I Think We Have Better Things To Spend Money On, Frankly

Sorry if that seems harsh, but…

Prisoners should be handed an anti-overdose drug when they leave jail in case they binge on heroin in their first days outside, the Government’s drug advisers said yesterday.

And if they do, and subsequently kill themselves, well, so what?

Professor Les Iversen, chairman of the advisory council, said a single injection of naloxone could revive a heroin addict from a coma. He wants it to be more widely used after figures showed that, on average, one in eight heroin–injecting prisoners overdose within two weeks of leaving jail and one in 200 die.

“Getting it as widely available as possible is the name of the game,” he said.

“It is really a magic medicine. Issuing naloxone kits to heroin addicts as they leave prison as a way of trying to save some of their lives.”

Are they lives we want to save? Put bluntly, at a time when money is tight, is it worth the cost?

Critics said last night that it could encourage addicts to take stronger doses of heroin, knowing they had an antidote.

Well, quite!

At £15 a time, it would cost the public hundreds of thousands of pounds to fund every year.

We can’t afford it. Even if it made sense, even if we were flush, I’d say it’s something we can’t afford.

Yesterday, David Liddell, a member of the advisory council and the Scottish Drugs Forum, said: “'You can’t recover if you’re dead’, is the line we’re backing on this. It should be seen as an important part of a recovery strategy to try to save as many lives as possible.

“Over 500 drug-related deaths could be prevented through naloxone and other methods.”

We can spare 500 useless druggie wasters, though, can’t we? It’s not as if they are likely to be brain surgeons, is it?

Oh, I Think You Soon Will Be ‘Sitting In A Court Of Law Again’…

…albeit not in your usual seat:

A judge who launched a foul-mouthed tirade against the British justice system after being found guilty of owning a dangerous dog was at the centre of a fresh police inquiry yesterday.

Yup, it’s her. Again.

Judge Beatrice Bolton, 57, vowed never to sit in a court of law again after she was found guilty, branding the verdict a ‘****ing travesty’.

She’s under investigation by the judicial ethics people, who seem to be taking their own sweet time…

Police are now investigating claims of a fresh dog attack at her home after a postman was bitten on the thigh and buttocks last weekend. The Royal Mail is so concerned about the safety of its staff it has suspended all deliveries to three properties, including Judge Bolton’s, because of the ‘danger’.

It seems the judge is relying on the ‘no, not my dog this time!’ tactic:

The police have taken statements from neighbours and are investigating the attack. Sources said Mr Auld told the police that he believed the dog belonged to the £140,000-a-year judge. Mr Auld’s wife, Susan, last night insisted: ‘It was her dog.’

But Judge Bolton said: ‘It’s not my dog.’ Referring to December’s court case, she added: ‘Will you kindly stop publishing that my dog took a chunk out of Frederick Becker, because he didn’t. Everybody agrees that the injury was a scratch. ‘I am warning you that if there is any inference at all that I was involved or that it was my dog, then you are going to be in trouble.’

Maybe that gave the caption guy pause, because there seems to be a bit missing: Maybe they’ll have a doggy ID parade? Do they work? Can you tell one crazy, out-of-control bitch from another?

Saying It With Flowers!

Mr Blyth, 28, of Wick Lane, Ardleigh, commissioned the display to promote a website for his company, the Boot Group, which runs car boot fairs off Old Ipswich Road, Ardleigh.

It was the advert for his company, picked out in daffodil bulbs on a hillside. Pretty innovate, no? Who could possibly object?

Council officials originally ordered Robert Blyth to dig up 13,000 flowers planted on his land in Ardleigh claiming they amounted to illegal advertising.

Oh. Right.

Now Tendring Council has backed down and apologised for demanding he remove his 150ft floral display.

Wait, what?

Mr Blyth said: “I have not long been off the telephone to a senior enforcement officer who has decided the council would like to retract the enforcement action it was planning to take – and get the officer to write to us personally with sincere apologies.”

This is pretty unprecedented!

Nigel Brown, Tendring Council's communications manager, confirmed officials had contacted Mr Blyth and apologised for the way it dealt with the matter.

He said: “We have held our hands up and will not be pursuing this any further.”

Wonders will never cease...

When The Term ‘Smokin’ Hot Pictures!’ Takes On A Whole New Meaning….

A social worker who was sacked for using his work computer to search for pictures of children smoking has avoided being struck off.

Alan Paling, who indulged his habit while working for Staffordshire County Council, was yesterday cleared of misconduct.

