The Headline Is More Dramatic Than The Story!

Which is often the case in local newspapers:


As one wag asks in the comment, 'from helicopters'?

A police helicopter circled overhead from about 11am but there was no trace of the three people who had been inside the car.

They had received reports that the trio had been drinking alcohol and shouting abuse at residents.

Oh, dear. Still, it wasn't entirely a wasted journey:

The search for the suspects led police to a flat in Saxon Gardens where they were let in by a woman.

Inside they discovered several cannabis plants before arresting the 21-year-old on suspicion of cultivating the drug.

The woman, who is from Shoebury, is currently is police custody.

Wel done lads! Another arrest for disorderly gardening!

Assumptions...

Spencer Woodcock (who runs a project supporting elderly people in Kentish Town) is the latest to try a humanising tack in ‘CiF’, in a bid to push the Open Borders agenda:

Asylum seekers, economic migrants: the debates snarl ever on, not always illuminated by the tabloids. But though the "big society" is big news, there is a side to the concept I witness daily, but have never seen reported: migrants can represent a very valuable source of volunteers.

Well, that's nice for you, Spencer. And nice, I suppose, for the elderly.

Last week, we took 30 older people to a farm shop near Reigate. Now, being stuck in roadworks outside Leatherhead may not be everyone's idea of unconfined joy, but to a housebound elderly person, just being in company and escaping "those four walls" for a few hours can be hugely important. And two of the frailest passengers were able to come only because we had volunteers from Eritrea and Bulgaria to push their wheelchairs.

Ah, this is a case of us importing people to do jobs we no longer want to do ourse...

Oh. Wait.

I'm not bemoaning broken Britain, or any native neglect of our vulnerable elderly. We get plenty of British volunteers too.

So, why this article then?

…local older people benefit immensely from the input of our non-native volunteers. And not just in the obvious ways. Personally, I love working with people from so many cultures and backgrounds. It makes my job more interesting.

Aha! You see, Spencer likes the idea. The idea is good, to Spencer, therefore Spencer assumes it's considered good by everyone else.

But not all our members are keen on the demographic changes London has experienced over the last 50 years.

The majority of our clients are white and working class. Many are Camden born and bred. One lady of 90 was born in the same house she lives in today. They grew up in a very different place; one that was almost entirely white, with a very strong sense of community.

Oh oh! Spencer's glee at out multiculti world isn't shared by everyone. Oh, dear!

It is hardly surprising if the transformation in the ethnic and cultural make up of NW5 has left some feeling threatened and bewildered.

Indeed. After all, they never voted for it, in fact, they were never asked if they thought it was a good idea. It was assumed (by people very much like Spencer) that it was a good idea, and so everyone should put up with it...

But witnessing those tabloid-reviled asylum seekers and supposedly selfish economic migrants giving up their own time to help out more vulnerable members of our community really has changed attitudes.

He doesn't give any examples. He just states it as a fact.

How nice for Spencer. I suppose...

Oh, Zoe, The Government Doesn’t ‘Communicate’ With Us…

Zoe Williams greets the news that the Central Office of Information is to suffer job cuts and a slashed-to-the-bone advertising budget with delight, because the right targets are in the firing line:

Ad men will be hard hit since this is not one of those fabled moments when the private sector will grout in the cracks left by the withdrawal of government money. The cracks are more like fissures, for a start.

It's hard to sympathise, given the sense that behind every negative social trend, every inadequacy dressed in Prada, every self-esteem issue smothered in Dove, every niggle of consumerism that makes us all consume so much, there's an adman directing us gaily towards idiocy, then laughing.

Yes, in Zoe’s world, it’s the fault of the ad men that she maxed out her credit card on shiny, shiny 42” HD-TVs and shoes and jewellery and…

Consternation nevertheless surrounds that other question – how, without public information campaigns, does the government communicate with the public?

Ummm, the same way they have done since time immemorial? Public information leaflets, mailshots and now, the internet?

The example that's often given by opponents of the cuts is that of emissions legislation, which businesses wouldn't be familiar with unless they had had ads targeted at them.

Hey, if they need a glossy advert to draw their attention, perhaps that’s merely because its something businesses see no value in? Just a thought…

This kind of communication is relatively cheap. You don't need the brightest minds of a generation to alert people to changes in the law.

Quite…

If it's on the statute books, and people need to know, it is not expensive to tell them.

Indeed…

The pricey advertising is in the messages that are a bit more nebulous and a little less statutory – campaigns aimed at changing behaviour and/or mindsets.

