They Don't Like It Up 'Em...

...and so the left-wing press has gone into overdrive, marshalling all its useful idiots:

The headteacher of one of the country's top private schools has accused the Daily Mail of setting an appalling example to young people as the paper faces a barrage of fresh criticism from leading figures in education, the church and media over its attack on the late father of Labour leader Ed Miliband.

Oh noes! The Attack of the Leading Figures In Education, the Church and Media! Run away! Run awaaaaaay!

Yes, we've had this ad nauseum for the last few days. It's been done to death, with bloggers of all stripes taking a view - some surprising, some expected, some spot on, about it. And it's not going the way the left-wingers want so far.

"If the Mail speaks for Britain, it is not a Britain I want to be part of," he said.

Referring to the paper's original article on Ralph Miliband eight days ago, which appeared under the headline "The man who hated Britain", he added: "It sets a very bad example to young people to belittle someone who is dead."

Mmmm, does it? Maybe you might want to have a word in the shell-like of the so-called offended party over that one:

I guess it's OK if they belittle someone who isn't dead at the time, but they just wish she was?

"I think it is nasty, it lacks taste and decency, and I worry about antisemitism."

Do you really? And you an educated man, supposedly?

Did you just not actually read the piece you're happy to criticise in your favourite rag, or are you under the mistaken impression that the thrust of the issue was that Miliband Snr was Jewish, rather than a nasty little Marxist?

"The constant trashing of people for the sake of selling newspapers is demeaning and destructive of trust."

If I Google, will I find a statement from you on the Savile Affair, and all the other fast-crumbling CPS cock-ups it has spawned? I bet I won't...

But the Left digs in and doubles down on the idiocy:

As investigations by this paper show that the Mail and Mail on Sunday are owned by a company controlled via an arcane network of financial vehicles based in two tax havens...

Gosh, so what? It's hardly 'undersea lair inside hollow Pacific Island volcano', is it? Most of us would simply call it 'good business' not to give more money to a government intent on using is as teenage boys would use car keys and whisky...

And after all, if it's up to your usual standards of 'investigations' on tax matters, which usually means 'regurgitating something a bunch if cretins has emailed you without checking', it's probably wrong anyway.

...the bishop of Bradford, the Right Rev Nick Baines, also attacks the Mail for damaging public life. The bishop said: "It is not a matter of taste. It is a matter of the corruption of civic life and the public discourse to do what the Mail did with Miliband."

...

"The Mail knows exactly what it is doing. I believe it is both corrupt and dangerous," Baines said.

Funny. Some of those 'leading figures in media' didn't seem to have that opinion when they were begging for a job there...

There's an old saying - never go to war with someone who buys ink by the barrel. Whoever it was who originally coined it, they were right. As the left is now finding out.

The Solution Is Not ‘More Power To The Charities’!

Stephen Bubb (chief executive of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations) on the ‘spectre of inequality’ that we are facing. Apparently…

Our society's tectonic plates are shifting, and the consequences for the most disadvantaged will be profound.

Really? Do tell us more…

Firstly, we face a growing gap between social need in this country and the public resources available to spend on it…. In the long term, our ageing population means the demand on a range of social services is set to outstrip supply.

But isn’t this the stated reason for our open borders policy? That we’ll just import the workforce we’ll need?

Surely you aren’t anticipating this no longer happening at some point in the future, Stephen?

Secondly, the cuts are being implemented in the context of a growing democratic deficit. The government is devolving power to a local level, but greater power is not being accompanied by greater accountability. Local media is weak, only a third of us vote in local elections, and quangos such as the Audit Commission that once interrogated local decisions have been pared back or abolished.

If ‘only a third of us vote’, doesn’t that rather imply that the so-called ‘democratic deficit’ is down to us to rectify?

Thirdly, our society is one in which the "haves" live increasingly parallel lives to those of the "have nots". The cabinet stands accused of being divorced from normal people, but the truth is that the fractures run deeper. Too many businesses are cut off from the hard reality in their own backyards.

Hmmmm. What of the salaries of the CEOs of the big charities, then? Does that money not insulate them too?

And across the board, charity leaders talk of public attitudes hardening, with greater suspicion of anyone who relies on public-funded support, be they disabled, mentally ill or unlucky enough to be raised as a child in a "feckless" family. As one charity CEO put it, we are becoming a less civilised society.

