ARCHIVES OF THE BITCH.

Well Darlings,

There has been a hell of a lot of rubbish talked about our refuse collections lately. Under the pretext of it increasing the recycling of waste - a theory now being dismissed as having no substance - 140 authorities have already moved to alternate weekly collections where recyclables are collected one week and other waste the next. What long-term implications this will have on public health remain to be seen. Despite the stories of increased vermin, flies and maggots everywhere this system has been adopted, with such a lousy summer this year any major adverse affects are hardly likely to be noticed - but what of the years when we have a good summer? A long, hot, dry summer? Though we tend to easily forget them, summers with hot, dry spells are not so infrequent that they should be dismissed.

Local authorities using alternate week collections claim there is no clear evidence of any adverse public health effects, but the devil is in the detail of that claim. The difference between "evidence" and "clear evidence" can be as vast as the imagination. We can only have clear evidence after something has been tried, tested and proven, whereas evidence alone can be based on things we have already learned, perhaps in different situations.

By now most people will have seen the pictures of undulating carpets of maggots on pavements and on wheelie bins. They are simply the result of leaving waste around for too long. Whilst in this stage these creatures that seem to appear from nowhere are usually quite harmless, it must not be forgotten that every one of them is a potential fly of some sort - and they are not harmless. They are a danger to our health - and of that we do have clear evidence!

Whilst there is no clear evidence of harm to public health with this system so far, and only so far, it can be said just as equally that there is no clear evidence that a summer heatwave of any substantial length will not result in some epidemic, or even a plague. In hot countries like (say) India the bugs there pose very little threat to the locals, they have become immune to them over many centuries, however we do have evidence that when we visit that country we frequently go down with what is affectionately known as Delhi Belly, and that is simply because we are neither used to these bugs nor immune to them. Based on that evidence, we have to accept that any change to our hygiene standards here that might promote bugs we are not used to, such as keeping festering garbage within our communities for long periods so that flies and vermin proliferate, could be hazardous to our health. We can suspect this based on the evidence we already have, but if we want clear evidence then we might have to wait until people start becoming seriously ill, or dying. Should we have to do this? Common sense tells us: we should not live in a dirty, filthy, fly and rat infested environment.

This poses a very serious question: should our local authorities only work on clear evidence? It is an extremely risky policy for them if they do so, for often it will mean abandoning common sense - and that, in the event of something like a life-threatening epidemic, could easily leave those responsible liable to prosecution. Don't you find it somewhat strange that all those Health & Safety regulations which prohibit us doing so much these days, have not stopped our authorities from taking these risks? I mean, have they not carried out their risk assessments, like we all have to for everything now? Blow soap bubbles at a kid's party? No, you mustn't do that! It's no longer allowed in case someone should slip up. Venture into the unknown, with no clear proof it won't be a risk to our health? Oh, that's okay! Hmm . . .

It stands to reason, the good old common sense I love to talk about so much, that the quicker we dispose of our waste, the safer we shall be. We learned this as long ago as 1665 when fleas from the rats feeding off our rubbish decimated the population, wiping out whole communities in what became known as the Black Death - so why are we abandoning it now? Can you imagine our over-stretched health service trying to cope with something on that scale? It can't cope now - we could be decimated again!

During the summer months one only has to put their nose near to (say) an empty dog food can, or even a fast food container, just two days after it has been used to know that what unseen things there are living in it now aren't good news. The smell can be appalling, and bad smells are often nature's way of telling us: avoid! We're told councils being approached with these problems of infestations and smells are advising the public to wash out all their cans, disposable trays etc., and wash and disinfect their wheelie bins too. Really? Washing and disinfecting hasn't done much to prevent our hospitals from killing us with the bugs that proliferated since they changed their standards of hygiene, so is it really likely to work on our streets? The best way to stop an epidemic is not to give it a chance to start!

Cleaning a wheelie bin is not the easiest of tasks even for the able-bodied, so how are some of our pensioners and disabled people expected to cope? Some grannies are not much taller than these monsters - I can picture one of them falling inside never to reappear! But something perhaps far more important than a disaster such as that is: with every household now expected to wash out their refuse bins, microwave-meal disposable trays, sauce bottles, cans, and many, many other items of waste in an attempt to keep smells, maggots, flies and vermin at bay, aren't we going to be wasting an awful lot of that what we are told will, in the not too distant future, become one of the planet's most valuable items? Water.

With all the torrential rain and flooding we have suffered this year, it may be hard to believe water is that precious - but it really is. Where gold was, and oil currently is, fresh water will one day become the world currency. People will die for it. At the rate our climate is changing worldwide, with deserts being rained on and once green pasture lands now suffering year after year of drought, who knows how soon that day might come? Nobody talks of a hundred years any longer. Having so inaccurately predicted the melting rate of the ice caps, few scientists will now put a date on any eventuality.

One adverse affect of the bi-weekly collections already being experienced is that they have produced yet another brigade of little Hitlers - as if we needed more of them! Not a week passes by now without us reading about someone, often many people, whose bin was not emptied because it was "contaminated" by a small piece of something that should have been put into a different bin. The refuse collectors now rummage through our garbage feverishly looking for contaminating items, but ridiculously (because of Health & Safety, so we're told!) they are not allowed to simply remove them and then empty the bin. Instead of anything that easy, they slap a ticket on the bin - and unless its owner pays around £12.00 for a "special" collection it won't be emptied until the following fortnight.

Now, not everyone can afford to pay for a special collection - to some people £12.00 is a lot of money - and there will be others who won't even bother or care about the bin not being emptied, so that means the offending bin will now hang around stinking for a whole month, perhaps even longer if the "contamination" hasn't been removed correctly by the time of the next collection. These bins are not completely air-tight, so every fly, bluebottle, rat and unwanted beast for miles around will be attracted to the bin, and that's nice for the neighbourhood, isn't it?

A system made for money grabbing? Another stealth tax? Of course it is! If the real reason for this system being adopted was truly an attempt to save the planet, then it makes no sense whatsoever to not empty a bin, only to then have to use up more of our vital resources in providing a special collection. As carbon footprints go, this one is large and utterly indefensible!

Like so many ideas rushed into lately, and eagerly taken on board by those who are genuinely concerned for our planet, bi-weekly refuse collection is an ill thought through scheme, but one that was quickly seized upon by local authorities because they could see it was an easy way of making money. However it is slowly being realised it is likely to do far more harm than good to the planet, and the consequences of it could prove unimaginable. Frightened now by some of those possible consequences, and despite all the revenue that they might have squeezed out of us, some authorities are already having a change of mind and rapidly making plans to revert to the weekly collections. That is at least some good news.

Recycling our waste makes sense. We must all do it. But how we do it needs to make sense too!

Before I go, I must just mention another ill-conceived idea: Britain's first desalination plant. This has got the go-ahead and will be built in the Thames Gateway at a cost of some £200 million. In return for the meagre supply of fresh water the plant will provide - a mere 140 million litres of drinking water a day - it will pump into the atmosphere a massive 250,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases a year - and that's every year.

Every single day in London 915 million litres of drinking water are lost through the old underground pipes leaking. A one-off purge to replace all the decrepit water pipes (like we replaced our gas pipes in the seventies) would supply London with more than six times the water this new plant will produce and, once the work was completed, without any extra greenhouse gases being emitted whatsoever - and that's every year too!

If you were in charge of the nation, and you really wanted to save the planet, what would you be doing?

"The Bitch!" 21/07/07.

Well Darlings,

The Crime Statistics for 2006-07 in England and Wales have been published. Although vandalism is up 10% and violent crime up 5%, with a 3% increase overall when all crimes are taken into account according to the British Crime Survey figures - the accepted most reliable source - there seems to be some rejoicing that crime may have stabilised. This is because when the BCS figures are averaged out with the police crime figures - accepted as not being the best to use - it does indeed look that way as they cancel each other out. But should we be averaging out the best information we have with that which is not so reliable just in order to make things look better?

There are many crimes committed today that the public no longer bother reporting to the police. A lot of cases of burglary, theft and criminal damage don't get reported simply because it is known the police are under too much pressure to be able to investigate them thoroughly and will often just issue a crime number for the insurers. As these crimes are more prevalent in the deprived areas, where fewer people can afford to be insured against them, the victims will often feel safer to not be seen making a fuss and so they do not report them. However, although these crimes may not have been reported, it still needs to be accepted that they have occurred for they will affect the public's perception of crime, and go a long way towards explaining how that differs from the expectations based on the reported crime figures.

Statistics can be played around with to show pretty much what you want them to show, whereas the public's perception is not susceptible to such treatment. It is mostly based on front-line experiences - on personal knowledge - and contrary to what the politicians would have you believe, the public do not become unjustly alarmed.

A statistic which tells us violent crime has risen by 5% may not look good to most people - but it is not exactly frightening. However when you tell them that there were more than 2.47 million violent incidents recorded by the BCS in 2006/07 (and these are only the recorded ones!) their acceptance of that percentage may change rapidly. Simple arithmetic will then suggest to them there is something like a 1 in 24 chance that they could become a victim, and if we take out of the equation all those whose lifestyle makes their chances of becoming a victim so remote as to not be worth considering, it is probably more like a 1 in 20 chance or even less - and with this type of crime rising those odds are shortening all the time. It is not good news.