Aha! Now we get to the meat of the issue.

The obvious areas are public health: smoking and diet now; taking heroin and getting HIV in the past.

Yes, well, clearly it was worth it, because no-one now takes heroin or gets HIV, right?

Diet initiatives, especially the Change4Life campaign, are much more controversial, even though this one looks cute and straightforward, with its multicoloured morph men telling you to eat more sweetcorn.

That’s because they are expensive, hectoring tosh, usually based on bad science, or even on no science.

On a food-swap wheel distributed in GPs' surgeries and children's centres, it told people to swap squash for a smoothie, when smoothies are 57 times more expensive than squash and also much more calorific. What it ultimately looked like was an attempt not to improve national health but to replicate the middle-class diet across the entire population – to say, in other words, that the reason you are obese is that you are insufficiently middle-class.

No, the reason that you are obese is because you stuff your face too often and don’t exercise enough. Class has nothing to do with it…

These are potently reminiscent of the Protect and Survive campaigns of the 70s and 80s – the intention was not to make sure that everybody had a table and four doors to lean across it in the event of a nuclear war, any more than the intention today is to make sure everybody has a ready supply of hummus for better household health. The intention is more of a "Hands up, this is your problem. We are a nuclear state: this is your problem. There is an obesity epidemic: this is also your problem".

And in what way is that NOT true, Zoe?

In time, I'm sure, it will become obvious that obesity is no more about personal behaviour than is surviving a nuclear attack.

Eh..?

Are the Russians sending over Bears and Bisons loaded with fatty, sugary snacks, then, while the population wait below, mouths agape?

I think not…

It will become obvious, furthermore, that those advertising costs were defrayed with the precise intention of shunting responsibility around and creating some static, some debate, around an issue that would otherwise be chalked up to government failure. So finally, some money well saved.

The only people attempting to ‘chalk it up to government failure’ are the progressives who want government to do more and more, and individuals to do less and less.

The government is only obliged to provide advice. Not to ensure we take it.

I Have To Say...

...this doesn't sound too different to House of Commons parties the last time the Tories were in power...

After the Commons banquet, guests are invited to attend an ‘After Party’ on a nearby boat where entertainment includes ‘pole dancing, burlesque and erotic performances’.

At least David Mellor is probably now too old to take advantage.

*shudder*

Sunday Funnies

One for the hoplophobes to angst over...

False Economies…

Remember this story from last year?

A Cornish council worker who became a minor celebrity for commuting to London from an Epping Forest campsite claims he was forced out of his old job for speaking out about his choice of accommodation.

Because I certainly do…

Philip Hanman, 58, hit the headlines in the midst of the MPs' second homes scandal last year when he revealed he travelled 330miles every week from his home in Penzance to sleep in a £7 a night tent at Debden House campsite in Loughton.

He would then commute to his job at Barking and Dagenham Council, but Mr Hanman has now revealed his employer was not happy with him telling his story of cut-price accommodation.

Which won’t come as a surprise to anyone who has had to deal with council officials.

He said: “It all started with a broadcast I heard on Radio 4's PM programme. It was about the expenses scandal and second homes. I sent them an email saying 'My second home is a tent', and they sent someone out to the forest to interview me and then broadcast it.

“That very evening when I got home to Cornwall there was an email on my computer from the council saying: 'Be very careful, you are looking at disciplinary action.'

No, I can’t quite figure out what for, either!

“I'd never had any criticism for my work and then all of a sudden everything I did was unsatisfactory. I was criticised for everything and couldn't do anything right.”

Mr Hanman eventually became so fed up with his job as a (redacted) at the council, he took voluntary redundancy in April this year.

An interesting story, and he deserves to go far.

I thought about him when I saw this report:

A fraud probe has been launched into Town Hall workers after a council cheque was cloned three times, altered to a six figure sum and sent to India.

Serious Organised Crime Agency investigators got involved after forged cheques for more than £10,000 were received by families thousands of miles away.

Mr Hannan’s former job with Barking & Dagenham? They one they dispensed with? The one I redacted?

Yup, you guessed it:

…his job as a fraud manager at the council…

Well, I guess they couldn’t predict they’d ever need those, could they?

You Peasants WILL Listen To Us…Or Else!

Mothers who choose not to breastfeed in maternity units at three hospitals will have to provide their own supply of milk.

Mid Essex Hospitals NHS Trust is introducing the new policy from October to enforce the message breast is best.

