BRITONS NEVER NEVER NEVER WILL BE SLAVES... OOOOPS!

Probably everyone knows about this by now, as it was released by the Guardian last night, and, quite rightly, many bloggers have written about it.


Close Protection UK was paid £1.5 million by the Home office, DWP and DCLS, to provide stewarding services for the boat thing on the Thames with the Queen and royal family, which was staged on Sunday. Instead they used unpaid labour.


Worse still the unpaid labour wasn't informed that they were not to be paid until they were being coached in from outside London; they were left to sleep on concrete under London bridge in the wet and the cold; there were no toilet facilities and they had to get dressed in their uniforms with no privacy at all.


I wonder if Mr Cameron and his rotten DWP ministers Duncan-Smith and Grayling are proud of the fact that they are paying out £1.5 million to a company which uses slave labour instead of using taxes to actually pay its staff.


The firm  has issued "sincere apologies" for what it called the "London Bridge incident", but insisted that it had not been exploiting individuals, but providing work experience.


Aye, Close Protection... tell that to William Wilberforce.


Although I'm a republican and consider the amount of money spent on this jubilee to be excessive, and I wish it hadn't been rammed down my throat so much, I am perfectly happy that people who like that kind of thing, have enjoyed a little break from work, and a bit of humbleness before their betters. Quite genuinely I am saddened that it has been spoiled in this way typically by a government which seems to think that everything has to be farmed out to chiselling, cheating, lying scum bags, namely their friends, so that they can make money out of providing a second rate service. 


Slavery goes a tad too far though, even for Cameron's despicable crew.

YOU MIGHT WELL LOOK SAD, DAVE

Not only did the week not start too well for Cameron; it's gone on not being good for Cameron.


I'm not one to complain about u-turns. For sure there will be times when any government brings in a law that is at odds with the public's will, or is unworkable, or just plain silly.


And without a doubt, in cases like this, a u-turn is the right and proper thing to do, even if it means the less cerebral of opponents jumping up and down and waving their knickers in the air with joy.

Mrs Thatcher was stupid enough not to see the wisdom of climbing down from time to time when necessary. In the end the "lady's" refusal to turn was her undoing.

So it is good that Cameron's government u-turns on bad policies.  The shame is that there are so many bad policies for them to u-turn on. Buzzards' nest, pasties, caravans, secret trials, charitable donations tax... all in one week! It must be a record. The Telegraph has a full list of the u-turns (although they can only find 33, and I suspect that there are more).

To a certain extent it has taken the heat off Hunt, but I should think  it won't do him any good in the end. He really has to go. He's not just a failed minister, he's a complete laughing stock. The question is, will he take Cameron with him. The answer: probably not. Cameron has more front than Cannes and will brazen out the fact that despite knowing how biased Hunt was (he knew because Hunt had emailed him to tell him); despite knowing that Hunt used to work for Murdoch and that his wife still does; despite Hunt being friends with the Murdoch set, he appointed him to replace Vince Cable (who was removed for being biased) and to a quasi judicial role adjudicating on a massive bid by the Murdochs.

Added to all that he made a gut churningly sycophantic speech about the Queen saying that he depended on her counsel, because it was full of British common sense. If he has been acting on the advice of the Queen, and her good old British common sense (no other nation has it quite like the Brits), then all I can say is that her good old British common sense is about as dependable as the good old British Railways, or the good old Royal Mail. Because he's managed to get damn all right so far.

And there's still Friday to come!

Random Thoughts...

Click to enlarge

****************************************

In an appeal to the party to fight hard outside its heartlands in the south of England, Cameron said the Tories are "the proud party of this one nation", able to speak for voters in every part of Britain. And he managed to keep a straight face throughout!

******************************

"I cannot recall a budget that has unravelled as completely and as spectacularly as Mr Osborne's latest effort. It is one thing to raise taxes, quite another to do so while attempting to disguise your budget as a tax-cutting affair. It tarnishes the entire enterprise with deceit."

Alex Massie, Spectator - http://bit.ly/J4QaEp

It appears that while the festivities for the Queen’s jubilee (this is a good article btw) will be in full swing south of the Border, Scots will not so readily be reaching for the bunting. Only three organisations have applied to hold a street party in the country's major cities during the weekend of the Diamond Jubilee. Apparently in England, Cameron has been encouraging people to make a big showing for the festivities, and remarkably at a time when the Health Service in England is throwing people out of hospital in their pyjamas in the middle of the night with no money for a taxi home for the want of funding, Cameron has actually made grant money available for festivities.  Funny old world under the Tories; weird sense of priorities, huh?

