Keep the Royal Mail public

There has been a lot of talk in the News about the Royal Mail, because workers are going off on strike. The Communication Workers Union (CWU) say it's because employers will not sit around a table and discuss the issues at Acas. There is no doubt the old Royal Mail needs to be bought into the present day, but like anything else it is the "how" this is done. The mail is an integral part of the British culture and was the first in the world. So it should be given respect and it should be kept public. However, as politicians are always looking for ways to make money and we are in a recession it makes sense to sell the China, gold bullion and any other asset they can put their fingers on which the Tories didn't manage to do under the rule of a previous government.

Personally I recall leaving school and how one of the boys in the same year as me got a job with the Royal Mail. How he was guaranteed overtime whenever he wanted it and was raking in loadsa money. Particularly because I thought he didn't deserve such a good break. My own upbringing and employment prospects led me to a poor paid job and only just managing to survive. Not to mention being stung by unscrupulous bank charges whenever I went into debit. What a double whammy that was. This kid who got the job with the Mail had managed to get a job for life now. Like getting a job in other public institutions. I was perturbed over it. I couldn't understand how someone like him would get so lucky, but he was. I went on a trip for ex school pupils to Amsterdam, I recall how he was loud, how he boasted about going to see a prostitute while we were there. He certainly must of had money to burn. I could only budget enough for my food while I was on the trip and souvenirs would have to be post cards. So this is the extent of my own bitterness when thinking about the Post Office come Royal Mail. However, regardless of this and the Mail's poor decision making in employee recruitment. I believe the Royal Mail should not be privatised in any form because it is a public service and those far off or hidden homes which are not economically viable to deliver to must be delivered to under the Royal Mail service. Private companies would not bother with them.

Like the incredibly bad decision to privatise the railways, again another wonderful money earner for the few, especially managers who happened to be in the right place at the right time. And again not to mention a conservative government who's members I believe personally may have made some money out of it themselves. The Mail should be saved, and accountable to the public and kept in the public realm. Railways now charge outrageous prices to commuters. They are still being heavily subsidised by the public purse even though they are privatised. So if I get this right, we pay through our own taxes to help aid private businesses which would otherwise fail. Businesses which then cream off any profits they have but don't actually return money back into the companies to improve the infrastructure, because so much massive investment is needed they'd rather keep it to themselves. Then yes, go cap in hand to the government and as for some more porridge. The reality is, they are subsidised private businesses, subsidised to such a high amount they would otherwise go bust in a real working business environment. It probably goes to show, when you have a monopoly even if you are poorly run the government will make sure you don't go under. The prime present day example of this is a banking system. Now from which we hear the bosses are planning to give their employees the biggest bonuses ever. Absolutely wonderful. In the meantime the rest of us keep paying our taxes, then get shafted for the next 30 years with a public debt because the government had not choice but to bail out the banks. All of this has got to suggest there is something very, very wrong.

So no, Royal Mail should stay public. Even though I have no personal nostalgia for it, it should not be given to the cream tasters, who only like what floats on top and don't give a dam about the rest.

Lesbian teacher's abuse of trust

In today's newspaper is the story of a teacher who had a sexual encounter with a pupil. The case was taken to a Crown Court. The teacher is 26 years old, the pupil is 15 years old. The implicit trust in the educational system is teachers and pupils respect each other but never take advantage of it. At court the teacher got a sentence of 15 months half of which had to be served before release. In English law there is no such thing as statutory rape, this is a fact. Yet this was the sentence given. Which seems pretty lenient. The leniency borders on ridiculous. The affair was a lesbian one, the teacher is Helen Goddard. Of course the pupil's identity is secret. They went to Paris, to see a Gay Pride march, the parents of the pupil (child) didn't know their daughter was with this teacher. The judge after sentencing, would not sign an order disallowing the teacher to see the pupil. He thought they had both suffered enough although the judge did put her on the sex offenders register for ten years as well as a few months locked up.

Now lets consider the scenario again. If the teacher was a man and the girl he had an affair with was 15 years old. Consider him also to be 26 years old. The girl seeks his attention because he is a popular teacher and then they go at it like rabbits in a hotel room hidden away from the world. A male mature teacher of 26. He goes on to intimate they have a wonderful thing and their relationship can continue even when she is 16 years old. Exactly what happened with Helen Goddard. Then I ask, how would this situation with a man be viewed in such circumstances? He would be branded loudly as a paedophile, he would be put into the secure block of a prison, he would never work again, an order banning his contact with the pupil would of been signed and the trueness of this situation would of hit with greater weight.

Helen Goddard took advantage of her position and as a lesbian it may seem the judge was more lenient towards sentencing. Of course the papers can not print the entire facts of the case, but it would seem to most readers the judgement is questionable. No doubt in prison, even if it's for only seven and a half months, Helen Goddard will find another lover, one maybe not as young but one certainly of legal age.

