might say a dangerous amount,
in many western countries before coming up with the quality
goods. Hard pushed banks are finding their money very
attractive in the present economic climate, but how will they
feel when the credit crunch has passed?
China presents us with unchartered waters. Nostradamus may yet
be proved right, with only the date amiss. Uncannily he has
been right with many of his predictions, though rarely at the
times he predicted - thus discrediting him, but perhaps more
than he deserved. He predicted: a yellow race will rule the
world, and that could easily be done by economic means; it
need not take a real and bloody war, simply a battle of big
businesses. Japan has come close to being a contender in this
prediction, so promoting this thought before, but when now we
consider the vastness of this emerging China we see today,
with its massive population and its almost unlimited and
untapped resources, it has to be a far greater contender.
Thankfully, should it all happen, it is unlikely I shall still
be around to see it. It's not that I have anything against the
Chinese. No, not at all, it is simply their food I don't like
- I really cannot believe that man was ever intended to eat
bean sprouts and bamboo shoots! Oh, Yuk! I survived the
passing of civilised places such as Williamsons and Lyons - I
remember Lyons pea soup was to die for! - and I managed to
cope quite well with the Wimpy Bars that succeeded them, but
I've never really took to eating like an animal with food
dropping everywhere and grease running down my hands in the
McDonalds and Burger Kings that followed on after they
disappeared, so another change like chasing a bean sprout
around a bowl of slimy liquid with chopsticks flying from my
hands across the table, I prefer not to consider.
The Bitch! 16/01/08.
|
| |
|
ANYONE SEEN CITIZEN SMITH LATELY?
Well Darlings,
These days the depth of public gullibility simply amazes me. I
find it absolutely astounding. Do people eat stuff today that
impairs their brains? Or perhaps those mobile phones really do
fry brains, after all. Then I suppose it could even be
something to do with the iPod nod, that's getting people
worried now. I mean: nobody seems to question anything today.
They believe everything they are told and go like lambs to the
slaughter. For example: Communities Secretary Hazel Blears
suggestion of having so-called "community contracts" which she
claims could give the public some form of redress, including
financial compensation, should local authorities not come up
to scratch has, without question, been warmly welcomed by some
people. Gullible people, I say!
No doubt to prevent the vast amount of councils from going
broke overnight by the penalties incurred she has already said
she would have to limit the cash payments - likely to be paid
out as council tax rebates - to only a small amount of serious
failings. All the other types of redress she considers - like
forcing a public meeting where councillors would have to
explain themselves, or having a written explanation from the
council - would not be worth the effort of either attending or
opening the envelope. They would simply be another platform
from which a council could spout all the standard patronising
rubbish they already utter with regularity: "We take this
problem seriously . . ."
Likening such a system to the refunds passengers may claim
when the trains are late, Hazel says: "People rightly expect a
good standard of service and redress when things go wrong."
Really? And that coming from a government minister! The
mention of the trains should have been the clue, o gullible
ones!
At the end of the day if it takes X amount of money to run the
trains, then X amount of money has to be found to run the
trains - and that X amount of money comes from the passengers
through fares. By giving those passengers financial redress
the cost of the extra staff to work out and pay the refunds
has to be found, and that leaves the money refunded now having
to be replaced too simply because running the trains costs X,
and that amount of money has to be there. Only a fool cannot
see that the end result has to be significant price rises in
the fares to replace the refunds and to pay for all the extra
staff. Yet strangely some people rejoice at the prospect of a
small refund. Duh!
So how would taking money out of the local authority coffers
every time the council failed to provide an adequate service
be any different to the trains? It wouldn't, is the simple
answer. It is the only answer. A whole new level of
bureaucracy would be needed to handle all the extra work, so
that becomes an immediate increase in our council liability,
and as the council need every penny of their budget (and
usually a whole lot more!) any financial penalties paid out
would automatically have to be claimed back by them through
even further increases in the council tax, or in local charges
such as the extra waste disposal taxes, car parks and
residents parking schemes etc. Were it not so, then it is
obvious to me that services would become worse and worse -
perhaps less and less too! - and the penalties incurred cost
us more and more. If that is not a recipe for a disaster, then
I don't know what is!
Even were the council to insure against paying the claims the
cost of such a scheme would prove phenomenal, and it would
still be passed on to the taxpayer. Where could there be any
benefit? And to whom? I can only see a con - a costly one that
is sadly being lapped up by an increasing number of people.
They remind me of lemmings rushing to the cliff's edge,
excited because they've been told they can fly. Folks, I don't
think obesity is our only problem at the moment. Nanny may
have stolen some people's ability to reason.
Moving on: Peter Hain's resignation from the posts of Work and
Pensions Secretary and Welsh Secretary was always on the
cards, wasn't it? Once the police were involved it had to
happen, and we all knew they would be called in when that
strange "think tank" was discovered. That, we're told, had no
members, did no thinking, and yet had £50,000 of those
donations pumped into it. Hmm . . . This all reminds me of the
joke about the vicar spouting off in the pulpit about theft -
until he remembered just where he had left his bicycle. I hope
you don't know the joke - it's slightly naughty!
Pathetically Hain tried to hold on to both his positions, as
all the discredited government ministers have in the past ten
years, with too many of them succeeding for my liking. I won't
attempt to count them now, but the number must be substantial
- with three major police investigations being required in
just the past couple of years. Honour, and doing "the right
thing", has obviously no place in this government. That the
man did wrong and broke the rules has never been in any doubt.
He failed to declare more than £100,000 of donations -
apparently a whole string of them, not just one or two - and
claimed that was all due to "an oversight" because he had been
so busy.
