World rule and a theme song?

Is this what Mr Brown meant when he talked about 'world government'?

BA strike could go global as Unite enlists support of U.S. union Teamsters

Unite leaders will today meet with one of the most powerful trade unions in the U.S. as they dramatically escalate the British Airways strike.

Unite is to hold talks with Teamsters, just one of the overseas unions to offer its support for their controversial walkout due to start in days.

The 'International Brotherhood of Teamsters' has more than 1.4million blue-collar members in the U.S. and gained notoriety when its leader Jimmy Hoffa went missing in 1975 after a meeting with a mob boss.

Unite has also enlisted unions in Germany, Spain and Italy to an international campaign of militancy that could cause chaos at airports around the world.

Union sources say action from overseas unions could make it impossible to clean, service and refuel BA planes.

This would undermine attempts by BA to keep aircraft in the skies and lead to more misery for the public, who already face massive disruption to flights over Easter.

and from here

Last night the American union said in a statement: “We stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters at Unite who are fighting for a fair contract at British Airways.”

Its involvement followed conversations between Tony Woodley, Unite’s joint general secretary, and James Hoffa **, the leader of the Teamsters.

And is this to be Unite's election theme tune?



**
James Hoffa - son of Jimmy Hoffa, who vanished in 1975 and was declared 'legally dead' in 1982.

....

Correction - TUC, Unions & Certification Officer

An earlier post about the unions and their money was a long time in the making, it began as a rant. You know the sort of thing - get it off your chest and never send it. Mrs Rigby wrote according to her own, her friends and family's experiences and also referring to what is most easily available online.

She didn't make anything up, but today she discovered/learned something else - because an un-named somebody has contacted her off-site - hence the 'correction', although it's more of an extension to the earlier post than a simple correction. She's sure you'll see why.

Backtracking to this post and what it says about the "Certification Officer". You see Mrs Rigby had never heard of a Certification Officer before, so she had presumed (it really is dangerous to presume) each union had one, and she didn't even try following the link on the DirectGov site - because links on there tend to either go round in circles or just wander a bit lower down the page.

Today, though, she's discovered that the "Certification Officer" isn't anything to do with any individual union, it's a person in an office in London

The Certification Officer is responsible for :

* maintaining a list of trade unions and employers' associations
* receiving, ensuring compliance with statutory requirements
and keeping available for public inspection
annual returns from trade unions and employers' associations
* determining complaints concerning trade union elections, certain other ballots and certain breaches of trade union rules
* ensuring observance of statutory requirements governing mergers between trade unions and between employers' associations
* overseeing the political funds and the finances of trade unions and employers associations
* certifying the independence of trade unions

More detailed information on the role of the Certification Officer,
and the relevant legislation can be found in the annual report.

Despite digging around on the site for ages Mrs R couldn't find a form that, according to DirectGov, should be there. This one

If you wish to contract out, [of the Political Levy] you must do so in writing. If you ask your trade union’s local office or head office for a form to contract out of political fund payments, they must supply it. You can also ask the Certification Officer for a form.

So she has no idea whether they do provide them or not.

In that post Mrs R mentions the TUC and also unions that have political funds. She's been told she is suggesting that all unions have political funds, and all unions therefore support the Labour Party.

It is not true - not all unions support the Labour Party.

It follows that not all unions are in TUC. As, digging deeper into the site, the TUC itself says

Whilst TUC unions represent the vast majority of trade unionists in Britain there are a number of unions which are not affiliated. Most of these are small organisations representing specialist staff and in many cases employees of a particular organisation, there are however some substantial organisations which are outside the TUC. These include the Police Federation which is barred by law from affiliating to the TUC.

So, back to the "Certification Officer".

Within the Annual Report there is indeed a pdf list of unions, and it's helpfully annotated too.

Notes:
Italics denotes a trade union first entered in the list during 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009.
* Denotes a trade union holding a certificate of independence at 31 March 2009.
(P) Denotes a trade union with a political fund resolution in force at 31 March 2009.

There are 166 unions in the main list (at least that's the total reached by we Rigbys his evening, the list covers several pages).There is a further appendix containing 18 names.

"... of those trade unions known to the Certification Officer which are within the statutory definition of a trade union but which have not applied to be entered on the list at 31 March 2009"

So that makes a total of 184 Unions. If the TUC has a membership of 69 unions, it means they represent fewer than half the unions that exist in England, Scotland and Wales - although the TUC does say it speaks for the vast majority of trade unionists in Britain. Mrs R has absolutely no idea whether this is true or not, it must be though, or they wouldn't say it.

Yesterday Mrs Rigby asked

Where is the similarly overt advice relating to 'buying' union membership? - Is there a real choice, or do people get advised which union to join by the local secretary, without realising they all, ultimately, support the Labour Party through the TUC.

