And The Problem With This Is....?

Wireless 'wi-fi' technology should be removed from schools to prevent millions of children suffering a heightened risk of cancer and sterility, teachers demanded yesterday.

You know, even if this turned out to be a real risk, and not a load of baloney, I'm not entirely sure that sterilising some of today's schoolchildren (and teachers) is necessarily a bad idea...

Inspector Clouseau Strikes Again...

Ten suspects have been arrested by counter-terrorism officers in a series of raids across the North West of England, police said tonight.

The raids went ahead earlier than planned following a security leak this morning when Britain's most senior counter terrorism police officer, Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick, was caught on camera clutching sensitive documents as he arrived in Downing Street.

D'oh...!

Update: Blimey, that was quick!

Open Mouth, Insert Foot…

X-Men Origins star Hugh Jackman has called the leaking of his film a month before release a "serious crime".

Umm, no, sorry.

This is a serious crime. Also this. Leaking a film of a bunch of actors poncing around pretending to be superheroes, not so much. No matter how good the trailer looks….

On a brighter note:

A journalist for Fox News was dismissed earlier this week for posting a review of X-Men Origins based on a viewing of the illegal download.

Why didn’t he just wait to make up his review on the day of the release? No-one would ever have known, judging by some of the actual reviews of films that I’ve seen…

Meanwhile:

Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, has advised traumatised earthquake survivors to view living in emergency tent accommodation as like being on a "camping weekend".

Oh, for fu…

Actors and politicians – two groups with absolutely no sense of perspective whatsoever.

When Is A Charity Not A Charity?

Also in the ‘Times’, it appears that the MSM is increasingly turning its eye on charities. Jill Kirby points out the increasing role they take in political lobbying, sometimes against the stated aims of the charity’s original founders (which will, of course, come as no surprise to bloggers):

The National Children's Bureau was founded more than 40 years ago to support children's emotional and development needs; its founding director, Mia Kellmer Pringle, spoke passionately about attachment theory and the importance of love and security for the very young. Today, the front page of the NCB website carries a plea to the Prime Minister to “keep your promise, Gordon” by ending child poverty. It's hardly what Kellmer Pringle had in mind.

No, it’s not.

But she’s not in charge anymore. Now, the charity is in the hands of quite different people, with quite different ambitions.

Not for the charity. For themselves….

Poverty is top of the agenda for children's charities. For wildlife lobbies, the environment is the only game in town. Two years ago the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds seemed about to oppose the proliferation of windfarms on Britain's coastline, when a spokesman expressed concern about white-tailed eagles being killed by wind turbines off Norway. The RSPB was founded in 1889 to prevent the “wanton destruction of birds” , so the sacrifice of a rare species to an expensive and intermittent source of energy looked a legitimate target.

Last month, however, the RSPB changed tack, announcing that the threat of global warming presented such a danger to the natural world that Britain should accelerate its windfarm building programme; not to do so, said its head of climate change policy, would be a “disaster.” Bird populations will have to take their chances with the turbines, because the RSPB has signed up to the climate change agenda.

Hmm, yes. That’s almost a big an example of chutzpah as PETA campaigning against animal cruelty, while killing 90% of all animals given to them for rehoming….

So all those little old ladies sending in their annual donations in the hopes of ensuring a future for the blue tits and song thrushes on their garden birdtables should think again. The RSPB doesn’t ‘do’ birds anymore, it does bad science.

Still, at least ‘Save The Children’ campaigns for the poor of the Third World, right?

Wrong:

Yesterday the UK branch of the world's largest independent organisation for children announced that it was distributing £150,000 to British families to help them to pay for “basic essentials”. At £100 or £200 a family, this looks more like a stunt than targeted support. But Colette Marshall, director of UK programmes for the charity, is fishing for a bigger catch, saying that “we are calling for the Government to invest at least £3 billion in the poorest families as a one-off cash injection in this Budget”. Citing US research, she claims that a fiscal stimulus in the shape of payments to the poorest families will have the welcome side-effect of reviving the UK economy. It's a point of view, certainly - but is it the proper remit of an international voluntary organisation whose credibility rests on its ability to fight poverty, disease and death in the Third World?

And is it what the people who donate money to them intended?

I suspect the answer is ‘No’:

Because they “command high levels of public trust and confidence”, charities are “uniquely placed” to campaign.

Perhaps the commission should ask itselfif the high levels of trust enjoyed by charities can be maintained in the face of increasing political activism. With confidence in politicians sinking by the hour, surely it is time for the voluntary sector to stand aside from campaigning and focus on helping the needy?

You might think so, Jill, but that doesn’t get the management invites to the swankiest parties in town, and the chance to feel important attending conferences with ministers and Bono or Bob Geldof, does it…?

And that’s what it’s really all about, when your charity reaches a certain size and ‘brand recognition’.

In addition, as Ross points out, they won’t really need all those public donations soon...

Let’s Not Be Judgemental….

In the wake of the Doncaster child torture case, details of which are still emerging, the usual suspects are getting their sympathy on.

No, no, for the criminals, not the victims. That would be madness!