Bathing in his own self-importance, Peter Hain expected to be
forgiven for his misdemeanours. Equally as bad: the Prime
Minister, Gordon Brown, perhaps running short of people he can
trust, rushed to Peter's defence telling us how good he was at
his job - as if that should immediately excuse him. Well, many
of us are good at our jobs, and we all get busy at times,
don't we? However none of us would expect to be forgiven for
breaking the law simply because we were busy or good at our
job. We know it would not happen. Imagine you or I trying to
tell the taxman we had not declared a certain amount of income
because we had been too busy, however we were very good
workers. It just wouldn't wash would it? And neither should
it! Nobody should be above the law.
I expect a long and inconclusive inquiry - at the taxpayers'
expense again, of course - which will in the end somehow allow
Peter Hain to "clear his name". They all appear to go that
way, don't they? It seems that if you want to commit the
perfect crime, then become a politician - even if you are
found out, you will probably get away with it. You may even be
able to get away with murder. "Whassat?" I hear you say.
Across the pond a damning report: "False Pretenses", released
by the Center for Public Integrity, suggests US President
George W. Bush and his top officials concealed the truth and
lied a total of 935 times in their quest to wage war on Iraq.
The study claims eight administration officials made at least
935 false statements about Iraq's links to Al-Qaeda and its
possession of weapons of mass destruction on 532 separate
occasions. Apparently it was the president who made the most
false statements - 260 of them. The report notes that, in
September 2002, President Bush said on radio: "The Iraqi
regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is
rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the
British government, could launch a biological or chemical
attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given."
Back in the UK, following an earlier freedom of information
request from campaigner Chris Ames that was contested, the
Information Tribunal has this week rejected an appeal by the
Government and ordered the Foreign Office to release an early
draft of the controversial dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction. As the claim that Saddam Hussein could launch a
devastating strike within 45 minutes appeared in Tony Blair's
foreword to the controversial (sexed-up) dossier subsequently
published in September 2002, there is a need to ascertain
whether or not the original dossier actually contained this
claim.
If it doesn't, could this one day lead to Tony Blair, and
maybe George W. Bush too, standing in the dock on trial
accused of war crimes? I guess in theory it could, but in
practice I think we all know that will never happen. Even were
we to learn some awful truth, we know nothing would be done
about it. Already the machinery of governments both sides of
the Atlantic is in top gear and churning away, just in case.
When it comes to giving the people what they want in a
government and its goals - honesty and honour, truth and
openness, peace and prosperity, freedoms and an attempt to
satisfy the wishes of the people - one sometimes has to wonder
why a democracy is said to have an advantage over any other
system in achieving it. It obviously doesn't. It is all a
matter of luck. If there are none to elect that will actually
work for the people, but instead prefer to rule over them, as
many do today, disregarding the people's wishes and simply
doing what is best for themselves and "the establishment",
then there will be times - perhaps like now - when other
systems may beat a democracy hands-down.
Politics today, both national and local, is ruled by big money
and it attracts a lot of the wrong kind of people, and through
these people many democracies, especially those in the western
world, have degenerated into providing little better than the
way in which we were ruled in Medieval times - although lip
service is paid to them, the very last people to really matter
are the surfs. In a true and good democracy, they would be the
first people to matter.
In a true and good democracy the country would not go to war
and kill tens of thousands without first having absolute proof
that we were under threat; we would spend far more on our
defence and much less on our attack capabilities; we would
invest heavily in green technology to overcome our power
shortcomings and the need to rely on other nations; we would
remove layer after layer of bureaucracy and save billions,
much of it there for reasons as stupid as political
correctness; we would have equality for all in our health
provision, thus ridding ourselves of the post code lottery for
life-saving drugs and treatment, and we would remove
government intervention thereby allowing the health service to
be run by health service (medical) people in each area in
accordance with national guidelines that they agree on; we
would invest far more in the police, build prisons, impose
stiff sentences for all crimes of violence, and remove our
law-breakers from society so our streets were safe to walk
once again; we would give money to a board of proven good
teachers so they could sort out the appalling failures in our
education system caused by government intervention; we would
have a basic charter to which local councillors would have to
adhere or otherwise suffer personal financial loss and/or
removal from office - penalising the people with a lot of the
secondary local taxation would have to go, the people have a
right to expect the supply of utilities and basic services
like sanitation and refuse collection without fear, fines or
favour; we would remove the costly "refund" cons for poor
service (rail, water, electric, gas etc. - they simply don't
work and just put prices up) and instead impose a fair salary
for those at the top of these companies backed up by generous
bonuses which would be forfeited if a tribunal found their
services wanting.
These are only a few things on which most people would find
some kind of agreement - these are the sort of things that
they elect their politicians to work towards, not unnecessary
wars, restrictions on our freedoms, a new petty law for every
day of the year, trying to find more ways to raise taxes and
fleece us, or the overpowering Nanny State that has destroyed
families and communities - so why in a democracy have we not
in recent years seen anything like even just one of them?
Come back Citizen Smith, all is forgiven!
"The Bitch!" 25/01/08.
|
|
(TOP OF PAGE)
|
|
ACHING BUTTOCKS!
Well Darlings,
Would you say your
local authority has improved its services tenfold over the
past ten years? How about threefold? Do you think there might
be any local authority that may have done so? Perhaps just
one? Of course not! Such questions promote, if not utter
contempt, ridicule and gut-splitting laughter. I doubt there
is one authority that can, taking like for like, still even
match what it was doing ten years ago!
Research by the
TaxPayers' Alliance shows that whilst the number of people
with a remuneration package of £50,000 or more in the rest of
the economy has risen just threefold, the local authorities'
annual records show the number of their local government
officials receiving packages of £50,000 or more has risen from
an estimated 3,341 in 1997-98 to a staggering 30,889 in
2006-07 - and that is nearly tenfold!
