The whole country has been shocked to read the story of the teacher who has been charged after striking a pupil. There is no way of knowing the rights and wrongs of the case right now, but I have posted the following on the TES message board.
An LEA has a legal duty of care towards its employees. I imagine every local authority nowadays has posters saying something like, "Aggression towards staff will not be tolerated... will be prosecuted" - teachers alone never receive that protection. We are expected to put up with hooligan behaviour that no other employee would be expected to deal with, and teachers alone are blamed as being 'bad' at their job when they are victims of aggression.
A teacher who has had a stroke has a disability which (I haven't checked, but...) I presume is covered by the Disability Discrimination Act, which adds extra legal responsibilities to the employer. Any caring employer will seek to protect staff; will try even harder if they know a member of staff has suffered stress and will try yet harder if someone has suffered a stress-related stroke. It is all hearsay at the moment, but reports indicate that the teacher in question suffered appallingly vile abuse about his disability. If it were racial abuse, sexual abuse, etc, I cannot imagine that there would be the same lack of sympathy for this man.
I do hope this is fully investigated, and that the support package the LEA and HT put in place to support Mr Harvey on his return to work is carefully examined. How many teachers have been interviewed by their line manager on their return to work after sickness? I suspect it is a minority, but I bet it is official policy by most local authorities. Some people would see it as oppressive, treating the worker as a skiver: I see it as the employer and HT showing that they give a damn whether the employee comes to work and that they have even the slightest concern for the employee's welfare.
Right now, we have no way of knowing what all the rights and wrongs of the current case are. However, I hope that it will raise awareness of the failings of the educational system (and of society which gives many schools and many teachers an impossible job to do), and that it brings closer the day that a HT and an LEA's Director of Education end up behind bars for failing in their duty of care towards a teacher.
Sunday, 12 July 2009
Thursday, 2 July 2009
Which British school has produced two Nobel Prize winners?
Kilmarnock Academy. Now a humble comprehensive in East Ayrshire; the former school of Alexander Fleming and John Boyd Orr. Needless to say, they were both educated at the school when it was selective. In Fleming's day, it was also fee-paying. My grandmother attended Kilmarnock Academy, when it was selective. That meant something. Not that her family was rich (they weren't), but that they believed in doing their best to achieve things. Nor does it mean that it turned out selfish snobs. Its most illustrious former pupils devoted their lives to improving the lot of their fellow man.
I know where I am going with this: it is probably obvious to you, dear reader. I shan't subject you to a rant about dumbing-down, effects of socialism, etc etc. I don't really need to, do I?
I know where I am going with this: it is probably obvious to you, dear reader. I shan't subject you to a rant about dumbing-down, effects of socialism, etc etc. I don't really need to, do I?
Johnnie Walker
Have you ever tasted Johnnie Walker whisky? I haven't and certainly won't now.
What do I have in common with the eponymous founder? John Walker died in Kilmarnock just months before one of my gggg grandfathers, William Cairns. They are buried in the same place, St Andrew's churchyard: John, as a successful grocer, in a more elaborate grave than my gggg grandfather's unmarked one. Still six feet under, and still just as dead, though.
I like to think that John Walker will be spinning in that grave, though. Forwhy? The despicable decision by the current owners, Diageo, to close the plant in Kilmarnock and throw nearly 900 people out of work. The Kilmarnock plant is just hundreds of yards from where Walker had his grocer's shop nearly 200 years ago, and Johnnie Walker has been by far the largest employer in the area for years. Kilmarnock was a massive success story of the industrial revolution: engineering, textiles, carpet manufacturing as well as whisky blending, employing many thousands of people and exporting across the world. Now that will shortly all have gone.
Now, Kilmarnock is finished. Huge unemployment, dependent on Government handouts. Predictably, Broon doesn't get it. Apparently, the Government is going to throw money at the problem, as per usual. Now, economics is not my strong point, but I can just about work out that:
Government spending has to be paid for, somewhere down the line, by private profit.
If you try to replace private sector jobs with public sector ones, you have to (a) forego the profit and tax that the private companies used to produce as well as (b) out of declining revenue, you have to find more money to pay for your subsidies. This means that you end up taxing more or you borrow more, which increases your debt, leading to, er, taxing more at some point in the future.
Socialism did not make Kilmarnock successful. It was not socialists who built the historic Kilmarnock to Troon railway line; BMK carpets; Johnnie Walker whisky; Glenfield Kennedy and dozens of other textile and engineering companies. Capitalism made Kilmarnock successful and it is ever since the town began electing socialist MPs (Labour since 1946) that the town has declined.
