Welcome to MY world

The Big Man at the Inspectorate of Constabulary has confirmed what so very many people had long suspected. The Police had given up on antisocial behaviour. For whatever reason one subscribes to, there were too few bobbies on their beats. This could well be a ruse to save Forces from cutbacks said to be as much as 25%; I'll not explore that idea.

Regardless of what is done, the police are in the hands of many other agencies. Social Services may want to chip their oar in. Local authorities will have policies. The Prosecution Services will mull things over. And then there are the judiciary who jealously guard their status in deciding what punishments should be awarded. Nicking the antisocial is one thing but it starts off a veritable Snakes and Ladders process.

The very title of Antisocial Behaviour means nothing and leaves open the way that 'high spirits' is differentiated from, say, Causing Criminal Damage. If offences were to be charged as found in the existing criminal law the way in which an offender is dealt with is much simplified and capable of being understood by the lay person. Breaking wind in a lift is antisocial but (thank goodness) not a crime.

A founder of modern policing laid down

the principles under which they should consider their duties."1 / The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2 / The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.
3 / Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4 / The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5 / Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6 / Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
7 / Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8 / Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9 / The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it."

That little lot would seem to cover much that hides under the stone of antisocial behaviour. And before we leave the wisdom of Robert Peel he also said "His central notion was that "the police are the public and the public are the police". The police, wrote Peel, are only members of the public who are "paid to give full-time attention to duties incumbent on every citizen".

He argued that the effectiveness of the police in preventing crime depended on public support. The police would gain this by showing absolute impartiality, by offering service to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or status, and "by ready exercise of courtesy and good humour". Force should only be used as a last resort.

Socialist principles of seeking to treat all of the community as equals have gone too far. Some parents take care of what their offspring learn from them and well-behaved others. Other parents give not a damn with the results we have seen. One sees on the TV coverage of where uniformed police interact with young hoodies. There is absolutely no sign of any respect for the uniform or what it should represent. The most foul language from children of about 7 or 8 years of age goes unchecked. This disrespect continues up the age band. The days when juveniles respected adults and the aged have long gone. They are - in short terms - uncontrollable. This what must be put right. Like it or lump it, people need to be made very well aware that the majority expect them to conform to the rules that we need to bind us together.

The concept that we all have the same rights each with another has to be re-examined. Any juvenile - say under 18 years of age - who causes trouble of the sort now described as anti-social needs a short sharp shock and left in no doubt that they must change their ways. If the parents are unable or do not assist in this process, it should be made very clear that the offender will be removed from their control and handed over to the State for corrective re-induction as a reasonably behaving individual.

'Short sharp shock' may suggest National Service or "Sisters of Mercy" running laundries in Ireland. That is exactly what it is not. Ritualised cruelty will change a person but it will rarely alter their personality. I was put through National Service in a Corps that demanded high levels of instant compliance with orders and high personal standards. I saw the toughest of feral youth come in full of resentment and animosity to all. Eighteen weeks later we all marched off the barrack square with everyone committed to upholding the tradition and honour of the Corps that had just accepted us. At no time had I seen any physical violence used towards any of them. Certainly, there was verbal abuse but it was always out in the open and we all understood why correction was needed. We were taught that we could rely on the man next to us and he on us. The need for uniformity of conduct was illustrated. The smelly learnt to shower. The drinker learned to control his consumption. Being the odd man out in a room of maybe 40 others can be very uncomfortable. Once the 'hard men' realised that there was no way they could beat the system, things moved ahead much faster and easier for us all.

How this might be accomplished is something I cannot assist with - I am an old man well out of touch with modern thinking. When I was still a teenager, we had Dr Barnado homes Many local authorities ran Homes for Unmarried Mothers - not all these were the brutal prison many imagine. What worked then could be revised, updated and re-used. They provided valuable training for youngsters, trainee nurses and midwives and ongoing care for the mothers.

I speak about the need to inculcate respect for authority - dissing in street slang.In their milieu of gangland, to diss someone is regarded as a serious offence and may well lead to murder. So, they know the concept. All they need to take on board the others that it does not pay to diss.

The coalition Government is showing the potential to be as disastrous as the last lot under Teddy Boy Brown.

It committed to a Defence Review. A review signifies that all possible threats are re-examined and assessed in some order of risk. Then comes the decision as to how the threat would be met. In a nation so cash-strapped as are we are, cost has to feature in such decisions. If we get a threat wrong, or miss on something that could happen, how much money have we wasted in provision on any deterrent defence system we got wrong.

