Blog

I don’t know whether I’m kidding myself, but I have always thought that my generation, in the long past, was fair with the government and the government was fair with us. So over the last few years it has become a culture shock to discover that the government doesn’t give damn about me, or mine, make statements and legislation that it doesn’t honour, and when I’m not looking keeps putting its hand in my pocket.

I have already said that I am disgusted with the way the banks have got away with what amounts to larceny, with the approval and coercion of the government, when those responsible both in the banking sector and in the government should have been brought to book for the negligence that allowed that to happen, and I have got to pay whether I am able to or not, to keep these banks, their staff and in particular their managers and directors in office. Now I have discovered that one of the bastions of British life, the BBC, to which we all subscribe or have subscribed, on the understanding that we were paying for a service that was unique, unfettered by advertising interests, with a high reputation for quality and probity, is another organ to be tinkered with . I admit there have been minor diversions recently, but I believe the basic principle should be maintained. As I understand it, the level of subsidy has been reduced recently, which makes it more difficult for the BBC to continue producing the number and level of programmes that was the norm. Now the government is proposing to dip into my pocket and take some of the money I intended for the BBC, to bolster up the advertising element of broadcasting, because a credit crunch, that they inaugurated, has had serious effects on advertising and revenue, and therefore the value of the shares in those companies affected.

I have one of these machines that allows one to record programmes ahead of time and subsequently play them back. One of the great advantages of this is that one can skim over the advertisements and cut to the chase. What I have found recently is that in some instances there are practically no advertisements, and in others is that there are 4 1/2 minutes of advertising for every 10 minutes of the display of material – God help us!. I see absolutely no reason why yet another commercial company, in competition with similar companies should suddenly be given part of the money intended for and legislated for the BBC. I feel that yet again my pocket is being picked without me having any readdress. The government does not seem to have taken into account the fact that we have an American company, Skye, that is pouring television programmes and advertising into practically every home, is more responsible for the lack of finances for the company that the government is proposing to help, than the BBC. So why is the government not asking Skye to increase the revenue it pays for displaying programme with commercial television advertising, instead of intending to break the rules encased in the BBC charter?

Speaking in a general sense, I believe that political parties setting out a manifesto is so much eye-wash, a ruse, a loophole, that opens the door to them to take action on the basis of the manifesto if it should happen to suit them, when everyone knows that in this country people vote strategically, by party selection, or for a particular candidate, rather than the principles set out in the manifesto. Unless I am very much mistaken people look upon the manifesto as a form of advertising, as a statement of possible intent, but not intentions cast in stone.

This statement inevitably applies to today. In Belfast on St Patrick’s night in the University district, a proportion of drunken students, had pitched battles, as part of a night out. When constantly complaining about youth behaving either badly or criminally, it is generally considered that it is in the poorer districts, where parental control is lax, and young people have no means, financial or otherwise of enjoying themselves. I see no justification whatsoever why students brought down mayhem on the residents of that road. As a one-time university student I believe there were times when a little high spirits were accepted almost universally, such as boat race night and Rag Days. It was relatively harmless, possibly mildly antisocial, but generally fun, and in my experience in my day, the general public often joined in.

Do you remember the Short Sharp Shock, (SSS) which was a form of remedial punishment for serious misbehaviour not likely to warrant a prison sentence. They sent miscreants to the army for a basic training course that had all the unpleasant features depicted of frictional American army films, to show how tough soldiers are. I had been at the receiving end of SSS both from the Grenadier Guards and the Royal Navy, and have always considered it mindless bullying, and physical aggression for its own sake. Once, when I was looking after the cells in the Navy in charge of two men charged with attempted murder on different occasions, but the same man because of the mindless aggression of that chief petty officer who was drilling us. He felt he had something to prove, come hell or high water, he was going to do so.

I want to go back to 1933 when I sat what was to become the 11 plus examination. If succeeded, there were three options, one could choose to go to a secondary school with fees and books paid for, thus setting one up for University, as articled to a profession, or choose to go to a technical school and learn a trade. One could stay in the elementary school until 14, then go to work as a labourer, or an apprentice etc. If one failed the exam, one had three different options, wait until one was 13 and re-sit the examination, if successful one could the go to a secondary school, or technical school, or when 14 leave the elementary school. Those who failed this would leave the elementary school and go to work. This shows that 14-year-olds had not much time to kick about the streets, if they were at College they would have homework, and if they were at work they wouldn’t get home until six o’clock, have a meal and it would be late on before they would be on the streets with their friends, possibly tired. The one thing they would be is stimulated. I question whether the step by step raising of the school leaving age is as beneficial, taken in the round, as predicted.