What do I have in common with the eponymous founder? John Walker died in Kilmarnock just months before one of my gggg grandfathers, William Cairns. They are buried in the same place, St Andrew's churchyard: John, as a successful grocer, in a more elaborate grave than my gggg grandfather's unmarked one. Still six feet under, and still just as dead, though.
I like to think that John Walker will be spinning in that grave, though. Forwhy? The despicable decision by the current owners, Diageo, to close the plant in Kilmarnock and throw nearly 900 people out of work. The Kilmarnock plant is just hundreds of yards from where Walker had his grocer's shop nearly 200 years ago, and Johnnie Walker has been by far the largest employer in the area for years. Kilmarnock was a massive success story of the industrial revolution: engineering, textiles, carpet manufacturing as well as whisky blending, employing many thousands of people and exporting across the world. Now that will shortly all have gone.
Now, Kilmarnock is finished. Huge unemployment, dependent on Government handouts. Predictably, Broon doesn't get it. Apparently, the Government is going to throw money at the problem, as per usual. Now, economics is not my strong point, but I can just about work out that:
Government spending has to be paid for, somewhere down the line, by private profit.
If you try to replace private sector jobs with public sector ones, you have to (a) forego the profit and tax that the private companies used to produce as well as (b) out of declining revenue, you have to find more money to pay for your subsidies. This means that you end up taxing more or you borrow more, which increases your debt, leading to, er, taxing more at some point in the future.
Socialism did not make Kilmarnock successful. It was not socialists who built the historic Kilmarnock to Troon railway line; BMK carpets; Johnnie Walker whisky; Glenfield Kennedy and dozens of other textile and engineering companies. Capitalism made Kilmarnock successful and it is ever since the town began electing socialist MPs (Labour since 1946) that the town has declined.
Not in my name, Dave. Stop apologising
Interesting report in the Daily Mail about David Cameron's latest 'apology'.
So far, Dave has apologised to the ANC because they used to be called 'terrorists'. Well, boo-bloody-hoo! How would Dave describe the sort of scum who would put hanging tyres around the necks of poor black people who dared to oppose them? All with the support of Saint Nelson's vile wife. 'Terrorist' is, if anything, too mild a word to describe such vermin.
He has apologised to Scotland for the Poll Tax.
Well, I am a Scotsman, and need no apology for that. Forcing bone idle people to get off their fat backsides and contribute to local services is not, in principle, a dreadful thing. It could have been made fairer, of course, by broader bands based on ability to pay. Take that to its conclusion and it is not a million miles from, er, the SNP's beloved local income tax. It's great listening to the Tartan Marxists using much the same arguments to support their flagship policy as the wicked Tories used 20 years ago in favour of the iniquitous Poll Tax. Of course, both are crap policies and the Council Tax is as good as we will get in the foreseeable future. But as a matter of principle, hmmm...
Now Dave apologises for Section 28. Well, as a teacher, let me set things straight:
1. I supported Section 28 (Section 2a according to the ludicrous Scottish Parliament)
2. Section 28 did not prevent teachers and schools treating homosexuality and homosexuals fairly
3. I have had homosexual students and colleagues, none of whom would feel that I was in any way 'homophobic'
4. Section 28 was introduced at a particular moment in history, to prevent Marxist extremists taking over loony left local authorities and then abusing their powers.
That was morally, ethically, legally and politically the right course of action
5. The notion that Section 28 was homophobic is a downright lie, peddled by loony left extremists for their own motives
6. Section 28 does not need apologised for
I think, actually, that politicians should be very, very cautious about apologising for any event which preceded their term of office. A couple of years ago, we had loonies falling over themselves to apologise for the slave trade. Do I feel guilty about the slave trade, or the fact that British people made fortunes on the back of other people's misery? Not in the least. Cerebrally challenged people, please note: I have not said that I support the slave trade. However, I have no control over events which happened centuries ago. Because, where do you stop? Do you condemn people living in Africa today, whose ancestors sold their fellow tribesmen into slavery? Undoubtedly they did, but it is not the fault of anyone alive today.
If you want to feel guilty about slavery, look at the labels of consumer good in your house. How many are made in China? Every time you buy something made in China, you are supporting a totalitarian state which puts its own citizens in concentration camps; censors their access to foreign media; brutally suppresses any opposition; condemns hundreds of millions to live in dire poverty to produce goods which they couldn't afford themselves so that fat, lazy westerners like me don't need to bother paying a fair price for the things we buy.
