Food poverty as N Europe hit by drought.

What are governments doing as the climatic weather conditions are changing throughout the world, or seem to be. Northern Europe is facing the worst drought for over 35 years. In France water restrictions have been put in force in certain areas,Germany has had twice as many hours of sunshine than it would normally expect in the spring. They have had just 5% of their normal standard rainfall France also said that if they do not get substantial rain then their nuclear power plants may have to shut down because there will not be enough water to cool the reactors. Germany has also said that after the nuclear accident in Japan that it is going to permanently close their nuclear reactors and rely more on wind power, 22% of Germany's electricity comes from nuclear, they will now face massive increases in electricity prices as new power cables will have to be laid across Germany to carry the electric from these wind turbines that are going to be built in the North Sea on  the Northern coast of Germany to the industrial regions of the south of Germany. But whilst this happens they may have to return to coal fired power stations, this at a time when the world is talking about the green economy. In Britain is this just another way to raise taxes on something that may never happen on the scale that certain people anticipate. Food, Electricity, Gas, all these commodities are going to increase in price over the coming years. Europe it would seem is going to feel not only the credit crunch but poverty on a mass scale, this will certainly divide the continent and at a time when governments keep giving moneys to third world countries whilst at home people see their living standards slowly eroded will cause the people to riot and demand that their governments look after them first. I believe that this will start in the European Union when the individual members citizens demand of their governments that they come first, not the other .countries of Europe.

 

Sharon Shoesmith and Baby P.

"A child dying does not equal a department in disarray" Sharon Shoesmith said, this week  and she may have a small point but it does go to show that social service heads haven't learnt from past tragedies. When Maria Colwell was murdered by William Kepple her stepfather in 1973 he was given eight years in prison later reduced to four years on appeal.  there was a national outcry not only in the media but throughout the country at her death. People in authority ringing their hands saying that this tragedy should never happen again in a caring society. Since then we have child abuse and deaths on a regular occurrence. We have had child abuse throughout history, but since 1945 we've had Dennis O'Neil aged 13, Toddler Holdsworth 2, in 1956, Michael Buckingham 18 month old in 1967. Since Maria Colwell we've had 20 month old Martin Nicoll in 1991, we had 8year old Victoria Climbie, in that same year we had Lauren Wright 6 years old. The list is endless. What do the people in authority do? They have a judicial enquiry they have endless reports costing millions of pounds. Yet at the end of these expensive reports and reviews, nothing happens the abuse still goes on and people like Sharon Shoesmith greatly over paid says that there is nothing that will stop this kind of happenings occurring again. With that  kind of attitude is it any wonder that these abuses and deaths continue. She and people like her sit in their ivory towers overpaid looking out on the world but do nothing positive, and leave the dirty work to low paid over worked social workers. If nothing can't be done to stop this kind of abuse isn't the system at fault? In the last eight weeks of baby Peters life he suffered repeated injuries even though he was visited 60 times by social workers, police officers and doctors. Surely  some of these so called professional people should have spotted something. Or again were they just going through the motions? Did  any of these people having the slightest inclination that baby Peter was in danger not pass their concerns on to people higher up the chain of command or again are there to many levels of bureaucracy before you reach some body that has the power to act. Sharon Shoesmith  for example. What has angered people about her is her arrogance and her remark about "I don't do blame, I'm not in the blame game." No not blame but responsibility, she was paid big money and that big money was to take responsibility for what went on in her department and as such she failed. Perhaps Ed Balls went about dismissing in the wrong manner  but most people would agree that he was correct in dismissing her.

Which side of the fence do they sit on?.

With the on going debacle over injunctions and superinjunctions why should we take any notice of the judges that have issued them? Mr Justice Eady has issued 11 injunctions, but when he was a QC he defended tabloid newspapers to expose the private lives of public figures. Then we have Mrs Justice Sharp, as a barrister acting in libel cases she would frequently criticise the privacy orders she now dispenses. She has now upheld seven injunctions. It looks like these are the kinds of people who have ridden  with both the hounds as well as the foxes. Who says that the leopard can't change its spots, or does it really depend on which side of the judiciary you now sit on.It looks like the law means nothing to them, when it comes to more power and status

What open and transparency.

I see at the question and answer session at No 10 Downing street when the BBC reporter Nick Robinson asked the prime minister amongst other things, in fact it was the first part of his question about the sending of Apache helicopters to Libya, he completely  ignored answering that part of the question So much for open and transparent government Again it's, I'll only answer what I want to and ignore the parts of the question I don't want to. 

