According to the BBC, the 'World's largest paedophile ring' has been uncovered and 121 people have been arrested in the UK.
I wonder how many of them have either been cleared, or would have been cleared (had they been asked), by the Child Protection Agency?
If as I am inclined to suspect, the majority "have no previous", it would of course prove that the CPA is a waste of time and money, as in the case of the nursery worker, Vanessa George, who was recently jailed for child sex abuse.
Late News
The ITV Evening news (6.30) said that there were "Schoolmasters, a Scout master and a Policeman" amongst those arrested.
Wednesday, 16 March 2011
Monday, 14 March 2011
High Speed Rail
I was idly reading a blog about HS2, and I didn't immediately realise what it was about as I had read it as H2S.
Then I realised that there was no real difference between HS2 and H2S, they both stink!
Then I realised that there was no real difference between HS2 and H2S, they both stink!
Friday, 11 March 2011
The NHS costs due to Smoking.
As I have said before, I'm a non-smoker. Even so, I find it impossible to accept that smoking is costing the NHS the large sums that the antis claim, particularly if you take the revenue from tobacco taxation into account.
As I have got older, I have realised that the bulk of people that I knew, who have died in the past ten or so years, have cost the NHS or the Social Services quite a lot of money in the two or three years prior to their death. This may be by being in hospital, by having daily carers call, or being in a nursing home, and it is a depressing fact (to me) that unless one drops down with a heart attack, we are all going to end up requiring one, or more, of these services.
So what is different with smokers? Exactly the same happens with them, except in general it is at a somewhat younger age. They usually die of emphysema or cancer of the lungs rather than illnesses like Parkinson's or Alzheimer's disease. So where is the extra cost? In fact it us oldies who are costing the country money. We insist on staying as fit as possible, going to the GP for regular check-ups, consuming pills by the bucket load (if only statins for our cholesterol and diuretics for our blood pressure) and requiring annual flu injections.
And that is likely to be the minimum on-going NHS maintenance costs, without the running repairs. Two of my friend have recently fallen and broken their legs, requiring ambulances, hospital care and once home, physiotherapists, which certainly doesn't come cheap.
Then, of course, there are the other costs we incur, state pension, heating allowance, bus passes, and all the rest.
Now I am certainly not advocating that we should not get these things, but simply making the point that if you try to look at the situation logically, there is no reason for arguing that smokers, on average, cost the state any more than non-smokers. the costs simply come earlier in their, statistically shorter, lives.
So the only remaining question is whether the government has a moral duty to try to maximise people's lives. And if they do have this duty, should they try to force people to try to maximise their own lives?
Personally, I don't feel that they have the latter duty, and that their responsibility ends once they have made reasonable attempts to make sure that the public are aware of the risks. I believe they have more than fulfilled their duty, both towards smokers and non-smokers.
Indeed, their fanatical action on smoking in pubs has led to the reduction in size of my favourite local to about a third and the conversion of the remainder to a restaurant on the basis that it was no longer making a profit. As it was well ventilated before the ban, only a fanatical zealot could have objected, and he would have been free to drink elsewhere, just as the smokers are doing now. But I can no longer drink with my smoking friends at the pub, and it seems that I'll soon be unable to drink there at all as closure now seems imminent.
As I have got older, I have realised that the bulk of people that I knew, who have died in the past ten or so years, have cost the NHS or the Social Services quite a lot of money in the two or three years prior to their death. This may be by being in hospital, by having daily carers call, or being in a nursing home, and it is a depressing fact (to me) that unless one drops down with a heart attack, we are all going to end up requiring one, or more, of these services.
So what is different with smokers? Exactly the same happens with them, except in general it is at a somewhat younger age. They usually die of emphysema or cancer of the lungs rather than illnesses like Parkinson's or Alzheimer's disease. So where is the extra cost? In fact it us oldies who are costing the country money. We insist on staying as fit as possible, going to the GP for regular check-ups, consuming pills by the bucket load (if only statins for our cholesterol and diuretics for our blood pressure) and requiring annual flu injections.
And that is likely to be the minimum on-going NHS maintenance costs, without the running repairs. Two of my friend have recently fallen and broken their legs, requiring ambulances, hospital care and once home, physiotherapists, which certainly doesn't come cheap.
Then, of course, there are the other costs we incur, state pension, heating allowance, bus passes, and all the rest.
Now I am certainly not advocating that we should not get these things, but simply making the point that if you try to look at the situation logically, there is no reason for arguing that smokers, on average, cost the state any more than non-smokers. the costs simply come earlier in their, statistically shorter, lives.
So the only remaining question is whether the government has a moral duty to try to maximise people's lives. And if they do have this duty, should they try to force people to try to maximise their own lives?
Personally, I don't feel that they have the latter duty, and that their responsibility ends once they have made reasonable attempts to make sure that the public are aware of the risks. I believe they have more than fulfilled their duty, both towards smokers and non-smokers.
Indeed, their fanatical action on smoking in pubs has led to the reduction in size of my favourite local to about a third and the conversion of the remainder to a restaurant on the basis that it was no longer making a profit. As it was well ventilated before the ban, only a fanatical zealot could have objected, and he would have been free to drink elsewhere, just as the smokers are doing now. But I can no longer drink with my smoking friends at the pub, and it seems that I'll soon be unable to drink there at all as closure now seems imminent.
Wednesday, 9 March 2011
Tobacco
Today was "No-Smoking Day", or some such similar stupid name. So before I start, let me make it clear that I'm a non-smoker, but even so I felt tempted to go and buy a packet just to show my contempt for all those who oppose activities which a very large number of people find perfectly acceptable.
The latest bright idea from the government is ban the display of cigarettes in shops in the naive belief that if people don't see them they won't be encouraged to buy them. They obviously have no idea as to human nature, ever since Adam and Eve, the attraction has always been for the forbidden fruit. They obviously didn't live through wartime rationing, when my mother's first question in the butchers and the grocers was "What have you got hidden away today?" (Certain items weren't rationed, but in short supply). If there was anything, there was a tendency to buy it whether it was actually needed or not, a sort of gamesmanship.
I suspect that it will be the same with cigarettes, the fact that they are "hidden goods" will add to their attraction, particularly with the youngsters. For years all governments have tried to stop illegal drug taking, and the result is that it is, in fact, increasing. I envisage that exactly the same will happen with tobacco, "it's discouraged, so there must be something going for it". Even more worrying is that fact that rather than smoking, many potential, or existing smokers might turn to drugs as being an easy option.
Even more crazy to my mind, is that they want to ban "branding", presumably all cigarettes will come in a plain packet. Are we going to have just one make, with all makers using an identical package, just like (for those that remember) the Pool Petrol that was available during the war?
To date, the cigarette companies have generally appeased the governments, "voluntarily" agreeing to such impositions as health warnings on the packet, but I suspect this could be the last straw and that it will be actively opposed.
I envisage a long series of law suits covering everything from restraint of trade, competition issues, loss of profits, human rights, judicial reviews and anything else lawyers can think of.
From the tobacco companies' point of view, whichever way the eventual judgement goes, they'll be no worse off than if they did nothing and the actions will be very good value for money in terms of the publicity, possibly going on for years as they fight them all the way to the EU courts.
Unfortunately, it's going to cost the taxpayer a fortune, otherwise I'd enjoy just sitting back and watching the fun!
The latest bright idea from the government is ban the display of cigarettes in shops in the naive belief that if people don't see them they won't be encouraged to buy them. They obviously have no idea as to human nature, ever since Adam and Eve, the attraction has always been for the forbidden fruit. They obviously didn't live through wartime rationing, when my mother's first question in the butchers and the grocers was "What have you got hidden away today?" (Certain items weren't rationed, but in short supply). If there was anything, there was a tendency to buy it whether it was actually needed or not, a sort of gamesmanship.
I suspect that it will be the same with cigarettes, the fact that they are "hidden goods" will add to their attraction, particularly with the youngsters. For years all governments have tried to stop illegal drug taking, and the result is that it is, in fact, increasing. I envisage that exactly the same will happen with tobacco, "it's discouraged, so there must be something going for it". Even more worrying is that fact that rather than smoking, many potential, or existing smokers might turn to drugs as being an easy option.
Even more crazy to my mind, is that they want to ban "branding", presumably all cigarettes will come in a plain packet. Are we going to have just one make, with all makers using an identical package, just like (for those that remember) the Pool Petrol that was available during the war?
To date, the cigarette companies have generally appeased the governments, "voluntarily" agreeing to such impositions as health warnings on the packet, but I suspect this could be the last straw and that it will be actively opposed.
I envisage a long series of law suits covering everything from restraint of trade, competition issues, loss of profits, human rights, judicial reviews and anything else lawyers can think of.
From the tobacco companies' point of view, whichever way the eventual judgement goes, they'll be no worse off than if they did nothing and the actions will be very good value for money in terms of the publicity, possibly going on for years as they fight them all the way to the EU courts.
Unfortunately, it's going to cost the taxpayer a fortune, otherwise I'd enjoy just sitting back and watching the fun!
Friday, 4 March 2011
UKIP at Barnsley
UKIP did very well at Barnsley, coming second to Labour whose victory was never in any doubt in spite of the fact that their last MP was sent to prison for fraud.
OK, they were a long way behind, but they got half as many votes again as the Conservatives who came third and three times as many as the Lib Dems who came sixth behind the BNP and an Independent.
Of course UKIP got barely a mention on the BBC who concentrated on the fate of the LibDems, who at the General Election had such broad policies that they were everyone's darlings. Now they've actually been forced to face the need for real decisions, strangely they're finding people don't like them so much! Its so easy to be in opposition!
There is no doubt that recent European decisions have helped UKIP, so in a way, I'm hoping that the government gives in to the European Court over Votes for Prisoners, as this will strengthen UKIP's hand. And although I'm against AV, I think that UKIP, not the LibDems, will be the main beneficiaries.
The BBC, of course remains a major stumbling block, failing in my view, to give them any coverage other than what is absolutely necessary. One can almost hear their minds working: "LibDems sixth?" - never mind, we'll still interview them; "UKIP second?" - a freak result, not worth bothering about. At least SKY interviewed Nigel Farrage.
Nevertheless this is a very good result.
OK, they were a long way behind, but they got half as many votes again as the Conservatives who came third and three times as many as the Lib Dems who came sixth behind the BNP and an Independent.
Of course UKIP got barely a mention on the BBC who concentrated on the fate of the LibDems, who at the General Election had such broad policies that they were everyone's darlings. Now they've actually been forced to face the need for real decisions, strangely they're finding people don't like them so much! Its so easy to be in opposition!
There is no doubt that recent European decisions have helped UKIP, so in a way, I'm hoping that the government gives in to the European Court over Votes for Prisoners, as this will strengthen UKIP's hand. And although I'm against AV, I think that UKIP, not the LibDems, will be the main beneficiaries.
The BBC, of course remains a major stumbling block, failing in my view, to give them any coverage other than what is absolutely necessary. One can almost hear their minds working: "LibDems sixth?" - never mind, we'll still interview them; "UKIP second?" - a freak result, not worth bothering about. At least SKY interviewed Nigel Farrage.
Nevertheless this is a very good result.
Wednesday, 2 March 2011
University Fees
News today that a major company, GlaxoSmithKlein are prepared to pay the University fees of somewhere between 50 and 100 students at top universities will undoubtedly be greeted with different reactions according to ones political outlook. The company have made it clear that they want the very best students they can find who could be of value to the company in the future.
Clearly the company won't be impressed by the government's social policies intended to force our universities to take inadequately educated pupils from poor comprehensive schools; they simply want the very best. However there are already murmurings from the left and from trendy liberals and no doubt these were get louder if, as seems likely, other major companies decide to follow suit. It'll be interesting to see what action the government takes to placate the LibDems.
But of course this is what used to happen in the "good old days" with apprenticeships, "sandwich courses" and day release. However, for some reason, governments became obsessed with the belief that everyone should go to university, and all the Technical Colleges became Colleges of Technology and then "Universities". I followed this route, found an employer who allowed me a paid day off each week for study as well as paying some study costs. Similarly, a close friend of mine, had his full time studies as a marine engineer supported by Esso prior to his going to sea, an arrangement that was clearly beneficial to both. More recently, my eldest daughter, who originally decided against university and went out to work, had her part time studies for a first degree supported by her employer to the extent that they allowed her time off on full pay and paid part of her fees.
I hope it catches on. The universities will get students who have a real incentive to study knowing that they have a job with good prospects awaiting them.
But I fear that it is going to face opposition - the interests of those seeking their kind of social reform and of the employers are clearly incompatible and there were be screams of rage from those to whom any idea of selection is an anathema.
Clearly the company won't be impressed by the government's social policies intended to force our universities to take inadequately educated pupils from poor comprehensive schools; they simply want the very best. However there are already murmurings from the left and from trendy liberals and no doubt these were get louder if, as seems likely, other major companies decide to follow suit. It'll be interesting to see what action the government takes to placate the LibDems.
But of course this is what used to happen in the "good old days" with apprenticeships, "sandwich courses" and day release. However, for some reason, governments became obsessed with the belief that everyone should go to university, and all the Technical Colleges became Colleges of Technology and then "Universities". I followed this route, found an employer who allowed me a paid day off each week for study as well as paying some study costs. Similarly, a close friend of mine, had his full time studies as a marine engineer supported by Esso prior to his going to sea, an arrangement that was clearly beneficial to both. More recently, my eldest daughter, who originally decided against university and went out to work, had her part time studies for a first degree supported by her employer to the extent that they allowed her time off on full pay and paid part of her fees.
I hope it catches on. The universities will get students who have a real incentive to study knowing that they have a job with good prospects awaiting them.
But I fear that it is going to face opposition - the interests of those seeking their kind of social reform and of the employers are clearly incompatible and there were be screams of rage from those to whom any idea of selection is an anathema.
Tuesday, 1 March 2011
Libya - Weapons of Mass Destruction
Whilst I am probably as appalled as anyone by the turn of events in Libya, and feel that there is a need for the civilized nations to take some action, I am somewhat concerned by the Daily Telegraph's reports of Weapons of Mass destruction, in this case Mustard Gas, which "are still a concern" according to a senior British Government Source.
Haven't we heard this before?
Haven't we heard this before?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