If you supported the ANC because you thought it was bad for black Africans to be oppressed, what are you doing for the Chinese who are treated even worse?
If you feel you need to feel guilty about slavery of 200 years ago, what the hell are you going to do about slavery in our own century, which you could do something about?
If you think that homosexuals are discriminated against here, what do you say to thousands of Chinese in concentration camps?
As Dave has discovered, it is easier to 'apologise' for something that never had anything to do with you than to address real issues and our real responsibilities. Feeble leadership, Dave. Zero per cent on this one.
So far, Dave has apologised to the ANC because they used to be called 'terrorists'. Well, boo-bloody-hoo! How would Dave describe the sort of scum who would put hanging tyres around the necks of poor black people who dared to oppose them? All with the support of Saint Nelson's vile wife. 'Terrorist' is, if anything, too mild a word to describe such vermin.
He has apologised to Scotland for the Poll Tax.
Well, I am a Scotsman, and need no apology for that. Forcing bone idle people to get off their fat backsides and contribute to local services is not, in principle, a dreadful thing. It could have been made fairer, of course, by broader bands based on ability to pay. Take that to its conclusion and it is not a million miles from, er, the SNP's beloved local income tax. It's great listening to the Tartan Marxists using much the same arguments to support their flagship policy as the wicked Tories used 20 years ago in favour of the iniquitous Poll Tax. Of course, both are crap policies and the Council Tax is as good as we will get in the foreseeable future. But as a matter of principle, hmmm...
Now Dave apologises for Section 28. Well, as a teacher, let me set things straight:
1. I supported Section 28 (Section 2a according to the ludicrous Scottish Parliament)
2. Section 28 did not prevent teachers and schools treating homosexuality and homosexuals fairly
3. I have had homosexual students and colleagues, none of whom would feel that I was in any way 'homophobic'
4. Section 28 was introduced at a particular moment in history, to prevent Marxist extremists taking over loony left local authorities and then abusing their powers.
That was morally, ethically, legally and politically the right course of action
5. The notion that Section 28 was homophobic is a downright lie, peddled by loony left extremists for their own motives
6. Section 28 does not need apologised for
I think, actually, that politicians should be very, very cautious about apologising for any event which preceded their term of office. A couple of years ago, we had loonies falling over themselves to apologise for the slave trade. Do I feel guilty about the slave trade, or the fact that British people made fortunes on the back of other people's misery? Not in the least. Cerebrally challenged people, please note: I have not said that I support the slave trade. However, I have no control over events which happened centuries ago. Because, where do you stop? Do you condemn people living in Africa today, whose ancestors sold their fellow tribesmen into slavery? Undoubtedly they did, but it is not the fault of anyone alive today.
If you want to feel guilty about slavery, look at the labels of consumer good in your house. How many are made in China? Every time you buy something made in China, you are supporting a totalitarian state which puts its own citizens in concentration camps; censors their access to foreign media; brutally suppresses any opposition; condemns hundreds of millions to live in dire poverty to produce goods which they couldn't afford themselves so that fat, lazy westerners like me don't need to bother paying a fair price for the things we buy.
If you supported the ANC because you thought it was bad for black Africans to be oppressed, what are you doing for the Chinese who are treated even worse?
If you feel you need to feel guilty about slavery of 200 years ago, what the hell are you going to do about slavery in our own century, which you could do something about?
If you think that homosexuals are discriminated against here, what do you say to thousands of Chinese in concentration camps?
As Dave has discovered, it is easier to 'apologise' for something that never had anything to do with you than to address real issues and our real responsibilities. Feeble leadership, Dave. Zero per cent on this one.
Thursday, 14 May 2009
I am a retarded homophobe
At least, the British Association for Adoption and Fostering thinks I am, and is paid taxpayers' money to say so.
I am in an unusual position when talking about adoption. I have been there. When my mother remarried, she and her second husband adopted me. Legally, I have nothing to do with my natural father, and I did not meet him until I was 38 years old. As an adopted child, your rights have not advanced much from the days of the Victorian workhouse - you don't have any. Legally, you are expected to be grateful that your adoptive parents want to have you and there is no way of setting aside the adoption and having your own family legally recognised.
