Who Are These People?

See -

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=20842

And I’ll wager it may disappoint but it wont surprise.

Here we see proof, if any more proof was needed, that our current administration will sacrifice any democratic or legal principle when it needs to address its endless incompetences - in this case financial. Also, with its usual arrogance and craft, it has attempted to sneak this change past the checks and balances of our system under cover of darkness.

It’s quite simple, really. Motorists are having their ‘offences’ overturned in court and their costs are then paid for by the government. (Always remember that when it comes to paying out money in this type of scenario ‘the government’ gets the cash from you and me.) These cases are costing the government money. This government is good at wasting money and now has a large hole to fill, but it is particularly unhappy when it comes to giving it back to the man in the street – or in the car. The number of men in cars successfully challenging tickets is about one in four, or 400,000 which adds up to a tidy sum in returned costs.

But never fear, the ingenuity of this government comes into its own at a time like this and a simple solution has been arrived at – or fabricated, if you want to look at it that way. It works like this – don’t pay. Problem solved. Next! Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right that an innocent motorist should have to bear the costs of successfully challenging his unfair penalty? What has that got do do with anything?

And is it just pure irony that the organisation planning to implement this system is the Ministry of Justice. Have you read Orwell’s 1984? Gordon Brown must consider it a reference manual rather than an allegory.

They won’t waste time finding out why 400,000 motoring ‘offences’ are wrong and save a great deal of time as well as money. Fixing a problem at source really is not the forte of the Labour Party, after all. No, just make the innocent pay for the errors (or worse) of the police and other authorities.

And there is an additional benefit, of course. If you risk a fine of £50 - £100 but legal costs of several times that if you pursue a challenge even if you win, it would make sense to just pay up. Win – win for the government then. More money and fewer challenges.

Another tyrannical and oppressive ‘big brother’ decision – what else would we expect?

Fascinating, isn’t it, how large organisations rig their terms and conditions completely to suit themselves, while protesting that it is the only way to do it or, more infuriating, it is for the customers’ benefit.

The UK energy companies, as is only too well known, are an even more extreme case. They have the entire population over a barrel and understand very well how to make good and selfish use of their position and power. It is the case that energy companies are permitted to charge customers higher prices without telling them for up to 65 days. Why? I have no idea.

The Energy Retailers Association supports the current system. Hardly surprising. Its chief executive, Garry Felgate, said: ‘The most relevant way for customers to hear about a price change, either up or down, is on their energy bill.’ What tosh this is. When Mr Felgate buys his wife her next Mercedes, I presume he would have no problem if the charge on his credit card statement was higher than the one he agreed with the salesman. ‘We didn’t think you would mind’ the salesman might say, ‘We knew you would find out eventually’. I guess Mr Felgate doesn’t have to budget and assumes lesser mortals shouldn’t crib at such minor inconveniences.

It really is about time organisations such as Ofgem began to stand up for the general public, the customer, the paymasters. I believe this is a good place to start.

It’s like buses, isn’t it, if you miss a tale of authoritarian oppression just wait a while – there will be another one along shortly.

I recall Jeremy Clarkson telling a story of being in the USA and being told off by a patrolman for parking his car in ‘the wrong place’. Clarkson pointed out that where his vehicle was caused no obstruction, ‘common sense’ indicated that no problem was being created and that the law, in this case, was illogical. The patrolman replied that ‘When you have laws, you don’t need common sense’. I believe that even Clarkson was stumped for a reply.

So, when you have the Great Book of Rules in your hand you don’t need common sense, or initiative, or empathy, or trust. You certainly wouldn’t consider questioning the edict that led to your conclusion. ‘Not my job, guv’ is the mentality in evidence in situations such as this. In fact all that is really required is a computer on legs – an automaton.

There is a new chapter in the seemingly infinite saga of Authoritarian Oppression of the individual. It revolves around the story of two police women detectives and their mutual child care arrangement. Quite simply they found it convenient to take turns looking after both their young children. It suited their working shift patterns, was simple to manage and kept both children safe and happy.

But someone unknown was not happy to see this and reported it. With the promptness of action for which government departments are famous – when it suits them – the rule book was checked and lo, under the huge section headed Thou Shalt Not, a suitable infringement was quickly identified. A minister of The Book of Rules was despatched to explain that this arrangement was Not Permitted. Why? Because there was a mutual benefit. But, one might naively protest, that is the whole point. However, where I say benefit, The Man sees pound signs. To him benefit = reward and reward means something that should be paid for. It also means something that should be policed.

Quote: Reward is not just a case of money changing hands. The supply of services or goods and, in some circumstances, reciprocal arrangements can also constitute reward.

So there we are. Because you are getting a service for free that someone else would charge for, it’s a reward. Because someone else’s child is involved, you need to be registered.

Next time my neighbour helps me fix my broken fence I will check whether I should pay HMRC. Should I ever see a five year old drowning in a river, I will get a CRB check before diving in. And make no mistake, these ludicrous situations are not happenstance or progress. They are entirely the results of this Labour Government and a set of ministers who trust no-one and can see no way of improving society other than through half-baked and ill-considered laws. Imagination they have none, and being so afflicted therefore assume the same applies to everyone else.

How cheering it would be to learn that the inspector involved returned to her office and said ‘I have had to make a decision according to the rules, but something is wrong here and requires attention’. I suspect that even if this had happened, management response would have been along the lines of ‘Not your job, mate’.

Control-freakery is the phrase that comes to mind. And given that New Labour was created by people with just that attitude to the people of this country it is hardly surprising.