Incredibly we now
have something like 12,600 of our local government staff with
remuneration packages of £60,000 or more, so matching or
surpassing the amount we pay our MPs. Doesn't something
immediately spring into your mind - like why? We are told the
average council spent more than £4 million on such staff in
2006/07, with the total bill for those high-earners across the
country coming to almost £2 billion - and that is equivalent
to £1 of every £11 raised from the council tax we pay.
For a parasitic
organisation that we have to suffer employing basically in
order for us to have our streets swept, our rubbish removed,
our roads maintained, and our old and young folk cared for -
now there's a laugh! - it is an absolutely ridiculous
situation. Who in their right mind pays their servants more
than they earn themselves? Nobody! So why should Joe and Jill
Public? There will be many local authority areas where for the
overwhelming majority of the population £60,000 per annum is
not even achievable in their wildest dreams. It is time to get
real! It is time to pay some of these people what they are
REALLY worth to us!
When we look around
us and see service after service being cut back or withdrawn,
and things like our homes for the elderly being closed down in
order to save money, and all this despite our council taxes
doubling in the past ten years - where wages have not! - with
all kinds of other charges being either introduced or
substantially increased, then paying our council officials to
do some of the stupid and unnecessary tasks that they
undertake today is morally criminal. Just one example from the
many I could name, the list is almost endless, and never mind
the cost to the planet of all the paper involved in this one:
is it right that shop staff etc should have to fill in an A4
form (one for each of them every single working day) to say
that they have (say) polished a counter top and swept the
floor in order to satisfy a Health & Hygiene Regulation when
we have terrified old folk in tears about being turfed out of
their care homes?
This the Nanny State
at its worst! Why does Nanny believe most of these shop
workers could not do their job properly without them or that
silly piece of paper? What is to stop any of them simply
filling in the form yet not doing the work? Absolutely nothing
- and there are forms to be completed today for just about
everything. How much did we - or do we still - pay the person
who thought these crazy schemes through? Or didn't! I
mean: aren't we supposed to be trying to use less paper to
save the planet? Well, you really ought to see the amount of
paper we get through satisfying just one department: Health &
Hygiene. They stand ashamed.
I am thinking we
really do not need people who think up stupid schemes like
this - let us save some money here! At the end of the day it
still comes down to the employer being satisfied with the
standard of work being provided by the employee, and perhaps
rewarding the good staff and retraining or removing the bad
staff. The whole Health & Hygiene involvement (intrusion into
private businesses?) here is costly, both financially and
environmentally, and utterly worthless. So why are we paying
for these people to operate this scheme when there are so many
more important needs, urgent needs, in the community?
The days when an
elder (every area had people who could be relied on to stand
up for what was right, and to help those less able - we had
communities then!) would march into the council offices, bang
his fist on the desk, and demand to see a certain official,
then give him or her a right rollicking over some council
failing may have long passed - but I suspect something similar
will have to appear soon. These people whose wages we pay must
return to being accountable to us, the people. Local
authorities have become far too self-important, too lacking in
what they achieve, too lacking in a sense of pride in serving
the community perhaps having forgotten their real purpose, and
much too costly for us to maintain. When we are having to see
service after service cut back to the extent they are being
cut back today, whilst levels of local government staff
continue to increase along with that preposterous payroll, we
have reached the point where the public simply cannot afford
them any longer in their present form. Something has to be
done. He who pays the piper . . .
Talking of who pays
the piper: I see that Europe's first old people's home for gay
residents has opened in Berlin. Catering for 28 residents in
luxury accommodation, the purpose-built four-story home is
fully booked. It has been a long time coming, and many, many
more are needed - but the people of Berlin are to be
congratulated for finally getting there and actually opening
one. It is more than we have managed to do in the UK.
In 2005 market
research revealed the Pink Pound was worth over £70 billion
annually here in the UK - and naturally it will be worth a lot
more than that today. That is what the UK lesbian and gay
community earned in 2005, and that is what we are told they
were spending, but more importantly that is the amount after
they had paid their income tax. Averaged out, gay people's
earnings that year outstripped straight salaries by up to
£10,000 a year, so their individual tax burdens were
proportionately that much greater too - and with very few
clawbacks as most gay people don't claim such things as child
allowance or use nursery schools etc, although they will have
paid more than most towards them.
Without counting all
the TG, TS and TV people who often prefer to be in gay
surroundings, between 8% - 10% of the population may be
classed as either gay or lesbian. Up to 10% of the population
who pay proportionately higher taxes throughout their
lifetimes - and yet nothing specific is ever provided for them
in their old age. In their last years, should they find
themselves in a home for the elderly, dribbling in the corner
of some communal room often too many of them are unable to -
or are too frightened to! - reminisce or communicate on the
same level as all the others there, those whose forever
related stories will be of a lifestyle almost totally alien to
them. Considering how much they will have contributed to the
state, how can this be fair? They should be with like-minded
people.
The way in which the
UK cares for its elderly in general today is quite disgusting,
and it lags far behind many, if not most, other developed
countries - yet we owe these people so much. Without them none
of us would be here. Everything we have today is because of
them - they fought, they toiled, they paid their taxes, and
they raised us, all in far harder times. We ignore them at our
peril, for tomorrow it could be any one of us dribbling in
that lonely corner.
It is time this
country threw out its Nanny State, stopped wasting all those
countless billions of pounds on utter stupidities, and
concentrated on getting its priorities right. It is the people
who should matter the most - everyone - not just the army of
fat-assed bureaucrats with the matching fat salaries sitting
in all those plush offices trying to think up even more ways
to fleece us at our expense!
We should be paying these people exactly what they are worth
to us - their true employer - and whilst we still have things
like the homeless on our filthy streets with dangerous
footpaths and stinking blocked drains, the sick being left
unattended more and more as services are withdrawn, and our
infirm and frail elderly people losing their rest homes, to
name just a few failings, then these people aren't worth a
lot.
