Who Are These People?

You may have seen this:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/may/29/school-application-fraud-case

A mother who faces jail and a fine for trying get her child into the school she considered the best. My blood literally boils at this. Harrow council is suitably smug and self-satisfied at apprehending and prosecuting this fiendish and socially disruptive criminal. What would happen to their social engineering plans if everyone was allowed to choose the best education for their children? Why, the council might have to take account of the needs and desires of the people it professes to serve. Can you imagine the effort that would entail?

Note:

But council investigators found tax records placed her at a different residential address, two miles away from the popular school.

It’s heartening to appreciate the investigative skills and capabilities of the council - or should it be The Council. Capitalisation conveys the true status of this organisation more effectively, I feel. Or, given the ease of access to the tax records of a private citizen (is there such an animal any more?), The State Machine is a phrase which comes more immediately to mind. Jacqui Smith must be delighted to see how effectively the sharing of personal information across government organisations can nail really evil people – hold on – wasn’t that aimed at terrorists? Ah, but then, if you haven’t done anything wrong you have nothing to fear. However, if you have done anything wrong, you are fair game. That’s the brave new world Jacqui Smith wants us to live in.

But the explanation is clear:

David Ashton, leader of the council, said: “Of course we understand that parents feel very strongly about their first choice of school. However, our first duty is to ensure that the admissions system is scrupulously fair and seen to be so.”

This, of course, is Council Code. Decrypted it becomes much clearer:

Sentence 1:

For their own selfish reasons parents feel very strongly about their first choice of school but that is of secondary importance to The Council.

Sentence 2:

The really important thing is that no effort be spared in ensuring that no citizen succeeds in bypassing The System.

Maximilian Robespierre would no doubt approve:

Terror is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country.

And look what happened to him.

Tags: council, Harrow

None of us are without some taint of hypocrisy and self-justification. It is normal, it is human to be occasionally weak and opportunist and give in to a desire to follow the rules that suit us while evading those that do not. However, those who accept the role of making or enforcing rules for others have implicitly accepted that their own standards must be set particularly high. School teachers, the police, councilors, other officials and MPs have all tacitly signed an agreement with the rest of us that says; ‘we will set an example’. If they have not signed, and if they cannot agree then, quite simply, they are in the wrong job.

I do not mean that they must never fall short of the ideal but they must assuredly aspire to it. This they most certainly do not. The letter of the rules, not the spirit, is the watchword.

I may be naïve or pedantic but the following logic seems to me to be fascinatingly convenient:

We made The Rules

We followed The Rules

The Rules need to be changed

But - we did nothing wrong

(Presumably we are to conclude that they were unaware that The Rules needed to be changed until the Great Unwashed were made aware of the ramifications. Coincidence, of course. In the fullness of time, no doubt, these pillars of society would have attended to the matter even if the media hadn’t noticed.)

Yet, to my dismay, this is the effective response to the hard question posed to every MP that I have seen, heard or read so far, that question being - ‘has any MP done anything wrong?’

What an invidious position they have put us all in. We can no longer trust the competence or integrity of bankers. Now we are unable to trust our MPs. But we cannot survive without either of these groups. It’s a case of heads they win, tails we lose. They have us all by the throat.

And what of the solution? For many of us working for organisations large and small, justifying and claiming business expenses was a tedious but necessary chore. It was quite understandable that your employer paid you a salary for the work you did, and paid your expenses separately in order to enable you to do that work. There are many ways of doing this but a simple arrangement of checks and balances, along with auditing by immediate management and accounts departments, make it reasonably efficient and honest. So, in the case of MP’s expenses do you fix the problem? Oh no, you change the system.