Many people will know far more than 20 other people, and so every year there will be a hell of lot of people who will have personal knowledge of at least one such crime. Some will know of a whole lot more. Public perception doesn't count for nothing - it may not produce accurate figures, but it is a good yardstick by which to measure the improvement or decline each year. Just as justice should be seen to be done, crime-fighting should feel to be working. That said, I haven't noticed any street parties yet!

The increase in vandalism doesn't surprise me. Again, it is an often not reported crime, and yet despite that it has still officially increased by an enormous amount. The true extent of vandalism must be an unknown but horrific quantity. Even the Royal Mews here in Blackpool has succumbed to it. Since a family from Hell moved into the area no window is safe, and as proof the Royal John now sports a cracked one. Kids, probably only around seven and eight years old, hurl missiles at house windows, parked cars, or whatever takes their fancy, and should you confront them they simply stand their ground and laugh in your face, saying: "What yer gonna do about it?"

Faced with these brats gloating, you begin to feel impotent for you realise there is absolutely nothing at all you can do about it. We have allowed the do-gooders and the politically correct to change the way we live so much that to even shout at the little terrors could have you in trouble. So, when their parents - who are rarely at home! - aren't interested in what their children get up to, and will accept no responsibility for the damage they cause, you are at a complete loss as to what to do. Inform the police? It might sound good, but it is totally out of the question. The police do not have the resources to set up surveillance and catch every vandal, there are far too many of them out there, and to just involve the police could see your house completely trashed and your life made a living hell. That is why within just a couple of hundred yards of the royal abode eight "For Sale" signs have recently been erected outside of properties, although at any one time you may only see half that amount because the little hooligans frequently uproot them and use them as missiles.

Vandalism is a far more serious crime than many might at first imagine. Areas that are vandalised soon go downhill. Nothing will knock the bottom out of the local property market faster than a street of boarded-up broken windows. Faced with this, those once proud of their properties, and who would strive to keep them looking respectable, give up caring. Rather than suffer the vandalism and the downward spiral they move away, perhaps even suffering a loss on their investment, and before you know it all the dregs of society, the drug pushers and pimps, move in and take over the area.

With all the CCTV we have around today, in our town centres there is always a hope of catching the vandals - but in residential areas where there are no cameras there is no hope and no answer to it. Vandalism has become something we have to suffer, and is yet one more dreadful result of those misguided people who would "reason" with children rather than instil some discipline in them. Such a doctrine may work occasionally in the leafy suburbs of Surrey, but it sure doesn't work everywhere!

I would never support any policy that forced parents into correctly disciplining their children, within reason people should have the freedom to choose exactly how they wish to bring up their own offspring, however because of a misguided few, everybody has been forced into NOT correctly disciplining them the way that Nature intended, and we only have to look around our country today to see the result! We have the highest crime figures; the highest number of unwanted teenage pregnancies; the highest number of cases of sexual disease; the highest number of binge-drinkers; and the most trouble on the streets in Europe. So far this year - and it is still only July as I write this - in London alone a staggering seventeen teenagers have already been killed with either guns or knives, and similar deaths are occurring in many other towns and cities throughout the country.

I for one am not rejoicing at the crime figures "stabilising" at this level. We must stop talking about it, and congratulating ourselves, and REALLY get tough on crime. Tough on crime means being REALLY tough on the parents and means them in turn being tough on their children. Until children learn to respect both property and people, every generation will grow up that much worse than the last. We have seen it happen; the evidence is there - indisputable clear evidence. Tomorrow's criminals are today's children - let's change the programming!

Because of a few people who believe their farts don't stink and who will not accept that, although they may be civilised, they still basically belong to the animal kingdom and so need to abide by Nature's way of rearing their young, a way that has suffered the proof of all-time, we have descended to this level today where decent law-abiding people now live in fear of crime. Criminals are in the minority at the moment - but for how long? If we don't change something soon, can you visualise life in another fifty years?

We don't train our children correctly, and we don't teach them anything about the real world. I am at this moment listening to a programme on the television behind me where the students in their last year at one of our better schools think money borrowed on a credit card doesn't have to be paid back. At sixteen they do not know the first thing about money. I am astounded! Gobsmacked! Education? Education? Education? I guess when some of these kids discover it has to be paid back they'll have to resort to crime to do it!

A legacy of those who have inflicted all this upon us with their misguided ways are the horrendous actions being performed, and often recorded on mobile phones, by youngsters for whom even murder has now become fashionable. Nothing, not even life itself, has any value whatsoever to an ever-growing number of youngsters today - and, as several court cases have shown, they don't all come from bad or deprived homes.

It is not corporal punishment that promotes crime and kills people; it is people, often youngsters, through the complete lack of it!

What yer gonna do about it, Mr Brown?

"The Bitch!" 27/07/07.

Well Darlings,

After so many serious issues recently I was hoping to find a few humorous topics for this week's article, but I've been hard-pushed to find them. There's not a lot to laugh about in the world at the moment, is there? At one point I had only come up with Mookey, Blackpool Tower's famous clown, and David Cameron - and as I couldn't decide which of them was the funniest, and therefore the most worthy of a mention here, I nearly gave up on the whole idea of producing an article for this week.

Oh, well! Sorry, Mookey - Cameron has to win the day, but only because it is about all he is ever likely to win right now. Having slipped up on where he should be standing on grammar schools, museum charges and one or two other notables, Ping-Pong man has seen the Conservatives lose two by-elections miserably. I call him Ping-Pong man because of the way in which he can so rapidly change sides. He reminds me of those early computer table tennis games - it only takes a little nudge and before you know it he is over the other side. Perhaps, like those games, his novelty factor has been short-lived too.

Not one to be deterred by the humiliating by-election results or his plummeting percentages in the opinion polls, David chose to ignore the tide that was turning against him and, even as his own Oxfordshire constituents were suffering great hardships and battling against rising flood waters, he swanned off to visit Rwanda. We could never call it one of his best decisions, could we? It certainly showed him lacking the knowledge of how to prioritise, and did nothing towards him winning friends and influencing people. David has a lot in common with Mookey: he is a funny, charming, loveable guy - but a bit of an idiot in his job. Could he be trusted to run a country without it turning into a joke?

As Gordon Brown only flew over the floods, and perhaps with his less than perfect eyesight didn't actually see too much of them, there was a marvellous opportunity missed here for David Cameron to put on his wellies and to be seen wading in to help his constituents. A few hot soups dished out, a dirtied shirt or two and some babies held whilst their mothers tended to something else - all caught on camera, of course - would have paid dividends, but David missed the boat - and I think now, maybe so too has the Conservative Party.

I doubt this party could suffer yet another change of leadership so soon and still remain credible. Nevertheless there is already the noise of growing in-fighting for it, and I think the volume of that has increased somewhat following David's appearance on Radio 4's Today programme at the end of July where apparently he lashed out and blamed just about everybody bar Paddington Bear for his troubles. A QF (Queenly Fit) like that, as I'm told it was, is not an attribute normally associated with a potential future prime minister, is it?

Such a disappointment has David Cameron become, many are now predicting Gordon Brown will go for an early general election, and almost in the sound knowledge that Labour will romp home to an easy victory. Maybe the only thing to prevent this from becoming a reality is another reality - that of the Labour Party's funds. They are said to be in debt to the tune of some £25 million, and so are not best fixed to support an election campaign at this time. Quite a bit of Brown-nosing with big business will first have to be done by Gordon to rectify this restricting situation - so I guess we can expect even more stealth taxes pretty soon as those who have got the big money are wooed with tax breaks and concessions in the hope that they will give some of it up to support their benefactor!

It appears that David Cameron, the Conservative Party favourite on whom their salvation depends, has turned out to be somewhat wet behind the ears, a bit of a drip really, and anyone's hope of escaping from the never-ending increases in taxes, pathetic rules, regulations, losses of freedom and ever-growing armies of little Hitlers produced by this government may have gone down the drain faster than any of the recent flood waters. But how can all this happen - and again? Why does every opposition leader not match up? Why is there seemingly never an alternative?

The answer is quite simple, and - if you don't cry - you can laugh at it here: it is all to do with being divided. Divided we fall. And we have been falling for everything. Right from the outset in 1997 when the pension funds were blatantly robbed, through the welching on the "no student fees" promise, the convenient (for the government) Iraq war, the asylum seekers, immigration, and on further to the latest which is the ban on smoking, and with many other policies on the way to here too numerous to mention, hidden by all the spin, smoke and mirrors, the tools of an illusionist, this government has successfully managed to keep the nation pretty much divided into factions for all of the time. Every part of our society has been picked on, and each has suffered terribly - but all individually.

Dividing the people is a very clever strategy, it works extremely well and allows governments to get away with just about anything. It is a tactic now employed in several countries. Because the public disagree so strongly on many things, they can never seem to manage to come together in sufficient numbers to agree on enough in common to unite. Were they able to, they might not allow many of the impositions they currently suffer, and perhaps they would be far more forgiving of any lacking found in the opposition parties. Had Maggie Thatcher known of this strategy in her day, we would without any doubt at all now have the poll tax.