With the vandalism in mind I started reminiscing about my time at sea on the lower deck of a very small destroyer, with too many crew-members for the original design. What this taught one was man management – how to behave in a tightly knit environment, self-control, consideration of others, and an ability to turn off what was going on around one and concentrate within one’s own bubble. In effect this was a lesson in community living, which is what I believe is missing in the lives of so many of these young miscreants. They are not being given the right sort of stimulation, and in many cases are being stopped and searched for no apparent reason, which induces a chip on the shoulder. I’m not suggesting that people who misbehave should be sent to sea, but possibly to an environment very similar to what I have described, might be worth experimenting with. Some could indeed go to sea, others could work in difficult environments like mining, that are naturally stressful, fatiguing and restraining.

It is just a thought fostered by my own experience, which I think might be worth consideration and perhaps even trying on a small scale. These youngsters need to stretch themselves, to achieve something that is within their capabilities and current environment, but is mostly impossible because the facilities are too limiting. For six months I have been severely confined as a result of a serious accident, and what I have discovered is that if I try to achieve something new either everyday or as soon as possible, the fact of achieving it gives an incredible fillip to the self-esteem, and builds like child’s building blocks. This is what these young people need, the possibility of widening the horizon week after week and achieving something, nothing stupendous, but something that they think is worthily.

I have been writing for weeks now, almost every day, about the number of facets of government action, proposals, and legislation that to my mind, are not only counterproductive, but seem more to be a reflex action to stem the tide of criticism. There is no shadow of doubt, that the way in which the Iraq war was engineered, in the face of professional condemnation, has had a tremendous difference to the way in which Parliament is viewed, and the badly managed matter of expenses, has been the last straw. When one looks at the situation with respect to manufacturing, farming, law and order, and our economy, to name but a few, the need for an overview which takes account of all the various aspects of our lives, and their interaction, seems essential, if we’re not to go under. Some people somewhere, with the required expertise must take a total overview, and recommend to the government a new more steady approach.

I feel that possibly there should be an independent committee that has an oversight on government, with more teeth than the House of Lords, comprising a permanent core of cross party, experienced, politicians no longer sitting in the Commons, and able to draw on the expertise of professionals in the fields of the matters under review. I make this statement not only because I disagree profoundly with the stuttering changes constantly being made in practically every field, that not only causes disruption to those professionals having to work in those fields, but is highly expensive in materials and manpower, because it entails changes of many types at many levels. I’ve been there and I know the waste and the disruption. The House of Lords has clearly failed us, and whatever takes its place, if anything ever does, will be long in coming and inevitably have teething troubles. So I believe this committee, which must be totally independent in every respect, is a necessary solution.

Let me offer one vital reason where we need a new approach not only to the problem, but a relationship with the EU. What I say now is part supposition, in part repetition of what I have been told, not something that I have researched in depth, as the research available was inadequate. It is the plight of the dairy farmers in this country who are being paid only a portion of the cost it takes to maintain a farm and produce milk. The supermarkets would seem to be buying some of their produce from abroad, and this could only be at the price it is in the shops if those farmers abroad were being subsidised,. The fact that very few voted in the EU elections is probably not so much due to apathy as to the fact that it seems that the government’s hands are tied when it comes to unfair treatment to various parts of our economy by the interests of other governments within the EU We must either ensure that the milk we buy is British and that we pay a fair price to the producers, or more reasonably, that we still buy British and that the British farmer is subsidise by the British taxpayer, so that those on low income will have the benefits of fresh milk, which is essential. It would therefore be the special committee that would debate the problem, propose a solution, and if need be make a wider presentations to enable it to be successful.

I believe that this or some similar organ should be available to stabilise the processes, the changes if necessary, and the future conduct of the government of the country in a more orderly, reasoned, and logical way, rather than a headlong rush which apparently has little thought, is not universally approved of by the Cabinet, which seems to be wanting to revolt, but is under pressure to remain. Similar comments apply to the backbenches. I don’t believe a change of government is the overall solution, It strikes me that there is insufficient political hand-on experience in any of the front benches and personal considerations are clearly, from recent experience, more important than the needs of the country. We need something that is independent, highly politically experienced, and not likely to be swayed by media extravagance.

However, the government obviously doesn’t seem to, because it does nothing about it. Before I tell you what it is, I want to explain how Maggie Thatcher and her broken arm triggered the thoughts. In another few weeks Sophie will be 89, and I’m not that far behind her, but it annoys me a little, when we, the Wrinklies, are told that we are a burden on society because we are living too long, costing too much in healthcare, and contributing nothing. I wonder where the credit crunch would be if it weren’t for all the the investments and savings of the Wrinklies. What Europe would be like if we hadn’t stopped Hitler. It wasn’t the Wrinklies who gambled their savings on the stock market, it was the rising, affluent, champagne drinking youngsters, with their fancy cars, their fancy flats, and their disregard for others. I make no apology for being a Wrinkly. My generation and I have had our fair share of austerity and most of us have led reasonably responsible lives, but we did mostly enjoy ourselves.

