GOVERNMENTS SHOULD LEARN TO DELEGATE PROPERLY.

All modern governments thrive on reorganisations of just about every public service that exists and the current one is no different. Local Government, the NHS, the welfare system, education and so on are all being turned upside down in a supposed search for efficiency, economy, better outcomes etc, etc. Sadly, none of the changes are likely to achieve anything of lasting value and the next lot, whoever they are, will undoubtedly change everything again, all at the cost of us, the taxpayers of the country.

 

One of the great wheezes used by governments as they try to convince us that their latest scheme will actually work, where the failed schemes of their predecessors didn't, is to establish arms-lengths and supposedly autonomous bodies which take over the responsibility for implementing the latest government policies. Of course, these organisations are actually tied hand-and-foot by their political masters, having their every action determined by central dictat.

 

'Local Enterprise Partnerships' (LEPs), whatever they are, recently caught my eye when reading an accountancy magazine. There are, apparently, 39 of these spread around the country and they are a creation of the curent mob in Westminster. They are "intended to help councils and local businesses work together to stimulate growth across an area", or so it says in my magazine. They are supposed to develop plans for submission to the Treasury; the Treasury is then supposed to assess the plans and decide how much of a central pot of cash to award on the basis of the relative 'quality' of the plans. Unsurprisingly, many in the world of local government are unhappy with the idea of money being allocated on such a basis and simply want to be given a 'wodge' based on population numbers.

 

Why we need these LEPS at all is my first question; if they are any good, why should they have to submit their plans to the Treasury  for approval is my second. Aren't local councils and businesses good and professional enough to know what is right for their areas ? Can't they make such decisions for themselves ? What would be wrong with a 'first come, first served' basis of allocation with subsequent penalties for any council or LEP which is shown to have wasted their funds on poor or worthless schemes ? Why does central government need to be so involved in essentially local matters ?

 

Whenever governments talk about 'regionalism' or 'localism' or, in the case of the EU, 'subsidiarity', you can be sure that this is no more than meaningless rhetoric. The power and purse strings remain held firmly at the centre; perhaps, if they learnt to delegate properly, things would be better, but there's faint hope of that ever happening.

DANCING ON THATCHER'S GRAVE IS NOT ON.

Apparently there have been parties in a number of UK cities specifically to celebrate the death of Margaret Thatcher. Quite rightly, this behaviour has been criticised and condemned by the current Labour leader, Ed Miliband, and also by former Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

 

That anyone should behave thus is disgusting. Sadly, it is also a mark of the ingrained hatred of certain elements of left wing political belief for anyone who has contrary views to their own. George Galloway, that well known fair minded man, has also made remarks which are less than pleasant and well beyond anything that one political figure should ever say of another.

 

No one from the right wing of politics, other than those of very extreme views, would ever be so ungracious as to make nasty, spiteful and derogatory comments about any political rival at such a time. The behaviour of these left wing fanatics should be a lesson to all of those who vote for them; you upset them at your peril.

 

Did anyone from the right make any move to dance on the graves of Harold Wilson or Jim Callaghan, the 2 men most responsible for the appalling mess that Mrs Thatcher rescued us from ? Certainly not and neither should they have. Unfortunately the political left is very different from the right, being full of hatred and bile. How sad it is that they cannot grow up and behave like decent human beings.

MARGARET THATCHER : GREAT BRITON.

The death of Baroness Thatcher yesterday brings to an end one of the great lives in modern British history.

 

Thatcher was an extraordinary woman who came to power at a most difficult time. The nation was on its knees after Labour and the trades unions, aided to some extent by Ted Heath, had all but destroyed the economy and devastated our society. Margaret Thatcher's government changed much of this, restoring some health to the conomy while ending the stranglehold which the unions had imposed on both industry and the public sector.

 

Today, some still hate and despise what she did. These are almost all supporters of old style nationalised industry and massive public services who found themselves deprived of excessive wages, protected conditions and easy lives. The 'closed shops', outdated practices and unwillingness to change of many industries are what destroyed them, not Margaret Thatcher. Those for whom Thatcher's legacy is all bad and hateful really should take a long hard look at themselves and the lives they have today - little of it would have been possible without her.