Leading the pack is Professor of Criminology David Wilson in the ‘Times’:

In my work I have yet to encounter a child who was “evil” — born bad. Rather, children behave badly because of what has been put into them and how they have been brought up. Violence is frequently the result of other violent acts.

Well, there you go. Prof Wilson has never seen it, ergo it doesn’t exist. That’s science, that is….

And before the police investigations are even properly started, much less concluded, he’s ready to tell us all that this is no big deal, we are mistaken if we think this is unique or even more common today:

So how should we respond to the boys who committed this crime? Clearly there will be some who will want to see this as another example of how today’s children are “out of control” and that things have got worse since they were growing up. Ignore them. Our children are not out of control and youth crime is neither new, nor rising uniformly in the country. I grew up in Glasgow in the 1960s and 1970s, for example, when the good citizens of that city were campaigning to bring back the birch as a way of responding to the youths who formed “razor gangs”.

And luckily, they didn’t succeed.

Hence we have the earthly paradise we have now, where children (and in some cases, adults) don’t live in fear of baby yobs with no consciences. If they’d succeeded in bringing back the birch, who knows what our society would…

Ooh, I think something’s wrong with your ‘reasoning’ there, Prof. After all, it seems the establishment has been listening to your sort for decades, and it’s not worked. Prescribing more of the same isn’t likely to either, is it?

But Prof Wilson is in full-on ‘appeasement’ mode and can’t be stopped:

The best way for us to react is to try to prevent crimes such as this happening in the first place, and here is the thing — we know what we should do to achieve that.

Keep young people in school, give them something to aim for, take seriously their fears and anxieties and work with them to overcome them. While I can’t promise that we will not see what happened in Edlington repeated, the chances of it becoming more common will all but disappear.

Mmm, yes, in the most child-centred period in history (for the middle classes, at least), these crimes are because we just aren’t deferring to them as much as we should.

It’s almost as if other factors are at play here, isn’t it? But we can’t expect a Professor of Criminology to understand that, I suppose…

Oooh, Yet Another Of Those ‘Extremely Rare’ Cases….

…of false allegations of rape:

A man has told of the pain and humiliation he endured when his estranged wife falsely accused him of rape.

You’d think those words, ‘estranged wife’, might have given the police a clue, don’t you?

He described how he was arrested at his home - he was watching TV in bed when police arrived - and spent 16 hours in a cell.

His clothes were taken for forensic examination and he was left naked so that DNA samples could be taken.

Mr Scoones said: 'I wasn't just stripped of my clothes, but of my dignity. I was stood there naked, with two police officers at one side of me and a doctor at the other side, having swabs taken from all over my body.

'It was humiliating and degrading. I don't blame the officers for investigating, but it is a heinous crime to be accused of and I'm still having nightmares now.'

That’s very forgiving of you, Mr Scoones….

Durham Crown Court heard that she told police Mr Scoones followed her home from a shop, forced his way into the house and raped her in a downstairs toilet.

She claimed she was hurt but had not been able to call police immediately because he threatened to petrol-bomb her house.

It was only after discrepancies emerged in a police interview with her that Mr Scoones was told he was in the clear and his ex-wife was charged with committing an act intended to pervert the course of justice.

Wouldn’t it have been an idea to have those interviews before arresting the poor guy? You know, to see if there really has been a rape after all?

PC Elizabeth Graham, of Durham Police's domestic abuse investigation team, said the force was very victim focused and that the allegation of rape had been taken seriously and fully investigated.

It was only when the truth emerged that Scoones stopped being treated as the victim.

How about, instead of assigning ‘victim’ status to one or the other depending on the complaint, the police wait to see where the actual evidence leads?

PC Graham said: 'This was a calculated and malicious allegation made by a frustrated ex-partner who had an aim of discrediting her former husband and subjecting him to the indignity of a police investigation into an allegation of rape.

'The sentence imposed reflects the gravity of the offence committed and takes into account the trauma the true victim of this incident experienced, as well as the significant waste of police time and money spent investigating a crime that never occurred.'

There we are again – ‘true victim’.

Of course, he’s only now assigned that title because it transpired that the wife set him up – before that, she was considered to be the ‘true victim’, and treated accordingly.

Deciding who the ‘victim’ is seems to take up a lot of police time. Doesn’t it…?

A Refreshing View. Can We See It More Often?

In a cartoon strip, a boy wearing a large cross around his neck is shown telling a friend that a smiling Muslim girl in a veil looks like a terrorist.

He later confronts her and shouts: "Hey, whatever your name is, what are you hiding under your turban?"

She replies that the garment is called a hijab and that it is part of her religion "like the cross you wear".

Pity the boy in the cartoon didn’t try to justify his comment by reference to the current government campaign to instil fear and suspicion in the populace. That would have been interesting!

But of course, what we have here is ‘noble Muslim/yobbish white boy’:

The girl is then shown standing up for another boy, who is being bullied, and her behaviour is contrasted with that of the boy wearing the cross.

Because that’s really prevalent in society today, isn’t it…?

