LET'S PAY CARE WORKERS PROPERLY.

Today's news carries a typical 'shock-horror' story about care workers. Following on from revelations, not that most people didn't already know, that the care provided in residential homes is frequently abysmal, we're now being told about the travails of home care workers. It seems that many of these are not paid for much of their time, specifically the time spent in travelling between appointments.

I already knew this as a close friend is employed in this sphere and, although often working from 6 in the morning until 10 at night, is only paid for the hours actually spent in clients homes. Admittedly, her hourly rate is above the minimum wage, though not by much, and, when she's driving, there's a 25p per mile mileage rate, but the overall effect is to bring her well under the statutory minimum rate of pay considering the real number of hours for which she is, effectively, 'at work'.

To make matters worse, care workers are expected to have a range of skills and have to undertake a certain amount of training before they can be 'let loose' on clients. Many have relevant National Vocational Qualifications and yet they are still paid no more, often less, than a shop worker or street cleaner. When things go wrong, they are pilloried.

Peripatetic workers in the NHS or Local Government are automatically paid a proper rate for their work, including being paid 'travel time' AND for their travel costs, be it a simple re-imbursement of fares or a mileage rate; care workers employed by private companies but providing services for local authority funded clients are not. That this is wrong is blatantly obvious but it's just a symptom of the appalling mess in which are public services are now mired. Providing care at home is seen as being preferable to moving people into residential accommodation and, because of the way in which such care is then provided, it is also a cheaper option. This makes it a real 'Win-Win' for local councils; that the care workers are, themselves, treated appallingly in terms of working hours and pay is something which the councils can happily ignore, while they make savings.

Many care workers have 'zero hours' contracts and can be called on, or not, at the whim of their employers; many find it just as easy to go sick at short notice as to work, as the loss of pay is so minimal. How have we come to this, a situation in which people who have been trained to provide essential care and are dedicated to their roles are treated and paid so poorly ? Is it not time that we recognized that carers are not second class workers and paid them appropriately for what is often a most stressful job that provides a vital service and huge relief to many people ?

Some hope.

38 DEGREES

Some time ago, I signed a petition being run by '38 Degrees', though I can no longer remember what it was about. At the time, it seemed like a good idea and an opportunity to highlight an issue which was of importance but which our political masters seemed more than happy to ignore. Ever since, I've received regular messages from the organisation asking me to sign further petitions and also to contribute to their funds.

While a few of the petitions appear worthwhile, many or even most, are leftie rubbish or in aid of people with very specific axes to grind. I now rarely sign anything and the organisation must be in danger of giving itself a poor reputation as a supporter of every crackpot idea that comes up.

Some on called David Babb started this organisation, or so I understand, and one assumes that he now makes a very nice living out of it. Good for him, but what about all the poor fools who no doubt keep sending him their hard earned money ? I think I might start a petition aimed at asking Mr Babb to give them something back.

ADVERTS ON THE BEEB.

The jolly old BBC is, theoretically at least, a non-commercial broadcaster. It can, of course, sell its programmes but it can't broadcast advertisements. HA, HA, HA !!

Every week, a huge chunk of its output is dedicated to advertising. Radio programmes such as 'Start the Week', 'Mid-Week' and 'Week Ending' do nothing but advertise and so do many others on both radio and television. Guests appear for interview and almost invariably they are publicising their latest book, film, TV programme, song, album, tour, art show, charity or cause. These people usually appear on several programmes over a few days, doing the rounds to ensure maximum coverage. On some days, one can hear them on the 'Today' programme on the radio and, a few minutes later, see them on 'Breakfast' on BBC 1.

It is blatant advertising and is a clear contravention of the BBC's charter and yet no one seems to notice or bother to do anything about it. Presumably the agents of the advertisers simply hawk their charges around the various channels and, not forgetting that the subjects of the associated publicity are often media types themselves, the Beeb's programme makers welcome them with open arms.

Frankly, the whole nonsense makes me want to vomit. More often than not, whatever is being promoted is rubbish or, at least, of little interest to most listeners but we have to put up with it anyway. Some unknown author or songster prattles on about their childhood and how it made them the person they are and how it's all reflected in their books, plays or songs - what a load of tripe.

Isn't it about time that the government accepted reality, abolished the licence fee and let the BBC compete properly in the market without the public being forced to pay for this type of drivel and covert advertising ?

LYNDA BELLINGHAM.

The news of the death of Lynda Bellingham is sad indeed. Although it was known that she had terminal cancer of the bowel, she had hoped to be able to celebrate one last Christmas with her family. Sadly, it was not to be.