Chris Huhne

With the debacle going on over Chris Huhne's alleged memory about not knowing if he was driving on the day in question can any body truly believe him? Unless he has that many driving offences that he can't tell one from another. I have been done twice for speeding offences and they are both clear in my mind now as the day I committed them, even though there is over twenty odd years between them. The first was  23 years ago and it was on Ascension Thursday, the police officer was standing in the road with his hand up. I had been clocked speeding by the machine in his car. I went back to his car and he showed me the reading 59.9 mph in a 30 mph area, he informed me that if I had been doing 60 mph I would be facing not only a fine but a  three month ban. I had to take all my relevant documentation to the police station and my driving licence was sent away to have the 3 penalty points endorsed on it. As I sat in the police station I remember the officer coming in to the station, his book under his left arm his cap balanced on the back of his head. "I've had a great evening" he said when asked by the desk sergeant what his night had been like, then he saw me and smiled bidding me a good evening as he disappeared behind the desk door. The other speeding offence was in Germany when a speed camera flashed me doing 5 kilometers over the 50 kilometer limit, I received notification of my cars number plate and a photograph of me behind the wheel of the car, there was no possibility of me saying that I wasn't the driver of the car. I received a 30 Euro fine but no penalty points. Both instances are as clear as daylight so I don not believe for one minute when Huhne says he cant remember. If he can't then in my opinion he shouldn't be in the position he is because its quite clear that he can't be trusted to tell the truth on more serious matters in government.

Super injunctions

The media is still filed with the talk about super injunctions and the rights of celebrities to have their private lives kept out of the media. This is all well and good but when these celebrities court the public lime light, "come and look at my home, see what I've got "etc. When they want to show off, its a different matter though when they commit an indiscretion and they take out these injunctions so as not to upset their families is a load of rubbish, they should have thought about their families before they set out to betray them for their own selfish ends. Do we want parliament to discus it and perhaps pass laws that forbid the media to check out these stories, I don't think so. Can we trust parliament, again I don't believe so. If laws were passed by parliament would we ever find out about their dalliances and goings on,. Would the media have been able to find out about the financial scandals over MP's misappropriation of public moneys. I don't think so. But more importantly now as the people in power in both government and big business become more and more greedy in their business dealing with finances that reach into billions of pounds with corruption at nearly every level of government and business, the public has not only a need to know but a right. We read today about a high ranking former civil servant who has been given and taken gifts in the region of £250,000 whilst dealing with the NHS department. We read of civil servants who have  Gold credit cards issued by the government were over £1 billion has been frittered away on trips to adventure parks, buying pizzas and boxes of wine, this seems to be happening in most government departments as a perk, and this at a time when we are all been told that things are get even tighter for the electorate.  It would seem that the country needs a free press more now than at any other time in our history. Corruption, greed and self indulgence,  seems to be on the increase by the people who think that they are better than the rest of us. Its not being nosie its been informed about the abuse by these people be they politicians or celebrities. Perhaps they should remember that the more they try to avoid the scandal the longer it goes on  and more it sticks when it does come out. Today's headlines are tomorrows chip papers,. But perhaps these people  would be better remembering what The Duke of Wellington said when he was being blackmailed, Publish and be Damned.

    

NHS Funding Debacle.

We have ten hospitals in the North West now facing repayments of over £100 million this year because of the Labour Parties PFI scheme. PFI has paid out an estimated £11 billion to build hospitals and some schools the tax payer not the government will have to pay over £66 billion in interest on these commitment. That is why some hospital trusts may have to be taken over by private companies because they are basically bankrupt. PFI schemes were schemes that would make private companies rich at the expense of the tax payers. Anybody with a modicum of sense could see that moneys borrowed would have to be repaid. When they were introduced didn't the government of the day realise that these schemes were to make money for the investors not for the benefit of the people, i.e. you and me as tax payers. Again this was a scam for the rich to get richer at the expense of the people, endorsed by a government that has never been fit to run the economy. Things can only get better so Tony Blair told us in 1997, well he should have sang Things can only get better for me. He helped to leave this country on the verge of bankruptcy, he got out in time leaving the ex-chancellor to become prime minister who is as much to blame as Blair for the mess we are in to carry the can. Now there is talk about that wooden top taking over as the head of the IMF, God help us all if he gets the job.