 

Not everything that she did was right and some people lost out, but most of what was done was essential and laid the foundations for Britain to become a modern, competitive economy. No one else came forward to lead this revolution, though others clung to her coat tails, and she can truly be credited with being both the architect and engineer of the UK's recovery. She was a great woman, human being, Prime Minister and Briton, and we shall be very lucky to see her like again.

LABYRINTH : MORE CHANNEL 4 NONSENSE.

The labyrinthine and wholly muddled story of the latest Channel 4 offering, 'Labyrinth', seems to be an attempt to meld Dan Brown's 'Da Vinci Code' with Ken Follett's 'Pillars of the Earth'. Whether or not this is the case, the result is so confused as to be neither fish nor fowl; it is rubbish.

 

While the actors in the medieval scenes wear medieval clothing, the women luxuriate in 21st century makeup; lipstick, eye shadow and plucked eyebrows abound, none of which would have seen the light of day during the 13th century. The men behave as if they are 21st century 'lads' with not a thought for the surroundings in which they are supposed to be. The players in the modern era seem to be an odd assortment of naive youngsters and menacing mafia types, interspersed with the occasional 'femme fatale'; the story has no discernible thread to follow or logic.

 

All-in-all, this mini-series is the type of pseudo-historical drama of which television production companies should be ashamed. It is drivel. I have not read, and have no wish to read, the original novel written by Kate Mosse and cannot comment on the accuracy with which the novel has been translated to film; the book may well be much better, though I doubt it. It seems to me that the author has drawn inspiration from other sources and the production company has followed suit. The result is something that has no literary or televisual merit though it will probably gain approval from the unwashed masses who more usually find comfort in 'Coronation Street' or 'Eastenders'.

 

Why-oh-why are we subjected to this tripe?

 

 

CALL THE MIDWIFE !

I frequently find the BBC to be very deficient in a whole variety of ways, but I have to admit that, now and then, they come up trumps.

 

They do have a virtual monopoly on top quality when it comes to scientific documentaries and at least some of their political coverage is pretty good. The problems seem to arise in the areas of soaps and dramas where their performance  is extremely hit or miss - the soaps are universally appalling while the dramas are sometimes terrific and sometimes dreadful.

 

'Ripper Street' is a classic example of utter rubbish, a series which has no discernible historic truth beyond its setting. It is tripe of an almost unbelievable nature designed purely to attract an audience of the illiterate and uneducated masses, those who have no idea whatsoever of the realities of the times but are only too happy to be entertained by a programme which relocates the wild west to east London.

 

At the other end of the spectrum is 'Call the Midwife'. This is a series which is so evocative of past times and so real that it is almost unreal. The casting is superb as are the performances; the storylines, so far, are utterly believable and anyone who experienced those times, the 1950s, or has any feeling for them, can do nothing but be drawn in to the drama and pathos. This series is, without doubt, one of the greatest in the BBC's long history.

 

'Call the Midwife' is brilliant. My one fear is that, if it continues for too long, it will become no more than another drama-soap, a means of attracting an audience of ever decreasing understanding. The storylines will be subverted for the usual BBC left-leaning causes and it will degenerate into the usual tripe. Please, please, please, don't let this happen. The series is far too good for that; it needs no embellishment or sensationalism. When it's run its natural course, let it go, but, with luck, that could be a little while yet.

PISTORIUS : MURDERER OR INNOCENT ?

Try as one might, it seems impossible to escape from the media's fascination with Oscar Pistorius. We are confronted with staged pictures of him appearing in court and looking sad; anyone with a heart would be on his side, wouldn't they ?

 

Perhaps my problem is that I don't have a heart and prefer to try to draw conclusions from facts. One fact in this case is that the South African police have put together a pretty poor argument; another is that the media is firmly on the side of poor, dear Oscar. What is undeniable and still to be determined is what really happened. What is going on at the moment is, after all, only a hearing to decide whether or not Pistorius should be granted bail.

