I was reflecting the other day, in conversation with my mother, that there is virtually no one left to trust.
We all know how MPs systematically cheated us out of billions over the last 30 years since Thatcher put a brake on the public perception of their greed, but let the wheels slide over the surreptitious increase in alternative income. And by now we know too that the ridiculous anachronism along the corridor did exactly the same thing. (Wouldn't this have been an ideal opportunity to rid ourselves of this bloated chamber forever)?
We are aware that despite all the theft, only a few dismal examples at the bottom of the food chain in both houses have been charged, found guilty and spent a matter of weeks, rather than months behind bars, released early, doubtless to write books about their misfortune.
It's become plain too, that members of the royal family, most notably Andrew, have been enjoying the jet set life at our expense, and sometimes at the expense of rich dictators' families, while his daughters fall out of night clubs at 4 in the morning followed by body guards paid for by us.
The tabloid press has made a habit of providing the scandal hungry public with salacious titbits about their favourite "celebrities" by hacking their phones... or at least the phones of the ones who didn't rush to disclose every detail of dirty doings (read Jordan and Pete). And the Met, England's finest, are complicit in this, having accepted hospitality, and employment from the press, then giving scant attentions to charges against them. (It's only fair to say that the Met aren't the only corrupt police force in the news.)
Banks, the finance industry and the City (the markets) privatised their profits and socialised their losses. Despite the billions we pumped into them, the government is having to guarantee loans to small business, and top up what they loan to first time buyers leaving us to wonder why we continue to have banks, or why we didn't let them fail. They'll all go to Mumbai .... awwww.
The story of HSBC'S selling insurance to vulnerable OAPs make my flesh creep, and despite the names of the executives responsible and their methods being known, no one has been arrested. (I heard this on the morning news programme, but it seems to have disappeared from the BBC site, so there is no link.)
Now today, despite denying it yesterday, the UK government has conceded that the lobbiests have direct access at the highest level to them and can get them to intercede and change policy, overnight in some cases (obviously only when it is in the bests interests of the country!!!). (Excuse me, must run, my hat just blew off.)
So far who is left to trust is the Scottish government. Don't let us down Alex. If you do you will never be forgiven.
My jaw hit the floor this morning listening to the Today programme. Sarah Montague was interviewing Paul Stephenson the commissioner of the London’s Metropolitan Police, and Boris Johnson, mayor of London.
Boris has always seemed like a bit of a clown to me, a strange choice to have as the mayor of the capital of England, but a relatively harmless old thing. However this morning he came over as barking mad. His biggest concern, it seemed, about last night’s disturbances was the shock caused to Mrs Parker-Bowles. I’m not entirely sure where Boris is coming from on this. Many of the people who voted for him are those whose kids will be worst hit by the £9,000 fees. Y
et in his outrage at the shock caused to Mrs Parker-Bowles he forgot all about them. We were lucky, he told Sarah; the authorities allow people to do this kind of thing in this democracy; there could be water cannon, but no. And still, for all that freedom he gives them, people have the audacity to frighten the life out of Mrs Parker-Bowles!
Is Mrs Parker-Bowles one of Boris’s paramours, I began to wonder as he ranted on about her.
And the “incredibly lucky to still have his job” Stephenson was no better. It was outrageous, he spluttered, that “the highnesses” (yes he actually said “THE highnesses”) had been so disturbed by what, presumably, he would call “the lownesses”.
He seemed not to respond to Sarah’s point that most half way sane people wouldn’t have driven through that part of London on a night when they knew that there were riots, inconvenient though that might be. He ev
entually replied that the situation changed very rapidly and they were caught unawares. Imagine being caught unawares with “highnesses” in the car ....Oh NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
He would have no truck with the fact that it was idiotic for two people dressed up in theatrical costumes, paid for by us, costing many times the entire wardrobe of any of these students and all of their friends, in a car also provided by us, that probably none of them would ever aspire to owning, in a convoy of protection agents, again provided at our expense, drove straight into the middle of the riots.
Sarah asked him if it would not have been sensible for them at least to have been in a less conspicuous car, but no. He was having none of it. The “thugs” (yes he called them that), were at fault.
But I keep the best for last. He said that the protection officers had done a wonderful job a
nd that they had acted with restraint. They were armed. He left it hanging in the air...
Clearly somewhat flabbergasted Sarah asked if he thought it would be reasonable in the situation for protection officers to shoot people, and he simply repeated that his officers had acted with restraint, that their job was to get what he called their “principles” to their destination safely by whatever means.