Actually, I think that stinks. I am certain that there are many, many cases of successful adoption, but I am equally certain that there are many, many cases of unsuccessful ones. Article 8 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is interesting: it asserts that a child has a right to an identity, and obliges the state to restore such rights if they are illegally deprived of them. That word 'illegally' is the problem. It permits the State to give social workers the right to think they know best. Better than the child, or their natural family.
I believe very strongly that a child should never be deprived of their identity. Whether your father is a saint or a serial killer; a philanthropist or a paedophile; a hobo or a homo: they are always going to be your parent and at least part of who you are depends on who they are. Fact.
I also believe very strongly that, where a child is looked after by people other than their birth parents, it is best that this happens with a married couple. All the evidence ever published has indicated that this is the best upbringing for a child. I have no doubt that there are homosexuals who would love and care for a child; just as there are bank robbers, rapists and paedophiles who would look after them. Where do you draw the line, though?
Clearly, there have to be safeguards. In 2006, two gay men from Yorkshire were imprisoned for abusing children who had been fostered by them. The indication was that social workers were slow to react, because they wanted to promote gay fostering and therefore ignored warnings. I do not have the slightest doubt that this is the greatest danger. Stupid, lazy, ignorant social workers would rather expose children to abuse than risk being accused of homophobia.
Children deserve better.
I am in an unusual position when talking about adoption. I have been there. When my mother remarried, she and her second husband adopted me. Legally, I have nothing to do with my natural father, and I did not meet him until I was 38 years old. As an adopted child, your rights have not advanced much from the days of the Victorian workhouse - you don't have any. Legally, you are expected to be grateful that your adoptive parents want to have you and there is no way of setting aside the adoption and having your own family legally recognised.
Actually, I think that stinks. I am certain that there are many, many cases of successful adoption, but I am equally certain that there are many, many cases of unsuccessful ones. Article 8 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is interesting: it asserts that a child has a right to an identity, and obliges the state to restore such rights if they are illegally deprived of them. That word 'illegally' is the problem. It permits the State to give social workers the right to think they know best. Better than the child, or their natural family.
I believe very strongly that a child should never be deprived of their identity. Whether your father is a saint or a serial killer; a philanthropist or a paedophile; a hobo or a homo: they are always going to be your parent and at least part of who you are depends on who they are. Fact.
I also believe very strongly that, where a child is looked after by people other than their birth parents, it is best that this happens with a married couple. All the evidence ever published has indicated that this is the best upbringing for a child. I have no doubt that there are homosexuals who would love and care for a child; just as there are bank robbers, rapists and paedophiles who would look after them. Where do you draw the line, though?
Clearly, there have to be safeguards. In 2006, two gay men from Yorkshire were imprisoned for abusing children who had been fostered by them. The indication was that social workers were slow to react, because they wanted to promote gay fostering and therefore ignored warnings. I do not have the slightest doubt that this is the greatest danger. Stupid, lazy, ignorant social workers would rather expose children to abuse than risk being accused of homophobia.
Children deserve better.
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
Vote - or abstain?
For the first time in my life, I am considering not voting at the next General Election. If I do vote, I shall vote Conservative. However, it depends very much on the actions of David Cameron in cleaning up his own party.
We've known for a long time that the present sordid Government has done immense damage to this country and should demit office as soon as possible. They deserved it to happen as a result of lying about wars and destroying our economy: that it is now reduced to claims about tampons, toilet seats and jars of jellied eels perhaps sums up better the despicable, sewer level that politics has reached.
However, it is important that the Tories show they are better than this. Cameron has to sack a lot of people. It will take courage, but it will pay dividends electorally, as well as showing that he really does believe in improving politics. The appropriately-named Hogg, claiming for his housekeeper, even if he didn't actually claim for the moat cleaning. Moat cleaning? What planet do these people live on?
John Gummer claimed for a mole man; Alan Duncan claimed thousands for gardening; Michael Ancram claimed to have the boiler on his swimming pool serviced.
Most of the people being fingered by the Telegraph are has-beens or nonentities. Michael Gove, Chris Grayling and Alan Duncan would be sad losses from the Shadow Cabinet, but it has to happen. Maude, Gummer, Hogg and James Gray would be no loss at all to Parliament, in my humble opinion. I want to see Cameron withdrawing the party whip from them and preventing them standing at the next election.