 

The few facts I've been able to garner are these. Pistorius owned, quite legally, a hand gun and lived in a securely guarded and gated estate. According to him, immediately before the incident in question, he was in bed with his girlfriend and he rose on hearing a noise. Thinking he was being burgled, he 'walked' to the bathroom without attaching his prosthetic legs and fired several shots through the locked door of the toilet. He then returned to the bedroom where he discovered that his girlfriend was not in bed and, for the first time, realised that it may have been her in the toilet. In a panic, he went back to the bathroom and broke down the toilet door with an implement of some sort, possibly a cricket bat.

 

Exactly how one doesn't realise that their partner isn't in bed with them is the first question. If Pistorius did believe there was a burglar in the house, wouldn't he have tried to wake the woman and get her to safety before trying to tackle the intruder ? Why would a burglar have been in his bathroom or been locked in his toilet ? Did he not shout any sort of warning to his victim before firing ? If the supposed intruder was locked in the toilet, wouldn't it make sense to have called for help before firing; after all, Pistorius still had the gun and the intruder was contained. How would a burglar have entered the securely guarded property and had there been any other burglaries on the estate ?

 

What we've heard so far is mere window dressing; the real story is yet to come.

VICKY PRYCE : JURY FOUND WANTING.

Vasiliki Courmouzis, otherwise known as Vicky Pryce and the former wife of disgraced Liberal Democratic bigwig, Chris Huhne, has seen her trial for attempting to pervert the course of justice crumble around her. It seems that the jury or, at least some of them, were unable to understand the judge's instructions and the basic principles of how a jury works.

 

Exactly what happened in the jury room will probably never be known, but it's obvious from the list of questions that were passed to the judge that there was a shocking breakdown in the system. For a jury to feel it necessary to ask whether or not matters that were not presented in evidence, and for which there was no evidence, could be taken into account in arriving at their verdict is incredible; for them to have asked whether the defendant's religious beliefs, which also were not presented as evidence, could be considered is unbelievable. That they found it necessary to question the meaning of 'reasonable doubt' shows such an appalling lack of understanding of our legal system that one wonders if they were actually British at all.

 

The truth may be that there was one, perhaps 2, difficult jurors with whom the rest were trying to get to grips. If this is the case, how did these individuals get onto a jury in the first place ? If they were unable to follow the judge's directions or to grasp basic English language, what were they doing there ?

 

However, given that the jury was unable to reach even a majority verdict, one must assume that the problem went far deeper than 1 or 2 awkward jurors. The conclusion one then has to draw is that this was a particularly dreadful bunch of jurors, poorly educated, quite possibly mostly of recent immigrant origin and wholly unsuited to their task. The implication from this for our present system of justice is quite frightening.

 

In recent times, governments have made a few noises about the possible introduction of 'juryless trials' for certain particularly difficult, long or sensitive cases. While this would be a nonsense and wholly contrary to centuries of British jurisprudence, one can now, perhaps, see why they may have had such thoughts. If jurors in a simple case can be quite so stupid, how can they possibly be expected to deal with complex frauds, or to sit through months of detailed evidence in other cases such as those involving matters of national security ?

 

It may be that successive governments have been a little ahead of the rest of us on this particular issue. They, more than anyone else, know just how much our nation has changed in recent years with the vast influx of immigrants, many of whom bring their own culture, customs and language with them while having no desire whatsoever to assimilate ours. Such people are as liable to be called for jury service as anyone else and there must now be large parts of our major cities where there is no one else to be called. The Government also knows, only too well, how general educational standards have collapsed to a point at which huge numbers of younger people have little or no understanding of anything beyond what is needed to achieve the most basic of exam passes, allied with large dollops of left-wing training in subjects dressed up with fancy names, such as 'sociology' or 'PSE'.

 

Should I be unfortunate enough to be put on trial, I would expect to be tried by a 'jury of my peers' and I would expect this to mean people such as myself, not a ragbag of socialist leaning, semi-literates with no understanding of the British way of life or legal system. Ms Pryce may count herself lucky that the jury in her case couldn't reach a verdict - on another day they may well have had her burned at the stake.