Mrs Rigby says ...

Breeding Apostrophes.

2010-08-26T15:03:00.001+01:00

When Mrs R was at primary school, where she shared her classroom with various species of literate dinosaurs, she was taught about apostrophes. It doesn't seem to happen these days, ever, otherwise how can so many adults splatter their writings with random apostrophes?

Take a look for yourself. Once you've spotted one of these creatures in the wrong place you'll notice even more - they seem to be secretly breeding. Incorrect use is no longer restricted to the Greengrocer and his/her "sacks of potatoe's"* or "Christmas Tree's for sale"* (suggesting that there is an unknown something belonging to Christmas Tree for sale).

A few bloggers do it, but not very many of those in Mrs R's blogroll, so Mrs R doubts this post will be of interest to any who also link to her site. She wonders if bloggers have better grammatical knowledge than the 'interested/disgusted/annoyed of Britain' commenters in newspapers who seem, these days, to be adding apostrophes to words - just because there's an 's' at the end.

Anyhow, if anybody who happens to be reading this post wants to learn how to use apostrophes properly there are sites which can help. Here are a few :-

The Apostrophe Protection Society.
Apostrophes – how to use them.
How to use an Apostrophe.
The correct use of the apostrophe.

Having digested and understood all that difficult stuff, and having had a lie down, perhaps some practice might be a good idea? Take a look at these :-

BBC Skillwise

From Bristol (University?)
Using the apostrophe #1
Using the apostrophe #2.
Who's or Whose?
It's or Its?

From "Teaching and Learning Resources"
Using apostrophes to spell shortened forms of words
Using the apostrophe to show ownership 1
Using the apostrophe to show ownership 2
Using the apostrophe to show ownership 3
It's or its?

It seems that thirteen years in full time education doesn't allow enough time to learn about such tricky little things as apostrophes, plurals and so on, so maybe it's time for the newspapers to teach their readers some basic grammar?

Note
*
Should be :-
"sacks of potatoes"
"Christmas Trees for sale."

....

Labour's 3,000+ new laws.

2010-08-25T13:31:00.002+01:00

The Mail seems to have got the title wrong, these 3,000 'new crimes' weren't just to catch out businesses.

The Law Commission said that during the past two decades, breaches of red tape that should have been dealt with by civil fines and bans had been elevated into crimes that affected millions of people and thousands of businesses

These crimes were, Mrs Rigby thinks, intentionally or not, a means of giving authority to power-hungry individuals - who then used these laws on ordinary folk who've never had so much as a parking ticket, and whose 'shame' at being handed an instant fine for a supposed misdemeanour (along with the threats of what would happen if the 'ticket' was challenged) would make them pay their 'fines' quickly and quietly, and without too much fuss. It means that everybody is indeed a potential criminal, even unwittingly, because few people would know all these laws and be able to avoid breaking at least one of them.

What this has also done is turn the due process of law (and law enforcement) on its' head. The individual who issues the 'penalty notice', and who often works alone, is prosecutor, judge and jury combined - and generally without even five minute's legal training.

Since Tony Blair came to power in 1997, the [Law] Commission said, more than 3,000 such crimes had been created.

New crimes brought in since 1989 fill three volumes of the criminal law record, Halsbury's Statutes of England and Wales, taking up 3,746 pages.

All the crimes established in the 637 years between 1351 and 1988 fill only one volume.

....

Getting recognised.

2010-08-23T12:44:00.001+01:00

Is Mrs Rigby the only person in the world who is uneasy about this software and how it might eventually be used by those who like to exercise control over our lives?

....

On the verge of ...

2010-08-20T13:04:00.002+01:00

John Prescott today warns the Labour party that it is £20m in debt, "on the verge of bankruptcy"

John Prescott is, by the way, hoping to become Labour party Treasurer. The introductory piece in the Guardian is here, the main article here.

Mr Prescott seems to blame Gordon Brown for the Labour Party's problems, although he doesn't seem to condemn him for the state of the country's economy. He says,... the so-called "election that never was", in 2007, cost the party £1.5m in preparation costs ...

Prescott also thanks the various backers who are, currently, keeping the party afloat, namely,

... party staff and volunteers, trade union contributions, high value donations and the goodwill of the Co-op bank ...

Iain Dale highlights Unite's cost-cutting efforts, which somehow managed to increase the Union's 'surplus' by more than £9million in a mere twelve months - a truly astonishing sum of money in these cash-strapped times. And Bob Crow's salary has been increased by 12%. So it would seem that, at the moment at least, the Unions are flush with funds.

When an organisation is deep in debt it's easy for it to be pressurised by those with a bit of cash to push their way and because of this Mrs R thinks the next few months in the life of the Labour Party will be more than a little interesting. She thinks it's not only on the verge of bankruptcy, time will tell.

Mrs R hasn't the time to write more, so suggests you read what other bloggers have to say about this - John Ward in Medway "Labour almost Bankrupt" and Raedwald "Thieves operate in this area".

Edit : And Iain Dale has an idea that might help save Labour from bankruptcy.

....

Larf!

2010-08-19T21:46:00.004+01:00

I don't know what Mr Brown is on but this news about him lecturing on economics is the biggest
laugh since he led Al Gore into the broom cupboard at the Copenhagen climate conference.

From comments here.

h/t Subrosa

....

A form of tax relief?

2010-08-18T16:08:00.003+01:00

It's in the Mail!

Tony Blair could claim tax relief of almost £1.75million as a result of his plan to donate the proceeds of his memoirs to a charity helping injured British soldiers.... and ... ... the multi-millionaire could lessen the blow to his wallet thanks to 'Gift Aid' rules brought in by his government ten years ago.

Maybe all those new rules were ~~a good idea~~ useful after all.

... under current tax rules, he faces a tax bill of £2.3million on the sum, as he pays income tax in the 50 per cent bracket.

This would mean the entire cost of the donation for Mr Blair would be the £4.6million advance plus the £2.3million paid to the taxman, adding up to £6.9million.

Wow! That's a lot of cash to give away. Seems remarkably generous.

But once he makes the donation, the former PM is perfectly entitled to claim back a large proportion of this original tax bill in the form of tax relief. Under Gift Aid rules, the Royal British Legion can first reclaim the basic rate portion of the tax already paid on the £4.6million by Mr Blair at 20 per cent. This amounts to an extra £1.15million and will swell the actual donation to £5.75million.

But under rules governing charitable donations, Mr Blair is also then entitled to receive tax relief equivalent to 30 per cent on the total donation of £5.75million. This would equate to a potential clawback of up to £1.72million.

So, if you give away a load of money you don't really need the uber-generous tax office will give you a third back - cash in hand - for being so benevolent. And, naturally ... Mr Blair's spokesman last night insisted that the former Premier would 'not benefit' in any way from the donation.

All this might, though, be idle speculation, because the Telegraph tells us that

It is not clear whether the offer to the charity includes the advance or whether the donation will simply be “proceeds” accumulated on top of the advance, which is usually repaid to the publisher.

So, if the book doesn't sell as many copies as anticipated the publishers might want some of their advance paid back - and, of course, they'll look churlish for taking cash destined to a well-deserving charity.

What a mare's nest - and quite clever too.

All this might mean that nobody really knows how much might end up being given to RBL - and the whole thing will prove to have been yet another empty gesture, nothing more than spin and free publicity for a book that's, pre-release - being offered at half price on Amazon. The Guardian tells us that this free advertising (some via the country's publicly funded state broadcaster, the BBC) seems to have worked too. Who'd a thought it!

The Metro refers to the possible donation as Blood Money, and Adnan Sarwar in the Guardian reminds us that when ...

... Sir John Chilcot [Iraq War Inquiry] asked Blair if he had any regrets. After initially dodging the question, Blair answered with a confident "No". In the audience were families who had lost their children in the wars. I was astounded by Blair's arrogance. Given the most public platform since he left office and a perfect opportunity to show some respect, he decided not to. ...

... I have heard people say if Blair was being genuine he could have donated anonymously and out of the public eye. I don't care if this is genuine or more spin – what I do care about is helping soldiers. ... I won't be buying Blair's book though.

And nor will Mrs Rigby be buying the book. If she wants to donate to the Royal British Legion she will do so directly, either via their website or by putting some money in one of their collecting boxes. She sees no need whatsoever to channel any donation through a third party.

Mrs R also wonders if, maybe, in the long run it's best to take the mickey as does The Daily Mash, and we should accept that

... the RBL should keep the money, it will do far more good with them than it will in Blairs pocket ...

We are all mortal, no matter how clever, how clean-living or how rich we are, it's the one certainty of being human - and there are no pockets in a shroud. A few months ago Mr Blair was looking quite frail which is why, thanks to ARRSE, Mrs R will share a verse from Bob Dylan's Masters of War

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul.

....

Decriminalising

2010-08-17T22:09:00.000+01:00

Way back here Mrs Rigby mentioned that Portugal decriminalised the use of some drugs. On 1st July 2001

... a nationwide law in Portugal took effect that decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Under the new legal framework, all drugs were "decriminalized," not "legalized." Thus, drug possession for personal use and drug usage itself are still legally prohibited, but violations of those prohibitions are deemed to be exclusively administrative violations and are removed completely from the criminal realm. Drug trafficking continues to be prosecuted as a criminal offence.

And the results of this innovative law were looked at not only the Cato Institute but also by both Time Magazine and Scientific American five years later, in April 2009. According to the Cato Institute

The data show that, judged by virtually every metric, the Portuguese decriminalization framework has been a resounding success. Within this success lie self-evident lessons that should guide drug policy debates around the world.

Now, it would seem that there may soon be a sensible debate about decriminalising drugs in Britain. The Chairman of the Bar Council, Nicholas Green Q.C. fired the opening salvo, followed by a supporting article from Professor Sir Ian Gilmore who suggests that Cocaine should be legal. Mrs Rigby is interested to see that Lord Norton has taken the time to make a comment, writing on Lords of the Blog and, within the comments there it would seem that Baroness Murphy accepts that

We simply haven’t got our response to drugs right yet.

Britain isn't alone in 'not getting it right yet', if we were then there'd be no need for the EU agency, called the EMCDDA - European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction - which is in Lisbon. The agency's site tells us that

Illicit drug use and trafficking are worldwide phenomena that threaten health and social stability. Statistics show that around one in three young Europeans has tried an illicit drug and at least one of our citizens dies every hour from a drug overdose. ...

This gives an indication of the scale, and the tragedy, of modern drug use.

Mrs Rigby's gut instincts accept that prohibition doesn't work, except to drive money towards the unscrupulous and encourage illicit, illegal and sometimes dangerous trading in banned items. History tends to reinforce this opinion - beginning with (as Mrs R recalls from a comment somewhere or other) what was supposed to have happened in the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve were told they could do whatever thy liked - but must not to touch the apples.

Britain has the strictest gun laws in Europe - but these laws haven't kept illegal guns from our streets, with tragic consequences. We know that the Puritans were unhappy with the way Britain was being run, so went off to America and then we got a Puritan regime led by Cromwell who was so, umm, successful in enforcing strict rules and regulations that

By the end of his life, both Cromwell and the 11 major-generals who helped to run the country, had become hated people. The population was tired of having strict rules forced onto them.

And, of course, in the last century "Prohibition" in America gave the world Al Capone - referred to as

America's best known gangster and the single greatest symbol of the collapse of law and order in the United States during the 1920s Prohibition era.

Maybe he was 'liked' because

He was the first to open soup kitchens after the 1929 stock market crash and he ordered merchants to give clothes and food to the needy at his expense

These days, a little more than 80 years after Capone was charged with tax evasion, the modern prohibitionists are having a field day. We're heckled and harangued, bullied and threatened, by so-called 'health professionals' who tell us we should all be eating, drinking and living 'healthily'. Yet, despite all the rules and 'advice', we're also told we're in the middle of an 'obesity epidemic', cancer rates aren't exactly plummeting and nor are deaths from so-called 'lifestyle' illnesses - which now includes diabetes.

The latest wheeze to make us all behave in such a way that we'll all live for ever is to threaten withdrawal of medical care from the 'unhealthy' - completely forgetting that 'healthy people' don't tend to see a doctor until they stop being healthy by falling ill or breaking something, and every single thing we do is a lifestyle choice.

So, when the same 'professionals' tell us off for taking naughty drugs not many people listen - especially kids, who know they're immortal. There's overload, it's all too much and anyway for some people taking drugs might be the only way they think they can actually control some aspect of their lives.

If education were the key then there would be no drug problem, because schools have been preaching the anti-drug agenda for donkey's years - starting when children are infants.

Prison doesn't seem to be the answer either - long jail sentences don't seem to deter either dealers or users. One gets put inside, another swiftly takes their place.

So, maybe it is time to be innovative, and follow Portugal's lead. It's worth looking at, surely?

....

Mixed-sex - no thanks.

2010-08-17T00:18:00.001+01:00

In 21st century Britain, where few children share a bedroom with their siblings and many homes have as many bathrooms as bedrooms, it is a terrible indictment that our 'world class healthcare' - much praised by the Labour government - should insist that sick, incapacitated and/or terminally ill people are forced into wards alongside total strangers, sometimes alongside strangers of the opposite sex.

Labour promised these mixed-sex wards would be closed but, as with many of their manifesto promises, it was nothing more than empty words. Let's hope the current lot will make it happen, but Mrs R has a feeling they'll be up against very important hospital administrators who want to retain control of their empires irrespective of the needs, or wishes, of their patients.

"What's wrong with mixed-sex hospital wards?" ... is the title of this CiF piece. The comments are, as usual, quite revealing and seem to indicate clear differences of opinion - possibly separating those who have been in-patients and those who've never been hospitalised.

Mrs R has experienced in-patient care in a mixed-sex ward, and it was horrible. She was the only female in an eight-bed area/bay. Despite pleas from both her and the rest of her family it's where she had to stay because the powers-that-be said there were no other available beds. Mrs R is more than a little convinced that her ~~wish~~ desperate need to escape led to her being discharged too early - swiftly followed by emergency readmission (to a different hospital further from home) less than 48 hours later.

Although Mrs R has no medical training whatsoever she is fairly sure that men and women deal with illness and incapacity differently. She does know that, if we're taken ill and taken away from our immediate family, it's bad enough having to share a room with a load of strangers, let alone total strangers of the opposite sex - with the illusion of privacy being provided only by a flimsy and rather grubby curtain with a lower edge no nearer the floor than the average kneecap.

One of the men in this particular mixed ward was an absolute gent - but was it fair that he felt the need to try to be 'decent' (in word and deed) in front of a woman who was in an adjacent bed? Was it reasonable for that long-retired man to have to sleep in the same room as Mrs Rigby, and have to discuss his medical problems with staff knowing she could hear every single word?

The other occupants of the ward? Well, umm, the least said about them the better! Man-to-man conversations are sometimes obviously very, err, mannish, and aren't really the sort of thing many women want (or need) to listen to. Oh, and there was the one who thought using the ward's communal washbasin was a clever trick, because it saved him having to walk along the corridor. The nurses never noticed, and nor did the cleaner who gave the sink a cursory wipe once a day.

These wards might have been a clever idea, once, but they were never the right thing to do. They might have saved a bit of space, the same as open-plan offices, but in the long run Mrs R is convinced that they compromise patient care and, in some cases, delay recovery.

So, she wishes the government the very best of luck in their plans to get rid of mixed-sex wards - by the end of the year.

....

Dr Kelly

2010-08-16T13:16:00.000+01:00

Taking a breather from family stuff Mrs R has had a quick scan of the online newspapers and noticed that the Mail seems to be maintaining the pressure with regards to the possibly mysterious death of Dr David Kelly. It would seem that more and more 'experts' are calling for a Coroner's Inquest, something that was denied the family at the time.

Some seem to think the Hutton 'Inquiry' was better than an inquest, but fail to acknowledge that, at the time, Mr Straw was calling for secret inquests that not even the family of the deceased would be able to attend, with results hidden for ever. None of those satisfied with Hutton have ever offered more than the most risible of explanations outlining the need for the 70-year embargo imposed by Falconer.

So, maybe, it shouldn't come as a surprise to read this small paragraph - which seems to have nothing to do with Dr Kelly.

Tolstoy’s defence against the libel action was seriously hampered when the Ministry of Defence removed vital papers from the Public Record Office which Tolstoy needed to fight his case – while Aldington found his access to war records unimpeded.

It would, Mrs R thinks, be interesting to know how often 'public' records are (or were) quietly removed from the public eye to suit the needs of one agency or another.

....

Family and friends - it's time.

2010-07-20T02:20:00.004+01:00

The Rigbys are spending the summer holidays visiting, and being visited by, as many of the multitude of Rigby relatives and friends as possible in the few weeks between now and the end of August.

Because of this Mrs R doesn't expect to be either near her computer, a newspaper or a television very often - which will actually be quite a nice change. She's sure the world will carry on turning and, maybe, the sun will keep shining too.

Just think, last August the Libyan was sent home to die - but didn't. Teddy Kennedy did die, and the government of the day was telling us we were unpatriotic to criticise the MoD ... and ministers and their chums tried to dirty the character of General Dannatt and, of course, Mr Brown went to Afghanistan for a photo-op.

It all seems a million light years away.

One of the nicest things about this summer is that it is Mr Brown-free. It makes quite a nice change really. Mrs R wonders, sometimes, if he'll ever get his book written - he does seem to have 'missed the boat' a bit, because others have got their word in first and whatever does end up being published is likely to look either a bit jaded and weary, or as yet another attack, designed to wound and hurt others whilst he tries to retain the upper hand. But, frankly, Mrs R doesn't care, and she has absolutely no interest in reading a single word of his memoirs. Why bother? We've all lived through those thirteen years and are suffering the consequences of his 'prudence'.

And that, really, is why all the British Rigbys are spending the summer visiting each other and staying for a few hours, or a few days - long enough to talk without embarrassing silences, but not long enough to be in the way. You see, without exception all the Rigbys and Rigby-friends are a bit strapped for cash these days.

One thing that would be nice, a bit of a sweetener in these stony-broke times, something small to help make a lot of people feel as if they count - even though Mr Clegg has already dismissed the idea - is to revisit the smoking ban. You see, although not many Rigbys smoke tobacco there are enough who do to make going out in a group a bit of a chore. It's no longer 'fun' when some need to get up and walk outside a pub, and it's not nice to be sitting in a beer garden having a natter with friends only to be accosted by moaning non-smoking total strangers who complain that their 'fresh air' is being polluted by a whiff of smoke. They could, after all, go inside where there's a guarantee, enshrined in harsh laws, that says the insides of pubs and clubs have to be totally smokeless. It's what they wanted, but now, because of the sunshine, they want the outside too. It spoils things a bit, even for the non-smoker Rigbys and Rigby-friends.

It would be nice, don't you think, if the coalition could offer pubs and, maybe even eating places, the right to choose whether to be smoke-free or not. Then people could choose whether to go to those places, or not.

Mrs Spelman said, only yesterday, that all women should be free to choose the clothes they wear, even though others might disapprove of, or are even fearful of the look of, certain items of clothing. Her thoughts were endorsed by Mr Damian Green. They said it's about choice. It's also, Mrs Rigby thinks, about living with the consequences of making certain choices - because women who wear face-hiding burquas might find they can't go into a bank, or can't go and talk to an MP - they might have to get somebody else to do it for them, which could sometimes be a bit awkward. But, it's their choice.

The coalition has hinted that nobody should be heckled or nagged or legislated and fined into submission. So, if a pub or club chooses to allow smoking it could quite easily have big signs outside, same as places in many other European countries, and people can choose whether to go through the door - or not. That's the grown-up way, isn't it?

So, let's hope, that along with the sunshine and the other 'freedoms' we're all meant to be getting back, let's see the government treat grown-ups like grown-ups.

It's time.

....

Gurkhas, bravery, and the rules of modern warfare.

2010-07-18T23:45:00.026+01:00

A Gurkha soldier from 1st Battalion, Royal Gurkha Rifles has been "sent back to England to face disciplinary action" because he removed

... the head off (sic) a dead Taliban commander with his ceremonial knife to prove the dead man’s identity

The soldier faces disciplinary action because ...

He is understood to have removed the man’s head from the area, leaving the rest of his body on the battlefield.

This is considered a gross insult to the Muslims of Afghanistan, who bury the entire body of their dead even if parts have to be retrieved.

British soldiers often return missing body parts once a battle has ended so the dead can be buried in one piece.

The dead man's head was removed because ...

[The Gurkha's] unit had been told that they were seeking a ‘high value target,’ a Taliban commander, and that they must prove they had killed the right man.

The Gurkhas had intended to remove the Taliban leader’s body from the battlefield for identification purposes.

But they came under heavy fire as their tried to do so. Military sources said that in the heat of battle, the Gurkha [unsheathed his kukri ... after running out of ammunition] and beheaded the dead insurgent.

It's an 'academic question' but, if the soldier had - because he'd run out of ammunition - used his knife to kill the Afghan this would probably be a story of great bravery and medals would be awarded.

But no, let's try to demoralise the soldiers even more by being 'politically correct' and culturally aware during enemy action, and conveniently forget the Gurkha's culture, and forget that the Taliban will happily behead hostages and record their actions to show the world what they did. The Taliban likes trying to frighten 'their enemy' into submission by doing things they know we westerners consider to be barbaric. Is it possible they will be amused to learn that one of our soldiers is being disciplined for beheading a corpse?

Mrs Rigby thinks it's important to remember that only three days ago we were mourning the loss of three soldiers of the 1st Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles. (pictures Mail)

Major James Bowman was shot dead whilst sleeping in his tent. Lieutenant Turkington and Corporal Arjun Purja Pun were killed when the murderer fired a rocket-propelled grenade into the shipping container used as the base's operations room. We have not been told of non-fatal injuries suffered by other soldiers.

And who did this? It was a ~~'rogue'~~ traitorous soldier of the Afghan National Army - who has since been in contact with the BBC giving his excuses and attempting to justify his actions.

That 'soldier' is, apparently

... now the subject of a massive manhunt led by elite SAS troops.

Who will, Mrs R guesses, give him either a bunch of flowers or a box of chocolates when they find him, and maybe even offer him counselling to ease his trauma.

Ambush Predator has written about this. Mrs Rigby is only doing so because she spotted a link on All Seeing Eye to a poem. The poem offers an insight, showing the stark contrast in military 'ethics', and enemy action, between now and when Rudyard Kipling was earning his Nobel Prize for Literature. Kipling knew of the fierce loyalty of the Gurkhas, and how they might be expected to react to the death of one of their Officers - although this fictional poem is referring to the Indian Army of the time.

The Grave of the Hundred Head
by Rudyard Kipling

There's a widow in sleepy Chester
Who weeps for her only son;
There's a grave on the Pabeng River,
A grave that the Burmans shun;
And there's Subadar* Prag Tewarri
Who tells how the work was done.

A Snider* squibbed in the jungle,
Somebody laughed and fled,
And the men of the First Shikaris*
Picked up their Subaltern dead,
With a big blue mark in his forehead
And the back blown out of his head.

Subadar Prag Tewarri,
Jemadar* Hira Lal,
Took command of the party,
Twenty rifles in all,
Marched them down to the river
As the day was beginning to fall.

They buried the boy by the river,
A blanket over his face -
They wept for their dead Lieutenant,
The men of an alien race -
They made a samadh* in his honour,
A mark for his resting-place.

For they swore by the Holy Water,
They swore by the salt they ate,
That the soul of Lieutenant Eshmitt Sahib
Should go to his God in state,
With fifty file of Burmans
To open him Heaven's gate.

The men of the First Shikaris
Marched till the break of day,
Till they came to the rebel village,
The village of Pabengmay -
A jingal* covered the clearing,
Calthrops hampered the way.

Subadar Prag Tewarri,
Bidding them load with ball,
Halted a dozen rifles
Under the village wall;
Sent out a flanking-party
With Jemadar Hira Lal.

The men of the First Shikaris
Shouted and smote and slew,
Turning the grinning jingal
On to the howling crew.
The Jemadar's flanking-party
Butchered the folk who flew.

Long was the morn of slaughter,
Long was the list of slain,
Five score heads were taken,
Five score heads and twain;
And the men of the First Shikaris
Went back to their grave again,

Each man bearing a basket
Red as his palms that day,
Red as the blazing village -
The village of Pabengmay,
And the "drip-drip-drip" from the baskets
Reddened the grass by the way.

They made a pile of their trophies
High as a tall man's chin,
Head upon head distorted,
Set in a sightless grin,
Anger and pain and terror
Stamped on the smoke-scorched skin.

Subadar Prag Tewarri
Put the head of the Boh
On the top of the mound of triumph,
The head of his son below -
With the sword and the peacock-banner
That the world might behold and know.

Thus the samadh was perfect,
Thus was the lesson plain
Of the wrath of the First Shikaris -
The price of a white man slain;
And the men of the First Shikaris
Went back into camp again.

Then a silence came to the river,
A hush fell over the shore,
And Bohs that were brave departed,
And Sniders squibbed no more;
For the Burmans said
That a white man's head
Must be paid for with heads five-score.

There's a widow in sleepy Chester
Who weeps for her only son;
There's a grave on the Pabeng River,
A grave that the Burmans shun;
And there's Subadar Prag Tewarri
Who tells how the work was done.

Snider = British military rifle.

jingal = "... an 1880s enlarged copy of the Remington Lee Bolt action rifle (original calibre 45/70 or 43 Spanish)which were made in .60 calibre by Tientsin Arsenal, which also made the ammo ..."

samadh = can be directly traslated (sic) as shrine or death shrine

Subadar = An Indian Army mid-rank infantry officer equal to a Captain.

Jemadar = An Indian Army cavalry or infantry junior officer equal to a Lieutenant.