It is as simple as
that!
If you think I may
have gone over the top with my criticisms, then consider this
one example: Fylde council say in order to save money they
will have to close the swimming baths at Kirkham and at St
Annes along with Lowther Pavilion and Fairhaven Lake - all of
them much needed facilities, especially in this "we must keep
ourselves fit and healthy" age. At the same time they propose
to build themselves a new town hall for their own fat-asses,
apparently a palace of a place so we're told, and at a cost of
some £5 million. Do these people truly understand who and what
they are, their purpose, or what their goals should be? I
think not!
There will be people
from many areas who will have countless similar horror stories
to tell today, because so many local authorities have
completely lost the plot. The electorate have become little
more than the golden geese which lay the golden nest eggs for
them.
Well I don't know
about you, but I for one find my buttocks are aching!
"The Bitch!"
1/02/08.
|
| |
|
It's life, Jim - but not as we know it . . .
Well Darlings,
Once upon a time if
we wanted to frighten ourselves we would go to the cinema to
see the latest offering from the Hammer House of Horror -
today we only have to think of the Health & Safety Executioner
- sorry, Executive - to get the same effect. Hardly a week
goes by without something or another that we have enjoyed
doing for ages, sometimes even for centuries with minimal and
considered to be quite acceptable risks, being banned and
making the news headlines. From Remembrance Day marches to
kids playing conkers nothing has been spared, until now
everything we do has to be "risk assessed" whether it is in
our work or in our leisure activities and pastimes.
Of course some
Health & Safety Regulations are needed, and will always be
needed, especially in many of our workplaces. However when new
regulation after new regulation is being produced like it is
today, as if on some fast moving production line, and these
regulations have an adverse affect on the quality of people's
lives, has not the Health & Safety Executive overstepped its
mark to the point of putting its motivation into question? So
many of their rulings today do not actually ban events from
happening as to permit them often subject to some unacceptable
changes and an enormous insurance policy being bought - thus
actively promoting the opportunist "claim for everything"
culture. Is there something we are not being told here?
The whole Health &
Safety concept works on the erroneous assumption that
everybody is a complete and utter idiot, apart from their
officers who alone are sensible and know everything. That the
general public should be perfectly able to assess any everyday
situation or event and, understanding all the risks involved
by using some common sense, be able to decide on whether or
not to partake in it must not be considered, for that would
immediately put into jeopardy many lucrative local authority
jobs. The result of such an ill-conceived policy is that, far
from making the world a much safer place, it has increasingly
become a more dangerous place - and certainly a more expensive
one to live in. Training to government standards (some will
tell you often carried out by the clueless) is needed for just
about everything, and so all too often is that prohibitive
insurance.
Today the percentage
of kids who fall out of a tree they were climbing and break a
few bones will be exactly the same as it has always been. The
only difference is that today there will always be some person
who can be sued for owning the tree. Following any such
incident Health & Safety might easily be down on that person
like a ton of bricks. It's the kind of thing they love doing.
Had the owner undertaken some government training to assess
all the risks of owning a tree, and taken out the necessary
insurance to cover those risks? Had they done everything
possible to draw attention to the risks, and put up notices,
and perhaps barricaded off the tree? The accident which was
once just a childhood part of life, of growing up, has now
become a money-making exercise providing profits for companies
and jobs for people - and that is costing us dearly in both
financial and social terms.
Throughout all
history kids have climbed trees, swam in rivers, skated on icy
ponds and tobogganed down perilous snowy slopes - and I would
suggest that is what healthy kids should be doing. Yes, there
will undoubtedly be the occasional accident - but that is life
and what happens to those who live it to enjoy it, rather than
suffer it. I believe kids are still far safer doing things
like this than hanging around on street corners, getting drunk
or drugged-up, and perhaps being stabbed or shot. Even those
that stay home today and risk becoming lard-asses surfing the
internet, visiting chatrooms and strange websites (like the
"help you to commit suicide" ones recently in the news), are
more at risk of harm than those exploring their environment to
the full, and that includes swinging from tall trees, and
playing conkers with neither visors nor an emergency medical
crew standing alongside them.
There is a wonderful
world out there, and not only just for kids. The real world
(as opposed to the reality world that is constantly shoved
upon us) is full of of fun, excitement, opportunities and
adventure for anyone who wants it - so why do we insist on
living in such a cocooned and ugly one? Only because we are
being forced into it by the Nanny State. But the trouble with
Nanny is: she is both deaf and blind, and considering many of
her decisions by now her sanity must be in question too.
Unhearing of our screams and unseeing of our pain, she has
destroyed whole communities, completely broken up the family
unit as we once knew it, and set neighbour upon neighbour. Her
tools? Local government officials under the guise of Health,
Safety, Hygiene, and Political Correctness - to name only the
most offensive and destructive ones.
In the beginning, by
citing an extreme minority of cases, the Nanny State managed
to convince the vast majority of people that everybody out
there was a potential threat to them and they needed
protecting. They might be a mugger, a villain, or a paedophile
- and even our grandfathers were not to be trusted with their
grandchildren as they could be perverts. We should have heard
the alarm bells ringing then, but we did not, and so we lost
something irreplaceable and of priceless value - trust.
Without it there can be no community spirit, and there can be
no family unit in the sense that it had survived throughout
all history. But Nanny convinced us it was necessary to see
the world in these terms and to adapt. Being tough on crime,
Nanny told us she was only looking after our safety by passing
countless laws that restricted our freedoms. We would all be
that much safer for them.
Really? Well we know
now that these people were not in fact all muggers, villains,
or paedophiles - most of them were pretty decent folk like
ourselves, especially the grandfathers, and any threat to us
was likely to have been quite minimal and acceptable to most.
