Do you agree with this Tory press release on fuel?

Press release from the Tories. Do you agree with them? ---

Unite members at five fuel tanker depots have voted in favour of strike action in a row over terms and conditions and safety.

Unite remain Labour’s largest donor – giving almost one third of Labour’s total donations since Ed Miliband became leader.

Commenting, Charlie Elphicke MP said:

“Today’s vote is very disappointing news for hard working families and businesses up and down the country who will be inconvenienced by this unnecessary and irresponsible strike.

“Ed Miliband must condemn this strike and get Labour’s biggest trade union paymaster round the negotiating table, rather disrupting the lives of millions of people.”


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

BREAKInG Police Officers to be balloted for industrial action rights

Police Federation to ballot members on industrial rights and to hold an event to highlight concerns about government cuts to policing



The Police Federation of England and Wales national committee today voted unanimously to hold a ballot of its membership on the question of whether police officers want full industrial rights. They also agreed to hold an event in central London before the Police Federation’s annual conference in May to highlight the unprecedented attack on policing by this government and the consequences that these cuts will have for public safety.

At the meeting of the Police Federation’s Joint Central Committee today, the decision was taken to ballot the entire membership as to whether they wish the Police Federation of England and Wales to seek full industrial rights. The Federation’s 135,000 members will be provided with all relevant information and the ballot will be held as soon as possible. In tandem, the Police Federation will explore all the consequences, including the legal position, with regards to police officers obtaining full industrial rights.

At the same meeting the national committee called upon the Home Secretary to reject Tom Winsor’s Part Two report published last week. They announced plans for an event to be held in central London before the Police Federation annual conference in May, in order that police officers, families, friends and supporters can show their strength of feeling against the budget cuts being applied to policing and the consequences for public safety.

This will be discussed further next week at a meeting of the 43 Police Federation Joint Branch Board Chairs and Secretaries.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The difference between a "Special Relationship" and a "necessary one"

For many years now, respective government's have fallen over themselves in the UK to reiterate Britain's special relationship with the US - like a needy child, or a clingy partner, constantly seeking reassurance that they're still loved.

Until President Obama's reign as President, the US have always been quick to confirm that they still love us, and that we're very special - but since the Democrats came to power, the relationship has been described as "necessary".

So what's the difference between a special and a necessary relationship? Well let's stick with the domestic examples.

A special relationship is one you might have with a partner, or mother or father. A special friend is welcome any time, and you'd do anything for them. In a special relationship, you care for that person. You don't want to see anything bad happen to them right? You help them because you WANT to, not because you NEED to.

A relationship of necesity is one with your Landlord, or your Solicitor. A necessary relationship is with your boss or your doctor. A necessary relationship is one that by definition is there because it needs to be - often not because you WANT it to be. You have a relationship with your GP because you NEED to. You might not like your GP (I do by the way) but nevertheless that relationship exists.

So what's the difference? Loyalty and true friendship. If you NEED a relationship (which to be fair, the US probably don't) you tolerate someone. If they want to meet for a coffee, you'll do it because you NEED to. If your boss wants to meet to discuss your job, you'll meet them - but you won't rush to do it at 9pm at night - but if your partner, with whom you share a special relationship, or perhaps your brother calls at 9pm and wants a coffee - if you can, you'll meet straight away.

Would Britain's relationship with America not then be better described as one of toleration only? If President Obama doesn't want to use the term "special" freely, then frankly it can't be that darn special.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Late night corporate charity work

Friends and some colleagues ill be aware that I wear many different hats - and tonight, I've been wearing my Chairman of the Stevenage and District Fundraising Branch of Guide Dogs hat.

Twitter and Facebook followers will know that I've been banging on about a charity clay shooting day on July 17th for companies and individuals who wish to raise personal sponsorship of £150, or even big corporations who may wish to sponsor the day in exchange for headline association / banner advertising etc etc.

It's going well, and having just sent about 15 emails at WOW 2am - just checked the time, it's time for me to power down the laptop and prepare for a busy day tomorrow (or should that be today).

I'm gearing up to the Irish Embassy's St. Paddy's day party later tonight - so rather excited (it's the best event of the year in my diary). But if you know any fine companies who want in - or you fancy having a go yourself - get in touch. You know how.

POLIcING: Guest Post By Sergeant John Gibling

The following is a Guest blog from Sergeant John Gibling, Chair of the Sergeants Central Committee of the Police Federation of England and Wales. It is hosted with comment by me... But John woukdntbeconferencewithout appreciate your thoughts, as would I.