Today the able Liam Fox revealed that he has sold the Review down the river. "Britain gave a direct promise to the United States that it would keep its nuclear deterrent and maintain special forces after the Pentagon expressed alarm at the scale of the spending cuts. Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, made the pledges in Washington after talks with his US counterpart, Robert Gates." And whilst we are on about Foxey's trip, here is a further commitment he made "Dr Fox promised that Britain would retain the ability to mount medium-scale operations overseas, but not, in the future, those at the level of the Afghanistan mission, in which 10,000 British Service personnel are involved. He envisaged that the review would provide manpower for any future operation involving about 6,000 troops in a campaign sustained for a reasonable length of time." We hear nothing of any reciprocal agreement where America gets involved in any problem we might have. They showed the strength of the Special Relationship at the time of the Falklands War. Their President is facing real opposition - did Fox have any meeting with them? And how will our military men determine a 'reasonable length of time?' Remember the short time allocated to pacification in Iraq and the forecast of what would happen in Afghanistan in what time span.

On his return, he was involved in discussions with Cameron. "The Prime Minister called together Dr Fox and Nick Harvey, the Liberal Democrat Armed Forces Minister, after a week in which coalition tensions over Trident have been exposed" This within days of "Lynne Featherstone, a Liberal Democrat minister, claimed that the coalition's junior partner had ensured that replacement of Britain's independent nuclear deterrent was "no longer a certainty" We do not know what Clegg's reaction might be; t'was just a few days back he had reassured his party that their anti-Trident views might be taken into account. He had been shipped off to USA like some kid on a school trip and Cameron and Fox will have all the ducks lined up by the time he gets back home.

There could well be a bit of good old pork-barrel politics here. Those who would be hit hardest in employment terms are in areas where Tory politicians fear to go. The clock is ticking on a five year Government and ship-yard workers are stern men with long memories. Cameron has no Maggie to ride rough shod over Unions as she did the mutinous miners.

There are other indications that the Government speaks with forked tongue, They have publicised how tough the savings must be in almost every area of our environment. When the whimpering started they backed down on some and prevaricated on others. Osborne was due to have the consolidated savings in time for his announcement. Fox's limit of a force commitment of 6,000 as against the almost 10,000 now in Afghanistan may well be indicative of the personnel reductions he will offer up. Various other bodies have been granted some degree of protection. This will leave exposed those who have no hold over the Government. The pensioners. Those genuinely unable to work by reason of disability or lack of opportunity as duck pond builders. The Government has already promised to care for those mentally and physically crippled in the mad escapade with the Mullahs and provide training for those made redundant. The police and social services have espoused a policy of meaningful talks with estate yobs alongside foreign holidays and play centres instead of simple application of a wooden poultice. The NHS were ring-fenced but maybe the yobs have broken some of the fence down. How they may do more work/good with less resources has not been publicised - yet.

There was coverage on last night's TV news that Suffolk Council has decided how it will meet the savings demanded. It will just arbitrarly cease providing services and rely upon Dave's Volunteers to take up the slack. There was some expectation that private companies would be out-sourced but the publicity clearly anticipated Mr Jones; newly redundant from his position as Brain Surgeon, would rock up at the Council gates and volunteer to sweep up the Town Square. If they think there will be any savings from a facility management deal, think again. I was one and it is almost a license to print money.

At least Brown had the courage of his eccentric convictions. When he said something would be done, it was done or else someone had things thrown at them. I suppose that Cameron's legacy will be depicted as the figure on a wind cock - twisting and turning in every slight breeze.

Considerable coverage everywhere on the new Thanet wind farm. The wind power technology is rated as even better than sliced bread. We in Scotland have seen a considerable growth in wind farms - something to do with valleys channelling wind onto flat places. So, we need to give thought to something that appeared in our news quite recently.

"SCOTLAND'S wind farms have produced only around half the amount of power they were expected to this year, Scotland on Sunday has learned. The government blamed the low generation levels on unusually calm weather, but critics said the figures showed the danger of becoming too dependent on renewable energy." This situation is then amplified "Stuart Young, who runs Caithness Wind Information Forum and opposes wind farms, carried out the research by analysing data from the Balancing Mechanism Reporting System website, which the National Grid uses to monitor generation. The site provides a constant flow of information on output from 1,588 megawatts wind farms in Scotland.
His research also showed that for 80 per cent of the time between February and June Scotland's turbines were operating at less than 30 per cent.

And for almost a third of the time they were operating at less than 5 per cent of their maximum output, meaning they were virtually becalmed. Only nine times between February and June had the wind farms achieved 30 per cent efficiency for a full day at a time. There were long stretches, such as from 16 to 29 May, 9 to 15 April and 6 to 23 February when they failed to reach 30 per cent output"

The industry was defended. Duncan McLaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland who is reported as saying "Generally, the wind is blowing somewhere in the UK and the likelihood of low wind speeds affecting 50 per cent of the country occurs less than 100 hours per year."

It seems that the nuclear power stations will be decommissioned. Periods when there is insufficient wind-powered generation will be met by using the coal-fired power stations as back-up. Just how this might work in practice does not seem to have been released but it must take time to go from stand-by to full steam ahead. That is after someone has decided that wind power is failing. The coal fired resources will need to be kept manned. Even if just turning over they require feeding with non-sustainable fuel. They will generate large amounts of CO2. If we factor in the costs to make the windmills, transport them from their foreign manufacturers, erect, maintain and eventually decommission, there cannot be much of a saving on CO2 from wind farms.