When you consider that then the poll tax was far too much for the nation to take, so much so that the people took to the streets and faced the government head on with force, you have to laugh at where we are today: with our DNA soon to be put on file, along with that of every common thief and murderer, for a misdemeanour as minor as dog fouling, dropping a piece of litter, or a noisy party. They don't even do that in Russia!

David Cameron: a little wet behind the ears? Well, we should never forget that so too was Tony Blair when he came to office - nevertheless his convincing Laurel & Hardy act with Gordon Brown still managed to get us all on a roller coaster ride, and one it appears we can't get off. How clever was that? Perhaps it is time to wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe there isn't all that much wrong playing Ping-Pong now we know that freedom is dead, and we haven't been dreaming any of this in some dramatic shower scene.

Or have we? Is that you, Bobby?

Now this really has to be a dream: the reformed Spice Girls let loose on Iraq. The country may have survived Shock and Awe, but what would it make of Girl Power? And with it being a Muslim country too?

Wisely or not, the Spice Girls are allowing fans to vote for a city which the group say they will then add to their 14-date world tour. Knowing this, thousands of bloggers and internet surfers are now urging people to go to spicegirls.com to vote for the girls to do this extra gig in Baghdad, and it seems many are as it is reported to be way ahead in the poll. Could this reunion tour turn out to be the farewell tour to end all farewell tours? They may no longer be wearing those Union Jack jumpsuits - but everybody out there might still see them, and that would be like a red rag to a bull.

It is claimed that three million people have already signed up to see their shows, even though no venues have yet been officially announced. The only way tickets can be obtained is by registering for a specific show on the band's website where those who are chosen will be notified by October 1st and then be able to purchase up to six tickets, the cost of which is unknown. Apparently there is only one gig taking place in the UK, and nobody yet knows where that will be.

There's quite a lot of unknowns, isn't there? Here's another: what are 14 successful gigs worth, if finally you bomb in Baghdad? Hmm . . .

Lastly, if your dream was to own a saucy car number plate when the new 57 registrations arrive in September, forget it! Nanny has seen to it that the DVLA will be banning any that might be interpreted as cheeky. Already definite no-hopers are: EA57 GAL (Easy Gal); MY57 ASH (My Stash); H057 AGE (hostage); and even EC57 ASY (Ecstasy) - and no-one but no-one will be having a ball with: TE57 CLE.

A spokesman has claimed the cheeky plates will be banned in order to avoid causing any "general offence or embarrassment". Really? It's a pity we didn't adopt that philosophy when it came to going to war with Iraq, isn't it? That's offended many people, embarrassed the whole nation, and turned out to be a right BA57 ARD!

"The Bitch!" 3/08/07.

Well Darlings,

In a week when we learn that with rules being rules (Health & Safety, and those risk assessments again!) council workmen in Lancashire are not allowed to put up some long-awaited roadside speed signs in some of our rural Wyre villages because the County Council has not trained them to climb ladders - which leaves me wondering just how high up are these street signs to be fixed, and what the term "workmen" actually means these days? - it is only fitting that I mention a certain Mr Daly in Brighton who owns a tea shop and has some very strict rules of his own.

I'm obliged to the Brighton Argus for telling me that customers at the Tea Cosy Rooms there are warned they will be asked to leave the premises should they dunk their biscuits - the technical term for this offence being: "biscuit wetting" - or dare to speak whilst the piano lady is performing (I guess they mean tinkering with the ivories!) Other rules that must be obeyed without question include: not handling the sugar cubes (use the golden tongs?), not sipping from the teaspoon, not tapping the teaspoon against the cup, not putting your elbows on the table, and not insulting the Queen or any member of the Royal Family. Conversation, when it is allowed, must be kept at a reasonable level - the newspaper informs us it must be no louder than "two shakes of a tea cup", whatever that is! - and to use a mobile phone will have you out of the door quicker than you can say: "Call you back!"

One customer has described the tea rooms as "the scariest place ever", and we're told others have jokingly described the owner as a Fascist and have even set up a website about the establishment with a discussion forum where stories can be exchanged.

If by now you are thinking these stringent rules are a recipe for disaster and a path to eventual bankruptcy, you will need to know the place is very popular - and you may have to book! It turns out the owner, David, is a very nice person too, and far from being the "age-riddled fuddy-duddy" that you may have imagined, he is only 30-years-old. He tells us: "People have to obey the rules and if not they are asked to leave. It is the art of tea drinking - this is not going to Starbucks with a mug of coffee."

I love it! Style is still alive and kicking in Brighton! Well done! Nobody with a little pinky just itching to extend itself can now visit this resort without at least once calling in to the Tea Cosy Rooms. And before you think it may be too posh for you, let me tell you that along with HM Queen, Bet Lynch and Betty Turpin are also its idols. Style never has been a prisoner to posh - as any Spice Girl will tell you. Ouch! Visit: http://www.theteacosy.co.uk/ The Tea Cosy, 107 Southover Street, Hanover, Brighton.

Staying with Brighton, I see the publicity has not been so good for Legends. With a 24-hour drinking licence, this was Britain's largest exclusively gay hotel until April this year when the new anti-discrimination laws forced it to open its doors to straight customers too. Not only a hotel, this enormous building has its own (and extremely popular!) subterranean nightclub as well, but now it is apparently in hot water over its treatment of some straight partygoers during the recent Brighton Pride festival which attracted a record 150,000 visitors.

Stirring it up for them is Samantha Baskerville who has complained her straight friends were refused entry by door staff, being told the venue was full, and yet she (and she claims anyone else who was gay) was allowed in. Samantha is reported as saying: "If this was a gay couple being refused (entry) to a straight club they would be suing now. I think to discriminate against them is disgusting, especially during Pride."

Well, thank you for that, Samantha - Rules are rules, aren't they? - I guess everyone loves you now! Not! Er . . . You don't happen to work for Health & Safety, do you? It's certainly a missed vocation if you don't!

It has been a long, hard uphill slog over many, many decades, from way before the word "gay" was even adopted by homosexuals, to get to where we are today. From being a love that once dare not speak its name, in this country we have now gained an acceptance by most people and a tolerance by others - and I am proud to have played some small part in that achievement. Along this route we have fought for, and won, many legal battles and so now we have laws - equality laws - to give substance and protection to our standing. However it is the essence of these laws that is important to everybody, gay and straight alike, and not the interpretation of them to the finest detail - to the last letter of the law.

Gay people are very much a minority, and those of them that are out there "on the gay scene" are an even smaller minority. Only about 25% of the 10% of people who are gay or bisexual are actually on the scene. Such a small minority could never endanger the continuance of any straight establishment be it a hotel, a bar, or a nightclub. However the reverse is not so true. With 150,000 people visiting Brighton Pride (and they would not all have been gay by any means!) without some common sense being employed it would be so easy for every gay club in the town to be filled to capacity with straight people if the letter of the law was strictly adhered to. How would Samantha feel about that?

To operate a door policy a little in favour of its regulars, those people who support it and keep it a viable business throughout the year so that it will be there again for the next Pride, is not the same as discriminating against straight people per se. It is simply employing some good business sense, and perhaps is the only policy that can provide hope for any venue ever surviving that is enjoyed throughout the year by gay people. I have no proof Legends actually did this but, having myself run gay clubs in the past, to save some spaces for my regulars and friends is a policy I have often adopted when close to capacity. I see nothing at all wrong with that, and it has nothing at all to do with any type of illegal discrimination and everything to do with survival. Would Samantha be happy were all the gay pubs and clubs in Brighton to suddenly turn straight overnight? Every one of them filled 90% by straight people? As she lives in Hove, I doubt it!

We fought for this equality law - and we did it to have a legal and equal standing, not to lose everything gay we have in an overwhelmingly straight world run to the letter of the law simply because we are a minority. Here in Blackpool there are several religious guest houses, and others geared up for families with kids - there probably are in Brighton too. They don't want to have to take in gay people, but the law says they must not refuse them. However unless there are no other accommodations around, and it cannot possibly be avoided, few gay people will attempt to stay at one of these places once they realise what they are - even though legally they may have that right. It's all to do with respect and common sense - and fortunately most gay people seem to have that, Samantha.

As I see it, Legends has nothing to defend. I'm reliably informed there were both gay and straight people in the club that night, and I'm told there often are, so they cannot be accused of discriminating on sexual grounds. Reece Roberts, general manager of the club, has said: "There must have been some particular reason if they were turned away. The only reason somebody would not have been allowed in is because we were at capacity or they were too drunk. It was the busiest night of the year and we were at capacity. It was an exceptional night with an exceptionally good mixed atmosphere with a higher number of predominantly gay people."

