Tragic and stupefying sale of Royal Mail

The sale of the Royal Mail (RM) is yet another instance of selling the crown jewels by this current government, it has been grossly undervalued. The initial public offering (IPO) has valued them at £3.30 per share and after just a single day the value of these shares has jumped by 38% to £4.38. As suspected by many sources the original valuation of this organization was grossly wrong. Vince Cable personally owes the British Taxpayer at least £1 billion plus. Not only this, the dividend yield of RM has been estimated at 6-7%.  The RM is a money making, profit making, public loved, public needed machine. The decision to sell it off is a typical short termism fix which a ridiculously inefficient, crazy government has done to try and reduce the deficit.  There should of been a public vote on whether the sale of RM should be allowed.  When you sell something you can only do it once this is so crass.  , not This is one of the worst back stabbing public to private sale to date.

So anyone in their right mind would ask why on earth sell it, I did say in their right mind. Whereas this sale is in the mind of Vince Cable and his Tory partners. At a House of Commons committee on 09.10.13. Vince was directly asked about the sale of RM being undervalued. His response was that the price of shares goes up and down. It was revealed also the prospectus weighed in at 440 pages long. The period of notice between offering and actual selling was so short no single body would of had a chance to read through this prospectus. It turns out RM was also 7 times over subscribed. Vince doesn't consider vast amounts of shares would of been bought by overseas investors.  These private organizations will for now make massive profits, massive. Vince says the shares will fluctuate but what he isn't understanding here is the IPO is now not one month or two months or six months, it is the current IPO pricing which has fallen exceedingly short of actual value. It is as though Vince has gone out of his way to give away money to foreign investors.  Vince has in no doubt lost the plot, he can not be allowed to stay in office or to remain an MP.  As Vince was asked how he came about the value of the RM he used the term "pilot fishing" and when questioned by MP Julie Elliott it was evident Vince had valued the RM by anecdotal, unrecorded discussions with investors.  The same investors no doubt who were about to buy shares. I suppose it didn't occur to him they might devalue the price so as to enhance their own profit. Again this is evidence of a man who should not be in government, a man who has made a billion pound mistake. When asked about the capital assets of the RM one MP advised the Mount Pleasants building in London to be valued at at one billion pounds asked if this was going to be offset against the pension liabilities the government had accepted for RM employees. Vince as ever hesitant in his reply dodged around the question, forehead with a troubled frown. It is as though Vince has not actually considered the repercussions of this sale, has not considered the real value of the business and just jumped on the Tory bandwagon of selling off assets for a doddle.

So who gets the useful idiot award for the Tories, Mr Vincent (frown head) Cable, who probably should be considering a retirement from office.  A long one, and as quickly as possible.

Fed up with the Tory machine

The last few weeks have been a living Tory nightmare, of publicity. I am beyond saturation point in seeing them on the news, if it's not Cameron it's Ozziborne, neither of them are fit to organize a piss up in a brewery let along run a country. And yet again I'll harp on to the fact Ozz has a degree in modern history not in economics so why the hell is he running the country's economy.  He can only get it wrong and get it wrong on a massive scale. I am fed up with every one of his budgets. He gives them titles like "this is the budget for growth" hell it was more like the budget of puke.  If you look at Ozz's early promises of where the country would be on it's deficit and spending they are all wrong, he has not achieved anything. The country has 1.2 trillion pounds of debt and as far as anyone in blue is concerned it's down to every person who gets welfare benefits in any form at all. They have removed laws which made employers take on disabled members of staff, they have villified those who claim benefits even though the majority of people who do are actually working and need them to subsidise their daily living costs. There has definitely got to be something wrong if the cost of living is so bloody high even people in work can not afford to pay their bills and feed themselves. It was with irony when Ozzy was asked by MP Teresa Pearce at a Public Accounts Committee meeting whether he knew how many times a family could go to a food bank, and he didn't. Ozzy thought because the Job Centre were advising claimants about going to food banks it was enough. The answer to the question was three times.  When Cameron was asked recently if he knew the price of a basics loaf of bread he mumbled a fictionally high price and then had the gall to say he owned a bread maker so they made their own bread. Bloody hip, hip, horay for Cammy it's good to know he can afford the electricity to run a bread maker, let alone own one. Because I don't know anyone who does own a bread maker.

The level of tripe which has been applauded from the Tory conference is outlandish as well. It is like there is a group of people living in some Utopia world on a hill in the middle of London who looks down on everyone else and doesn't have any insight about what it is like beyond their own hill. The Tory party are an insular millionaires club. Quite rightly Nadine Doris has described Cammy and Ozzy as upper class Eaton toffs.  Both these people need a lesson in humility. Take them out of their offices and put them on welfare benefits for two weeks, put all their politics on hold. Put them in the land of the unemployed, the working classes, those scraping together a living from hand to mouth. Of course they have to do this as actors and get dressed up in the part, add a couple of plane cloths minders in the wings to keep an eye on them as well.  Maybe, just maybe they would then understand the consequences of their actions, of their government, maybe they would learn some humility, maybe they would learn compassion even. Hell, I doubt it. To tell the truth it would be easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle before these obnoxious suit wearing idiots ever walked across the road.

Another raving Tory scoundrel is the editor of the Daily Mail, Paul Dacre. He has gone so far as demonise a deceased second world war veteran, Ed Milliband's dad. For something he had written in a diary when he was 17 years old. It is like Dacre has no sense of decency, The Mail has gone to the pits and can not call itself a newspaper. I'll not read a copy ever, but I'll use it to wipe my arse after a good big dump, because that's where it deserves to be, flushed down the toilet with the excrement of life. Dacre unbelievably was also a member of the Press Complaints Commission, which I guess was from necessity because no doubt there have been a hell of a lot of complaints about the Daily Fail. Dacre believes in sensationalism and he follows the whims of public opinion in the truest manner of a fair-weather friend. However, with with the advocated belief he represents middle Tory Britian and the free market economy. I wonder if he'd say this were he in an NHS hospital only to get a hip replacement which had come via the free market economy of Rumania. What is it about Tories nowadays that they have to be bullies, Cameron acts like this when opposite Milliband at every PMQ, he ducks and dives questions constantly, it got to the point PMQs are farcical, nothing more than a propaganda machine and vilification of the opposing bench.