-------------------
Following quickly on the heels of the think tank Policy Exchange’s attack on police pensions being unaffordable, we have another issue to contend with that could have grave consequences for the future of how England and Wales are policed; in an age where effectiveness and efficiency are but a smokescreen for economics and the supremacy of profit over loss. That issue is the privatisation of the police service of England and Wales.

It was revealed last week that two police forces in England have invited tenders from private companies to carry out the core roles of police officers, that of patrolling our communities and investigating crimes. West Midlands Police, one of the largest forces in England and Wales, and Surrey Police have decided that, in order to maintain the efficiency and effectiveness of their public service delivery, they have no choice but to seek the assistance of private profit making companies with a view to providing a basic policing service.

For well over a year we have been most vociferous in warning those that are prepared to listen to sound logical argument and debate, that this government’s plan for policing is all but the virtual destruction of the first and finest police service in the world, in order to open the door for the private and commercial sector. By the imposition of budget cuts in the region of 20% on policing they are forcing some chief officers to think and do the unthinkable in balancing the books, in order to maintain the current level of service to the public.

But let’s be under no illusion, this is an extremely hazardous road to take, and once initiated there is no going back. The priority of the private and commercial sector has, and always will be, the making of profit first and people second. Such enterprises are answerable to their shareholders and not to the public. From the days of the founding father of the police service, Sir Robert Peel, the public figured first and foremost, not profit. In his Nine Principles of Policing the word ‘public’ figures over ten times. You will find no mention of profit or the ascendancy of bean-counter functionaries, for policing was to be public facing, the public being the primary stakeholder – the only stakeholder. For him, “The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.” This maxim has stood the test of time for over one hundred and eighty years, until now.

This brave new world envisages core policing roles such as police patrols and the power to detain being undertaken by private and commercial employees, not warranted and attested police officers – the back-bone of policing as we’ve hitherto known it. A policing model that is respected, imitated and admired the world over. Madness now reins in a world turned upside down and folly has the ascendancy over wisdom. I was brought up in an age where culture, heritage and public service really did amount for something, and if something is not broken then why fix it. This will have fateful consequences for the high levels of service the public have come to expect from their police service, for once it’s gone it will be extremely difficult to go back and replace what went before. What the public get from the Office of Constable and all that it stands for is a high level of standardisation, consistency, continuity, accountability and much more besides. It takes a lifetime to create a great British tradition and momentary delusional foolhardiness to destroy it.

We do not support this relentless drive towards the private and commercial sector being the panacea of all ills in British policing, at this time. Policing is an institution and not a business, where the interests of the public must, as they always have done, be first and paramount. Chief officers and other influential voices within policing must stand shoulder to shoulder as staunch advocates for what is right for the public and protect the police service from further destruction.

A former Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie, once said: “We must reject the privatisation of religion.” We say: You must reject a privatisation of policing!


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The harsh treatment of Eric Joyce MP

Eric Joyce's convictions for common assault spell an eventual end to his political career - although probably not entirely for three years.

Westminster Magistrates Sentenced Mr Joyce after he admitted four counts of common assault (3x common assault, 1x common assault by beating) while being "hammered". Contrary to suggestions otherwise, these offences would never normally lead to a jail sentence, and so although Mr Joyce said he was grateful not to be banged up, it was never a a `likely outcome - but the fine, costs and compensation are much greater than I was expecting. £350 per victim absolutely is in line with my expectations, and naturally, the costs of prosecuting the case are by anyone's standards rather reasonable - but £3,000 fine, a three month ban from ALL bars and a six month travel restriction with orders to be home early at the weekends is, I think probably rather sup rising to the man on the Clapham omnibus.

What was described as guns at dawn turns out to be nothing more (based on charges and conviction) than handbags at fifty paces. The charges are about as minor as they could have been in all the circumstances - and for most people, there would be no question of them continuing in their job. Naturally MP's are public servants and law makers - and so it's understandable that they're judged by higher standards, but only in the 'Court of public opinion' surely? Are we not all equal before the law, or at least supposed to be?

Eric Joyce is a deeply troubled man, who by his own admission has a problem with controlling his temper, and his convictions confirm that he has a problem with acting responsibly after having a drink, as his drink drive conviction last year had already demonstrated - but should he lost his position within the Labour Party? I merely ask the question.

So now, the crowning droppings for Mr Joyce will be a recommendation by the House as to whether he should be suspended from service - and frankly I'd be staggered if they suggest anything other. Eric Joyce seems to think he'll be suspended for a substantial period - my feeling is that he'll be suspended for between 14 and 28 days without pay. The Labour Party too will have to make a call on whether to kick the suspended Labour party member out of their party for good. If they choose to expel him, he can, as he has suggested he will, remain a fully paid Member of Parliament - but in one swoop, they'd be reducing their voting power by one, and potentially alienating Eric Joyce's many friends who feel, rightly or wrongly that the party was too quick to cut him loose after what the majority opinion believes to be the desperate actions of an unwell man.