No, people are still happy to see those in genuine need helped; they are just increasingly aware that, as the Devil points out with this timely Mencken quote, the definition of ‘genuine need’ has been stretched so far it’s at breaking point. And so are they.

The homeless, victims of domestic violence, those with mental health problems, the elderly and alone, children in broken homes – the support for these people looks likely to be eroded over the next decade, without the nation they are part of appearing to notice or care.

Oh, we do care. We really do. We’ve been pointing out that the public sector largesse can’t last forever, that we cannot keep doling out public money into ever-open hands forever. Something has to give.

We have to stop doling out money and not fixing the problem, even if that means the flow of ‘work’ to charities dries up…

We must also plug the scrutiny deficit. The government's promised army of "armchair auditors" has not come to pass. Charities could fulfil the role given the right support – for instance, if we had better access to public-sector information.

You’ve got the same access everyone else has – in fact, you’ve got more. You’ve usually got an army of backroom staff at your plush HQ to submit FOIA applications for you! And that’s all you deserve to have.

If you want to be in the public sector, be in the public sector. Don’t expect to benefit from being a charity while taking on the duties and responsibilities of being a public sector mouthpiece.

Tomorrow's Manufactured Crisis Today!

The headline screams ''Invisible' children at risk from unofficial fostering'.

Sounds bad, right? Well, this is what is classed as 'unofficial fostering':

One in 10 children surveyed claimed to have been looked after by someone other than a parent or close relative for at least four consecutive weeks, yet only a tiny fraction of this number were registered with local authorities.

The people claiming this is a bad thing? Step forward, the British Association for Adoption & Fostering.

Yeah. They aren't likely to be impartial in this, are they?

BAAF estimates that up to one million "invisible" children could have spent weeks – or even years – living with family friends, neighbours, distant relatives or unregulated nannies without the knowledge of child protection experts.

Oh, noes! How could we let this happen? Wake up, people!

Six per cent of those affected said they weren't well looked after by private foster carers...

That never happens if you have a certificate, though, right?

Wrong. Very, very wrong.

...while a half experienced anxiety and loneliness.

Which children should never, ever experience. And official child fosterers guarantee they never will, right?

The Children's minister, Delyth Morgan, said: "We must do more to ensure local authorities are always notified about these arrangements."

*sigh*

I can't read any more. There's the usual case history of awful things happening, taken as representative of all these arrangements, and absolutely no mention whatsover of the official fostering horrors I managed to find with one Google search.

This is journalism? I think not...

Winston Churchill Was Right About Age Changing One's Political Attitudes After All…

Brownie at ‘Harry’s Place’ shows just where Leftists stand on the subject of civil liberties once they start to get older:

I must be getting old. It’s said this video (link only – having trouble with embeds) exemplifies Britain’s increasingly illiberal policing tactics and is yet another example of unjustified invocation of Section 44. Yet when I watch it, I see a cocky student getting more or less what she asked for.

You’ll have to imagine the ‘harrumph!’ with which he ended that sentence as he typed it…

I’m also assuming that the editing has been performed with the intention of portraying the police in the worst possible light.

It’s difficult to see how that could possibly have been edited to show them in a worse light than the simple fact that they are stopping someone doing something perfectly legal simply because they can does…

What was happening during the shots we don’t see may provide some context for language and events immediately preceding and following.

Ah, yes. The ‘We don’t see what happened off camera! She might have done anything to give a PCSO cause to act like an authoritarian bully!’ tactic.

Still, not to say that Brownie’s relatives are equally reactionary:

FWIW, a family friend who is also a PCSO agrees the student is being needlessly obtuse, but thinks a PND was over top. The visit to the station should have been sufficient.

Why, how nice! Yes, it would have been enough to require her to report to the station, there’s no need to go overboard…

/sarc

This sort of reaction to what should be an outrage is why we are fast heading down the road towards a police state, or possibly even something worse.

See also…

I Can Answer That One For You, Ramon…

However, one question remains: who will be held accountable for what went wrong?

No-one.

The employment tribunal was inexorably drawn to the conclusion that I had been suspended from my position at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital as a direct result of the concerns I raised in letters to the trust's management. Further, it was confirmed by the chief executive of the trust that my exclusion was not based on any clinical grounds regarding my practice, yet my suspension was maintained for a period of 10 weeks. This shows a complete disregard for the job in hand – to deliver care and services to patients.

