Thursday, 5 March 2009

My Life is in Ruins.

I'm suffering a life crisis: For the majority of my life, I've been doing the stuff I do with the best of intentions. I've had kids, brought them up to be respectable, strive well at education (even my autistic son got a fistfull of GCSE passes), I've stayed within the law (mostly), and respected the rights of others.

But the crisis I'm having is that I've lived my life all wrong. I've taken the middle path, which leads nowhere. I'm currently unemployed and fed up of filling in endless booklets (they are not "forms") justifying why I should be helped by the state. Last month I was told I no longer qualify for jobseekers allowance because although I am actively seeking a job, I have not found one within 6 months. So jobseekers stops.
Because I took the middle path, I'm having trouble getting my autistic son supported accommodation, now he is 18. Because I worked and supported him myself, he didn't get a transitions worker to help him from inside the system. So I'm battering on the door from outside and getting not much in the way of reply.

If I took the path of crime, I would be better off. Whilst doing crime, I would be making money from the misery of others. If I was caught for my crimes, I would be put in prison where I could expect to be fed and heated, my clothes washed, etc. My wife and children would be supported by the state and probably have a social worker on tap to help out. My son would be in supported accommodation and the rest of the family in a council house, benefit would be paid by the state, council tax and rent would be reduced. Ok, life wouldn't be great, but it would be easy.

I once tried the path of hard work, becoming self employed, working long hours and days away from home, earning lots and contributing to the economy. I paid reduced tax because of loopholes that my accountant exploited, but they were legal and moral. But then Labour came in and changed the rules for self-employed contractors, they increased taxes and the amount of red tape for small businesses, so that it became less and less economically viable to run as a one-man business. I pity anyone starting in business now, because in order to be viable, you either have to make large profits in order to cover costs, or you have to bend the rules and sail close to working illegally or immorally. In the end my family collapsed due to the strain.

If I took the path of unashamed greed, I would have identified the way to make real money really easy: work in government. I would have been a councillor or by now an MP, firmly seated at the trough of expense accounts, junkets and quango salaries. I would have friends in high places. I would be able to afford expensive legal help should any of my misdenmeanours be discovered, I would be able to change the rules if some of my expenses were described as immoral, I would be able to change history if it was proven I'd taken the wrong path, I would have two houses, fully paid for by the state.

No, I took the middle way, the decent honest way, I now know I lived my life the wrong way.

Wednesday, 4 March 2009

Its not just me thats confused about PFI

Seems there are a few people confused by the government's initiative to prop-up PFI projects by giving them loans:

I still don't understand how lending a private firm money to complete a PFI project is any different than paying for it up front as you'd normally do. I nievely thought that PFI was a way to get schools and hospitals without having to pay up front and getting private money to finance it instead.

Ok, the government may charge interest on the loan, but after the company has taken profit out of the project, it will still be more expensive than just paying a contractor up front.

Pssst! Wanna be a spy?

Apply here:

I love how the jobs spec goes on about integrity and being ethical. FFS this is MI6 we're talking about: you're a spy! Integrity be damned, ethics, get the feck outa here! Its a nasty, bad world we live in and if you aren't able to be as nasty or as bad as the next guy, he'll fuck you over!

Of course in the end we all know that their choice of staff will be ear-wet graduates fresh out of Uni with fuck all idea how the world works nor how to work to the best interests of the country, but will be able to attend endless meetings where fuck all is decided.

Office for National Statistics getting the Kelly treatment.

Seems the Office for National Statistics is the target of the governments latest bullying campaign.

Phil Woolas, the Immigration Minister is accusing the ONS of "playing politics". Sorry Phil, if the ONS's impartiality is giving you problems, but that doesn't give you the right to kick up a fuss and start a bullying campaign.

I still remember what happened to the BBC post Gilligan/Kelly. The government bullied the BBC into compliance and shoved a bunch of Labour placemen in charge. Since then, the BBC has steadfastly reiterated Labour party propaganda as fact. Very little investigative News journalism seems to go on there. Yes, they may follow up stories where others lead, but rarely have they critical of the government in their reporting in the way they were during Margaret Thatcher or John Major's time in office. As an example, there are several stories around at the moment (Jaqui "two homes" Smith, Lord Myners and Alastair Darling's involvement in the row over Fred Goodwin's pension are two) which merit closer and more detailed investigation. But it seems no-one has the will to do it.

I just hope the ONS stands it's ground, stays impartial and independant and doesn't go the way of the BBC.

On a wider note, this is yet another example of what seems to be more and more Labour party policy, where the government faced with the revellation of embarrasing information, start to bully and intimidate the person revealing that information. Andrew Gilligan, Dr David Kelly, Greg Dyke, Damien Green, Fred Goodwin, are but a few names that have been on the recieving end of government-initiated bullying campaigns.

Is this how we should be conducting government in 2009? I really think not.

Monday, 2 March 2009

Are our Police Politically Motivated?

According to this article Lib Dem MP David Howarth thinks so.

There are plenty of people in the UK that already know the Police have been increasingly politicised over the years. It started with Maggie's crushing of the miners and continued with greater pace under Labour.

The demanding of new powers by the Police (Headed by ACPO Ltd) and the puppydog rolling over of politicians and granting their every whim has got us to this stage.

It should be for the politicians to put forward new laws and the Police to enact them as public servants, it shouldn't be for the Police to request their own self-serving legislation.

Now the Police are tooling up for a "summer of rage". They expect a glut of protests by activists all over the country, taking advantage of public anxiety and getting people out onto the streets.

It mustn't happen. If protests happen at all, they should be peaceful and within the law. That way, the establishment is denied any reason to bring even more legislation into play. Its even hinted that "middle England" will take to the streets. I do hope so; those middle classes need to see and feel for themselves the monster they and the media that panders to them has created in the para-military Police we have today.