Police Reprimanded

I’m so glad the report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary has decreed a new, softer approach to policing in the UK is needed.
It’s bothered me for a long while that the attitude in this country seems to have moved away from a presumption of innocence and towards one of guilt.
I recall berating a boss of the Met back in the 70’s - in Thatcher’s day – for the heavy-handed policing of a demonstration in Hyde Park. Before the demo had even got going, there were dozens of coaches parked along the Bayswater road filled with expectant cops all eager, it seemed, to get out and control the masses. I put it to him that having the coaches so visible was tantamount to a challenge, likely to rile some demonstrators enough to encite violence. And that it would surely have been better to keep the police at a distance until, or in case, there was any suggestion of violence.
But he couldn’t see my point of view, and it was around then, I believe, that things deteriorated until we reached the desperate situation of police thinking it’s OK to hurt people with their shields, kettle people without even letting pregnant women leave a demonstration for the sake of their health or in order to pee, and basically, assume every one of us is a criminal in the making.
It's been a nasty insidious form of bullying that has crept in.
What upset me most about the tragedy of Ian Tomlinson’s death, was that it was a member of the public who went to check he was OK and attempt to help him up while the police in their riot gear stood unfeelingly watching.
I’m sure I’m not alone in wanting to live in the kind of society where the police are on our side, there to look after us, protect us and help us when we’re in trouble rather than looking upon innocent people like Ian Tomlinson as trouble-makers and standing idly by while they suffer....and die.

Student Loans Fiasco Staff rewarded by Bonuses!?!

Sometimes it's hard to believe what we read in the press. A story today tells us that 'most universities in England have bee forced to hand out emergency cash to students whose loans and grants have been severely delayed. This is according to a recent survey.

Yet, surely I was reading only earlier this week that the bosses at the Student Loans Company are to receive bonuses?

So I check back, and yes, apparently £2 million was handed out in bonuses to the staff there who've so totally stuffed up students' lives. Ten executives, indeed, are alleged to have received 5 figure sums.

Unbelievable. Aboslutely unbelievable. Who is it, do you think, who can square this kind of thing? Who OK's it?

And why isn't there an outcry? Why don't we British do 'anger' any more? That's what I can never understand. I gather the Lib Dems have made a fuss but why isn't this plastered over all our newspapers and broadcast news outlets? And have we just become too too accepting?

EuroMillions Lottery Win

So we're all thrilled for the euromillions winners, but what I'm wondering is why no one is questioning a system whereby an individual wins more money than he or she can possibly need in a lifetime. It's a bit like the bankers' bonuses except that it's not arousing the same passion. I mean surely it would be far far more sensible, and far fairer, if there could be 90 winners of a million pounds....?

For who needs more than a million to make them feel secure and happy ever after?

One million pounds would change most peoples' lives dramatically and, if properly invested, ensure a worry-free future.

And wouldn't we all feel better about the lottery if we knew more people had a chance of winning? If we could feel the profits were going to be more widely distributed?

I'd like to see our attitude change towards this just as it has over bankers' bonuses and huge payouts to chief executives. We all know deep down that no one really needs more than a million pounds as a windfall, salary or bonus. So why don't we just put a cap on the lottery payouts so that more people can wake up as millionaires?

Sun not helping Jacqui Janes - Misplaced Anger of Max Mosley

There seems to be a lot of misplaced anger around today. Jacqui Janes, the mother of Jamie Janes who lost his life in Afghanistan is, rightly, angry at the premature death of her son who was only 20 when he bled to death.
Yet it seems she’s being egged on by the Sun newspaper to lash out at the Prime Minister for his spelling mistakes. It’s quite clear that nothing could make her feel better at the moment. It’s also obvious that when someone writes a letter of condolence they should strive to get the spelling correct – or start again. Crossings out simply won’t do at times of raw grief such as this.
However, I would suggest that Mrs Janes isn’t exactly being helped through her grief by the Sun. Of course she’s angry, and it’s often very useful during grief to be able to express anger, to get it out rather than keeping it inside to fester. But if the Sun continue to encourage her to direct all her anger at one man, she’ll most likely end up embittered anyway for there’s nothing Gordon Brown can possibly say that will make her feel any better.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/video/article300101.ece?vxSiteId=6247211d-66e0-4454-b73a-3f1610efa39a&vxChannel=Sun%20Exclusive&vxClipId=1347_SUN27343&vxBitrate=300


She should surely be encouraged, instead to have some proper emotional support, some counselling possibly, to allow her to express her angerin a safe place at all the agencies that may have contributed to her son’s death. She probably needs the time and space also to explore her own range of feelings which may include guilt at having ‘allowed’ her son to join the army and go to war even though she can’t possibly be held responsible; and her helplessness in the face of such a huge loss which is clearly having a dramatic and tragic impact on her life.
With help like that, she’s more likely to be able, eventually not to get over Jamie’s death, but to become more accepting of it and be able to get on with the rest of her life. If she doesn’t, she’s likely to be in for a tempestuous time ahead and her health is bound to suffer.

The other example of misplaced anger - on a much more trivial scale – is that of Max Mosley, who once again, it seems is railing at everyone and everything except himself.
He’s apparently challenging the law of privacy in the European court of human rights in Strasbourg.
His argument as ever is this: “I think it’s wrong in a civilised society that a tabloid editor can destroy a family and wreck a life without being answerable to anybody.”
It never seems to occur to him that he destroyed his family and wrecked his life by his own actions. He was the one who deceived his family and lived a lie. But it’s the newspapers who are guilty of wrecking everything for him!!
It’s a very common that when someone feels deeply guilty or ashamed of their own actions that they try to deflect criticism away from themselves and cast blame onto others instead. But doesn’t he realise that he’s only drawing more and more attention to his past actions, to his kinky sex-life, and to his inability to accept that he was the one who messed up.