The cartoon story, entitled Standing Up For What You Believe In, appears in the latest issue of Klic!, a quarterly magazine aimed at children in care aged from eight to 12.

Published by the Who Cares? Trust, a charity set up in 1992, it is described on the cover as "the best ever mag for kids in care" and is widely distributed by town halls.

Oooh, is this a..

Yup:

The charity received £100,000 from the Department for Children, Schools and Families, in both 2007 and 2008, and £80,000 this year.

No, no, no! The DCSF doesn’t have any money to give. That should read ‘..from the long-suffering taxpayer’.

Nice of them to spend our money spreading the impression that we are all yobs who abuse Muslims, isn’t it?

Philip Hollobone, the Tory MP for Kettering, said: "I think it is very unfortunate that the lad who is pointing the finger is wearing the cross. You can hardly imagine anyone producing a magazine in which the roles were reversed and it was the Muslim girl who was behaving badly"

Nope. I certainly can’t…

But Who Cares? Trust chief executive Natasha Finlayson described the cross as "bling" rather than a religious symbol. She said the charity had received one complaint.

Errr, hang on. In which case, why does the Muslim character refer to it as ‘a symbol of your religion’ then?

Doing some hasty backtracking, are we, Natasha?

However, this is a welcoming attitude to take:

"I am a Christian myself, so when a woman called us to complain, I went back and looked at the comic strip from her point of view," she said. "I am sorry she is upset but I don't share her view."

Excellent! That’s just the attitude to take when people complain, don’t you agree?

Can we ensure someone is rolled out to give that response the next time Muslims get upset about something? Which going on past experience, we won’t have to wait long.

Fair’s fair, after all….

The Camel Gets Its Nose In The Tent…

A total of 17 restaurant chains and catering companies have pledged to give consumers more information about what they are eating.

Because if they are given ‘more information’, they’ll stop eating ‘unhealthily’, I suppose…?

Hmm, I don’t think so somehow (and see ‘They’re Joking, Aren’t They?’ for some examples of the claims made regarding junk food and ‘poverty’….).

They have signed up to strict criteria set out by the Foods Standards Agency (FSA), working with the Department of Health.

They must:

• Show the number of calories in each portion in writing that is clear and at least as prominent as the name or price of the product


• Display calorie information for most food and drink they serve


• Print calorie information on menu boards, paper menus or on the edge of shelves

Newsflash – anyone not already fully aware that there are lots of calories, fat, salt and sugar in junk foods must be an idiot. Or the product of NuLab’s ‘world class’ education system, which pretty much amounts to the same thing…

Public health minister Dawn Primarolo said: "People want to easily see how many calories are in the food and drink they order when they eat out.

"This ground-breaking group of companies will help people to know what's in the food they are eating.

"I want to see more companies and more outlets to help even more people live healthier lives."

Cheers, ‘Red Dawn’, but this isn’t exactly a ground-breaking announcement, is it?

Prediction: this will be seized upon by the ‘worried well’ as a reason to watch what they eat like hawks (which, to be honest, they would do regardless) while the underclass will carry on stuffing themselves with Maccy D’s because they don’t care about, or can’t read, the calorie information.

All that will have been achieved is yet more government interference in private businesses. It’s almost as if that was the point all along. Isn’t it?

So, When IS The Right Time…

…for a publicly-funded TV presenter to mock an interviewee’s personal appearance on prime-time television?

A BBC spokeswoman said: "Clare Balding had no intention whatsoever of upsetting or embarrassing Liam Treadwell, but she fully accepts that she should not have raised the subject with him at that time.

That’s the classy, educated, accomplished presenter that your licence fee pays for.

So much better than the presenters on that crass commercial TV, don’t you agree?

Throwing Money Down The Drain. Again….

Firemen who are used to climbing 300ft ladders have been ordered not to climb up small step ladders due to health and safety concerns.

They have been told to use a special telescopic rod when checking and fitting smoke alarms rather than using step ladders.

Hmmm, this smells a little fishy…

The move has been blasted as 'ludicrous' by firemen who say they are trained to climb ladders as part of their job.

One said: 'It is preposterous. Climbing a ladder safely is an integral part of being a firefighter. It is what we do and we receive expert training to ensure we do it properly.

'To now be told we are not to be trusted with a set of step ladders is ludicrous. We will be banned from tackling fires because they can get quite hot. '

I wouldn’t be at all surprised, frankly.

But there may be more to this than meets the eye:

The rule has been introduced by Bedfordshire and Luton Fire and Rescue Service which is handing out 13ft fishing rod-style poles with the aim of speeding up smoke alarm fitting and checks.

And whereare they getting these from….?

Designers of the equipment, Fire Angel, said it was safer for firemen as well as being cost-effective and enabling higher ceilings to be fitted with smoke detectors.

A spokesman for Bedfordshire and Luton Fire and Rescue Service said the equipment was being rolled out because it was an efficient method of fitting detectors.

Hmmm, sounds more like a cozy little arrangement between a supplier of 13ft telescopic poles and the public sector, rather than any real worries about ‘elf and safety, doesn’t it…?