Weasel words about the system being defective are not enough. If people do not instinctively know what is an appropriate use of taxpayers' money, then their lack of judgement should be sufficient to prevent them being selected as candidates. The 'defective system' requires that MPs seek 'best value' for the taxpayer and that claims should not be excessive or 'luxurious', whilst being necessarily incurred in the course of their duties. Even if those were the only rules, a very basic level of common sense would tell our MPs that hiring gardeners, housekeepers and mole men, let alone ordering horse manure, or fixing their swimming pool should be excluded.
Two MPs have, I think, been unfairly caught up in this. David Willetts hired an electrician for £100 - I don't have a problem with that. If 25 light bulbs had blown, there was obviously a problem with his electrics and he had to get it seen to. Oliver Letwin had a leaking pipe which needed fixed. The fact that it ran underneath his tennis courts is irrelevant - he got the pipe fixed.
I want to see Cameron ending Parliamentary careers before I cast my vote again.
We've known for a long time that the present sordid Government has done immense damage to this country and should demit office as soon as possible. They deserved it to happen as a result of lying about wars and destroying our economy: that it is now reduced to claims about tampons, toilet seats and jars of jellied eels perhaps sums up better the despicable, sewer level that politics has reached.
However, it is important that the Tories show they are better than this. Cameron has to sack a lot of people. It will take courage, but it will pay dividends electorally, as well as showing that he really does believe in improving politics. The appropriately-named Hogg, claiming for his housekeeper, even if he didn't actually claim for the moat cleaning. Moat cleaning? What planet do these people live on?
John Gummer claimed for a mole man; Alan Duncan claimed thousands for gardening; Michael Ancram claimed to have the boiler on his swimming pool serviced.
Most of the people being fingered by the Telegraph are has-beens or nonentities. Michael Gove, Chris Grayling and Alan Duncan would be sad losses from the Shadow Cabinet, but it has to happen. Maude, Gummer, Hogg and James Gray would be no loss at all to Parliament, in my humble opinion. I want to see Cameron withdrawing the party whip from them and preventing them standing at the next election.
Weasel words about the system being defective are not enough. If people do not instinctively know what is an appropriate use of taxpayers' money, then their lack of judgement should be sufficient to prevent them being selected as candidates. The 'defective system' requires that MPs seek 'best value' for the taxpayer and that claims should not be excessive or 'luxurious', whilst being necessarily incurred in the course of their duties. Even if those were the only rules, a very basic level of common sense would tell our MPs that hiring gardeners, housekeepers and mole men, let alone ordering horse manure, or fixing their swimming pool should be excluded.
Two MPs have, I think, been unfairly caught up in this. David Willetts hired an electrician for £100 - I don't have a problem with that. If 25 light bulbs had blown, there was obviously a problem with his electrics and he had to get it seen to. Oliver Letwin had a leaking pipe which needed fixed. The fact that it ran underneath his tennis courts is irrelevant - he got the pipe fixed.
I want to see Cameron ending Parliamentary careers before I cast my vote again.
Saturday, 18 April 2009
Moooove along now
Hampshire County Council has come up with an interestingidea to deter anti-social behaviour. A herd of cows are being allowed to graze on playing fields which had been plagued by hooligans and had been used as a campsite for travellers. They fertilise the fields and they have successfully cut down on anti-social activities. Excellent! Personally, I would like to see the police releasing packs of Rottweilers to savage young thugs, but if the cows act as a deterrent, more power to them!
Friday, 17 April 2009
Get a life (and a job), pet
I have been reading about Nicola Fisher today, who is pursuing a complaint against a police officer for alleged violence.
Ms Fisher ludicrously compares the 'assault' to being attacked by the Taliban.
Watch the footage. She can be heard swearing at the officer before and after he first struck her. She disobeyed several instructions to 'keep back'. Was the officer's use of force unreasonable? Maybe. However, this young man was facing a baying mob of foul-mouthed, violent, unemployable scum. I frankly don't care that he lashed out. I don't care that he hit someone who was swearing, causing a disturbance and refusing to follow simple and clear instructions. Why should a single moment of police time be wasted pursuing complaints by any of these protestors?
Ms Fisher admits in today's Daily Express that she has convictions for shoplifting and drug possession, as well as having had a drugs problem. Rather than pursuing spurious complaints, shouldn't she be trying to do something worthwhile with her own life? Like getting a job? I do hope the story in the Evening Standard is not true, where it alleges that she has been seeking £50,000 for her story.
Ms Fisher ludicrously compares the 'assault' to being attacked by the Taliban.