Right Wrong Rich Or Poor

There has been much debate over the past weeks coming to a head with Liam Fox saying that there should be a fresh look at the overseas aid budget. Whilst most people would agree that we should be helping the underdeveloped countries of the world to help their starving millions. At a time when the British people are facing austere measures, when as many as 25% of the population are expected to be in fuel poverty before the end of the year and again perhaps even more if we suffer another cold winter, like last year. India is estimated to have at least half a billion of its population below the poverty line Britain is giving in excess of £280 million to a country that has more billionaires and millionaires than we have. A country that is spending in excess of £10 billion on military weapons. There are people like Barbara Stocking of Oxfam who says that giving this money boosts our standing in the world, perhaps she is quite correct. There are those who say that giving money to these countries may encourage them to buy British goods. If that is true then I hope that India buys the British Built Euro Typhoon Fighter over the French built Rafal, but then we would get Barbara Stocking probably condemning this. Again if we are talking about the rights and wrongs and the moral issues is it morally correct for the India Government to spend over £1billion a year on their space programme, when they have so many starving citizens? We are kept being told that Britain can afford to give this money 0.7% of GDP yet we are facing severe cuts to local authorities, the police forces of the country, the armed forces are suffering cuts to men and equipment even as we face  continuing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and now in Libya. We here and read about government waste in billions of pounds in the MoD with projects overspent or cancelled. We see now that the NHS's computerised system for patient records is increasing from a £3 billion cost to a final estimated cost of £10 billion, and there are some people who say that it will not work anyway. Perhaps we have to many civil servants in jobs that fail at every level of costing and procurement, yet nobody is accountable or sacked for gross incompetence. It's all kept quiet to give  the Gaelic shrug of the shoulders, as some incompetent  in authority is quietly shuffled off to another department and with a substantial pay rise. Perhaps before we continue to give overseas aid we would be better off sorting out our own house, save billions of pounds of tax payers money here at home, then we could give more in overseas aid and the public would not be as unhappy at what they deem as  waste. 

Out of touch.

On Newsnight last night 18 May Anne Sourby MP said that Kenneth Clarke was very sharp person, if she thinks that he is very sharp as a minister I wouldn't like to see the ones that are blunt. She also said that the police were concerned at how the government was dealing with their pensions. Again isn't this an MP who is probably financially well off  who is out of touch with the electorate. The pension problem is concerning everybody that works towards a pension and now feel that everything they have or are working towards is being undermined by the financial problems that have blighted the country and the making of this problem  is not their fault.

Justice Secretary

The Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke has tried to exonerate himself from comments he made about the different types of rape. Its quite obvious to any body with a modicum of sense what a bumbling buffoon he is. He wants to reduce sentences for  people convicted of rape who plead guilty. He's said in the not to distant past that short term prison sentencing  doesn't work, and wants to reduce the prison population by letting some criminals out of jail early. Yet on the Jeremy Vine radio programme today people who had been  sentences to jail for 7 to 14 days said that that experience had made them more aware by  their incarceration for that short period that that had been the persuading factor that had made them think positively that  they were not going to turn to crime and possible face longer prison sentences. So short term prison sentences especially for first time offenders does work.

Newsnight.

On Newsnight last night 17 May, Jeremy Paxman was discussing what would happen if Osama bin Laden had been captured, could he have got a fair trial in America, and should he have been tried there, by a civilian court or a military tribunal? There were various experts giving their opinions. In 1946 a public trial of the leading 22 Nazi leaders were tried by an  International Military Tribunal  at Nuremberg with judges from the victorious allies. Of those tried 12 of the accused were found guilty of various counts of war crimes and 10 were executed,one committing suicide, and one tried in his absence.  At the time and over the years many jurists have raised doubts about the legality of the tribunal. There were lesser war crime trials over the preceding few years by other members of the victorious allies.   Britain  executed 147 in there zone of occupation.  The German people themselves did not on the whole object to these trials, and there were no reprisals against the allies even by fanatical Nazi sympathisers. Now move forward 65 years, what would happen if bin Laden had have been captured and put on trial. Who by? If in America could twelve honest and true citizens been found who would give him a fair hearing? If prosecuted by  the international court in the Hague the same would apply. But unlike the trials in Germany if bin Laden had have been put in prison awaiting trial. Hypothetically what would the Western Governments have done if Al Qaeda told the West release him, or we will carry out bombing on your trains, boats, planes, and in your  major cities, Washington, New York, Paris, Berlin, London, Rome, and many more. What would Western Governments  do if these threats  started to happen, executed by fanatical bombers who started to explode bombs resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent citizens throughout the world over the coming weeks and months, how long before public opinion turned against the Western Governments as their people said enough is enough release him. Perhaps the execution of bin Laden  was the best course of action. We may yet get fanatical Al Qaeda Muslims who are prepared to die in acts of revenge. In the last war we had basically Britain and France declaring war on Germany, for invading Poland, with Italy siding with Germany. We had Britain a christian country, France, Germany, Poland and  Italy catholic countries. Yet we didn't hear people saying I'm not going to fight the Germans or the Italians because they are fellow Christians or catholics. It was right against wrong, good against evil. This is some thing sadly lacking when we here some Muslims saying  that they are not going to fight fellow Muslims, as many do, yet these same Muslims forget that Iran and Iraq two Muslim countries fought each other for six years, that resulted in thousands of deaths. Perhaps they should remember that it is good against evil, not Christian against Muslim.           