The Times thinks the public is being unfair and pious about the whole affair. The first article on page 2 of the Times on Saturday could, I suggest, have been written by Hazel Blears. Quote: Becoming a British MP in order to become rich is a scheme only an idiot would devise. The same could be said for many other lines of work – nursing and journalism come to mind. (Perhaps the writer could also take a look at the field of Information Technology; that’s a pretty thankless task, take it from me. And they have to do their expenses.) There is an interesting little section on the subtle difference between expenses and allowances. There is no discussion on the subject of integrity. It seems to me then, that there are an incredible number of well intentioned, self sacrificing, socially responsible people who cannot wait to sacrifice their time, homes and families just to look after my country and me. How fortunate we are that there are sufficient of these hardy souls that there is not one MP vacancy in Parliament. I am inevitably cynical but I suspect that there are many, many reasons for entering politics and not too many of them are entirely altruistic.

I am startled to see Matthew Parris support the frankly potty suggestion that we just increase the pay of MPs so that they no longer require expenses. And just how much of an increase would guarantee that no MP would be out of pocket? (This according to their own particular requirements and valuation, of course.) £20,000? £30,000? £50,000? Would MPs then increase the ‘expense’ portion separately to the ‘salary’ portion each year? The pension fund that is paid for by the public would also have to increase.

Those MPs who needed to spend relatively little on their parliamentary work would be very pleased indeed. In addition, it would become very much in the interests of MPs not to spend money in support of their constituents’ needs as the more they might save, the more they could keep for themselves.

But, why should MPs have a completely different expense system to that of other businesses? I can just picture my manager’s expression, when I worked for IBM, if I suggested that he could avoid the effort of auditing my expenses and remove the risk of my ‘fiddling’ them, if he simply increased my salary to cover the largest business expenditure that I would ever need. I am sure he would have rejoiced at such a simple scheme – after he had climbed back on his chair, holding his aching sides.

And we have the perfect example of such financial duplicity in the case of the ever smugly smiling Hazel Blears. (The lady who previously has shown such concern that MPs are so totally misunderstood and represented unfairly in the media.) The Communities Secretary told parliamentary authorities that a flat she owned in Kennington, south London, was her second home. However, she told the taxman that the property was her main home – and therefore did not have to pay tax on the profits of its sale in 2005. I know of one circus that would applaud loudly at such impressive juggling.

Tags: expenses

It is 1478 somewhere in Spain. The heretic is suffering on the rack surrounded by the priests of the Inquisition. “Repent”, they all scream. The heretic is obdurate. “I have done nothing wrong”, she cries. “Yes you have”, the priests shout as one, “Everybody has! Repent and save yourself!”

But it is not 1478, it is 2009, an era too sophisticated for superstition and religious persecution; the heretic is Carol Thatcher and the priests are from the church of BBC management.

And now, along the corridors of the BBC, there drifts the odour of seared heretic flesh mixed with the sweet scent of self-righteousness.

Heaven, if there is one, help us.

Tags: heresy, heretic, inquisition, Torquemada

How long before a latter day Matthew Hopkins appears with the self-appointed title of Race-finder General instead of Witch-finder General? His spirit is certainly abroad and has taken up residence in the hallowed halls of the BBC.

It is now the case that the words you utter are enough to convict you - not just where, not just when, not dependent on context - but the words alone can prove you guilty of that most heinous of modern crimes – Racism.

The latest villain to be brought to arbitrary justice is Carol Thatcher. It appears that in a closed room, apparently amongst friends and colleagues, she referred to a tennis player as a ‘golliwog’. Not a nice thing to say, perhaps, but not used in a vicious or derogatory fashion. But, it had been used, and in the age of Correctness must needs be exposed and expunged. Had she referred to the man as a curly-headed twerp, she would have been greeted with a sideways glance and a comment such as “I bet you wouldn’t say that to his face”. However one of the ‘no-no’ words had been uttered and a price had to be paid, an exorcism performed.