So the last bit of that isn't true - repeat - not all unions support the Labour Party.

But let's look at finding a union to join. There is 'advice' on the DirectGov pages - here. It says

How to find a trade union
There are several different ways you can find trade unions.

In your workplace
You may be able to find out which trade union is recognised in your workplace by looking for trade union notices on staff notice boards or your workplace intranet, or by asking your employer.

Some groups which may represent employees in your workplace, such as the Police Federation, will not appear on the Certification Officer or TUC lists because they are not legally considered to be trade unions.

Through the Trades Union Congress (TUC)
The TUC is the largest umbrella organisation representing UK trade unions. It has a list of the trade unions that are its members.
Britain's unions - the TUC website Opens new window

You can also use the TUC's workSMART website, which has an interactive tool to help you find a trade union in your workplace, or one which covers your type of employment.
Find a union on the TUC's workSMART website Opens new window

Through the Certification Officer
The Certification Officer is a public body that holds a list with the details of most trade unions. If you know the name of the trade union you would like to join, you can find its details through the Certification Officer's website.
List of trade unions - the Certification Officer website

Let's be realistic shall we, and imagine somebody starting work for the first time - youngish person.

Somebody strolls up and introduces themselves, and casually wonders if new employee is in a union. If not then this kindly new co-worker will say why it's a good idea, and they know a good one, and happens to have  some forms handy - right there, on the first day.

What do you think most people will do? Will they take the forms and say, "Thanks." or will they risk upsetting a new colleague and tell them they'll find their own union, and do it later when they're at home?

If they get home, look up DirectGov and follow the link to the TUC site they will find an almost closed list - of unions affiliated to the TUC. The same happens on the "WorkSmart" site, that has  TUC. written in tiny letters, the "UnionFinder" gives you a very short list of choices. Try it and see how it works, it's most peculiar.

Try to using the list provided by the Certification Officer that's what you get - an alphabetical list. Choose a name, realise that the globe next to it is a weblink - and go and look it up on your own. The Certification Officer has to be impartial you see, they're a regulator, so they can't give any other information.

Try Googling something like union and 'job description' - what's the betting the top hits would be unions in TUC.

In this country if you buy financial services you are meant to be able to get detailed, impartial advice. If you want to buy car insurance you're advised to carefully shop around. If you want advice about joining a union you're either on your own, join the one everybody else has joined , go through a long list on a truly impartial site - that doesn't tell you what sort of work each union represents, or join the ones recommended by the TUC.

So. Mrs R will end with the same sort of question as yesterday - how does this balance with all the other rules and regulations that relating to other important personal choices?

....

St Patrick's Day

Here's hoping everybody who wants to celebrate St Patrick's Day has enjoyed their Bank Holiday.

No sour grapes, not really, but it would be nice if all Patron Saints were treated equally.

St Patrick and St Andrew get their days recognised, but not St George or St David.

Perhaps the person, or people, who make these decisions could explain why.

....

Unions and politics and money.

When you join a Union part of your membership fee counts as a "Political Levy" and goes towards a "Political Fund".

The following is taken from DirectGov

Some trade unions maintain a political fund. This is a separate account which the trade union can use to provide financial support for a political party. For example, they could donate to a party or particular politician, produce leaflets in support at an election, or support party conference costs.

You can find out which Political Party, if any, your Union supports by checking "The political fund rules"

A trade union which operates a political fund must have political fund rules. These too have to be approved by the Certification Officer. The trade union’s political fund rules will specify how money is collected for the political fund, and the amount to be paid into the fund by the members who contribute to it.

A trade union must pay for party political activities from its political fund, and must not use money from its other accounts for this purpose.

Once a political fund is established, it is up to the trade union to decide, in-line with its rules, how the money is spent.

If you do not wish to make this donation pay this levy it isn't a matter of ticking a box. The only way to opt out is to

If you wish to contract out, you must do so in writing. If you ask your trade union’s local office or head office for a form to contract out of political fund payments, they must supply it. You can also ask the Certification Officer for a form.

You can complain

You can make a complaint to the Certification Officer if you think your trade union:

* has spent money from its other accounts on political matters that must be paid for from the political fund
* is still making you contribute to the political fund when you have contracted out of contributing to it
* has excluded you from any trade union benefits because you have contracted out
* has treated you unfavourably compared with other members because you have contracted out

Mrs Rigby's only experience of trying to 'opt out' of paying the levy was years of letters getting lost in the post, it was amazing how terribly careless the Post Office was - recorded delivery solved those problems though. She never met a "Certification Officer", didn't ever know there was such a person.