The reason we have lived so long is mainly because, as I have said before, we were born into austerity, perforce we exercised because there was only public transport and few of us owned a car until the 50s and 60s. We had no EU, so the French had not by then forced government to have Set Aside rather than growing our own produce. We were not terribly well educated in foreign food, I suspect in 1950 only the wealthy had ever heard of a lasagne, and we were only just beginning to learn about wine. There was no television to tell us what we ought to be eating, carry-outs were practically unheard of, and pleasure was simple, and generally involved exercise. So what I mean by being obvious, is that the government should not be advertising and preaching about obesity, dietary and exercise, they should be instituting fresh home-grown food, offering both the young and the not so young, many more opportunities to exercise in interesting environments, and increasing public transport so that people save money for their old age, and walk more. I can point to a number of three-car families, those who would never dream of cooking fresh ingredients for themselves – need I say more?

We the Wrinklies are a living example of the qualities needed in the early stages of life, for providing a healthy, possibly less sophisticated but more enjoyable life, which is a lot cheaper than advertising, and a lot more fun than going to Weight Watchers, and special diets. When did you last play cricket on the green, handball, fly a kite with your kids, or even ride on a bus?

My regular readers will know that I am very poor at surfing the Internet, but I suspect that I am not alone in that. One of my grandchildren has taken his whole family on holiday to Spain. I’m not a person to panic, I weigh up the odds and then make a decision. On television yesterday there was a longer than usual piece about the swine flu epidemic and how they were changing the risk level. This prompted me to go and find general geographical information about the densities of the cases on the Internet, so that I could have some idea of the risks that my family was taking.

I remember strikingly, those first visuals of the people coming from the various overseas destinations where the flu was at its highest, like Mexico. At the time I was amazed that a flight of people coming from there seemed to be allowed to arrive, collect their baggage, and mingle with the population of the airport, the underground railway and all the other conditions without hindrance. It was obvious to me that this would cause pockets of people who could have been infected, or were infected, and the result was that almost immediately schools were closed.

I tried to find out this morning, on the Internet, what was the protocol in GB for dealing with people coming from flu hotspots. I also hunted for simple advice in easy sentences, about what were the hotspots, and the foreign office advice concerning those locations. I found myself in a multi-page maze of information on everything but what I wanted. I don’t doubt that if I were prepared to sit here for an hour or two I might just be able to winkle out the information that I’m looking for, which is the risk factor in certain parts of the world that I might have if I choose to have it as a holiday destination. In addition I tried to find without success, in simple terms, as a regional list, the restrictions that would be placed upon me if I went abroad to one of these areas, and those that I would be subjected to on return. I not only consider these questions sensible, I think that they are essential so that people who are concerned not only for themselves but their effect on others, can make sensible, reasoned and reasonably accurate decisions on a percentage risk basis. Some travel is essential, there is no doubt about that, but I consider that travelling on holiday is a non-essential, compared with even a minor risk that one could be infected, and infect others. The fact of the circulation of the air within the aeroplane is a factor, not to be ignored. We are told, like all other pandemics, this one will die down and disappear eventually. Am I wrong in thinking that it is more sensible to go somewhere that is free of risk, or better still stay at home, until the risk is zero?

Am I making a fuss about nothing? A whole school being forced to close, seems a high price to pay for one sample of ten days on a foreign beach

A heading on the on the web, on the 13th of June, stated that Alistair Darling in a report to the financial Times, was warning that the fluctuating price of oil could seriously affect the financial recovery of the Western nations, as a result of the Arab states finding their economy to have been suffering in recent months due to the price of oil having fallen. The corollary of the statement is frightening, it implies that the whole of the world that has not access to its own oil, is having its finances controlled by the Arab states, Russia and any other oil-producing nation, with all the parameters that that implies. Just prior to when the credit crunch was fierce, oil was at a price roughly double what it is today, and the oil producers realising that we were between a rock and a hard place, immediately reduced the price.

We, through our ridiculous transport policy are having to import more oil than we should need, because of the ascendancy of the motor car and the degeneration of public transport. Oil itself is not exactly endangered as a commodity, because the Pole areas have not been thoroughly investigated, but it’s obvious that it is a diminishing resource irrespective of that fact. If we are to become less dependent on the price of oil for our budgeting, and therefore on the whims of the oil producers, we must rationalise our public transport system to what it was before Beecham tinkered with it. With the building up of our cities and large towns, we are inhibited to some extent, from the possibility of improving the rail system, which is the most important, simple and economic means of transportation. In Belfast the problem was reversed, the north part of the city was totally revamped to accommodate a motorway, so change is not necessarily impossible.