Mention is made of the Danish experience as being supportive of wind power. Ah yes but, there is an element of apples and bears comparisons. "Danish wind turbines near Copenhagen. Wind often flows briskly and smoothly over water since there are no obstructions. The large and slow turning turbines of this offshore wind farm near Copenhagen take advantage of the moderate yet constant breezes at this location. While the wind at this location is not strong it is very consistent, with the turbines generating substantial power over 97 percent of the time." We have read about the vagaries of wind speeds in Scotland. 'Moderate' and 'constant breezes' they are not. I haven't kept a check but I think I have seen seven warnings of gale force winds this month alone.

Maybe our political masters who direct their sheep into the appropriate pens should read "The Wind Farm Scam. Dr Etherington argues that in the case of wind power the drawbacks far outweigh the claimed benefits. Wind turbines cannot generate enough energy to reduce global CO2 levels to a meaningful degree; what's more wind power is by nature intermittent and cannot generate a steady output, necessitating back-up coal and gas power plants that significantly negate the saving of greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to the inefficacy of wind power there are ecological drawbacks, including damage to habitats, wildlife and the far-from-insignificant aesthetic drawback of the assault upon natural beauty and the pristine landscape, which wind turbines entail. Dr Etherington argues that wind power has been, and is being, excessively financed at the cost of consumers who have not been consulted, nor informed that this effective subsidy is being paid from their bills to support an industry that cannot be cost efficient or, ultimately, favour the cause it purports to support"

And who will have to pick up the costs of this enterprise? Once it gets into the National Grid the costs will pass to the energy suppliers. And to whom will they off-load it? Us - the customers.

Welcome to Cameron's Brave New World.

As a old coffin dodger I remember when that proud boast meant something when seen on a product. Way way back now when we used to actually build things from start to finish and did not rely on 'service' industries employing off the hook foreigners at sweat shop rates.

We could still be doing it if we tried. We have the brains to invent - just how many types of Dyson vacuum cleaners are there? I hear we are well up in the development of computer games of the shoot 'em up, knock 'em down variety.

Something where I thought the developed world would appreciate some innovation must be the protection of the life and limb of their armed forces. That valuable document we know as Wikileaks revealed details of just how deeply the Taliban have adopted the Improvised Explosive Device. The leaked documents show the exponential growth in the use of these in the last six years. The number of British military personnel killed on operations in Afghanistan since 2001 stands at 337, after a soldier from the Queen's Royal Lancers and another from the Royal Engineers died in an explosion on 18 September. One would think that we might have explored all avenues to counteract this cheap but deadly munition. We have electronic measures but in the unfriendly to electrons environment they go off song.

But, wait a minute, the Americans have a new weapon of which great things are spoken. A gadget which fires a spear of water capable of slicing steel is being despatched to Afghanistan to disarm roadside bombs. The device — dubbed Stingray — was developed by boffins at America's Sandia National Laboratories — and 3,000 are heading to US soldiers this year.In this news release, it seems that someone's redacting marker had slipped. Bold as brass, right there it says "The basic concept of the devices was first developed in the 1970s in Britain to deal with IRA explosives" So, where the hell has it been in those 40 years? Looking at the manufacturer' site we see "Nine Sandians made the nation's fight against improvised explosive devices (IEDs) personal in 2009 through on-site service with the Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) in Washington, DC" What we had for all those years was developed by these nine guys in the space of a year. From concept to shipment of 3,000 units.

We have had a selection of governments since 1970. All full of promises that mostly lasted little longer that it took the ink to dry on their false and deceptive manifesto. So, not caring for our troops is not an attitude confined to any one political party. The Conservative element of our current Mongrel Parliament spoke of rectifying the Military Covenant. "The Conservatives say they will create a new "tri-service" military covenant, which would include specific obligations and requirements to care for families and veterans. The manifesto promises a new mental health screening service for everyone leaving the armed forces. The Conservatives say that more than a quarter of Iraq war veterans suffer mental health problems and that they will establish Britain's first dedicated post-traumatic stress disorder treatment programme within the NHS.

Operational allowances for military personnel would be doubled and the children of servicemen and women killed while on active duty would be provided with university and further education scholarships. The scheme would be backdated to 1990." They said. They have since said that HM Forces personnel and other Budgets will have the same savagery imposed upon them and many now employed will be 'set free' of the bonds of uniform. The Army does not gave a lot of use for one armed and legless soldiers who benefit from a bit of a blind eye approach and are currently found useful employment suited to their medical condition and they will be in the front line for being made civilians. Retraining is not an overnight process so it is not likely they will get a lot of that. Pressure on the NHS will be increased even without the additional workload and expense of caring for damaged former soldiers.

Truly, Kipling had it right all those years ago

"O there'll surely come a day
When they'll give you all your pay,
And treat you as a Christian ought to do;
So, until that day comes round,
Heaven keep you safe and sound,"

For sure, his employers will care not if he is neither safe nor sound.