Why did she decide to opt out? Simple. She doesn't contribute to any political group or party and doesn't like the idea of anybody else doing it on her behalf, and for them to choose which party gets supported and which doesn't. She was sure all that would have changed, but it seems not.

Oh, and having opted out the union subscription got smaller - until then Mrs R hadn't know how much had been given to the political fund, and even now some unions don't state the amount - Unison does, which is one of the reason's it's been used as an example later on.

It would seem, from the DirectGov information, that Unions choose to support different parties - if they want to. But that isn't entirely true, more especially when looking at the umbrella organisation for all British Trade Unions (see later).

But let's look at one union first. Here are some extracts from Unite's explanation of "The Political Fund ".

The Political Fund enables us to campaign for or against government policy, whatever the political persuasion of the government of the day. In years to come a Conservative government could be returned to power and it is essential that Unite retains its Political Fund to be able to defend our members against a return of the attacks on employment rights that we remember from the 80s.

It starts off well, but clearly Unite presumes that a not-Labour government will be detrimental to the interests of any employees.

And, actually, Mrs R and the wider Rigby family remember a bit further back than the 80s, we remember trying to get homework done by candlelight, trying to keep warm using imported coal that was mostly cement dust. We remember waiting far too long to bury more than one deceased relative, and we remember the distinct lack of rubbish collections too. We remember the picket lines and the "scab labour" as well, and people being beaten up because they either didn't belong to a union or didn't want to strike because they were reasonably content with their wages, and how some people were angry when Arthur Scargill bought himself a posh bungalow.

We have a strong tradition of campaigning for our members who stand for public office, but we also campaign effectively against the BNP in elections. Without the Political Fund we would be unable to continue that vital work.

Does it say in the union rules that no member of Unite is allowed to be a member of the BNP, does it say nobody is allowed to vote for the BNP?

Isn't is slightly presumptive of any Trade Union to assume that all members will automatically want to support one particular political party?

Unison is at least up front about it, saying  "All members of the UNISON Labour Link National Committee must be contributors to the UNISON Labour Link fund and paid up individual members of the Labour Party." Although Unison also claims that the General Political Fund is "... not affiliated to any political party, but the money in the fund is used to support local campaigns, to give a boost to our big national political campaigns and to pay for political advertising. "

Oh, and Unison says this too

UNISON in the TUC and the Labour Party

UNISON is the largest union in the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and plays an important role in developing policy. It has a big voice too in the Scottish, Welsh and Irish trades union congresses.

To make sure that issues affecting our members are heard in the outside world, UNISON has a political fund. This money - collected from our members - can only be spent on political and social campaigning. Unlike any other trade union, UNISON offers you the choice of two funds to pay into:

* The Affiliated Political Fund works to support the Labour Party
* The General Political Fund campaigns in a non-affiliated way to further the interests of our members.

Remember that thing they say about the TUC - you'll see why later.

But back to Unite, which is where we started, and only because it's a fair example of what other unions say on their websites.

Many Unite members are politically active in their local communities, in their trades councils, as school governors, as councillors, on learning and skills councils, MPs and MEPs. They form a powerful network. The Political Fund ensures we can keep them informed as to our priorities so they can effectively represent Amicus members at the decision making table.

That might explain why so many Unite people have been parachuted into 'safe' Labour parliamentary constituencies - taking away the choice of local people, and local committees, who might actually have preferred to choose their own electoral candidate.

Unite has a powerful voice in the political arena, we ensure our members voices are heard by political parties, employer organisations such as the Institute of Directors and the CBI, think tanks such as the Fabian Society and the Labour Research Department, government and non-government organisations such as the Equal Opportunities Commission ... (and so on, and so on)

Mrs Rigby thinks all too many people are well aware of this, and would be interested to know how much funding strolls round in circles.

Mrs R's memory is a bit rusty, but she's sure she recalls an MP who, when facing charges relating to mishandling his expenses, couldn't understand how it was against the law to take money out of one financial budget and spend it on something else. Or is her memory playing tricks?

Anyhow, back to how that Political Fund is paid for - it's paid for by ordinary union members, some of whom are earning minimum wage - of £5.80 an hour. Let's see how much they pay their unions.

Staying with Unite as an example, because at least their information is on the website, unlike some of the others. Let's break it down a bit, and see how much, or what proportion, of a person's membership fees goes into the "Political Fund"

Union fees - Unite charges full-time employees (>21 hours a week; >18 yo) to pay £131.52 a year, or £2.53 a week. Part time employees (over 18 and working less than 21 hours) pay £59.76 pa, or £1.15 a week - even if they only work a couple of hours.

Every single member of Unite, irrespective of the hours they work and irrespective of the level of their Union fee contributes 14p weekly or 51p monthly to the union's Political Fund.