Who do you believe?

David Cameron has said that the NHS is safe in his hands, yet can you trust him or Andrew Lansley who's wife has a vested intrest in some of her dealings. It doesn't matter in my opinion how small that  intrest may be. Could it result in him or his wife or other friends and family benefitting financially from his proposed reforms of the NHS? The Royal College of GP's is against the proposals of giving large budgets to the doctors as people point out they are there to look after the patients health not run financial budgets running into billions of pounds, and perhaps temptation will be put in the way of some less scrupulus doctors who have vested intrests outside their practisis that could benefit them financially.David Cameron has said that there have to be reforms within the NHS to save it. Things like waste, overdspending and top down management will have to be looked at to save money. All well and good, but don't these three things  apply to government. He's talked about cutting MP's from 650 to 600 to save money, yet he has increased the numbers of the Lords by 117 since he came to power twelve months ago, this will cost an estimated £9 million a years So his talk about saving money is an absolute pack of lies.   

Who can the public trust with their taxes

You have to open any decent newspaper today and see the abuse by  people in power of the taxes that the public are paying.From members of parliament to council executives but not only to these who are supposed to work for us but the union labour leaders that are again supposed to help protect us. We have the BBC that is cutting jobs to save money yet they are going to pay Tim  Hennman  £200,000 for two weeks work reporting on Wimbledon, that's £14,000 a day, when confronted over this a BBC spokeswoman said that "we never comment on talent pay." What hypocrisy but more importantly why not its our money, and he never won Wimbledon any way. So he couldn't have been that talented just lucky at times. Then we have the fat cat chiefs of a quango that was put in charge of cutting wasteful public spending have been buying each other restaurant meals costing up to £600 a time all paid for buy the taxpayer. These people Michael O'Higgins and Steve Bundred chairman and former chief executive of the Audit Commission who's motto is Protecting the public purse, wined and dined senior contacts including BBC former presenter Evan Davis at an opulent French restaurant where eight ounces of Beluga caviar costs £2,490. In 2009 Mr. Bundred paid £659.76 for two dinners at Quirinale an expensive restaurant  near the Commons. This is going on all the time and the list is endless. These kind of goings on are reported in the media, but if these people had an ounce of morals they wouldn't  dream of doing it but more importantly if it was coming out of their own pockets they would think twice, or would they probable not because they could afford it out of their obscene salaries. A spokes person for the Audit Commission said that like many public bodies across government and the public sector brings stakeholders together to discuss their respective plans and issues.  Why can't they discuss these issues in their offices? Why does it have to be over a fancy expensive meal?  The cost of running the commission has risen from £93 million in 1997, to more than £200 million. Why is the government taking so long to save money. Close this quango down now and we have an instant saving straight away. Then we have well paid people living in subsidised council housing, some people earning upwards of £100,000 whilst we have people looking for council houses on low incomes. Yet we had former Labour Health Minister Frank Dobson living in a council house when he was a cabinet minister and even today we have Bob Crow leader of the RMT who earns £145,000 a year including pension and expenses still lives in a council house. Some of these high earners are paying between £97/£110 a week for these houses. What chance has the public of getting any kind of justice or fair play with the attitude of these senior people. Is it any wonder that these are the kind of people who want to bring in more legislation to support super injunctions so that a free press can't bring these kinds of abuse of our money to the wider population. So we do not want parliament to discuss or try to implement laws over freedom of speech and the freedom of the press because there are many sitting in the Commons and the Lords and other public institutions who want to keep these increasing abuses secret. Just like the Suffolk County Council Chief Executive who earns £218,592, and stops in a hotel costing £205 a night whilst at a conference meeting whilst senior councillors were at a hotel costing £85 a night. A council spokes person said that he was unable to say why Mrs Hill had been allowed to stay in a more expensive hotel room than the councillors. I can tell him why he came out with that statement he is either scared of loosing his job for telling the truth, and she thinks that she is better than the councillors. Again these are the kinds of people who are now loosing touch with reality as their perks and salaries increase. If people want to know more about the abuse that is going on in this country try reading The Silent State  by Heather Brooke, she was the journalist who spent five years getting to the bottom of the MP's expenses scandal before it broke in The Daily Telegraph. This country needs even more journalists like her and papers like the Telegraph or we will all end up like the proverbial mushroom.  