You assume, Ramon, that that’s the job of all those people that, like you, work in the NHS.

But it clearly isn’t.

Some are employed to do what they did to you, and anyone else stupid enough to think that care of patients is the main function of the NHS…

So, what now? What measures will be put in place to ensure that another person within the NHS can raise legitimate and well-founded concerns about the impact that cost-cutting is having on the level of care that is provided by an NHS trust, and will not be silenced by the stigma of being perceived as a troublemaker?

None.

Beginning to get the message now?

There exists little in the way of a regulatory mechanism, punitive measures or indeed any general oversight to ensure we do not see any more highly skilled medical professionals removed from the NHS because they took their duty of care to patients seriously.

Yup. And if you think that isn’t by design, well, I’ve a bridge to sell you…

What mechanism will deter any trust from pursuing this course of action again, without being held accountable or being severely punished for doing so?

None, of course. And that’s why they should be ‘held accountable’ and ‘severely punished’.

But they won’t be.

Working As Intended…

New rules on who can work with children are too bureaucratic and will not guarantee safety , say school leaders.

So, what else is new?

Volunteer helpers could be deterred, resulting in fewer work placements and language exchanges, they say.

In other words, the public must learn that everything flows from the beneficence of the State, and not from other citizens.

Hmm, sounds like a familiar strategy to me…

The school leaders say there will be a reduction in the support of parent volunteers in schools, for example for school plays and fund raising, as a result.

They also foresee difficulty in obtaining emergency support staff such as plumbers, heating engineers and midday meals supervisors.

And they say there are bureaucratic hurdles to senior school pupils helping out in junior schools - as they do for example with reading or with maths and science clubs.

They warn: "Concern has also been expressed by colleagues that there could be a sense of false security engendered by the completion of checks."

All true. Though they seem to consider this a bug, when it is, in fact, a feature…

What does BigGov have to say about these concerns?

But a spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said: "Ensuring we have a system that is robust but proportionate is crucially important, and that is why these concerns are being considered by Sir Roger as part of his check of the system.
"We know that as part of his work he has had representations directly from the head teacher unions and the Independent Schools Council, which represents the independent sector organisations that have signed the letter.

"We are sure their views will be considered in forming his recommendations, which are due to be published shortly."

Allow me to translate that bit of soothing bureaucratic doublespeak: ‘”Shut up”, they explained…’

If You Only Read One Blog Post Today...

...then make it this one from MummyLonglegs.*

Who thought NuLab's perfidy went quite that deep?

*OK, you'd have to read two, I realise that.. :)

Monstrous Arrogance…

One of Britain's most senior police officers has launched a robust attack on the Conservative Party's proposal to introduce directly elected police commissioners, warning that it could lead to some forces falling under the control of far-right extremists.

Because it’s perfectly fine if they remain under the control of the current bunch of soft left appeasers and greasy pole climbers, I suppose?

Sir Hugh Orde, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said he was opposed to the idea and gave a warning that public apathy voting could lead to "lunatics" being elected to take charge of forces.

At least they would be elected, Sir Orde.

Not merely appointed like you, as Raedwald also points out…

…Sir Hugh, Britain's second most senior officer after Sir Paul, has called on the Conservative Party to explain exactly how it plans to alter the leadership of Britain's police forces should it be elected at the next general election.

Sorry…?

Since when does a political party – especially one not in power yet - have an obligation to ‘explain’ anything to the likes of you, rather than to the voters?
Just who the hell do you think you are?

Sir Hugh said: "No one has articulated to me or anyone else what the elected commissioner plan actually looks like. I know that Labour have stepped back from it, but the Conservatives are still committed to it. They need to talk to us about what exactly they are talking about doing.

"Do they think that the public are so interested in policing that they would turn out and vote? And for whom? A politician? Or do they mind if they get a lunatic or a retired copper? All of these questions need to be answered."

Oh, wow. Did you ever see more concentrated disrespect for the people who pay this arrogant, entitled fool his wages in your life?

It’s a wonder he didn’t end that sentence with a ‘Harrumph!’, isn’t it?

Or perhaps he did…

Asked whether he feared that a BNP or far-right candidate could seize upon this, Sir Hugh replied: "Yes, that is a risk. If you have a system whereby anyone can stand to be elected as the local police commissioner, you could have any Tom, Dick or Harriet standing. If they can muster enough support against a backdrop of public apathy, then of course it is a risk."