I see no reason not to believe him, and I find it absolutely deplorable that someone who (as she claims: "she and anyone else who is gay") is presumably one of us should raise the sexual discrimination card against a club that serves gay people and others so admirably! Raising the discrimination card, whether it be for race, creed or sexuality, should never be done lightly. One needs to be 100% sure of the facts, and that obviously isn't the case here. Get a life, gal! You should have been around fifty years ago - then, even though lesbianism has never been a crime here, you would know exactly what discrimination really means! Stop trying to undermine all the work and sacrifices that so many people have made over decades for the likes of YOU and be thankful for what we have today. Hard won doesn't mean that it couldn't be easily lost - just look at the direction in which Amsterdam, once the envied gay capital of Europe, is heading and take heed!

Perhaps the last word on rules this week has to go to Folkestone. As so often it is councillors who make up stupid rules and then act on them to the very last letter, share with me here the joy of seeing three of them arrested. With a message of goodwill in a bottle from the mayor of the German town of Zweibrucken, a trio of European councillors braved the English Channel on a home-made raft in a nine-hour nerve-racking journey from Boulogne to Folkestone to deliver it. However having failed to observe the rules correctly, and obtain all the necessary permissions to cross the busy shipping lanes, on arrival they were all promptly arrested. Priceless!

Finally, as proof of how languages can evolve - and you may need to be a bit long in the tooth to appreciate this one - the National Botanic Garden of Wales are holding an event on August 26th where red-haired people are to be given free entry to a festival celebrating all things ginger. Hmm . . . Celebrating all things ginger, eh? How things must have changed in Wales then, Boyo! On a group camping weekend to Gower beach way back in the late-eighties, once the stony silence was broken and the icy stares averted several minutes after we sheepishly entered the crowded local pub, the talk was all about ginger - but I wouldn't say anyone was celebrating it then!

Eight gay guys and two lesbians sat there in fear for their lives, all trying to look "normal" - not easy when it came to a couple of theatrical types amongst us! - and all talking loudly about their fictitious spouses back home. Perhaps only if you have experienced a time before a freedom was gained, can you ever truly appreciate it. That is probably why today, as a country, we are losing so many of them.

"The Bitch!" 11/08/07.

Well Darlings,

I'm rather pleased I don't live in the Thames Valley area. The news that two 16-year-olds have been recruited as police community support officers (PCSOs) there is nothing short of horrifying and can only be further proof of just how ineffectual this "on the cheap" policing is in many cases. PCSOs are quite obviously merely a cheap way of making up the numbers in a head count to give the illusion an area is being adequately policed. Yes, of course there are a few duties, and only a few, that mature and world-wizened PCSOs can undoubtedly perform usefully well, they regularly do so here in Blackpool and are thought of quite highly, but 16-year-olds fresh out of school? I don't think so!

These kids, for that is all they really are, cannot legally drive a car, buy alcohol, vote, or from October 1st even purchase cigarettes and tobacco, and yet quite ridiculously they will be expected to confiscate alcohol being consumed in a public place, direct traffic and remove vehicles, detain suspects (until a police officer arrives), issue fixed-penalty notices, deal with minor offences (whatever they are!) and guard crime scenes. Frightening, isn't it? And not only for the public - I fear these babies on the beat could easily find themselves being targeted by unscrupulous criminals and teenage gangs. How long before one of them suffers a serious physical attack - or worse, is gunned down as a trophy?

Policing is not what it used to be. The romantic days of when radio's PC 49 (Police Constable Archibald Berkeley-Willoughby - played by Brian Reece), and later television's Dixon of Dock Green (Police Constable, later Sergeant, George Dixon - played by Jack Warner), were a reasonably accurate reflection of the force and its duties are sadly now but a distant memory to a rapidly expiring few of us. Today there won't be many out there who will say: "It's a fair cop, guv. I'll come quietly."

I fear the minimalist training and role playing that these youngsters receive will not prepare them for the groups of hardened drunkards, thugs from around their own age upwards, that these days can be regularly met on the streets of most our towns. Should any attempt be made to relieve one of them of a drink, he might say something like: "Yer want ma drink, do yer, laddy? Yer gonna take it off me then? Yeah, you an' whose army?" - and his mates will close in to further escalate the problem. What then? Only the sight of the poor frightened 16-year-old peeing his pants could possibly diffuse the situation, but seeing what should be an authority figure being publicly humiliated does nothing to promote law and order, does it?

A good place to see what people, including the police, actually think of these young PCSOs is here: http://www.policeoracle.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5851

Full of humour, like where someone states these 16-year-old PCSOs would be unable to enter a cinema to tackle a problem if it was showing an 18-rated film, and someone else points out they are too young to self-certify any sick days off - they would need a note from mummy! - it does have a serious undertone, and some of the stories from police relating where they have had to rush to assist support officers are quite worrying.

From visiting many forums whilst covering this story, I think it is fair to say that on the whole the police are not that happy with PCSOs - they would much rather have extra policemen instead who, as more than one officer puts it, could be relied on to back them up. Many would like to see the word "Police" removed from the supporting officers' uniforms, which they believe should be noticeably different, and more than a few are getting fed up with having to "rescue" them.

The Home Office should think again about the whole concept of PCSOs. Our streets are becoming more and more like war zones where increasingly the answer to the slightest provocation is the knife or the bullet - they are no place at all for "pretendy policemen", especially child ones. Our police have enough to do without being further burdened by having to nurse "amateurs" (for want of a better word) doing a job that requires professionals. I see no sense in having people on the streets who cannot cope with so many situations and who regularly have to call for police back-up. This can only mean double the amount of paperwork being involved - and the amount of paperwork a policeman has to do, often involving many hours in a day, is something already being complained about.

I am not saying there is no place for PCSOs at all, far from it. They have already proved to be invaluable in our communities as the friendly approachable face of the law. The locals get to know them (providing they are not moved too often), a bond is formed, one through which many local issues can be addressed, and out of this grows a trust from which intelligence - the life-blood of crime fighting - may be gathered. But this should be their limit. It is wrong to ask these people with so little training to do a policeman's job, and yet with more and more powers being given to them that is increasingly expected of them. If the job were that easy why does it take so long to train a policeman?

The PCSOs we have are mostly public-spirited, decent, dedicated people trying to do their bit for society to the best of their ability, and that is highly commendable, but at times it does not stop them being a liability to both the police and the public. No matter how you dress them up they can never replace a properly trained professional policeman, and every one of them we see is undoubtedly a policeman we will not see. As the recent alarming crime figures have shown with violent crime and vandalism both again rising dramatically, and these the most feared of crimes, policing on the cheap simply does not work. These people are no match for the thugs we have on our streets today. It is time the government admitted this and found the money to substantially increase our police manpower.

In the days of PC 49 the ratio of police per head of population was far higher than it is today - and yet in those days forensics was in its infancy and took up very little police manpower (now it is enormous!), we had no motorways to police, no internet porn and scams to police, no credit card fraud to police, very little airport activity to police, and not much of a drink and drugs problem. There are countless things the police have to deal with today that they didn't have to then, not forgetting that big one: terrorism. Knowing all this it can come as no surprise to anyone that despite all the modern technology the police now possess, apart from in the anti-terrorism activity where the police are doing an excellent job, the percentage of crimes successfully detected today are only a mere fraction of what they were in nineteen-fifties.

For the number of police per head of population we rate about ninth in Europe, and there are those that will tell you this proves the police manpower we have is sufficient - but to say that is to ignore the fact that, from whatever source they came (society, poor parenting, poor government, bad laws, immigration etc., etc.), the UK has far more and far greater problems to deal with than any other European country. The level of binge drinking, violence, vandalism, and social disorder we have here is unseen anywhere else in Europe - not one country comes even close.

It is time to face up to the facts: we do not have anywhere near enough police to cope with the modern world that we in the UK have built for ourselves, and until we do crime will continue to escalate. All the spin like the deliberate or not, misinformed or delusional, stupidity recently put out by the police spokesman who stated that crime has fallen by a third (even ridiculed on the police forums) only goes to exasperate the public further and make them even more sceptical. The people know that crime is still rising, they are the experts because they meet it daily and they have to live with it. The fact that the police say they are dealing with a third less of it is not good news, and not what they want to hear. It only means that more and more people are suffering crimes today without involving the police because they find them sadly lacking.

We need to increase our professional police manpower substantially, at least for the foreseeable future. The police should be given more leeway to employ some common sense instead of needing to check a rule book for the latest regulation that may have been imposed on them before making their every move. They need far less paperwork too - paperwork is for clerks; our police are for the streets to do what we pay them to do, and what they themselves want to do: prevent and detect crime.

If our society is ever to improve we shall have to do all this someday - why not now?

"The Bitch!" 19/08/07.

Well Darlings,

I have a sobering fact for all UK parents: your child has more chance of being a victim of a serious violent crime this week than you have of winning the top prize in the national lottery. Disturbing, isn't it? But whether you like it or not, if you have children you are in a lottery. It is a different and direful lottery. One in which it costs you absolutely nothing to partake, you are unable to opt out, and the more children that you have, the greater is the chance of your family winning the final tragedy. On average a youngster is now murdered on our streets every week - present trends suggest that monthly three children will be stabbed and one shot to death - and the police, the Home Office, the government, and the opposition parties, although deeply concerned, are becoming more and more removed from the reality of this as each day goes by.