What Justice?

The media reports that burglars face harsher sentences if their victims suffer trauma after being burgled whilst they are in their homes and could face up to six years in jail. Now that sounds all well and good but we have Kenneth Clarke saying that he was going to release prisoners from prison because we are sending to many to jail, for minor or trivial offences. Who decides what are minor or trivial offences? A total of 17,387 burglars were  sentenced in 2009. 265 were sentenced for aggravated burglary, 9,670 for domestic burglary and 7,452 for non-domestic burglary. How may of these went to jail and for how long? On a slightly different vain  its reported that Barry George the man accused and as it turned out wrongfully for the murder of Jill Dando, is claiming up to £500,000 for his wrongful eight years in jail. That  is £62,500 for each year of his incarceration. I believe that people wrongfully convicted should be compensated but surly it should be commensurate with their yearly salary. If they are unemployed and have been for years before their incarceration then they shouldn't receive anything like that, but they should receive something in line with their unemployment money for the time that they have been incarcerated. This lump sum could be enhanced with a bonus they would have received if the money had been invested for the length of time of their incarceration. This would surely be a more logical step, although I agree that no amount of money can compensate  for the years spent in jail.  

We are all in it together

The Governor of the Bank of England has said that the country's  growth forecast will be lower and  slowly than previously predicted and that inflation could reach 5% before the end of the year. The bottom line is that these expert haven't gone a clue, its all based on ifs and buts and perhaps, and what happens in other parts of the world etc.They look at statistics from the previous months and try and predict what will happen in the coming months and years.Then we are told that gas and electricity prices will rise between 5% and 10% due to increasing costs on world markets. If we are all in it together according to the prime minister the chancellor of the exchequer and other prominent government ministers, why is it that we see the banks and the bankers who were one of the main reasons that we are all in this financial mess are taking big pay rises, no obscene pay rises and bonuses. The government said that they would curtail these, but they are impotent to stop them. The utility companies increase their tariffs because they have to maintain their profitability. If we were truly ALL in it together, then perhaps its about time that the government, that institution that is supposed to represent the man, turned round to these utility companies and told them that they can't increase their prices, that they will have to bear some of the pain and settle for a few millions of pounds in profit and not targets that are nearer the billion pound mark. Then perhaps the man in the street will come to believe that we are all in it together. 

AV or no AV.

After weeks of arguing about the merits and cost of the alternative vote by politicians and celebrities some of dubious character the people of Britain have voted overwhelmingly to stick with the current system of first past the post. Nick Clegg may not be very happy but the people of Britain have shown that they are not as naive as some ministers would have you believe. They have also shown their contempt for the Lib Dem's many who have not gone along with Clegg and senior Liberals who formed a coalition with the conservatives to form this government, and hopefully pull us out of the financial mess  left by the previous government. As some have said ever time there is a labour government the country is left in a financial mess. This time it might not have all being of the making of the Labour government but a lot of the blame can be laid at the door of Tony Blair and certainly Gordon Brown who as Chancellor took $5billion a year out of the pension funds. That has now affected the living standards of thousands of pensioners. But they are both doing very nicely financially, thank you.  

Short sightedness on defence

India has short listed the Eurofighter Typhoon and the French Rafale, this is for a contract for 126 fighters worth between £7-£10 billion pounds. The one disadvantage that the Typhoon has in my opinion is that it is has no  carrier capability. Were as the Rafale has. Again this is the French thinking ahead as they did with the Jaguar aircraft that had both land and sea capabilities. BAe Systems say that they will work with the Indian aerospace industry to develop a "marinised" version something they were doing earlier on in the development programme but it did not materialised. If we had developed such a version we would not now be at a disadvantage in selling it. Also we would not need to have the JSF Lightning 2. these aircraft at a reported cost of £100 million each.This was or is a vertical take off and landing aircraft but there is a conventional concept that is cheaper, which we are now considering  with the new carriers that are now possible being modifies to take catapults and arrester hook retrieval  at a cost of another alleged £2billion, depending if we need a steam catapult or an electro magnetic propulsion system that would need to be developed with the Americans, just goes to show the incompetence of both the past government and people within the ministry of defence who have nothing but short sighted visions of the capabilities that the military will need over the coming decades. We were told that these new carriers could be used by our NATO allies but if there was no catapult system they could only be used by the Americans with their AV8 Harriers, the French haven't any VTOL aircraft. Even China and India are building carriers, whilst we scrapped ours and it will be another ten years before ours come into service if ever. This in my opinion just goes to show how incompetent the people at the top in this country are.