It is crazy that we are constantly increasing the size of motorways at the expense of farmland in what is really a very small, overpopulated country. Making local transport more amenable to the population, and subsidised if necessary, so that the burden of using it falls equally on the whole population through the taxation system, then we will have corrected this latest discovery of particles in the exhaust of vehicles which is damaging our children in particular, while reducing the traffic on the roads, which in turn will be a safety measure, and lessen the stress to the individual of driving and finding parking. We will also not have to worry about our motor industry, as it is already dwindling rapidly. I have always believed that the necessity to maintain the automotive industry was a linchpin of the economy and has been one of the stumbling blocks to improving our transport infrastructure. We will also probably help reduce quite considerably, the requirement of importing so much oil

This is just a comment, not a thesis. There are a number of parameters that require thought, most of them point towards reducing the import of oil, so I beg you, think a little on the matter.

This essay was generated by my introduction to the amusing punishment of the Naughty-step, and the way it seems to have been accepted by my great-grandchildren, to the extent that in play they send one another there, or a miscreant teddy bear. This caused me to look back at my own childhood in the 20s and 30s. There was a mantra that everyone seemed to honour, ‘If in doubt, thrash.’ When I was seven I was whailed with my father’s belt. In elementary school we were all caned for the most minor infringements and had blood blisters on our hands and bottoms, to prove it. The interesting thing was that I don’t remember a case of parents taking the side of the child against the authority. I was even caned for each mistake I made in repeating the poem that I was supposed to have learned for homework, up to a total of four. My mother accepted the situation as being normal, because she was a Victorian and had been brought up in that strict regime. We children accepted that it was a part of life, it was hurtful, and certainly stressful, from the minute you knew you were a candidate for yet another thrashing. But life was too interesting to dwell on something where there was no alternative and means of redress. At secondary school our prefects were permitted to cane, but the miscreant had the choice of the matter being referred to the headmaster, who would then cane you. This was really a clever move, because the disgrace of being caned by the headmaster, rather than one of the teachers, was so horrendous, there were none to my knowledge, except myself, who ever tested it.

Today the whole thing has reversed, a child can attack a teacher, and the teacher has very little redress. Parents take schools to court, or badger the headmaster. We were hit on the head with anything that came to hand, including the sharp corner of a 60° setsquare, or given a slap round the ear. I frankly don’t remember, and I was beaten more than most, that I suffered any serious psychological problems, I didn’t even have bad dreams. It was the system, we were inured to it and we accepted it because everybody did. The thing I’ve written about before, which I find highly amusing was that one child was sent to the Naughty-step, when she returned to continue to play, after the period of her incarceration, she promptly whacked her sister. It seems the Victorian values have come down through the genes.

I would like someone to explain to me why I should not be sceptical that the current philosophy for abandoning corporal punishment, in the hope that persuasion in some form or other, has not brought us to the level of irresponsibility, lack of self-control and lack of respect for others, that is so prevalent today. Postulating that damage to the psyche by corporal punishment is inevitable, is more to do with specialists wanting their theories accepted, without sufficient experimental evidence, tested response and historical experience, or what factual evidence taken over a wide area, in different circumstances, and different regions, might prove.

Yesterday I said that I thought it would be unlikely that all these changes that were proposed will be put into effect. In other words all the rhetoric, the heart baring and admissions were all window dressing. It seems I was right. I also said on a previous day that Brown would retain his position as Prime Minister, because there were strong people behind him, the bully boys, threatening the Backbench, and anyway, today being a politician is often more to do with having a job, than it is sticking to your own principles.

I think I’ve already said previously that my father-in-law used to say ‘Whatever you say, say nothing.’. This is precisely the current situation, a case of all talk and very little do. One of the protocols I am talking about seems to be, that providing the factors are not irrefutable, convenience, coupled with pragmatism and self-interest are more important than the spoken promise. Add to this a long finger that reaches years rather than weeks into the future, and you have what I see as the current political situation, and the way in which our problems are being dealt with. I’m not in any way under the impression that by a change of leadership the whole thing will be turned upside down, and the changes that the new leadership had proposed as being essential, would be implemented. Not only the level of rhetoric, but the intensity of the way it is presented is not so much like a debate as a shouting match in the Public Bar of a pub on a Saturday night, with all the sincerity that it implies on Sunday morning.. I am convinced that I put the case in yesterday’s article cogently, that very little would be done.

If you look at the EU, European parliaments, the American system, not to mention South America, Africa, Russia, and Eastern European states, I think our system is no worse than any of them, and a lot are considerably more so. The ubiquitous man in the street speaking any language you like, is just as disillusioned as we are. Unfortunately he is also so busy with his own life, he has neither the time nor the inclination to fight for a change, with strikes, marches, taking the politicians apart, and to court. This would require funding, an overall National will, and yet more leaders, who also would have their own agenda. So, the current ones will go on wiping his eye, peering out at him through the windows of the gravy train, and that is about all he can expect in today’s political climate.