Law and order has become spasmodic and unreliable. On our televisions this past week we have been treated to seeing a patrolling police car being stoned - and just driving off, a police station coming under siege so that extra forces had to be drafted in to rescue the officers trapped inside, and shots fired at a police car in Gloucestershire. We have also learned of the total ineffectiveness of the community support officers - some of whom have not even after four years issued one fixed penalty notice, but no doubt enjoy the nearly £25,000 per year we pay them to take the air and wander our streets as "reassurance" whilst we suffer a gun-related incident every few hours and 175 robberies at knife-point daily on the streets of England and Wales. And guess what? The plans are for more of these ineffectual people and fewer police. We have also seen gangs unashamedly showing off their weapons and gun prowess to the cameras in Liverpool, but it could have been in any town or city as kids have access to knives and guns in every one of them and regularly appear on YouTube to prove it. Each case is a crime in itself, and one which is not included in the official figures - that is, not until someone is harmed.

This is the UK in 2007. This is the reality with which many people live. You may ask: what is happening to combat this? How are we fighting back? The simple answer is: we are still doing nothing of any significant use whatsoever! By "we" I refer to the authorities at this time but I worry that, because of the fear people are living with today, in the near future that "we" will, in the absence of effective policing, in some areas refer to armed vigilante groups patrolling the streets. Should we get to this stage, and that is looking to be a possibility the way things are going, there will be some terrible times ahead. There will be a lot of blood on the streets, and many tears. If you find the possibility of this quite unbelievable in the UK, then consider that our children killing other children, and on such a scale, was equally as unbelievable only a few short years ago!

After years of the official figures showing gun crime increasing year on year, the government and the police are making much out of a small decrease in the figures last year. These highly contentious figures do not reflect any reality, people have lost faith in the police and so many crimes go unreported, but based on these figures both the police and the Home Office have once more trotted out that hoary excuse: it is only the public perception which is at fault - crime is really falling.

Tell that to parents of gunned down: James Andre Smarrt-Ford, aged 16 years; Michael Dosunmu, aged 15 years; Billy Cox, aged 15 years; Annaka Keniesha Pinto, aged 17 years; Abukar Mahamed, aged 16 years; Nathan Foster, aged 18 years; Kamilah Peniston, aged 12 years; and now Rhys Jones, aged just 11 years! These are just the youngsters killed recently by firearms. The list does not include any adults killed, and on top of these horrific slayings we are told almost four times as many have died from knife wounds. It is only August - how many more children must die before the end of the year? How many more before something is actually done about it? Talk doesn't save lives, we need action.

Instead of facing up to it fully, it is our perception which is blamed yet again. Can the authorities not do better than this - at least come up with some new excuse? Or are we, like them, supposed to go around with our eyes shut so that we too don't perceive anything of reality?

Gordon Brown says the government will do whatever is necessary, and if that means new laws then they will pass new laws. Really? We have had ten years of this government passing laws, they have passed an unequalled record number of laws, and yet still they do not understand: laws mean absolutely nothing at all to the lawless thugs who ruin our lives. A billion new laws would not make one iota of a difference to them, or to the problem. We already have more than enough laws to do the job - we just need the manpower and the will to get it done.

With so many of our police tied-up for most of the night dealing with drunken yobbish behaviour in our towns and cities, we have left everything else sparsely covered - especially in the daytime and early evenings. The PCSOs enjoying their daily perambulations through our streets are only a source of ridicule for the criminals who have been able to expand their activities unchecked. Should anyone report (say) an act of vandalism by young kids, a broken window or a paint-daubed car, it is not unusual for the police to be unable to respond. They don't have the manpower and so frequently they will simply give out a crime number for insurance purposes, and sometimes the phone number of the local PCSO, telling the victim to contact them about the matter. End of story. The crime has been trivialised. But those kids getting away with these "trivialities" today will, by not knowing the law and discipline, likely grow up unhindered into being the kids carrying the knives and guns that we will all be fearing tomorrow. We trivialise any crime at our peril.

The politically disaster prone hug-a-hoodie David Cameron, having unsurprisingly goofed over his facts on the hospital closures - they will probably happen, but he named the wrong ones - has seized this latest killing as an opportunity for him to declare again that unruly youngsters should be threatened with having their driving licences delayed. Yes, I know. For being tough on crime it is utterly pathetic. A slapping with a wet lettuce leaf would carry more weight! When a kid seriously breaks the law by carrying a knife or a gun and is prepared to use it, as so many of them are today, a driving licence or the lack of it is not of the slightest consequence. How many of these young criminals does he imagine will even bother to apply for one? A person with no respect for another's life is certainly not going to have much respect for a mere motoring law, are they? Get real!

David, are you sure it was only at university? To suggest such a potty solution for what we have out there on our streets today beggars belief! It really does. The government are in such disarray over just about everything from the health service and education to law and order that it is an open season like no other for a political killing, and yet the official opposition are still unable to score an effective hit on a single target. We call the UK a democracy, but how can it be when so obviously the electorate don't have a credible choice? They seem to be faced with the option of a nightmare from which they can't awaken but happen to know well, or a bad trip. Better the devil you know? I guess it has to be - and that probably means for the Conservative Party to again become electable they will, after all, have to perform their well worn Doris Day act, this time for David: Move Over Darling!

Tough on crime. Three short words, and yet the police don't understand what they mean, the government doesn't understand what they mean, local authorities don't understand what they mean, and the judiciary system don't understand what they mean - and until they do understand our lives will continue to get progressively worse. New York had the same trouble once, but finally they got the message and life there has improved remarkably.

In the UK we have well known (to most people) gangs operating and creating their own unwritten but strict laws. We have youngsters, early teenagers, many of them eager to join these gangs, and if that is not possible: to emulate their ways - they are their role models. We also have our drunken yobs. Three fronts that need attacking with the full force of the law, with the last one being the most ridiculous of all. The licensing laws already prohibit a bar person serving alcohol to anyone who is, or who may be buying it for someone who is, becoming the worse for wear through drink. There are laws and there are penalties for this - so why do we have to suffer thousands of totally legless people falling out of our pubs and clubs every weekend and trashing our towns and cities? Why is this law not being enforced?

The misguided early teenagers, the kids today who have never known discipline because their parents never knew discipline - a product of the do-gooders - and who now frequently congregate in unofficial gangs, often drunk on cheap booze and drugged-up with each of them trying to outdo the other with some criminal activity in order to gain respect and climb further up their hierarchal ladder, can only be saved from the terrible life that lies ahead of them by being rounded up and sent to a boot camp. At their time of life it will be painful for them, discipline should have been instilled in them by their parents and teachers much earlier, but it is their (and our) only salvation. We must not allow the do-gooders to scream about their human rights and seek to reward them for their crimes - when they have no regard for other people's human rights, those of decent people, then they should immediately forfeit their own.

As for the well known gangs, why are they allowed to exist? We cannot have whole areas of our country being "owned" by these people - they don't own them! These gang members are known to have weapons, and to deal in all kinds of unsavoury activities from pimping and fencing to supplying drugs. So why are they still allowed to freely roam our streets?

The major gangs we have in London include the A Team, the Bombers, the Clap Town Boys, the Blood Set, the E5th Ridaz, the Thug Fam, the PDC (who now claim to have renounced violence - we shall see!) and a growing number of immigrant gangs - with some now accused of forcing young boys to convert to Islam at gunpoint. Birmingham has the Burger Bar Boys, whilst in Manchester there are the Pepperhill Gang, the Gooch Close Gang, the Longsight Crew, the Pitt Bull Crew, and the Doddington Boys - with a lot of unrest between all of them at the moment. Nottingham boasts the Waterfront Gang, with Liverpool currently suffering a war between the Strand Crew and Croxteth Crew. With gangs like these ruling and roaming our streets - all of them armed - how can we say there is law and order in our country? It seems for most of the time there is only law and order for the meek, not for those who will fight back.

Tough on crime starts here, dealing with these three issues. At the same time we need to address the poor parenting and the lack of discipline we have slipped into if we are to enjoy any kind of future without the fear of another generation of degenerates. We must accept, and make it law even if that means falling out with the European Union, that human rights are only for those who do not break our laws. It may take time before we reap the benefits, there may be many more tragedies on the way, but unless we make a start on it now we are at risk of never again living without fear. Turning the science fiction of where thugs rule the country into fact may only be a generation away.

"The Bitch!" 24/08/07.

Well Darlings,

Nothing has improved over the past seven days - we've had our teenager shot dead for this week, a 17-year-old along with two others in Bishop's Stortford. We've also been subjected to more nonsense about good crime rates. Figures from the Office for National Statistics were trotted out earlier this week in an effort to convince us fewer children were killed in the past year - but those figures had a cut-off age of sixteen, exactly half-way through the teen years, didn't include the current crime-wave, and fooled nobody. Had they issued current figures covering the teen years - say: eleven to twenty, which is the age group that is most at risk at the moment - I suspect it would have been a very different story.

Proving the point many people are making, and that is: the police are far removed from the true amount of crime today simply because, along with there being many offences with which they no longer deal, the public have lost faith in them and no longer report many crimes so making their figures meaningless, Ken Jones the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers has stated he is baffled by recent descriptions of crime levels and called for political leaders to be more "calm, measured and objective" in their public statements.