I have so truly had enough of the lies, and deceit of the Tory machine the more I hear from them the more a pressing need to speak out against them and to even consider active campaigning against them as well. .

Firefighter cyclist killed by sandwich eating motorist

Today another incident of death by dangerous or rather careless driving has surfaced.  Paul Brown, 30, hit off-duty fire-fighter Joseph Wilkins on a country road near Abingdon in May 2012. Now was during summer, the accident happened about 9 p.m. and Paul Brown was eating a sandwich while driving. He elledged the sandwich was already eaten and his attention was on the road but he somehow still hit Joseph Wilkins. In this case perpetrator Paul Brown got the sentence of 240 hours community service. This is such a cheap crime to have committed.

How can a life be so cheap? There is definitely something wrong with the British legal system to allow road death to be so cheaply punished. An advocate could of argued Paul Brown had murdered Mr Wilkins intentionally, that there may have been an earlier altercation between the pair of them and Mr Brown sort revenge. This could of been a possible explanation as well as the sandwich eating story.

It is heinous to allow death by driving such paltry punishment.

Death by dangerous driving is murder

I have just read an article of how two people were killed by a lorry driver, Ethen Roberts, this took place on the M62 in West Yorkshire, in 2012.  The sentence for killing two people with a lorry is apparently not much at all. Just a mere 5 years.  It is called death-by-dangerous-driving when in fact it should be called homicide-by-motor-vehicle. Time and time again innocent people are killed by motorists and the sentence is pitiful. In this particular case Mr Robers was reading a text while at the wheel, he lost control and his lorry jackknifed, it somehow fell and crushed to death Mr and Mrs McHale. She was a primary school teacher and her husband the owner of a beauty salon. No child will ever be taught by her again.

In some countries death by vehicle beings with the charge of murder, as the circumstances are revealed the gradually this is changed and reduced to a lesser sentence. Maybe the British legal system has some misguided belief road traffic accidents are just another form of accident and these things happen. So it begins with the predicate "it's an accident." This is totally and completely wrong. When an individual gets behind the wheel of an vehicle they become liable not just for their life but those of fellow travellers and certainly pedestrians. Yes there may well be occasions where certain deaths could not be avoided. But I am without doubt for this particular offence, responsibility and liability should fall first on the driver's shoulders. If a driver is distracted their distraction can cause death, if they are incapable of driving by being on drugs or alcohol then they to should be considered as responsible and liable.

This is very, very wrong. However I am sure there will continue to be stories in the press in years to come where the same thing happens. Had Ethen Roberts been aware of a law meaning he would be liable for murder would he of acted differently? It's hard to say, but he would of had the choice to not read his text, or to stop and catch up with messages when on his break. How lucky you are, at least you'll be breathing for the next five years, unlike the McHales.

Computers and Accountants lie

An accountant is someone who reconciles finances, a computer is a machine which runs programs, both have a beginning and an end in their task, even if the task is iterative. Both have a trait which is overlooked and denied. They both lie. A computer is only as good as the information and variables put into it, it is only as good as the programmers who input the code, a computer therefore is fallible. Either to the extent of it's creators or it's users. In the end what is churned out is then interpreted by a human (highly fallible). Accountants are interested in the bottom line only, the figures they are given and then the process of reconciling those figures. If you were to think there was only one way to add things up and to subtract them you'd be wrong. There are multiple ways depending on how they are to be interpreted. Which may have been something arising from a term called creative accounting. There is nothing artistic about it, rather it's about defining variables. 

The lie is in not knowing how the data was collected and the stories behind the data. Consequently the saying:

"lies, damned lies and statistics"

I know a lot about statistics, or more accurately, I used to know a lot about statistics. Their frequent use as a tool by politicians is like the double edged sword of discovery. Every new thing in the world which is made or discovered has at least two purposes of use. A use for good or a use for bad. Nuclear energy for example. As a source of energy for the population or as technology used in the deadliest of bombs. In this same way politicians pick and use specific statistics to make arguments which they generalise.  They bolster their own image of themselves and try to fool the populace into thinking things are going well. Sometimes it may work, but a lot of time politicians are now being understood for what they are, and it is not as saints. Yet when I pick up a newspaper and read it the paper will have a biased view of the world and also deliver articles leaning in the same direction. There is no neutral ground. When I've wanted to read pure news with less bias, I'd purchase a financial newspaper. Yes, it happens maybe once every couple of years. You can tell it's a financial newspaper because of it's orange colour. However, like accountants and computers financial papers fail to provide the human element. The story behind the figures, the story which motivates the figures.

Where there is human interaction fallibility exists and always will exist, but to believe there is such a thing as pure facts, such as those from a computer or an accountant is grossly ignorant. I used to read company reports. These were wonderful financial statements of loss and profit, the reports are always keyed to give the impression although the environment is tough the company is fairing well. There would always be a statement by the CEO to this effect. They can not give a pessimistic statement by their very nature, if they did then they would not be CEO for long, shares in the company would drop like a stone and it could then no longer exist. The reports are compiled by accountants, they are signed off as true and valid by qualified accountants. Yet there are companies who have given out glowing reports of their future and have become failures. A lot of story telling has taken place. It is only by knowing the human element a better Gestalt like view can be understood. The human element is always missing.

Politicians do not give speeches on how the unintended consequences of a law or action they took resulted in poverty of injustice.  They will elaborate on all the good points. Even if those good points are insignificant. A policy statement comes out and the repercussions for the country are enormous, yet two or three years pass and the policy has been ineffective. This is proof it was a lie from the start. But they would not of know it at the time. They hoped it would work and have the effects they hoped. Unfortunately hope is not a variable used by computers and accountants. Hope is an emotion or desire a human being holds. Something can therefore only be measured by the end result, but again only providing the figures for the end result have used all of the relevant and even some of the irrelevant details.  An interesting book called Freakonomics by Levitt and Dubner gives examples where unplotted variables were plotted by an economist and how these unrelated items had huge end result effects.  They were not things which politicians had done either.  So it goes to say, you can not make sense of things unless you have all the facts. Accountants don't, therefore they should not be put on high stalls and kowtowed, or worshipped.