Shikaris = game hunter. Quote from e-book "Under ten viceroys; the reminiscences of a Gurkha" by Nigel Gresley Woodyatt.

"Every Gurkha is supposed to be a shikari. It would be much more correct to say ALL are shikar lovers, but only a very small minority has any real knowledge of game.
When you do get a shikari he is good, as good as they make them, and quite fearless. ..."

More about Kipling from Wikipedia

....

Starry, starry nights?

2010-07-18T18:46:00.000+01:00

The Mail has highlighted the 'fears' of an increase in road accidents when some motorway lights are turned off between the hours of midnight and five in the morning. Turning off some lights is meant to both save the environment and quite a bit of money.

According to the Campaign for Dark Skies the idea has already been trialled in some counties, with no increase in the number of road accidents and, where urban lights have been turned off it has been deemed a success ...

... "A year on year comparison for April 2006 to May 2007 [when street-lights were left on all night] and April 2007 to May 2008 [when street-lights were turned off at midnight] has shown that night-time crime has almost halved in Saffron Walden and reduced by over a third in Dunmow."

Mrs Rigby's experience is that, when it's raining and there are bright metal halide lights, it's almost impossible to see white road markings and also, at the end of a run of bright white lights, her eyes take a moment or two to adjust to the sudden darkness.

She has noticed that, in brightly lit urban areas, car headlights are almost invisible, and she thinks it's easier to see cars at night when there's no street lighting - simply because it's possible to see their headlight beams approaching a junction or from around a bend etc. etc.. It's because of this some of the unlit winding rural roads near Rigby Town seem safer to use during the darker winter months.

Mr Eugenides, however, spots an interesting conundrum

So we live in a society where head teachers make kids wear goggles to play conkers and policemen are forbidden from rescuing drowning people on health and safety grounds... and then they make you drive at 70mph in pitch darkness to save the polar bears?

Hmm, it almost makes Mrs R wonder who'll be first to trip over on a newly darkened motorway and then blame the lack of street lighting - and after that maybe all cars will have to be preceded by a pedestrian waving a red flag. Or did they do that once before?

....

Carne Ross & Chilcot

2010-07-16T22:03:00.000+01:00

... there was no deliberate discussion of available alternatives to military action in advance of the military invasion. There is no record of that discussion, no official has referred to it, no minister has talked about it. And that seems to me to be a very egregious absence in history, that at some point a government before going to war should stop and ask itself are there available alternatives.

As my testimony makes clear, there was an available alternative. All that argument about tightening sanctions and stopping illegal breaches to me amounted to a very viable, robust alternative to military action that would have had the possible effect of undermining the Saddam regime, and certainly would have prevented any major rearmament ... The fact that that deliberation, that consideration of alternatives, did not take place is, to me, a disgrace.

Taken from Mr Carne Ross*'s statement to the Chilcot Inquiry.

Please read other extracts from his statement over at the Guardian

*
Mr Carne Ross is ...

... the Foreign Office "whistleblower" who resigned after speaking out about the war. He worked as a British diplomat at the UN and, in a submission to the Butler inquiry (which was originally secret, but which was subsequently published in 2006), he said that officials did not regard Iraq's WMD programme as a threat to the UK.

His 17 page witness statement opens with a tribute to Dr. David Kelly.

....

St Swithun's weather.

2010-07-15T12:33:00.000+01:00

Hosepipe bans and cricket always seem to be the modern equivalent of a rain dance. Mrs Rigby can't deny that the gardens of Rigby Towers were in desperate need of more than a drop of rain because, despite regular dosing with watering cans, some of the larger shrubs were beginning to suffer what might be permanent damage.

And now, of course, it's St Swithun's Day. Stories tell us that the Saint had been buried in the churchyard outside the Priory Church of Sts. Peter and Paul and St. Swithun as he had requested, until some more serious folk decided he'd be better inside the rather splendid shrine they'd built for him - so they dug up his bones and moved him indoors. The saint wasn't, apparently, too pleased and so made it start raining and he made it carry on raining for 40 days.

British 21st century man, who is unlikely to mark the calendar by saints days, doesn't like this sort of tradition, so we're now told how 15th July is merely a marker for stuck weather systems and patterns and, because of the way these things work, the weather on that day could continue for the next few weeks - or not.

Mrs R thinks it's rather nice to know that St Swithun's verse ...

St. Swithun's day, if thou dost rain,
For forty days it will remain;
St. Swithun's day, if thou be fair,
For forty days 'twill rain na mair.

... is mirrored by weather traditions elsewhere in Europe. For example.

In France they say Quand il pleut a la Saint Gervais Il pleut quarante jours apres - If it rains on St. Gervais' day (19th of July), it will rain for fourty days thereafter.

In Germany the Siebenschlaefer or seven sleepers day (July 7th, after the Gregorian calendar) refers to the weather patterns of the following seven weeks.

....

Unpleasant people.

2010-07-14T22:00:00.000+01:00

Sometimes, when looking at other blogs, you learn about people whose behaviour make you wonder how they managed to end up being paid out of the public purse. More often than not, if you're anything like Mrs Rigby, you just shake your head and 'move on' - because that's what you're meant to do these days isn't it? And because, well, we've seen it, or something similar, all too many times before.

Some people somehow manage to 'get away with an awful lot' of unpleasantness, both online and in the real world. They seem to be able to 'get away with' a lot more than ... than most people. It's hard to work out why, maybe sometimes it's really because of 'who they are' and sometimes it's because of 'who they know' and who's looking after their interests. At other times it could be because they're so belligerent, so caustic, so full of themselves and so, errm, horrible, it'd be hard to choose which particular bit of behaviour or verbiage to target and condemn - so we leave them be.

One such person came to Mrs R's notice in this post at GrumpyOldTwat's blog. In amongst the comments is one from Subrosa, who says

Do you now believe if a red rosette was stuck on a monkey they'd vote for it? (Apology to monkeys).

It makes Mrs Rigby ask herself that if that particular person was the best choice of candidate for Local Government, then what were the worst like?

Anyhow, if you'd like to learn more about this individual perhaps you'd like to follow Mrs R's footsteps by first going to GrumpyOldTwat's place then stroll over for quite a surprising read at Harry's Place. Once you've picked your jaw up off the keyboard maybe you could take a look at a couple of posts at Corrugated Soundbite here and also here. (Don't forget to read the comments).

When you've digested all that, with the help of a cup of coffee or something a little stronger, perhaps you'd like to pop back to GOT's blog and follow some of the highlighted links - there are quite a few.

Oh, and a P.S. - you did remember to read all the comments belonging to all those blog posts, didn't you? If not, it's worth backtracking and doing so.

And to think, this man was elected to a position in local government. He helps shape local policies, he is a so-called public servant ... and, because of the way the last government 'sorted out' local funding, we all contribute towards the financial pot from which he draws his wages, even though he may not work, or live, anywhere near us.

....

Ed Balls R4 interview

2010-07-14T12:50:00.001+01:00

Reading this on Coffee House it would be easy to believe that Mr Ed Balls is a reincarnation of Mr Brown. Thing is, Brown's apparently alive and ~~well~~, well, alive, and is mostly somewhere in Kirkcaldy where he's writing his memoirs and being paid to be an MP - except when he goes to the zoo.

Here's the beginning of the John Humphrys/Ed Balls radio 4 interview. You can read the whole thing over at the Coffee House

John Humphrys: There are two big questions in British politics, the 1st is whether the coalition can hold together; the second is whether the Labour party can hold together. It’s not quite that simple for the obvious reason that the coalition is two parties, and the Labour party isn’t, not officially anyway. But for years it was divided between those who supported Blair, and those who supported Brown. And the question now as the party struggles to decide who to choose for its new leader is whether it can heal that division. It hasn’t been helped by Peter Mandelson, Lord Mandelson’s, book about to be published, and he’s got a lot to say about it. Ed Balls is one of the leadership contenders and he was about as close to Gordon Brown as it’s possible to be and he’s with me. Good morning to you.

Ed Balls: Good morning John.

JH: Do you regret those years of division?

EB: I don’t regret at all the national minimum wage, three-and-a-half thousand Sure Start children’s centres…

JH: No, that’s not what I asked you, I asked you about the division.

EB: But, John, what we had in the last 13 years is a Labour government which achieved more for jobs and social justice, did more redistribution than any government since 1945. I think put our health service on a sound footing, transformed education, so we had the best generation of teachers ever. I think it was a profoundly successful government. And the fact is there were times when Gordon Brown and Tony Blair had disagreements and arguments, but out of that creative tension came some huge achievements and I think the Labour party is very proud of what was achieved in the last 30 years, 13 years and .....

Ever had that feeling of Déjà vu?

Read the rest, you know you want to!

(P.S. Edited to quote more of the transcript)

....

Sham consultation.

2010-07-13T12:45:00.000+01:00

It would appear that this site is as empty a gesture as was this one.

Mr Clegg has decided to close the debate on some issues. He has decided that he will not look at reviewing either the death penalty or the smoking ban.

Interesting sort of parallel really, pairing these two regulations or laws. We all know that, in reality, discussion about the death penalty in Britain is little more than empty words. However, we also know that many other EU countries have ensured that people and businesses have the freedom to choose whether to allow smoking on their premises - or not. Britain, and British people, are not to be allowed to even discuss the issue. The debate is, apparently, over - even before it began. It seems an astonishingly illiberal approach.

There is so much to say about this but Mrs R is taking the easy route of merely pointing to the eloquent opinions of :-

Dick Puddlecote
Leg_Iron
Freedon2Choose
Frank Davis

It's worth, as always, taking the time to read not only the posts but also the comments.

....

Christian Professor’s hand hacked off for ‘blasphemy’

2010-07-11T09:26:00.003+01:00

Christian Professor’s hand hacked off for ‘blasphemy’

A group of unknown assailants severed the hand and the right arm of a university professor accused of defaming Mohammed months ago. ...

According to the police, Prof. TJ Joseph, was returning with his family from Sunday service when a group of people in a Maruti Omni van drew up beside him stopping him close to home. After forcing Joseph to get out of his car, they attacked him with knives and swords, then cut off his hand and right arm throwing them away after about 200 meters.

The professor was immediately transported to a hospital in Muvattupuzha and then to another specialized in surgery, where doctors are trying to mend his severed hand. The professor has also suffered deep wounds to his body and is in need of plastic surgery.

Joseph ... a professor at Newman’s College, Thodupuzha, is free on bail. Last March he had prepared a questionnaire for examinations in the private college and according to the Muslims had included questions offensive to Muhammad.

Ugh! This is yet another thing that Mrs R can't write about without feeling nauseous, and having managed to discuss the case of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani she has to repeat her belief that such 'punishments', it doesn't matter who they're carried out by, are barbaric and should have no place in the 21st century world.

Britain and 'the western world' moved away from proselytism and doesn't think apostasy is such a big deal, because we're used to having the freedom to choose a faith, or not, and there are all sorts of national and international laws that enshrine the right to freedom of speech and expression - so it's awfully difficult to be classed as a heretic.

It's because of all these things that, when we hear or read about people being punished or threatened because of their religious beliefs, we're left almost open-mouthed. Very many people think it really is time the high-ups in some parts of the world caught up. It's time they learned from Europe's old mistakes and realise that sensible people don't look back at, for example, The Inquisition, with awe and wonder, we view it with contempt and are actually much more likely to turn to the release of humour - and think of Monty Python!

Human nature doesn't change that much. Humans are innovative and inquisitive, and often want to rebel against overbearing authority. It doesn't matter how powerful the particular individuals, theologies or organisations thought they were at the height of their power, historians will always, eventually, mock, belittle, deride and criticize bullies and thugs who abused their positions of authority - not least because it's also human nature to think something that has banned is interesting and appealing, and worth investigating to see what all the fuss is about. So being too pushy can be a bit counter-productive in the end.

Mrs Rigby knows that this incident is no joke. It's merely the latest of a long line of indefensible persecutions of Christians by power-hungry and intolerant Muslims who want to have their own way.

If you'd like to read more (and Mrs R really thinks you should) please stroll over to Real Street for more information and comment.

....

Battle of, and for, Britain.

2010-07-10T14:58:00.006+01:00

Between 10th July and 31st October 1940 a battle raged in the skies above Britain, mostly over England. Parts of the country were flattened by German blitz bombing, which is why the centres of some port towns and cities, for example Liverpool and Southampton, have so few ancient buildings.

During the 'Battle of Britain' the country was protected by "The Few",

'The Few' were 2,353 young men from Great Britain and 574 from overseas, pilots and other aircrew, who are officially recognised as having taken part in the Battle of Britain.

Each flew at least one authorised operational sortie with an eligible unit of the Royal Air Force or Fleet Air Arm during the period 10 July to 31 October 1940.

544 lost their lives during the period of the Battle, and these are marked by an asterisk (on The Battle of Britain Roll of Honour).

A further 791 were killed in action or died in the course of their duties before the wars end ...

In a speech to the House of Commons on 20th August 1940 Churchill praised these young men

"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few".

Some today would have us forget those times, and forget the astonishing and selfless bravery of those 2,927 men. Mrs Rigby can't forget, because she wasn't alive then, but she is very aware of the importance of those battles and is also aware of what might have happened to Britain had we lost the war.

Some say we are still fighting a battle for Britain, others say there's no point because politicians have surrendered our sovereignty to Europe. But, well, this is Britain after all, and we don't take kindly to takeover bids, no matter how subtle they may be.

So let's remember those brave Airmen, and their ground crews, and the men in the factories who worked long hours to make the planes, and the munitions workers who made the bombs and bullets. Let's also remember the men and women of the Civil Defence and all other non-combatants who 'did their bit' when called upon to protect this country from harm - and they did it without computers too!

We Rigbys would like to say, "Thank you," and would like to share these two videos.

This is a "Battle of Britain. Tribute to the Few" with music 'Conquest of Paradise' by Vangelis.

This is an extract from the film "Battle of Britain"

(P.S. Edited to add link to Roll of Honour)

....

Standing room only?

2010-07-10T13:25:00.000+01:00

Sometimes reporting errors can make you smile.

From this BBC report about a fire near Heathrow, where "50 firefighters are containing the scene". The report tells us that

More than 200 people were evacuated from the area

Mrs Rigby thinks they must have been living in remarkably cramped conditions because

A five metre exclusion zone is in place

Five metres?

That's about, oh, (5x3) +10% = 16ft 6 inches.

....

Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani

2010-07-09T10:54:00.004+01:00

'We stretch our hands to the people of the world. No matter who you are or where in the world, save our mother.'

The plea in an open letter written by Sajad Ghadarzade and his sister, Farideh, whose mother faces death by stoning.

Mrs Ashtiani's case has been written about in many blogs and in many newspapers - none have condoned the punishment. William Hague, our Foreign Secretary, has rightly spoken for the people of Britain by saying he is 'appalled'.

As a result of the international outcry it would appear that the stoning has been at least postponed, although the lady still faces the death penalty - for adultery. Adultery is a word rarely used in the western world these days, morals have become looser. During the last century Western 'society' became more tolerant of sexual misdemeanours and wanderings - except for the few who are supposed to 'uphold standards' such as the Royal Family and some members of government, but adultery and sex outside marriage is no longer taboo, no longer an offence apart from offending dignity.

Mrs Rigby is strongly opposed to the death penalty in any form. She doesn't believe it is a suitable punishment for any crime, and she doesn't think any person, no matter how legally important they may be, should be given either the power or the right to instruct 'the authorities' to take the life of any individual - no matter what they may have done wrong. As for stoning, Mrs R finds it hard to think of a more horrible, more barbaric, more terrifyingly brutal, means of execution. Taking a life in this way demeans not only the individual being put to death, it also demeans those carrying out the punishment and indicates nothing more than a lust for power, for power's sake, in those who think this punishment is appropriate. Stoning to death, carefully contrived to be successful by ensuring the victim is buried in a hole in the ground, is a means of killing that should have stayed consigned to the history books, and let's hope this is where it is returned.

The authorities in Iran and indeed many other Muslim countries are trying to rule by fear - in other words they are trying to tell their populations that if they don't behave in a given way then they will be punished and may be given the ultimate penalty. Mrs Ashtiani is being used as an example, in an attempt to enforce a moral code of behaviour where women are subservient and, it appears, where women get the worse punishment for sexual offences - because in Iran and other Muslim countries it's women who are meant to keep themselves covered up, so they don't make men do naughty things. In a way it's no different from somebody in Britain telling a girl who's been raped that, because she wears short skirts, she was 'asking for it' - and it shows an unpleasant mindset that suggests that some men can't control their sexual appetites and so shouldn't be punished when they err.

A system of government, indeed any system of government of whatever political or religious hue, that tries to rule its population by legislation and through fear of consequences, no matter how petty, trivial or brutal has to be condemned, because that form of government is nothing more than dictatorship.

And if you haven't already signed the protest letter and would like to, it's here.

....

iMac Cat

2010-07-07T18:19:00.001+01:00

Taken from There I Fixed It!

....

Section 43 and photographers.

2010-07-06T23:12:00.023+01:00

You may recall the incident less than a fortnight ago when young Jules Mattson was taken to one side by several Police officers during the Armed Forces Day events in Romford.

It appears that it's happened again, a mere 10 days later, and this time in London - when he was photographing Cadets near Buckingham Palace. He had "received approval from the cadets' supervisors as he was shooting images for the cadets' website". (link to BJP)

The Police have, perhaps, at long last been told that using Section 44 is out of bounds - because the BBC tells us it was ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights in January 2010 a fact that was brought to the public eye again in June 2010 when the BBC announced that "Thousands of anti-terror searches were illegal" - but didn't mention that the last government had lodged an appeal against the earlier ruling, which was lost.

Today the Police chose another section of the Terrorism Act 2000 - they chose to use Section 43. But this isn't the first time. (Also mentioned here in February)

Here's what Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (link OPSI) says :-

43 Search of persons

(1) A constable may stop and search a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.

(2) A constable may search a person arrested under section 41 to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.

(3) A search of a person under this section must be carried out by someone of the same sex.

(4) A constable may seize and retain anything which he discovers in the course of a search of a person under subsection (1) or (2) and which he reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist.

(5) A person who has the powers of a constable in one Part of the United Kingdom may exercise a power under this section in any Part of the United Kingdom.

Mrs Rigby thought it was odd that a teenager, legitimately taking pictures in a very public place could be 'reasonably suspected' of being a terrorist. She has absolutely no idea what the young man might look like, but she thought he must be very unusual, perhaps of striking appearance, perhaps wearing outlandish clothes, and maybe looking a bit unkempt?

Perhaps like this a younger version of this chap? (image Telegraph)

Or maybe he looked like a youthful tramp - such as the one at the front right of this picture? (image HeraldSun)

Perhaps he was tidy-ish, but was smoking a cigarette - like this chap (source)

Mrs R isn't at all sure whether the famous people pictured above might be 'reasonably believed to be terrorists', but the Police must have reasonably thought Jules was one, from either his behaviour or his appearance - otherwise they shouldn't have detained him. That is what the law clearly says.

Here's how some people who know Jules Mattson describe him ... According to this person who says ...

I know Jules and he couldn't really be any more the opposite of the above description. He's polite, courteous and very unobtrusive as he goes about his business.

and another person says ...

knowing people who teach him and help him and guide him while shooting along side him, and his dad being a well know photo journalist, he is trained very well from what I am told and remains very quiet and invisible where he can, I am talking about marc vallee, david hoffman and many other well know shooters. I doubt he was causing any trouble at all. I feel a harassment case coming on very soon.

So, maybe today some 'MOP'* pointed to Jules and his camera and said that he was a terrorist, maybe somebody or other has complained that the pictures on his Flickr pages are unsuitable (they're of politicians, and protests, and other things like that) or maybe somebody has told the Police they're not happy with his blog?

Who knows? It seems that earlier today the Police weren't too sure either because (link to Amateur Photographer)

A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police did not have a record of the incident when contacted by Amateur Photographer this afternoon.

There's a saying, isn't there, it's something like "Once is an Accident, twice is a Coincidence, and three times ..."

..........
*
MOP = Police-speak for Member of the Public.

P.S.
Just noticed that the same issue is mentioned by Al Jahom along with some other tidbits - please read what he says.

....

Arming the Police?

2010-07-05T14:17:00.003+01:00

Because of the actions of one Raoul Moat, Inspector Gadget has written a piece that seems to call for routine arming of all Police

The actions of this individual, and the police response outlined above (recalling all officers to stations for fear of further casualties) proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the current unarmed police service in Britain is no longer fit for purpose.

and ...

Northumbria Police has had to bring in ARVs from other Forces so as to offer a measure of protection to citizens and officers alike.

Within the comments we can read that,

... all unarmed (the vast majority) of Northumbria officers are grounded, apart from going to “I calls”(I take it they will know which ones are genuine and which is a trap).

The call for routine arming of all Police seems to be widely supported by comments left, so Mrs Rigby, naturally, jumped in with both feet and wrote this. She wouldn't normally repeat comments she's left elsewhere, but this is an exception.

With the greatest of respect to you all, because you do a grand job, and I can see my comment comes after some who are asking for Police to be armed, but maybe you don’t understand why we ordinary mortals are a bit bothered to hear even more talk about having ‘all police armed’.

You see, it’s because we read about things like this (inserted extract ... "One of the hostages was then apparently shot by mistake with a Taser...")

We think most people will recover from being hit by a tazer, we fear that being mistakenly shot if wrongly identified will result in a very different outcome. And, you see, some Police are already telling us it’s illegal to take photographs and some of those are being a bit too pushy about it too. How long will it be before a photographer is tazered for arguing about his or her rights, or for pushing back when a police officer wrongly grabs their expensive camera?

Some people are a bit concerned that some – only some – Police are a bit more worried about looking after themselves, or covering their own backs when they make a mistake, instead of looking after us ‘members of the public’.

We know it’s only a few bad apples, but in the wrong hands a gun is lethal. That’s how we ended up with the knee-jerk legislation that made British gun laws so stringent.

There are lots of legally held guns in this country, their owners are very careful to keep themselves legal. But, you see, as somebody else has pointed out, our gun laws are so strict that decent people and aren’t even allowed to pursue a challenging hobby they once enjoyed. Some of our excellent Olympic shooters have to train in France – yet this chap managed to get a weapon within 12 hours of being released from jail.

How could he do that? It’s against the law!

Aren’t your demands to be armed yet another knee-jerk reaction? We don’t hear you calling out for the same when ordinary folk, including children, are shot dead. Be honest, and ask yourself if you’d be making the same demands if this man had stopped after murdering Chris Brown.

Would PC Rathband have been able to use his weapon, if he’d had one? Would it have made any difference?

Why aren’t we hearing more about pressure and significant efforts to prevent and shut down the illegal gun trade?

The important things now though are to hope PC David Rathband makes a full recovery and the maniac who shot him is quickly captured before he does any more harm.

So why is this comment repeated?

It's because 'Smithyknows' replies to 'Mrs R', 'Crux' and 'JuliaM' with this,

So if you consider how rare it is that fires actually occur why do most people have smoke alarms?

Most rtc’s are minor but most people have airbags.

So why can’t I- who faces danger more often than I have ever had an rtc, a house fire or any kind of such near misses- why can’t I be afforded the same protection of safety when facing seriously armed individuals.

Don’t judge someone until you’ve walked in their shoes.

Once you have dealt with incidents of such violence or volatility that you are chuffed you’re still alive, tell me your opinion.

Do I not have the same Human Right to Life?

It would be very easy to fully fisk this comment and to take up space on Insp Gadget's blog to do so, but that isn't really fair, so Mrs Rigby is responding here on her own blog.

First of all, Mrs Rigby has not, can not, and does not want to 'walk a mile' in a Police officer's shoes - but she has family and friends who have, and who still do. And she knows which of these individuals she would trust to be 'routinely armed'.

Don’t judge someone until you’ve walked in their shoes.

But, 'Smithyknows', you aren't walking in our shoes are you?

You don't know who we are. You don't know how we live our lives. Nor do you know what we, our families and friends, 'do' to make a living - you're making a sweeping assumption that all apparently non-Police commenters know nothing of policing, violence or firearms, and because of that you're claiming that we can't relate to the issues raised when you call for Police to be routinely armed.

You're also suggesting that you should be allowed to protect yourself because of your job, when you know of Britain's very restrictive firearms legislation - drawn up as a reaction to serious incidents, rather than being carefully thought through. Maybe if that law was rigorously enforced then this current 'arming' debate wouldn't be happening, and there wouldn't be questions raised elsewhere about allowing ordinary people, who some Police refer to as MOPs, being permitted to carry firearms or sidearms - and thus being able to protect ourselves when we go about our everyday lives, and when we're doing our jobs, or visiting the park (can't find the link).

Talk about being disconnected! Have you any idea how cynical and self-seeking that looks?

You want a gun because your job is sometimes dangerous. Yet, in the heat of the moment and wanting to join in the debate you don't seem to have thought it through. Or have you?

To make us really understand how tough and dangerous your job is you compare the protection afforded by an airbag and a smoke alarm with a firearm - even an infant will know which of those three tends to save lives and which, in the wrong hands, will take a life.

If you're successful, who'll be next to make the same demands? Will it be the fire brigade, paramedics, night club bouncers, security guards, parking attendants – anybody with a badge who comes into contact with those terribly dangerous MOPs who could turn awkward when they don't want to do as they're told?

And then how long would it be before all these 'official firearms users' are allowed to have them at home - just in case some nutter MOP (who isn't allowed to have a firearm because it's against the law) takes a dislike to them, the job they do, or doesn't like the look of their uniform?

And in the meantime, law-abiding MOPs who go out for the day and take a picnic with them, get their forks taken away - when they visit a museum, because presumably somebody has decided that cutlery is a dangerously offensive weapon.