I have heard many people today say that they know and respect Carol Thatcher and she is in no way a racist - but – she should not have said it, is wrong and must apologise. I now need someone to clarify the rules of racism to me. Nowhere does my dictionary definition include a list of words which are inherently racist and henceforward forbidden. The dictionary refers to beliefs, superiority, doctrines, hatred and the like. These definitions I understand and agree with. I also abhor them all. However, if I call someone ‘a twit’ I am not being racist – but – if I call someone ‘a religious twit’ and refuse to employ them because of it, that is a different matter. And that is the point.

We are now in the field of analysis and detailed debate, of comparative examples and strained logic. All because of a word used impulsively and without malice, but offending a group of people to whom it was not applied but who considered themselves the arbiters of good taste.

I hear the baying of hounds, the return of the McCarthy Witch Hunts, the re-opening of the Salem Witch Trials and Matthew Hopkins chuckling at the door.

Tags: BBC, Carol, golliwog, Thatcher

It’s good to read Simon Jenkins again. He has a remarkable facility for putting the blindingly obvious into words that even our benighted leaders should be able to follow.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-home/columnistarchive/Simon%20Jenkins-columnist-322-archive.do

His article on policing summarises precisely what is wrong and how our present situation arose. The incident in Richmond last year demonstrates the parlous state of policing today: two thieves smashing a jewellery store window in broad daylight, in a busy high street, surrounded by startled shoppers, in full view of CCTV cameras, expecting that the police had been called. Were they concerned about their current or future liberty? Not at all. And are we, the public, surprised by their audacity? Not really.

Eleven years of Blairite criminal philosophy (in both senses) and we have thieves walking up and down our High Streets with sledge hammers and balaclavas with not a copper to be seen. But you can be sure that the statistics look fine.

(Longbowman)

Tags: jenkins, longbowman, simon

There is a belated postscript to the post on the subject of Hazel Blears and her deep concern over the demolition of British democracy attributable solely to ‘everybody else’.

I know of a manager who, whenever he entered his department, was immediately aware that the atmosphere in the room was extremely negative and wanted to know who was responsible. It never occurred to him to consider the possibility that the atmosphere only deteriorated when he came into the room.

Another example of this scenario was played out on the Radio 4 Today program on the morning of November 26^th, when John Humphries brought Hazel Blears and Michael Dobbs together. Hazel Blears repeated her mantra that MPs were being unfairly represented by the media and were, with a few exceptions, well-meaning and well-intentioned people with the interests of the country at heart. Using one of those phrases that summarises briefly and accurately a complete range of observations Michael Dobbs replied simply ‘it is not your motivation I question but your competence’.

Does the general public really think that all MPs are self-seeking and corrupt? I doubt it. However, does the general public believe that all MPs are capable, able and efficient? Are they necessarily knowledgeable, trained and eager? Do they feel responsible, empathetic and sympathetic? It is a demanding list but surely fits part of the job description. I am not at all sure that the public at large, as the employer in this case, is as confident that the resume of its staff incorporates very many of these qualities. Would Hazel Blears be happy to tick all these boxes on her own behalf and on behalf of all the MPs in the House of Commons?

I wouldn’t, and nor, I suspect, would Michael Dobbs.

Tags: Dobbs, Michael

I note with no great surprise that Hazel Blears disapproves of newspapers and political blogs. I quote (from The Guardian):

“We are witnessing a dangerous corrosion in our political culture,” she said. In part she will blame “a shrinking and increasingly competitive newspaper market” which demands more “impact” from its reporting - the translation of every political discussion into a row, every difficulty a crisis, every rocky patch for the prime minister into the “worst week ever”.

And more:

“Until political blogging ‘adds value’ to our political culture, by allowing new voices, ideas and legitimate protest and challenge, and until the mainstream media reports politics in a calmer, more responsible manner, it will continue to fuel a culture of cynicism and despair.”

A more patronising, pretentious and petulant politician I have yet to encounter. Sadly, the competition is stiff.

I believe there is a name for the state of mind when you become convinced that everybody is out to get you, and only you. This state of mind is known as paranoia. Paranoia can also be a symptom of schizophrenia - characterized by abnormalities in the perception or expression of reality. Criticism leading to the denial and suppression of free speech also has a name – tyranny.