The MPs committe enquiry on Universal Credits

It was interesting to watch Ian Duncan Smith and his side kick croany Lord Freud take questions before an MPs committee on the development of Universal Credits. The video is on a government web site which makes democracy more open and viewable. The fact of the matter is UC is still in it's infancy and the software can only cope with simple claims. Their cohort is the easiest set of claimants possible. Those on Job Seekers Allowance, just clean simple no hassle claims. The committee panel had a variety of MPs from different parties which was both good and bad. It's going to be predictable a fellow Tory MP will support another Tory under pressure and not ask too many probing questions. They of course want to look good. IDS reminded the panel how they had listened to the last panel and decided on the pathfinder trial first before bringing in the full UC program. It was as though he was looking for praise and recognition in what is actually just a simple basic and logical thing to do.  The original plan for UC did not have pathfinders. It was in effect a Titanic which was going to be launched by the and immediately hit an iceberg. Fortunately for them they listened and fortunately for welfare claimants they did as well.

The answers from IDS's team were along the lines of software would be developed continuously over the next year or so. Agile development was in place. They would start simple and the numbers would increase, with an expected 1.5 million people predicted to be on UC by the end of 2014 or perhaps early 2015. Although I must say there wasn't a great deal of confidence in their answers. It was like they were even surprised by the questioning as the were surprised by the enormity of the task in front of them. Every single member was learning how playing with the Welfare benefits system is an incredibly complex and difficult thing to do. I noticed how Lord Freud used colloquialisms to try and describe the process, "niggling" and "clunky" were amongst the words. It was like they were grasping for a way to describe something which they didn't understand. Equally I thought the panel were not quite up to the job but possibly on the right tracks. The way IDS spoke was as if the numbers would suddenly accumulate in the transition process to UC at a massive rate. But as anyone will tell you the law of 80/20 states, 20 per cent of claims take up 80 per cent of the time to deal with. At the moment UC is trying it's best to cope with getting on board the 80 per cent and sod the difficult cases. One thing I thought they hadn't considered was the multiple changes of circumstances which can happen in a household. Claimant's are not just static and unchanging creatures, they are after all human beings and prone to change. The use of Real Time Information RTI is a feather in an IT cap, but it is not the be all and end all of claim assessment issues. The heavy manual labour comes in determining something which is complex and decision ladden to an extent a computer program is incapable of dealing with, especially the spirit and intention of law, which is rife in the Welfare claims system.

There was no explanation of how Local Authorities would be funded in order to provide local services for people who needed to see another human being. There is a great reliance on IT to do everything. IDS and colleagues stated the more vulnerable members of society would go onto UC last, they needed to get it right and when they did transfer to UC everything would be fine. Of course this is a story or fairy tale explanation they'd give. LA's are not expected to get funding to do what will be transferred to central government. It was as if the pathfinders were only just discovering what welfare benefits were about, they were excited and learning a lot, especially staff at Job Centre Plus JCP.  However, why did they not use people who already knew the benefits systems, people who could tell them of what the pitfalls are, these people already exist in LAs in every borough. Well those which hadn't tendered out their services. Ultimately UC is about central government wrestling back the purse strings of funding and cutting it at the same time.  It was Glenda Jackson who put IDS on the spot and asked him about the cohort and small sampling. IDS spoke over her, his tone was bullying, he was putting down her line of questioning. But it seemed clear to the viewer IDS and his acolytes have bitten off something way too big. I can certainly see Howard Shiplee (66 years old) lead for the delivery of UC holding a pretty big get-out-of-jail card. He'll simply retire when it all goes south, considering Lord Freud is also supposed to have retired (55) his role is also suspect.

It's a difficult job for sure, one which may lead to their entire downfall. God help the rest of the country with the fall out from it. Maybe next time they are asked a few questions they may even have some answers. Hey no, they are politicians after all.

Prescription: legalised death by Liverpool Care Pathway

The Liverpool Care Pathway is a doctor's prescription to allow a patient death.  Like anything else the Devil is in the detail of death, it is how the LCP is administered which matters.  Therefore taking this decision is not a light choice.  LCP is the conscious withdrawal of medication, liquid and food for someone considered to be hanging on to life but would not have much of a life if they were fully compis mentis, who has little chance of recovery. Morphine may be given, which will conveniently keep the patient on an opiate high and prevent them from acting in a concerned disagreeable manner.  After all anyone working or visiting would not want to be greeted by a dying person who in pain is doing nothing but moan and groan. They should die in piece.

If a patient has life, has some kind of mental ability even comatose, LCP should not be taken.  An example is seen in stories of comatose patients who have come to consciousness after a time, possibly weeks or months.  To be awake and conversant with those around them, when nearly everyone had given up.  In addition to this it is remarkable how the human body can survive when it is not fully functioning. Only having one lung, half your body or more paralyzed, the late Christopher Reeve comes to mind.  There are individuals walking about, talking, laughing, contributing to the world who physiologically are well below par, but they are part of it, they are here, their ability to communicate is probably what stops them from being put directly into a morgue.

Secondly, is the conviction with which a decision is made, the confidence and consensus of the decision. To take this choice immediately becomes part of the grieving process. Also if I were the patient in these circumstances I'd not want the decision to be made by most of relatives. Some of whom I am surprised can get up in the morning and make their own breakfast. These are people who are walking, conscious and alive but might as well be dead with the way they live their life and the constant pain of their existence. Just as it is a pain to accept they are my own family.  They may know me but they are not qualified to make a decision about my life or certainly my death.

Thirdly, and importantly is the type and amount of care which takes place after the decision is made to use LCP, or any other form of end-of-life prescription.  For this should be with compassion and dignity, some palliative care is given to make the patient comfortable.  Giving them washes, water when needed, soothing ointments which stop pain from continuing illnesses which are painful but don't kill. A rash, a bee sting, arthritis etc etc.

With the state of the NHS as it is, there is always a need for beds to be free to be taken up by another patient. Everything has a cost as well. Hospitals cannot afford for lingering deaths to happen, it is to their advantage to allow LCP decisions to take place. They may not be entirely neutral in the advice they give.  OK there may be an alleged oath they give to save life, to heal, to give hope, but to believe this without question is naive. Everyone has a right to question, the problem is being emotional and overcome by devastating thoughts and consequences takes the edge off.  To then ask questions, to disagree with medical professionals becomes a difficult task.