We are told the Police form a service that is ...... a varied, multi-layered, responsive institution working to ensure your safety - the 'your' refers to us MOPs, it isn't inward-looking, self-protecting.

..........

There are currently 168 comments left on Insp Gadget's blog please take the time to read them, if only to see how they highlight what seems to be a widening chasm opening up between the Police and those they're supposed to serve - because the Police is still called a Service - and that's what we expect, a service. And, oddly enough, we also expect them to know the law.

And, as an aside, it's important to remember that we MOPs tend to follow instructions, especially at airports which we're told are very dangerous places these days. We take off our shoes and belts, and bracelets, ear rings, rings and watches whilst waiting patiently in the 'security' queue and we put indescribably small liquid items in a see-through bag. Sometimes we get frisked because a filling or a metal screw in a knee has panicked a machine, or maybe it's because there's a target to chase. We often have our hand luggage publicly dissected by uninterested officials who don't even speak to us and now, at some airports we can be x-rayed - refusal means not being able to travel. All this is meant to deter the bad guys, so we do as we're told.

So why is it that Mrs Rigby hasn't a clue what she and her family, as ordinary members of the public - MOPs - are supposed to do if, and when, one of those 'routinely armed with scarily big guns' black-uniformed Police she sees at an airport shouts out a warning and then instantly opens fire? Should we try to run and hide? Should we throw ourselves to the ground, and try to merge with the floor? Or are we meant to turn into statues in case any small movements are seen as threatening and we're mistakenly identified as a 'target'?

....

Nutmeg

2010-07-05T02:26:00.001+01:00

Mrs Rigby has just visited Fraser's soapbox and read about "Teens using nutmeg to get high!" To think she bought a pack of half a dozen nutmegs only yesterday, it's a wonder the supermarket police didn't question her motives.

Our cooking ancestors knew a thing or two. Not only did they know that nutmeg will calm an upset stomach, but that too much would 'cause excitement' - and that's why it was never meant to be liberally used in the same way as pepper. It could also be why it's been 'traditionally' sprinkled over the top of otherwise fairly bland rice pudding or bread and butter pudding.

Oh, and Mace does the same - that's the dried 'blade', the outer casing of the nutmeg 'seed'. Hmm, you really needed to know that, didn't you?

I suppose there might be a law against it soon! - If there isn't, it'll show that this lot are a bit less reactive than the last lot.

....

Packed lunch

2010-07-04T22:24:00.006+01:00

When the little Rigbys started school we paid for school dinners, because it seemed like a good idea. But, for several reasons, it didn't go too well and junior Rigbys ended up joining the packed lunch brigade.

Schools in Rigby Town don't have kitchens. Food is cooked elsewhere, 'centrally', then packed onto heated trolleys and delivered in a van. The young Rigbys and chums were given culinary delights such as a portion of cheese, baked beans and chips, followed by a slice of cake and custard. Sometimes there was pizza, plain sort of pizza with a smearing of tomato sauce and sprinkling of cheese - with chips of course. Sometimes there was pasta, with an indescribably bland sauce. Another time there were baked potatoes, filled with beans or bolognese, and chips. There was never a choice because, of course, only the right number of meals were ever delivered to the school, anything more would be wasteful - and because of this hungry children soon learned that being either at the front or tail end of the queue was always a bad idea because 'spoonfulls' or 'scoops' of food tended to contain less to eat than for those served out in the middle of the queue.

The other thing the little Rigbys disliked was the way they were expected to eat their food. You see, it's served on trays that are meant to double up as plates. They are hard plastic things with compartments for each 'bit' of the meal, which meant that beans spilled over into custard if the serving was either careless or hurried. And believe me, there's nothing a little Rigby likes less than custard flavoured with baked beans or tomatoes.

We Rigbys know from friends that children attending school in an adjoining county are given a mass produced 'packed lunch', comprising a sandwich, a yoghurt and a 'piece of fruit'. The sandwiches are always two slices of white 'plastic' bread with the thinnest of indescribably tasteless fillings that won't deteriorate if not kept chilled. The best flavoured yoghurts, naturally, go to those at the front of the queue, with the tailenders ending up with plain. The fruit is almost always an apple, because children won't eat green or mottled bananas and don't understand pears.

The decision to close school kitchens was made at county level, it was meant to save money because the 'old' kitchens needed upgrading to comply with the latest standards. Centralised cooking was also meant to save money, because mass purchase of ingredients is meant to be cheaper, and one large kitchen is supposed to need fewer staff than required to man many small kitchens. The authority that decided to do away with hot dinners altogether did so, apparently, on H&S grounds - because of the potential consequences of an equipment failure in a delivery van which could have led to food poisoning. So, all in all the bean counters and elves were probably happy, and the kids missed out.

The kids missed out because parents are led to believe that their children are provided with a 'proper meal' at lunch time, something similar to their meals at home. Parents imagine that their children will at the very least be allowed to choose between one or two menu options, options which cater for not only the personal likes and dislikes but also all the various 'allergies' suffered by increasing numbers of youngsters. But in many cases this simply isn't true, it doesn't matter how many 'menu plans' are sent home, because the powers that be can simply change their minds. Many children, when confronted with a school meal, are simply expected to eat what they're given, or go without. It doesn't matter a jot what dear Mr Oliver has to say about it, the penny - and baked bean - counters know what they're doing and in the end it's they who dictate policy.

Imagine, if you will, going to have your lunch and being told what you must eat. Imagine being told you can eat 'that' or go hungry - even if you (or your parents) have paid for your meal in advance.

Then imagine a regime that allows adult 'dining room assistants' who maybe only work for one or two hours a day to enforce these same rules on large groups of children, some as young as five.

We Rigbys dumped school meals quite early, and turned to packed lunches. Ours is a fairly unusual way of putting them together - to offer the children a variety of 'things' each evening with which to fill their lunch boxes, including sandwiches or rolls. Nothing, of course, is allowed to contain even the chance of a hint of essence of nut, because somebody somewhere in the school has an allergy - so no peanut butter, no sesame thins, no cashews, no peanuts and not even multi-seeded bread, just in case an unknown child suffers anaphylactic shock.

Our little scheme ensures that the little Rigbys never, ever, open up their lunch boxes to find something they don't want - it's meant to encourage them to eat a reasonable amount to keep them filled up until they get home, instead of sitting there nattering. You see, children's tastes change almost from hour to hour and like a petulant moggie they'll actually go without rather than eat something they don't want or like - or that their friends say isn't nice. They don't care in the least how much something's cost, they don't care if it's 'healthy', all they care about is whether it tastes nice - at the time.

Would we Rigbys pass the lunch box inspectors test? Probably not, but what we can do is balance a snacky fill-em-up type of lunch with a decent evening meal - and that's something the school dinnerists seem to forget.

Mrs Rigby would like to ask two simple questions of those who think it's reasonable to inspect children's lunch boxes, and who will remove anything that doesn't pass the test from the child's lunch box - meaning they could go hungry.

1) Is this really the way to treat children?

2) Would you like Mrs Rigby, or indeed anybody else, to inspect any one of your daily meals before you are allowed to eat it?

If the answer to either of those questions is negative then they should keep their noses out of what parents provide their children for the one meal a day on the 190 days that they attend school*. And, maybe, they should investigate the institutional meals provided in places like this - and see if they'd get away with their dictatorial policies there.

* Most people these days eat 3 meals a day, which is 1095 meals in a non-leap year.

....

Sorry!

2010-07-01T23:35:00.000+01:00

Sorry is often the hardest word to say, and actually mean it.

Maybe Mr Burns MP got it right when he apologised for referring to Mr Bercow (who claims to be 5ft 6ins tall) as a "stupid, sanctimonious dwarf" by saying,

"If I have caused any offence to any group of people then I unreservedly apologise because that was not my intention."

Another apology hitting the headlines is the case of Bristol councillor Shirley Brown, who is black, and who didn't see what was wrong with using a cultural insult to a fellow councillor who is Asian when she said,

“In our culture, we have a word for you... and I am sure many in this city would understand, is [sic] coconut. And at the end of the day I just look at you as that.

A 'coconut' by the way, is a term referring to somebody who 'isn't really black or brown' even though that's their skin colour because they're 'brown on the outside and white in the middle'. It means, according to this urban dictionary

Coconut is British slang for a non-white person who collaborates with the white establishment.

That definition may explain why Shirley Brown is reported to have said

“How can I be racist? I’m black.”

It might also explain why her initial apology was deemed unacceptable and the case ended up in court where

Simon Cooper, the chairman of the bench, declared himself “satisfied that there was a potential for, albeit minor, public disorder and stimulation for racial hatred”. He found Shirley Brown guilty. She was given a 12-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay £620 costs.

The reason for her outburst in the first place? Oh, that was because Mrs Jethwa

... thought that to spend £750,000 on education about the slave trade in the middle of a recession made no sense

There's a heck of a lot more Mrs R could say about all this, but for a change she won't - although she does think three quarters of a million is a lot of money. It's money that will probably have been taken from local people in Council Tax or Community Charges, and so should be spent very wisely on local issues or projects that benefit the whole community, whatever their age, gender, race, colour or creed.

Does that make Mrs R racist?

....

Insp Gadget falls in love.

2010-06-30T00:57:00.019+01:00

Here's why

Gadget writes

I Think I’m In Love With Theresa May.

This is why Insp Gadget has fallen in love. It's because Theresa May said:

“I can also announce today that I am also scrapping the confidence target and the policing pledge with immediate effect”

“I know that some officers like the policing pledge, and some, I’m sure, like the comfort of knowing they’ve ticked boxes”

“But targets don’t fight crime. Targets hinder the fight against crime”

“In scrapping the confidence target and the policing pledge, I couldn’t be any clearer about your mission: it isn’t a 30-point plan; it is to cut crime. No more, and no less.”

And Insp Gadget wants all Police to write something in their notebooks.

“I can also announce today that I am scrapping the confidence target and the policing pledge with immediate effect” Theresa May MP, Home Secretary, June 29th 2010.

If anyone tells you different, it may well be an unlawful order. Check with the Federation Rep at your nick. I think I’m in love with Theresa May, and it doesn’t make me a bad person.

As usual, please visit Insp Gadget's site to read the whole post, and don't forget to read the comments too - there's interesting things there.

....

Germans prefer the Deutschmark.

2010-06-29T20:49:00.001+01:00

According to this article a recent IPSOS poll shows that

A majority of Germans wants to scrap the euro and bring back the old currency

Comment, more information and some interesting graphs over at England Expects and something by Lord Pearson here

....

Time for the Police to snap out of it?

2010-06-28T22:12:00.039+01:00

The Filthy Engineer mentions that yet another photographer has been arrested for taking photographs.

This time, according to the BJP

On Saturday 26 June, photojournalist Jules Mattsson, who is a minor and was documenting the Armed Forces Day parade in Romford, was questioned and detained by a police officer after taking a photo of young cadets.

Now take a look at the video for yourself, and listen to how this 'incident' is escalated by the Police, and how the supposedly 'criminal acts' change from one moment to the next.

Now you've seen that it's good to remember that this was, initially, the Police trying to prevent a teenager taking pictures of other teenagers who are Army Cadets - all of which took place during the Armed Forces Day parade in Romford. An event you would presume local people would want to record for posterity.

It's a pity, isn't it, that nobody had told those Police officers about Mark Vallee

A photographer and a videographer have each won £3,500 in damages from the Metropolitan Police after the pair were prevented from recording a protest outside the Greek Embassy in 2008.

The Met admitted that it breached Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights - and failed to respect press freedom - when an officer pulled a camera away from photographer Marc Vallée and covered the lens on a camera being used by videographer Jason Parkinson.

The pair were attempting to record a political protest outside the Greek Embassy in December 2008.

Marc Vallée told Amateur Photographer: 'This is the second time I've been forced to take legal action against the Metropolitan Police since 2006 and I would like it to be the last.

'The question to consider is: "Is the overall harassment of photographers by the police a deliberate policy or a series of unrelated mistakes?".

In 2008, Vallée won £4,000 in an out-of-court settlement after clashing with police while photographing a political protest outside Parliament.

Read the rest of that article at Amateur Photographer, and also see from their news archive how often this sort of thing is happening, and also how often photographers are being awarded damages.

In case you were wondering, a Met spokeswoman issued a statement to the BJP

"It is clearly not the intention of the MPS to prevent people from taking photographs, although, as the public would expect, officers will remain vigilant, particularly in crowded public places. Any allegations or complaints about police treatment of photographers are taken very seriously by the MPS."

She adds: "Anyone who is unhappy with the actions of individual police officers can make a formal complaint, which will be thoroughly investigated. Although at this time we have not received a complaint about this incident and no allegations of crime have been made, we will investigate the circumstances. Our officers do receive guidance around the issue of photography through briefings and internal communications and we continue to drive this work forward."

As always, please read the original article for yourself, because Mrs Rigby always changes the order in which things have originally been written.

Now a question.

What would you do if your teenager came home and related how they'd been treated by the Police, showed you some pictures and let you listen to a recording ... and then you later found out that the same Police hadn't even taken the trouble to record a crime?

It makes Mrs R wonder what all those threats were for ... because at the moment she hasn't a clue. She does, however, think it might actually be worth buying Amateur Photographer when it hits the shops on 6th July, because included with the magazine is a 'photographers' lens cloth". (Picture from Amateur Photographer)

P.S.

To read Jules Matteson's own words please go here

For a transcript of the recording please go here

....

When an MP 'loses it'.

2010-06-28T16:08:00.015+01:00

Here

@obotheclown: OK obo, I admit it. I'm a c*nt.
I also don't seem to have got the hang of this InterWebby thing. I'm totally clueless about how to turn off admin rights to the comments section, so how I cope as an MP creating laws to f*ck you up the a*se with, I haven't the faintest idea...

And the reason for this immoderate outburst?

Obo had, on his own site, written this. It's a bit sweary, but it does make a good point.

There was a time, when he was in government, that Tom Harris was a good, interesting blogger. He made a reasonable fist of engaging with people, both people who sucked his pole as well as people who wanted him impaled on a pole.

He also managed to occasionally step off-piste on his blog, certainly more than he ever did in the lobby.

Then Labour lost the election.

And I think this shock really was a bit too much for poor Tom. Instead of powering out of his hard-won blogging credentials and laying waste to the ConDems with verve and wit, he turned into a pathetic "yah-boo-sucks" mong, blogging at the intellectual level of Bevanite Ellie.

Come on Tom. You and I will never, ever agree on pretty much anything. But this pathetic, infantile, tribal bollocks is really demeaning. You sound like a spiteful toddler every time you blog lately.

If you follow Mr Harris's blog you'll probably agree with Obo, because the tone of the blog has changed quite a bit since the election, it may be that he reflects the thoughts and opinions of a lot of Labour MPs who are, in effect, leaderless and will remain so until mid-September. There is no 'party line' to follow at the moment and no 'policies' of their own to champion. So all they can do, to keep themselves in the public eye and maybe hope to be noticed, is be critical of both policies and personalities - because that's how Labour behaved when in government.

Criticism of government policies is what 'The Opposition' is supposed to do, but this criticism is supposed to have a purpose - it isn't meant to be empty, whining rhetoric. The 'Opposition' is supposed to use their time in Parliament and in committees to temper legislation that they think goes too far by being positively proactive, because all MPs of whatever political colour are meant to be there to represent the best interests of their electorate. Trouble is that for 13 long years the Labour government had too large a majority to have an effective opposition, so were able to do almost what they wanted - and whilst in power they always seemed to tell us not what they were about to do, it was always what the horrible Conservatives might have done. It was almost always alarmist stuff, and always empty words - because the neither the Conservatives nor the Lib Dems were in a position to do anything much and the Labour government had its' own way, and did precisely what it wanted. Responses to opposition MPs were almost always put-downs, worded in a 'we know best' and 'you're stupid' sort of language.

It must be very difficult, having wielded such power and authority, to suddenly find yourself powerless, not really knowing what you're meant to be doing in Parliament, leaderless and rudderless and with only one or two long-standing MPs who have experience of being in active opposition. So the rules are being made up as they go along, and are based on what they know best - what they did before - name-calling in an attempt to distract, to cover up the fact that there are no policies.

The new creature in government is called a coalition. A coalition is always built on compromise and negotiation. The business world is used to making compromises and we, the electorate, know the Lib Dems had talks with both Labour and the Conservatives. We know they opted to go with the Conservatives instead of joining Mr Brown's 'Rainbow Coalition of all the parties'. We're still not 100% sure it was the right thing to do, but we do know we'd had enough of Labour and didn't want the more of the same.

Some sections of the media and some MPs don't seem to want to understand the process of negotiation, which tends to involve withdrawing from a previous high horse position to reach a compromise, and they're criticising both parties of 'breaking manifesto promises' - which is a bit rich really, because Mr Brown taught us that manifesto promises can be broken, there's a Judge's Ruling that says so.

The blog in question also has several posts complaining about IPSA, including an indication of bad-mouthing by MPs that, if it were an ordinary member of the public could lead to arrest for abusing a civil servant. These complaints come at a time when almost everybody except Labour and the Unions seems to realise Britain's in the middle of a serious financial crisis - and we should all be counting the pennies, and reducing spending, not trying to line our own pockets or create mountains out of molehills.

Mr Harris's own comments policy includes this

Want to try out some really, really clever put-down that you’ve been constructing in your head since last August? Do it somewhere else.

And if your comment is, in my view, needlessly offensive and snide, I’ll delete it without explanation or apology.

So, let's backtrack a bit to when Mrs R first saw this comment. She, naturally, thought the site had been hacked - it happens, and she had expected the comment to disappear. She sort of expected some sort of disclaimer, or an announcement condemning those who had done the dastardly deed that undermined Mr Harris's credibility and niceness.

But, that's not what has happened because it looks as if Mr Harris has been back to his blog since. Later (moderated) comments have appeared, he's also left another response ... and those words remain in place. So Mrs R reckons it's reasonable for her to assume these are his own words, deliberately written, and intended to be read by anybody who reads his blog and decides to also read the comments.

Mrs R would be furious if her MP was putting stuff like that on the internet, even as a joke, and she'd let them know what she thought. Unfortunately Mr Harris is able to moderate comments out of existence, so it's unlikely her words would see the light of day - hence this post.

Mr Harris is not Mrs R's MP, but he is paid by Mrs R's taxes and maybe it's 'old fashioned' to say this, but she doesn't expect people whose wages she pays - especially MPs - to use language like that in public. And, a blog is public, if it isn't protected by a password and only viewable by a select group of by invitation-only individuals.

So, Mr Harris, don't wriggle and pretend it's a joke. You are a public servant and we expect better from you. Either take that comment down, tell us it was 'hackers' or apologise to those you've offended - because Mrs R isn't the only one.

* Asterisks courtesy of Mrs R.

....

Eric Pickles 'Profile'.

2010-06-27T13:08:00.000+01:00

What makes Tory political heavyweight Eric Pickles tick? Gerry Northam reports.

His 'Profile' on Radio 4 - here - 14 minutes of interesting listening.

h/t comment @ Guido's place

Other Radio 4 'Profile' broadcasts are here

....

Armed Forces Day

2010-06-26T14:53:00.000+01:00

Click image to visit the website

....

General Strike? - It'd save money!

2010-06-25T23:35:00.000+01:00

When workers take strike action they aren't paid by their employer, their unions give them a subsidy that's meant to make sure they don't lose out financially.

BA crew were paid a whopping (*sarcasm*) £30 a day whilst on strike. RMT probably pays about the same. This works out at £210 for a 7-day working week. For a 5-day week it'd be £150, for 3 days it'd be £90. (Yes, it's easy Maths, but it's handy to see the numbers written down.)

Back in May Thisismoney said Signallers ... earn up to £65,000 a year for working a three-day week, presumably this would be for controlling somewhere really complicated or even, say, the whole of the East Coast Line, which means that very few signallers would earn that much, but using that as an example it works out at an average of, umm, 52 weeks x 3 days = 156 days. Ooh, that's a bit more than £393 a day. So, even if either LUL or TfL gave the unions £30 a day to pass on to the RMT strikers it'd save quite a bit - maybe as much as £360 a day for the highest paid employees.

So Mrs R wonders if we could persuade all the very important union bosses to get their angry workers to go on strike - especially those whose wages are paid out of the public purse? It'd save a fortune.

Worried about the impact on local, regional, and national services? No need!

If the strikes are as successful as the two day walk-out by RMT we wouldn't notice very much, because according to the BBC

London Underground said there was no disruption to services again despite a strike by maintenance workers.

The action by the Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union began at 1900 BST on Wednesday, in a row over proposed changes to jobs, pay and conditions.

Transport for London (TfL) said services operated as normal despite the walkout on the Northern, Piccadilly and Jubilee lines.

The action ended at 1900 BST on Friday.

So it looks as if the trains still worked and nobody really noticed. So, imagine, if you will, if certain high-earners in the public sector took strike action. Would Leeds, for example, grind to a halt without the services of the five-a-day regional coordinator? Would Calderdale be unable to function without the Corporate Marketing Officer? Would the NHS close its' doors to sick people without the protected learning time facilitators?

....

EPU - gone.

2010-06-22T22:21:00.001+01:00

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Osborne, said during his Budget speech,

"I can confirm that, as set out in the coalition agreement, this government will not be joining the euro in this parliament," ...

"Therefore ... I have abolished the Treasury's euro preparations unit -- yes, one does exist -- ..."

Mrs Rigby hadn't a clue there was such a thing, so she went off to look for it, and found all sorts of documents in the National Archives - where all the 'out of date' stuff was shoved when the coalition took over.

Here it is :- "Euro Preparation Unit"

Preparations committees in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
On 9 June 2003, the Chancellor invited the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to establish new preparations committees. The role of each committee is to:

* Oversee the work on euro preparations;
* Raise awareness of preparations issues;
* Ensure co-ordination and co-operation between key sectors;
* Consult on the third outline National Changeover Plan; and
* Feed back particular views and issues to the Chancellor's Standing Committee on Euro Preparations (the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are members of the Standing Committee).

The committees have a similar structure to the Standing Committee, with representatives from the public, private and voluntary sectors. Each committee is headed by the relevant Secretary of State.

As usual, England wasn't to get its' own voice - but would no doubt be footing the bill.

Not only that but

Local authorities Euro preparation
HM Treasury and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in conjunction with the Local Government Association have issued guidance for local authorities on euro preparations. The guidance offers advice on high-level business and communications issues that local authorities need to consider in their preparations for the euro.

and
Managed Transition Plan
A working draft of the UK’s preferred phased approach or “Managed Transition” to any possible future UK changeover to the euro has been published to provide a basis for informal discussion and further development with stakeholders.

It looks as if ordinary folk like Mrs R weren't considered 'stakeholders' either. And anyway, what is a 'stakeholder' when it's at home? Sounds like the sort of thing vampire hunters might use.

Then there's

The Government has a “prepare and decide” policy towards euro entry and euro preparations. Under the policy of “prepare and decide” the objective of HM Treasury Euro Preparations has been to make sure that the UK maintains a genuine option of being able to make a smooth and effective euro changeover - if that is what the Government, Parliament and the British people, in a referendum, decide.

Referendum? Yes, of course there would have been, just like the one for the Lisbon Treaty.

Maybe ordinary taxpayers didn't need to know - but 'companies' did because "Companies House will accept accounts in the new currency for accounting periods ending on or after 1 January 1999." and

More detail on the practical issues that companies might need to consider are contained in the Government’s Euro Preparation Unit (EPU) fact sheets.

It's at times like this that Mrs R feels incredibly dim, and rather left out of things because all she ever seems to do is pay tax. Nobody ever seems to ask her opinion, she's never been picked for a 'focus group' - although she did read about once, but because she isn't an approved 'minority' she couldn't join in.

For the last thirteen years Mrs R has only ever told what was going on in Westminster if they thought she might be vaguely sort of pleased and, as she's said, she had absolutely no idea this EPU existed, had no idea that local councils had been ordered to make preparations for joining the Euro and still has absolutely no idea how much all these 'preparations' might have cost in wasted council tax, income tax and VAT receipts - money that's been taken out of her pocket.

It's very easy to have a bit of a conspiracies-R-us moment and wonder how many other 'preparation units' Labour set up when we weren't looking.

....

Russian gas

2010-06-22T16:22:00.000+01:00

Belarus will suspend Russian transit gas deliveries to Europe after Moscow cut supplies in a dispute over debts, President Alexander Lukashenko says.

... The dispute has the potential to affect 6.25% of gas consumption by the EU.

from BBC

UK Budget Day - a day to bury awkward international news?

....

Petrol?

2010-06-22T13:25:00.000+01:00

It would seem that people are expecting a steep rise in either fuel duty or VAT - queues at the local garage, and 'empty' signs attached to most of the pumps.

....

Tomorrow's emergency budget, and why it'll be tough.

2010-06-21T20:03:00.001+01:00

Taken directly from Caron's Musings is this email from Nick Clegg about tomorrow's emergency budget.

Caron is, if you aren't already aware, a "Scottish Liberal Democrat activist, Formula One, Doctor Who, Star Trek, Harry Potter and trashy tv fan.". Please take a few moments to go and read her original post which offers a greater insight and more carefully written comment than Mrs R can offer just now.

Dear Caron,

Tomorrow, the coalition government will deliver an emergency budget to bring order back to the public finances. It will be a difficult budget - but remember, as you hear it, why we have to do this.

Labour left our country with a mountain of debt. Every minute that goes by the government spends a staggering £80,000 on interest, that's over £800 million a week. If we don't take action now, the markets will force us into even more drastic measures as they have in Greece and Spain.