He is reported as saying: "People are distorting the figures for their own ends and I think we need to try and rebuild trust. I think it isn't a deliberate attempt to go out and distort, what it is is a lack of trust in the data. We are facing the lowest risk of being a victim of crime for over a quarter of a century. Violent crime is at the lowest it has been since the mid-90s."

For what ends this guy thinks people are distorting the figures, I cannot imagine. I suggest the figures don't need any distorting, they are disgraceful and speak for themselves: for 2006-07 in England and Wales vandalism was up by 10% and violent crime up by 5%, with a 3% increase overall when ALL crimes are taken into account - and that is according to the British Crime Survey figures, the accepted most reliable source.

Violent crime cannot possibly be at its lowest level since the mid-90s if there has been a 5% increase on last year - anyone with the slightest knowledge of arithmetic is able to see that immediately - so the word "porkies" has to spring to mind and remove all credibility from those who would pursue this argument. If anything such an argument may only substantiate the fact that the police are unaware of many crimes, and so actually deal with less crime today, not that there is less crime - and with the noticeable lack of police on our streets, is that surprising?

Instead of facing up to the facts, Mr Jones tries to cloud the issue by comparing London murder rates with those of cities in America, saying that here they are five times lower. Had he picked some other countries around the world he could have been even more dramatic, so I'm wondering why he chose America? But no other country has any place in this argument - we live in the UK, not America, and we are worried about the worsening situation here, not how it is anywhere else. This country has never gone in for all the Wild West stuff, or given everyone the right to protect themselves with firearms - we are British, somewhat different, and we don't want to go down that path. Trying to compare a cream cake to a bowl of soup only shows the desperate lengths to which some people will go in an attempt to hide the truth. As few will blame the police for the state of nation, fully realising they lack resources and are burdened by government impositions, I find it remarkable that Mr Jones isn't fighting from the concerned public's corner. There will be many of his constables who wish that he were - to do their job efficiently they need the public on their side.

It would be quite easy to find better and worse places for just about anywhere in the world, such an exercise proves nothing, but as when we think of America we probably first think of New York, this was certainly a bad example for Ken Jones to pick. With a population approaching 22 million for the metropolitan area (compared to Greater London with less than 8 million) despite a small hiccup in recent weeks New York is still acknowledged as being "the safest big city in the world" where overall crime has fallen consistently for 15 years, violent crime has decreased 75% in the last twelve years, and the murder rate last year was as low as 43 years ago.

By employing "broken-glass" policing, where no crime is trivialised, New York has surmounted many of its problems and improved remarkably. Other American towns and cities are now following their example with encouraging results. Strangely in the UK quite the reverse is true, with more and more crimes being trivialised and ignored by the police - and the consequences of this are obvious.

Enough said? Except perhaps that our Association of Chief Police Officers might benefit from a new president if the current one was not pushed by the government into coming out with such drivel and is really so out of touch. He may wish to consider what telling us: "people have never had it so good" did for Harold Macmillan!

Now, on to what you all probably came here for if your syndicated version of this column had the title: The Joy Of The Inmates Picking Up The Soap!

For quite some time we have been made aware of the overcrowding in our prisons. The government has even had to resort to letting the criminals out early to make space for new offenders, and that hasn't been without its problems. The latest statistics show 35 of those released early have committed 48 additional crimes - so now they go all through the system again, and that no doubt will cost us a bomb! - and another 43 are on the run after failing to meet the terms of their early release. Since the scheme started on June 29th the authorities have tried to recall 126 prisoners, but so far only 83 have been traced. That's nice to know, isn't it? I have to wonder: how much is all this tracing of missing prisoners costing us?

The Ministry of Justice data shows that 2,131 inmates were freed early between July 6th and July 31st, which brings the total released to 3,832. Of those we're told 703 were convicted of violence against the person, 78 of robbery, and 359 of burglary - and as if that is not enough bad news, someone adept with statistics has now discovered that if this rate of release were to continue for a year it would mean 46,000 prisoners being released early, and that is many more than the government's prediction of 25,500.

On August 24th 2007 our prison population consisted of: 76,281 males, 4,417 females, and 104 of undisclosed gender being held in police cells under Operation Safeguard, making a total of 80,802 - source: HM Prison Service. There were also 2,292 on Home Detention Curfew supervision, but naturally these will not affect the overcrowding. So, if we "guesstimate" that around 80,000 inmates warrants up to 46,000 of them being released early each year to make space for the recently convicted, we have to accept there are an awful lot more people this year than yesteryear for whom going to prison is no deterrent whatsoever to them committing a crime. But more importantly, with all these extra offenders now requiring prison accommodation it stands to reason there must have been at least, and probably a whole lot more than, an equal number of extra crimes committed. If crime were not increasing, there would be no need for the early release of any prisoners as the prison population would be falling, and whilst better detection rates might account for some of the extra places needed today, they cannot account for anything like the number we are experiencing.

The last time we filled our prisons I recall we chartered a much to be desired prison ship. Prior to that time we had another ship - and we sent it to Australia! Ah, the Good Old Days!

So why is prison no longer a deterrent, you may ask? Well, I have no personal experience of a prison but, from all that I have read and heard lately, for a substantial and perhaps increasing number of people the lifestyle inside does not compare that unfavourably - and for a few it may even be preferential - to the lifestyle they endure outside. Although we must all have read about the open prisons where guests can come and go almost as they please, I am not suggesting that any of our prisons, closed or open, are a holiday camp - but I will say I suspect they are nearer to being one than to being an establishment where wrong-doers are punished by being deprived of life's luxuries - and for that we have to thank the do-gooders and those who scream: "human rights!", whilst they totally disregard the abused human rights of the victims of some of the convicts.

In today's society if you are one of those to whom life has not been kind, perhaps with a poor education, no decent job prospects, and suffer a life of dossing around doing little more than worrying about acquiring the money needed to survive or feed a habit, then a warm clean bed with no responsibilities, three square meals a day, companionship, no shortage of cigarettes or drugs, colour televisions, games, gymnasiums (in some), and even a chance to learn something (at times) coupled with a little bit of regimentation - which is always good for the soul - is no bad deal. What more could such a person want? It is a lifestyle that today many a pensioner will envy as they ask the butcher if it would be possible to have just two rashers of bacon and one sausage, fully knowing that even that may mean sacrificing their heating for an hour.

Eh? What's that? Oh, what about sex? Sweethearts, I have it on the greatest authority (at least for the male prisons) they don't all go short of it, or land up with accentuated biceps brachii in their right arms. It is a taboo subject, but I'm assured many inmates do seem to get used to what is best politely described here as "the dropped soap in the shower". No, they are not gay, turning gay, or anything like that - they are just sexually frustrated hot-blooded men, eager for gratification and all in the same boat, so nature adapts and "understanding friendships" do develop - not unlike our schooldays friends, I'm told, and many of us will know exactly what that means! "Inmates" is a perfect description, and apparently it is not always as we may have pictured it (although of course it does happen) with the big macho guys (usually black in the movies) getting their bitches. Often it is amicably mutual, becomes no great deal (especially after a quick snort), and is never mentioned once outside the prison - so don't dare tell their wives or girlfriends! And if that happens to be you: Whoops! Sorry, but it is a well known fact that gay men are eternally grateful for the number of straight men who secretly enjoy gay sex - and they are not even in prison! - so panic not, nothing much might have changed for you, except that now you know! Oh, they don't call me the Bitch for nothing, do they?

The point I'm trying to make here is, and now I'm being serious, prison life on the whole has obviously become too easy for a great number of people, and even being separated from their loved ones isn't always as bad as it might at first appear for them. I believe that only when a prison sentence becomes something that nobody will want to experience ever again, and becomes a part of being tough on crime, will we see a noticeable decrease in the prison population. Even before this early release scheme was brought in, few people actually served their full sentences. The time off for good behaviour, parole, and sometimes being moved to an open prison or put under surveillance within the community often made anything other than a very long sentence no hard cheese, and for a serious wrong-doer I don't think that is right. It should be hard cheese!

It is time that a prison sentence returned to being a punishment, and meant serving the full time allotted - plain and simple, and everybody knowing exactly where they stand. Why complicate matters? Why take a chance on making a wrong parole decision, with all that can involve? Yes, obviously we must try to save the prisoners' souls, get them to see the error of their ways, support them and try to turn them into decent citizens - but we must not do it in an environment so cushy that it is no deterrent whatsoever to them re-offending. I'm not suggesting we should return to hard labour, but when we hear it is now a prisoner's human right to have a Game Boy in his cell (and I don't mean his cell mate!), "annoyed" doesn't cover it for me!

"The Bitch" 1/09/07.

Well Darlings,

I'm pleased to see so many of the UK public have used their common sense and proved they are not the idiots the government take them to be. A survey carried out by YouGov for the TaxPayers' Alliance (TPA) has revealed nearly two-thirds of the public have come to the conclusion the government are merely using environmental fears as an excuse to raise tax revenue. It is something this column has on many occasions suggested, and now there is some proof to justify it. Figures contained in a dossier compiled by this pressure group show that green taxes have already filled the Treasury coffers to the tune of £10 billion more in a year than it would cost to offset the ENTIRE carbon footprint of the United Kingdom.