Oh yeah, and with weird priorities in mind, Ed Davey’s special advisor, Chris Nicholson, has called for the coalition to slash Winter Fuel Allowance, maternity pay and free bus passes. Why not? If the idea (per the last post) is to kill off all the sick people, why not get rid of old people too? Then they could reduce the top rate of tax for billionaires even further.

Talking of bus passes, I note that the bus companies are whining because of changes to the bus operators grant from the Scottish government. These bus companies would do well to remember that, if it were not for the older and disabled people to take advantage of their services, thanks to the generosity of the government, there would be hardly anyone on any bus apart from in rush hours. Quite apart from the social implications of this for the elderly, this would mean that the companies would only be able to run the barest of services for the rest of the day, greatly inconveniencing the few passengers that they would have, and hugely reducing their profits. They really can't have it all ways, although god knows that's what they appear to want.

Again talking of buses, what the hell is it with National Express drivers? I've probably mentioned this before but it does seem that a condition of employment for bus drivers in this company is that they must be sour faced, miserable, bad tempered, social skill lacking, asses! And while we're on the subject, does this company employ cleaners? If the answer is in the affirmative, do they provide them with hot water, cloths, brushes and detergent? I ask because to describe the buses as clorty would be praise indeed. The buses run by Stagecoach, by comparison, are clean and the staff presentable. polite and cheery. If anyone from National Express management reads this I'd be glad of a hint as to why your service is so bloody awful, your buses are so bloody filthy and your staff so bloody disagreeable!  (PS, before I get slated, I know that there are a few notable exceptions.

THERE THEY GO, BARGING IN WITH THE SENSITIVITY OF A HIPPO

Are you worried about the future?


Well don't be. Because by June next year all this austerity stuff will be in the past.


How do I know that?

Simple. We we will be able to afford a royal barge... Well, I hope we will, because we are getting one.


No, I lie, we aren't actually getting one, so much as borrowing a luxury Thames steamer from its owner, a guy called Philip Morrell, (look out for his name in the honours list sometime soon) and doing it up a bit. 

We are taking the boat and making it into one of the splendid barges that transported royals in the 17th century when, presumably, they had plenty of money. And we are going to have a pageant. Well, we are not going to have a pageant. London is going to have a pageant. We are just going to help to pay for it.


Resplendent in Red and Gold, the barge will carry the Queen and the Duke down the river, with a flotilla of 1000 small ships and boats. There is even a Pageant Master, Adrian Evans (look out for his name in the honours list sometime soon). 


The barge will be adorned with flowers from the royal gardens. Floral displays in red, gold and purple will be created by Rachel de Thame (look out for her name in the honours list sometime soon).

Mr Evans said that the royal barge must be a jewel. Well, yes, I can see that. We wouldn't expect any less, rich old lot that we are.


The Queen and the Duke, along with other members of their extended family who will be joining them, will be seated on ornate chairs under a canopy of gold on the top deck of the boat. The sides will be covered in rich red drapes and the Queen's cypher will be engraved on the bow, beneath a crown.


And all this for only a couple of hours' pageant... after which the barge will be handed back to the generous Sir Philip, I mean Mr Morrell (What am I saying? You didn't read it here if anyone asks), and it will be worth at least 100 times what it is worth now.


So, by my reckoning, if we will be able to afford all that by next June, we should be able to afford to leave cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy off our hit list of lazy work shy layabouts. Huh, Mr Duncan Smith?

In truth I don't grudge the Queen a celebration. She has done that stinking job for 65 long years; she's never really had a private life; she's been lumbered with a family from hell and a series of prime ministers (with whom she has been forced to spend time) that you would cross a continent or six to avoid.


And she has gone down in history as the longest reigning monarch since...well you tell me...so I reckon we should give the old dear a big thank you. As Munguin said, other people get a gold watch.


But this ostentatious celebration is surely not right at a time when so many of us are suffering so badly. 


Unless Fred Goodwin and some of his grubby associates would like to volunteer to pay for the junket?