Without action on the deficit, we will carry on racking up unaffordable debts our children will have to pay off. We will carry on spending more money on debt interest than we do on our schools. And we will undermine the economic growth needed to create jobs and opportunities for all of us. There is nothing fair, liberal or progressive about any of that.

Of course, the Labour party will say that these decisions are not justified. They will say the budget creates risks for our economy and that Liberal Democrats have sold out to go along with Conservative cuts. They are wrong.

Every time you hear Labour say that, ask them why they covered up the details of the £44bn of cuts they themselves had planned. Ask them why they racked up so much debt that we could end up spending £70bn a year just on debt interest. And ask them why they created this fiscal bombshell in the first place by refusing to take action against the reckless banks even when Vince Cable warned of the risks they were taking.

Until Labour accepts the blame for the mess we are in and comes up with a plan for getting us out, they cannot be taken seriously.

We have always argued that cuts would be necessary, but the timing should be based on economic circumstances, not political dogma. The economic situation today means that time has come.

A lot has changed even in the last few months. The crisis in the Eurozone and the problems in Greece and Spain have put huge pressure on us. The new Office of Budget Responsibility has shown that the structural deficit is bigger than we thought. And in government, we have discovered billions of pounds of unfunded spending promises Labour had made, cynically raising people's hopes when they knew the coffers were bare.

So cuts must come. We have taken the difficult decisions with care, and with fairness at their heart. You will see the stamp of our Liberal Democrat values in tomorrow's Budget. But nonetheless, it will be controversial. This is one of the hardest things we will ever have to do, but I assure you, the alternative is worse: rising debts, higher interest rates, less growth and fewer opportunities.

Sorting out Labour's mess will be difficult but it is the right thing to do.

Best wishes,

Nick Clegg MP
Leader of the Liberal Democrats & Deputy Prime Minister

....

Summer solstice.

2010-06-21T18:04:00.001+01:00

21st June - the longest day of the year, the shortest night of the year.

Enjoy!

Only six months to the Winter Solstice!

....

Fleas have rights too!

2010-06-20T10:49:00.001+01:00

The other day the Telegraph carried a story saying that members of the BBC's Gardeners Question Time panel were receiving threats from animal rightists.

It seems a bizarre sort of thing to happen, because experienced gardeners are usually eco-friendly and wildlife-aware sort of people - especially Bob Flowerdew (picture Mail) who many will know is a committed organic gardener.

He was the one who was thought a bit whacky when he built towers of old tyres for vegetables. He was the one who advocated using bits of carpet for clearing weeds instead of a chemical quick-fix cosh. He would never, ever use chemicals, and he always glories in the rich and varied wildlife of his Norfolk garden. But best to use Bob's own words

I moved to this plot of just under an acre twenty five years ago planning to grow every fruit, vegetable and scented plant possible, for my own and family's home consumption, and have done so to the highest Organic Standards.

As well as the multiplicity of crops I've also kept chickens, ducks, geese and bees.

So, what happened? What heinous crime did the team commit?

The GQT panel was asked a question about four-legged vermin control and answered it. They didn't condemn the questioner. These gardening experts simply explained how to control over-populations of creatures such as rats, moles and grey squirrels.

Andrew Tyler, the director of Animal Aid, didn't like what they did, and didn't like what they said. The Telegraph article lets him set the animal-rightist ball rolling in the best, emotive, up-to-date-speak, way possible. Something Mrs R will respond to from her own point of view - an extended view that doesn't relate solely to his emphasis on grey squirrels. He said,

"The whole premise of gardeners killing squirrels is hateful and bigoted. It's the worst kind of intolerance."

Notice not only the 'hate' but the addition of two recent buzzwords, frequently used by those to the left of the political spectrum to give added credence to their, "I'm right, you're wrong!" argument. It's nasty name-calling and a big case of, "I want to have my own way, and to make sure I get my own way I'll call you names!". It's nothing more than that, but it can be intimidating, and it can be seen as threatening by some.

Let's see - "Intolerance". It's a peculiar sort of word these days because it's used so often. Mrs R thinks it's more often used to refer to people with differing lifestyles, so perhaps it is the right word to use here, although it's a bit skewed. Being 'intolerant' is pushing your own agenda, and not letting other people be, do or think what they are happiest at being, doing, or thinking. Intolerance has been the basis of whole rafts of legislation to force people to be 'tolerant'. Unfortunately 'being tolerant' isn't necessarily the right thing to say about how humans relate to some animal species, and it would appear that Andrew Tyler himself lacks a not only a certain tolerance, but also demonstrates a whole heap of ignorance.

Would he condemn an arachnophobe for being 'intolerant' of spiders, or would he recommend counselling to help them overcome their debilitating fear? Or would he, maybe, recommend they go and buy one of these, or some of this? Mrs R uses one of these and a sturdy envelope!

What about the slug hiding deep inside that organic lettuce? Would it be released into the wild, put in the bin or down the plughole?

Would a parent whose child comes home from school with head lice be criticised for de-lousing, and would a pet owner whose animal has become infested with fleas, perhaps picked up from a hedgehog, a fox or even another dog or cat, be called 'intolerant' when they use a flea spray to kill these biting insects, fumigate their carpets and prevent any eggs from hatching - or would they be called wise and health conscious?

Don't fleas have rights too? Aren't they only doing what comes naturally?

Or do people such as Andrew Tyler only claim to represent the feelings and life-values of furry creatures with faces? The ones that have been increasingly anthropomorphised ever since Beatrix Potter and Kenneth Grahame wrote their children's stories.

Using his terminology, Mrs R will admit to 'tolerating' most creatures - but not rats, mice and squirrels, or fleas, not when they invade her and her family's immediate space.

None of the Rigbys has ever lived in a brand new building, so each successive "Rigby Towers" has had air gaps a-plenty. Where there are air gaps then nature, in all its' glory, will soon follow - sometimes with unpleasant and potentially health-threatening consequences. Fortunately these things tend not to happen either all at once or in quick succession, but during Mrs R's lifetime she's experienced the following :-

Mice in kitchen cupboards.
Mrs R challenges anybody who finds trails of mice faeces on crockery and around food packets to say, "Aww, cute mice!" and leave them to their games.

Anybody faced with this scenario will resort to using either poison, traps, or a cat. Not doing so will put their own, and their family's, health at risk. If humane traps are used and the mice are released nearby they'll find their way back remarkably quickly. Releasing them into a strange area means releasing them into another animal's territory where they will have no idea where to find either food or shelter from predators - something that could be almost as cruel as a gin trap.

Mice in the bedroom!
It takes a few mice less than a fortnight to destroy wardrobes full of clothes by tucking into a sleeve here, a hem or a neckline there. It takes a few mice less than a fortnight to munch and defaecate their way through drawers full of undies, socks, tee shirts and jumpers. For a family of humans to return from holiday to discover that all their clothing, bar those in their suitcases, has been destroyed by a small mammal results in instant, and dire, repercussions for the culprit(s) - either the cat, fresh home from the cattery, is released to do its' worst, or a trap is set.

Moles in the veg patch.
Molehills might look fine on a roadside verge, but when the beasties erupt a mound of soil in the middle of the carrots something needs to be done. Plant deterrents such as euphorbias don't work, nor do bottles buried in the ground. Electric deterrents work a bit, but a determined, and burgeoning population of moles can only be resolved by either permanently raising the water table so they move next door (which is impractical), by something more fatal or a thick layer of concrete.

Grey squirrels in the attic.
Yep, those too. These creatures can't tell the difference between a plastic-coated electricity-carrying cable and a twig. They like to strip the bark from twigs with the intention of eating it, and try to do the same with the plentiful supply of wires in the roof space. It is not only dangerous, but also very expensive to fix.

Rats in the garden.
Even though they say we're all at most a few yards away from a rat, because they frequently live in the sewers, we Rigbys won't tolerate them living above ground in our garden. Not with a garden pond and with pets and children sharing the space. Rats can carry Leptosporiosis, otherwise known as Weil's Disease and also Hantavirus. Because cases of infection are, apparently, rare the symptoms are not well-known and not always picked up by a GP.

Having had a family member laid low by reluctantly, and late-diagnosed, Lyme Disease we Rigbys are aware of the devastating impact of an infection by something so small. We simply won't take the risk.

There are lots of rats. Rats are increasing in numbers ever since councils were ~~ordered to~~ ~~encouraged to~~ allowed to relax the frequency of household waste collection (originally brought in by legislation to protect the public's health) and street cleaning and gully clearing became an occasional rather than regular occurrence. At the same time councils were, umm, encouraged, to ~~rake in as much as they could~~ charge for non-essential services, so 'pest control' (including first call-out) for non-council tenants and/or non-recipients of state benefits became chargeable, and expensive. We Rigbys and our neighbours have seen rats in the garden for the first time ever. Because there are only a few Rigbys compared to the numbers of rats we've seen, the garden of Rigby Towers and neighbouring properties are now protected by bait. You can even buy the stuff from Tesco these days - but these guys are good.

Call us selfish, if you will, but it's our family and our health. You want rats - then keep them in your own garden!

Likewise, if a squirrel ever moves into the attic of Rigby Towers it will be trapped by a licensed expert. The law says that it is legal to trap a grey squirrel, provided you have a license. The law also says it is illegal to release a trapped grey squirrel into the wild - which means that once trapped the creature must be humanely dispatched. (see DEFRA) Which moves neatly onto the next quote from Andrew Tyler.

"People should cherish them. But there is a concerted attempt to characterise them as vermin and a threat to the red."

Oh believe me Mr Tyler, we Rigbys enjoy seeing a grey squirrel jumping and running up the garden in search of peanuts and seeds. But they're not human, they aren't able to understand the law of supply and demand - they're hungry and will eat until there's nothing left. We Rigbys and our neighbours have, between us, spent a small fortune in bird feeders, so we now have a system that allows them access to one, and only one, which is wired in place onto a metal bracket. The feeder itself has steel 'ports' through which the creatures can access the contents - which they do, and amuse us human observers. They'll chew through anything else, will bite through thin wire or keep at it until it's untwisted. Feeders of almost any size or weight will be unhooked and run off with - meaning there's nothing left for the birds. Oh, and grey squirrels will eat birds eggs too. If they're hungry enough they'll chew through a nesting box to reach the contents, and gobble up the eggs of those fluffy, hard-working, Blue Tits without a second thought, which is why the lids have bitumen coverings and the openings are protected by sheet metal.

What we Rigbys do is called control, and it's also being reasonable. It's a way of rationing the resources we are able to, and can personally afford to, offer the visitors to our garden. It's a way of making sure each type of creature gets a chance.

We like grey squirrels because we've never known anything else, and as was said recently, have never seen a native red squirrel in the wild.

Perhaps if the Victorians had understood that wild animals are just that, and are not easily contained behind six foot walls, they would never have introduced the species to Britain. In a mere hundred or so years the few specimen grey squirrels brought to this country managed to breed so successfully that, as a species, the greys have out-performed the native red squirrel which is now at serious risk of extinction. There are too many to try to trap and return to their native habitat - which is North America - the only option is to cull them, to give the red squirrels a fighting chance of survival.

It would be interesting to know how animal rightists would react if, say, there were two separate species of oh, I don't know, let's say 'elephant', whose native habitats were normally separated by a huge, uncrossable-without-a-ship ocean - but due to mankind's ignorance the bigger of the two had been moved to the other's habitat 'for fun' and, because it bred more quickly and had no natural enemies in its new country, was eating the other to extinction. Would these people acknowledge that the intruder, as a species, was still doing very well in its' original home and should, as a matter of expediency, be removed from where it is an alien species? Or wouldn't he/they mind too much if the little one died out for ever? Would they mind if the species became extinct? - Because it seems that's what they want to happen to Britain's native Red Squirrel. And that, sort of, moves to the final point quoted in the Telegraph.

"Gardeners who should be nurturing life and respecting life shouldn't be taking this bigoted view."

At this point Mrs R spits out her coffee!

The Oxford Dictionary defines a bigot thus:

a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.

Mrs Rigby has, firstly, three words to say. They are, in random order as follows:-

Pot!

Kettle!

Black!

Oh, and OED also says that garden is

• noun 1 chiefly Brit. a piece of ground adjoining a house, typically cultivated to provide a lawn and flowerbeds.
2 (gardens) ornamental grounds laid out for public enjoyment.

• verb cultivate or work in a garden.

A garden is a man-made alien environment, it is not a native habitat. A garden left to its own devices will firstly end up with knee high grass, docks, dandelions, plantains, thistles and so on - the butterflies might like it, and a few mice, but not much else because, for example, the blackbirds won't be able to get at the worms they depend on. It'll then be invaded by the quickest growing local 'weeds' - brambles, nettles, bindweed etc., which will out-compete the grasses and so there won't be food for those butterflies, except for the few that lay their eggs on brambles and nettles. Eventually, if left for many, many years, it would turn into something vaguely resembling how the local landscape might have looked before the ground was turned into a garden, before it was fertilized and composted, before it was enclosed and tended - but it would include imported, alien, plants growing strongly. These plants are useless to the local wildlife because they've evolved elsewhere, nothing much eats them, nothing much lays eggs on or near them - because British wildlife doesn't know how.

It's also important to remember that away from gardens and on similarly sized areas of land these days there are generally fewer birds, fewer small mammals and fewer insects - because in the 'wild'* there are no people to provide food. Gardens are crucial to the survival of wildlife of our overcrowded little island, and they also have to be managed to ensure there are not too many predators.

Although she doesn't listen to it very often Mrs R knows that the GQT programme is, perhaps unusually these days for the BBC, not there to promote an agenda. The expert gardeners are there to answer questions, and to answer them to the best of their ability based on their knowledge and experience.

The question was asked on a show recorded at Hillsborough Castle in Ireland. Eric Robson chair[ed] the programme from Garden Show Ireland, at Hillsborough Castle, County Down. He [was] joined by Chris Beardshaw, Bunny Guinness and Bob Flowerdew.. The cumulative knowledge, and accepted expertise of these individuals is immense - and they look after the ecosystem of the whole garden, not solely for the benefit of the four-legged visitors.

h/t for story Englishman's Castle
..........
*
'wild' - a misnomer.

Every square inch of land in Britain is owned, and is managed in some way or another, either by homeowners/landowners (including landlords), local or national government, railways, highways authorities, farmers, Forestry Commission, National Park authorities, English Nature, Wildlife Trusts etc., etc.. All of Britain is 'as we/they want it to look', and depends on the current 'fashion' for land maintenance, current 'best practice' for managing both native wildlife and ecosystems.

....

Forgemasters' government loan(s).

2010-06-18T12:52:00.003+01:00

A factory's expansion plans ... have been halted after the government cancelled an £80m loan.

Oh dear, that doesn't look good. It'll probably annoy a few people.

Let's just, very quickly, look at a couple of 'tweets' about this cancellation. First from Edmund Conway who wrote,

... mandelson's big pre-election pr stunt

Mrs R recalls that there suddenly seemed to be an awful lot of spare money just before the election, a lot of things were promised but, in reality, Labour knew the country was broke, had said there 'would be cuts' but hadn't said where, and knew they were not going to be re-elected. So instead of things being widely publicised and then quietly dropped (as had happened during the previous 13 years) all the cost-cutting and all the cancellations were part of the poisoned chalice passed on to the next government.

Lord Drayson tweeted that this £80m was,

a real investment in low carbon jobs

Mrs R isn't quite sure how these would have been 'low carbon' jobs, because the money was intended to help the company to install a 15,000 tonne press to make large forgings for the nuclear energy industry. Mrs R understands that nuclear power might be 'low carbon' because it doesn't involve using fossil fuels, but steel production uses quite a lot, and tends to look a bit like this. (pic BBC).

The £80m was meant to help 'create' about

about 180 skilled jobs

And that, you see, is something Mrs R "'just doesn't get".

If jobs were so important to the last government, why they didn't make a bit more of a fuss or do something a bit more proactive that could have stopped other companies being bought out, with jobs vanishing from Britain for ever. There really are too many instances to list, but do include a lot of chocolate manufacturers including Cadbury's, with 400 jobs lost at Keynsham. Then there was Corus on Tyneside, with the loss of 1,700 jobs to India. The 180 jobs to be 'created' at Forgemasters is all well and good, it's a start, but is tiny by comparison with elsewhere. Were, for example, the thousands of Corus workers meant to be happy to be put on the dole scrapheap?

Looking back to 1998 the government didn't seem to do anything much when, according to Forgemasters own site

the company was sold in two parts to USA buyers - the aerospace business to Allegheny Teledyne, and the River Don and Rolls businesses to Atchison Castings.

It went a bit pear-shaped, and then the situation improved ...

Atchison's management failed to develop the business and in 2003 their whole enterprise went into liquidation. A major turnaround at River Don enabled local management led by Graham Honeyman to ring fence the business from administration.

After two years of negotiation to overcome major hurdles including a difficult market and pension problems, management was able to complete an Management Buy Out [under Dr Graham Honeyman].

who fortunately

... returned Sheffield Forgemasters International Ltd to profit in just six months when he took over the loss-making company in 2002.

Within less than three years turnover increased from £35m to £100m, rising from £83,000 to £150,000 per employee. Today the company is an internationally competitive business with investment in people at its core.

It's a truly remarkable turnaround, and in such a short time too - from being in liquidation to making so much money. It's no wonder Mr Graham Aubrey Honeyman was awarded an CBE and all sorts of other prizes from the RAE and so on. Picture Yorkshire Post

It's strange that, such an important and successful man doesn't have a profile on Wikipedia, but that's by the by - he's done well, and there are people who are grateful to him and his business acumen.

Mrs R is more interested in that £80m government loan which's just been cancelled. You see, she's not too thrilled with that amount of taxpayer's money going to any private business, more especially one that's apparently so successful and which, she's fairly sure, could attract private investments and loans - leaving the cash available for smaller business and, maybe, even to pay for things that benefit the whole country. She wonders if it's a sort of sideways nationalisation, even though it was a 'loan' not a gift, but she could easily be wrong, because she's really quite ignorant about that sort of thing. And anyway, how would you go about nationalising, or part nationalising, just a small part of a multinational company? Anyhow, that aside, Mrs R does note that

The Government loan comes in addition to funds lent by other businesses including nuclear power firm Westinghouse Electric and the Sheffield office of the Lloyds Banking Group.

Errm, Lloyds? That rings a rather loud bell.

Would that the same Lloyds the Labour government pumped a fair bit of money into, so that now the British government is the major shareholder?

And Westinghouse Electric Company? It would appear that this company was bought, in 1999, by British Nuclear Fuels plc. And BNFL is owned by the UK Government.

So, to Mrs R's slightly ignorant eyes it looks as if the previous government had managed to push quite a bit of cash in the direction of by Sheffield Forgemasters - in a roundabout sort of way. She could, of course, be wrong - as she's already said, she's quite ignorant about this sort of thing.

Anyhow, while Mrs R was wandering around the internet learning about companies and loans she discovered that Sheffield Forgemasters was awarded a £2.7million R&D grant from Yorkshire Forward?

Yorkshire Forward is the Regional Development Agency for Yorkshire and the Humber, it was set up in 1999 after people in the north east voted against regional agencies and assemblies - and they got an assembly too, but nobody gets to vote for anybody who works there. There are regional agencies all round the country, and not one of them makes any money, none of them is a business, they are all funded by central government and via the EUs 'Regional Development Fund'.

So it does look as if Forgemasters might have done quite well out of the last government and, actually, there's nothing wrong with that if there's plenty of money to splash around, but there isn't because, as Liam Byrne said, "There's no money left!".

Mrs R wishes Forgemasters' management and all their employees well. She hopes they never find themselves in the same situation as other companies formed as a result of management buyouts, such as Ineos, who decided to base themselves in Switzerland because of the UK tax situation. But they might not have to do that, not with 'global' offices dotted around the world in Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America and South America.

Despite predictions of gloom from Pat McFadden and Dennis McShane The BBC says they'll manage okay without this ~~cash~~ loan, and quote Dr Honeyman, who said

"While the press would have placed the company at the forefront of civil nuclear manufacture, it is important for us now to focus on other elements of the company's development.

"The government clearly has a remit to reduce spending and cut the economic deficit and it is for them to decide how best to do that.

"Sheffield Forgemasters will continue to develop its significant involvement into civil nuclear, thermal and hydro power generation markets and seek other ways to develop the business."

..........

No idea what happened to this post, it was queued to be 'live' yesterday, but blogger disagreed - maybe the software decided it was too bitty and fragmented, and not worth publishing!

....

Bravery and banners.

2010-06-16T10:08:00.085+01:00

Several times over the last few years Mrs R has mumbled to her family that the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are seen as something completely different by some sections of the British and international community. That idea has been brought home, again, when a bunch of Muslims decided to shout and wave banners at soldiers of The Royal Anglian Regiment during their homecoming march in Barking - that's in Essex, England, by the way.

These Muslims shouted things such as

'British troops go to hell'

and

'murderers, murderers, murderers'

They also resorted to using Godwin's Law by mentioning Hitler and one protester, safe behind his Police protectors, apparently shouted:

'This is a protest against parading in a Muslim area. We love death the way you love life.'

Errm!

As Mrs R has already said, Barking is in Essex, England. Let's quickly grab a bit of history from ever-reliable Wikipedia.

The manor of Barking was the site of Barking Abbey, a nunnery founded in 666 by Eorcenwald, bishop of London, destroyed by the Danes and reconstructed about a hundred years later in 970 by King Edgar. At the Dissolution of the Monasteries in 1536, Barking Abbey was demolished: the parish church, St Margaret's stands upon its site, where some walling and foundations are all that otherwise remain. The Norman church of St Margaret was where Captain James Cook married Elizabeth Batts of Shadwell in 1762.

Sounds to Mrs R as if it's a typically British sort of place, with ancient roots and quite a bit of Christian heritage too.

So, how come these relative newcomers to Britain reckon it's a Muslim ~~town~~ area? - Actually, Mrs R can't answer that, she doesn't recall visiting Barking and has only the Wikipedia article and other stuff on the internet to refer to and so, apart from deciding that they must think it's a 'Muslim town' because they're Muslims and happen to live there, she'll move on.

Quite a few bloggers are a bit miffed by the way this incident has been reported, as are one or two of the commenters in the Mail - but she won't say much about that either, except to simply show what's been written (my bold):-

The [40] Muslim protesters chanted ... as they had an uneasy stand-off against a [100-strong] mob, some waving St George's Crosses, Union flags and an English Defence League flag.

It would seem that the want-to-get-some-publicity protesters belong to a little group calling themselves 'Muslims against the Crusade'. Mrs R has taken a look at their website (No, you don't get a link, you'll have to find it for yourself). She noticed that the group doesn't seem to come from Barking, and she thought some of the things written on the site were quite inflammatory, with death threats and so on. It also had pictures of people in long robes attacking somebody who looked remarkably like a mediaeval Knight, and who was carrying a shield emblazoned with the Cross of St George - not the Union Flag. Historical stuff, stuff that happened centuries ago. There were winners and losers in those old battles, same as in all battles. It's history. Next!

Okay, umm, so what's next?

Just a few thoughts, and Mrs R's going to remind these brave, shouty, placard-waving, protesters what's going on in Afghanistan - where the Royal Anglians had been.

First of all she'll remind these 'protesters' that 15 men of the Royal Anglian Regiment, their ages ranging from 19 to 31 years, have lost their lives in Afghanistan since 2002. Many more Royal Anglians have been wounded, some suffering life-changing injuries.

Being incredibly simplistic, and probably wrong, it seems there are groups of 'my Islam is better than your Islam' who have for very many years been trying to make other groups of Afghan Muslims do as they're told. And they're quite nasty and brutal about it too, including stoning women to death for looking at a man and executing little children if they think they're spying for the other chaps.

Quite a lot of people left Afghanistan some years ago, on arriving in the 'West' whether it was Australia or USA they told terrible tales of oppression and brutality and asked their new countries to help those they'd left behind, so America and a few military chums from other countries, including Britain, decided to go riding to the rescue of those they thought were the ~~least bad~~ good guys. The idea was, they said, to get these arguing Muslims to stop fighting each other - to stop arguing, and be a bit more friendly towards each other. The idea was to try to get these different groups to 'live and let live' - something that's quite common outside the world of Islam, where lots of religious groups with all sorts of different ideas rub shoulders and ~~tolerate~~ get along with each other, mostly by minding their own business.

Trouble is that this idea of 'live and let live' seems to be seriously against the old values of some people who've now made their homes in Britain. Some of these don't like the idea of compromise and 'getting along', they want to be in charge and tell everybody else how to live their lives - and that's probably why these chaps were waving their placards and banners in Barking, and why they've got plans to wave them in other British (not only English) towns too. What these mostly-young men don't seem to have sussed out is that they're using a loud-mouthed argument that's a bit alien and unpleasant to many modern Brits, and they don't seem to understand that some people think they're a bit old-fashioned and silly - not least because in the western, non-Islamic, world women tend to have equal rights to western men these days, and don't like to be told what to do, what to wear and which deity to worship. Others think these noisy young men and their friends are almost, literally, biting the hand that feeds them and so they should go and live somewhere else, and take their protests with them and see what happens to them in a different country.

Those protesters are protesting in Britain because they can - that's all.

They're 'exercising their Freedom of Speech' too. It's one of those Human Rights, enshrined in International Law, but is something that's denied to many in Afghanistan by, possibly, the groups of Muslims these chaps claim to support. If so, it's a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

Mrs Rigby thinks there are other things these chaps could do, but they probably won't because she thinks they're cowards. By waving placards and name-calling they're doing exactly the same as many adolescents - making an easy point that makes some grown-ups a bit uncomfortable. After their ~~little~~ vociferous protest they walk, maybe get on the bus or train, or perhaps even drive their cars to their nice and cosy homes, where they'll be safe and sound - and then they can watch themselves on the television and pat themselves on the back for making their point so brilliantly. This is, naturally, the same sort of thing their peers in Afghanistan do, so much better than dodging bullets and not stepping on land mines whilst trying to grow their food.