Doesn't seem very much does it? Less than a loaf of bread, less than half a dozen eggs a week.

Over a year the weekly contribution adds up to £7.28 whilst those who pay their fees monthly contribute £6.12 - so the person who prefers to pay weekly contributes more to the political fund than those who pay monthly - presumably administration costs make a difference.

Oh, Unite says in the banner header that it has 2 million members - so that's about, errm, let's average the contribution at £6.70 a year, which is half way between the two figures quoted - it's  just guessing that half the membership pay their fees weekly and half of them pay monthly.

£6.70 x 2,000,000 = £13,400,000 - that's 13 million, 4 hundred thousand pounds.

For one union to spend on political activities.

There are lots of unions, they all collect together in Trades Union Congress -  the TUC, which is that umbrella organisation mentioned at the beginning, and also mentioned by Unison. Here's how it describes itself :

... the national organisation which represents trade unions in Britain. It is made up of 69 unions with a combined membership of nearly 6.7 million workers.(my bold)

Our main role is to act as a voice for working people. We promote the rights and welfare of people at work and campaign for policies which help the unemployed get back into jobs.

Since we were formed in 1868, we have grown in size and stature to become Britain's largest voluntary organisation and one of the biggest trade union centres in the world. The TUC is now one of the best known institutions in British public life.

The TUC is, apparently, a "voluntary organisation" - which many people would think is akin to a charity - even though it developed from the "Labour Representation Committee".

After the 1906 general election there were 29 Labour Representation Committee MPs and became "known as The Labour Party"

So it's hardly surprising the TUC supports the Labour Party - it obviously doesn't support the Greens, doesn't support the Lib Dems, doesn't support UKIP, or the Conservatives, nor does it support any of the 'minority parties'. Presumably every single trade union member in Great Britain, who is represented at the TUC by their local and regional representatives, is a Labour supporter too - otherwise this would be morally wrong, wouldn't it?

Because the TUC supports the Labour Party and gets its' funding from the unions, it obviously isn't possible that some of those union members - who have been automatically opted in to paying the political levy - might prefer to go with UKIP's ideas, or might want to vote for the Lib Dems, or even the horrible Tories, the cuddly Greens or the Monsters who rave with the Loonies? It can't be possible, otherwise the TUC wouldn't be telling people to talk to Mr Darling and Mr Osborne, and tell them not to make any cuts in public spending,  because the TUC is

"... backing a campaign, Don't Risk the Recovery, along with 38 Degrees, the Fabian Society, Left Foot Forward and IPPR ... " (last 4 links added by Mrs R)

- and, of course, none of these four campaigning organisations is linked in any way with either the unions or any political party? Even though, for example, Left Foot Forward is run by Jack Straw's son and the Fabian Society is referred to as a "British intellectual socialist movement" and the IPPR is "Centre-left". At least 38 Degrees says it has, "... no ties to any political parties" - that's a relief.

The TUC and any of the unions can't presume to know how ordinary subscription-paying members would vote, in secret elections, it can't (or shouldn't) assume that all union members would do what Amicus - as "the second largest trade union in Ireland" wanted all its' members to do in the 2007 election, which was

"... to support their local Labour party candidate this Thursday."

The EU ruled that Microsoft was breaking competition rules by making all users of their software use Internet Explorer. As a result there is now an obvious choice - Microsoft have been forced to offer a choice - of internet browsers, it has been forced to make everybody who buys their operating system to them choose between Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera, Google Chrome and so on. This is fairly trivial to some people, but is mindblowingly complicated and frightening to others - but it's something that doesn't affect politics and the way a country is governed - at least Mrs R hasn't heard if Bill Gates or his successors at Microsoft sit in the US Senate.

Consumer Direct offers advice on "unfair" terms - before you buy on HP for example, safe shopping, and reading the small print and matters relating to legal services .

The government offers advice relating to buying insurance, and how to shop around

Where is the similarly overt advice relating to 'buying' union membership? - Is there a real choice, or do people get advised which union to join by the local secretary, without realising they all, ultimately, support the Labour Party through the TUC.

How would the EU would rule on the "Political Levy" - money is that is used to further and promote the interests of only one of the many political parties there are in this country.

Would Harriet Harman agree that this levy is "equal opportunity" and would the law lords and EHCR agree it is "freedom of choice and political thought"?

How would the EU view a political levy that is automatically deducted unless a union member writes a letter to opt out - no simple tick box to opt in. Opting out has to be done consciously, it isn't a simple matter, it has to be done by filling in a form or by writing  a letter, putting the letter in an envelope and sending it through the post - not very 21st century is it?