Frankly, I can’t see how anyone could do worse than your little unelected clique, and if they did, we, the voters, can always toss ‘em out.

Many supporters of the proposal have pointed out that it is similar to apparently successful models in the United States, but Sir Hugh rejected the suggestion that it could work here. He added: "Perhaps people should go to America before saying things like that. I know a lot of sheriffs and they seem to spend a lot of their time canvassing and preparing for elections. Is that really what the public wants for British policing?"

As opposed to what your ACPO members seem to spend their time doing?

Yes. I think it is what the British public would rather see you doing…

"If people seriously think some form of elected individual is better placed to oversee policing, I am interested to see the details of how that is going to work. Every professional bone in my body tells me that it is a bad idea that could drive a coach and horses through the current model of accountability."

No, that’s not the (supposed) ‘professional bones’ in your body telling you that.

It’s the accumulated entitlement that you’ve built up, now you think you see the possibility of some of that privilege slipping away.

And your immediate reaction to the proposals shows that you are not, and never were, fit for the position you hold.

We Can’t Teach Them To Read Or Write, But We Can Teach Them That ‘Girlz Rool! Boyz Drool!’….

Pupils as young as five will be taught about the evils of 'wife beating' and the need to form healthy relationships.

The lessons are part of a controversial drive, unveiled today, to reduce violence against women and young girls.

They will include teaching boys that they must not beat their partners or any other female.

But beating other boys is OK, then? And will the five-year-old girls receive the same advice, or are they to be allowed to grow up into little charmers like these?

Last night, critics warned that ministers are cramming the already over-stuffed National Curriculum with lessons that should be taught in the home or in the community.

And so it should come as no surprise that one in five pupils leaves primary school unable to read and write…

The Government claims that violence against women is costing Britain an astonishing £40billion.

It has emerged they are carrying out five separate reviews into the causes and how women can be better protected.

This is despite evidence showing that boys and young men are more than twice as likely to fall victim to violence, and that young women are becoming increasingly aggressive.

Well, like the ‘man made global warming’ scam, some things obviously don’t require anything so jejune as ‘evidence’…

In a document peppered with the language of Miss Harman's equalities-agenda, the Government says the first ever Violence Against Women and Girls strategy is in production by departments across Whitehall, and will be published this autumn.

It declares: 'Our vision is a society where women and girls feel safe and confident in their homes and communities so that they can develop fully, live freely, contribute to society, and prosper in their daily lives. We want to overcome women's and girls' fear of crime and the gender-based violence that they experience.'

Men, presumably, can just f*** off…

How is this, in any way, shape or form, an ‘equality agenda’? Don’t words have their usual meanings any more?

As well as the lessons, the already stretched Health Service has been ordered to conduct studies into how it can improve treatment of women at risk of violence, and police must carry out a review of domestic violence incidents.

Separately, Dr Linda Papadopoulous is carrying out a 'fact-finding review of the sexualisation of girls and links to violence'. All will report back later this year, and lead to the publication of an action plan.

Whoopee! An action plan! That’ll fix everything…

Jill Kirby, of the Centre for Policy Studies, said Miss Harman and the Government should not be creating the impression violent crime is men against women, when the statistics show this is not the case.

She added: 'It is young men who are most likely to be the victims of violent crime. It is a distortion to suggest otherwise. It appears that everything must be viewed through the prism of 1960s feminism.'

Ouch! That’s going to leave a mark…

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This Government answers every problem with another review instead of actually taking real action to get to grips with violent crime and its causes.'

Of course they do.

They are bereft of ideas and solutions, and have sucked the coffers dry; all they can do now is await the axe that will fall at the next General Election, and try to cause the incoming party as much damage as possible to clean up….

”If voting changed anything, they’d abolish it…”

Plans for direct elections to police authorities have been dropped by the Government amid fears that they would lead to extremist politicians being able to control forces.

It’s ok if the incompetent and corrupt ones control forces, it seems, but let the extremists have a bite at the cherry? That would never do!

Ministers also decided that the controversial proposal would run into strong opposition on the back benches and in the House of Lords, leading to another embarrassing defeat.

And Labour certainly don’t need another one of those…

The decision comes just weeks after the ousting of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, by the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, a move that many senior police officers saw as overt political interference in policing.

Seems only fair, since Blair had been interfering in politics for quite a while!