I can appreciate how tiresome it must be when the proletariat discovers yet another mechanism for voicing disapproval of the government. It must be even more irksome when the facility enables the comparison, spreading and sharing of complaints. Heaven forbid that a database of failure and incompetence should form. Only a Labour government should be allowed such ability as only they know just how it needs to be ‘maintained’.

I recall comments from John Humphries on the Today programme some years ago. He observed that when the Conservatives were in power and he gave them a hard time; the Labour Party patted him heartily on the back and urged him on. When Labour came to power and he turned his heavy guns on them they called him biased and partisan.

It is characteristic of the Labour Party that if the message is uncomfortable then a good tactic is to yell loudly at the messenger. If you shout loudly enough you might even drown out the message itself. This is the ideal result – discrediting the source and destroying the bad news. (Alastair Campbell used the technique and gave a master class in misdirection when attacking the BBC and Andrew Gilligan over the WMD dossier affair.)

It has been said that a country gets the government it deserves. I suggest that the corollary is also true – a government gets the querulous population it merits. Hazel Blears might just consider asking herself what the message is instead of waving her gun at the messenger. Or perhaps she has already done this and doesn’t at all like what it tells her.

Tags: Alastair, Andrew, Blears, blogs, Campbell, Gilligan, Hazel, voters

On the afternoon of Thursday October 30 in Richmond, two would-be thieves took sledgehammers to the windows of Ernest Jones the jewellers and tried to break through to the valuables behind. While shoppers stood and watched and, presumably, the police raced to the scene, the two thieves continued to hammer away at the toughened glass that was beginning to give way under the onslaught.

This bizarre spectacle continued undisturbed until a lone, elderly crime-fighter in a brown mac appeared, took one villain by the shoulder and pulled off his balaclava. At this unplanned intervention in the proceedings the startled thieves took to their heels, whereupon the off-duty Batman turned, smiled at the crowd, stepped on to a bus and disappeared.

The Evening Standard reports - A police source said: “While it is always welcome when acts of bravery are successful there is always the possibility that they will go wrong and we urge people to call the police immediately to deal with these type of situations.”

‘Deal with’? If the citizen had not acted we can safely assume that the robbers would have achieved their objective and escaped, not empty-handed but with pockets stuffed with jewellery. My interpretation of the phrase ‘deal with’ is obviously somewhat more dynamic than that of the police. Certainly Ernest Jones, whose staff are certainly shaken by the events, at least have only broken windows to ‘deal with’ and not injuries or stolen watches. They might care to add a certain old gentleman to their security systems; he certainly has practical ideas on how to ‘deal with these type of situations’.

An unavoidable observation as a result of this incident is to compare the effectiveness of CCTV and the police versus the sheer determination of a member of the public.

The CCTV cameras impressed the criminals, drably dressed and with their heads covered, not one iota. Presumably the staff had already called the police and most probably had a panic button with which to do so. This probability likewise did not deter these thieves, who continued to swing at the windows as if they had made an appointment and had no cause to rush.

Thus nothing caused these two any concern until a member of the public, and an elder one at that, took them completely by surprise. Without his intervention the thieves would most certainly have made off with at least a few handfuls of jewellery before the police arrived.

So, who or what was most of value here? The CCTV? Nope. The police? Certainly not to minimise the impact of the attempt, and possibly never. No, one old gentleman with courage and a sense of indignity who used his initiative.

Both CCTV and the police have little, if any, deterrent value. This incident demonstrates this. They are documentation that a crime has occurred.

If you find the old gentleman let me know. Next time I need the police I’ll call him first.

Tags: jewellery, october, pensioner, police, raid

‘If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear’. Rubbish. No-one should trust to luck that they won’t get caught up in the machine when it runs amok.

