Please Sir, we want some more - Pt II

A Twitter writer (@HMForces) asks:

"Does anyone in the whole of Britain think the following story is fair?
Single mother soldier expecting a large payout from Army over discrimination claim. A single mother soldier is expecting to win a large payout from the Army after a tribunal ruled that it had failed to take enough notice of her childcare needs.
Tilern DeBique said she was forced to leave the forces because she was expected to be available for duty at all times. However, a tribunal ruled she was within her rights to miss training when she could not find anyone to look after her daughter"
She is expected to receive a payment of at least £100,000 for loss of earnings, injury to feelings and aggravated damages and the ruling could yet have significant implications for the armed forces."

Well, I can see the point that is being made. The Mum should have asked the appropriate questions before she signed on the dotted line. However, she may well have thought the Army was an Equal Opportunities employer and her situation is one that any civilian employer has to face and resolve. The treatment that DeBique expected is normal and one we have allowed to creep in under a number of disguises.

I left the Army at a time when pregnancy was dealt with by discharge. (For women that is - men facing pregnancy were given postings way away from the potentially disruptive individual!) Within ten years or so, I was heading a department of some 60 staff. Because of what the department served - switchboards, reception, catering, cleaning and reception - about 50 of these employees were female. Roughly half were post-menopausal so I had 25/30 'delicate' women to work with. Their absences - short and long-term - had to be covered; there was no way a switchboard position could be vacant or a executive lunch uncooked. Apart from the difficulties set by women going on maternity leave, I had a couple with medical difficulties - irritable bowel syndrome for two that led to sudden onset of inability to turn in for work. When Mum eventually decided that she might return to work, I had to consider - and arrange - for her to job share with another and to work hours that suited what she saw as 'her circumstances' These always seemed to consist of late arrivals and early departures with occasional working-time visits to the First Aid room for a bit of a lie down.

The greatest opponent I faced in any attempt to get some consideration for the employer from these employees was the Head of HR. This, that and the other seemed to all be 'covered by legislation' or 'decided at an employment tribunal'. It was even considered grossly incorrect for me to ask at the employment interview stage if a female applicant was in a 'relationship' - ('married' was totally banned as signifying aged and prejudicial attitudes to life-style).

My only real victory for sanity was when a freshly-returned Mum calmly told me that her working arrangements were no great matter as she was already again pregnant and would be seeking more feet-up holiday. Seems she had thought that breast-feeding was a contraceptive. After breaking off to go and bang my head against the HR door, I managed to put together a case that she was frustrating her contract and we gave her a small bag of gold to go away and breed to her hearts content. Even that course of action was deemed marginally illegal.

Mind you - if you truly want to see what a significant portion of the (soldiers') world thinks - have a look at their forum for full and frank discussion.

Please Sir, we want some more

I have been watching the BBC2 tv programme filmed at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children(GOSH). The latest episode was last night and centred on the excellence of the facilities, the world-wide pressure upon these and the staff and the ethical connotations of much of the treatment given; much of which is merely palliative in scope and outlook.

Now an NHS Hospital Trust, Great Ormond Street Hospital is world-renowned for its pioneering work in children's medicine. Due to its ground-breaking work over many years, it is amongst the most famous hospitals in the United Kingdom."

In 2002 GOSH commenced a redevelopment program which is budgeted at £343 million and the next phase of which is scheduled to be complete by 2012. The redevelopment is needed to expand capacity, deliver treatment in a more comfortable and modern way, and to reduce unnecessary inpatient admissions.

Seeing the reports in proximity to the Manifesto that have been issued gave a clear picture of the problems in accepting what the two parties have said. The development budget looks fearsome but must pale into insignificance when set against the running costs of the facility. The cameras had a no-holds barred access to staff and case meetings such that we were privy to discussions that even parents of sick children may not have witnessed prior to the report being screened.

What came across was that the professionals seem not to accept that any case is beyond a solution. If there is no existing standard treatment, they will get together and devise one from scratch. One gets the sense that one is in a research laboratory rather than a treatment centre. Instead of animals awaiting rescue by PETA one is faced wit desperately ill infants and distraught parents.

The professionals - consultants through to floor nursing staff - show tremendous concern over the ethics of what they do or what they will try to do. Last night's showing included a child born with no means of getting air into it's lungs. There is no known remedy but they sat together and sketched out on a note-pad how they could set about creating a false trachea. Outlook - if successful - included a year's stay in an Intensive Care Unit for a child that would never be able to speak and at significant risk of acquiring a fatal infection.

There was much discussion as to the ethics of pursuing the theoretical solution before it was accepted that there should be no treatment and the parents were told this. Harrowing.

Another topic was care of premature babies. The report revealed that there are times when a very high percentage of available beds are taken up by children born grossly premature after merely 23 or 24 weeks of pregnancy. Further disclosure was that there was little that could be done for these infants and the hospital was just getting them strong enough to be sent home to die there. I questioned the humanity where it might be necessary to deny admission to, say, a three or four year old child with desperate needs requiring a high level of surgical intervention and follow-up high dependency nursing. What ethics would run there - would they evict the best preemie so as to find space for junior?

This caused me to recall a conversation I had had with my maternal grandmother some 65 plus years ago. She had been a Matron during the 1914-1918 War. At about 9 years old I had overheard part of an adult conversation and I questioned her whether it was true that children born very sick were just left to pass away in the delivery theatre or at a home-birth with nothing done for them. She confirmed this and explained why it was not reasonable to extend a life that sure to be difficult, maybe short and painful, in a family with siblings and low income. Even as an impressionable kid, I understood her point and that situation stayed with me from that time. In many respects, I hold it today.

So, why the connect with manifesto? Dave says we will have a future where decision making is devolved to we, the people. Grumpy Brown offers us a future with priority funding to provide excellence in the NHS. Anyone with a particle of humanity in their genes would want everything done for kids such as the preemies or the no-airway child. The realities of the ethical association would have money thrown at them. I hold that the sad situation with NHS budgets is the elasticity of demand. Give them a billion. They will use much of that to extend, say, the range of our life span from premature through to very aged. Treatment deemed to be too expensive would be undertaken and the demand would be to extend what can be done. However much we allow, they will over-spend and call for more like some maniacal Oliver Twist. If they are denied, we would hear the calls for better from all sides of the political spectrum.

The thought that I might be told to take a child home and watch them die is heart wrenching - and I am a hard, cynical person. That abandonment by the hospital would be deemed as unsatisfactory - indeed, I am amazed we have not heard of a claim from someone involved in that decision making or in communicating it to parents. Another area for extending the gap between planned and actual columns on budget reports.

The programme has the side-effect of illustrating just how meaningless any manifesto is when examined beyond the glossy covers and slick professional presentations. There are significant portions where they fail to fully detail - even before they get to the deliberately misleading sections.

Sounds good. But then, so does adultary

One of those I follow in Twitter is @iaindale. Being a political sophisticate, I did not immediately comprehend the thrust of today's newly escaped Tory manifesto. Direct democracy - who he? Luckily, my old chum Wiki was able to assist - this with especial reference to the Tory concept -

"Direct democracy, classically termed pure democracy, is a form of democracy and a theory of civics in which sovereignty is lodged in the assembly of all citizens who choose to participate. Depending on the particular system, this assembly might pass executive motions, make laws, elect or dismiss officials, and conduct trials. Direct democracy stands in contrast to representative democracy, where sovereignty is exercised by a subset of the people, usually on the basis of election. Deliberative democracy incorporates elements of both direct democracy and representative democracy.

Many countries that are representative democracies allow for three forms of political action that provide limited direct democracy: initiative, referendum (plebiscite) and recall. Referenda can include the ability to hold a binding referendum on whether a given law should be rejected. This effectively grants the populace which holds suffrage a veto on government legislation. Initiatives, usually put forward by the populace, force the consideration of laws or amendments (usually by a subsequent referendum), without the consent of the elected officials, or even in opposition to the will of said officials. Recalls give people the right to remove elected officials from office before the end of their term, although this is very rare in modern democracies."

Ever helpful, there is another link that talks of the wider idea of democracy.

I am somewhat confused. The links both suggest some form of fluid governance driven by The People. It strikes me that we now have so many differing 'people' in this country that one will never have a consensus. What I - an Englishman now vaguely Scots of some 76 years of prejudice untouched by political correctness - want as compared to Mrs. Abdul Ghul who has just lately learned sufficient English to qualify for a vote must be space-type distances apart.

"A veto on Government legislation" is just so new and way out that it would take very many years for us, the electorate, to learn how to go about this and just as long for any central power to find ways of verifying a supposed desire as genuine and all-inclusive. As an example, it seems that some 60% said 'Not In My Name' but - none the less - we entered into a desperate alliance on little more than the whim of a poodle and a man who heard voices from God. How long would it have taken to check that it was 60% and not 49.999% recurring, how many said GO if the trigger time were proven at just 25 minutes or some such checking exercise. It would be pointless setting aside some matters for exclusive decision by a mendacious Government. The duty of Parliament is Defence of the Realm; ample room there for weasel-words.

Referendum? The anti-antics of Brown show this is a Tory concept but even here the path has many tin tacks. Anyone 'clever' enough to be an Oxbridge candidate can form questions with the skill of our best thriller writers so as to slant responses the way they want. And, what is a referendum without full analysis and easily comprehensible explanations of what is being reviewed? More time. More expense. More confusion and opportunity to obfuscate and mislead.

Putting those elected on trial? The sad history of recent pig-trough politics shows how well that might work.

No - sorry Iain. I admit that I am not sufficiently interested to make much effort for a line by line examination review of the Manifesto. Your classification of it as 'Power to the People' with "with a real feel of direct democracy" says it all to me I'm afraid.

To revise that film quote as "What has the future ever done for me?" sums up the impression that today's release has done for me. My ballot paper will still end up with the protest "None of the Above" endorsement.

The end of the road

There is a very sad situation that has undergone some examination in Twitter following upon a Daily Mail report that seems to have missed the MSM.

In short, a Mr Roy Amor at his place of work makes a private remark to a colleague that was based upon the friend being black. The conversation was overheard by another who reported the incident as being racial in origin. The employer suspended the joker and, shortly after, he shot himself. It is - to me - important to know that the man of colour did not take offence at what was said to him. The whistle blower knew this. Following the death, the employer said that Mr Amor had been suspended over the joke and added ‘It’s an enormous tragedy and we are all in mourning. I knew Roy personally and he was an excellent technician' The dead man, aged 61, had worked for the company for over 30 years and had been married for 38 years.

There are many questions that this incident should raise. This from another blog allows me to list some without getting myself into too much of a temper.

The man was making a light hearted "quip", are we really living in a climate of fear where we have watch everything we say now ?
The black man in question was a friend of Mr Amor's and took it as it was meant: a joke.
We still have Freedom Of Speech in this country (apparently).
It was not the business of the complainant.
Why did Opcare suspend him ? I mean isn't suspension a bit severe ? After all it's not like a long investigation, all they needed to do was talk to anyone who had been there at the time and clear it up in under 10 minutes. If they were really bothered they could have just given Mr Amor a verbal warning there and then. Instead they make a mountain out of a molehill and get Roy Amor into a "state" where he takes his own life."

There remain some very entrenched views about suicide. I suppose the campaigning and actions of the Samaritains is a major factor in starting to bring these ideas into the light of the 21st Century. I suppose I need to write that I was, for a very very short time, one of these telephone listeners but left over the issue of suicide. They have very strict rules that their people may not directly intervene without consent but carry on until the call is ended normally or the line just goes dead. My policeman's response was to think about identifying the call and getting the emergency services there as soon as possible.

Suicide is not selfish. It is not self-indulgent, It is not a sign of a permanent mental affliction. It is not an act of revenge or malice. I suspect we are seeing and reading more about this way of escape. We have the Dignitas-style debates re assisted suicide and there are those arising from experience of armed conflict. My answer to the selfish/self-indulgent school is that they are possibly experiencing guilt that they were not able to prevent or assist the death of a loved one. Surely, had they been involved in that inner debate they would have recognised that the deceased had been at the end of their tether. The attitude of many health and social work professionals is that people at risk of suicide are going to do it; they're going to find some way; it's random and unpredictable and there's not much you can do about it. That is not true insofar as my limited exposure ran. There were occasions when would-be suicides were shown that there was another way they could view and handle their difficulties or they were guided into direct personal care and treatment.

The situation I see with Roy Amos was that he had led a nice sheltered life in a supportive and loving relationship at home and what was, to him, fulfilling and satisfying employment. He was 61. I certainly had taken my foot off the pedal at that age and was in neutral; coasting downhill into retirement. The actions of his employer had put everything into doubt and under threat. His relationship with his boss was close and the sudden suspension would have destroyed any trust he may have had in that area. How does one face telling a spouse that one is on the scrap heap and all thought of a roseate retirement are foreby?

This sad case never attracted a significant degree of publicity in this country. Certainly, nowhere near Baby P or the mother who killed and set fire to herself and her disabled daughter for starters as comparisons. Roy would be unlikely to be up to speed on things such as verbal and written warnings and we do not know if his employer had any written policy on disciplinary proceedures. I do see them as the villains in this case - the complaint should have been deferred whilst a quick investigation was made. This would doubtless have avoided the drastic step of being sent home away from his place opf work.

I cannot hold any great degree of animus towards the one who reported this. We live in strange times and there are many strange people about as a result. All that can be hoped is that whoever it was now realises that bullying is not just something that kids do in school playgrounds.

The Universal Soldier

I today read in The Times something that made me very sad.

"The lure of Afghanistan is too much to resist for Captain Doug Beattie, the decorated veteran, who plans to return to Helmand as a reservist less than two years after quitting the Army.

The officer and author told The Times he believed that the success or failure of the campaign would be decided in the next 12 months and that he wanted to play a part, much to the displeasure of his wife. She had hoped her husband would give up his frontline aspirations once he retired.

"Afghanistan gets under your skin, the people get under your skin," said Captain Beattie, 44, who served in Helmand province with the Royal Irish Regiment in 2006 and again in 2008. On the second tour, he and four other British soldiers were sent with only 95 Afghan troops on a deadly and ultimately doomed mission to secure the town of Marja, the focus of a big offensive earlier this year involving thousands of US and Afghan forces."

Don't stop reading this right now but make a note to read an abstract from his book 'An ordinary Soldier' to get a flavour of the man.

I felt that I knew quite a bit about Beattie. He was the RSM to Lt Colonel Tim Collins when that officer made his 'Henry V at Agincourt' speech prior to advancing to battle in Iraq. Only once in my own military career did my role and task approach that of an Infantry RSM and I had immediate doubts about the Irishman's oratory.The RSM later detailed his thoughts in his book but these were rejected by his former CO.

This preamble is intended to show my respect and admiration for Beattie as a soldier. In the Times he is quoted "Then after six months of heavy fighting you just want to leave the place (Afghanistan) alive with your men. When someone says to you do you want to go back? your natural response is 'I'm never going back to that place. And I have said that many times. But a couple of monmths later, when things calm down, it's in your blood. You can see the good you've done when you were there and you start to consider "Well, could I have done more? Could I help more? Am I needed? And that's why I am going back"

In that abstract along is the core of my sadness. I recognise what he is saying. I got through being in Northern Ireland by using the mantra 'your Mother did not raise you to die in Ireland' and it maybe a time or two saved me from doing something the reckless side of unwise. Yet - you know - I would return this instant to the very bloody days of 70-72 were I able. Because I have in the past recognised this as irrational I spent some time examining myself and think I have an answer.

A major part of a soldier's basic and ongoing training is conditioning. Most of the population deeply resists killing another human.

Modern military training allegedly overrides this instinct, by: using man-shaped targets instead of bulls-eye targets, practicing and drilling how soldiers would actually fight, dispersing responsibility for the killing throughout the group and displacing responsibility for the killing onto an authority figure, i.e. the commanding officer and the military hierarchy. (See the Milgram experiment)

This initial preparation of men who will be required to pull some form of trigger and to kill another human being does not always take deep route in the psyche of man. It may be dissipated following actual battle-field conditions. This lays the soldier open to another known physical and mental condition. 'Survivor Guilt' is recognised as a constituent of PTSD. This syndrome is a mental condition that occurs when a person perceives himself or herself to have done wrong by surviving a traumatic event. It may be found among survivors of combat, natural disasters, epidemics, among the friends and family of those who have committed suicide, and in non-mortal situations among those whose colleagues are laid off. It gets those whose bravery is beyond doubt -
World War II Medal of Honour recipient, and actor, Audie Murphy is said to have suffered survivor's guilt during the years after his return to the United States after the injury that put him out of the Army. He is said to have slept with a gun under his pillow for nearly 25 years, and talked frequently about those that had died in his unit, even though there was nothing he could have done to prevent their deaths.

That is what makes me sad. Beattie is beyond doubt a brave man and has nothing to prove to us. He was most definitely a survivor of incidents where men under his command were killed in sudden and traumatic circumstances. I do suspect that he has that guilt and will continue to carry it even when he gets back to Afghanistan - it may even make him more liable to do something that will increase his personal risk.

y feelings about Afghanistan are clear - there is nothing there that is worth one more single drop of English - or, indeed any foreign - blood. There is much more the gallant RSM could do here in this country.

Taxing questions

The tremendous hoo haa re the National Insurance seems to have gone over my head. Whilst I am/was not a Business Leader of the status recruited by Boy Dave I did have a quite hefty departmental budget that included costs for over 5o people. The Company was swallowed up by a larger company and, as usual, reductions in head count were called for. I escaped that by taking out a complete layer of job titles - no more 'assistant' whatever. After about a year, things improved and I thought I'd try and flesh out my team. This was fully supported - with the condition that my payroll budget would not be allowed to increase!

I cannot see that increasing cost of an employee by hiking up the NI contribution is a great problem. I would determine a hire or not on the basis that if any new worker cost me £X in NI costs but brought in or saved £X+a bit, that would make sense.

The fact that the increases would impact upon employers who could not make this calculation is accepted. No use in increasing payroll costs of NHS or the Armed Forces whilst demanding serious savings. OK - exempt them from the increase. Clicking noise from Alexis Meercat.

I seem to have it that the saving of no NI increase is about £12 billion. Not to be sniffed at. We could get better savings. The two serious players in destruction of the world by atomic weapons have just signed a down-scaling and, so long as they both play together nicely, there may be further reductions. Still enough to blow us all to Kingdom come several times over and the MAD concept will still apply - you launch and before they hit we will launch and we both end up charred and glowing in the dark.

So, why the heck does some tin pot almost 3rd world country like the UK need to spend billions in the hundreds buying Tridents like 5P fireworks? And then there will be calls for the launch pad submarines - more billions. Who is going to get around to attacking us without drawing attention from one or other of the superior nuclear powers? I remember that at the time of the Falklands, Maggie forced the French to give us the abort codes for the missiles they had sold to the Argies. I would not be surprised if there were some such remote disabling facility in the US technology associated with Trident anyway.

The people who say there is a case for Trident have a vested interest. Work for dockyard mateys. Command of so many sailors that they have to be Admirals at least. Defenders of the Realm bigging it up. No one in their right mind would want such a useless toy as Trident. If the penny pinchers could not justify total abandonment, get just a couple so that the MAD process could still be achieved. Sick thinking I reckon.

Testing

Firefox claims that it will publish this straight to twitter - let's see

Strangers in the Night

"A top US special forces commander visited a family in rural Afghanistan yesterday to plead for forgiveness after finally admitting that his troops killed five innocent people in a botched raid, which, Afghan officials said, the soldiers then tried to cover up." Along with the Boss were "almost 30 Afghan officers led by Major-General Abdul Khaliq, the 203 Corps commander" The end result was a foregone conclusion for those familar with the Afghan ethos "When people come to your gate and ask forgiveness, according to Afghan law, it's difficult to reject them," Haji Sharabuddin said later. "I am happy they came" But the family insists that it still wants justice.

Full marks to the Times for being one of the groups pressing for a truthful answer to what happened that night. We now know what happened. To my mind, equally important is knowing who did these things. The Americans very markedly did not identify the identity of the Special Forces and have always skirted around this point. Turns out that there was an Afghan contingent at the forgiveness meeting with a very senior officer there as well. His presence could hardly have been as a religious adviser or some such; to be involved at all would go against the male macho of his upbringing.

Unless - unless- it was his men who did the killing and - if the story about bullets being dug out of the dead are true - perpetrated the maltreatment of the dead. If this question of positive identification is not resolved, all of the Forces engaged in the conflict stand accused of murder and defilement.

There is a very interesting video - in Dutch - that shows a operation by Special Forces in Iraq. It is quite clear that amongst the raiding party were local forces and they played an important part in the search and handling procedures in the compound but were working under the direction of Europeans. We cannot rule out UK involvement - ""Britain's special forces — the SAS and Special Boat Service (SBS) — already come under General McChrystal's overall control as Commander of Isaf. The SAS and SBS operate in Isaf's Regional Command South, which is commanded by a Briton, Major General Nick Carter." - but I would assume that the crow-eating Admiral would have insisted Brit officers be there to share his shame and discomfort. That leaves Afghans as the prime forces in what happened. There is at least one other such incident that shows what happens when US and Afghan forces act in concert on such raids. It seems that any movement towards a compound will attract a firm response. Night time is when the Taliban enforce their intimidation activity and the occupants will use firearms without much 'think first and shoot later' considerations. One would like to think that any Afghans involved in the raid would be aware of this and clearlt identify themselves in advance. If they were not fired upon, their Rules of Engagement as insisted upon by General McCrystal, would bar their going in with guns blazing. So, the incident veers towards totally irresponsible behaviour rather than a mere mistake in the heat of a (non-existent) battle.

The effect of such conduct must never be under-estimated. I am just reading the latest update on Bloody Sunday; Afghans are just as capable of creating Instant Historically True Facts as those of the Green Latrine.

Well done the Times and their colleagues but this is not yet over. There must be full disclosure of who did exactly what. Who planned the operation, who on the ground supervised it and who did the shooting and, if it occurred, carried out the removal of used rounds from bodies of the deceased. Until such time as we and the locals know this, all of our Forces will be seen as legitimate targets for retribution. And that is neither just, fair or acceptable.

Poor old Johnny

"At his appearance before the Home Affairs Committee in March, (MP) Mr Jones ordered an inquiry into the veterans' payments, specifically naming the solicitors Howe & Co – part of Lumley's campaign team – as a firm which should face questions.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has set up a free advice centre in the Nepalese capital, Kathmandu, and "unscrupulous middlemen" were charging fees which were needless, the minister said.

Mr Jones was later forced to issue an "unreserved apology" to Lumley and the inquiry carried out at the behest of the minister by the Legal Services Commission (LSC) has now cleared Howe & Co. In a letter to the firm, the LSC said it had "found no evidence" of malpractice and "we trust that this satisfactory [sic] concludes the matter."

Gordon Brown was also involved in the controversy, offering his own personal apology to Lumley in a telephone call. The Independent has learnt that this was directly linked to a meeting the Prime Minister had held with three members of the Gurkha campaign – Joanna Lumley, Peter Carroll and Martin Howe, from the solicitors' firm – at Downing Street in May 2009.

During the meeting, the Prime Minister requested and obtained a promise from them not to be vocal on the issue, while in return he would ensure that changes they had demanded to the Bill allowing Gurkhas to settle in the UK would pass into law.

The Independent has also seen documents which show that a senior MoD official, Margaret Gilmour, was aware of allegations that the Gurkha Army Ex-Servicemens Organisation (Gaeso) had charged for advice on settlement three years ago.

In an email dated 4 September 2007, she wrote to Howe & Co to say that the matter had been raised with Gaeso whose "response was that they had every right to charge for their services and they saw nothing wrong in taking on such cases if people came to them."

However, in a statement yesterday the MoD said that Gaeso had denied charging fees at a public meeting where Ms Gilmour was present. "In 2007 MoD officials asked Gaeso to respond to a number of accusations. However, these accusations were strongly denied by the organisation during a public meeting and the MoD recognises that Gaeso is a legitimate ex-service organisation," the statement said.

A spokesman added that officials had visited Nepal over a number of years "to use trustworthy sources for information on immigration".

I have lived and worked with Gurkha troops and fully recognise all the attributes that have been written and said about them. They are incredibly loyal to their officers who are themselves - in general terms - amongst the best that our Army produces. That said, they do live and serve in what may be considered as directly related to the life style of their Nation. They take little from the customs of any country where they may be living or serving on a short-term basis.

The publicity as to the plight in which the older Guirkha may find themselves is widespread thanks to the actions of Saint Jo. And quite right too - she demonstrates the values inherited from her Gurkha-leading father.

Because of this, I can understand the point the link makes that it could be that the Government (they one we had just past and not any incoming change) is making it difficult for aged Gurkhas to come here and settle. They may already have younger relatives here; I know of a number who have done well both in assimilating our ways of life and in busines. But that is the point - they have changed and are not the full shilling of the people they were. We rightly abhor the policies of zoos that bring animals to this country and then exhibit them in truly inappropriate and miserable conditions. Bringing older Gurkhas here is - IMHO of course - exhibiting exactly the same lack of understanding and compassion.

If the problem is merely that their pension is inappropriate - then by all means solve that. They have earned more than our money. The British Army used to make considerable effort in the recruiting process in Nepal and could show more of that ability in better access to medical and social care. In Nepal. Not here where these old men would have to contest with all the other incomers and indigenous who demand special treatment and attention.

Dulce et Decorum is not..to die

A "pervasive and resilient culture of pessimism" about the Afghan war back home in Britain is severely undermining troops on the front line, a senior army officer serving in Helmand has warned.

The negativity is hindering an “objective analysis of the campaign” and falsely painting an alarmist and defeatist picture, he says. The sight of crowds turning out to see the return of soldiers’ bodies at Wootton Bassett has become a feature of the Afghan conflict.

There is frustration in the military that there is a lack of appreciation back home about what UK forces are achieving about what UK forces are achieving at great personal risk and in extremely tough circumstances, Lieutenant Colonel Matt Bazeley told The Independent.

I would be happy to count myself in amongst those with an alarmist and defeatist attitude. It is not yet an offence to apply reason and consideration to a situation and that is what I seek to do in the face of the permanently sunny, bright and uplifting Good News dished out by the Services media specialists. It is Good News Week - By Order. I accepted over 22 years of it whilst serving and was often in a position during that time to know exactly what had happened and how that was presented by the spin-masters.

The Army marshals it's chosen supporters " Young soldiers serving in some of the most dangerous parts of Helmand talk often of the reactions to the war back home. No 1 Company the Coldstream Guards have had five soldiers killed – including the latest member of the British forces to die, Guardsman Michael Sweeney, last week – and 35 injured, while operating in Babaji.

Guardsman Ross Caddy, 18, said: “I think we are doing some good. The Afghans are taking over security more, it’s their country. I don’t think anyone likes to see a foreign army in their country. But I don’t think people back home really know what’s going on here.”

Drummer Lance Mawson, 20, from Leicester and also of No 1 Company, said: “It’s been a very tough tour and pretty hard to see guys you know and work with becoming casualties. We like to think we are doing the right thing and this is worth it. It would be pretty bad if we lose the support of people back home, all you can do is hope that doesn’t happen.”

Lt Col Bazeley said there was ample evidence of public support for the soldiers: “It is humbling to see the quite extraordinary level of support we receive from the British people, but there is clearly less enthusiasm to sustain a demanding and costly military campaign.

Soldiers do as they are told - or else. My interruptions are never aimed at the rank and file - how could they be? They do as they are told and are conditioned even to accept that they will be required to lay down their lives and fill out that blank cheque that went towards the now abandoned Covenant. But, it is conditioning that makes them do it.

Imagine oneself freshly reporting at a training depot still damp-eyed at separation from girl-friend/wife and kids and family for just a few weeks and the first thing one is told is "You have a very good chance of being killed or severely disabled in the next eight months" Do you think many would stay for a second night in barracks?

Listen to what the Officer tells us "Support is subtly different from sympathy and I sense on occasions the two are conflated in the Public Mind. We do not want sympathy; sympathy is for losers and we are not losing. We are soldiers, we know the risks, we know what we are doing and why we are here... We face the challenge with informed and considered determination but we want to be drawing on a National strength and resolve to underpin our efforts and not just our morale"

Well - if they were not conditioned at the depot, they are being fired up in Afghanistan. Look at all the appeals to the pride - the warrior class. Scorn for losers. Facing challenges. A fine combination of Churchillian oratory and the In Which We Serve school of 1939-45 war films. Henry V at Agincourt could not have done better. Reference is made to the threat from terrorism. "Failure in Afghanistan will leave a security black hole from which extremeism on a large scale will emerge" is forecast. So, what if we achieve a win in Afghanistan (whatever a win constitutes) who can say that the forward march of militant Islam will not spring out from some other Islamic homeland? Any mention that much of the progress gained by the blood of our troops may well be abandoned by a deceitful UK or US government seeking peace at any price or that the forces we leave in charge are not overthrown within a few months. There is the example of the claimed resolution in Iraq which is already being blown apart. The Northern Ireland solution was to be the end of wanton death there.

A postcript - "A British soldier on foot patrol in Southern Afghanistan was killed by an explosion yesterday, the Ministry of Defence said. The soldier, from 3 Bn The Rifles, was killed after the blast in the Kajaki area of Helmand" RIP and a parade will follow. What a wasted life.

No room at the Inn

There is a thing going around inviting people to tell Boy Dave what they think he should do about the question of what appears to be the personal opinion of one of his Shadow Ministers regarding homosexuals and boarding houses. I copy it here so all know what it invites - no link for reasons I hope will become clear.

Allowing certain business-owners to discriminate based on sexual orientations opens the door to discrimination based on religion, race, country of origin and anything else.

It seems it stems from a situation some while back when the owner of a B & B denied accommodation to a couple of homosexuals. He based his objections upon an abhorrence of their life style. The same set of circumstances were repeated

A gay couple were turned away from a Berkshire guest house by the owner who said it was "against her convictions" for two men to share a bed. Michael Black and John Morgan, from Brampton, Cambridgeshire, had booked a double room at the Swiss B&B, Terry's Lane, in Cookham, for Friday night. When they arrived Susanne Wilkinson refused to let them stay.

She admitted she did turn the couple away because it was against her policy to accommodate same sex couples. The couple have now reported the matter to Thames Valley Police.

Under the Equality Act 2006 it is illegal to discriminate against people on the grounds of sexual orientation."

So, here we have a woman who objects on the basis of her religious beliefs. For the purposes of these scribblings, let us assume that this is a totally genuine reason and not used as a cover for plain old outright homophobia. What is, therefore, being sought is support for the position that she must be denied her Christian values and beliefs. Is that in itself not just some other form of discrimination? Mrs Wilkinson herself has been reported as saying “We are Christians and we believe our rights don’t have to be subordinated. We have religious freedom and we are not judging that but we are not prepared to have that sort of activity under our roof,” he said. “These people are very organised and we have already been inundated with abusive calls and emails. It is really sad that people act like that.”

The local police say that similar matters are normally dealt with a civil matters. Could it be, I wonder, that she was targeted by those keen to advance their own homosexual beliefs?

I have no publishable opinions regarding homosexuals - that comes under my personal attitude of reverse apartheid where I keep myself away from things I cannot bar coming to me. However, I just wonder why we ever got into such a wide application of legislation banning discrimination.

The Human Rights Act of 1998 gave protection at Article 9 under "Freedom of thought, conscience and religion"

1 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2 Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

That seems quite clear to me. I accept that me sticking to 'my rights' may conflict with you enjoying 'your rights' but such situations arise in everyday transactions and events. That is possibly why 'such matters' are normally the subject of civil court remedy where the judgement of a independent and learned third party will prevail. So, why did we give homosexuals absolution from being judged on what is otherwise the law of the land? I do not know. Certainly, there has been considerable publicity seeking acceptance of them and their beliefs. But why should that belief over-ride religious beliefs truly held? We have recently had the opinion of the Leader of the Church of England regarding paedophilia in another religion and it would be reasonable to assume that that same attitude would apply to what the accepted Book of Rules/Bible says regarding homosexual conduct.

Of course, now that the matter has been brought into the three ring circus of pre-election madness, all reasonable comment will be lost in a stream of point-scoring. It stems from an overheard remark so presumably the author was not intending it for a public statement as to how he might act if put into a position of power. And, what if he did? He cannot issue edicts. The requirement for Bills being made law requires action by Government as a whole. The Labour concerns at the freedom of action the guy might have maybe reflects the way they are accustomed to operate? Perhaps. What seems to be being advocated is that none should act in accordance with their beliefs and conscience but become slave to the exact compliance with the law.

If there be any who have got this far and wish to see more opinions firmly stated, I would recommend they have a read of these comments on a Holy Joe site.

More fluff than a baby's bum

The ongoing war waged by the desk-bound MOD has taken on a new campaign. They invited a bunch of religious leaders from Afghanistan to UK for a guided tour. And a Press and photo-opportunity as well of course.

The Independent newspaper has reported that Muslim clerics in the British Army may be deployed to Afghanistan in a 'hearts & minds' mission to highlight the part played by Islam in UK society.

Just remember that bit - "the part played by Islam here in UK"

The Indy article goes on "The ulama's (someone in the Press office showing off their foreign tour?) views would strengthen the hand of General Richards and others in the military who want to project the role played by Muslims in the Army, expand the number of imams and deploy them on missions abroad"

Just what is this need to project the role of serving Muslims? Seems there are currently around 350 Muslims serving in the Armed Forces. How many of them are fit and trained to deploy we do not know but, be generous, and say 300 across all three services; not much of a role playing force is it?

We know the strength of family ties and the knowledge of law advantageous to their own ends their community possesses. Has any Whitehall Warrior contemplated how to deal with the Daily Hate headline "Sent to die abroad because of my religion"? I'm not totally up to date with discrimination but I bet there are some in the Islamistan areas of UK who could see things their way.

There is more. 'The Director of Helmand hajj said,"The Taliban are spreading lies that NATO is trying to destroy our religion in Afghanistan. We can take back the message that in Britain the Muslim people are free to practice their religion"' Free to practice their religion? Well - of course they are but the Talib are not daft. There is ample evidence that the true course of Islam in UK is not totally free of justified criticism - even leaving aside the rants of the BNP which should read well back home in downtown Kabul. If we extend the ground to the NATO countries we have the wearing of the burqa and the fun and games in Holland. 'That' cartoon will be dredged up again. The March of Muslims through Wootton Basset. The welcome home where the local other-religionists spoke of murder by our forces.

Amongst the delegation was one Shah Wali described as a former 'senior prosecutor and authority on Sharia law' Ah - there is always one isn't there? That brings me to the quid pro that these estimable holy men will want. In Afghanistan nothing comes for free. Except for some where death comes in a glaze of light. By introducing new members of the Chaplain's department (turban branch) and deploying them to a theatre of war we will give them a fair degree of status - what CO would want to have his attached beardie making notes for the commander's annual assessment? In addition, someone here amongst the proponents of Sharia but feeling depresed can quickly get onto one of Wali's friends and say their religion is being threatened and Sharia dishonoured. It will be like having a branch of the union Unite right in the front line.

There is a place for propaganda - which I regard as just another branch of hearts and minds anyway. Hitler's acolytes showed just how opinion may be distorted by the skilful use of words and doubtless, a fair number of our Media and PR branch had Oxbridge educations. My complaint is that this type of proselytizing guff is regurgitated into the public domain and might even be swallowed by some as a good thing. We have an election coming and voters will be examining the conduct of the trough-searching candidates. To use this sort of initiative as a basis for being optimistic is degrading their information and is dishonest. The fact that a senior officer of General Richards' is being used as a front man only increases the deception.

It is, surely, very simple. We have tried using force of arms and skill. It achieved little at the time and nothing likely to be permanent. We suggested bribery of the other side's forces. That idea seems to have died the death; rest assured we would have had it for breakfast, lunch and dinner news had one single jundi come across (and stayed after getting his bribe). We speak of democracy and empowering the people. In that direction, check out Karzey's idea of free and fair elections. That idea has done down the waste pipe. We are left with the Blair Solution as demonstrated Northern Ireland. Find out what the other side want and give it to them in return for us being allowed to rush for the Exit door in peace. It got the Yanks out of Iraq and it has to be what we do in Afghanistan - unless we can find the courage of our convictions like the Canadians have done.

We can act unilaterally - America moves us about like a load of chess-pieces. Sort out things in our own area by whatever means and then set off for the docks. If Obama complains - that is if he even notices what an erstwhile ally is up to - tell him the area he drafted us into is OK and he can deal with the rest. If he fails to get the point then, tell him we must re-deploy to get ready for Falklands v.2.0.1 where the actions of his bitch have encouraged a load of gaucho to ride again.

I am not really a BNP sort of person but the way the current Government, and the totally useless Opposition, have allowed the status of UK to be destroyed internally and externally is a disgrace. I am for my Queen and Country in prime spot and the BNP's stated policies are very attractive to this ancient old man who has seen better times and locations.

Another member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has resigned, adding another chapter to the beleaguered group's problematic relationship with government. Eric Carlin, former chairman of the English Drug Education Forum, said he was disillusioned with the way the decision to ban mephedrone was taken due to media and political pressure. In his resignation letter to Home Secretary Alan Johnson, Mr Carlin wrote: "We had little or no discussion about how our recommendation to classify this drug would be likely to impact on young people's behaviour. Our decision was unduly based on media and political pressure. As well as being extremely unhappy with how the ACMD operates, I am not prepared to continue to be part of a body which, as its main activity, works to facilitate the potential criminalisation of increasing numbers of young people."

The Council has had a very chequered history. The boss was sacked and most of the others have already resigned; either to show support of their erstewhile Boss or with disapproval at what the Government has been doing. I say Government but the speed with which events have happened suggests that it has been the actions solely of the Home Secretary.

I do not know how the Council was selected or the detailed background of any member but I am surprised that at least one of them should resign on the grounds of little or no discussion. One assumes they submit reports where they recommend what needs to be done in respect of drug control and that would, surely, be their path to initiate discussion.

From my own experience of investigating drug use and distribution, I would say that there is little to discuss anyway. We already have a well entrenched drug culture and consumption of drugs - of whatever classification - is a regular part of the recreational side of many people's lifestyle. Warning them of the dangers does nothing - they say that they can control their own usage such that they do not become dependent. Punishment holds no threat they recognise.

The latest banning will have easily predictable results. The sources of supply will be seized by dealers who will sell at a profit. The buyers will have to find ways - generally illegal or morally decadent - to fund their purchases. Can anyone point to a single instance where banning a potentially risky substance has actually reduced the harm to both the users and society at large? The knee-jerk reaction of classification will also mean that there will be no research into exactly what the drug does. This thwarts any attempt to reasonable warn users what risks they run and how we might treat those who become dependent.

Drugs expert Professor David Nutt argues the case for a legal, though regulated, supply of drugs like mephedrone, ecstasy and cannabis, to reducing the undoubted harms of drug taking. There is a sort of precedent in the use of methadone as an alternative to heroin.

More than 30 years of methadone prescribing (for the much vaunted purpose of reducing drug related crime and drug addiction) have resulted in the quantities of drugs being consumed, the number of drug users and the incidence of crime rising year upon year.

In any other situation, such disastrous statistics would over-whelmingly expose and condemn such ‘treatment’ as an abject failure - but this has not happened. Methadone is a dangerous and addictive Class ‘A’ drug which is being prescribed to hundreds of thousands of drug users as a substitute for heroin and which is then dispensed to those users at taxpayer expense on a daily basis - usually for life – likely a life shortened by the methadone.

What we do with drug controls is producing a far from ideal result. It might well be that it is a problem without solution and the most human reaction would be to warn in very clear terms and then treat those who ignore that
message - or bury the dead.

It's the election stupid

I don't suppose we will ever get the real answer to the allegations in the media today that the union involved in the BA strike - and much else besides - has been laundering money given as Government grants into Labour party funds. This situation has obviously been known of for a long time but has only now broken through into general public knowledge.

The leaking of supposedly confidential matters seems to be a feature of the lead-up to an election. William Hague was caught after insisting that he was only told earlier this year that Ashcroft was a non-dom, and therefore not paying full UK tax on all his earnings but supposedly confidential papers were released suggesting otherwise.

That leaking is seen as fair game came from snatched photographs of papers carried by Mandy. Though, with my suspicions of him, he may well have done this to stir up further trouble.

I cannot see why we - the electorate - are not treated as responsible beings and told of these matters as they arise. I am left with a very strong feeling that there is much more happening under cover of unnecessary secrecy. This could well be to our detriment.

Freedom of Information was lauded as a marvellous idea but we have seen that it is possible to deny access for many reasons so it is really Some Freedom of Some Information. And that is not right. Morally or politically.

Happy Birthday to You

It is wife Norma's birthday next week - the 23rd. Yesterday, a large parcel was delivered and being addressed to her it was clear that it was one of her presents.

Norma has a past history of not being able to resist opening such items when they get here rather than on the appropriate day. Her usual excuse is "Doesn't say 'Do Not Open until'" but I decided to step in and act. I took and hid the parcel

Now, my present is a very swish four day break away in the depths of the Yorkshire Dales. It is Self-catering so we can come and go when and how and as we wish rather than suffer the tyranny of a hotel. I did not want to have to pack the large box so chose to open it in secret to check if there were any more efficient way to transport the actual contents.

The image to the right above is what I found. I knew it was from my gifted daughter but even so I was gob-smacked! It is a compartmented wooden box about 15" square. The images are from the Family History File. The little flowers are paper and the beading is glass. Even to my famously critical eye, it is faultless. I can imagine this being the star present of all time. It will be touted around all the Quilters and the Embroiderers Guilds. Maybe visits to the local version of the WI will be resurrected so as to further swell the chest with pride at having produced a daughter who has such talent.

It has gone into the large box and been re-sealed. This blog is embargoed not to be published until 23rd March and has to be done now as we may not have full wi etc. in our house.

So, Caroline - thank you so very very much. Even getting the spin-off from Norma's pride and pleasure will be very gratifying. She will be over the moon and rightly so.

Post-script This was set to auto-publish on 23rd soe that Norma did not have opportunity to read it. However, Caroline has given her OK for the box to be opened so this escapes in advance. Again, thanks love xxxxx

Assistance to Rape Victims

A Government review has called for widespread changes in the support available for rape victims. What I find surprising in this day and age is that Lady Stern's report seem to be based on the concept that only women are the victims of rape. The trauma associated with this form of attack is extensive and has similarities with the claims made for the results of the sex act being visited on females.

The recommendations include offering every rape victim a specialist adviser to help them recover after an attack. This would require both male and female specialists if gender issues are addressed. Lady Stern is a prison reformer; note she seeks to reform how prisoners are treated and not how they should be made to pay for their transgressions. She accepts that With rape, it is always going to be difficult to be sure that you'll be able to prove it to the jury beyond reasonable doubt. A lot of victims accepted that. What they felt was really important was not in the end whether the Police get a conviction; they said they still felt they wanted to be believed. I cannot see this point. There is a lot of doubt about all verdicts and, wrong as it may be, many onlookers make up their own minds. If there is no guilty finding, does it mean beyond all reasonable doubt that the complainant was a white stiletto-wearing slag?

Other recommendations included having someone to explain police procedures, provide a link between the victim and detectives, and support the victim in court. Similar schemes have been piloted in some parts of England and Wales but we are not told of the results where such assistance is provided. Forensic medical evidence should be gathered by the NHS, not the police. Not quite sure what this means; currently, such evidence is gathered by the Police surgeon and not PC Plod with his bucket and spade. If the suggestion is that NHS means someone at a A & E department, I'll say now that this would be a total nightmare. Most forces have Rape Suites and there are other facilities

Another proposal was for victims to have their own special lawyer in court, alongside the prosecutor and defendant's representative.

Quite what benefit this would provide is not clear. If there purely as an advisor - OK but were this counsel to get involved in examination of witnesses and accused there is the risk that their questioning might just provide a wider stage for denigration and smearing the character of the woman.

One interesting statistic in the report was that nearly 60% of those charged with rape are convicted. What we do not seem to have details of is the proportion of complaints that get to charges.

This is all rather strange to an old dinosaur like me. In the period of early 50s to mid 70s when I was an Army investigator, almost all rape complaints were handled by males. We just did not have sufficient female detectives who were adequately trained. Certainly, one would be present when the interview with the victim took place. I never had any objections or reservations from anyone claiming rape regarding my asking them the most delicate and probing questions. I suppose, looking back, they were too relieved to have someone listen to them in a sympathetic and adult manner. There was no pussy-footing around. The common situation was that the attacker was a boy-friend or date who was known to the woman and it was for her benefit that any chance he might be able to say that he was led on be evaluated before he did so in public. I suppose what was behind what I think was my success rate in dealing with such offences was that I firmly held the opinion that it was the woman's right to object and control what was happening to her. Even if she said No half way through a sexual act she had willingly - even eagerly - entered into then that had to be respected.

Women were different animals back then anyway. We read accounts now of how women's lives are permanently ruined after rape. I never saw such results - much remorse and fear but no sign that this was lasting to the extent we hear of now. The Solicitor General's comments on the report included "We want all victims to feel confident that when they come forward and report rapes it will be taken seriously and they will be treated with dignity and respect," I cannot understand this comment - are we all so lacking in basic humanity that it is deemed necessary to define dignity and respect as an ideal and not a given?

Sex is now more freely available than ever it was in 'my day'. Then, the female attitude and concern was to hold onto their halfpenny. Now, we have single mothers all over the place. Nothing really wrong in that if it is her free will and choice but the idea that modern (liberated) women need more consideration and support than their predecessors regarding rape allegations is not one I fully comprehend.

Still concerned at the gender issue. The physical act in male rape is almost identical although differently defined in law. The shock and physical consequences of a male being abused by anal penetration must be the same but it seems they are ignored in Lady Stern's considerations.

The killers of James Bulger should not have been prosecuted for his murder because children under the age of 12 who commit crimes are too young to understand the full consequences of their actions, the Children's Commissioner for England said today.

She also said civilised society should recognise that children who commit offences needed to be treated differently from adult criminals. Dr Atkinson said James Bulger's killers should have taken "programmes" to turn their lives around and not been jailed.

Obviously, the attraction of the Venables situation is wearing thin quicker than I anticipated; I had expected tree-huggers and the elf people to get around to this a bit later than they have. Luckily, I can remove my 'Mr. Angry' hat as the Justice department has rejected the idea and things will stay as they are. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: "We do not intend to raise the age of criminal responsibility. It is not in the interests of justice, of victims or the young people themselves to prevent serious offending being challenged". But, like a genie released from the bottle, the pronouncements of the Commissioner will be around for some while yet. Whilst I still have a lingering doubt as to the sanity of that good lady, I just wonder where she has been during the recent spate of incidents involving young children as victims and where the age of the offenders and the failing agency workers is not in dispute.

Other than Scotland, where the criminal responsibility bar of eight years is under review to be raised to 12 years, we have almost the lowest age for initiating criminal action against juveniles. Switzerland, Nigerian and South Africa set the age at seven years old whilst Belgium and most of America are the top of the league with the age of 18. I do not recognise the concept that physical age is what determines the actions of human beings. Quite clearly, there are some very savage and ferocious young persons. The one who comes immediately to mind is Mary Bell who was tried in 1968 with the murder (reduced to manslaughter) of two youngsters. She was ten years old at the time of the first murder and 11 when she carried out her second offence.

I can understand the dichotomy between between punishment as retribution and re-education programmes such as the ones Dr Atkinson may have had in mind. I think age is too imprecise a consideration. I have chosen Bell because she presents just about the worst example of how nurture can determine personality. For those who do not 'do' links, here is an abstract from the Wiki site:

Bell's mother Betty (born McCrickett) was a prostitute who was often absent from the family home, travelling to Glasgow to work. Mary (nicknamed May) was her first child, born when Betty was 17 years old. It is not known who Mary's biological father was; for most of her life she believed it to be Billy Bell, an habitual criminal later arrested for armed robbery who had married Betty some time after Mary was born. Independent accounts from family members suggest strongly that Betty had attempted to kill Mary and make her death look accidental more than once during the first few years of her life. Mary herself says she was subject to repeated sexual abuse, her mother forcing her from the age of four to engage in sex acts with men.

On May 25, 1968, the day before her 11th birthday, Mary Flora Bell strangled four year old Martin Brown. She was believed to have committed this crime alone. Between that time and the second killing, she and her friend Norma Joyce Bell (no relation), age thirteen, broke into and vandalised a nursery in Scotswood, leaving notes that claimed responsibility for the Brown killing. The Newcastle police dismissed this incident as a prank.

On 31 July 1968, the two took part in the death, again by strangulation, of three-year-old Brian Howe. Police reports concluded that Mary Bell had gone back after killing him to carve an "N" into his stomach with a razor; this was then changed using the same razor but with a different hand from an "M". Mary Bell also used a pair of scissors to cut off bits of Brian Howe's hair and to mutilate his genitals. As the girls were so young and their testimonies contradicted each other, what happened has never been entirely clear. Martin Brown's death was initially ruled an accident as there was no evidence of foul play. Eventually, his death was linked with Brian Howe's killing and in August, the two girls were charged with two counts of manslaughter.

So, if any example is needed to define "buggered up" it was the rearing of Mary Bell. There might be another interesting factor; she was 'overlooked' just as the children of whom we have heard much in recent days. Now, take her situation. Just where could one start with a programme? We do not know but I would imagine that she would not have recognised any such approach as being to her benefit or advantage and it would have been necessary to hold her in closed accommodation. How long would it have taken to get her fit to be a free spirit as a 'normal' 12 year old? Bell herself made headlines when in September 1977, she briefly absconded from Moore Court open prison, where she had been imprisoned since her transfer from a young offender's institution to an adult prison a year earlier.

Without the exposure that arose from her trial, her actions would have remained as a secret within the child care profession. Venables is but the latest display of how wrong they can be in assessing whether an individual has learned anything positive or has merely been advised by others what to say to please his assessors. Do they speak from the heart or just imitate parrots? So, I feel that age should not be a determining factor when considering what happens to a young offender. There have to be some limits - I would be very afraid to be in a Nigerian prison at 47 still less seven. What comes from a court hearing is the opportunity for an impartial hearing to assess just how wicked or evil the defendant may be. The outcomes will be numerous - not guilty, guilty but not the full shilling, guilty but provoked beyond reason or just plain old vanilla guilty. This is where we invite the psycho-babblers in. What do they have in their range of voodoo that might work. (Yes - I am biased against psychiatry. I've experienced it first hand and in cases where I was closely involved). That treatment may take a long period of time and it would not be until the end that it was possible to say if it had been successful. No professional likes to say they have failed and we have seen the outcomes where too optimistic a view was taken when deciding whether to release someone into society.

Bell is another string to my bow of 'try em and keep them safe until they are fit to be alongside me and mine' She was released when 23 with a new secret identity and settled own into relative obscurity with attention being drawn only when she secured lifelong anonymity for her daughter and, subsequently, grand-daughter. There can be few who came from such desperately damaging origins who have metamorphosed into grey-haired old Granny.

Goodby cruel world

My Guest this time around is a 93 year old man. I've read his item more than once but cannot quite decide whether or not I am with him on the subject of shuffling away from this mortal coil

TODAY'S GUEST BLOG
Mr Presley has left the building

This Welfare State

The revelations regarding the two sisters who suffered abuse and rape from their father over a very long period of time read like something from a sick pervert's novel. I had been aware of this case from the time of the father's trial but very little details was given at that time.

This is not primarily a matter where child protection failed. The frequency of the pregnancies should have sounded warning bells. Over a particular six year period, one or other of the females was pregnant. One had two children within a year and there were four occasions when both were pregnant at the same time. A number of the off-spring exhibited defects associated with incest and early death was a feature in over half the live births. We will never know how many miscarriages there were. Even if the women had a heightened state of fertility, the frequency of known pregnancies should have set off warning bells. Even a most casual reference to a police officer or child care official should have led to positive action. The RSPCA would have done a better job closing down a puppy farm.

The man who did this had his original sentence reduced from 19 and a half years to 14 and a half. On what grounds - were the sentencing authorities aware that a case review was pending? We are also told that no sackings, resignations or criminal charges against any of the "care" workers will result. An excuse was put forward that social workers were afraid of the father and this limited their actions. The guy moved 67 times - again and again to put himself out of reach of carers so how could they even begin to comprehend his nature in such short exposure times. Not anywhere long enough to scare next door's cat. Did none of them consider the plight of the girls who were under his control 24/7 and thus likely be in fear. What about the gynaecological nurses and midwives - with the frequent moves it must have been that they were presenting for delivery without attending any ante-natal classes. Why were the girls not marked up for being seen by the sexual health staff? Did no local registrar spot the pattern - it was this factor that led to Shipman's exposure.

So - maybe they were scared; I see it as a post-event excuse. What liaison was there between the child care staff and the police. Any officer worth their salt would be only too happy to find an excuse to smash open a door and have a mooch about in a house. We do not know all of the more than 35 agencies who were involved - funny choice of words when involvement was the very last thing they were. Has anyone looked atthe Job Descriptions of the executives and confirmed whether this neglect is within their responsibilities or not. If it wasn't - what is being done to correct this? If I am the Health and Safety officer in a commercial enterprise and a stairway collapses it is not worth my wasting my breath denying responsibility and blaming the Premises Manager.

This is but the latest incident where we have failed little kids. Follow-up inquiries have identified faults in the system and the personnel appointed. With just the one exception, all have escaped scot free. Not even charged enough to send a bunch of flowers. Every time we have such an event and people get away scot free merely increases the complacency of others in the discipline. "The people in case X got away with it so no one will bother with me" Staff with caring responsibilities must have a clear duty to act - their best endeavours will not suffice. Even in this age of school uniform mothers, single parents to multiple fathers and the other sad circumstances the pregnancy history of these two girls should have stood out. This sort of whistle-blowing has to be taught and emphasised in the workplace. "I am a carer and I care" should be displayed everywhere in their workplace.

Seems that every minor injustice leads to demands for a 'full inquiry' but so far I have not seen any pressure for one into this desperately sad affair. We cannot even begin to call ourselves civilised or with any form of culture all the while things like this occur without punishment and correction.

Women's organisations all make much of the total degradation involved in rape. Most often, a one off event, quickly over with no lasting effect with good counselling. Just what did those two girls suffer - repeatedly attacked without warning, brutalised if they demurred and aware at all times what their sibling was suffering when dragged away by the brutal parent. Many women face childbirth with trepidation even with their companion alongside to give support - what must have been the effect on these girls when wheeled alone into the delivery room? Repeatedly, with the memory of what happened just a few months back still fresh in their minds. Some paedophiles claim they do what they do out of love; these two young women would never have seen what happened as containing the slightest affection.

Not mentioned is what will be happening to these broken butterflies? Put into a system which has already proven itself as totally and completely not fit for purpose I suppose.

Locker Room full of pain

Film reviews are a bit out of my line. I do not get to many actual cinemas and rely on DVD for the home theatre. If asked to rate any especial film, I would be hampered by the fact that I have not seen all the opposition anyway. Hurt Locker came to me as a birthday gift and I cannot say that I would have thought of buying it.

Having run it a couple of times I came to the opinion that it was aimed at the patriotic "Gee Aren't our troops wonderful" element. Nothing wrong with that idea or using it as a hook to gain sales. Whilst I have no relevant knowledge of what goes on I suspected it to be an imperfect reflection of the dangerous and often deadly mission of the troops who’ve been fighting in Iraq the past seven years. I had seen, as close up as was safe, how our British bomb disposal officers went about their work and could see that some sort of documentary would have very limited appeal. The popular image of ice blood playing on the extreme edge of danger does not really apply. They are well-trained professionals who have good equipment and back-up. This is what allows them to do what they do. My own attitude in the very limited hot situations I was involved in was that my Mother did not raise me just to have me die in Ireland. This kept me just the right side of that slippery slope.

Sure enough, the ones who knew what was what were quick to condemn the way in which their work had been represented. ""That guy was more of a run and gun cowboy type, and that is exactly the kind of person that we’re not looking for" said Tech. Sgt. Jeremy Phillips, a team leader in Iraq’s eastern Maysan province" The Army has not supported the movie due to inaccurate depictions of Soldiers. "The movie-goer in me thought it was an entertaining movie, the Soldier in me was disappointed by inaccuracies and the inaccurate portrayal" said Lt. Col. Gregory Bishop, Army Public Affairs-West film liaison officer.

Obviously, film scripts have to be written with a slant more towards entertainment than education. The classic 'Brief Encounter' could have been portrayed with just the one scene - "No chance of a quick fu*k then?" would have said it all. But who would pay to see that?

So - critic's hat back on. I cannot see that Hurt Locker was the best film of the year; the industry cannot have failed to produce better and, no - that better was certainly not Avatar either. What it may have done was capture a need for the majority of Americans. With an attitude to war in Afghanistan that is unfavourable and a need to wash away some of the Abu Gharib images, it was a right film for it's time and place. What it did for me was to reinforce my theory that bravery is not very far from stupidity. Die as a result of your conduct and you will be a hero. Do the same thing and survive to face condemnation - stupidity.

A Brave New World

The Tories have committed themselves to work on UK role within 6 months of election. The way things are going now, this may be based on wishful thinking anyway. But, just why do we have to have any complex involvement or great concern re what goes on overseas? The days when any atlas was a glorious red orb have long gone - rightly or wrongly is of no concern really - but it seems we have not adjusted to this. More than half a century after the loss of Empire, our political culture still seems racked by the need to be the leading nation, not just one of them. Every country likes to be taken seriously around the world. Nations like to feel they are punching their weight, or even above it. Only a few, however, seem to feel the need to promote themselves as the one that others look to for leadership. America has taken on our old role. It is quite presumptuous for Britain to pretend to such a status. We can still harbour dreams of punching above our weight - the tremendous efforts, performance and true grit of what we are doing, despite Brown's sabotage, in Afghanistan is widely acknowledged and recognised. The current situation regarding the Falklands is a case in point that illustrates how low our status has fallen. It is clear that if push came to shove, we could offer little military resistance to a re-match down there. Pulling the lions tail is a favourite sport for any leader keen to improve their home support and status. (We do still have a sense of humour though - our latest aid for his country expressed an opinion)

Nations that formerly chose to remain aloof from involvement in wider world affairs have now, in the main, thrown their lot in with UN or EU or with the look-alike organisations. Africa alone must have a dozen or so and there are the states previously under control of Russia. The value of even the most senior of these may be dubious - vide UN Resolutions reference action on Iraq which were so skilfully twisted and abused by Brown and Blair but it least they give an air of respectability to Machiavellian plans and plots. It would seem just plain old common sense for us to become more widely involved with these world organisations and be part of a quorum now our true freedom of action by way of power has disappeared.

It would be hard for any leader to have to accept the position of also ran. The UN does not have an unblemished record of actually solving anything or managing those situations that seem unresolvable. When one looks at their aims and ambitions, this is no surprise. How can so many things be recognised and acknowledged, still less debated and settled?

Ah - but that is just where we could punch above our weight. Our Colonial past and the Days of Empire have a legacy that we could use. We have a knowledge of what goes on in the Government and minds of almost every one of the delegates. A long time ago and much censored by the likes of NuLabour perhaps but capable of being dragged from fusty basement archives, dusted down, vocabulary changed and then introduced. With the right attitude and mindset, we could wield the power to challenge even America's position. This would not call for the force of arms which is so draining of human life, GDP share and threatens to destroy our integrity. All we need is to be a leader and then use the power of unity to prevail. The UN is like some failing company - a world-wide Enron where finagling has run into the buffers. GB needs to be appointed as administrator.

Some may say that the UN's little brother of the European Union creates very little enthusiasm for us joining a much larger and more complex organisation. What is wrong about our relationship is not difficult to define - even the Prince of Darkness has done it (quite well though it hurts me to say it!). The real problem in so far as it concerns us is that we got on board - even partially - far too late. We are committed to terms and conditions where we had but little option other than to tick to 'agreed; box. Maggy and her handbag politics showed what can be achieved. Were we to make a play for revitalising the UN we would be able to start with a almost blank sheet of T & C which would work in our favour.

The idea that the Boy Dave and Co will set the foundations of our place in the world has one very big weakness. In the situation we are now, it is superfluous; we are fighting for our lives just to stay afloat and any coat will have to be cut from the cloth we have and not from what we might get. The debate and animosity it would engender would be counter-productive; politicians much prefer jaw jaw and would delay action until a change of Government came round again. Taking things onto the UN stage would cut the legs off any long running debate.

I commend this motion to the House.