Could he not get away with the ‘it’s for research!’ argument?

Well, no…

The General Social Care Council's conduct committee heard that Mr Paling had carried out nearly 200 internet searches using terms such as "smoking fetish", "smoking teens", and "smoking child" between April 2008 and April 2009.

I learn something new every day, at least about people’s fetishes. Thanks, Internet!

But the committee ruled that while Mr Paling's behaviour could be considered "questionable", it did not warrant his removal from the social care register.

Now that’s not surprising, is it?

GSCC presenting officer Nimi Bruce said that while Mr Paling's activity was not illegal, it was clearly inappropriate for someone whose job involved working with children.

Indeed! Although, he wasn’t forcing anyone to smoke. He was just looking at pictures.

Perhaps they feared that was the next step?

During the investigation it emerged Mr Paling had long-standing issues with smoking, and that he felt guilt over his own smoking.

It’s almost like a modern-day witch trial, isn’t it? Perhaps if he’d broken down and confessed his sins, he’d have got his job back.

Panel chairman Ian Daines said: "The committee is conscious that, in this diverse and pluralistic society, many forms of behaviour may cause concern to some people.

"This committee is satisfied that neither the protection of the public nor the public interest calls into question the registrant's suitability to remain on the register."

‘…this diverse and pluralistic society …’

Now there’s a term to conjure with, eh?

Well, I Suppose If You Don't Ask, You Don't Get...

The teenagers’ lawyers suggested district judge David Cooper might show them some Christian forgiveness, but the judge was unsympathetic.

I'd have added on a few extra days for sheer cheek!

Hey, Obesity Is Affecting My Blood Pressure Now!

Not my obesity – theirs:

A family-of-four have lost 44-stone between them after undergoing gastric bypass surgery on the NHS.

Craig and Denise Watson and their two daughters Rebecca, 24, and Rachel, 21, all had their free surgeries within a six-month period.

News of their expensive operations, which could have cost taxpayers up to £40,000 for the Watson family, comes after surgeons claimed performing gastric operations could save the NHS money in the long run.

Well, they would, wouldn’t they? They are, after all, directly deriving their jobs from it.

It’s almost like car mechanics claiming that not having your car regularly serviced by a professional will cost you money. It’s undoubtedly true, but you’d be an idiot not to realise why they are saying it.

But maybe I’m being too harsh. Maybe they have a point, and the quick fix option is really the cheapest in the long run.

After all, they claim they tried exercise and dieting, and it was ineffective.

Oh, hang on. Not quite, at least, when reversed…

Mrs Watson, 45, began putting on weight after giving birth to her first daughter and was unable to shed the pounds.

After her weight ballooned to 19-and-a-half stone in 2009 she decided to take drastic action.

She told BBC Radio Sheffield: 'I went to the doctors and I was told that I wasn't heavy enough to be considered for gastric surgery.

'I deliberately put a stone-and-a-half on to be able to be considered for the operation.'

That there is enough to make me want to vomit.

And to rip the damned band right out of the greedy, lazy bitch with my bare hands, sans anaesthetic…

Once Again, It’s ‘One Law For Them’…

…and another for everyone else:

A family of travellers have been accused of depriving children of a play area after setting up camp on a community field.

The Loveridge family moved five caravans on to the playing field next to St John’s Close, Colchester at around 7.30pm on Monday evening.

Convenient timing, indeed…

Angry residents believe with the Easter Holidays just beginning it is the worst time the family could have chosen to pitch up.

Still, surely the police can….

Ah:

A spokesman for Essex Police said: “We had a number of calls about their presence but there appears to be no offences for us to deal with.”

Have you actually looked?

I mean, it’s just possible that this is one of the tiny percentage of ‘traveller groups’ that has fully roadworthy and taxed cars, healthy well-treated and legally-owned animals and no criminal records, but then until you check, how will you know?

After all, you’re quick enough on the mark when it isn’t a member of a protected species, according to a commenter:

brainyjean, Colchester says...

Is there a law for them and a law for us

A member of my family and his friend erected a small igloo tent in the field (we live nearby) and 2 police officers come to my home and to them and said they must take it down as they were breaking the law they told us there is a bylaw that NOBODY sleeps in this field overnight so why is it that caravans, tents,lorries,van,dogs and god knows how many people are allowed to set up camp and all of a sudden its NOT breaking the law

Funny, isn’t it? Mind you, given that it's Essex police, is anyone surprised at apparent gross incompetence and even worse, disdain for any consequences?