Mrs R would like to tell these chaps of the Rigby's friends and neighbours youngsters - young people we've seen grow from almost nothing to near adulthood - who are planning to join the British Army, Navy or Air Force. She knows increasing maturity and increasing realism might change their minds, or their minds might be changed by a military assessment panel. Only time will tell.

Our young people are also also doing this 'because they can', because they're free to choose how to live their lives. Nobody's telling them to fight a war because of their religion, or lack of it. Nobody's telling them to go into the forces because 'it's the right thing to do' they're doing it because, for them, it's the right career choice - nothing more. On their way through their lives these young Brits have already made lifestyle choices. They've never been in too much trouble, have had part-time Saturday jobs and still managed to pass lots of exams and are now making near-adult decisions about what they will do with the rest of their lives - and, even if they don't end up in the forces, they don't plan to spend any part of the rest of their lives shouting, or waving threatening placards, at unarmed troops on the safe streets of Britain.

Frankly, Mrs R knows which of these groups of young men she'd trust if she was in trouble, or if there were a crisis - and it isn't the ones who, tucked safely behind a load of hi-vis jacketed British Bobbies, waved their banners and chanted their slogans whilst two hundred well-disciplined soldiers marched through the streets of Barking, Essex, England.

....

On Vuvuzelas, Horns and musical political football.

2010-06-14T19:27:00.003+01:00

Mrs R is neither a fan nor a follower of football, but she did see some of England's game the other evening and was quite surprised by the noise levels in the stadium. To her it sounded a bit like thousands of kazoos being blown at the same time, making it difficult to hear anything else, including referees whistles.

She's now learned that there's a bit of media/internet/blogosphere battle about this ~~music~~ noise. Some footballers, such as Ronaldo, are on record as saying the noise is distracting, others are saying it's so loud that the players can't communicate on the pitch. Others are saying the complainers should be quiet because the vuvuzela is a

"proudly South African instrument" with roots deep in local traditional music

That's as may be, but Mrs R isn't too sure of the link between 'traditional music', of any sort, and football - because the two things seem slightly strange bedfellows.

It would seem that this musical tradition didn't seem to bother Austrian professional football association too much when, in 2009, they imposed a stadium ban on vuvuzela and they did it ...

.... not for the deafening and tuneless din they produce, but because they might be used as missiles.

And the 'tradition' didn't seem to faze a scientist who reckons using these plastic horns could be a health risk

... vuvuzelas can have negative effects on people’s ear drums when they are exposed to the sound for a certain time period [and] could also be spreading colds and flu germs,

And tradition doesn't seem to have worried Cape Town Sports Council too much either, when they decided to

officially ban ... Vuvuzelas from all public places in Cape Town. This follows major local and international complaints about noise pollution.

Hmm.

Well, let's move away from all that for a moment, and watch a youtube of a happy and enthusiastic vuvuzela player on his way to a football match.

And here's a video that is meant to explain a bit more of the traditions etc., although it doesn't seem to do it very well.

While she was watching these videos Mrs R was struck by similarities to other instruments she's both seen and heard, and that have similar origins - similar reasons for being used, mostly for communication over long distances.

The ancestor of the vuvuzela is said to be the kudu horn - ixilongo in isiXhosa, mhalamhala in Tshivenda - blown to summon African villagers to meetings.

Mrs R, in her musical ignorance, reckons that any musical instrument that's just a tube without either valves or carefully positioned holes along the length of the tube to help the player hit the right note is similar to the vuvuzela. So she went off to try to find some comparable, or vaguely similar, instruments from other countries. All these instruments, by the way, seem to be listed as 'brass' rather than woodwind, the difference being that

A brass instrument is a musical instrument whose sound is produced by sympathetic vibration of air in a tubular resonator in sympathy with the vibration of the player's lips. Brass instruments are also called labrosones, literally meaning "lip-vibrated instruments"

Whereas woodwind instruments

... produce sound when the player blows air against a sharp edge or through a reed, causing the air within its resonator (usually a column of air) to vibrate

So that wipes out things like the recorder, piccolo and so on - the handy, pocket-sized things, and leaves the much bigger ones that need a long tube to resonate, and for the sound to carry.

There's always the melodic hosepipe. (Go on, watch it!)

But that's probably a bit too recent ~~a bit of a joke~~ innovation to be 'traditional', or is it?

Anyhow, let's go to a bit older, and quite a bit bigger. First off, from Australia there's the didgeridoo. It's wooden, because Australia's native animals don't have horns. It's an impressive instrument creating a sound that carries over huge distances.

The same sort of thing, made to create a sound that will carry a long way, applies to Alphorns - also made from wood, not a trace of cow/sheep/goat horn in sight. Here's a short video from Alphorn festival on Maennlichen summit, Switzerland. Go on, listen to it, it's only 48 seconds long, and Mrs R bets it'll make your ears tingle.

And a video report from the Wall Street Journal about the Alphorn, with a bit about technology too - technology that's helped make the things a bit more portable.

Then there's the Post Horn too. The vuvuzela looks remarkably like a plastic posthorn, but the posthorn made a sound which was, apparently

... regularly heard throughout Victorian Britain up until about 1850 ... blown by the guard as the mail coaches covered the length and breadth of the country. The horn had several functions: it warned toll gate keepers of the coach’s approach and warned other road users to let the coach have right of way. It also let keepers of posting inns know of the coach’s approach so they could have the next team of horses ready for when the coach arrived.

Doesn't sound very African, and in fact is a quite European sort of thing, so here, for those who might like to hear it, is the 'Post Horn Gallop'

That piece of music, rather uncannily, brings Mrs R back to the subject of football - because she's discovered that a British Football Club adopted the Posthorn Gallop as their theme tune, and did it way back in 1941 - which she thinks is long enough ago in football history for it to be 'a tradition'. (sound quality on this short recording isn't brilliant)

Mrs Rigby has managed to let her mind wander a bit more, but she's managed to keep to the subject of 'traditions'. She wondered what British, or even European, football officials might do if all the fans of that particular football club decided to get very musical, and decided to go out and buy themselves some post horns, even curled up ones, and then decided to learn to play their own club's traditional tune during each of their team's matches.

She's fairly sure that sort of thing wouldn't be, umm, encouraged - for the reasons outlined at the beginning of this post - health and safety, and noise pollution. The other reason it would be discouraged is because it would distract the players from being able to do what they're there for - which is to play football, and try to get more goals than their opponents.

Knowing that the vuvuzela has already been banned by the Cape Town Sports Council, presumably without too much trouble, Mrs R has to ask why there's a sudden outcry to allow 'traditional' musical 'rights' to be able to take precedent over health and safety, and ignore the 'sporting' and maybe even musical 'traditions' of all the other teams participating in the World Cup? After all, we're always told that a considerate host makes concessions to their guests, makes them feel welcome, isn't selfish ... that sort of thing. Good hosts do that ... don't they?

The other thing is that, embarrassingly, Mrs R can't understand how a cheap, mass-produced, team-branded tube of plastic ~~(marketed with added kudos of cleverly-contrived nationalist hyperbole)~~ can ever be 'traditional' - when elsewhere in the world traditional musical instruments are craftsmen made, and are lovingly cared for by their musical owners, and are used to play rhythms and/or tunes. All the vuvuzela seems to be able to do is buzz. You see, despite spending quite some time searching Mrs R hasn't found a single instance of a vuvuzela being used to play a rhythm, a beat, or a tune. She hasn't found a vuvuzela band, she hasn't found a vuvuzela orchestra, she hasn't found a vuvuzela consort.

Nobody'd ever dream of trying to take an Alphorn to a football match, except perhaps for pre-match, crowd-pleaser, entertainment, and Mrs R can't imagine even the most persuasive of Aussies getting through the turnstiles with a didgeridoo clutched in their hands, neither their ethnicity nor ancient musical roots and rights would come into it, because it simply wouldn't be the right thing to do.

So are we back to that old emotional blackmail again? Is this the sort of emotional blackmail that nobody can argue with, and which carefully ignores the key point of the disagreement? If so, then Mrs R thinks those making the loudest excuses are doing themselves a disservice, and she thinks they should stop, for a moment, and consider how they would perceive this if it were to happen elsewhere, and for an important international competition for a different sport/pastime/hobby.

Would it be reasonable, for example, to have bagpipes playing in the background during a curling competition? No? But using the same argument, why not? Bagpipes are a fairly ancient instrument and are accepted as being something that's 'traditionally Scottish'. How many pipers would it take to fill a football stadium? Here's what 1,000 of them sound like.

Flippant? Nope, not one bit.

It's using exactly the same sort of argument - traditional music alongside a traditional sport - but in the case of curling and bagpipes the two have much closer national ties than do the vuvuzela and football because football is a game believed to have its roots in mediaeval Europe, unless of course they've changed that bit of history when Mrs R wasn't looking.

The key point in this vuvuzela debate should, surely, be that the World Cup is an international, quadrennial, football competition.

It isn't a band competition, it isn't an international music festival.

The World Cup competition is a series of football matches that the teams and players have been preparing for ever since the last one, four years ago, and each team deserves a fair chance of playing without being distracted. Ronaldo shouldn't, for example, be having to say, right at the last moment, that

"A lot of players don't like them, but they are going to have to get used to them."

Mrs R doesn't think this competition should have anything to do with music once the pre-match entertainers have left the field to the footballers and the first whistle has been blown. These men are the best players from their countries, they should be able to compete fairly, and equally, and within the rules of football - to make sure the best team wins the competition.

And if you disagree, please explain why.

....

If you have ...

2010-06-14T10:11:00.001+01:00

Makes you think, for a moment.

Taken from here

....

Times gone by

2010-06-13T21:33:00.000+01:00

Huh!

Mrs Rigby tried to have a look at the "Times and Sunday Times" website, but instead got a message telling her she could sign up for a 'Free June Preview' - even though we're almost half way through the month. Clever sort of trick that, isn't it? Call it a whole month when it's only a bit more than a fortnight.

After June it'll cost either £1 for 24 hours or £2 a week to access the site. They tell Mrs R that £2 is

... less than the cost of a cup of coffee.

We Rigbys rarely, if ever, visit a coffee shop so it'd be nice to challenge that on the basis that a cup of coffee at Rigby Towers costs considerably less than £2.

But who cares? The people at The Times don't seem to.

So, having already given up on the Financial Times because we refuse to register, it looks as if we won't be bothering with The Times or Sunday Times any more either - except when we go to the library.

....

Threadbare socialists?

2010-06-13T01:23:00.006+01:00

There's a muddle of tales in the media and blogosphere today that, in isolation, don't seem to have a common thread, but Mrs Rigby has managed to tie some stories together.

Let's start with Old Rightie who says, None So Blind .... As Those Who NEVER See. and

The only criteria a successful society should have is to ensure those from disadvantaged backgrounds with ABILITY and INTELLIGENCE are not passed by. Sadly, Socialists believe we are all the same, except when doling out the top Labour and Union jobs.

And from there straight on to the Mail, reporting that dear Arthur Scargill, ex-President of the once wealthy and which-once-had-187,000-members-but-now-has-only-about-1,600 National Union of Miners, is is threatening to sue his own Union.

He's doing this because the NUM has reduced his benefits, and he doesn't think it's fair. He's doing it because he's losing ... ... around £5,000 a year ... in 'perks', and reckons the Union is breaking a contractually binding obligation to keep his house nice and warm in winter.

Although he retired in 2002 Mr Scargill retains the post of "honorary president" of the Union. He's fortunate to have the use of three-bedroom ~~flat~~ luxury apartment at the Barbican in London - which costs the Union around £33,000 a year in rent and running costs. Mr Scargill's own home is a bungalow near Barnsley - a bungalow that's called a cottage and looks, to Mrs Rigby, very much like a big house (picture Mail)

Mrs Rigby wondered why the NUM might have made this decision now, especially as their membership (and income) must have fallen quite considerably over the years because there's so little mining in Britain. So she went to have a look at that Certification Officer site to see if she could find out a bit more.

Here's an example, which was chosen at random :-

North Staffs Federation of NUM has just one member - according to their 2009 return to the The Certification Officer. This branch of the NUM has, according to the return, zero income from subscriptions, zero income from members, but £7,500 from 'other sources' - listed as "monies received from solicitors for use of office costs and staff". Administrative costs are £8,914 - the breakdown is, to Mrs R's eyes, peculiar but it seems that the branch is being kept open to pay the wages and National Insurance contributions of one 'secretary' - and that's it. This individual is paid a wage, but doesn't seem to pay a Union Subscription.

Try as she might, and despite wading through the tortuous website that is NUM.org, Mrs R can find no indication of what an individual mineworker might pay to be a member of this union. However, according to the to 2009 NUM returns there were indeed a mere 1,611 members, with income from 'contributions and subscriptions' of £162,325.00 - which suggests that each active, paying, member pays about £100 a year.

The union does have other assets and receives investment income, which has reduced due to low interest rates and, presumably, the recession. But to simplify things let's imagine the NUM only uses membership fees ... to pay Mr Scargill's fuel bills would take the full subscription payments of 50 members, with another 330 subscriptions paying for his London ~~flat~~ luxury apartment. Which means that 385 people - almost 25% of the fee-paying members of the NUM - are paying their dues to ensure there is £38,000 a year available to maintain Mr Scargill's two-homes lifestyle and to keep him warm and cosy. That, Mrs R needs to remind you, is in addition to any pension/salary he may also be receiving, from the union.

Another 89 members' dues are needed to pay the wages of the single North Staffs NUM Federation employee - a 'wage' that equates to about a quarter of Mr Scargill's 'expenses' and/or 'perks'.

That's nice, don't you think? Don't you think all those NUM members are pleased to see their money being used so wisely?

Looking at the rest of the balance sheets it suggests that between 2007 and 2008 the NUM took quite a hit financially, with more going out than coming in - and so there was less money at the end of the year than at the beginning. Hardly surprising really, when you think about it, and hardly surprising that they're trying to take steps to cut their spending and balance the books.

Let's change tack, and quickly whizz over to the current issues with "Unite" - the Union chosen by many of British Airways' cabin crew - and staying with the Mail which reports that

Britain's best-paid flight crews – with the most senior staff earning up to £56,000 a year – are questioning the wisdom of signing up to a ... summer of strikes

because

'Many ... simply can't afford to go out on strike

Mrs R recalls, back in April, that Unite imposed a compulsory fund-raising levy on its branches, aiming to collect £700,000 towards a strike fund. At the time the union was 'paying' striking staff the grand sum of £30 a day - £150 for five days, which would not cover living costs for most people and is less minimum wage ... which in itself generates all sorts of state handouts because it isn't enough to live on. It's also almost exactly half as much as Mr Scargill gets, or was getting, in 'perks'.

Another Mail article suggests that BA has won the battle, that staff are demoralised and "Willy Walsh has won". If this is true it's possible that BA staff could have realised they were being taken for mugs by their union bosses - one of whom tweeted the proceedings of Acas arbitration discussion, whilst another who earns £122,000-a-year (courtesy of union members) decided to go off on holiday - using EasyJet.

It's also possible that some of the BA staff recall the 'striking' 1970s. Mrs R's blog isn't the place to discuss the rights and wrongs of these 'famous' strikes - but will say that the industrial action overseen, and seemingly encouraged, by Mr Scargill caused a lot of heartache, upset and discomfort for many, many, working-class people who had no dispute with their own employers and who were themselves struggling to make ends meet at a time of rising prices and recession.

Mrs R hasn't a clue if anybody predicted that the strikes, which included a no-maintenance agreement that extended to not pumping water out of mines, would result in mine-closures and almost all Britain's coal being imported - but that's what happened and as a result whole towns and communities suffered for very many years, and we now pay miners in other countries to extract the coal that is used to make our electricity. The people who weren't hurt too much by those strikes were the union officials, safe with their subscription-funded salaries and nicely useful 'perks' which, it appears, at least one very important ex-union official continues to enjoy - even in retirement.

So, let's imagine for a moment what would happen if, as a result of ongoing strike action, BA were to fold. It wouldn't necessarily affect the whole country, and probably wouldn't affect whole towns and communities in the same way as mine closures did. But, if BA were to be sold abroad and the company was rebranded, restructured, and based at an airport elsewhere in the world there would be significant British job losses in a huge range of associated services. This would have a knock-on effect in local communities (reduced income for shops, clubs, small businesses etc) which could be devastating. It would affect many, many, more people than the few striking BA cabin crews but would be unlikely to touch the lives of those who are encouraging the strikers - the few very important Unite Union officials who will continue to receive their salaries and any associated perks, because they work for the union itself.

It would seem to Mrs Rigby that going on strike at the wrong time in the modern world only seems to hurt the strikers themselves, and their friends and neighbours.

And maybe that's where a bit of education, a bit of reading, a bit of logical thought and an element of caution might just come in handy, especially when you compare Mr Scargill's current situation with that of the BA strikers - part of whose dispute with BA relates to their contractual 'perks', as does his with the NUM, hence his complaint that ...

'They agreed I should rent a local authority flat during my period in office and following my retirement that would carry on until my death. There are many people who have two homes.'

Mrs Rigby wonders if, maybe, Mr Scargill should take unilateral strike action, and withold his services as honorary president until the union capitulates. That, surely, would be the thing to do rather than resorting to using solicitors - because, after all, that's what he told/encouraged his union members to do all those years ago - and most of them only ever had one home, and their homes could have looked something like this. (Picture Sunniside Local History Society)

Socialism eh! All the same, all in it together, and all aiming for a common cause - to help ... actually, Mrs R wonders to help just who, precisely?

Is it to help the poor, downtrodden 'working man'* battle against punitive, dangerous or unfair working practices, or is it 'these days' merely to help massage over-inflated egos of a few self-styled very-important-people who see their own empires crumbling along with falling union membership?

..........

As an aside - Mrs Rigby wonders how many 'top' union officials are women?

....

'I don't have to accept someone who lives off a state they reject'

2010-06-12T14:37:00.000+01:00

"I don't have to accept someone who lives off a state they reject, ..."

This, apparently, is what Mr Sarrazin, who works for the Bundesbank and was Germany's finance minister, said when referring to some German immigrant populations.

He also said the influx of immigrants is making Germany 'dumber', because

immigrants from 'Turkey, the Middle East and Africa' were less educated.

and

Because immigrants tend to have more children than Germans - who have the lowest birth rate in Europe - this caused 'a different propagation of population groups with different intelligence

So ... picking apart the article it seems that a man has looked at a load of statistics relating to new arrivals in Germany and has, perhaps clumsily, said that, many newcomers :-

1) Have limited education in their home country.
2) Choose to ghettoise their living arrangements, and
3) Are reluctant to integrate and adopt the German way of life
4) Have more children than the average German family, and
5) Pass on their own cultural and education aspirations to their children

According to the Mail Mr Sarrazin shouldn't have done any of this and he

has not yet apologised. and It is thought his position at the Bundesbank may now be untenable.

Mrs Rigby wonders why he should even imagine apologising? There's no point, he's already been condemned by both the media and a respresentative of a presumably vocal self-interest group because ...

A spokesman for a Muslim group in Berlin said: 'He is a tired old white Christian male full of prejudice and few ideas.'

Mrs Rigby is delighted to acknowledge that this response as a wonderful example of the freedom of speech we enjoy in the Western world. So let's look again at what Mr Serrazin said

'I don't have to accept someone who lives off a state they reject'

That, is for Mrs R, the bottom line - and she turns it into a question.

Is it not reasonable to ensure that those who live off the state accept, acknowledge and abide by, the rules of that state?

....

Ainsworth interview

2010-06-12T00:04:00.003+01:00

Coventry North East MP Ainsworth, who spent the 11 months up to the General Election in the cabinet, was rarely able to secure one-to-one meetings with Mr Brown and when the two did get together Ainsworth says his views on defence policy were generally ignored, he has revealed.

“It’s no secret that Gordon and I are not each other’s greatest fans,” he explained. “I found him very difficult to work with. Impossible really.”

Makes Mrs R think, "Aww, poor Bob.

Then she read this :-

In his first major interview since resigning as Secretary of State, Ainsworth admits he is struggling to get used to “normality”. He’s gone from a cossetted life, whisked around the world with first class travel accompanied by a retinue of support staff and armed security guards, to the role of a backbench constituency MP.

Why on earth did he, or indeed any government minister, need all that? It does, though, help explain this profligacy. Since 2008 (Fausty)

£178 million [spent] on MPs' pay and perks

....

Labour leadership #6

2010-06-11T11:48:00.010+01:00

Andy Burnham
Born 7 January, 1970

Researcher to Tessa Jowell 1994-1997 election.
Parliamentary Officer for the NHS Confederation from August to December 1997, before taking up the post as an administrator with the Football Task Force for a year. (wikipedia)
Special Adviser to the then-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 1998-2001.
Elected MP for Leigh 2001.
Health Select Committee from 2001 - 2003
Parliamentary Private Secretary to then-Home Secretary David Blunkett 2003 - 2004. PPS to then-Education Secretary Ruth Kelly 2004-2005.
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State 2005 - 2006 (with responsibility for implementing the Identity Cards Act 2006.)
Minister of State at the Department of Health 2006-2007.
Chief Secretary to the Treasury, a position he held until 2007 - 2008.

Working Class Tory quotes Mary Riddell:-

In some respects, Mr Burnham is the most Right-wing of the four candidates. A Roman Catholic, he is the most enthusiastic about promoting marriage and likely to be firm on law and order. On the Iraq War, he is neither regretful – like the two Eds – or as reflective as David Miliband. To him, regime change and weapons of mass destruction were inter-connected reasons for the invasion.

Working Class Tory goes on to and suggest that ...

Burnham would appear to be the least worst option if Labour were to win the next election. However, a Labour win would be the worst possible future outcome, and if Burnham is more likely to achieve it, I hope he does not become leader.

Mrs Rigby would tend to agree.

....

Bustards and red things.

2010-06-10T22:17:00.002+01:00

Nice news

One of the world's most spectacular birds is becoming established once again in the UK - more than 180 years after it was hunted to extinction.

The great bustard - a gigantic bird with an eight foot wingspan - was reintroduced to England six years ago using chicks rescued from Russia.

Now the birds have scored their biggest success yet with the hatching of four wild chicks this spring.

It's the second year that the birds - which can stand more than 3.5 feet tall - have bred in the wild.

And the Kites? Red ones that is. Mrs R has never seen one, she'd be delighted to swap places with this chap, who is less than happy about their successful reintroduction

They have reintroduced the Red Kite near us, now we are plagued by the horrible things. There were eleven of them over my house yesterday, there were more than forty of them flying around one area ... swooping, wheeling and screeching. Things that have gone from an area should not be reintroduced.

And so on to more red things. Squirrels this time - a creature Mrs R has only ever seen in captivity. There are plans to cull grey squirrels in Cornwall.

Thousands of grey squirrels are to be culled in an attempt to reintroduce native reds to Cornwall more than 20 years after they went extinct.

Some Mail commenters, naturally, think the decision is racist whilst others indicate a great deal of ignorance and ramble on about 'diversity' and 'right to life', completely forgetting that nature is harsh - the strongest survives. Maybe they'd be happy for the British Red Squirrel to become extinct.

....

Labour leadership #5

2010-06-09T20:26:00.000+01:00

Diane Julie Abbott

Born 27 September 1953
Married Richard Thompson, divorced
Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington since 1987.

Attended Harrow County Grammar School
Studied History at Newnham, Cambridge.
Admin trainee @ Home Office 1976-1978.
Race Relations Officer @ NCCL 1978-1980
Researcher/reporter Thames TV 1980 -1983.
Researcher/reporter TV-am 1983-1985.
Press Officer GLC (Livingstone) 1985-1986.
Head of Press and PR Lambeth Council 1986-1987.

Elected to Westminster City Council 1982-1986.
Elected MP 1987

She is well known, possibly because of her TV show "This Week", where she and Michael Portillo discuss, errm, the Political events of the week.

She has been called a hypocrite because she chose to send her son to a private school, whilst condemning others for doing so. She is, as far as Mrs Rigby is aware, against Grammar Schools - although she attended one herself.

She decided to enter the Labour leadership race because she thought the "white, male candidates 'all look the same'."

She likes the idea of positive discrimination.

Of all the Labour Leadership candidates mentioned so far she has the longest political experience, although she has never been a government minister. At 56 (57 in Sept) she is the oldest leadership candidate - almost 17 years older than Andy Burnham.

She managed to gain the necessary 33+ nominations only after John McDonnell had stood aside and asked those who had nominated him to switch their allegiance.

The Mail reports that Mr David Miliband has nominated her rather than himself.

To be honest Mrs R thinks it's highly likely she will be elected Deputy Leader of the Party - they 'have to' have a woman to satisfy the quota hunters and to claim some legitimacy and stamp their feet on the moral high ground when demanding parliament and employers follow their equality-hunting rules - doesn't matter too much whether the individual is any good, it's their genetic inheritance that's most important.

....

Why should ...?

2010-06-08T10:48:00.015+01:00

One of the questions asked about the ownership of guns was ...

"Why should a taxi driver want a gun?"

Simple answer - because when people aren't doing their day job they are doing something else, even if it's only sleeping. Okay, yes, perhaps that's a flippant response but it's true.

Mrs R is more than aware that the current 'discussion' is about why anybody should want to have a gun, of any sort, because guns are dangerous and guns kill - and one man did dreadful things in the Lake District with legally held weapons. QED - so some say. And they say let's ban guns, permanently, for ever - because the unspoken bit is that normal people don't use guns.