However in fooling us with that fearful illusion of danger and
convincing us to change the way in which we related to our
communities, and even to our own families, Nanny was
responsible for actually producing an environment in which
such undesirable people, where once they could not, were
easily able to proliferate. And proliferate they did. The
result is the society we live in today. Nanny has created a
monster of a world where the internet is a minefield of
threats to children from sexual perverts and nutcases of every
description, neighbour has become suspicious of neighbour, and
more than half of the population are frightened to go out for
fear of the young hooligans that freely roam our streets and
housing estates armed to the teeth. In recent weeks I have, in
various television documentaries, heard some of these
hooligans refer to their gangs as their family, and their
homes as the places where they have to stay - and that is a
tragedy. Thanks, Nanny!
Not satisfied with
making a complete cockup of keeping us safe and maintaining
law and order, local authorities are now out to convince us
that everything we do is dangerous and we need the local
Health & Safety team to rule on whether or not we may do it.
Never mind that people have quite safely for centuries played
conkers, tossed pancakes in races, rolled cheeses down hills,
held parades and had marches, thrown sweets into crowds,
fought with wooden swords and used pop guns which flick out a
flag saying "Bang!" in pantomimes, danced on wooden floors,
enjoyed sauce on top of ice cream cornets, eaten bags of
peanuts (the clue is in the word!) without the warning: “May
contain nuts”, and all the other thousands of things they
savour doing, they must now seek the guidance of the Health &
Safety "experts" before considering undertaking any of them,
and be prepared to take out all the appropriate and expensive
insurance policies. The extent to which Health & Safety
interferes in the way we live our lives today appears to know
no bounds. But are we any the better for it? I would say we
are most definitely not, however that question does not enter
my mind as readily as: do any of us still have a life worth
living?
I first used this
about four years ago and it now resides in The Profound Bitch
on the AstaBGay website, so apologies for repeating it here
word for word, but it is appropriate: "When boys climbed tall
trees, swam in rivers and went rafting on bits of wood, they
learned more about themselves than anyone could ever hope to
teach them."
Long in the tooth
now, I can look back on my life and all the things I used to
do as a youngster and be thankful. Without the Nanny State I
had a wonderful childhood shared with close friends, and
backed up by a strict but loving and trusting family. As boys
we would go out all day and do our own thing without a care in
the world - and in doing so we learned how to cope with all
eventualities. Just some of the things we would do included
climbing trees to see who could get the highest, swimming in
rivers and making rafts from wooden road signs (naughty!),
going on long bicycle rides (often 20 miles to the coast to
jump in the waves, or 10 miles to watch the motorcycle
scrambling), scrumping a few apples or plums from an orchard
if we were hungry (naughty again, but kids will be kids!)
happily accepting that if we were caught we might get a thick
ear, skating on a nearby icy pond - with all of us having the
aptitude to know when it was unsafe, and tobogganing down a
steep hill in the snow where the River Itchen at the bottom
only added to the thrill.
Accidents? We
suffered none of note, and that was not exceptional. Only once
or twice a year would we perhaps read of some unfortunate kid
somewhere in the country drowning, or breaking a few bones by
falling from a tree. Threats? Mostly we had to invent them.
Paedophiles? We met them, of course - with no internet then it
was usually in the cinemas - but we came with common sense in
those days. We knew how to deal with them, and laugh about it.
They were no big deal. When you can enjoy so much freedom
allowing you to learn so much about yourself and the real
world, then very little becomes a big deal in the bad sense.
It is only when you are plagued with too many stupid laws and
restrictions, and have learned nothing, that things can get
out of hand and become a big deal. My own children grew up
enjoying a similar lifestyle, full of freedoms and learning.
It was only later, when Nanny appeared on the scene to tell
people how they must bring up their kids, that things began to
go downhill.
Love, instinct, and
trust became tempered by rules that had to be followed. To
allow kids the freedom to do everything that we did was deemed
wrong - it was neglectful, and could see parents being
objurgated - kids needed wrapping in cotton wool and
protecting from all the evils of the world - even their
grandparents it seemed! Every kids' bumped head or grazed knee
became an issue to be investigated, and any kind of physical
punishment, like that which followed if the orchard owner
caught us scrumping or the local bobby discovered us smoking,
was out of the question. Such became a criminal offence and
would have the person up in court. And when all this new
thinking went wrong, producing kids that rebelled, turned on
their parents, and took to crime in increasing numbers, the
authorities blamed it not on their own mistakes but on "the
latch-key" age and the lack of parental supervision.
It was nothing of
the sort! The horrific world we live in today with a kid being
shot or knifed to death every week, and dozens more being
maimed along with the grown-ups being beaten to death as
unruly gangs roam free, is purely the result of government
interference that changed the way in which families and
communities operated. Some people in authority were unable to
distinguish between love and hate. The orchard owner who
chased us with a stick, the bobby who slapped our heads, the
schoolmaster who administered six of the best, and even the
prefects that coshed us regularly with a slipper, didn't hate
us, and they certainly weren't abusing us. We, on the
receiving end, never saw it that way, and should we have ever
suffered some real abuse, then these would be have been the
very people we would have run to and told - simply because in
the way things worked then, we knew they really cared about
us.
It is a soppy word
to use these days, but there was a love in a community. The
community was very much like an enormous family. One where
everybody was responsible for everyone else and whether or not
you particularly liked someone, or even knew them well, you
were there for them. No kid suffered or "went wrong" simply
because their parents couldn't be there for them when they
came home from school, there was a whole community to look
after them - we all belonged to each other.