Things have gone a long way since 1868, when the LRC (TUC) was formed. Back then only a few people could read, and most workers were too tired at the end of the day to do much more than eat and sleep.

Surely it's time that the unions were modernised, and pulled into the 21st century and they should acknowledge, and accept, that if their members choose to pay (not choose to opt out of paying) a political levy, they should also be able to choose where their money goes - or don't the people that run the unions think their members are grown up enough to know how to make their own choices?

....

Job discrimination.

An employer from Somerset was contacted by Forces Recruitment Services and asked if he would consider taking on ex-soldiers.

His written reply?

Personally, I'd rather recruit ex-drug dealers, convicts and even child molesters rather than consider anybody who has been in the pay of the British Government.

Anybody who has been in the pay of such a military force, and by their silence and complicity has condoned such illegal and immoral actions while accepting a monthly bloodstained pay-packet, certainly won't be considered for employment by us.

The reality for the families of their victims is that there will never be any justice, and there never will be any closure, for the loss of a son, a husband, a child, or a family member who has fallen victim to British Military personnel who are going beyond 'just doing their job'.

Please remove us from your email list.

Regards, Karl.

That's nice and welcoming, isn't it?

Come on Harriet, let's see if all your anti-discrimination laws have teeth.

....

Similar backgrounds?

Just trying to balance things.

Taken from a single article, in the Telegraph

Gordon [Brown] [born 20-02-1951] attended the [private] nursery school, taught by a Miss Bogie, in two rooms of her flat, where he met Murray - now Lord - Elder, who is still a close friend today and who was chief of staff to John Smith, the late Labour leader.

When Gordon was four he enrolled at Kirkcaldy West, the local primary school, ... Gordon excelled at sums and was set increasingly difficult tasks by his teacher, Aileen Mason.

At 10, he joined Kirkcaldy High, an ancient school ..... selective in its intake and its 1,200 pupils were given a "hothouse" education. .....

In April 1962, aged 11, he wrote an article about a church campaign in favour of television commercials against the twin demons of alcohol and tobacco. Gordon concluded his piece with a typically opinionated flourish: "Let us hope that this plan will be a success and that the sale of drink and cigarettes to the younger and older generation will fall when these [commercials] against drink and cigarettes are shown."

At 14, he passed nine O-levels and just after his 15th birthday Gordon took his Highers, the equivalent of A-levels, securing five grade As, including maths, English, and history.

Gordon was part of the E-stream - the E stood for early - a pioneering scheme for fast-tracking the brightest 16-year-olds to university. ...

At university, ... he took a first in history [at Edinburgh, founded 1582 - 4th oldest in Scotland]

There do not appear to have been complaints about the school breaching confidentiality by giving out the details of the academic background and achievements of a former pupil.

Now for Mr Cameron, cobbled together from this this article and this one, both in the Telegraph

David Cameron, [born 09-10-1966] the Tory leader, [had] 13 classmates at Heatherdown prep school

..... So quick was the future Conservative leader’s ascent through the academic ranks at [...] school that he entered its top academic class almost two years early.

A school report emerged ... showing Mr Cameron ranked last in the elite sixth form [current Y6] at Heatherdown Preparatory School [...] following poor results in Latin, maths, geography and French. ... James Edwards, the former head teacher, told The Daily Telegraph that only the brightest boys were allowed to enter the elite form ....

Mr Cameron was as much as two years younger than the boys against whom he was competing, after teachers marked him out as “very bright” and promoted him up the school.

"To suggest he was a dunce is rather unfair because you would expect a younger boy to be behind chaps who had already sat their scholarship exams to [sic. secondary school],"

Cameron passed 12 O-levels and 3 A grades at A-level, and a '1' in the scholarship exam for PPE .... went on to achieve a first class honours degree in philosophy, politics and economics at Oxford [founded c.1188 - 3rd oldest in Western world]

(Aside - In the south it was common for a year group to be called a 'form', it certainly was when Mrs R was at school, but further north she became a little disorientated to be placed in a 'year' - which is now used nationally, although there are still 6th Form colleges.)

So you could say, couldn't you, that the educational backgrounds and outcomes were similar - both men were fast-tracked through school, spent their time in classes labelled "E", both attended selective secondary schools, and both achieved first class degrees in 'proper' subjects at very good Universities - and they both went through Higher Education when it was paid for by the state.

It's also interesting to note that their ancestral backgrounds are remarkably similar :

Genealogists at Ancestry.co.uk, a family history website, have studied the  1841 census, the first complete record of Scotland’s population, and found  the two men’s direct ancestors. They were tilling the same hard soil only  150 miles from each other.

John Brown, born in 1806, a 35-year old agricultural labourer living in the tiny village of Balmullo in Fife; Ewen Cameron, born in 1781, appears in the census as a 60-year-old farmer living in Inverness.