John Charles de Menezes, if he were available to comment, might also find the statement questionable. So indeed would many other people convicted of crimes and imprisoned but later released after many appeals.

Tony Blair destroyed my trust in politicians. He lied to me. The details can be debated at length but he lied to us all and, more frighteningly, I do not know why. So whereas I was always skeptical now:

I - do – not – believe – or - trust – the – Prime – Minister – or – his – cabinet.

(Some would ask why it took me so long.)

It follows that I do not trust Jacqui Smith. I do not trust her ability, her argument or her motives. Let me confirm a basic premise: in a ‘free society’ the individual should be at liberty to move where and when he or she wishes without being monitored or coerced. (There do have to be limits; we would not want foolish people wandering over MOD testing grounds, for example.) Basically – do you believe, as I do, that what we think of as liberty and privacy should NOT require a case to be made for them?

The case is being made that, in order to preserve our lives, we must sacrifice our privacy; because there are a few who would take advantage of our freedoms to hurt us we must all relinquish our historic liberties. Also, to my great irritation, the old argument is trotted out that if you are not in favour of these impositions then you must be against all attempts to protect the nation against terrorist acts – i.e. ‘You are either with me or against me’. As with Tony Blair I have no idea why this government is so determined to turn our country into a total surveillance society.

I recently walked along the embankment and passed the Battle of Britain Memorial. It is indeed ironic that this memorial to one of the most heroic periods in our history, when men and women from many countries fought against overwhelming odds to defend the freedom of our islands and beyond, should stand so close to the Mother of Parliaments where our representatives are now trying every trick and tactic they can to destroy the very reason that it exists. I would not be at all surprised if our Home Secretary shied away from this memorial as Dracula does from a crucifix. 

And above all, never let it be forgotten that all the information and activities that will form part of these systems will be managed and accessed by ordinary people – fallible, lazy, incompetent, corruptible, foolish, untrained etc. The powers that be would have us believe that the technologies being proposed would work without error. Anyone who has used a PC will be only too aware of the mistakes that machines can make as indeed can their users.

Finally, bear in mind that these controls, for that is what they are, would nicely form a foundation for even more draconian policies for some future government that might declare itself even more concerned for our ‘security’.

Wiser heads than those of this government have already covered this ground and summarise the risks better, and more succinctly, than I. The fact that the following words were spoken by a man, Patrick Henry, who was proposing military action against the British Army in 1775 during the American Revolutionary War, is perhaps ironic but nonetheless appropriate.

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

(Ref: http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html)

Tags: cards, CCTV, DNA, freedom, ID, Jacqui, liberty, Smith

Has anybody heard an apology from ‘The Best’? As I expected, recently some fellow on a radio program warned that ‘The Best’ should not be penalized after the debacle in the banking system and elsewhere. I had been awaiting the repeat of this comment for some time – ‘If you want ‘The Best’ you have to pay for them’. It has been trotted out regularly whenever ordinary people have the temerity to question why some executives receive salaries and bonuses that are written in astronomical units.

So where are these ‘experts’ now? The ones we have to pay so much money to because you have to pay to get ‘The Best’. If they got it all wrong, then, does that mean they weren’t ‘The Best’? Or maybe we just failed to offer enough. So, if we offer the same people more will they then become ’The Better than The Best’? Or should we have offered more to some other people? But if we didn’t then somebody else must have because they’re not queuing up at the Job Centre. So what did we pay for and where are the ones we didn’t get? I don’t hear the ‘Real Best’ boasting about how they got it Right when ‘The Best’ got it Wrong.

Is there just a chance that, like the rest of us, they are fallible? And being fallible they should not profit regardless of mistakes that are costing ordinary families so very, very much. An apology would not go amiss, I feel. Sadly, I have a cynical feeling that they are merely keeping their heads down, and when the taxpayer has paid for their incompetence they will arise phoenix-like from the flames and carry on amassing their/our wealth as if nothing had happened.

Tags: banking, best, credit, crunch, executives, experts