Those younger days
of mine, even in far harder times, were halcyon days, and that
makes it all the more surprising why we have traded them in
for this cotton wool Nanny State that we suffer today. A Nanny
State where, without all the freedoms we enjoyed, kids can
grow up ignorant of what life really has to offer with far too
many of them not even knowing a proper family life or a sense
of community spirit, but only a world filled with
restrictions. They are pushed through an inadequate education
system that is not geared up to replace all the life-learning
skills of which they have been robbed, nor is capable of
preparing them for the world they are to enter, and so
worthless they land up observing only the law of the knife and
the gun, adopting a street gang as their family. This is not
every child, of course - but it is far too many of them, and
the number is increasing.
Nanny, you have
created Hell - Beelzebub is proud of you!
You will all have
heard of the restrictions on kids playing conkers by now, but
here are just a few more Health & Safety horrors, out of
hundreds, you may be unaware of, some of which are destined to
destroy the last hope of a community spirit returning and a
way of life that once worked well: chocolate, or any other
sauce and topping, should be served separately in a container
and not poured on top of an ice cream cone where it might drop
to the ground and cause someone to slip. A popular centuries
old community race where children tossed pancakes as they ran
down the cobbled street can no longer be held because of
health and safety rules. Countless similar community events
have been lost already because of Health & Safety Rules and
the prohibitive insurance costs. Hanging baskets should be
accompanied by warnings and hard hats worn if people are able
to walk beneath them. Jelly and trifle should not be on the
menu for children's parties as some might fall to the floor
and cause an accident. The scripts for village or community
hall pantomimes need to comply with all the Health & Safety
rules - this recently leading to the police having to register
two plastic cutlasses, six wooden swords, and a toy gun that
pops out a flag saying "Bang", and the battles on Hook's
galleon being supervised by a professional fight coordinator.
British border guards in Calais have been banned from using
X-rays to search for illegal immigrants in lorries - because
there is a Health & Safety risk they need to obtain the
stowaways' written permission before they can use such
equipment on them. Health & Safety staff recently refused to
take a 98-year-old woman home from a hospital as the four-inch
doorstep at her home was considered dangerous – to them, not
to the woman. Dance floors in Community Halls, often used not
only by the dancing elderly for exercise but also for wedding
receptions and party events, are to be carpeted over because
Health & Safety consider people could slip on the wooden
floors. This action will put the future of community halls in
jeopardy as they immediately become un-bookable for so many of
the much needed money-providing events that support them.
Is it any wonder we
never see those people wearing: "The End Of The World Is Nigh"
boards anymore? There's not a lot left worth worrying about,
is there?
"It's life, Jim -
but not as we know it . . ."
"The Bitch!"
9/02/08.
|
| |
|
An Englishman's
Home . . .
Well Darlings,
It seems that what the police cannot manage to do for a
reasonable wage plus a pension and all the perks, the public
may soon be expected to do for nothing. We're told civilian
volunteers could yet be asked to patrol the streets of their
crime-ridden estates for themselves, keep a watch on the
activities of suspects (most likely to be the dangerous gangs
of teenage hoodlums - that'll be fun! Where does Health &
Safety stand on this one?), and even go so far as to check the
tax discs on their friends' and neighbours' parked cars.
There is never a dull moment with New Labour, is there? We
have already been conned into sorting out our own refuse -
with all the prospects of paying for the service twice fast
looming on the horizon too! - and now whilst we will still be
paying for our streets to be patrolled by the police, they
actually want us to get out there and do the job for
ourselves. It puts a whole new meaning to: "the land of the
free", doesn't it?
No! No, don't! Please don't! After reading that I had to start
on my medicine early. I'm quite giggly now - something to do
with the lack of tonic, I suspect. A nation of alcoholics? I'm
not surprised, are you? We shall just have to have a quick
joke here to take our minds off all this stupidity. Question:
What do the Poles do in Poland? Answer: Hold up the telephone
wires. Question: What do the Poles do in England? Answer: Hold
up the housing queues. No, no - it's not racial - it's
perfectly alright. Really, it is. Michal Garapich, a social
anthropologist at Roehampton University wants the British
people to make jokes about the Polish people in order to help
them to blend into UK society. I am only doing my bit for
them.
Michal, a Pole himself, has told the Polish media that his
countrymen needed to lighten up - that they were far too
sensitive. An obviously important man, he reckons how the
Polish people react to being the butt of English humour would
be the real test as to whether or not they were actually
integrating in Britain. He says: "If the Poles can learn
anything from the British, it's not to take themselves too
seriously." Really? Well, I am sure we are only too happy to
oblige the man, aren't we? Serious? No, of course we're not!
Thankfully I was not born a Catholic otherwise that might have
been a Hail Mary at least a dozen times and . . .
I see Ken Jones, the president of the Association of Chief
Police Officers, tells us the country urgently needs to wake
up to the epidemic of binge-drinking among teenagers and the
misery it causes. Citing police data which shows that up to
50% of the kids are getting it from their parents (the
alcohol, I believe. At least, I hope so!) he has rebuked both
them and the drinks industry. "Why is it we have got ourselves
into a position where lager is being sold cheaper than water?
Why is it we have got huge entertainment and drinks companies
marketing alcohol to children?" he questioned.
Er, pardon me, but I think the country woke up to all this a
very long time ago - at least those still alive and able to;
those who had not yet been slain by the drunken young
hooligans that terrorise our streets. But it is nice to see
the police are, at last, beginning to acknowledge the true
scale of the problem, isn't it? Now all we have to do is to
convince the government. They, apparently, are looking to make
extensive cuts in police manpower - whilst we are all
screaming that we do not have enough police now to maintain
law and order. Isn't the very fact they need us to patrol our
own streets enough evidence of this? I know our standard of
education has plummeted dramatically these past ten years, but
in government circles too? I think I need another sip - and to
Hell with the tonic!