But Mrs Rigby disagrees, and so do lots of other perfectly normal, rational and law-abiding people. She's going to try to explain why, and then offer a question or two in return.

Years ago, it seems like a lifetime away, there were people in this country who enjoyed taking different sorts of pistols to a club and firing ten, twenty or more rounds of ammunition at bits of paper. They did it to see how close together they could group their shots, and had competitions to see who was best. The winners of those in-club competitions were often chosen to compete in inter-club competitions, and some of them even went on to represent their country at even more important competitions - such as the Olympics, World Championships and Commonwealth Games.

British shooters always did quite well in these competitions, even though they wore weird-looking gadgets on their heads and had fancy sort of custom-made grips for their pistols, and managed to win gold medals. They were patted on the back and told how good they were, how dedicated to their sport. We were pleased with them because they helped Britain get quite high up the international medal tables.

Overnight, all those years ago, many of not-medal-winning people had their private interest - their sport - outlawed by the then Labour government, and had their means of 'having fun' made illegal. In short they were criminalised in a knee-jerk legal sledgehammer in response to some nutter having done awful things with a gun. The events of last week show that even sledgehammers sometimes miss their target, because sometimes 'targets' do unpredictable things.

As a result of the legislation some shooters handed their carefully maintained and carefully secured guns to the police, knowing they would be melted down and made into manhole covers. Others took their guns to France, some stayed there permanently. They did this because their sport meant so much to them, and because their weapons were too valuable to be melted down.

Britain is due to host the 2012 Olympics. The list of Olympics sports still include various shooting disciplines, perhaps because the Olympic movement acknowledges that shooting is a skill that requires patience, dedication and lots and lots of practice to be any good. It's probably why the military still acknowledge 'marksmen' as being particularly skilled, so skilled that they get their own special weapons and more often than not, their own very special tasks and a special badge to wear on their sleeve.

As already mentioned, Britain has always done quite well at shooting and according to Wikipedia is ranked 6th in the overall Olympic tables - a cumulative score dating from 1896. Britain has won 12 gold, 15 silver, 16 bronze medals. It might not seem many, but has to be compared with those higher up the table and, ignoring the whopping medal roll of USA, second is China with 19 gold, 11 silver, 12 bronze. These medals cover the sporting disciplines of using air pistol and rifle, .22 pistol and rifle, and shotgun/clay.

The 2012 Olympics shooting events are due to be held in a temporary arena at Woolwich Arsenal, much to the dismay of Sportsman's Association and the National Shooting Centre at Bisley - where the Commonwealth Games shooting events were hosted in 2002. It was pointed out that a

shooting fans will get "nothing in return" if the temporary venue is used ...

Tessa Jowell is reported to have said that

... the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich would be used because they "allow us to deliver the compact Games we promised in 2005".

Compact maybe, but Mrs R thinks it's a whopping waste of money to build

... a 7,500-seat structure that will be taken down after the Games have finished, with the cost ranging from an initial quote of £30m to the latest estimate of £42m.

Anyhow, the venue may actually be the least of the worries, because although the 2012 Olympics website extols the virtues of shooting, and says

Shooting is a fun way to learn discipline and responsibility. In the UK, more than 350,000 people currently practice the sport, with equal numbers of boys and girls entering competitions.

If you want to get involved, British Shooting is a good place to start.

There is a problem, because our gun laws are quite complex and very, very strict. The laws are ...

... so stringent that Britain’s Olympic gun team has been forced to train for the London 2012 Games overseas.

These very strict laws cause other knock-on problems too, as the Guardian reports (20 May 2010):-

London 2012's shooting event is heading for chaos because of Britain's draconian firearms legislation for athletes from European countries. Some European teams have been unable to compete at a clay pigeon World Cup event in Dorset this week after failing to lodge original certificates of firearms permits with UK police long in advance.

Without having that paperwork in their possession several athletes would be in breach of their national laws to hold their firearms at home. They have also been unable to travel after they waited four to six weeks for the documentation to be handled. Indeed, in order to guarantee German athletes' participation, that nation's administrator was flown in to the UK by tournament officials – at a cost of £1,500 to the event – with a sheaf of athletes' documentation for on-the-spot processing by police.

and

"This situation has arisen with only 350 competitors. It would take the Metropolitan Police a year to process the 2,000 people at the Olympics.

That seems to be a heck of a lot of people and legally held weapons to be arriving in one small corner of London, and Mrs R has no idea if it's accurate, but considering that there are

... 15 events in all: five in each of the three Shooting disciplines – Rifle, Pistol and Shotgun.
In each of these disciplines three events are for men and two for women.
Gold medals : 15
Athletes: 390

Presumably there will be support staff and technicians who also need to be registered and licensed.

There are also the Modern Pentathletes

Events: Fencing, Swimming, Riding, Combined Run/Shoot Event
Gold medals : 2
Athletes: 36 men, 36 women

Maybe the Fencers will also need to be Police checked?

Gold medals : 10
Athletes: 212

Stepping sideways for a moment it's interesting to look the winter Olympics sport that also includes shooting. The Biathlon - a gruelling cross country race, carrying a rifle. This 'sport' was developed from the cross-country training enjoyed(?) by Norway's military.

So, when you look at all that, is it really odd that somebody so ordinary as a taxi driver might have been licensed to use a firearm? Nobody seemed to mind too much that a myopic plasterer had thought it was a good idea to learn to ski. Shooting, and wanting to be good at it - is a sport, an interest, a skill, that's all.

Some people, in post-Labour Britain, are very quick to make value judgements based on their own narrow interests and lifestyles. Anybody who might want to do something, anything, that's outside their experience is open to derision. Their interests and activities challenged as being 'odd' or even 'elitist'. And if what they do is too odd (or too elitist) for the ignoramus with an opinion? Well, it should be banned - naturally.

So in pandering to populist opinion, and seemingly hating anybody who wants a bit of freedom of choice, it isn't really a surprise that the BBC's HYS had a write-in about Britain's gun laws, asking the question Are [Britain's] gun laws tough enough? Naturally the very first comment is from somebody very much 'on message' who says

Why did a man that lived in a terraced house in a village have a licence for a shotgun and a rifle? I should have thought that the minimum requirement would be to be a farmer or landowner and thus be able to justify using these weapons as part of pest control

Maybe neither that individual nor the BBC are aware of the London2012 message which, to remind you, says that "In the UK, more than 350,000 people currently practice the sport" - and they do so safely, and within the strict confines of the law.

And that's why Mrs Rigby has to ask a question. Taking all things into account, and assuming we can't legislate for the unpredictable - why shouldn't a [not rich] person who lives in a terraced house in a [rural] village have a license for a shotgun and/or a rifle?

She asks this alongside media reports of teenagers in inner city high rise flats having illegal machine guns, pistols and sawn-off shotguns that they use so frequently that deaths from using these weapons rarely hit the headlines other than in the local paper.

Also, if Britain's very strict laws (which were supported by almost all political parties prior to the incident in the Lake District) are so effective then how, for example, could this have happened - on 29th May 2010?

A man has been charged in connection with a triple shooting in east London that left one man dead and two injured.

A 36-year-old man died during the incident in Newham during the early hours of 29 May.

Kevin Powell, 34, unemployed, of Harlesden, west London, was charged with the attempted murder of a 26-year-old and possession of a firearm.

Perhaps, maybe, the BBC and the person who left the previously quoted message on HYS could try to explain why an unemployed man living in lovely Harlesden, with its' "Jubilee Clock which commemorates Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee." and "... its vibrant Caribbean culture" needs a firearm, of any description because it's unlikely he is either a farmer or a landowner. Or wouldn't those rules apply?

....

Labour Leadership #4 - Buffoons!

2010-06-05T23:13:00.001+01:00

Most generous of you, Mr Parris, to offer such cogent advice to a bunch of dangerous buffoons.

so 'Someone Once wrote' in the Telegraph, commenting on Matthew Parris's column concerning the "hustings statements" of the four men at the top of the Labour Party's leadership list.

Here's a taster or five from the article:-

David Miliband looked for a moment as if he was going to.

Come to think of it, that sentence bids fair to be chiselled on to his gravestone: “David Miliband looked for a moment as if he was going to.”

and

This — from Ed Miliband, but for all the difference it makes, it could have been from the chief executive of Pepsi-Cola, the Chief Rabbi, or the chief lyricist of Abba —

and

Mr Balls’s submission is simply clunking and charmless.

and

Mr Burnham’s is kind of sweet.

but

All four men are anyway inextricably tangled in the failure of the last Labour Government. Yet all are Privy Counsellors and three at at least are of considerable stature. You can actually imagine them as prime ministers. You just don’t want them to be.

Yes, these are out of context extracts, so you need to read the whole thing for yourself and, as usual, don't forget to also read the comments .... where you'll be reminded, again, that

this... is the collection of GOATs* that was 'running' this country until recently?????
Much is explained, if not excused.

..........

* Edited and amended because NotASheep left a comment saying, "Leave us goats alone!"

GOAT = Mr Brown's "Government of All Talents"

Not this sort

Picture from here where you can discover How to tell a Goat Goat from a Man Goat.

....

Lord Monckton snacks on George Monbiot & John Abraham

2010-06-05T12:36:00.001+01:00

At Last, the Climate Extremists Try to Debate Us!

Here's an extract

First, the IPCC also says, on the very page quoted by Abraham, that even if there were a major collapse of the ice the Greenland ice sheet would not entirely disintegrate for millennia, a phrase that was also used in the IPCC’s 2001 report, where it was made plain that surface temperatures at least 2 Celsius degrees higher than today’s would have to persist for several millennia before either the Greenland or the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could melt away.

True, the British Antarctic Survey disagrees with the IPCC and maintains that the WAIS is in imminent danger of collapse, but so far even the IPCC has not bought that alarmist story.

Secondly — as I said in my talk, but as Abraham very carefully failed to point out in his — both sides of this particular argument have been carefully heard in the impartial forum of the British High Court. The British government, unsuccessfully attempting to defend Gore on this point, had eventually been compelled — when confronted with what the IPCC actually says about several millennia — to concede that Gore’s 20 feet of sea level rise was a flagrant exaggeration.

And the judge’s finding could not have been blunter:
The Armageddon scenario that he [Gore] depicts is not based on any scientific view.

Read the rest of the article, it's worth it.

....

Not abolishing boom and bust

2010-06-05T11:06:00.000+01:00

The greatest economic mind of the last century ( ..ya Maynard.. ) argued many things, but he is best known for his insight that the capitalist economy is cyclically unstable. Government needs to stabilise economic activity by monetary and fiscal policy. To do that, it should balance the budget over the course of the business cycle. So it should build up surpluses when the economy is expanding in order to run deficits - beyond those that would normally arise from the contraction in output - and boost demand in a recession.

This obviously is not a description of what Gordon Brown did as Chancellor after 2002, because he disastrously believed he had abolished the business cycle. The share of public spending in national income rose from just under 40 per cent when new Labour took office to 48 per cent when the credit crunch arrived. That's an extraordinary figure for an economy that was growing briskly throughout that time.

Taken from Newmania in Lewes

....

Flat tyres and bagpipes.

2010-06-04T19:45:00.000+01:00

Determination, or desperation?

From Fail Blog

....

Where's Gordon?

2010-06-04T18:40:00.002+01:00

Anybody seen him?

Anybody read anything about him in the papers?

Has he vanished?

....

Rules and regulations.

2010-06-03T23:18:00.004+01:00

If you read this excellent, and very reasoned article by Simon Jenkins you'll also have the chance to read quite a lot of comments. Some, of course, are calling for more legislation, some agree with the author and say we should back off, but Alfredthegreat sets the tone

Wow, Guardian posters railing against the big state. Maybe there is hope yet.

There were a few more that caught Mrs Rigby's eye. mikeeverest asks:-

Why, in a civilised society, is a taxi driver allowed access to lethal weapons?

Tell you what mikeeverest, Mrs Rigby's got a good idea that'll make us all much more 'civilised' and make sure nothing like this can ever happen again.

Let's nag and pester the government into bringing in a nice new law that says all taxis, oh, and buses and, to be really safe, all motor vehicles must have a big sign that says, "It is against the law to carry lethal weapons in this vehicle." And lets have a whole new squad of enforcement officers too, with instant 'penalties' for the naughty people who break the brand new law.

That'll work, won't it?

But a regular Guardian reader does it even better, took the words right out of Mrs R's mouth!

Erm, every taxi driver does have access to an extremely lethal weapon Mike - it's called a car - ever thought of the damage you could do with one of these if you went a bit mental?

I'm currently cutting up my dinner with a razor sharp implement I could use to butcher my entire family if the mood took me - I think we have to be mindful of the 'ban everything' mentality of the hideous nulabour regime and realise, relucantly and with regret, that there will occasionally be nutters who do terrible things you just can't legislate for.

..........

Let's move onto something else that's prompted by the article.

Numbed says this

I work with children everyday, and everyday at least one person makes some bizarre remark about child safety that puts the onus on my organisation to increase security measures, as if I was suddenly working in a maximum security prison, rather than a place of education and support for young people.

The silliest example recently was when - in a public building, also used by children, a visiting teacher asked why a male member of staff (CRB checked and cleared) was allowed to use a bathroom that might also be used by a child.

I could go on...

In another circumstance, a school locally failed OFSTED for not having high enough walls around the children's toilet building, despite the fact that the windows to the room were high and opaque glass.

Additional security for perceived guilty-until-proven-innocent adults who have regular contact or even irregular contact with children is ridiculously out of hand now.

repeal, repeal, repeal.

I'm watching a generation of young people growing up knowing that when confronted or challenged for poor or dangerous behaviour, all they have to yell is "pedo" and the power is with the child not the adult.

children deserve rights and they deserve to be respected, but adults should not fear children and they certainly should not be presumed to be dangerous when there is no evidence to prove they are.

A little later on shazthewombat says this

@ Numbed 8.01pm - great and depressingly familiar post. At my school, we've had the same stuff about kids & adults potentially using the same toilet facilities.

More worryingly, we had a supply teacher in last week. One of the children was overheard to say that he was gay and a paedo, and was going to rape someone.
This child is 10. There is something very wrong somewhere when kids of that age think it's acceptable to make comments like that - especially since official responses to such accusations can be swift and harsh.

and Numbed's response:-

and the ridiculousness of it is that I find myself constantly watching my behaviour around children. I don't touch them, even when they are upset or hurt; I don't give them anything other than water for fear they are allergic to everything else and that I will be prosecuted for causing them harm; and i find myself saying "of course, i understand" when some nutty comment is made because I am too scared that to challenge them would mean I too am a risk and that my organisation would lose it's reputation or business if I did.

I hate that I do this and I absolutely hate that I don't challenge this head on.

Instead, I wait for a staff meeting or similar and raise my concerns there. But, I generally meet with the response that we have to work within the law and that we also do less harm by agreeing than by dissenting.

this is terrible.

Mrs Rigby simply can't comment. These experiences show just how bad things have got in the past few years. There really is a lot of unpicking to do.
..........

Let's move on to robi, who is still in Guardianista mode

Many people enter into blind fits of rage... most of the time they don't have access to firearms and most of the time their rage subsides and they can go and seek anger management courses.

Yerrs!
..........

So let's move on to the discussions about the police response. There are varied comments, some say Cumbria uses Lancashire's helicopter ... and it got there quickly, they saw it flying over. They are corrected by another person who saw the same helicopter and it was Sky News.

There are questions, as already mentioned, about police preparedness. "Dungal", who lives in the area, explains things :-

I really don't think the police could have done a lot to prevent this incident as they are mainly briefed on terrorism due to Sellafield, which if targeted would make Simon's article look like opportunism.

Which means, of course, that if Mr Bird had driven up to Sellafield they would have known what to do, because he might have been a terrorist.

Small point. Although Mrs R has never met one she's fairly confident that "terrorists" don't always ask first before they start shooting, and they don't always look like terrorists either.

If there was a specially trained team available, why ...

Oh, there's no point in asking the obvious question, is there?

We know the routine - a committee will get together and have an enquiry. Afterwards they'll tell us it's very sad and 'lessons will be learned'. At least that's what they used to say, and then they'd bring in even more rules.

So, let's hope Cameron means what he says. The last words are his, via BBC.

"Of course we should look at this issue but we should not leap to knee-jerk conclusions on what should be done on the regulatory front. We do have some of the toughest legislation in the world," he said.

He added: "You can't legislate to stop a switch flicking in someone's head and this sort of dreadful action taking place."

..........

h/t Al Jahom, without whose blog Mrs R wouldn't have read the article in the Guardian.

....

Fast response?

2010-06-03T16:01:00.035+01:00

... Derrick Bird was able to continue shooting people for a good three hours, entirely unhindered. According to press reports, the tv news seemed to be aware of the route being taken by the killer and warned local villagers to stay inside. The Cumbria Constabulary is small, sure, by comparison to other forces – but it does have 1,500 officers, plus the usual complement of “Blunkett’s Bobbies”. To find and apprehend one man. ...

So says Rod Liddle, and he asks a few more questions too.

Inspector Gadget says

I support the routine arming of all UK mainland police officers at all times.

Mrs Rigby acknowledges that the events in Whitehaven and nearby towns are a terrible tragedy. Any loss of life is sad, to have members of your family killed by somebody on a killing spree must be awful, and it's something Mrs R can't really relate to.

But things like this do happen. Thankfully they're rare events, but there are 'nutters' out there who do terrible things, and they always seem to find a way round the law, because they ignore it. And they don't just ignore the laws relating to the owning and use of firearms.

They ignore the law that says murder is illegal.

The media is, naturally, awash with 'ban all guns', 'ban all violent video games' and so on. The sort of knee-jerk reaction we've come to expect. It's the sort of reaction that led to the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 - following the Hungerford Massacre in 1987.

But that legislation didn't stop the Dunblane killings in 1996.

And the more stringent Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 and melting down of previously legal and never-killed-anybody weapons didn't stop Rhys Jones being killed in 2007, although it has stopped Britain winning Olympic medals.

So Mrs Rigby would like to ask some questions:-

1) Could Mr Bird's actions have been predicted?

2) Would armed police have prevented Mr Bird from going on his killing spree?

3) Would armed police have prevented him from taking any of these lives, including his own?

4) How easily could Mr Bird have acquired his firearms by other than legal means?

5) Have Britain's 'strict' gun laws seen a real, unmanipulated, statistical decrease in the number of shooting/gunshot fatalities?

If the answers to these questions are, "No", "No", "No", "fairly easily", "No", then routine arming of all UK mainland police officers would be a waste of time, more draconian firearms laws would also be a waste of time, and the existing laws - along with the penalties for breaking them - need to be carefully reassessed. They need to be reassessed using all those lovely statistics the last government liked to collect and looked at alongside legislation in other countries, including different states of the USA.

The UK population is apparently around 62,598,810. If correct, it means that 62,598,809 people did not go on a killing spree in Cumbria.

The government has to be very sure the rest of us are not punished for the wrongdoing of one man who is now beyond punishment.

..........

Oh, and maybe this is a slightly flippant comment that shouldn't be allowed. But, we have been led to believe that CCTV and webcams will prevent crime.

Mrs R has no idea how many constantly-running cameras, watched and monitored by carefully-trained operators there are in the towns Mr Bird drove through, but she did find this map of 'webcams'.

If CCTVs and CCTV operators are as good as they say, then Mrs R wonders why reports indicate that the police were alerted by a 999 call made from a mobile phone.

....

Updating Mr Brown's blog.

2010-06-03T13:36:00.000+01:00

Sometimes, just sometimes, it's a good idea to revisit a 'defunct' blog and make sure the feeds are doing what you hope.

Mr Brown has a blog. It's here.

It doesn't contain very much, and the most recent post is dated May 07, 2010.

There are some useful sidebar links, including the Number10 twitter feed.

Here's more.

How, and why, did Mrs R find Mr Brown's old blog?

It's because she's doing a bit of a 'Where's Gordon?' sort of search, because she's wondering where he is. He hasn't been seen since he left Downing Street, wasn't in Parliament for the Queen's Speech and wasn't there for yesterday's PMQs.

But he is being paid to be the MP for the people of Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath.

....

Oh ... quotas!

2010-06-03T12:05:00.003+01:00

Harriet Harman says half of Labour shadow cabinet should be women. She wants this because 81 of the 258 Labour MPs are women which, to the non-mathematicians, means that 177 are men.

She doesn't want this because these 81 lady MPs have already proven themselves to be good at their job and she doesn't want this because of their experience in the world of work. She wants this because

"It's time for Labour women to step out of the shadows,"

and because

"The Labour men are great - but they are not twice as good as the women"

Hah! Mrs R rather likes the put-down, but it's neither Churchillian nor Wildean. It's demeaning, and it's sexist.

In a fair job market each of those MPs should be considered and each should be considered on merit and experience, not because of their lack of 'Edwards'.

Do we, indeed does anybody, want somebody doing a job just because - only because - of their genetic make-up?

Some of these MPs have been elected as a result of all-female shortlists. They might think it was a nice way of getting an important job, and maybe they think it was their 'right', and perhaps don't realise they have only been chosen because they can wear skirts to work without any raising of eyebrows. They were only chosen to fulfil a quota - that's it, nothing more.

And Mrs Rigby thinks that sort of non-equal and divisive quota should be illegal, and it should be as illegal as the not-jobs masquerading as a training programme, where applications are only open to

... candidates from black or ethnic minority backgrounds because the "normal recruitment process was not rectifying" under-representation.

Bristol claims that their two year 'training programme' with a wage of £18,000 is not a job, and claims that

"Race Relations Act 1976 allows for authorities to offer training to specific groups of people if they are under-represented"

It's a convenient loophole that may well have been closed by later legislation. Even if it wasn't, Mrs R believes that both Bristol Council and Harriet Harman are wrong and are abusing 'the system' in order to satisfy arbitrary, made-up, quotas that eventually satisfy nobody.

Here's why.

First of all, those MPs. We know some of them were elected via all-women shortlists - which prohibits fair competition - and now they're to be given even more preferential treatment. If the 81 names were put in a hat then each woman would stand more chance of getting a well-paid job than if the men were put through the same selection process.

Mrs R can see it's wrong and will, ultimately, cause resentment and divisions amongst both Labour MPs and their male supporters who, even though they are the 'faithful', are pretty sick of being pushed to the bottom of the pile because they're male. The only people who can't see it's wrong are those who don't seem to care about the quality and suitability for the job - and have little understanding of the damage caused when people are promoted way beyond their capabilities solely to satisfy an arbitrary quota.

They can't understand how difficult it might be for somebody to turn up to work knowing full well that they've only got a job because of either their gender or their race - no other reason.

And they can't seem to work out why ordinary people don't like this sort of selection. It might be because we have children who are both male and female, and because we want them to have equal chances on their way through life - and not have doors slammed in their faces because of their gender.

As for Bristols?

Well, the article says that

The authority has a total of 9,000 members of staff of which 8,370 are white and 630, or seven per cent, are from ethnic minorities.

Because 12 per cent of Bristol residents come from minority backgrounds the council has begun searching for more employees to redress this imbalance.

Sorry, it shouldn't work like that. In making the same quota-hunting mistake as Harriet by excluding 88% of the local population from applying for ~~jobs~~ well-paid 'training opportunities' the authority is being discriminatory.

And it doesn't make a jot of difference if Kerry McCarthy gives the scheme a verbal pat on the head by saying

"I would support schemes like this. It gives people an opportunity."

It is denying opportunity - and at what price?

It clearly doesn't matter to the quota-ists that 88% of the population of Bristol are excluded, and it clearly doesn't matter to Harriet that about 66% of Labour MPs could be excluded from the selection for ministerial posts.

All that matters is 'the quota'.

....

Labour leadership #3

2010-06-02T13:03:00.002+01:00

Mr Edward Balls

born 25 February 1967
Married to Yvette Cooper
"Labour Co-op" MP for Morley and Outwood.

Studied PPE at Keble, Oxford (where he was a member of both the Labour Club and the Conservative Association) then at Harvard (-1990).
Journalist on Financial Times 1990-1994.
Adviser to Gordon Brown 1994-2004.
First stood for election in 2004.
Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families in June 2007.
Re-elected with a reduced majority as Labour Co-op party MP for Morley and Outwood, beating local Conservative Antony Calvert by 1,101 votes.

Mrs Rigby will leave it to the Guardian to explain why he might not be the best person to 'lead' a party, any party, especially a political that is meant to represent the ordinary working folk of Britain. An article that also, uncannily*, indicates some of the social problems that are Labour's legacy

I have arranged to go to Swindon with Ed Balls on the first excursion in his four-month Labour leadership campaign. There is just one problem. He has gone to Euston instead of Paddington. When he arrives, half an hour late, he apologises, explaining that he's having some difficulty adjusting to life without a ministerial car and half-a-dozen staff explaining where he needs to be.

and

The day proves to be pleasingly accident prone. We are met at the station by Anne Snelgrove, who lost her Swindon South seat to the Conservatives in the election but remains close to Balls and is one of his campaign managers in the leadership race. She has arranged a visit to a local pre-school playgroup, but *the playgroup's roof has been vandalised, causing a flood in their usual play area and confining the children to a small room next door.

and

On the train back – we upgrade to the almost empty first class to avoid annoying other passengers with talk of "post neoclassical endogenous growth theory" ...

and

From Paddington, we take a taxi to the Commons

Mrs Rigby just thinks it's rather odd that they had to go all the way to Swindon for the interview, instead of staying in London. Why the need for the journey - it certainly isn't very 'green'.

And to then visit a playgroup - why? Why involve little children in some stunt? These are pre-school children, they know nothing about politicians, and politicians should know that we're meant to be very careful around small children these days.