Then lastly there are stories of hospitals who use the LCP in a callous way, stories of relatives who have seen their loved ones die in pain from uncaring authority figures who are no more than providing the statistics politicians ask for. But what has to be done, just has to be done. These are the people who should be in court, facing a judge, and considered murderers.

Making the poor even poorer

The Tory government as always proves it is in government for the rich.  They vilify those who get welfare benefits, picking on a few extreme examples to stir up scape goat feelings against all the poor. They have hit Tax Credit payments and so reduced the income for 70 per cent of working families. The minimum wage is still kept excessively low and has not increased in line with real inflation. It is now considered lower than a living wage, the minimum wage is in fact a pauper's wage and less. The Tory party have been careful not to anger pensioners and kept their welfare benefits and incomes sacrosanct. There is good reason this has happened as it a fact pensioners vote more than any other part of the nation. However, there are rich pensioners who claim benefits they don't need to actually receive. Just as there are pensioners who have not contributed to society by working their entire lives. Just as there are people quite capable to work who have chosen not to work and continue to receive benefits.

If the UK continues on this course there are some inevitable consequences.  The poor will continue to get poorer. Crime will increase, the toll on the NHS will get higher, state pensions, state welfare, state education and income will all reduce. The deficit we are told is going down, but the word "deficit" is used to describe the amount of money still being lent by the UK to survive.  The future fuel energy costs of the UK will increase as there is no sustainable plan to encourage green energy. In winter people will die in their homes because they are unable to heat them. The building projects of the future do not exist.  The UK needs homes. So those who own property will see the values increase but will not be able to move home because the costs of a new home would be too high. Proportionately fewer and fewer new mortgages will be taken up. Over crowding in properties will increase. Landlord's will maximise the income of properties by illegally converting them or building sheds in gardens. Ghettos will grow and gentrification of the better places will increase. Society is gradually becoming segregated by choice and poverty.

Here is a fact. Poor people spend more money than rich people do. Poor people have no choice, because they are poor the proportionately spend higher amounts. This in turn goes back into the economy instantaneously. It is the poor who create liquidity, not the rich. Yet this is not recognised. Certainly not by the Tory's.  The future is very bleak if another term of Tory takes the ballot box. Given the hubris of the entire present cabinet I cross my fingers and truly hope they don't.

Horrors of Open Plan Offices

Whoever invented the open plan office needs a good kicking. I'm sure they are probably hiding under a table somewhere, in a conventional office. Because if they had any brains they'd realise there was a hit list and this is one individual who must be near the top. If not on the top, even, in doing a Google search there is some vagueness as to the original inventor. The word "architect" crops up.  Yes those people who design things for others but don't give a damn about the results, otherwise they would of designed them better in the first place and worked or lived in the places they designed. The hypocrisy is they don't.

Open plan offices are a cauldron of noise, they are unbelievably difficult to concentrate in, because there is always some idiot who speaks up loud or because of their own insecurities and psychologically unbalanced mind desperately seek attention. In the open plan office they can get all the attention they want.  Whether this is in talking about what they saw on TV, their pets, their family, sports.  The subject is irrelevant.  This is probably the biggest bugbear of any open plan office. Some employees need for silence to do calculations, read, or undertake any complex task requiring concentration it's essential. The open plan office takes this away.  Those individuals who have these difficult tasks are then under stress and strain, not just to do their work but also not to make mistakes. It's not like they are colouring in a picture by numbers, what they are doing is difficult and their need for clarity is essential.  Therefore mistakes happen and in business those mistakes can cost money.  Whilst an employer may see the advantage of cramming in employees tight like battery hens, they rather not consider these other costs.

It is mind boggling how employers mix functions of office workers under the open plan office. When mixed all out office war can take place. For example, a group of people who are constantly on the telephone should not be put next to a group who barely use the phone.  It is as though the telephone users intentionally want to stop or harass the non users from doing their work. Their job involves communication, not thinking and there is a blindness to understanding someone else may need to concentrate. They talk normally or loudly, they don't try to subdue their voice.  They fail to understand or see the effect of verbal diarrhoea.

In an open plan office individual's are more likely to be interrupted while they work. They are seen not just as sitting at a desk and getting on with the job, they are seen as available to others. Available to be spoken to, when they would rather just get on with it.  Some people also can not help but talk while they work, and try and engage others in what they are doing. Like the telephone employees it's as though they are looking for approval, as they discuss items or work. By discussion they take away their own decision making process, they share it. If uncomfortable in making a decision or because they don't have confidence in their own abilities. These people are a hindrance as they are being overpaid, and not doing the job they should be doing. But they are human beings, and it could be the personal need for social contact which makes them this way. Especially if they don't get the chance to speak to others outside of the workplace.

Hot desking. This is another useless concept bought in by employers with the advent of open plan offices in a way to reduce costs. No office worker has a dedicated desk, they may have an area but not a dedicated desk. Unless it so happens they have a disability. Then they do have a dedicated desk. However, by dedicating a desk to this individual there then becomes less choice for the remaining hot desking employees to sit anywhere else.

Windows. In the open plan office when one person opens a window the draught is felt fifty metres away in another part of the office which may be quite a bit cooler. On account of convection currents and sun light streaming through the window. Further to this some office workers like a little bit of air and may have a high body temperature, whereas those who like as much warmth as possible because they enjoy a hotter climate don't like the window open.

It is with a great deal of irony how open plan office may even be cited with architectural awards. Awards for all kinds of reasons, the most natural light, the most eco friendly, the most sociable, however the one thing they should be given an award for they are not. This is as suitable places to work in. The employees end up facing the brunt of it them.  This especially goes for the newer offices. The ones where the toilets never work properly, the air conditioning is ineffective or only effective in a certain part of the building so every other employee is baked like a jacket potato, or worse frozen. Lets not forget to mention how it is employers think when a lot of their employees are crammed into an open plan office those employees will require less stationary, or less toilet roll than they did previously.

The resounding effect of open plan offices is a great deal more stress and a reduction in productivity. You can tell the employer to you are blue in the face, but they don't hear.  At which the whip is cracked and you're asked why an urgent piece of work has not been actioned.  Oops, as you think back to a piece of paper which happened to be handy while sitting on the crapper.

Truthfully, open plan offices stink, in more than one way.

The British Class System

There has always been a class struggle in the UK. To state otherwise is being blind. The worst part about this struggle is how the entire British population are blamed for the sins of only a select few. What always comes to mind is the old colonial British Empire. The lust for greed and riches from far off lands wasn't something the general British people wanted to do. It was a sense of dominance carried by the upper-class elite. It was also these person who reaped the benefits of pillaging the British Empire. Not ordinary working class struggling Joe Bloggs. When I look at the way some continents view the UK I can see their envy and hatred. It is deep seated in how the British came to their lands and took. Yet, were they to see the poverty suffered by the lower and working classes of the UK at the time there might be some sympathy.  To imagine a hundred or two hundred years ago the general populace of the UK were ill educated, poor and mere plebs to the rest of society. We were no more enlightened than the general populace of say Pakistan or India now. Or even those poor subservient classes of China.  It is only those who see themselves above the rest of us who gained by keeping everyone in their place. Like the Indian caste system. A very similar societal norm was indigenous to the UK. But this is not elaborated on in history books and clues can be gathered from political history. From the Labour movement, from equal rights and one vote for each adult, regardless of gender.

So in today's modern UK we see a threat from terrorists and extremists who perceive us as rich, slovenly and  decadent, but are so wrong. Were they to know and understand how tough it has been for common society and the worker, the poverty stricken they might feel different.  Education can be a leveller, just as can be winning the lottery. Unfortunately for the most of us the common threads of society, NHS, education, politics are all being butchered.  Eaten away by economic cuts, moves to the centre ground and meddling politicians who think they know better how to organize something than the experts. Lastly not forgetting the cauldron of religion which acts to segregate the peoples further. Multi social groupings don't work, multi culturalism is a fragile concept which again can be torn to pieces by the want of poverty and a voice.

Maybe the ideals of communism would be an answer to it all. But then maybe not just as Animal Farm portrayed. Inherently human beings are selfish, whether they're on two legs or four.  An societies are divided by classes, classes which will always be salient and tangible.  The class system is here to stay regardless of what is ever thought, written or deliberated. Accept it and get on with it.

Amazon, they don't just screw the Taxman

Here is one of those bugbears which can make you go absolutely crazy and demand real justice. It's one of the most loved internet shopping sites in the world, Amazon. In the last few days it has come to be found of over four billion pounds of sales, the actual tax paid by Amazon was about 0.1 %, and it received more in the way of UK government grants than it paid in tax. This is one of the biggest growing companies in the world and they screw over the Taxman. Now when it is a run of the mill ordinary individual who manages to get away without paying a little tax, you might think well good for them. As long as this is not an everyday thing they do, as long as it is proportionate. But celebrities, rock stars, comedians, footballers, actors who do it, well they deserve the full weight of the law against them.  In a similar sense the same should happen with Amazon.  But this isn't new news, it had been common knowledge for some time, but the enormous scale of tax avoidance they are using means this is not just despicable, it is a wanton criminal act.

It is tax which pays for the services to the country. Tax pays for hospitals, fire  brigades, doctors, nurses, police, local amenities, such as parks and play grounds for children. Tax helps pay for Universities, it is through tax the jobless and disabled get welfare benefits given to them and because of tax pensioners have a state retirement pension. So when I purchase goods of Amazon I am effectively getting a slightly cheaper item but taken into account the tax which is not being paid and hence the profits Amazon is making, I am losing out. The country is losing out, every child, man, woman who uses a service which has been paid by taxpayers money loses out. Amazon are not just screwing the tax-man they are defecating on every ordinary individual who buys goods from them. By getting grants from the government higher than the tax they pay Amazon is in effect participating in legalised immoral theft. So Amazon, do you think the public will let you get away with it?

This is a pertinent question.  Personally since December 2012, I have not purchased a single item of Amazon. I've checked over my last year's worth of bank statements, as I didn't have much to do at the time, and there nearly every month there had been some kind of purchase through Amazon.  In the last year these purchases were over a thousand pounds.  I am just one individual. Now if this were to be multiplied by a few more individuals Amazon would find it does not pay to shit at the same table you eat from, which they now do everyday.  The last book I bought I got through a high street shop a couple of weeks ago. Now I intend to use high street shops or UK proper tax paying businesses for any purchase I'd of normally bought through Amazon.

My advice.  Don't just sit there and click on their web site, get up, go out, and spend your money somewhere else. It might cost a couple of quid more, but in the whole scheme of things it will be money spent to support your own country, not to furnish the pockets of an organization which allegedly is based in Luxembourg.

Galloway chastises the BBC

The continuing saga of Maggie Thatcher's demise continues.  Fortunately after tomorrow it can all be forgotten and the incident brushed under the carpet. It has been made into something disproportionately more important than it is. This sentiment was echoed eloquently by George Galloway in a 4 minute interview on the BBC today. He rightly voice how the BBC refused to play the full song "The Witch is Dead," and this was the only means the public had to demonstrate their view of this woman. It seems the entire divisive debate has as much venom in it as the great debate of whether Royalty actually has a place in society today. There are those ultra right wing people who no doubt bow down to both Royalty and will be shedding a tear for Thatcher as well. As Galloways said, Thatcher decimated the mining communities and industry in the UK was cut back by a third. The wake of her rule is still being felt. George also considered it sanctimonious and vile ten million pounds should be spent on her funeral. This is a significant point.

If public funds are being spent on an event then every member of the public has a right to comment or make judgement on it. Whether it is a good comment or a disliked comment. In this case it is because a woman died and there is a notion of politeness to never say bad things about those who have died. Yet, dictators and tyrants have died around the world and it has not stopped news broadcasters from still talking badly of those same persons. Simply if someone dies it doesn't make them any better in life.  We are remembered for what we did and the impact on other peoples lives. If there are persons who felt they were not treated with respect then or had an negative experience I don't see why they should be muffled in their opinions. There are many people in this country who will view Thatcher as a tyrant. There are no doubt families who have loved ones who passed away because of the effects which had reverberated through the policies Thatcher advocated.  Were it possible to weigh on a set of scales the number of lives saved against the number of lives lost through government policy, then Thatcher's scales would be more heavily with lives lost.  There is a public right to speak out when public money is spent and it is unjustified. Tomorrow will certainly be such an occasion.

Galloway on this occasion has expressed a general sentiment which a large proportion of the country agree with. It is wholly unfortunate it had to be Galloway who was given air time to say it and no other more respectable MP had. Galloway will say anything to get into the media and to get a gathering. As someone once said to me who knows of Galloway, "George is only concerned about George."  Politics has made him, popular, wealthy and possibly even given him some status. One thing is for sure though, I know he would not of got on with the Old Witch.

Ding Dong the Witch is Dead

The legacy of our the late Maggie Thatcher is now ensuring she will live in perpetuity in the history of UK politics. Even in death she has managed to create a stir. This time it is because her supporters have protested against a chart hit from being played in full on the BBC.  It is of course "Ding Dong The Witch is Dead" and it has become a massive download hit on the internet. As internet sales now count this song is fully representative of what the public consider to be contemporary music. Publicly this song has so much backing it is now a hit, yet a small group of Thatcher supporters think it is inappropriate. If this is the case then I can not help why did these opposing supporters not create an alternative hit by purchasing an different song. There quite clearly is not as much support as publicly they acclaim there is. Ding Dong the Witch is Dead, therefore will not be played in full by the BBC, they will play only a few seconds of the song.  The BBC is bowing down. In retort I expect there will be a few complaints from those people who believe it should be playing the entire song, personally I am considering where I stand on this issue. Tory voters will state there is a small minority of people who are rejoicing at her passing, but this can not be true otherwise Ding Dong the Witch is Dead would not of be where it is now.

Maggie Thatcher was not the iconic image of what a powerful woman should be. She was the first woman Prime Minister, an achievement. How she presented herself as a leader was tough but exceptionally divisive. I ask was it necessary to be a person who talked down on people, who demeaned them and came across as a bully?  Maggie manipulated the female vote for her own needs, to get herself voted in. She hoodwinked women using gender as an issue, playing on their naivety not on her politics. Many women voted her in just because she was female and they wanted to show the country a woman could do better.  Now a great many women have regretted they did so, Thatcher's policies ripped apart the nation as they accentuated the class divide.  Further the currying favour with the notion we live in a classless society, we don't. Society by it's very nature will always be class driven and those classes will change, as it is a concept with cloud like manoeuvrability, the wind blows it from one place to another. To an extent, Maggie was an opportunist, she was in the right place at the right time, but she did work hard to be there and to be in the seat of power. Famously she said she lived of only four hours sleep a night. Keeping up with politics is a 24 hour job, or rather 20 hour job. No other politician is said to have been as informed as she was. Pity she was not informed of the devastation and poverty she caused the lower and working classes.

So Ding Dong the Witch is Dead has just as valuable and iconic a place in contempary history as does the passing of the Iron Lady, the two are compatible and useful in understanding two sides of a coin.

Thatcher her legacy not

The media has taken a genuflect as news of Margaret Thatcher's death hit the headlines. What is most annoying is the sentiment of not talking harsh of the dead. They go on about her achievements, what she did for the country as though everything Thatcher stood for was great, as though she was the greatest thing since sliced bread. This she certainly was not. The reality is for those working classes who lived through her reign, and it really was very much an autocratic reign, hardship, depression and subjugation took place. She was a bully, she stood for the rich and hated the poor. Everything she did had a secondary or tertiary reason behind it. She completely hoodwinked the Americans as well. They too have some kind of fake notion Thatcher was great, however, considering they voted in Ronald Reagan at the same time Thatcher was around, and we all know Reagan had the start of Altzhiemers, then it goes to show their voting public were no better than the voters of the UK.  A great many women voted Thatcher in because she was a woman, and they didn't take heed to her political persuasion or the symbolism of her handbag being as representative as Hitler's moustache. They were misguided. British people voted Thatcher in because it was the 80s and during the 80s the economy was going great. They had money and aspirations to be rich and better than their parents.  Voting for Thatcher was saying they were not just on the up, they were aspiring. It was yet again another symbolic act of stupidity.

Thatcher it is known had so many arguments with her own cabinet over her entire tenure all except one member changed (Hestleltine). There was only one way to run the country and it was her way. With her never against her. She was known as the Iron Lady for good reason. Thatcher's third term of government was a chance event which she is forever indebted to Argentina and the invasion of the Falklands.  Thatcher showed she could be the female version of Churchill after all, something every Prime Minister loves is a little war, because it  immortalises them in history.  Tony Blair was the same when he sided with America in a cynical special relationship to hit Iraq.  He pulled out all the legal stops and interpretations of international law to allow joining in.  Of course the fact he got on charmingly with Bush about as moronic as Reagan is serendipitous fortune again. Thatcher got on well with Pinochet, the Chilean president, the dictator who killed thousands of his own people. Thatcher got on so well with him because he provided radar coverage while the fight back of the Falklands took place. Then of course when he needed an operation and had been exiled she let him come here so he could get fixed up and ensured the international courts did not arrest him.

They say Thatcher saved the UK billions of pounds in the agreements she fought against EU agreements.  But it was her predecessor Heath who put the UK in the common market in the first place. She was only fixing a bad deal he'd set up. In Thatcher's relationships with oil rich states, her son Mark (now knighted) was allowed to broker arms deals as a middle man and syphon off a few million into his own bank accounts.  While he wasn't getting lost in his car over the sand dunes. Thatcher introduced the right-to-buy scheme, so Council tenants could purchase their own homes with great big discounts.  The reason for this was to aid her friend in Westminster Baroness Shirley Porter (Tesco heir) and she changed the voting boundaries to ensure more Tory MPs won seats. Then those council houses left Local Authority housing stock and were sold off by people who couldn't afford them and made a quick buck, only for the same individuals to go running back to their Council's asking to be re-housed yet again.There was no additional social housing built as compensation. She also introduced the Poll Tax, a local taxation system as a way to fund Local Authorities. Rather than this being based on rateable values of houses it was based on individual adults. Millions in public funds was lost as people disappeared and could not be traced.

When Thatcher came into power there was one resounding effect of her leadership. Poor people go even poorer. It was hard times. She sold off British institutions to keep the economy afloat.  She sold back to the people those assets they already owned.  British Rail, British Gas, British Telecom. Her running of the economy encouraged Building Societies to turn into banks, carpet bagging became a common term. Greed was in the air, the entire country became morally self centred. And the richer and more powerful an individual the greater their riches and power became. She believed in de-regulation and banks got bigger and greedy, Building Societies were carpet bagged and made into banks just so the members could make a quick pound or two. All the money of which went back into the economy as poor people are more likely to spend money. But the security of the Building Societies was lost. The few remaining today stand firm while today's biggest banks are owned by the tax payer. Saved from failure because as private institutions they could not be allowed to go bankrupt.

Thatcher went out of her way to break the unions, to break down terms and conditions of employment which had taken decades to achieve. The contract between employer and employee returned back to that of slave and master. She devastated the coal mining industry. Coal which today could be used to independently fuel fire stations, instead disused and now inaccessible mines have decayed. Today we import 50 million tons of it, it is a travesty of disproportionate amounts.  Depression hit the North, it hit every working family and it made all slaves to her ideology. At the start of Thatcher's tenure in office (1979) inflation was 13.4 per cent, when she left it was 9.5 per cent. Not a great change, it dipped and it peaked, she epitomises no special qualities as a Prime Minster by continuing the boom and bust of our economy. Let us not forget as well how it was her government which removed free milk to children in schools.  A supplement to children's nourishment, Thatcher, Thatcher the milk snatcher. Another reason why amongst the poor she is hated.

I hear in some parts of the country there were celebrations. Something I can very much understand as a reasonable reaction. Therefore in consideration of a multitude of events there are some pretty good reasons the late Thatcher should not be given a state funeral. She was not loved by the entire country, and only historically will her value be impartially interpreted.

Murderers Cherelle McKenzie-Jackson and Marc Tulloch

I have just read an article about the teenage murderers: Cherelle McKenzie-Jackson, 14 and Marc Tulloch, 17. In yet an another incidence of moronic behaviour they killed a boy who was playing football. The victim was Junior Nkwelle, 15.  Cherelle apparently did not like the way Junior had spoken to her, she felt aggrieved, so aggrieved in fact she decided Junior had to pay for his behaviour. For some reason Cherelle believed she was special and if insulted by another teenager they should pay for it. Junior paid for it when Marc Tulloch stabbed him in the chest to appease his girl friend Cherelle. It is another act of mindless violence and mindless disregard for life.  No doubt both Cherelle and Marc had no consideration for consequences. This seems to be a common thing with teenagers. Junior was not considered as a human being, he was not considered to be the son, nephew or brother of another person. He was not thought of for the good deeds he had done during his life which Cherelle and Marc were not aware of.  He was evaluated by a judge and jury of only two people, two teenage kids full of ignorance and self worth.  Remarkably these two murderers were not sentenced to murder but rather man slaughter, when this vengeful act was actually premeditated. Cherelle set the whole thing up. In view of this their sentences would seem pretty light Cherelle got 8 years and Marc 10 years. However, they will only serve half this time.

There may have been a degree of verbal provocation, but verbal provocation is something every person must live with during their entire life. It happens every day. Normal people learn if they are provoked to use many different strategies. Walking away, verbal argument, physical violence which is non fatal, verbal reasoning, humour and laughter. The list of coping strategies is endless, it is as imaginative as a human being can be. Whilst the solution from Cherelle and Marc was probably the least imaginative of all.

I am always saddened whenever I read the news about teenagers who are murdered or who are killers and take no responsibility or thought about what they have done. I am saddened to yet again read of this happening in London. On a housing estate (Loughborough Estate) in Lambeth South London. It is an area which suffers from poverty, it has both gangs and drugs issues. It is in fact a common factor of many housing estates in London.  With poverty there is ignorance as well.  It is poor kids killing poor kids, because I never hear of rich kids killing rich kids in the same way. 

Poor late Junior had his life ahead of him, he could of expected to live another 60 or 70 years, had a girlfriend and got married and had a family. Junior and his parents will never see what his sons or daughters would of been like. How he could of enriched this planet. In the meantime Cherelle and Marc will likely serve a total of 9 years and then be let free.  It seems in such instances life is cheap. Both sentences should of been double. Maybe they will come out of prison having learnt something, but at that time they will still both be pretty young, well at least they have time to think about consequences. If that is they do.

Pope Benedict aka Cardinal Ratzinger cover up of Pedophillia

The Catholic Church has been under microscope for some time. Particularly the role the last  Pope  in his slow investigation and purposeful blocking of paedophilia which has happened in the church. He authored a document which the Vatican kept used as a guide to covering up this heinous crime, the document is called the Crimen Sollicitationis. It was written in Latin by himself in 1962 and describes how the Catholic Church hides and protects it's own clergy who have committed paedophilia.  Cardinal Ratzinger who was then re-named after election as pope to pope Benedict. Might I add elected by mortal men in a conclave at the Vatican. Much like the present pope Jorge Bergoglio renamed pope Francis.

Children and the old are the vulnerable in society. As such they should be fully protected with the conscience and morality of every single person. When the law breaks down, or when organizations like the Catholic Church have protected the abusers then something is very, very wrong. Proof of this can be seen in a BBC program called Panorama in which it details how Father Fortune was able to evade detection from the police with the help of the Vatican. Who moved him around from one dioceses to another. The Catholic church instigated a wall of silence failed to turn over evidence which may have convicted father Fortune. The purposefully interfered with a criminal investigation and then stated Fortune would be judged under church law rather than the normal laws which judge the rest of us.

The pressure of this instance and many other ignorant acts by the Prada wearing Pope Benedict no doubt also added to his choice to retire and remarkable how it is the conclave in electing a new Pope chose someone who was characteristically the opposite of Ratzinger.  It is still however a sad state of affairs the catholic church have failed to atone for the wrongs it has done in allowing criminal priests to get away.

I do not see how in reality  a head of a Church can be allowed to dictate in this way. Whether it be through the evil of ignorance and to the power of an alleged holly organization.  Ratzinger in his participation of policy making has contributed to increased incidents of paedophilia in the Catholic church.  Simply priests were protected in a similar way the Mafia close ranks and put up a wall of silence.  The washing has been done in public and the reality was Ratzinger's damage to the Catholic church has been more invasive than a group of atheist whores, doing business at the conclave.  Which being a secretive event may actually happen each time a new Pope is voted in. One thing is for sure there will be a whole many more cardinals not voicing their happiness Ratzinger has gone.