As an actress in numerous television shows as well as the long-running series of 'OXO' advertisements, Bellingham always performed creditably and was usually a friendly and welcome face on our screens. She will obviously be missed by her family, friends and colleagues in the world of entertainment, but she will also be missed by the very many who so enjoyed her appearances on television.

Rest in Peace, Lynda. 

PEACE PRIZE COMMITTEE WRONG YET AGAIN.

Under the Will of Alfred Nobel, 5 prizes were to be awarded annually, one of which was for Peace. This prize, he wrote, should be awarded to the person who, in the preceding year, had

"done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Over the years, the Prize has been awarded to a variety of people and organisations, not all of whom have made obvious such contributions. To my mind, this year's award follows this trend in recognising someone who's done nothing tangible in the pursuit of any of the stated objectives.

The Pakistani schoolgirl, Malala Yousafzai, is the youngest person ever to be given a Nobel Prize. The award, which she shares with an Indian 'child rights' campaigner', has been given for their "struggle against the suppression of children and young people".

What has this to do with 'fraternity between nations', the 'abolition or reduction of standing armies' or the 'holding or promotion of peace conferences' ? If anything, the activities of the 2 recipients have created conflict within their respective religious groups (she is Muslim, he a Hindu) and have done nothing to promote peaceful co-existence. Yes, they may well be right in their campaigning and their objectives may well be laudable, but peace is not any part of their aims. They are actually demanding major change in entrenched societies, something which is never well received and something which often leads to misery and bloodshed.

Both Nobel recipients may well be due recognition and awards, but the Nobel Peace Prize is the wrong one.

CAMERON KNOCKS OUT MILIBAND BUT .............. .

David Cameron's speech to the Conservative Party conference was, unlike Ed Miliband's effort at the Labour get together, a tour-de-force. While Miliband droned on for ages and yet forgot to mention both the economy and immigration, Cameron spoke with vigour and passion covering most the necessary ground in fine style. He not only beat his main Prime Ministerial opponent, he slaughtered him.

I don't like either of these men, both coming from wealthy and privileged backgrounds and both more than happy to tell the rest of us to live our lives but one has to be fair and pragmatic in assessing their relative abilities and merits. Yesterday, Cameron looked and sounded like a man with a purpose, a man who was genuinely passionate about his country and who really wants to put things back on an even keel. Conversely, Miliband, talking last week, sounded like a whining schoolboy desperate for someone, anyone, to listen to him and tell him what a good chap he was.

Miliband wants to be Prime Minister and, frighteningly, could even be after next May's election. Cameron played on this but, to my mind, he made one major blunder by repeating his claim that 'a vote for UKIP would be a vote for Labour'.

In this free and democratic nation of ours, everyone is free to vote for the party of their choice, be it Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, UKIP or any other legally recognised body. For Cameron to attempt to scare voters into shying away from UKIP by effectively threatening them with Miliband does him no credit. If his own party's policies and actions are good enough, they will win the election; if they're not, then voters will go elsewhere and Labour may well get back in. By his claims of 'vote UKIP, get Labour', Cameron is saying to his supporters that, whatever his party's , policies and whatever its record, they have to continue to vote for it out of fear of the alternative.

This is no way to win an election or to run a government. I will vote for UKIP because it's the least entrenched of the, now, 'Big 4'. If that means Miliband in Downing Street, so be it; in reality that won't be much different to what we've had for the last 5 years. It might also presage the rise of a real Conservative Party once again, rather than the wishy-washy and mildly socialist bunch that we currently have.

ALICE GROSS : LESSONS TO LEARN.

The murder of young Alice Gross is a shocking thing though, after being missing for over a month, it must have been the expected outcome. However, what I find even more shocking is that the 'prime suspect', a man who has, himself, gone missing, is an immigrant with a previous conviction for murder.

Whether or not he committed this crime, why on earth was he allowed into the UK in the first place ? It's not as though his offence was a minor bit of speeding or other car crime and he hadn't been done for being drunk and disorderly; he had murdered his wife by beating and stabbing her and then buried the body in a shallow grave. Convicted of this brutal crime, he served 7 years in prison in his native Latvia before being released on licence and coming to the UK in about 2007; it seems that no one here bothered to check his past. It's also been suggested that he was arrested in 2009 for drugging and molesting another 14 year old girl, though this case were eventually dropped.

This is looking like another example of the hopelessness of our border controls and immigration service, this time having devastating consequences. Will those in charge never learn ?