Is the Golden Goose now at risk of dying?

When we learn that international research into climate change reported the estimated social cost of carbon emissions in the UK for a year was £11.7 billion, and then that the receipts from green taxes (fuel duty, road tax and the Climate Change Levy) prove we paid a total of £21.9 billion to the government that same year believing it was necessary and that we were saving the planet, I suspect that goose may soon be as dead as the Monty Python parrot.

Averaged out, the statistics show that every household has through various levies imposed paid £400 in a year more than it costs to cover their own carbon footprint - and these findings are based on old figures (2005), those levies will have increased substantially since then and, as we all know, they will continue to increase whereas your footprint may not have increased in that time and could easily have decreased if you are a conscientious person now doing your bit for the planet. So where is all this extra money going? Why do the government continue to try to make us feel guilty and want to take even more of our hard-earned shekels? A surplus of £10 billion in a year (and it is sure to be a lot more than that now) is one hell of a sum of money - you could run a couple of wars on it! Oh, of course - silly me! - we probably have done!

At the time of this survey nearly four out of every five people polled were OPPOSED to the so-called "pay as you throw" refuse collection schemes being adopted countrywide to encourage recycling, and this strangely is the exact opposite to what many local governments claim, and would have you believe, is support for the idea in their areas. Are we being told porkies just to swell local authority funds? I think it needs investigating! We need to realise that all those being polled had none of this recently released information, but now everybody has been made aware of the excesses to which they are being squeezed you can bet another poll today would show even further opposition to the "pay as you throw" schemes, and probably to ANY further charges whatsoever in the name of saving the planet.

I wonder how all those people now forced to rummage around in their rubbish, separating it and storing the stinking stuff for a couple of weeks (at least), only to still run the risk of being fined should they make even the smallest mistake, feel about the scheme now? £10 billion a year (and rising) could in a very short time provide enough environmentally-friendly waste disposal depots to cover the whole country where the maximum amount of waste possible could be reclaimed for recycling, and without any inconvenience at all to the public, whereas even when the current scheme is fully adopted nationwide we can only hope at best to reclaim a fraction of that amount.

It is all about taxes, and nothing about the environment, folks! Personally I prefer my environment without all those unsightly and smelly bins we now see more and more of lined up and overflowing outside our buildings, be they domestic or business. It is beginning to look, and on a warm day smell, as if we are actually living on a rubbish tip! I can hardly wait for the next harebrained scheme that someone thinks up in the name of the environment - could it be sticking our backsides out of the window and dumping in the street? Like living with our rubbish, we did that in the Middle Ages too! If we had to bag it and bin it, so that after we had stored it outside of our front doors for a fortnight or so it could be taken to fertilise the fields of potatoes and cabbages, we could save whole reservoirs of freshwater and the carbon footprints of all those sewerage treatment plants. Of course, we would still need to separate the . . . No, I won't go there - you may be eating!

There is one thing we should all have learned by now: politicians do not do "sincere". They seem not to know the meaning of it, so we need to question everything they do and everything they tell us - both locally and nationally. There is no more costlier smile than that of a politician - and I fear some of the costs we are incurring today, neither us nor the planet have any hope of paying.

We owe a colossal and growing debt to our planet, and yet no government is prepared to do what is really necessary to repay it so long as they can continue to make vast sums of money out of the public for "a crisis". Yes, many countries are looking to reduce their carbon emissions and reach targets, as all those costly meetings suggest, but few - including the UK - actually achieve anything like those targets and some, not accepting them, hardly bother to try. Many environmentalists say these targets are so soft as to be almost meaningless, and they call for far more stringent measures to be adopted. Nevertheless having the targets, too soft or not, does give the appearance the problem is being tackled, and that then gives some credence to the government adopting the recycling schemes where people have to ferret around in their waste performing stupidities in the belief they are saving the planet.

It is a sad fact that all the efforts of these concerned people, although admirably undertaken, are likely to assist the planet no more than had they taken a thimble-full of water away from one of our recently flooded areas, but whilst they believe they are helping the planet they will suffer any inconvenience and happily pay whatever charges are imposed upon them - and for now that is all that matters.

No-one can deny the importance of recycling - it made sense even to our forefathers, and they knew nothing about damage to the planet - but the ways in which we do it are equally as important. They don't always need to be costly either, to us or the planet.

Where once we used to return items like beer bottles from whence they came and they would go back to the bottling plant on the next available empty lorry to be sterilised and used time and time again - the whole exercise hardly thought about and costing the environment next to nothing - today we use up vital resources and spew out car emissions taking them to bottle banks where they become chipped, smashed and unusable. This necessitates transporting them half way around the country, using up more resources and producing more emissions, to a place where furnaces - yes, you've guessed it: using up even more of our vital resources and emitting vast quantities of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere - melt the glass that is then possibly made into another bottle which will require transporting all the way back to the bottling plant. Now, quite honestly, if we have the well being of the planet at heart does this make sense?

If we are truly worried about the environment, do the plastic bags freely supplied by every shop and supermarket make any sense at all? A proper shopping bag could last a lifetime, not just one trip only to then become a serious liability to the environment. Consider just how many plastic bags must be discarded every single day. It is ridiculous! Are so many fast food containers really necessary? We used to manage well enough without them, so do we really have to walk down the street today eating out of them, with some people then discarding them thoughtlessly? Is this progress? When junk mail has such a miniscule return and only works because of the vast amounts of it produced and distributed, should we really be using up our resources entertaining it? It is not only annoying, it is costly to the planet. Is there really any justifiable benefit to a hammer being sold in a plastic moulding attached to a large backing cardboard? I fail to see one. Why do pizzas and frozen meals, already shrink-wrapped, come in boxes with pictures that bear little resemblance to what is inside? Is this not another waste of resources? Considering the amount produced, how large is the footprint? As they are undoubtedly primarily for advertising the product, would not a single picture at point of sale suffice?

If we stop to think about it, there are so many ways in which we could cut back on harming the environment. So many things we could be doing right now to improve matters before having to resort to spying on the public and imposing penalties on people for just being human and fallible. I feel that in this worrying time of global warming, any government that permits all this extra unnecessary and costly waste being produced, costly in both ecological and financial terms, and which then has the gall to spy on us and charge us for removing it, can only be acting in their own financial interests and not genuinely in the best interests of the planet or the people.

In a world where we can allow the rich and famous to traverse the globe in near-empty airliners and ignore their carbon footprint, where we can wage wars and contaminate the atmosphere with the results of massive bombing campaigns, where we can allow vast areas of tropical rain-forests, the lungs of the planet, to be cut down and destroyed, where we can have huge air shows and firework displays without considering any cost to the environment, and where natural disasters like forest fires, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are already responsible for such enormous changes to the environment anyway, I find it somewhat strange that a few politicians believe they have the moral right to charge and persecute someone for accidentally disposing of a piece of paper incorrectly by placing it in the wrong refuse bin under the pretext they are doing it for the planet.

Whose planet is it anyway?

"The Bitch!" 8/09/07.

Darlings,

When is a rock not a rock? The Bible tells us we should build our houses on rock, but I guess it doesn't work too well if the rock is resting on a dream - the dream of everybody having everything they want, whether they can afford it or not, as the day of reckoning will never come. But it has come, and the Newcastle-based Northern Rock Bank, the UK's fifth largest mortgage lender which holds the savings of 1.5 million people, an amount totalling some £24 billion, has had to go cap in hand to the Bank of England to "ride out the crisis in global credit markets".

In a scene we could imagine coming from Dad's Army, with Captain Mainwaring looking on as Corporal Jones runs amok, the investors are being told: "Don't panic!" Well, permission to speak, sir? I don't think they like it up 'em!

Shares in Northern Rock have slumped more than a third following the news, wiping billions off the stock market value of the firm. Chief executive Adam Applegarth claims the loan is just: "a backstop in case we need to use it," and says: "My advice to customers is, with the Bank of England providing this liquidity, they should be greatly reassured. If I was a depositor I would be reassured if the Bank of England was behind me."

Er . . . So he is not an investor himself? That doesn't exactly inspire confidence, does it? I wonder if that is only a recent state of affairs? Perhaps it accounts for the long queues of people at every branch today, all wanting to take their money out. The term: "run on the bank", like something heard in a Wild West movie, is already being bandied about.

We're told Northern Rock has run into difficulty because it relies heavily on the wholesale money markets to raise cash for lending, as well as its asset-backed securities - the sales of bonds based on its mortgage debts - and neither of those two commodities has any good news for them at the moment. The rates at which the wholesale money markets are now trading are penalising, and the housing market isn't good news either, not here or in America where the subprime mortgage financial crisis began last year. Our Citizens Advice Bureaux (CAB) reports seeing a massive 20% increase in people struggling with their borrowings, with an 11% rise in people falling behind on their mortgage payments.