Do you know, I am beginning to wonder if some government snoop
has been in here, actually within the Royal Mews, and taken my
tonic away for testing? I mean: it was only last October that
under pressure Gordon Brown was forced to admit somehow we had
arrived at the State having 266 powers they could use to enter
our homes and premises without permission. He promised then to
crack down on such laws that infringed our privacy - however
obviously not before another 13 powers became law, which are
only now currently making their way through Parliament. I
wonder if I should offer them their own set of keys? It might
save having to have a new front door fitted, mightn't it? Have
you seen those things they bash them in with?
In the best New Labour tradition of: "an Englishman's home is
a Whitehall thoroughfare" a new quango, the Homes and
Communities Agency, has been set up to enter and survey any
home without the owner's permission to assist in the
compulsory purchase of it. These State Officials will also be
able to break into our cars should they suspect we are evading
our road taxes - it must be something to do with the education
thing again, I guess they simply cannot read the tax discs in
the cars' windows! - and if we are unwilling or unable to pay
those penalising new refuse bin taxes and fines, they will
soon be able to bring the bailiffs inside as well. Hmm . . . I
must remember to leave a couple of teabags and a few biscuits
out for them, just in case. Well, you never know - they might
treat me more favourably! Though I do hope they remember to
turn off the lights when they leave, electric is so expensive
these days, isn't it?
Never mind! The government tell us we shall be staying at the
forefront of space technology, and we may even be launching
our own manned missions. That will be dependent on the British
National Space Centre, which co-ordinates the UK's civil space
activities. They are to consider the costs and benefits of
manned missions against the existing strengths the UK has in
robotic exploration - like, I suppose they mean, the British
Beagle 2 that went missing as it landed on Christmas Day 2003.
Ah, if only they hadn't skimped on the batteries. They should
have known: you can never buy a battery on Christmas Day, not
even on Mars!
Ooh, I say! This gin is rather potent. Does it show?
Soldiering on as I must: I think it will be an excellent idea
for us to send someone into space - especially if we are
allowed to name the person. I nominate Gordon Brown. Can we
send lots of people? I nominate the whole government - send
them to Mars. They should be happy enough there. After all, it
is the Red Planet.
Labouring on: the government's own figures published in the
House of Commons library last week show that more than 2.2
million British children are currently growing up in
households which are dependent on state benefits. That is
one-in-five of all children, with the problem being much worse
in some inner-city areas. You know, those places where we have
to suffer a lot of that drunken behaviour and the kids go
around in stupefied gangs killing one another, and sometimes
us too. I guess when they are not out mugging for the money to
buy their drink - the parents are only acquiring it for the
youngsters - it will be us, the taxpayers, who are really
paying for it and all the misery we have to suffer. Who said
the British spirit had gone? It is still there - only now most
of it is in the gutter.
Now, back in my old stamping ground Chief Inspector Dicks (I
love it!), speaking on crime, has been reported as saying:
"Nationally Swindon is one of the safest places to live.
Thankfully knife crime in Swindon is a rare event and nowhere
near as common as in larger areas." And then somebody kindly
worked out the knife crime figures for us. Based purely on the
crimes that the police know about, possibly about half of all
those committed, a person faces being stabbed in Swindon every
two and a half days.
I guess whoever it is must be getting a bit peeved by now!
Sorry! It's just the medicine kicking in.
In this "one of the safest places to live" in Britain we find
that violent crime has risen by 16% in the past two years
alone. The police suggest robbery was the motive for one third
of the attacks, with another 31% being put down to "disorder".
The remainder is anybody's guess, but with a young father,
Carl James of Park South, being horrifically stabbed to death
and more than 1,930 other victims facing violence (143 with
knives, and 1 with a samurai sword) in this "safe" town last
year, we can only wonder what the odds are of a person's
safety in any town not so safe as this one.
Where the police have failed, is the government really
expecting volunteers from the general public to make a
difference? I suspect the only difference we may see is far
more corpses on our streets. I nominate the Home Office's
adviser on policing, Sir Ronnie Flanagan, for the "Idiot of
the Year Award". It is he who has said it is not necessary for
us to have so many police officers, suggesting that many of
their jobs could be carried out by civilians instead. Yeah,
right! But who is to be employed to carry out all those
carrying out these tasks - in their body bags?
"Land of Soaps All Gory . . ." Sorry, you'll just have to sing
amongst yourselves until next week - it's all too much for me.
I'm off to find another bottle, if those government snoops
have left me one!
"The Bitch!" 14/02/08.
|
| |
|
Between a Rock and
a Hard Place . . .
Well Darlings,
After months of Brown / Darling dithering, the decision
finally reached by our Labour government to nationalise
Northern Rock appears to have raised more questions than it
has answered. Using our money, the taxpayers' money, firstly
the government lent this bank billions of pounds - £25 billion
initially, and then secretly a lot more to some unknown amount
in excess of some £50 billion - backed it and fully guaranteed
its liquidity, and then months later - after the bids from all
the interested parties has probably revealed the true worth
(worthlessness?) of the bank - it has been forced to
nationalise it in the sheer desperation and hope that some of
our money may yet be recoverable at a future date.
But this fiasco has not ended with the nationalisation. It
appears that nobody in government, least of all it seems
Alistair Darling or Gordon Brown, knows exactly what the
country now owns - such is their expertise. Seemingly all the
juicy morsels, the mortgage debts with the least risks
attached to them, do not belong to us - they belong to
Granite, the offshore trust to which Northern Rock sold its
most profitable mortgages. Talk about being between a rock and
a hard place! We may yet find we have been left holding just a
mere £50 billion's worth (or less) of some very dodgy
mortgages - the 125% of value deals (and that's before the
housing slump started!) and the 100% accounts of those with
CCJs who have a proven record of not honouring their debts. We
are not allowed to know the truth because the government has
insisted on secrecy, but should this be the case it might be
only if every single one of these accounts were to be
successfully paid off would we get back in a reasonable time
anything like what this exercise has already cost us - and I
believe we stand more chance of meeting a Martian than for
that to happen!