Because if you can’t or prefer not to, then you are obviously a failed mother, who won’t listen to her betters…

Mothers who choose to bottle feed will have to bring their own supply of ready prepared, not powdered, milk formula.

No doubt the reason for insisting on it being ‘ready prepared’ is to make it just that little bit more difficult for those dreadful proles who will insist on making decisions for themselves?

Health bosses say it is in line with the Baby Friendly Initiative, a World Health Organisation programme promoting excellent care of pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers and babies. The trust is working towards full Unicef Baby Friendly standards.

Just who is the trust supposed to be working for, again?

The community it serves (and fleeces for running costs), or an unelected, unrepresentative foreign quango?

Of Mice And (Owl) Men...

Characters. Eccentrics. Enthusiasts.

Every town has one, even in 2010, amid the hustle and bustle and hectic life. One such is Southend's Owlman. A partially sighted chap, he can often be seen, with his cane and his little cart on which perches his eagle owls, or his rescued tawny and barn owls, collecting money for wildlife charities in the High Street. He's got his own Facebook page, set up by a member of the public, he's been photographed and uploaded to Flickr, he's been lauded in the local paper.

While shopping a few weeks ago, I thought about him, and realised I hadn't seen him for quite a few months. I wondered if old age or infirmity had finally curtailed his fundraising.

And then I forgot about him. As you do, when you're busy.

Until Friday morning, that is, when I read this story:

A pensioner has been banned from taking his pet owls for a walk due to health and safety concerns.

You're kidding me, I thought. Until I remembered that I live in the UK, in 2010, where this sort of thing isn't as implausible as it would once have been...

Mr Burt, a grandfather-of-one, of Plympton, Devon, says the owls enjoy the fresh air and he often draws a crowd of onlookers.

Known locally as 'The Owl Man', he has a licence to display birds and also collects money which he gives to a local wildlife charity.

But he has now been banned from taking his owls outside - after his local council ruled the daily walks are a health and safety risk.

Say what? Have his owls ever savaged someone, then? Do we need a 'Dangerous Owls Act'?

Officials say he could no longer take the owls out on the grounds that they could be ''spooked'' by traffic and ''run amok'' and attack someone.

Which has never happened, ever. But might do. So can't be too careful, right?

Never mind that the UK is the home of far, far larger birds, some of which occasionally (unhindered by being tethered to a man's wrist by jesses) land on the road and cause havoc.

The council will say that they aren't responsible for them, being wild birds. But guess what? They aren't responsible for Mr Burt's owls either! He is, and has insurance to cover such eventuality.

They say he can still display the birds at schools and care homes but cannot walk them in public because it is not a ''controlled'' environment.

Well, that's mighty generous of them, isn't it? And who knew you needed the permission of the council to walk down a town street with your pet?

Certainly, I rather doubt Plympton is a stranger to the chav spaniel, and they seem pretty unconcerned about anyone walking one of those down the street...

And if you're worried for your safety in Plympton, it's unlikely to be because of owls or elderly men.

So how much council time did this issue take up?

Several police officers, council officials and a dog warden said the birds shouldn't be outside because of the light and noise.

FFS!

OK, calm down. Breathe...

Maybe there was a string of complaints? Perhaps the locals got up a petition, worried by the potential for Owlzilla to break free and rampage through Plympton, eating their dogs and ravishing their wives?

Mr Burt said they only took action because a member of the public complained that the owls should be asleep during the day - which he says is not true.

Ah. Of course. One....single...complaint.

Not surprising any more, is it? But the most surprising thing was the reaction of Mr Burt:

'I've just got to take it, I suppose.'

NO YOU HAVEN'T! There is NO LAW that would allow the council to do this. Even they - while tossing around the word 'ban' like confetti - have been very, very careful not to quote any such law:

A spokeswoman for Plymouth City Council said Mr Burt was banned from taking the owls out in the streets because of health and safety issues.

She said: ''We spoke to Mr Burt about travelling along busy roads with his pets as, in the wild, owls live a nocturnal lifestyle and we are concerned about welfare issues around exposing it to loud and hectic environments.

''There are also safety issues for the public around a large spooked bird of prey running amok on a highway.

''We are more than happy for him to continue showing the animal in controlled environments such as schools and care homes, but to protect him, his pet and the public we have asked that he finds alternative forms of transportation.''

Aha! The weasel word is in the final paragraph. There's no 'under subsection D of the...' mentioned. The council know full well that this case, should it come to court (as it should do) would be thrown out.

But they count on the modern attitude of 'don't make a fuss' in order to get away with it...