And the means of travel? Train/taxi? The reality is that ordinary people would, if they didn't have their own car, probably try to use either National Express or Megabus for longish journey, because rail fares are too expensive! A return journey from London to Swindon costs £109, or £179 First class.

But, Mrs R supposes it was all on expenses and probably all paid for by the newspaper, so stuff like that doesn't matter.

There's no indication that Mr Balls has anything other than a political awareness of the real world that the rest of us inhabit.

Is he really the best person to lead the Labour Party?

..........

See Mrs R's thoughts about Mr David Miliband and Mr Edward Miliband.
..........

P.S.
(added 21:11 02/06/2010)

There's this interesting piece too, dated 28 April 2010. Where Matthew Norman discusses the leadership potential of Mr Balls.
Read it - and you'll probably both smile and weep.

....

Benefitting from the long game.

2010-06-01T21:25:00.009+01:00

The blogosphere has been awash with comments relating to David Laws' 'exposure' in the Telegraph. Some think it was a good thing, some think it was the right thing, some think it was mean and some think it was downright cruel.

Mrs Rigby's problem, when trying to write about this, has been because she roundly despises those who cheat - any of them, anywhere. She thinks those who abuse a system should be punished, and should stay punished, which is why she was a bit annoyed when she learned that Sir Ian Blair was to be ennobled along with the pieman. You see, she thinks the rules only seem to apply to decent people and, for them, they're rigidly enforced - which is why Mr Laws came off so badly.

She'd like to know a bit more about what's happening to those who should be on trial at Southwark Crown Court - but the media has kept very quiet about them and their court case, and have instead been distracting us by tearing into the Lib Dems.

Last week, when Alastair Campbell had a go at David Laws at the end of Question Time (and showed everybody a photo to make sure we all knew who he was talking about) it seemed that 'something' else might happen to the man. After all, nobody is allowed to spurn dear Alastair, he's a very important "Communicator . Writer . Strategist" - at least that's what he calls himself on his blog - and was closely involved in all sorts of governmental things, including getting us into the Iraq War, even though nobody ever voted for him, not even once. Mr Campbell had already written forthright comments about Mr Laws on his blog, and denigrated both the coalition and the Liberal Democrats, so QT seemed perhaps the last strategic assault before the final, killing, attack.

Bouncing into the fray came the Daily Telegraph, with their much delayed story about David Laws' expenses, which also, coincidentally 'outed' him as a homosexual. And that, Mrs Rigby thinks, was a touch cruel but par for the course for some journalists.

It also appears that, had Mr Laws been willing to share the details of his private life, he could quite legitimately have claimed a heck of a lot more money. But that's by the by. We're now being told that rules is rules, no exceptions. Nobody's entitled to keep their private life private these days, especially not if they're quiet, unassuming, and very competent politicians.

The media is hinting that, because the last lot were so bad and managed to walk away with both their pompous dignity and stuffed wallets intact, the new ones mustn't be allowed to do anything at all - nothing. Zero. They mustn't have done something wrong three or four years ago either, and we must give them no quarter, we must not allow them to make any excuses and they must instantly fall on their swords to prove their honour and probity.

There's so much to say about this, it's hard to explain Mrs R's opinion - (that's what blogging is about isn't it ~ sharing your own, or your family's opinion) - but she's going to start off the easiest way and link to others who've already said things, and done it far better - less muddled, more concise and more to the point.

Tory Bear says it was a Bad Day for Country, Coalition and Telegraph

Mark Reckons is "... so angry about David Laws having to resign"

Nábídána compares costs

Prodicus discusses "Vindictive, vicious, destructive and hypocritical press harlotry"

The Slog admits his own mistake and then tells the Telegraph to stop this vindictive cynicism

Fausty seems to find themselves in the same situation as Mrs R - wanting to be furious with Mr Laws, but can't quite manage it because of what others have already got away with, and so condemns both the media and accuses those to the left of the political spectrum of hypocrisy

Man in a Shed writes about political assassination

Tom King writes "That David Laws felt he could not reveal his sexuality is a damning indictment of our society"

Cyberborisjohnson discusses how religion can tear your soul in two - something so very few people seem to realise 'these days', when religion is so passée. (Mrs R's words) They also condemn the Telegraph.

The thing is that Mr Laws was only the first target.

Once they'd 'got rid of him' they started on his replacement, Danny Alexander, by telling how he'd 'exploited' a loophole over a house sale. A 'loophole' that is nothing of the sort. They did it remarkably quickly too, like a well-oiled machine, and when it didn't work too well they moaned about how Danny Alexander's wife has benefitted from MP's family travel allowances - again all, apparently, within the rules as 'family travel'.

Maybe these journalists don't like any of those rules any more and want parliament to change them? If so, why now? Why not when the other lot were milking the system - and got themselves off the hook by, smilingly, waving cheques around. Why were they satisfied that Mr Brown (and any government minister) could hire a private jet - but the Queen couldn't keep the RAF Queen's Flight, which government ministers previously had access to? Why were journalists, at least some of them, pleased to see Generals being told to use 2nd class travel, but not ministers - because the important government ministers might be attacked by terrorists, and so needed a fleet of cars and police outriders too?

It looks as if the media don't like the Liberal Democrats now that they're in government, and they don't like the coalition either, because they're telling us (ably assisted by a Miliband) that by joining forces and making concessions they've each 'betrayed' their supporters - us. We're their supporters. To prove to us wrong-voting mugs how bad these people are they're going pick them off, one by one, by using old news that they've already got lined up, and because there isn't any new news that they want to talk about.

The country?

Do these journalists care about that?

They still write about what 'SamCam' wears, comparing it to dear Sarah Brown in her Michelle Obama lookalike outfits. They bemoan 'SamCam' wanting to upgrade a nineteen-sixties kitchen, because it was good enough for Sarah's 'homely menus'. They want to know why Messrs Cameron and Clegg are wearing plain, unpatterned ties. All terrifically important stuff, far more important than the economy or trying to claw our way out of a deep ~~credit crunch~~ recession. Far more important than acknowledging that the last lot left nothing in the bank except a load of I.O.U.s because, like the greedy pigs they were, they'd turned the country inside out with their snouts in their hunt to find and consume (and/or sell/give to their chums) each and every trace of useful material, which left in their wake little more than a mess of barren soil.

As an ordinary person Mrs R can remember few details of the fall of the last Conservative government, but she does recall Black Wednesday and all the tales of 'sleaze'. Sleaze that was awful then, but mindblowingly trivial when compared to the last thirteen years of lies, obfuscation, behind-closed-door deals, lost manufacturing jobs, cheating, character assassination, nepotism, bullying and corruption that ended in a general election that left Commonwealth observers more than a little bemused, and the electoral commission facing complaints of being useless. (Read this about Birmingham, then pick your chin up off the floor.)

But, the media don't want to talk about all that. They don't want to talk about it at all. It's as if they've drawn a line under it and, instead, want to intensely dissect the new lot - who must be clean, absolutely clean, no skeletons in the cupboard and not a trace of dust under the carpet.

It's all cock-eyed. Or is it? Are they playing a long game, with their own rules?

Mrs R wonders if all these journalists and reporters are, with their faux new-puritanism, planning to (or already have) carefully inspect(ed) the character and personal life history of each individual in the coalition, and if when they find the slightest thing that can be condemned then they'll attempt to whip up a frenzy of indignation so great that we, the public, will not even imagine trusting their policies. After all, how can you trust a man who isn't light-hearted enough to wear a patterned tie to the office?

At the moment it won't work. Once people (other than 'Party' activists) had slept on the news and got over their initial, "OMG! Shock!" many found themselves wondering what all the fuss was about because, you see, we do remember the last thirteen years.

Having a new government - any government as long as it's not Labour - is enough to give us a bit of hope, a breathing space from the continuous onslaught by frowning, ill-tempered, arrogant, harassing, politicians who kept telling us what to do (or else you'll be punished) without offering the means to achieve anything, and all set out as finely defined 'targets' in their good-for-you and good-for-the-country and good-for-the-everybody else's-children three/five/seven-year plans.

Having new politicians who speak to the cameras without glaring, without facial tics, and who speak the same without-political-cliché language as most ordinary folk is refreshing. It's so refreshing that we aren't really listening to what they're saying, and we don't really care too much, because we did the right thing when we voted and didn't give any single party enough power to do exactly as they want. We forced them to compromise and stopped them from being party political idealists and that, for the moment, is enough.

But some sections of the media community don't like it and, in time, perhaps all the petty trivia they publish will begin to overcome our enthusiasm and we'll start seriously listening to the reporters and journalists who are telling us what we think. We might even think it's a good idea to try to use some of those new laws we'll have that will give us, the people of Britain, a bit more power and we might, perhaps, demand a vote of some sort that could actually risk the country's gradual progress towards financial stability and which could push us towards the increasingly dodgy-looking Euro and everything else it stands for - because there are very powerful people who think it's a good idea. They like the big-state idea, and the like the idea of trans-world regulation. Who knows that there might be a vote that we didn't really ask for, and didn't really want, but one that would be as carefully manipulated as the one a few months ago that 'demanded' a change to the voting system - when all most ordinary people wanted was a voice for England.

Maybe we're all pawns in a long game? If so, perhaps we do need to be very careful what we think we wish for. Perhaps we should stop and think, for a little moment, about how important it was, in the whole scheme of things British that never-really-expected-to-be-in-government Mr David Laws, who had only wanted to keep his personal relationship secret from his family, was 'outed' as a homosexual by a very British newspaper in the worst possible way.

This is the same Mr Laws who was "investigated" by the Telegraph, the same deeply investigative newspaper, back in May 2009 and all they could come up with then was

David Laws claimed £950 per month rent for his second home in London. Also claimed council tax, utilities and food and £80 for a vacuum cleaner

Compare that, if you will, to Douglas Alexander who claimed "more than £30,000 doing up his constituency home" and remained in office, or "Gerry Adams and four other Sinn Fein MPs claimed more than £500,000 over five years even though they refuse to attend Parliament" and were re-elected, or Michael Martin, the disgraced Speaker who was swiftly elevated to the peerage.

And whilst thinking about those men, consider how the Telegraph managed to suddenly, almost instantly, take a picture of Mr Laws' home and his long term partner and get it into print - and they managed to do it the day after Mr Laws had failed to appear on QT. And less than 24 hours later Mr Laws had resigned.

The thing is, we ordinary folk can play the long game too, and turn it to our advantage. But first of all we need to work out what we want from the so-called political class.

Do we want those who are best for the job, yet who may have made mistakes and then done their best to rectify them - and rectify them immediately, and with great personal sacrifice - or do we want those with an unblemished past? Because in the real world the two rarely go together.

If we want? ... Actually, no, it isn't 'want' ... at the moment the media seems to tell us that we are 'demanding'.

Politicians, collectively, are meant to be 'just like us' – there should be politicians who are rich, poor, thin, fat, average, smart, nice-but-dim and so on - because collectively, in Parliament, they're meant to be able to relate to our problems and represent our interests, whatever our walk of life. And in the real world people make mistakes and are forgiven.

But, if we voters/citizens/people of Britain demand purity of background from all those in public life, then our own lives ~~should~~ must obviously be the same – always, so our politicians can truly mirror us. It is, otherwise, unreasonable that we demand standards of behaviour that we, or our families/friends/neighbours, do not think should apply to us.

Let's imagine what it would mean … it would mean that from moment we're born our lives should be without awkward episodes we'd prefer to forget, or which we might try to conceal. There should be no drunkenness, no 'had a go with weed but didn't like it', no joining clubs that are fun at the time, no silly pictures on Facebook, no naughty sex at a party, and no divorce.

And we should also be able to predict changes in the law during our lifetimes, and we should tell no lies ever, not even white lies intended to protect our friends and families. And we should do this because otherwise none of us could ever become politicians, not even at the lowest, very local, level.

Can't do it can we? At least Mrs Rigby couldn't (but she's not going to tell you why) and nobody in the whole Rigby 'clan' could either – we've led terribly degenerate lives and have each done at least one thing we wouldn't want to see printed in the newspapers.

So, what we should really want (demand?) is that politicians are treated the same as us.

If they are decent people and make a relatively small mistake they should get the same chance that either our families or the law would offer us – and should get the chance to remedy things, and to show contrition by apologising. And no, not a Mr Brown sort of 'sorry' that was huffed out because he didn't think apologising applied to him because he was too important.

It is not unreasonable to expect the public services to treat politicians as they would us – break the law and face the consequences – equal consequences. That means if a politician is caught using a mobile phone whilst driving, they lose their license and have to travel by bus/coach/train or whatever alternative they can afford. It didn't happen during the last thirteen years, but we can make sure it happens from now on.

If we aren't prepared to do this, if we aren't prepared to be 'reasonable' then none of us should ever imagine being a politician because we've set them apart from ourselves, and we've also set them unreasonable standards.

We are the ones who have to accept contrition and forgive. We are the ones who have to say 'enough is enough'.

And after all that, and for a change, Mrs Rigby is leaving almost the last words to the BBC

[Mr Laws] said his wish to keep his sexuality private was influenced by the fact he had grown up at a time when homosexuality was still regarded as "wrong or shameful" and said "the further time went on the more difficult it seemed to be to tell the truth".

When the rules changed in 2006 preventing MPs from claiming expenses on properties leased from relatives or partners, Mr Laws said he should "probably have changed our arrangements".

"I have paid a high price for trying to keep my sexuality a secret. Losing your privacy, your Cabinet job and your perceived integrity within 48 hours isn't very easy.

and

Mr Laws said he intended to "get back" to his work as MP for Yeovil as soon as possible, a job which he said he "loved".

But he added: "Over the weeks ahead, I will want to understand whether I still have the confidence of my constituents, without which it would be difficult to continue my work."

There, Mrs Rigby thinks, goes a very decent man.

And she thinks we each need to stand, for a moment, in his shoes.

....

Weedy Ed's sour grapes (Labour leadership #2)

2010-06-01T00:16:00.002+01:00

This is aimed at Mr Edward Miliband who, according to the Guardian, thinks the Liberal Democrats have

... been "betrayed" by their party's coalition with the Conservatives

He thinks ...

The coalition ... had not happened "by accident"

No. We know it didn't happen 'by accident', and there are a lot of reasons why.

The existing coalition was forced/precipitated by Mr Brown. He was the one who'd told us all that he had the right to form a government, because he was Prime Minister and because it said so in the constitution - the same constitution Mr Straw had been telling us we didn't have. Mr Brown had eighteen days, an unusual length of time to try to make a deal, but it didn't seem to be working out and he made what appeared to be a sudden, late in the day, decision to tell the Queen he could not form a government.

We've seen the pictures, we've seen who he was with at the time, and we've read the reports telling us what he/your party/Campbell/Mandelson wanted us to know and it seems he made his decision because talks about forming a 'rainbow coalition' with the Liberal Democrats, SNP, Plaid etc weren't working out the way he/you/your negotiators wanted.

By scurrying off to the Palace he left the other parties with no choice. Mr Cameron, as the leader of the political party that won the most seats, HAD TO go to the Queen and say he would try to form a government. He had no choice, those were/are the rules – it's in the constitution, because the country is not allowed to not have a government for more than an hour or so.

Just think, Mr Edward Miliband, your party could have done a deal with the Conservatives and had a massive combined parliamentary majority. All it needed was a bit of wheeling and dealing. A bit of give and take and, who knows, you could have been in control of this country almost for ever. Imagine all those lovely new laws you could have made!

But no, you didn't think of that because people in the Labour Party hate the Tories, you hate people who might be Tories, and also hate making deals where you might have to make concessions. You want the upper hand, all the time – so you would never have approached those who had more votes and try to form a government with them. Frankly, it wouldn't have even crossed the mind of anybody in your party.

So, for the next few years your job is to be active in OPPOSITION. It is your party's job to, if necessary, try to rein in the coalition government if they try to take things too far and it's your job to try to negotiate, to fine tune bits of legislation so you get a little bit of your own way – and then you can tell the media how wonderful you are.

Trouble is, you haven't a clue how that works, have you?

You see, during the thirteen long years your party was in government you could do whatever you wanted, because Labour had a large enough majority to push through almost any legislation it chose - and you did. And you called the other parties names, said what bad things they might have done, but you didn't know for sure because although they were in opposition they didn't have enough parliamentary seats to be able to actively oppose anything and couldn't negotiate deals because you wouldn't let them – because your lot knew what was the best for the country and did exactly what you wanted. It was like letting a bunch of five year olds loose in a sweet shop.

The Tories, in the meantime, got themselves ready for being in government, because they knew that with the two-party system their turn would come. But it didn't work out that way, because we voters are fickle and unpredictable creatures, and we didn't want any party to have absolute power. So they had to make compromises, and so did the Lib Dems whose policies, to be honest, had almost as many holes as a sieve - but they meant well, and didn't imagine they'd ever have to see their ideas through to completion. But that's what's happening - with compromises and with concessions on both sides.

And you don't like it do you? You don't think it's fair. You don't think it's fair because you didn't win, and you're bad losers.

Ask yourself a question. Ask yourself why this happened and see if you draw the same conclusions as we Rigbys.

We think it happened because the election campaign, for Labour at least, started months ago. Public money was used to tour the country and 'electioneer' by telling everybody how wonderful you all were. Trouble was, you didn't bother speaking to ordinary folk, you only spoke to party activists and unionists who patted you on the head and smiled at you, said you were lovely - and they lapped up all the anti-Tory and, to some extent, anti-Liberal guff you were spewing out. There were no proper policy proposals, all we pleb voters heard was name-calling. It carried on too, and affected the ethos of the 'proper' electioneering and influenced those televised 'debates' which weren't debates at all.

And your real electioneering showed us all just how impoverished your party really is, how little money you have in the coffers and why you hate people such as that Tory donor - because you were jealous, because couldn't have his money and thought it should be yours. The moment Labour had to pay its own bills all the fancy jets, all the chauffeurs and limousines and police outriders vanished - to be replaced by minibuses and coaches and, sometimes, the front half of a regular train that you commandeered all to yourselves. And even then you didn't care about all the other people who'd bought tickets to travel. You were all much too important to even notice them.

The election campaigns left us ordinary people with difficult choices. Those who were 'floating voters' had a tough time making up our minds, because we didn't know what we were voting for. The one thing we did know was that we didn't want your lot to stay in government any longer, and the result showed just that – it showed that the country couldn't decide which party to put in government, although it most certainly put Labour out of office. We'd had enough.

We knew that your party's manifesto promises might as well have been written on rice paper - they were worthless, and tasteless too. We knew that your party was happy to break manifesto commitments if it suited you. We knew that members of your party were willing to lie to both enquiries and parliament, and we knew that your party would happily ignore ECHR rulings it didn't like and you did it, as one minister said, “To protect us from ourselves.” (and from all those horrible terrorists)

No amount of spinning and weaving stories will change the election result. Labour came second, and a poor second too. The party did not get enough seats to be able to form a viable coalition with the party that came third - maybe all the boundary changes were a bit of a mistake after all, because sometimes, just sometimes, you need friends.

And now? You're still bleating, and blaming the other guys for not being in your gang, and you're trying to split their party down the middle – because maybe you think it'll help you win. Win what? Mrs R isn't quite sure.

Frankly, their political party is nothing to do with you! How your political opponents organise themselves is none of your business - and it isn't good form to blatantly try to steal people from another party by telling them they're unhappy. Anyhow, it's pointless because ... let's say it again ... Labour is in OPPOSITION.

It's time to stop posturing, time to stop whining, time to stop moaning about the other chaps and time to start looking at your own party, your own policies and your own mistakes.

Once you can truly and honestly admit your party's mistakes, admit that the electorate doesn't really like you, then you can move forward and start to try winning the hearts and minds of those you alienated – the Mrs Duffys of Britain. All the ordinary folk who you brushed aside, along with the factory closures and jobs that were outsourced to India when you were looking, and who you called racist or xenophobic when they complained.

Mr Edward Miliband, you said in your interview that you and your brother never fought as children because

"I think we were too weedy for that. It wasn't really our style,"

Maybe that was when you learned to blame somebody else for your own mistakes, instead of learning to fight either physical or mental battles that you would either win or lose. Maybe that was when you, and those like you, failed to learn to be good losers, when you failed to learn that acknowledging a victor and being humble in defeat can be as powerful a thing as winning, because it shows the true character of the individual.

Mr Miliband, if you truly want to lead the Labour Party, then admitting to being 'weedy' might not have been the smartest thing to do, because the Labour Party needs a person with courage and integrity. It needs it because the party is in tatters, it's lost the plot and it's lost its' way. All you have are 'the faithful' and the Unions. The same Unions who are currently ruining people's long-planned holidays, because they want their travel perks - and it's alienating the electorate. Your media friends will help you all they can, but it's the ordinary people of the country you need to convince - and we will take a lot of convincing.

Our memories seem to be much longer, and more accurate, than yours.

....

Rules and restrictions.

2010-05-31T15:26:00.001+01:00

Nothing new really, except the reasons given, because Rigby Town's Park has 'no ball games' signs almost everywhere, always has had. It's because the place was intended for families and/or grown-ups to take a healthy stroll along tarmacked paths whilst admiring the carefully manicured floral displays rather than doing strenuous physical activity. There's a sports place next to the secondary school where people can run round a track or kick footballs, but can't play golf - which, actually, seems quite sensible. And, of course, Rigby Town's pretty Park isn't labelled "Playing Fields" by the council.

Walsall is a bit different from Rigby Town because Walsall has some 'Playing Fields' (yes, those places you take the kiddies to play) with a lovely 'no ball games' sign. The sign is ...

... for health and safety reasons as part of the park in on a landfill site

It isn't a new sign, and it isn't a brand new regulation either. According to Nigel Ilsley, Walsall Council Parks Manager ...

'A sign saying no ball games was put up a few years ago on Broadway West playing fields after land contamination was discovered at the site.

Crikey! That sounds nasty. There must be lots of fences and great big "Keep out!" and "Contaminated Land!" signs too - to protect people from the dangerous errm, stuff, they found there.

But no, seems not ...

'The playing fields remain popular and a number of events are hosted there but unfortunately we have had to stop ball games taking place on the site for health and safety reasons.

Oh!

Actually Nigel, that is an absolutely lousy excuse and you know it.

Think it through, will you, just for a moment. Do you understand what "contaminated" means?

It means

impure by exposure to or addition of a poisonous or polluting substance

So, what are you (and Walsall Council) going to do about it? Really going to do about it?

'Walsall Council in conjunction with Walsall Star Sports Club is continuing to explore funding opportunities which would allow us to carry out the necessary work to bring the site back into use.'

Still not good enough Nigel. If the land really is 'contaminated' it should be sealed off, otherwise some clever clogs will work out they can claim damages. If it isn't, and you just want some money to upgrade facilities, then be open about it - and ask properly.

And with that Mrs R will move on to another ban.

In case you haven't noticed, John Ward in Medway has flagged up a Facebook petition to Save the Budgieman. It seems that

... the local council (Southwark) has banned the long-established Budgieman (with a history of more than thirty years, for goodness' sake!) from continuing to perform on the South Bank in London.

Mrs R has no idea why Southwark has made this decision, and she thinks it's a bit mean. So, as she isn't on Facebook so can't join the protest group, she hopes this little bit of publicity will help his cause.
(Picture from the Budgieman's website)

....

World War One - pictures of soldiers.

2010-05-30T22:58:00.000+01:00

A treasure trove of First World War photographs was discovered recently in France.

So says the Independent.

If you've got a bit of spare time and feel like taking a wander through history why not take a look at the pictures. You never know, you might recognise somebody.

The story, and link to the first set of pictures, is here.

More about the pictures, and zip files for all 400 images here (John Lichfield)

Discussion is here (Independent Minds - Jack Riley).

....

A new supermarket, FJF and the taxpayer.

2010-05-29T19:16:00.002+01:00

Lauded by those who created it, this scheme was met with scepticism by some, including Faiza Shaheen in the Guardian who said

Without a clear focus, the £1bn fund will remove young people from the claimant count for 6 months only to see them return, more demoralised than ever.

The decision to close the scheme to new bids has been met with some opposition, including Richard Exell over at Liberal Conspiracy, who wrote

The Future Jobs Fund has shown what a Job Guarantee for all unemployed people could be like – it pays the minimum wage (and in some cases a bit more) for work that has to be of benefit to the community to get funding. FJF jobs are real jobs: they may only be temporary, but workers have the same employment rights – and duties – as any other workers.

So, let's look back at what FJF was supposed to do

The Future Jobs Fund is a fund of around £1 billion to support the creation of jobs for long term unemployed young people and others who face significant disadvantage in the labour market.

These will be aimed primarily at 18-24 year olds who have been out of work for a year.

If your organisation creates a new job, we will cover the cost of that post, at national minimum wage levels, for 25 hours a week over six months.

It does sound good, doesn't it. But ... there's always a 'but' somewhere or other and the Telegraph found it in July 2009

The list of new vacancies - most of which will be filled by 18-24 year olds - will include sports coaches, classroom assistants and social carers, department sources said last night.

However, in a move that attracted claims that public money is being wasted on "soft jobs", others include positions for forestry workers, loft laggers and child carers.

Jobs based around refurbishing council houses and in local recycling projects are also to be created.

"Soft jobs like these would be indulgent even in good economic times let alone in the current climate."

and

young adults who have been unemployed for a year will be forced to take one of the new jobs - or a place on another government training scheme - or have their benefits cut.

It sounds to Mrs R as if it was a bit like an extension of the work experience schools ensure their students do, but for a bit longer and with the benefit of a wage of some sort. Not a bad idea, on the whole, as long as those being pushed into work have some say over what they do. It wouldn't be very fair, for example, if they were made to do a job just because the job was there and it was something they had no interest in. And it wouldn't be right if they felt they were being used by an employer.

