The Bookie always wins

Here is an excellent example of why, when I was young, my Mother always advised me never to bet my money.

The house always wins.

This is the cautionary tale of hapless punter Cliff Bryant who trustingly placed an accumulator bet with British Bookmaker Ladbrokes that snow would fall on 24 towns and cities across the north of England on Christmas Day.

Well as it happened he was right, but like one or two insurance companies Ladbrokes were reluctant to pay out when they realised it would cost them £7.1 million - So they found a handy technical reason to avoid it and refused.

They were happy enough to take the bet, but when it came time to actually pay up they said they had accepted the bet by – get this ‘mistake’ and so would not be honouring the bet. Apparently it was somehow against their rules, even though they did take the bet.

Magnanimously they are willing to refund the punter back his original stake.

Curiously and it seems foolishly I had expected better of Bookmakers than politicians. I had thought they might actually honour their promises.

Now it seems to me that if they had honoured the bet it would have been a massive boost for their credibility and good publicity. Probably over a year it would have netted them what it cost and more.

As it is they now have a reputation of not honouring their bets, of welching - and who would trust someone with a bet who has so spectacularly shown they don’t always honour their bets?

So, next time you are thinking about placing a ‘fun’ bet, or any bet, especially with Ladbrokes, perhaps you would be better advised to think twice and spend your money on something you might actually get when you part with it.

Brown blamed for economic problems

The Conservatives are blaming Gordon Brown for the present economic crisis.

Given that the current chancellor is effectively his glove puppet and prior to that, for a decade or more, he had his hands firmly on the economic tiller of the UK this is not unreasonable.

More to the point he is part of a party apparatus and world view that erodes our rights and liberties on an almost daily basis, all for our own good mind - because we just don’t know any better, or for our own safety to protect us from the CRIME and TERRORISM they are so ineffective in stemming.

So the Conservatives can go ahead and pin the blame on Gordon Brown and New Labour. They are right and welcome to do so.

Unfortunately the Conservatives and particularly David Cameron do not stand out as an immediately obvious alternative. Certainly it would be difficult to imagine they could fail to make a better showing in many areas, not least economics. But one looks at them as an alternative government more because they are the contender with the best likelihood of finally prising Gordon and his cronies out of power.

At the moment the Conservatives seem more a most likely much less bad alternative, than as something to actually actively seek for themselves.

Their chief attraction is that they are the most viable alternative that is not actually New Labour. Damned with faint praise.

British MPs may be banned from employing family members.

In the wake of the Derek Conway affair there are calls for MPs to be banned from employing family members.

Whilst many of us have little time for MPs in general it seems a little OTT to ban them from employing family members. Who they employ should just be more transparent and accountable. There should be some check that the work is actually carried out and the pay reasonable for it.

It has not been unknown for an MP to marry their secretary. Are they to be forced to sack them if they do and would that not contravene their rights?

There are other family businesses that work well enough and no one questions at all. The problem here is that public money is involved. Still we allow MPs to set their own wages and hours. To some extent this is as open to abuse as the employing of family members.

Surely a member of an MP’s family who was actually doing what they were paid for, at a fare rate, would be more likely to have the MP’s interests at heart, be more loyal, trustworthy and discreet, far less open to being turned by a reporter.

Maybe parliament should have something like (dare I say it), an HR department, to oversee the employment contracts, wages, expenses and hours - to keep things more honest and above-board on a more formal basis.

Hain finally resigns

Well Hain has finally resigned. It might even have redeemed him somewhat - if he hadn’t been desperately hanging on so far past what was reasonable, or honourable.

What has really done for him is this business of ‘anonymising’ donations through a so-called ‘think tank’. Moreover some of the original donors might well be regarded as foreign businessmen.

Gordon Brown cannot have helped to have been, at least as aware of the details of the matter as anyone else, (he only had to read the Guardian) who cared to check the facts for themselves - surely he has well paid researchers to do that for him, even if he is apparently as incompetent at that as well.

His minions seem to be trying to talk this up as loyalty on his part. Frome here it looks more like another instance of distinct lack of bottle, this time in the ‘do the right thing’ or even ‘do the necessary thing’ department.

If he had acted with more alacrity when the moment required it he would have come out of this looking better. As it is there can be no doubt he must have known the situation was dodgy but would not address the matter.

The Freedom to keep Information Secret Act?

Richard Thomas, the UK Information Commissioner, is planning to say that, the Freedom of Information Act's reputation is being jeopardised by "pointless and mischievous" requests.

He cites examples such as, a request to the Foreign Office on the amount spent on Ferrero Rocher chocolate, or one on how many eligible bachelors there were in the Hampshire police. Also how the BBC, has received over 90 enquiries from one person concerning the amount of expenses paid to senior staff.

He plans to outline new guidelines, highlighting the right of public bodies to reject "vexatious" requests and argues "A charter for responsible FoI requests will help to prevent requests which have no serious purpose or value, impose disproportionate burdens or have the effect of harassing the public body."

All couched in reasonable terms and language.

So who decides if it is “Vexatious”? If you don’t get a satisfactory answer the first, or second, time? Will you be able to ask again, or will you be branded as a loony, or a pest and thus safe to be ignored?

What next – A government database of pests to be refused under the Act?

It beats actually being put in a mental institution the way they were said to in the good old USSR I suppose…

How long before you have to justify why you want the info, make a case for it?

Probably the Ferero Rocher was a tongue in cheek request, though if someone felt strongly about querying the honesty of the adverts then the information might enable them to confirm, or refute the ambassador’s party ads.

Still, if someone has put themselves out enough to write requesting the information, even if only on the grounds of curiosity, then why should they not receive the information?

When the act was brought in it was known there would be costs, embarrassment and some inconvenience to those bound to supply the info, they can hardly complain now.

No - This looks suspiciously like the top of a slippery slope, possibly given a good shove, by the ’Right Honourable’ Gents & Ladies, wanting to keep their expenses out of the public eye and no doubt avoid too many ‘vexatious’ questions about them…