Eric Joyce has been beaten with the biggest stick possible. He has little to complain about after his loutish behaviour - but is it not time to stop kidding ourselves that he has in some way got off lightly, and perhaps decide that he's been punished enough and could have some greater insight to contribute to the House. Just maybe?

Labour calls on government to publish at risk register

From Andy Burnham

esponding to the ruling by the Information Commissioner on the NHS risk register, said:

"This is a crushing defeat for the Government as it mounts a desperate bid to ram this Bill through Parliament in the next ten days.

"The Prime Minister must accept today's ruling with good grace and order the immediate release of the risk register. Parliament and the public have a right to know what risks the Government is running with the NHS by reorganising it at this time of unprecedented financial pressure.

"The Government has a technical right of appeal but morally it has nowhere to go. It would be an outrageous insult to Parliament if they sought to fight this decision and pass the Bill without publishing the transition risk register. Parliament must stand up to the Government and uphold the public interest by seeing this ruling implemented to inform the final days of debate on the Health Bill.

"This ruling unravels the Government's attack on Labour and highlights the difference between the strategic and transition risk registers. In upholding the ruling on the transition risk register, they have today put beyond doubt the difference between the two documents. This is an endorsement of Labour's argument in this debate and of my actions as Health Secretary.

"I wish to pay particular tribute to my predecessor as Shadow Health Secretary John Healey who has assiduously pursued this campaign over many months. John has done the NHS a great service in leading this fight with such determination.

"As the Liberal Democrats members gather to debate the future of the Health Bill, they must send out the clearest possible message to their MPs and Peers that this ruling must be respected. We note a Liberal Democrat Early Day Motion calling on the Government to publish in the event of this ruling and today we call on them to stick to those words. Liberal Democrats pride themselves on a commitment to freedom of information and they must now put those words into action."


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Why Labour are wrong to say women should get cheaper car insurance

Labour have quite sensibly raised the issue of rocketing car insurance prices for women following the European Court of Human Rights Ruling that it's unlawful to charge men more for their car insurance, since to do so discriminates on the basis of gender.

Labour's shadow Transport Team make the excellent suggestion that insurance companies should be making wider use of black box recording technology, as we see in the United States to drive down the cost of insurance for the many, not just the few.

But it is highly ridiculous for anyone in 2012 to suggest it's acceptable to charge one gender more than another. The logic is that males are apparently more likely to have an accident than females - and as a number crunching exercise suggests, women should pay less.

This kind of profiling surely isn't acceptable in 2012 is it? Although more males have accidents than females,  isn't every individual just that, an individual?

And by this outdated logic, should we expect insurance companies to draw up a profile of which racial groups have the most accidents based on a complicated set of statistics?

Should white people, Asian people or black people expect to pay varying rates of car insurance? No? Then why should men and women?

tribute to my friend David Rathband

I have just been woken and told of the death of David Rathband - the PC shot by Roul Moat in July 2010, but more importantly, a man I got to know really very well - and a man I have counted as a friend for the last six months or more.

I literally have tears running down my face composing this post since this is the news I suspected I would one day hear - but hoped I never would.

Sight loss is incredibly traumatic for anyone - I know, I had low vision to functionally blind in a six month period in 1997, but evan I cannot imagine going from 20 / 20 sight to nothing overnight.

David had real difficulty coming to terms with his blindness, and it's something we spoke about often. Honestly, hand on heart, I REALLY thought I was having a positive impact - and certainly I felt David was making progress himself.

I know that he was due to re-join the waiting list for his own Guide Dog on his return from an extended trip to Australia, and I know he was looking forward to this.

I'm about to admit breaking a rule here... but I'll take the risk - David was my guest in the Commons last summer, and under very controlled conditions, I instructed him, and let him be guided under supervision by Guide Dog Chipp. The cops in Westminster will know because it wasn't exactly a low key event. David was a natural, and REALLY trusted my wonderful guide dog Chipp to take him safely around the place.

I am so very devistated because I feel that I failed to stop whatever has happened. I know NOTHING of the story, but strongly suspect suicide.

David's wife Kath will also like to know I'm sure that he didn't stop saying how much he loved her... not for an instant.

I can't shed any light on what might have happened in regard to David's passing, but I know that he spoke of "being in a bad place" on a few occasions.

My most heartfelt sorrow and wishes for David's family.

Rest in peace, my friend


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone