Post Of The Month

This month, Anna Raccoon's moving and bittersweet memory of her 'lost' relative.

I was in my 30s before I got round to wondering why none of my relatives spoke to any of the other relatives. I just accepted it as a child. Questions were not encouraged.

Read the rest...

Bloody Men!

Typical of them to want to get in on the act, after us ladies have led the way:

A man who told police he had been kidnapped and raped by two men has admitted making the story up.

There are some differences. Note the way the word victim is in inverted commas. Not sure I've seen that before. And check out the charge:

Ashley Vaughan, from Gittisham, Devon, admitted wasting police time when he appeared at Exeter Crown Court.

And look! They're even stealing our usual excuse!

Vaughan had reconciled with his family after a difficult period and was "looking forward", the judge added.

As a result, and despite the seriousness of the crime, which carries a maximum sentence of six months, he told Vaughan he was unlikely to be sent to jail.

"That's probably a bit severe," Judge Neligan said.

No. It's. NOT...

Should It Have..?

The Archbishop, who was once an advocate in the High Court of Uganda, argued for the creation of an appeals process, and added that he had been a "victim" of stop and search eight times.

He told peers: "When the policeman suddenly realised that I was a bishop, that didn't stop me being stopped and searched…"

Maybe they do things differently in Uganda…

Now, This Is Just Taking The Mickey!

Yesterday it was water, now it’s subsidised holidays:

…the Unite union is planning a fresh test for European human rights legislation: it plans to use it against British Airways to force the carrier to reinstate ultra-cheap Caribbean flights for striking cabin crew.

Can anyone say they definitely won’t succeed..?

Unite said on Monday that it planned a legal challenge over the decision by BA chief executive Willie Walsh to strip striking crew of their travel privileges – allowing them flights anywhere on the BA network for just a tenth of the usual fare.

"After careful consideration, Unite believes that management's action breaches European human rights legislation," said the union, claiming 6,000 crew were affected. "

Oh, good lord…

Angry Exile has more.

Hostages To Fortune Cutbacks

So, the police ‘service’ needs to make cuts.

Hmmm, where to start? All those useless diversity monitoring groups? Some of the stats-monitoring people who ensure paperwork, not pounding the beat, takes up the most time? No, that will never do.

I know! Let’s get rid of those officers injured on duty!

Senior police officers are planning to cull thousands of injured officers as part of a cost-cutting drive.

Under plans being drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), between 14,000 and 18,000 officers whose injuries mean they are no longer able to work on the front line would be offered severance packages.

‘Offered’ now. ‘Forced to take’ later?

The Police Federation, which represents 126,000 frontline officers, and the National Disabled Police Association (NDPA) say that any plan to force out injured officers could fall foul of disability legislation and promised to fight any move to target such a group.

Well, quite. Apart from anything else, it’s not going to improve morale amongst the remainder, is it? It’s not going to make the police service look like a good employer, or attract the best staff.

Unless...that's what they want? A workforce so on edge that they don't question orders?

Peter Fahy, the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester and the Acpo spokesman on workforce development, stressed that it was not the intention to introduce compulsory redundancies, but Acpo wants the ability to seek voluntary redundancies.

And if not enough take them?

Hard not to see this as the thin end of the wedge.

Any move to target unfit officers would be particularly contentious, especially in the wake of the Raoul Moat incident in which PC David Rathband was left blind after being shot in the face.

Can’t really argue with that.

What's That About 'Fear Of Crime' Diminishing?

Clearly, local councils don't think so:

Gang violence in cities has reached such high levels that councils are ferrying teenagers around in taxis – because they are too scared to walk through dangerous areas.

One inner London authority spent nearly £400,000 of taxpayers’ money last year putting youths into cabs because of fears for their safety.

Who knew your local council ran a free taxi service? Let me just ring up and...

The local council in Hackney, which has one of the highest rates of shootings and stabbings in the country, ran up a total bill of £440,000. Of this, 88 per cent – an average of £1,060 per day – was accounted for by ‘vulnerable children’.

Ah. Right.

Not just any children then?

A spokeswoman for Hackney Council said: ‘Hackney sometimes uses taxis to transport vulnerable children. The council will always encourage the use of public transport where appropriate.

‘However, the age and individual family/carer circumstances of a child can often mean that a taxi is the only option.

‘For example, if a young child is being looked after by a foster carer who also looks after a number of other children, the foster carer may be unable to take the child to have contact with his or her parents. So a taxi is used to ensure the child has a safe journey and is able to have this important family contact.

Riiiiiight...

Enver Solomon, assistant director of policy at children’s charity Barnado’s, said: ‘It is really important that children in care are properly supported because that will ultimately save the local authority money in the future.

‘The council is fulfilling its statutory duties with this, and if it were not, it would be in serious trouble.’

Note that the council won't be in 'serious trouble' for squandering taxpayer money on this sort of thing...

Tough On Crime, Tough On The Causes Of Crime...

...another strange cause of crime apparently now revealed as hot dog vans!

A “Hot Dog Hopper” van could be setting up shop outside the Jobcentre, near the Town Hall, until 5am from Monday until Saturday.

But Essex Police licensing officer Mick Aitchison has written to Colchester Council’s licensing committee opposing it.

Huh..?

He said: “Essex Police are extremely concerned this van could become a focal point for crime and disorder and public nuisance long after the latest alcohol premises in the High Street has closed (Liquid & Envy at 3.30am) and it will encourage persons to remain in the High Street long after the last visible police presence has cleared from this area.”

Well, don't 'clear from the area' then! Or is that too simple?

It seems the police are worried that another focal point for people (who may, or may not, cause trouble) will split their resources:

Currently, police can focus their resources on Queen Street and St Botolph’s Street in the early hours of the morning, as most takeaways in the town centre are based there.

Perhaps if the police are so short of resources they should give up the social work and stop harassing photographers?

The Dutch Quarter Association, and councillors Henry Spyvee and Bill Frame, are also against the plan.

Mr Spyvee said: “I am concerned the High Street is already unsafe during the hours of the night.

“Adding further potential for crime is unacceptable.”

So, there you have it. We must never, ever do anything that has the potential for crime.

Now, can anyone give me an example of an activity that doesn't - in some way - allow the potential for crime?

Stamping On Individual Choice

Tim Lang (professor of food policy at City university)

I am sufficiently ancient to wonder sometimes if modern political parties might have a collective memory problem. The last Tory government was bombarded by food crises for a decade – remember salmonella and BSE? It mismanaged these spectacularly at times.

But the Labour government fixed it, right?

Labour's response was to set up the Food Standards Agency (FSA), designed to "create blue water between us and safety difficulties", as one minister told me in 1998.

Ah, yes. The FSA. The department that brought us such ideas as the need for thicker chips, the need for portion control and the burning need for bigger menus. Well, I think we can safely lose them.

And so now, the ConDems have pulled the plug.

The new government has now decided to dismember the FSA. Its role as public health adviser on nutrition is to be absorbed into the department of health; its role as inspector of farms, food processing plants and so on will revert to Defra.

Who could argue against that?

Well, Tim’s going to have a damn good try.

Even before this dismemberment, what the FSA could achieve was limited. In particular, it was not able to consider the impact on the broader environment – cultural or ecological – when making recommendations to the public about food. The FSA lacked capacity to deal with the environmental implications of defining a sustainable diet, for example.

Oh, oh. I don’t like the sound of that…

Are we perhaps back in beetleburger territory?

Take the question, should I eat fish? Nutritionists say yes; fish stock analysts say no. To answer that question required the FSA to integrate ecological into nutritional advice. It fudged that one.

It’s possible for both those answers to be correct, Tim, and for the public to make up their own mind…

This matters. Take meat and dairy. They account for a huge proportion of consumers' food footprint. So should the UK cut its meat and dairy consumption? Yes, say health experts and environmentalists; no, say industry interests.

And what do the public say? Do they even figure in your thoughts?

Health secretary Andrew Lansley's recent speech to the Faculty of Public Health reiterated the mantra of pursuing "evidence-based policy". Quite right, but what if evidence competes? If the UK is to meet its legal obligations to meet climate change emission targets, this has to be addressed.

Well, maybe that ‘legal obligation’ is based on nothing more than smoke and mirrors? Maybe the 'climate change' movement is a giant con?

Should we not check out the evidence for that? Since we’re in an evidence-gathering mood?

The pursuit of cheaper food underestimates real costs. Who pays for climate change? Is the real cost of the good water going into that Kenyan green bean included in your checkout bill? And why is it easier to quench your thirst with a sugary soft drink than in a public, free water fountain?

It might be ‘easier’, but it’s actually more expensive. So if people are spending money on it, it must be because they want to. Maybe they prefer the taste?

Tackling obesity is like tackling climate change. It requires system change, and cannot be reduced to individual choice.

If we have no individual choice, we have slavery. Is that what you wa…

Oh, I’m wasting my time. It probably is what you want.

We can't go on eating as we are – destructive choices (eating more food that has been flown thousands of miles, for example) need to be edited out, and only governments can set the framework.

And the mask slips, to reveal the gibbering control-freak underneath. Welcome to the new world order according to Tim – you will eat what the government tells you, and like it…

The Grave's A Fine And Private Place...

...but it's not very green, is it?

Drainage problems and demand outstripping the supply of land have led council bosses to step up the search for a new graveyard site.

Recent wet winters and an ageing population mean Snell Hatch Cemetery will soon be fully occupied.

Oh dear. What to do?

The options are to either allocate a number of small sites which could serve the community for the next 50 years, find a site close to the existing crematorium or work with surrounding authorities.

A woodland burial site is also being investigated as a possible solution.

Woodland burials, also known as "green" or "natural" burials, are becoming increasingly popular with sites provided by both Brighton and Hove and Hastings Councils.

Yes, land is at a premium, and the green enthusists are plugging the alternative of 'green' burials. It's a problem for councils. And for people. Still, at least it's one we all share equally, regardless of race or creed or...

Oh. Oh dear:

The Daily Telegraph (print edition) reports that a council-run graveyard is selling Muslim burial plots more than £500 cheaper than those for non-Muslims, to the anger of local residents.

Huh..?

Wittering From Whitney reports that the council's excuse for this is that 'Muslims allow only one person to be buried in a grave, while people of other religions can use it for 'more than one person'...'

In which case, since we're all supposed to be doing our bit for Gaia, shouldn't they be charged more?

*fetches popcorn, waits for the fun to start*

Oh, Look! Another New ‘Human Right’!

Maude Barlow chairs the boards of the council of Canadians and Washington-based Food and Water Watch.

And she’s invented a new human right:

On 28 July, for the first time ever, the general assembly of the United Nations will hold a historic summit on the human right to water. It will consider and debate a resolution supporting the right to "safe and clean drinking water and sanitation" that was presented on 17 June by Pablo Solon, the Bolivian ambassador to the UN, and co-sponsored by 23 other countries. The desired outcome of the day is consensus on recognising the human right to water.

Oh, FFS!

When the 1948 universal declaration on human rights was written, no one could foresee a day when water would be a contested area.

I suspect no-one would have foreseen a lot of the things that now get classed as ‘human rights’. If they had, they might well have thrown up their hands in disgust and called the whole thing off…

But in 2010, it is not an exaggeration to say that the lack of access to clean water is one of the greatest human rights violation in the world.

Actually, sweetie, yes, it IS an exaggeration to say that.

Particularly since, as it currently hasn’t been accepted as such, it isn’t a human right. Yet…

The fact that water is not now recognized as a human right has allowed decision-making over water policy to shift from the UN and governments to institutions such as the World Bank, the World Water Council and the World Trade Organisation, which favour market solutions.

Oh, noes! Market solutions!

Support for the human right to water has been steadily growing in recent years but several wealthy countries – notably the UK, US, Canada and Australia – have emerged as negative forces, finding excuses not to support the resolution in its current form.

Of course they are ‘finding excuses’. It couldn’t possibly be that they have reached a different conclusion to you, can it, sweetie? That’s unpossible!

The new Conservative government of David Cameron is already on record that it will oppose this resolution unless it is amended to remove sanitation and only refer to "access" to clean water, not the human right to water itself.

Now, I wonder why they removed the ‘sanitation’ reference..?