John Brown of Balmullo, Fife, had a son, John, who became a farmer;

Ewen Cameron’s son William is listed ... as a farmer at Upper Muckove, outside Inverness near Culloden.

Simon Harper, of Ancestry.co.uk, said ... time was a great leveller of class.

“Cameron is recognised as coming from a line of blue-blooded stock and Brown is seen as working-class, but not so long ago their ancestors were living near each other and doing the same thing,”.

And now for some differences :-

At age 11 Mr Brown had decided to wage war on both alcohol and tobacco - even though whilst at university he suggested taking empty cans beer to parties so he didn't have to contribute. At 16 Mr Cameron was, allegedly, punished for smoking cannabis.

Mr Brown, before the age of four, was taught by a lady who lived, and taught, in her flat (- imagine the furore from the agents of the state if such a thing were to happen today -) whilst Mr Cameron went to a boarding school.

According to the articles (you'll have to read them yourself) many of Mr Brown school chums have risen high within the state sector - funded by taxation; those of Mr Cameron have risen within the private sector - funded by enterprise.

RMT wants to strike too?

Does the RMT want to strike too?

Both leading political parties talk about cost cutting and job losses - to try to balance the books. There are, apparently, to be job losses, or re-deployment, in London Underground and naturally the unions don't like it.

This is what London Underground said last week on 11th March

London Underground (LU) is to axe up to 800 jobs under plans to make savings of £16m a year, the company has announced.

Tube officials said the cuts would include 100 managers, 450 ticket office posts and up to 200 other jobs.

LU said it had completely ruled out compulsory redundancies and would look at re-deploying staff.

The reason for cutting the tickets office posts is because

there had been a "sharp decline" in tickets sold at station ticket offices in recent years, with just one in 20 Tube journeys starting with a ticket office transaction.

RMT's response 15th March, although it doesn't seem to be talking about quite the same thing

The Rail Maritime and Transport (RMT) union has given maintenance firm Tube Lines until Thursday to offer guarantees about no job cuts.

The union wants assurances that a funding row over the cost of upgrading the Tube will not impact on jobs, safety and working conditions.

It would be interesting to learn how RMT thinks LU is meant to cut costs without reducing staffing. Do they suggest running fewer of those expensive trains, which would mean less income from fares - but the same wages bill?

....

Feeding Zimbabwe.

Mrs Rigby has seen a few articles referring to food shortages in Zimbabwe. She knows that Zimbabwe is in a bit of a mess, from what she's read in the media, and was wondering what we are doing to help - if anything - so she took a wander round the Number10 site

It would seem 'we' aren't doing very much. There are only 64  'hits', dating back to 2007, the most recent as follows :

On 22nd June 2009 Mr Brown pledged £5 million to 'aid Zimbabwe’s democratic and social reforms'.

Two days later, on 24th June 2009 : "The Government has agreed with the assessment of Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of Zimbabwe’s opposition MDC party, that a “free and fair” election in the country is impossible."

Backtrack for a moment, and remember it was Harold Wilson who had to deal with Ian Smith and UDI, back in 1965 (quoted from Number10):

... in international affairs Wilson found himself dealing with the prickly issue of Rhodesia’s (now called Zimbabwe) declaration of independence.

Fast forward to March 11th 2010

an estimated 2.17 million people [in Zimbabwe] are in need of food aid, a number it says will rise on the back of an expected failed 2010 harvest

That sounds bad, but even so, Mrs R didn't really expect to see this - from the Mail, 12th March 2010.

In case you're wondering what's happening - it isn't a party . No, not quite. On the ground in the middle of all these people is a dead bull elephant.

This is what was left a while later.

In February 2010 Robert Mugabe celebrated his 86th birthday.

Eight thousand lobsters and 4,000 portions of caviar were eaten last night at a birthday party for Robert Mugabe which was broadcast live to a nation facing famine. The £330,000 televised feast to celebrate the Zimbabwe president's 86th birthday came as crop failure and drought raised the prospect of widespread hunger in the poverty-stricken country.

Makes you wonder where he got the money from.

No further comment needed - except that some people turn up their noses at those who eat road-kill pheasants, although the Indy, in 2006, offered a recipe for pigeons.

....

A thankyou from Afghan Heroes

If you'd like to see what those who took part thought of yesterday's 'ride through' or 'ride out' then pop over to the Afghan Heroes blog.

There are two threads running, one about the day and another about wristbands, both contain a lot of comments showing how both residents and participants felt about the day.