If we add to this the news that the number of four-bedroom houses coming on to the market has halved in many areas following the introduction of the government's Home Information Packs (HIPs) on those properties, and that now the scheme has been extended to apply to three-bedroom properties they are faltering too, along with house prices in general which overall have started to fall, I think at this time I'd rather invest in Blackpool Rock before Northern Rock. All the ingredients are in place for a housing market crash, and whether or not there is one may only depend on how the mixture is stirred.

Of course, if another bank doesn't soon snap up Northern Rock for a song in some merger or take-over - and fortunately for those with deposits there that does seem to be a likely scenario - it will all depend on just how far the Bank of England is prepared to go to support it as to its future. The Bank of England governor, Mervyn King, has stated that emergency funds would be made available to any British bank requiring them, but at a penalty rate to ensure those who had made bad lending decisions suffered disadvantages to those who had made sensible ones. But would they provide a further back-up should there be no short-term recovery in the bank's fortunes?

As far as I am aware, eligibility to two bites at the cherry isn't actually mentioned. In an agreement with Alistair Darling, the Bank of England might be game - but would Gordon Brown veto such a move? Prudence wouldn't want to be creating a precedence, would he? There are other banks struggling too. Besides, borrowing money "at a penalty rate" isn't going to do a lot to help any business hoping to "bottom-out" before everything is lost, is it? It is like being kicked when you are down.

To repay their loans at penalising rates will not be easy. Interest rates on their current lending to some 800,000 owners or homebuyers will undoubtedly have to rise, and should this promote an exodus of people to other lenders with more favourable rates it will only exasperate their problems. It does seem this bank has landed up with a catch-22 situation, so despite all the reassurances and trying to talk it up, I don't think anyone will be surprised should it collapse in the coming days. Maybe what is on many a mind is: will it be the only one to go under?

The new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, has accused our banks and financial institutions of lending money too freely. Consumer debt has spiralled to record levels where the total amount now outstanding is more than £1,345 billion - and with more than four-fifths of that debt being secured on property, imagine the havoc a housing market crash and the associated negative equity would create at this time, especially when our personal debt exceeds the country's gross domestic product by at least £15 billion. Sell the gold reserves? I don't think we can, can we? Didn't Gordon Brown all but give them away in his first year as Chancellor?

The mirrors have cracked and the smoke has gone, the illusion is over, and we can now see the true strength of the UK economy. Gordon Brown's philosophy, where by giving the financial markets a free rein borrowing became so easy that even if we noticed all the punitive stealth taxes being imposed on us we weren't too bothered, we could have anything we wanted and not even a meagre pay rise disheartened us, has finally come to an end. The economy, when you unravel the figures, has only appeared to be strong because it has been supported by our money taken in unfelt, but soon to become crippling, taxation. Perhaps Gordon never believed it, but there is a point where the balloon cannot be blown any bigger without there being a disaster. I believe we may have reached it. Prepare yourselves for the farting sound - and we shall only hear that if there is no big bang!

With taxes at levels never before seen in this country, yet with everything still failing around us, Gordon Brown is faced with the possibility of "a Winter of Discontent" as the unions are talking of coordinated industrial action. Backing down and making a small concession to the health workers may not have saved the day. There are the teachers, civil servants, local government workers, prison officers, police, and many others all still looking for extra money - and unless it is substantial, they don't want it staggered where it loses its value before they receive it. Where will all this money be found? At a time when interest rates are rising, and our debt is out of control, who could afford to pay any more taxation? The alternative is Gordon Brown standing firm and confronting the unions head-on. Could he do it?

The prime minister has two hour talks with Baroness Thatcher. British troops are being withdrawn from bases in Germany. In Iraq British troops have withdrawn to Al-Basrah Airport. That's all very handy, isn't it? Should Gordon's chickens come home to roost, so could our troops on the next flight home!

And this is a Labour government?

"The Bitch!" 14/09/07.

Well Darlings,

Since we learned how much they cost us, and just how little they do to earn their money, it seems our police community support officers (PCSOs) have rarely been out of the news. One would be forgiven for suspecting everyone has a derogatory story to tell about them. They are becoming the new despised, perhaps soon to be hated more than our traffic wardens. Our villains and undesirable elements view them as a joke, the public perceive them as being useless and nothing more than a costly government con trick, and the police consider them to be a threat - perhaps rightly so as they are being used more and more as a cheap replacement to the professional police and yet, as the tragic drowning of 10-year-old Jordon Lyon has shown, they are incapable of doing the job.

Without a second thought for his own safety, young Jordon jumped into the water to rescue his eight-year-old stepsister, Bethany, after she got into difficulties whilst swimming in a pond at a beauty spot in Wigan. A slight lad, by getting beneath her he managed to keep her head above the water until they were spotted by two fishermen who waded in and pulled her to the safety of the bank. Whether it was the effort of the heroic actions exhausting the boy, or whether there was some other reason for it, we shall probably never know, but the young hero never made it - he submerged and drowned.

Arriving at the scene, two - not one, but two! - PCSOs stood on the bank and did not attempt any kind of a rescue because they were not "trained" to deal with such an incident. Jordon's stepfather and a friend turned up, presumably untrained too, and straightaway they waded in to desperately search for the boy. Shortly afterwards a policeman - the real McCoy this time - arrived on the scene, and throwing off his body armour immediately jumped in to help them.

Strangely, at the inquest into the boy's death, police chiefs closed ranks and defended the two community support officers, leaving the distraught parents wanting to know why the PCSOs made no attempt to rescue Jordon, and also why they were not called to give evidence at the inquest. They want the PCSOs to be named, and so now do a lot of people - named and shamed!

A police statement released today claims the boy had been under the water "for some time" when the PCSOs arrived, and that they did not simply stand by on the bank to watch him die. However if that is the case, many are asking why they did not appear at the inquest to give that evidence, and why the police officer who arrived on the scene AFTER them still felt there was hope enough for him to jump in. Is this statement today a mere play on words? I suspect it is. To use the term "for some time" is not exactly conducive with expected police incisiveness, and quite obviously these PCSOs could not have actually "watched" the boy die if he was under the water at the time.

Sorry, but when I hear such an ambiguous statement as this one, I always fear the worst. Statements are pre-prepared and read out or learned, they are not off-the-cuff remarks, so there is ample time for them to be precise. This one clearly was not precise, it was deliberately vague, and that I find worrying - especially when we are reminded: "Both ourselves and the fire brigade regularly warn the public of the dangers of going into unknown stretches of water so it would have been inappropriate for PCSOs, who are not trained in water rescue, to enter the pond."

Most of us will have seen this pond on the television news programmes by now - it is no raging torrent, is it? As a nipper I regularly swam in such places, and people still do today. I have not found one person yet who, after seeing this pond on television, has not said they would have straightaway gone in as far as they dare, and some of the people I asked were non-swimmers. I find it extremely hard to believe that, even were they unable to swim, these two could not have edged into the water carefully, one behind the other for safety, and attempted to do something. Everybody else who turned up did.

Trained or not, I suggest a person of the fibre who would not attempt to rescue a young lad in these circumstances, no matter how remote his chances of survival were, should not be employed in any job associated with the police. They are no credit to the police whatsoever, and only serve to bring the force into disrepute - as do the police chiefs trying to defend their indefensible inaction. It scores no brownie points.

It is time for the government to distance these people from the police, and to remove the "police" name from their title. A different coloured uniform should distinguish them from the real thing. They are not the police. They are nothing like the police. And this particular two had not even the spunk of an heroic ten-year-old boy! The youngster's actions put them to shame, and so too do those of the two fishermen, the stepfather, the friend, and the policeman - all of whom waded into the pond.

Taken overall, we have commendable police forces in this country - and yes, to me they will always be called "forces", not the modern terminology of "services" as if they were part of some motorway fast-food joint. Robert Peel must be turning in his grave! Unfortunately these forces are often grossly undermanned, and weighed down by far too much paperwork to keep on top of everything. Perhaps if we took the PCSOs off the streets, where they are of very limited use, and had them do the paperwork for the police officers it would make the system more productive?

Paul Kelly, the chairman of the Police Federation in Manchester, is reported as saying: "The public are being fooled. We are sending people out there who are dressed as police officers. Every single police officer that went to training school with me 30 years ago left with a life-saving certificate of some sort. I don't know in this case if the two PCSOs could not swim, but not swimming was not an option in our training. We've got to be able to deal with all types of situations. We should do away with PCSOs because they are a failed experiment. In Greater Manchester we have taken on up to 400 PCSOs in the last 18 months, but in the same period have reduced the number of police officers by more than 200. We should be investing in more police officers."

Hear, hear! Over to you, Gordon Brown. I think this is yet another horrendous disaster from Tony's watch you need to sort out - and pretty darn soon! We've given it five years, and it hasn't worked out. Policing our country with "a failed experiment" is simply not good enough. We deserve better!

Before I go, I must quickly mention another story which has upset me. I think it may be responsible for me constantly hearing Bugs Bunny in my head, and he is telling me: "I think the human race should have turned left at Albuquerque!"

When the law banning smoking in enclosed public places came into force in July, one of the few places to be exempt were our hospices. For obvious