The scheme, on the surface at least, seemed to be offering a genuine opportunity to experience going to work, and all it entails, for a period of at least six months - and for it to be something useful to the individual as well as the local community. But, no point discussing it really, because it's in the past isn't it?

And that's why you're probably wondering what this post is about. You're probably wondering why Mrs Rigby has bothered to write about a scheme that's being dismantled. We know the coalition government has decided that no further bids will be accepted, although existing commitments will be honoured?

Well, it's because Mrs R read this in today's Telegraph. It's about a brand new, soon to be opened, 'co-operative supermarket' in London, which is to be the subject of a television documentary.

The article explains how this new supermarket is to be staffed entirely by volunteers who, in return for paying £25 to join the club and working hard, will be allowed to claim a 10% discount on anything they buy and benefit from member's only 'artificially low prices', such as "£1.85 to ordinary shoppers: £1 to members, loaf of bread".

Anyhow, the owner of the new shop needed 500 people to join, pay their £25 subscriptions, and commit to working one four-hour shift each month. So far there are only 110 names on his list, which isn't enough.

He isn't, however, in the least worried about trying to run a commercial business that relies on non-existent volunteers or volunteers who might forget to turn up, because

He is allowing for a 30 per cent no-show from volunteers, and intends to plug the gap with 18-24 year olds on the Future Jobs Fund.

Errrm ...?

And that, you see, is what left Mrs Rigby scratching her head, because it seems to her that this is either against the principle of the FJF concept or it's against the principle of the volunteer-run co-operative supermarket.

You see, Mrs R can't get her head round the business plan. She can understand how the idea of the supermarket is praised because, except for management, it's to be staffed by volunteers and run as a volunteers' co-operative. Members of the co-operative will choose what goes onto the shelves, although if their choices are too whacky (or uncommercial) they can be overruled by management. Then, if there aren't enough volunteers the owner of the co-operative plans (planned?) to plug the gaps by 'employing' young people who were to be paid by the taxpayer, via FJF. Either that or he's expecting these young people to do the same as all the rest, and be volunteers.

The owner goes on to explain why he hasn't managed to recruit enough volunteers.

"People keep on saying 'I can't spare the time' and 'What's in it for me?'," he says. "The minute they ask 'What's in it for me,' you know there is no point explaining the point."

So, Mrs R wondered what might be "in it" for anybody, anybody at all - including herself and the rest of the Rigby family. Selfish, isn't she?

According to the figures quoted in the article (and, initially, blithely ignoring that pesky 30% quoted - because there aren't enough volunteers) let's look at the figures. The business owner needs 500 volunteers, each working 4 hours a month. This makes 24,000 hours worth of volunteer staff over a year (12(500x4)=24,000) - which ends up at about 16.5 hours a day over 363 days - but up to the time the article was written has only 4,800 hours worth of volunteers ( (100 volunteers x 4 hours)x12 ). The shortfall is around 19,200 hours, significantly more than the 30% quoted, which could to be staffed, and funded, by the taxpayer via FJF.

Minimum wage for 18-21 yrs = £4.83 per hour.
It would cost £92,736 to employ FJF-funded staff aged 18-21 for 19,200 hours

Minimum wage for workers aged 22 years and older = £5.80 per hour
It would cost £111,360 to employ staff age 22 years or older for 19,200 hours.

But that's being silly and alarmist, so let's go back to the 30% shortfall that was mentioned earlier. 30% of the total 24,000 hours is 7,200 hours. Wages for FJF at an average of £5.31 = £38,268 - which is a whole lot less scary.

It could be how much the taxpayer would be paying to staff the nice new co-operative supermarket with 18-24 year olds, and it could be money the owner of the business never planned to spend on staff wages, because they planned for all their staff to be volunteers who would each pay £25 each to join the club and then work four hours a month and get cheaper food. The paid employees would be state funded via FJF.

So Mrs R wonders if this 'co-operative' was actually going to be 'state run', or not? You see, to her unbusinesslike eye (and she knows she's repeating herself) it would seem that, apart from management, the plan was that any 'temporary permanent' staff (i.e. not volunteers who only work 4 hours a month) were to be sourced from the pool of unemployed young people targetted by FJF, and whose minimum wage wages are paid by the taxpayer. And, you know, somehow that doesn't seem altogether right, so Mrs R is sure she's got the wrong idea - unless, of course, as a taxpayer she could turn up, fill a basket with food and demand a discount.

The idea of FJF was that long term unemployed young people and others who face significant disadvantage in the labour market would be employed, possibly even compulsorily employed for at least six months. There isn't anything, at least not at first glance, that says these 18-24 year-olds could be forced to be unpaid volunteers instead of earning money, and there isn't a suggestion that they should be used to provide temporary but full time, semi-permanent, staff for a permanent business, which would then be funded by the public purse.

Or was that bit hidden somewhere amongst the pages and pages of small print rules and regulations?

And maybe that is one of the reasons why FJF had to go.

....

A change of climate at the Royal Society.

2010-05-29T13:48:00.000+01:00

Bishop Hill points out in several recent posts that the Royal Society is to fully rewrite its statement about climate change.

This seems to have happened because 43 Fellows of the Royal Society

... complained that it had oversimplified its messages.

They said the communications did not properly distinguish between what was widely agreed on climate science and what is not fully understood.

and

One Fellow who said he was not absolutely convinced of the dangers of CO2 told me: "This [RS pamphlet 'Climate Change Controversies'] appears to suggest that anyone who questions climate science is malicious. But in science everything is there to be questioned - that should be the very essence of the Royal Society. Some of us were very upset about that.

"I can understand why this has happened - there is so much politically and economically riding on climate science that the society would find it very hard to say 'well, we are still fairly sure that greenhouse gases are changing the climate' but the politicians simply wouldn't accept that level of honest doubt."

The result is a carefully worded statement from the Royal Society "New guide to science of climate change", with this as the closing paragraph:

There is a wide variety of views across the Fellowship on any active area of science, not just climate science, and this diversity is an essential component of the testing that scientific knowledge must always undergo. Any public perception that science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect – there is always room for new observations, theories, measurements, etc. However, the existence of some uncertainty does not mean that scientific results have no significance or consequences, or should not be acted upon. The enormous beneficial impact of science over the last 350 years is testament to the success of this balancing of uncertainty with action in the application of science.

The Times suggests that Rebel scientists force Royal Society to accept climate change scepticism and the Telegraph says Royal Society to publish guide on climate change to counter claims of 'exaggeration'.

In the light of the Royal Society's decision to acknowledge that different scientists (of equal calibre) can and do interpret results differently, and are capable of having informed differences of opinion and debate, can anybody truly say, "The science is settled", and call those of a different opinion 'deniers' and 'flat-earthers'?

It will be interesting to see what happens next, and how world governments will react.

....

Gordon's Gift to the House of Lords

2010-05-29T12:03:00.004+01:00

The previous Prime Minister (the Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP) undertook a process to recommend to the Queen new party-political life peerages. This consisted of working peers from each party and, as is customary at the end of a Parliament, a dissolution list for former MPs.

source number10.gov.uk'

Mrs Rigby has chosen to show pictures of three of our soon-to-be Peers, chosen for three very different reasons.

Mr John Leslie Prescott. (picture Telegraph) Reported to have said that he would reject the offer of a peerage, but his wife Pauline changed his mind.

Mrs Rigby found this picture of soon-to-be-a-Peer Ian Paisley in the Guardian. Depending on your point of view he either rightly stood his ground or blocked progress, but in the end negotiated with long term enemy, Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness. His son, also Ian, is now MP for North Antrim.

Sir Ian Blair. Ex-Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. The BBC says His attempt to cling to office was ultimately futile; confidence drained away, friends beyond government were hard to find. Picture BBC

The Labour Party claimed it would modernise the House of Lords.

Each of the people named in Mr Brown's list of new Peers will have their say in how Britain is governed, and will be paid a daily allowance to attend the House of Lords. They will have this right for the rest of their lives.

For ease, here is a quick view of the full list of new peerages. (Mail)

Oh, and Michael Howard, who is listed as "former Home Secretary, and held other senior posts in government and opposition" was also leader of the Conservative Party between 2003 and 2005 and was, therefore, Leader of the Opposition. Maybe that's what whoever drew up the list means by 'other senior posts'.

....

Labour leadership #1

2010-05-28T23:13:00.001+01:00

Mr David Miliband

Born 15th July 1965, brother to Edward Miliband.
Studied PPE at Corpus Christi, Oxford, with further studies in Political Science at MIT.
Worked at the ~~Institute of Policy Studies~~ Institute for Public Policy Research*.
Became Mr Blair's Head of Policy in 1994.
First elected to Parliament in 2001.
Promoted to Schools Minister in 2002, swiftly followed by posts as Cabinet Office Minister, then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
In 2007 he was appointed Foreign Secretary and took his charms overseas.

He managed to annoy :-

Russia - in September 2008, when he was

subjected to 'F-word' tirade from Russian foreign minister Mr Lavrov [who] objected to being lectured by the British.

It would seem that Mr Lavrov also

asked Mr Miliband in equally blunt terms whether he knew anything of Russia's history

and

It is not the first time Mr Miliband and his Russian counterpart have clashed. Last year, Mr Lavrov retaliated to the expulsion of Russian diplomats from London by closing British Council offices in Russia.

You'd think, maybe, Mr Miliband would have been a bit more careful after that, but no.

India, January 2009

the Foreign Secretary's visit to India last week was labelled a "disaster" by the country's leading politicians.

He was accused of being "aggressive in tone and manner" in a meeting with the Indian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, and dismissed as a "young man" by senior officials.

So Mandelson tried the rescue the situation. But ...

It left the impression of the Cabinet veteran being forced to clean up after the mess left by his "novice" younger colleague in India, a country which places huge emphasis on respect for elders.

The shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague, said yesterday: "It is becoming clear that David Miliband's India tour was a serious diplomatic disaster. To have to be rescued by Lord Mandelson adds political humiliation on top of that."

Not satisfied with having irritated both Russia and India, Mr Miliband managed to get Sri Lankans to burn his effigy. This was in May 2009.

We learn (from NotaSheep) that Mr David Miliband has sufficient sponsors for his bid to become leader of the Labour Party to go ahead. It would seem that 54 of his fellow MPs believe he is the best person to lead the Labour Party and, if they were to win a general election, would be pleased to see him become Prime Minister.

It's quite a chilling thought really, but surely by then he would be older, and wiser and may have gained a little more life experience and humility.
..........

*
See comments

....

R.S.V.P.

2010-05-28T10:46:00.011+01:00

It'll never happen, but Mrs Rigby imagined how she would feel if she was invited to take part in a televised discussion and, for whatever reason, declined. Because that's always the option, isn't it - there's "Yes" and "No" in response to an invitation.

If she said, "No," would her potential host mind? Would they worry about losing such a useful contribution to their debate? Would they try to persuade her, sweet talk her and offer gifts? Would they bemoan their loss, and prop her photo on an empty seat?

Would they say, "Okay then, we'll get somebody else," and get on with making their programme? Or would they do what the BBC did yesterday, when ex-journalist and never-been-an-MP Alastair Campbell appeared on Question Time to 'represent' the Labour Party, and the Coalition government decided not to field a high powered government minister to balance his opinions?

The programme went ahead, as planned. The BBC wouldn't, obviously, cancel a long-running show solely because they couldn't persuade somebody very important to turn up and sit on one of their seats. The other panellists, by the way, were ex-politician Susan Kramer (defeated ex-MP), Piers Morgan (TV presenter, journalist), Sir Max Hastings (journalist) and John Redwood (MP for Wokingham)

The BBC has allowed this one programme, and one 'rejection' to take on a life of its' own, and to become more important than it really is. The BBC has made a fuss, and has allowed Mr Campbell to make a fuss too.

In short the BBC has allowed itself to become the news, instead of merely reporting the news.

It seems that the BBC, and Mr Campbell, were unhappy to have such an experienced serving politician as John Redwood on their panel because they had wanted somebody much more important - and they have been petulant, and Mr Campbell has been petulant too, even though it wasn't his show, they weren't his invitations.

Alistair Campbell - who has his own blog, just the same sort of self-opinionated thing as Mrs R and loads of other non-MPs, knows he's very important because his partner is Fiona Miller, who was Cherie Blair's advisor, and because he was as the BBC says "the most famous press secretary the UK has ever seen" - ended the show by holding up a picture of the politician he had wanted to confront. So was it his show, or was it the BBC's show?

So, after all this, would Mrs Rigby ever hope to be invited to appear on that, or indeed any other show produced by that particular broadcaster?

No, she wouldn't. Not ever, because she's wonder why she had been invited. She'd wonder what the agenda was.

You see, the BBC is meant to be the British Broadcasting Corporation and it isn't meant to be self-serving. It is funded by compulsory license fees and also receives state funding, from taxation. The BBC is meant to be politically neutral, and it is meant to be balanced in its output, and its' political shows are meant to help keep the public abreast of developments and controversies.

The BBC justifies its actions in a news article, which says

David Dimbleby said he would have "expected" to have had a government minister on the panel in the week that it unveiled its legislative agenda for the year ahead in the Queen's Speech.

Precisely!

And, you know, so would Mrs Rigby. And Mrs Rigby would also have "expected" to see other politicians on the panel alongside that government minister.

But the BBC, in it's wisdom, and to balance the words of that now vilified cabinet minister, put together a panel that did not include an opposition MP, not even a junior one, did not include a Scottish or Welsh MP. Did they ask Mr Salmond to be on their show? They don't say - and that silence says quite a lot.

The BBC put together a panel of journalists and ex-journalists, and they did it because they could.

[David Dimbleby] said it was up to "us on Question Time to decide who should be on the programme ..."

Quite!

And the BBC did decide, and sent out invitations, and at least one of their invitations was refused.

What were their contingency plans? Did they want the programme to be a serious political discussion, or did they merely want a government minister to be dissected by journalists?

A good host is a gracious host and learns to accept rejection.

When somebody is cornered, when they know they have made the wrong decision there are two things they can do. One is to concede gracefully and admit there was a mistake, the other is to turn on the offensive and make it appear to be somebody else's fault.

Mrs Rigby thinks the BBC was wrong, very wrong, to put together such a panel in such an important week. The BBC's choice of panellists belittled the importance of the new government, belittled the importance of their policies and opinions - because the BBC only thought it was worth getting journalists and ex-MPs to discuss matters of crucial interest to Britain and Britain's future.

The BBC should be asking itself why it hadn't invited either of the Milibands, either of the Balls/Cooper family. The BBC should question why Harriet Harman wasn't on the panel, or Mr Straw, or Mr Prescott, or Mr Blunkett - or even the Mr Brown, ex-Prime Minister.

The BBC should also consider whether they truly believe a journalist, any journalist, is of equal value and importance as any democratically elected politician.

It it time, Mrs Rigby thinks, for the BBC to take a long hard look at itself and for some of its highly paid journalists to investigate their own egos.

....

Thirsk and Malton

2010-05-28T09:58:00.002+01:00

Voters at Thirsk and Malton (in Yorkshire) elected Conservative Anne McIntosh to take the final seat in the new parliament.

Votes cast were as follows:

* Conservative - 20,167 (52.87%)
* Liberal Democrat - 8,886 (23.30%)
* Labour - 5,169 (13.55%)
* UKIP - 2,502 (6.56%)
* Liberal - 1,418 (3.72%)

Turnout was 50.3%, with 38,142 votes cast.

According to the BBC the 'notional results' of the 2005 election would have been

Conservative - 51.9%
Labour - 23.4%
Liberal Democrat - 18.8%
Others - 5.9%

Based on those figures, and according to BBC, Labour should have pulled in 11,585 votes, so didn't do at all well. The Conservatives increased their percentage vote, the Lib Dems must be delighted with the result and the 'other parties' polled more than anticipated - so it looks as if previously Labour voters have switched their allegiance and been brave enough to support what were minotiry parties.

Whichever member of which Labour family ends up leading the party, they need to take a careful look at this result, and work out what went so badly wrong. Perhaps they will also need to understand that a 'coalition' may have, at long last, freed the country from the rotating two party system.

....

Linking Dunkirk and Afghanistan

2010-05-27T20:55:00.007+01:00

Mrs Rigby read this comment in the Mail.

Your photograph shows MTB 102. My great friend Commander Christopher Dreyer RN commanded her at Dunkirk as a Lieutenant aged 21. Talking about Dunkirk, he would not mention the dangers, but simply the practical difficulties of steering a course through the minefields.

A few years ago I would have said that they don't make them like that any more, but Iraq and Afghanistan have proved me wrong - and Lt Col Rupert Thorneloe, killed in Afghanistan last year, was Christopher Dreyer's grandson.

No comment needed, except to offer a link to Commander Christopher Dreyer's obituary and that of and Lieutenant-Colonel Rupert Thorneloe, both in the Telegraph.

..........

Here's the Dreyer / Thorneloe genealogy

Read about MTB 102 here and here

....

Dunkirk 70 years on

2010-05-27T17:34:00.034+01:00

Operation Dynamo, the evacuation of Dunkirk, which began on May 27th 1940 has been marked by a flotilla of little ships that left Ramsgate this morning to make the crossing, taking with them some who will take part in ceremonies and services in France.

Pictures from the Mail.

And a timely reminder, also from the Mail, that the 338,000 troops might not have been able to get back to Britain had not some stayed behind to deter the advancing German Army.

Read about them here

The aftermath of the Le Paradis massacre, which saw 97 British prisoners killed after surrendering to SS troops on May 27, 1940.

Which is why, even today, the survivors shed a tear - for their friends who didn't make if off the beaches, and those whose lives were sacrificed so others could get home.

Nobody, anywhere, has the right to tell men like these to 'forget' and 'move on'.

They are the ones who had the courage to go back, on or close to D-Day, and face what had previously beaten them.

And they did. And they won.

The men pictured are in their early nineties now. They were not always old, they would have been a little more than twenty at the time of their escape from the beaches of Dunkirk.

..........

Not many people seem to mention the other two major evacuations of 1940.

Operation Cycle, which saw 11,000 British and Allied forces evacuated from 10th June onwards, and Operation Ariel which between 14th and 25th June managed to get 215,000 Allied soldiers out of France through Cherbourg and St Malo.

Evacuations ended with the signing of the French armistice on 25th June.

More about Operation Dynamo here

....

Nowhere for the grown-ups.

2010-05-26T13:56:00.000+01:00

First of all Labour freed up the licensing trade, and said pubs etc. could be open for 24 hours a day if they wanted.

That was nice, everybody said, no need to apply for late licenses and so on, it'll make it easier for clubs and pubs and late-night venues. People will be able to go for a drink, and won't try to rush drinking several pints as quickly as possible before the closing time bell rings. It'll make people more responsible, more careful.

So, people took advantage of being able to drink for 24 hours a day, they could choose when to go and have a drink because there was no need for the pub to close at 11:00 pm if the landlord didn't want to.

Somewhere along the line came the dire warnings - drink is evil, drinking too much will kill you. They even managed to reduce the amount for what was 'too much' - which kept the statistics at the right level.

Of course the smoking ban arrived too, even though they'd promised it wouldn't happen. People could still go to a pub/bar/club any time they wanted to but couldn't smoke indoors, they had to go outside. Not many people really want to stand outside in the rain, not even the most hardened smoker and certainly not those who have never before smoked a cigarette outside, on the street.

So, after having a meal at home, going out for a quick drink and a natter with other 'locals' stopped being a nice thing to do - and local pubs started paying the penalty, and closed. Places that had been local 'watering holes' for hundreds of years - closed, possibly for ever.

But the 24 hour licensing remained - an illusion of freedom.

Remember Mr Brown's article, written when he was a mere 11 years of age?

It does make Mrs Rigby wonder if the initial illusion of freedom was nothing more than a sleight of hand concealing the long term plan to destroy the traditional pub trade, and only because a certain abstemious Presbyterian preferred to see all drinking stopped, all easy socialising stopped and along with it a 'British' tradition - because the pub is/was quintessentially British.

Have you noticed that, apart from the trendy establishments catering solely for the youth market, many of the remaining pubs tend to be 'family friendly', with kiddie menus offering burgers and bangers and, of course, a 'vegetarian option' along with healthy fruit drinks?

The pub now seems to be the place to take a family for a meal, it is no longer a retreat for adults - who now have nowhere to go for a couple of hours in the evening, after all the cafés and coffee shops have closed.

Have you tried visiting your still open 'local' recently - for a quiet drink with some friends? What's the betting that if you do you'll find a large room set out as a restaurant, not a comfy chair in sight, and nowhere for the casual drinker to sit and chat, and outside meal times it will be empty.

Quite a social revolution isn't it, and it only took a few years.

....

Debt

2010-05-26T12:02:00.000+01:00

In pictures, from BBC

And, according to the Telegraph

The global credit system is flashing the most serious warning signals in almost a year on triple fears of a Spanish banking crisis, escalating political risk in Asia, and a second leg to the US housing slump.

So maybe UK journalists have stopped being distracted by the new government, and the period of apparent calm between the election and yesterday's Queen's Speech. At least they're now catching up with the blogosphere and are writing about the financial situation that will affect us all.

But it might not, eventually, be all gloom and doom, as Simon Heffer says

... we may indeed be about to see an economic debacle of unprecedented proportions in the recent history of the developed world. We shall just have to steel ourselves for it. It may, though, have the legacy of ending the neo-sovietisation of our continent, and allowing a resurgence of democracy in Europe and among European peoples; which would prove, at last, that every cloud does indeed have a silver lining.

....

Schools and 'Academies'

2010-05-26T11:18:00.003+01:00

Mrs Rigby is finding it hard to understand why there is opposition to the proposals to allow schools to become 'Academies' - when the last government thought they were a wonderful idea.

According to the BBC former schools secretary Ed Balls

warned it would produce a two-tier system

Odd that he didn't notice this 'two tier system' when he was schools secretary.

And the Unions?

The NASUWT teachers' union claims the policy will "disenfranchise democratically-elected local councils".

Haven't either of these people noticed that the private sector, which is largely free of local council 'enfranchisement' are quite successful and get good results?

Not, of course, that any possible turnaround would happen overnight, because there's still a little problem of people like these, who are, Mrs Rigby thinks, the ones who need less power and more control and need to be able to follow rules so they become decent adults.

Maybe what's already happened at one school in Grimsby should be used as an example of what can happen, and quite quickly too. And it happened, by the way, under Labour - so Mr Balls should do his homework.

At Havelock Academy attendance has improved from 89.8 per cent to 94.8 per cent in the two years that it has been open and GCSE results of A* to C, including English and maths, have increased from 23 per cent to 41 per cent.

....

Children's money

2010-05-26T10:51:00.000+01:00

The media tried hard to whip up a storm of indignation about the demise of "Child Trust Funds", former Home Secretary David Blunkett even said that scrapping the funds was 'an act of betrayal' - although he didn't say who was being betrayed.

The storm didn't really happen. Let's see why.

The payments started in 2002 and a nice website in nine languages made sure everybody knew their entitlement. All ...

Eligible children born on or after 6 April 2005 will receive their £250 voucher shortly after Child Benefit has been claimed and starts being paid.

As well as the Child Trust Fund (CTF) voucher, children in families with lower incomes will get an additional payment from the Government.

Those on lower incomes (and receiving benefits) were eligible for an additional £250.

Then, at age 7

Your child will get a £250 Age 7 payment. And if you were receiving the maximum amount of child tax credits, (or its equivalent, if you claimed Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance) when your child had their 7th birthday, your child will get an additional £250.

So, if the parents were receiving state benefits their child would get £500 at age 7, but those whose parents were paying income tax would only get £250 - seemed a bit unbalanced really.

The theory behind it was, of course, a noble one - give a child a nest egg and parents will be encouraged to add to it, but back in 2005 Barry Collins described opening an account with the voucher as a paperwork nightmare.

We Rigbys always thought it was a bit mean that babies were being given money for being born whilst at the same time older 'children' were being forced to pay whopping amounts of money to go to university and pensioners were having their pensions payments taxed.

So, they've gone. And good riddance? It would seem so, according to Tony Hazell

I never saw why I should effectively be asked to write a cheque for £250 to someone else's child.

On a professional level, CTFs are a jaw- dropping waste of public money, poorly targeted and not even popular among those they are aimed at.

How else can you explain that almost a quarter of people - 23 pc - couldn't be bothered to cash their voucher and had the money invested by the Government on their child's behalf?

Then there is the prospect of a generation of 18-year-olds being handed a cheque to do with as they will - a great deal for used car dealers and publicans, but a crying shame for the rest of us.

Sections of the investment industry were doing well out of them, charging 1.5 pc a year for basic tracker funds.

CTFs were saddling future generations with £320 million-ayear of debt - plus interest on the cost of borrowing the money.

In effect, Labour was handing out gifts of borrowed money to children then leaving them to foot the bill.

So, good riddance then, to another bad scheme.

....

Gold

2010-05-25T22:41:00.000+01:00

If Brown had not sold much of Britain's gold, British taxpayers would be nearly £6 billion better off. Not to mention having an important monetary asset that might help protect the British pound as its sovereign debt faces a possible credit rating downgrade and fiscal deficits and red ink as far as the eye can see.

Having that £6 billion worth of gold reserves would mean that the pain that we all feel as taxpayers in footing the bill for the follies of the government and the banking system would be significantly less. And it would protect sterling from falling in value in international markets leading to inflation.

Quoting Nick Leeson in an interview with Mark O’Byrne at The Market Oracle

Read the rest, it's interesting.

h/t Demetrius in a comment at Anna Raccoon

....