Sarah gave him several chances to disclaim the obvious inference to be drawn from that... that it would have been in order for them, if they thought there was a possibility of the “principles”, or “highnesses” (whichever, I was getting confused about who they were by now) not getting to the theatre on time, to simply mow down the “lownesses”.
Boris, was asked his opinion and declined to disagree with the commissioner. I fear he may have forgotten in dismissing the "thugs" with such disdain, that when he was their age his hobby was getting drunk and smashing up restaurants in company with the prime minster and the finance secretary.
I have to say that it must have been a frightening experience for these "highnesses", and I can feel sorry for them, but there are other issues here, and the idea that crowds could be shot at because "highnesses" are being threatened is simply ridiculous. They should not have been out in that situation. It's not like they were going to some important function on which the future of the state relied. THEY WERE GOING TO THE THEATRE.
Anyway, there you have it. Middle Class students and parents be warned.These “principles/highnesses” people must get to the theatre on time regardless of how many of you are sacrificed in the process.
You really would think that the theatre would just hold the curtain, wouldn’t you.
The police officer filmed pushing Ian Tomlinson to the ground during the G20 protests is to face an internal misconduct hearing. Mr Tomlinson died after inadvertently being caught up in the demonstrations in London in 2009.
The English procurator fiscal, known as the CPS, decided not to press charges against Simon Harwood, the police officer who pushed him to the ground, precipitating his death.
Instead he will face a disciplinary hearing charge for gross misconduct. If he is found guilty he could be sacked.
Deborah Glass, the IPCC deputy has directed that the hearing be held in public because of the gravity and exceptional circumstances of the case. The incident was caught on video which showed Mr Tomlinson being struck with a police baton and pushed to the ground. (Didn’t they make it illegal to photograph of video police officers around that time?)
The guy wasn’t even involved in the demonstration. He was walking home from work.
The Allegations against Harwood are that:
a) he struck Mr Tomlinson on his left thigh with his baton;
b) he pushed Mr Tomlinson so he fell to the ground;
c) such dangerous actions inadvertently caused or contributed to the death of Mr Tomlinson;
d) the use of force was not necessary, proportionate or reasonable in the circumstances.
I have never understood why he didn’t face charges of murder, apart from the very obvious reason that he is one of “us” and Mr Tomlinson was one of “them”. But the official reason was that there was "sharp disagreement between the medical experts" about what caused of death, after 3 post mortems.
Personally I would have thought that being hit with a baton and pushed to the ground a few moments before you died would have had a pretty strong connexion to it!
You would think too, that given the importance of this case, and the interest that was shown across not just England, but the world that the Home office would have been able to provide a pathologist that wasn’t dodgy. But no, with their usual level of incompetence they put up Fred Patel to do the post mortum. He found that the man had died of coronary artery disease.
Strangely (or not so strangely) he missed the massive internal bleeding as the result of a being hit with a blunt instrument along with cirrhosis of the liver. I wonder where he trained.
He must be really thick. Even if he was a stooge set up by the home office to protect one of their own, he might have noticed that Mr Tomlinson had cirrhosis of his liver.
A third PM agreed with the second one.
The hearing will be presided over by two senior police officers from Harwood’s own force (that’s fair then), and an independent member of the public selected from a list appointed by the Metropolitan Police 
Authority. (It just gets fairer and fairer)!!!.
So, am I dim, or is being a London police officer enough to save you from being charged with murder or manslaughter if you beat an innocent bystander to death?
Pics: (1) Ian Tomlinson going about his business of walking home after work, a concept most of us can understand having done it; (2) Ian Tomlinson being helped to his feet having been beaten by PC Harwood; (3) The aforementioned PC Harwood in civvies, and fortunate not to meet a policeman in a bad mood an d in possession of a truncheon; (4)Protesters (yes I know, the government doesn’t like them, nor, it appears do the police), who think, as I do, that although police may find themselves in special circumstances relating to their work, they do not necessarily have the right to beat innocent men to death in the street, when all they wanted to do was go home for their dinner.
The tabloid press has made a habit of providing the scandal hungry public with salacious titbits about their favourite "celebrities" by hacking their phones... or at least the phones of the ones who didn't rush to disclose every detail of dirty doings (read Jordan and Pete). And the Met, England's finest, are complicit in this, having accepted hospitality, and employment from the press, then giving scant attentions to charges against them. (It's only fair to say that the Met aren't the only corrupt police force in the news.)