Toxic parents and parenting

It seems when I look around me there are a large proportion of people had dysfunctional childhoods in one form or another. Their upbringing has come from parents who do not  have the emotional intelligence or adultness about them to actually act as adults. At times it is like children raising children. The values of motherly or fatherly love are entwined in their own self esteem, and rather than being unconditional they are fully and completely conditional. Where a child seems no more than a necessary object in their lives, one which defines them amongst their peers. A child is something which tags along, holding a hand, it is an explicit show of who they are, of their place in society.  It says "I am a mother/father and am responsible and caring." Which in reality can be quite the opposite.  A child brings other advantages as well, financial assistance, emotional , social (against fear of loneliness) and a scape goat for everything.  Financial assistance which comes from the welfare state in the form of benefits, emotional because the child can be hugged and social as it gives them a chance to meet other like minded families. Unfortunately those other families can both have good parents or toxic parents. Generally toxic parents can gravitate towards each other, but sometimes this is not the case and they will attach themselves as a friend to a normal parent. Hoping to get some acknowledgement they are the same when in fact they are not.

I can only speak for the working classes and the unemployable classes in this context. As I have no experience of the middle or upper classes but I'm sure toxic parenting has no discrimination. Having money doesn't inoculate against emotional dysfunction which can be transferred to children. Toxic parenting is does not effect all working class people or unemployables. The unemployables are particularly chastised by society and governments, because of their parasitic appearance. However, they probably return back into the government economy every single penny they get out of it in trying to make ends meet from day to day.  The same can be said of the working classes, by virtue of low wages nearly all they earn goes on being able to survive. Yet some are happy and very good parents who aspire to love and encourage their children, something toxic parents think they do but in reality don't.

Children begin life as a blank slate. They do not have any maladaptive behaviours but in Freudian terms their early years are all self-centred. Toxic parents are like this, they carry on their self-centred attitude throughout their life. Always seeking to blame other people for their plight, always thinking of what they could of been but never were and then projecting their own ambitions and inadequacies on their children. They are of low self esteem, depressed, suffer from anxiety and are mentally insular. Their imagination to get out of their own rut does not exist. They sap and sap away looking for attention at every turn because of their plight. Then the worst thing of all they take this out on their children. Who they allege to love. Children who grow up confused, who do not understand why their adult care giver says one thing but then acts in a completely different way. A toxic parent's ultimate achievement is to make their own child like themselves. This consequently perpetuates a cycle of toxicity to yet another generation. Children however are not stupid and they grow up knowing this and learning this, some will counter it in their own ways. Unfortunately their lives, emotional, physical and psychological are owned by the parent, worse still legally owned.

There comes a point in their life when they will either allow themselves to be carried along in this behaviour or fight against it. Whether as a teenager or even many years later as an adult. They recall events and know their parents was wrong. They feel aggrieved and then are put in an emotional and psychological turmoil, trying break out. Or are pulled down into the depression of their childhood upbringing. If they think about these things too much they can result in mental illness. It is all to do with their own mental resilience and capability. Coming to this point in their life they are now at a cross road.  Either they understand the toxic nature of their parent and accept it, but in doing so they will understand there are certain protective behaviours which have to put in place, they have to guard themselves and be on constant alert. As their parent gets older and more frail, they are seen pitifully but beware they will still have a vicious and spiteful tongue in their head. They further can not be trusted with grandchildren, these grand parents are seen as "nutty."  Showing love in one instance and then twisting it in another, their actions are always invidious.

The worse part about toxic parenting is that no law exists against it. When considering the acts of dictators the world may act after time.  With toxic parenting the cycle persists until it is broken. Until the child of a toxic parent knows certain behaviours are unacceptable and can not be carried forward. If they are lucky they can then escape to something which approaches normality. The experience and lessons of such childhoods however, are never forgotten.

Jeremy Hunt the Psycho

Without fail, every time I see Jeremy Hunt I think he is insane. There is a far off look in his eyes, a madness about him, he should be in a white coat and a soft padded room, alone. In this solitary place it would probably be too crowded as well. I don't know if he is a man with an ego like Cameron or whether it's because he has an arrogant hubris like Osborne, or perhaps it is both of these. This is the man who thought even though it was best for all if News Corp won their bid for Sky, even as Culture Secretary for the government. When I see Hunt, Cameron or Osborne something nasty turns in my stomach. They want not to just rule the country but to own it and to hoodwink every single person. But they take us for fools, which part of the electorate probably is, the part which voted for them in the first place and thought they would be the best option.

Jeremy Hunt it is rumoured wear women's panties. I'm sure this rumour is true, it would account for his odd stare. Now he is the Health Secretary, he will no doubt fix up an appointment with a shrink to investigate his preference for women's knickers above boxers. It will be free of course because he is an important person. Well, I'm sure he is in someone's eye's, his mum's?  Then again maybe not. Mind he must see a doc every few days, on account of the horns which grow on the top of his head. They need to be ground down every once in a while. He now presides over what will happen with the death camp called Mid Staffordshire Hospital, where it is has been said over a 1,000 people prematurely died. Hunt agrees nobody has been held to account, but he doesn't speak the language of retribution. He defers responsibility to the culture of the hospital but doesn't take it on himself. He says the NHS is to bureaucratic and his solution is another level of form filling. One thing I can say for sure, Mr Hunt will not enter an NHS hospital if there is anything wrong with him, he'll go private, and probably from the profit he makes as a share holder in News Corp, if not shares likely employment opportunity when he leaves.

The Tories will  not be in power another term as for the Liberals it will take another 70 years before they can even conceive influence like this again. They will not be in power if my vote counts for something, and I may even help canvas as well. Hunt is one psycho heading to a hotter place, I bet he's even got his own trident.

Asad is at it again

President Asad has today been airing his views on the rebels fighting in his country. It is as though he thinks he actually owns his country and every life in it. Listening to part of his speech I found it quite laughable as everything he said could of been spoken by a rebel commander who had been given the publicity to air their thoughts. Asad should not be given the oxygen of speech he is now without doubt becoming a tyrant. Much in the same way as Gaddaffi and Saddam have been. These tyrants look after their own and then put the rest of the country into termoil, like parasites they suck the blood out of them.

The freedom of speech is not given to other political parties, to the rebels, to anyone who opposes the views of Asad. His words come across as those of a mad man, again similar to the mad men rulers of yesterday who are of course dead. Asad, you will tear your country apart, Syria needs to be free, you will be guilty of murder and so will your followers. Many will die and it will take a long time, but your days are certainly numbered.