Here's a taster

new resident of Wootton Bassett from 2009 – have attended as many re-pats as I am able, so was delighted that such an event held in and around the town yesterday 14th March – walked up to town and spent about 2 hours there watching the riders come down the high street – proudly waved my AH flag, wooped, clapped and high-fived some of the pillion riders – what a way to spend a sunday morning – thank you so much for coming to the town and making it a happy day to remember amongsts so many sad and reflective ones.

and

I would firstly like to thank the organisers, the mothers, the police and everyone involved in what I think was the best bike event I have ever been to. I will never forget the first sight or the runway that was being filled for the second time by the time we left the base on route to Wootton Bassett. I was blown away by the numbers of locals that lined the streets families, pub go-ers all in the carparks and gardens.I wasnt expecting to be thanked for taking part and I certainly was’nt expecting to be choking back tears when thanked by a woman in Wootton Basset on the ride through.Lastly and by no means an after thought a huge heart felt thanks to every one who was in Wootton Bassett yesterday bless you all not only for yesterday but for what you do for our fallen soldiers.You live in a very special place and everyeone who attended yesterday got a small taste of the emotion that your wonderful village has to offer.Again many thanks

and

They say that Woodstock defined a generation, well perhaps Wootton Bassett mothers day ride out by bikers defines the feelings of this generation.

My ticket number is 12033. With my wife Maggy as pillion (and a lot of others) that’s around 15000 people riding through Wootton Bassett in support of British troops, perhaps the biggest motorcycle ride out in history?

But enough of numbers, the constant roar of bikes and the cheering crowds says much about British support and feelings right now. I saw a chap with a hastily painted board by his front gate declaring “Well Done!”, locals with flags or just applauding and cheering. They were not cheering me, just the sentiment of the day, support for our troops.

By 11.00 the taxiway at Hullavington was about full and the first group of two lines was led off by a police escort, with blue lights flickering.

When our turn eventually came, we were led through a maze of country lanes by police motorcyclists with blue lights flashing, enjoying a beautiful sunny day. Wherever a small hamlet, Farm or just a lone house was passed, the people came out and cheered and waved flags, we answered as best we could by revving our engines and tooting the horns. This seemed to encourage them to even louder cheering.

Eventually we came into the now famous Wootten Bassett high street. I felt humbled to be riding through there, somehow not worthy to follow the path of so many brave troops. The street was lined just as we had seen on TV, not this time by grave and dignified crowds, but by happy, smiling people of all kinds. From the youngest to the oldest all were cheering and waving flags, perhaps glad of something bright and cheerful to see in their street.

As I rode out of Wootten Basset toward the M4 I felt humbled, and yet filled with joy that British pride still exists, its just not so easy to find now-days. But if you look hard enough its still there. I feel proud to be British again.

Thanks to all the Police and organisers who made this possible, but mostly, thanks to the people of Wootten Bassett.

Now if only the people who sent our troops to these far flung places could recognise the core of feeling in the British public.

There's a slight note of sadness that the event didn't hit the headlines which is quite right, it should have done, shouldn't it? Don't 15,000 people doing something good count, or are we supposed to be miserable all the time?

it was a brilliant turnout well done everyone. shame the press felt it was not news worthy enough though only a short mention at the end of the news broadcasts and not one national paper put it on the front page. i guess it still stands the biker saying when we do good no one listens when we do bad everyone listens. oh well i suppose we should be used to it by now. once again well done everyone.

There's nothing Mrs R can add, except to say well done to everybody who was involved in this event.

....

15,000+ bikers fly the flag.

Today was a truly remarkable day.

Something that started as an idea for a local bike club event grew, and grew, and caught the imagination of bikers from throughout Britain and mainland Europe.

Carefully organised by the Afghan Heroes charity, and to avoid annoying other road users, around 15,000 bikers gathered throughout the day at Hullavington Airfield. Their departure, for their 'ride through', was organised in groups of around 500 bikes - for a similar reason.

Mrs R has used some of today's free time to look through news reports and freshly uploaded videos, and has chosen a few highlights. She's fairly sure anybody watching these will feel two emotions - pride and an overwhelming sense of sadness, she'll explain why in a few moments.

Richard Payne's report on ITV West Country Tonight from Friday is a very nice preparatory piece, it's well worth watching - it includes interviews with some bikers (one who travelled from the continent) and also explains that there is a group of Royal British Legion riders at every repatriation, something that Mrs R and family weren't aware of.

So what did Wootton Bassett do with 22 miles of motorbikes (and a good few scooters) of all shapes and sizes? Did they behave in a curmudgeonly way and turn their backs on the noise and smell - as predicted by Neil Burden in last Wednesday's CiF?

No, they blimmin well didn't.

What they did was line the streets, they waved flags and cheered the riders through their town - and they said, "Thank you," too. They did all this without rioting, they did it without overt crowd control, they did it reservedly, in the "British Way".