Watch the footage. She can be heard swearing at the officer before and after he first struck her. She disobeyed several instructions to 'keep back'. Was the officer's use of force unreasonable? Maybe. However, this young man was facing a baying mob of foul-mouthed, violent, unemployable scum. I frankly don't care that he lashed out. I don't care that he hit someone who was swearing, causing a disturbance and refusing to follow simple and clear instructions. Why should a single moment of police time be wasted pursuing complaints by any of these protestors?
Ms Fisher admits in today's Daily Express that she has convictions for shoplifting and drug possession, as well as having had a drugs problem. Rather than pursuing spurious complaints, shouldn't she be trying to do something worthwhile with her own life? Like getting a job? I do hope the story in the Evening Standard is not true, where it alleges that she has been seeking £50,000 for her story.
Thursday, 16 April 2009
Who is really being intolerant here?
A Conservative councillor in Derbyshire has been suspended because of alleged anti-gay comments.
Read carefully what he says, though. He is not objecting to gay people having equal rights; nor about the need to respect others. He is objecting to being pressured to embrace an agenda which goes against his religious beliefs. If the man's name had been Mohammed al Clarq rather than Patrick Clark, I wonder if his religious beliefs would have attracted more sympathy? If something goes against one's religious beliefs, sometimes one has to bite one's tongue and accept it. However, no one should be forced to pretend that they actively support anything which they consider to be immoral. That is a step too far.
Mr Clark's comments were not anti gay. They were pro individual freedom. The Conservative Party and the gay rights movement both used to believe in that, too.
Read carefully what he says, though. He is not objecting to gay people having equal rights; nor about the need to respect others. He is objecting to being pressured to embrace an agenda which goes against his religious beliefs. If the man's name had been Mohammed al Clarq rather than Patrick Clark, I wonder if his religious beliefs would have attracted more sympathy? If something goes against one's religious beliefs, sometimes one has to bite one's tongue and accept it. However, no one should be forced to pretend that they actively support anything which they consider to be immoral. That is a step too far.
Mr Clark's comments were not anti gay. They were pro individual freedom. The Conservative Party and the gay rights movement both used to believe in that, too.
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
Who needs rules?
Four years ago, the then Scottish Conservatives leader David McLetchie resigned after a dispute about taxi fares. Over a period of 5 years, he had claimed an average of less than one taxi fare a week to the law firm where he both worked as a partner and carried on political business. Total of less than £900.
Compare this with the shenanigans at Westminster. Harry Cohen, a London MP, claiming £310,000 in housing allowances and Jacqui Smith, in charge of the English legal system, claiming expenses to stay with her sister, not to mention the porn film scandal. And the latest events, surrounding the alleged smear campaign.
The Government is promising 'new rules' and 'new guidelines' on MPs expenses and on the behaviour of advisers. In doing so, they completely miss the point. The point is, that moral people (in my humble opinion) do not need rules to tell them that if they live and work in the same city, they should pay their mortgage out of their salary and the most they should ever claim is the travel between two workplaces (which ironically was the undoing of David McLetchie).
Surely, moral people do not need to be told not to charge barbecues, porn films or bath plugs to their expense accounts. Moral people do not need to be told not to tell lies about others' alleged sexual preferences. If a moral person lives in London and works between two London bases, the most they would dream of claiming for is an Oyster card.
It is not the system, nor the rules nor the guidelines which need changed. It is the people. The sooner there is a General Election and we get shot of this shower, the better.
Compare this with the shenanigans at Westminster. Harry Cohen, a London MP, claiming £310,000 in housing allowances and Jacqui Smith, in charge of the English legal system, claiming expenses to stay with her sister, not to mention the porn film scandal. And the latest events, surrounding the alleged smear campaign.
The Government is promising 'new rules' and 'new guidelines' on MPs expenses and on the behaviour of advisers. In doing so, they completely miss the point. The point is, that moral people (in my humble opinion) do not need rules to tell them that if they live and work in the same city, they should pay their mortgage out of their salary and the most they should ever claim is the travel between two workplaces (which ironically was the undoing of David McLetchie).
Surely, moral people do not need to be told not to charge barbecues, porn films or bath plugs to their expense accounts. Moral people do not need to be told not to tell lies about others' alleged sexual preferences. If a moral person lives in London and works between two London bases, the most they would dream of claiming for is an Oyster card.
It is not the system, nor the rules nor the guidelines which need changed. It is the people. The sooner there is a General Election and we get shot of this shower, the better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