Not me, that's for sure.

What Is It With These People?

A social care worker was struck off yesterday for having an "inappropriate relationship" with a 15-year-old killer.

Good grief, there’s more of it than anyone realised!

And before anyone says ‘Well, what do they expect, recruiting childless sociology graduates?’, well, think again:

Mum-of-two Tracey Hannah looked after the boy in a secure unit in Airdire, Lanarkshire, where he was serving a sentence for culpable homicide.

But bosses suspended the 39-year-old after they discovered she had struck up an illicit friendship with the youth, sending notes and cards to him.

Not that that stopped her.

Hannah, a registered residential childcare worker, continued to contact the boy, and even phoned the secure unit using a false name to try to speak to him.

What is it with these women?

That Beam In Your Own Eye Might Need Attending First…

Greg Dyke in the ‘Indy’:

"People get upset when the thing they believe in gets cut," he says. "The arts had a good run, really, under the Labour government. What's weird is, I don't remember anyone in the arts saying that."

It seems the abolition of the Film Council is causing great angst amongst the luvvie community:

Last July, producers greeted the Coalition's decision to abolish the latter with fury. In October, Tim Bevan, the Film Council's last chairman, told a cross-party committee of MPs: "I'm out of here. If this is the public sector and the way you get treated, I'm done."

Dyke says: "The story got around, spread partly by people at the Film Council, that this was the end of government support for film. "

Oh noes! A disaster!

And yet, not. At least, not for them:

In fact, he insists, over the next financial year the BFI would invest £18m directly into film production, an increase of £3m from last year. This will rise to £21m after the 2012 Olympics.

That’s still too much, if you ask me…

"I can understand why Tim had his nose put out of joint," he continues.

"He had just taken over, though of course he was appointed by a different government. People are always going to say: 'Couldn't this have been done in a more sophisticated way?' But sometimes things only happen if you announce them and get it done."

There are always winners and losers. It seems Dyke regards himself as a winner.

Dyke complains that, under Labour, the BFI's funding failed to increase each year, unlike the Film Council's, which caused friction between the two organisations. "I thought the BFI spent too much of its time being annoyed with the Film Council," he says.

Not that Dyke himself is averse to a little inter-profession squabbling and casting judgement, you understand:

The day after our interview, News International issued its official apology to phone hacking victims, and Dyke has strong views on the subject. "I don't think the News of the World is a great contribution to British journalism," he says. "They had obviously being playing fast and loose for a long time and are now getting their just desserts."

And it’s not just the newspapers that he views with a certain schadenfreude, either.

Rival TV networks come in for a gleeful kicking:

Dyke, who famously branded the BBC "hideously white" in 2001, also has views on the Midsomer Murders' creator Brian True-May, who recently said he did not use black or Asian people in the series because they didn't reflect an English village. This, Dyke says, was "a dumb thing to say".

Whereas the term ‘hideously white’ was a perfectly reasonable thing to say, I suppose?

"There are bits of Britain which are still very white but most of it isn't," he says.

"What always concerned me at the BBC is I didn't want people to be employed because they were Asian or West Indian. I just wanted people from different backgrounds and different cultures because they had different ideas. I still believe that."

And what difference has the employment of such ‘different cultures’ made to the Beeb’s output, Greg?

As far as I can see….absolutely nothing!

Carrot Or Stick? Hmmm, Tough Choice...

Police are to hold US-style ceasefire summits with London's most dangerous gang members in a new attempt to tackle gun and knife violence.

Wha..? Why accord these thugs the status of enemy combatants?

The ceasefire project has been launched as a trial scheme in Waltham Forest but is expected to be rolled out across boroughs worst hit by gang violence. So far nine criminals and their families are being offered help with housing, addiction, education and jobs in a bid to tackle the causes of gang problems.

And if the bribery and soft-touch treatment doesn't work?

If support is refused, police advise people they will be targeted relentlessly. The spokesman added: "There is a zero tolerance approach to those who persist in their gang activities and do not engage with us."

OK, now, I realise I'm not a police officer, but given that upholding the law is your actual job, why don't you cut to the chase and try the zero tolerance approach first?

After all, it's not so long ago that one of your number was bleating to the press about how his members were being 'forced' to act as social worker/mental health worker/youth worker by the awful cuts.

It's a bit much to undermine his speech by willingly adding council worker/jobseeker advice coach to the list, isn't it?