The BBC carries a news report and a video, also has a few pictures - the first of which deserves to be on the front page, all on its' own - it doesn't need words.

ITV also carries a video report, but unfortunately managed to avoid filming any motorcyclists and mentioned that motorbikes use smelly diesel. Sadly ITV West Country's report of today's event is lacking any commentary, but this could be due to sound problems or over-demand. Sky also carries a report and a video. National and local newspapers also carry reports, too many to list.

So, what does Mrs R recommend?

This first short video is quite nice. It gives a good idea of how well organised the riders were on their way to the rally and shows the reaction of motorists - who waited patiently, or pulled over so they could use their cameras.



If you've got time to watch all of this next one it'll give you an idea of the numbers of bikers involved - it shows just one group, presumably 500 bikes. It's filmed from the roadside away from the centre of Wootton Basssett.

"Awesome" is probably the most apt description, you'll hear that word spoken quite early on in the video.



Phew, what a day, and what a thing to do - on Mother's Day, a day to celebrate being a Mum, but a terribly sad day for those Mums whose sons or daughters have previously been brought home in a cortège through Wootton Bassett, all 271 of them. It's quite humbling to think that one of those Mums started a charity - and made today happen.

Mrs R finds it hard to imagine the numbers - around 15,000 bikes, many with a passenger. Each bike will have meant a £5 donation to Afghan Heroes, although some gave much more because they collected cash from workmates, neighbours etc. First estimates are that at least £100,000 has been raised - voluntarily, without pressure - it's a wondrous amount for a small charity.

When you think of today's event, consider the following :-

• 15,000ish bikers - on the roads, 'controlled' by a few Police outriders and personal discipline, nothing else.

• 15,000ish bikers - gave up their weekend and paid £5 so they could ride through a small market town, and then go straight home again. No party, no celebration, no concert.

• Apparently extra Police were drafted in to monitor road junctions etc, it would appear that some of them gave their time freely.

• The population of Wootton Bassett - watched a 'ride through', for hours and hours. Yes, they've lined their pavements many times before, but today there was not a crush barrier in sight, no shouting, no catcalling - just flag waving and cheering.

• A few yellow-jacketed Bobbies were outriders, others unobtrusively lined the route, in case there was a problem, but nothing else - just good behaviour and a sense of gratitude, and a sense pride, a sense of patriotism, and a 'good day out'.

• Bikers waved flags, some of them were huge - Mrs R saw the Union Flag, the Cross of St George and the Welsh dragon. (No doubt St Patrick and St Andrew were represented, but Mrs R didn't spot them.) .

Mrs R thinks that today decent people reclaimed their right to fly the flag.

So, what went wrong?

Well, nothing! It was perfect, it was British people at their best, rallying to a cause and doing 'the right thing' in their own way. It was terribly sad, because the country has, so far, lost 271 fine people and there are unpublished numbers of terribly maimed troops too. Today was all for them, and the people of Wootton Bassett.

So let's recap, yet again.

Today at least 15,000 British people gave up at least a day of their lives to take the time to drive through Wootton Bassett as a mark of respect, and to also raise money for a charity that supports British troops. They gave their time, and probably took themselves away from their own families on Mother's Day - to acknowledge the sacrifice of those who have lost their lives or who have been maimed whilst protecting democracy in Afghanistan.

These 15,000 people didn't get out of bed this morning and decide to to 'go for a bike ride'. The event has been long in the planning and has been well publicised amongst the biker community, in magazines and on forums. It was also mentioned on the BBC - as long ago as January. Every participant had to register, many were turned away.

Today the media were out in force, with their cameras and journalists recording this one-of event, because it was a milestone in public display. It was peaceful, quiet, yet also noisy, fun and vibrant.

Let's look at something else for a moment. According to this site there are, or were in 2006 ...

... almost 40 – 50,000 Afghans live in London, the majority of them having come for political reasons

Wikipedia gives a bit more information, and some statistical data too, for the whole country.

Now let's backtrack, again. All the bikers had to register and get a pass, they had to give their name, address and so on. Their passes were checked today - none of them were allowed to be anonymous.

The media was out in force at Hullavington Airfield - filming and interviewing riders, passengers and organisers. There were also reporters and camera crews in Wootton Bassett itself, to record the reaction of the crowds. The British media is always very quick to make sure they balance news reports, and to help celebrate our newly diverse culture.

Mrs R will let you draw your own conclusions - but don't let anything spoil what happened today. It was a wonderful thing to see, and made we Rigbys proud to be British.

Let's keep flying the flag eh, it's worth it - but let's do it the way we're used to doing it, with dignity and with pride.

....