American Health Care versus NHS

The British NHS (National Health Service) is something every person in the UK is proud to be a part of. It is a travesty now in the US there is no equivalent. At this moment there rages a debate in America which has got pretty nasty, the debate is whether they should introduce a health service to their own country. This is on president Obama's agenda. In the mean time to discredit the notion of a national health system the Republican party are going full out in advertising and publicity. They emphasise the negative aspects of our own NHS service making it appear, decrepit, bureaucratic, inefficient and a service of assisted suicide rather than one of social morality. But the worse stark fact of America is there are 50 million people in the country who are unable to afford any type, even the most basic, health insurance. Now seeing as the UK has a population of approximately 60 million people, this is equivalent to an entire country where no one can see a doctor or go to a hospital because the system is based on monetary means. I heard one advert on their TV in which it emphasised how patients in the UK were unable to get help because of waiting lists however, in the US many people can't even be put on a waiting list.

I heard one story of a man who was British and living in New York, who had become ill with a stomach complaint. He knew it was serious as it had occurred before, but rather than go to an American hospital, he got on a plane travelled back to the UK and then walked straight into an A & E department of a hospital in London. He had health insurance in the US but because he had experienced their hospitals in action before he'd rather travel back thousands of miles to the UK. This is a counter arguement which does not have any airing on American TV and I'm sure if they did understand the full extent of what the NHS has done then the Republicans and any other misguided individual would know they had got it very wrong.

If America is such a religious country which believes in moral values, then why is it they are blind to the value of health care in the community? To understand it is immoral not to help people because they can not afford health care is a no brainer. Health care should not just be for those who have money, it should be extensive to help anyone who is ill, we are at our most vulnerable when sick and yet in America when you are sick then it will screw the most it can out of you financially. In the UK we have specialist hospitals, I am particularly thinking of Great Ormand Street Hospital. This is a NHS hospital which gives treatment to children and babies. It is geared up especially for this group. It is funded by the NHS and by charitable donations which in my mind it should not really have to ask for. In America if your baby is ill and you have inadequate or no health insurance then your baby is not going to be treated. Your baby may well die. The most vulnerable in society are the young, the old and the disabled, but it does not mean they are of no value. America's health care system is so financially based it has actually put a value on life, where on the the rich or those who by some serendipity have health insurance through their work or privately purchased are going to get help. In reality, the way I see it, America does not value life, it values money.

Blind justice

While pulling out an old newspaper to guard against paint falling on the floor, I noticed an article about a man who had lost sight in one eye. He had been attacked by a gang of youths. One of the youths was arrested with perseverence the victim went to court to help the police get a conviction. However, the judge did not convict because he could not be sure the accused was actually the one who had thrown a bottle at the victim. So the accused was let free. There were about 20 youths in this gang. Then I decided to do a search on the internet about men being blinded by bottle attacks. Unfortunately it is not a rare thing. However there are some common factors.

Usually it is a bottle of some kind which is thrown although on occaision it will be a glass, perhaps one used to drink out of. Further the attack is focused from a group. Whether a gang or a gathering. A gathering is not the same as a gang, a gathering being any group of people who congregate together, whereas a gang is a group who have some kind of allegiance with each other. Another identifying factor though not always is, alcohol has been consumed. Alcohol being a substance which usually lowers inhibitions, however lets add in the group element because in groups there is a group mind set. Psychological studies have proven this (see Le Bon's book called The Crowd). Also people in a crowd like to be the centre of attention so by being roudy or 'having a laugh'. Rational thought at this point goes out of the window and the lowering of I.Q. comes in, with a Group Mindset. The victim will be an innocent bystander or individual who decides to take some form of action the group does not like. Such as remonstrating with them, this happened in one article I read where the victim's car was having snow balls thrown at it. In another case it was a bystander witnessing another victim being beaten up by five youths. The victims in all cases may be trying to be outspoken, but any outspoken action is seen to the group as a policing action. One which is meant to bring them back into civility and they do not want to hear it. As a group, these persons lose their individuality to the extent there is no limitation, or should I say no conscience of when to stop.

For justice to be done, every individual who is in the group be this gang or gathering should be identified as liable for violent behaviour, even if they did not take part in the actual event. This is because when someone is in a group the very nature of being there and being a witness makes them part. If they do nothing they are condoning the actions. Some individuals would have also jeered or be vocally abusive, they to are equally liable to the results of any violence. So for real justice, each and every member where known should then be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It is not an excuse to say they did not throw the bottle or take part in the fight, if they are there, they are liable.

Alternatively, I hear in Iran there have been cases where people are blinded in violent actions and the courts then come down on the attacker. The punishment usually is along the lines of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. If an attacker is sentenced and found guilty their eye or eyes could be surgically removed. Although Human Rights campaigners have been active in these instances, you can't help asking whether this form of law has a bit more substance in it than justice which is not done in this country.