As a taxpayer are you not, like me, wondering why we are
bailing out a business like this at all - especially one that
was obviously poorly run to get into such a disastrous
position in the first place? There is no case here, like when
public money has sometimes been used in the past to shore up
the likes of the motor vehicle industry, where tens of
thousands of people in an area would suddenly become
unemployed were assistance not given. So why is the government
interested at all? Only to try to save the face of Gordon
Brown and preserve the illusion of a healthy economy.
All this talk about it is not the bank's fault and that their
troubles were instigated by the American housing market is
pure rubbish. It is their fault. No other bank in the world
has suffered a run on it because of these problems in America.
It seems no other bank has proportionately taken on so many
risks, at least not without first making some provisions for
them not to perform as expected. This is simply a case of
extreme bad management. Some banks, sensible ones like Lloyds,
have hardly been affected at all - and they live in the very
same money market.
In the present economic climate, with a record number of
businesses going under, there will probably be many reading
this who could still be trading today had the government
equally backed them in their hour of need. The banks have
fleeced us for years under Gordon Brown's "live on credit" and
"pay all the extra taxes on credit" time at the Treasury. They
have made unprecedented profits out of us for their
shareholders - and in all those years of fat I do not once
recall any bank or shareholder actually giving me or you any
of their money. So why should we be forced to give them ours
now?
Stocks and Shares can go up, or they can go down. Investing in
them is always a gamble. Those who risk their money in such a
way searching for a profit must be prepared to take a loss if
it all goes terribly wrong. I am not a gambling person, but if
the government were as eager to back any bet that I placed in
the hope of making a fast buck, then I certainly would be.
This bank should have been left to go under, with only some
protection to those who banked with it given by a similar kind
of guarantee for the banking industry as ABTA is for the
holiday trade. Companies that make billions of pounds in
profit out of us should be forced to make their own provisions
for a rainy day. They should not come running, cap in hand, to
me and you when they make a serious cockup!
As if all this were not bad enough for this country and our
economy, I believe the worst may yet be to come. Before
Christmas the alarm bells were already ringing: as a nation we
owed more on our credit cards than the worth of our country's
gross domestic product. Since then, what with Christmas, that
amount of money owing has dramatically escalated even further,
and the January figures suggest it is continuing to grow
unabated. As we go into some very hard times ahead of us,
times of spiralling taxation, with gas, electricity, and now
we hear water charges too rising in double percentage figures,
along with council tax hikes and food prices increasing faster
than since records began, there will be many people who will
be unable to find the money they need to pay their current
bills, let alone pay anything off all the debts they already
owe. A crisis looms.
Many banks may yet find a lot of their assets, the money owed
to them on paper, will never be repaid because, quite simply,
it cannot be repaid - the debtor has not the resources to do
it. The difference here is, unlike with a mortgage, there will
often be no property to seize in the hope of reclaiming a part
of the debt - something like a family foreign holiday taken, a
fantastic Christmas, or a wedding worth thousands of pounds
cannot be repossessed - and, with so much in people's homes
these days on credit agreements of one kind or another, there
may be little left for the bailiffs. There are only two
choices at this stage: consolidating loans - so further
exasperating the problem by creating even more financial
assets that may not in fact exist in reality, or writing off
some of the debts - and once that begins to happen then there
is always the risk that everybody will default and want theirs
written off too.
For more than ten years now the fat cats have presided over
our banks and financial institutions hysterically trading
amongst themselves in a far too easy credit market with
figures typed on pieces of paper and computer screens, only
recently realising that many of these assets are probably
worthless. Just as with the game of pass the parcel, everyone
is now nervous for they know there is a big forfeit to be
paid, and possibly soon. Who will be holding the parcel when
the music stops? God forbid it should be the British banks!
With Gordon Brown's only answer to everything being another
increase in stealth taxation, the £3,500 that Northern Rock
will have cost each and every one of us taxpayers could soon
seem like peanuts if we are to rescue every financial
institution that gets into trouble!
Is it any wonder that even after all the vociferous complaints
from our senior armed forces personnel about the severe lack
of equipment for our troops in the front line, and after
learning that some of our military aircraft were not fit for
purpose and in danger of falling out of the sky, and never
forgetting that lambasting a coroner has recently seen fit to
give the government for the unnecessary deaths of those poor
soldiers, and others like them, the Treasury is still looking
to make even further cuts in the defence budget this year?
Yes, unbelievable I know, but they want to make even more cuts
- and on a defence budget that was never reinstated to a
wartime level.
To Hell with the armed forces and all their petty needs; to
Hell with Iraq and all that deceit the finally released
dossier has shown; to Hell with the police, their numbers and
their pathetic pay rise; to Hell with the unprecedented rises
in violent crimes; to Hell with the health, transport and
education disasters; to Hell with the election promises,
especially that one about a referendum; to Hell with the plebs
and all their whinging about the record breaking taxation,
unequalled price rises, and the penalising laws that take away
their freedoms; and to Hell with everything and everybody of
no importance really - the sole purpose of this government now
in what must be seen as its agonising and lengthy dying years
is to hang on and save face for Gordon Brown amongst his
peers, and to preserve for history the illusion that he was a
good Chancellor, no matter what the cost!
Hmm . . . With the country unwilling or unable to satisfy its
moral commitments, already more than £40 billion in debt (and
fast rising), and with up and coming countries like China
sitting on a surplus of hundreds of billions in Western
currencies just wondering what to buy with it, that cost might
yet be substantial. Whichever way you choose to see your GB -
as Great Britain or as Gordon Brown - things may never quite
be the same again.
Pandering to the land of the bamboo shoot doesn't bear
thinking about!
"The Bitch!" 22/02/08.
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