Mr Burt...said local people had created a petition to bring his owls back.

NO NO NO! *bangs head on desk*

You don't petition the council for one of your rights back. They had no right to try to convince you they were allowed to take it in the first place!

*sigh* When will people wake up, and stop allowing these people to run their lives?

I wonder now about Southend's Owlman. I wonder if he, too, has been on the receiving end of a visit from a junior council gauleiter-in-training with nothing better to do council official?

And I wonder how long our streets will contain eccentrics, characters and enthusiasts? I wonder how long it will be before we all cower behind closed doors, afraid to walk the streets, not knowing what is 'banned' and what is 'allowed'?

And then I wonder why our parents and grandparents bothered fighting a war at all...

We Must Buy Them Milk, Because Their Parents Might Buy Coke Instead...

Helen Crawley (nutrition policy, City University London) weighs in on the milk controversy:

The image of milk as a wholesome drink for children, promoting growth and strong bones and teeth, remains rooted in our images of child health – which is largely why the idea of taking away free milk for under-fives was quickly vetoed by David Cameron.

Well, no. It was vetoed in a panic by a no-principles Prime Minister more intent on looking good in the mdia than doing the right thing...

Milk is still recommended for young children, despite controversies over the fat and saturated fat content of whole milk and arguments over hormone contents, lactose intolerance, milk allergy and a range of other suggested health disadvantages.

Which Helen is keen to pooh-pooh, as they aren't her particular bugbear, and 'free' milk for the nation's children apparently is...

In the UK in the pre-school years, milk is still a major provider of energy and nutrients…It can be argued that these nutrients are available in other foods, and some may not be in short supply in the diets of many young children, but it is difficult to unpick the contribution that free milk for under-fives might play in their overall diet – not least for those children from households where other food and drink choices may not be optimum.

Hmmm, translation into English, please?

If we can't say for sure how important subsidised milk might be in the diets of children who spend time in childcare settings, we can consider the impact of taking it away. Some will continue to serve milk and pay for it themselves, but there is at present limited advice to childcare settings on what, and how much, food and drink are needed by pre-school children.

If they can pay for milk themselves, then why, oh why, are we paying for it?

Hungry children leaving childcare and returning home in a culture where milk is seen as "less important" are likely to be given fruit-based drinks, perceived and marketed as "healthy alternatives", but these can damage teeth (with or without sugar in them), offer few other nutrients and will habituate children to sweet-tasting drinks.

If they can afford Coke and Fanta then they can afford milk, can't they?

Well, I Suppose This Is One Way To Stop Nuisance 999 Calls…

Tens of thousands of innocent members of the public who report crimes are having their personal details stored on a 'secret' police database.

Those calling 999 about an incident or witnesses to crimes are routinely being asked for their ethnicity and date of birth, it has emerged.

So, just say ‘No’. How hard can it be?

After all, it’s voluntary, as they have to admit…

A spokesman for North Yorkshire Police confirmed that callers are routinely asked their name, date of birth and ethnicity.

Assistant Chief Constable Sue Cross said it was 'categorically wrong' to suggest that the force was operating a 'secret database'.

She said: 'Data quality is an essential factor in being effective, which is why we request that individuals who come into contact with North Yorkshire Police provide additional information regarding their date of birth and ethnicity.

'Whilst this is completely voluntary on the part of each person, this desirable information allows the police to create a unique person record which can help to accurately identify repeat callers who may be subject of ongoing problems with crime and anti-social behaviour or other issues such as domestic violence.'

The problem is, as Longrider points out, no-one says ‘no’ anymore. We have been selectively conditioned to obey.

When I went to set up a hospital x-ray appointment for my arm, the receptionist asked me for my mobile phone number. I said ‘no’; she looked up in surprise and said ‘Don’t you have one?’.

I replied that I did, but she wasn’t having it, as it wasn’t necessary, nor would I be giving her my work number. She looked even more surprised at that!

A spokesman for the National Policing Improvement Agency, which issued the guidance on information management to forces across the country, said officers should only record details proportionate to the offence.

He added: 'For example, more information may be required for a murder compared to a witness to shoplifting. And ethnicity may be an issue in a race hate crime.'

Really?

Even if you are just dialling 999 to report one? Pull the other one!

So why are the police keeping these details anyway?

The police system of record keeping was reformed following the Bichard inquiry into the Soham murders, which saw Humberside and Cambridgeshire police being heavily criticised for their failings in maintaining intelligence records on Ian Huntley.

/facepalm.

That law of unexpected consequences strikes again….