Justice is sadly done

The tragic and callous murder of a teenager has now been vindicated in the courts. Shakilus Townsend was murdered in a honey trap, set up by a girl (Samantha Joseph) who he as in love with, but didn't love him. The primary killer was her boyfriend Danny McLean, but Danny didn't do the deed on his own he used his gang. They trapped Shakilus in a warfare maneuver, using bicycles on an estate to chase him down. Shakilus died, sobbing and saying he didn't want to die and he wanted his mommy. There have been 6 convictions and each has received a life sentence, including Samantha Joseph. It would be one sided to paint Shakilus as innocent to knife crime, when he had himself been involved in knives, gangs and assault. This is yet another regretful case of stupidity ruling over common sense.

There is something so sad about teenagers who are throwing away their lives and not understanding the value of life when they carry a knife around. When they say it is for protection, when being a member of a gang and acting like a sheep is cool, they are misguided. It is like they can not see the future, they can not see their teenage years will come to an end and they will grow up and have children themselves. There is blindness. It is only the now which exists, only their need to find respect amongst other teenagers who change their view of the world in more times than a vacilating rodent seeking a food reward from solving a maze. Perhaps it's because they do not have adult guidance, where families are close, uncles, aunts, grandads and nans are there to watch over them. Perhaps it is society as a whole and the poor governance or design of estates. Or maybe it's music which intones hate and glorifies in blood. Even movies may play a part because they set out a fantasy world of reward and violence which makes being bad seem good. There is no single answer to any teenagers death when they have only just began their life, and for now, only proper and true justice plays a balancing hand.

In this case Judge Richard Hawkins has given the appropriate sentence. Maybe it will have a deterent effect on other teenagers out there, unfortunately, one thing teenagers don't like to listen to is the news. So they are likely to carry on in ignorance, worse still the lowest basest ignorance if they just believe a soldier has died.

As a person I know has said to me, "if they think they are soldiers, put them all in a container lorry and ship them to Iraq" drop them off and let them find out what war really is.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1198346/Honey-trap-girl-faces-life-sentence-luring-smitten-teenager-death-hands-love-rival.html?ITO=1490

Mugabe you can not hold back time

This morning I listened to an article on the radio which made me cry. It was of small children escaping from Zimbabwe into South Africa. Because they had not food and their parents could not feed them. Many were dying on the journey, being robbed and beet up by gangs along the way. Some were so small they were just being abandoned by their parents to fend for themselves. These children were travelling hundreds of miles to find help.

Mugabe may have a wish to live to 100 years in age, but his country will become more destitute and corrupt each and every day he is in power. As he ages, instead of having compassion for his own country he becomes more and more crazed. He clutches onto power like he is clutching onto a life raft. He has a grip of steel. But it is inevitable. For all his wealth and power in this deprived county there is one certainty he can not escape. The one thing which is so obvious. He will die. Not because of a sniper bullet, or the quick swipe of a machete, or even a good kicking from a group of bandits he doesn't know. He will die because he is old. When this happens the lives of each of his family will be at threat as well. Every wife, every one of his own children. When he goes his country may live, but the certainty is there and it is inescapable. If he doesn't die he may become susceptible to an age related illness. Brain clot, Alzheimer's, or some other debilitating illness. His party will fizzle out, and those who remember him will only recall a corrupt, bitter genocidal maniac who ended up shitting his own pants.

Train robbers should never be glamorised

I have been reading an article about Ronnie Biggs. The aged train robber who is about to leave prison to spend the rest of his days in the care of the NHS. A man immortalised in British history for pulling of the Great Train Robbery of 1963. He originally fled to Australia after escaping prison and from there went to Brazil. His life there was described as "indolent" where he lived on his cut of the swag from the robbery. He paid no taxes to the UK and when his health began to fail then decided to return, serve the rest of his sentence and soon now leave jail. He can barely communicate and will need full time care. He will need the full support of the NHS, but his life has been lived abroad. Although no individual died during the train robbery the driver of the train Jack Mills was hit over the head with an iron bar, something which he never recovered from, and never worked again. It was Jack Mills who suffered for the rest of his life while Biggs lived it up in a hot country from money he had stolen.

Perhaps it is karma coming back to Biggs for his actions, the way his is now. However, I can't help think he needed a way out of Brazil back to his home country and he knew his health wasn't going to hold out. But in returning to the UK he could reap the benefits of a free democratic country where the health service will cost him nothing. If Biggs loved Brazil so much he should be sent back there after doing his time in prison. He should be sent back to their state health system. Because here he has not contributed at all. His indolent life style has kept him happy for so long. Never has there been a word of remorse or regret for his actions, he and his gang owe Jack Mills a life, because it was Jack Mills who suffered from their crimes.

Personally I think his name should be removed from the history books. As for Jack he was the real hero for living the rest of his life with the disabilities they gave him.