Jumped or pushed?

Well – He of the clunking fist, the old lady dissing, Gordon Brown himself is offering to resign, for the good of his party.

And all the pundits are going “Really!?!” amazed - at least the CNN ones seem to be.

How is this anything other than to be expected?

Gordon knows perfectly well that he has, whatever Labour spin MDs may try to say, led his party to a pretty bad, not to put too fine a point on it, defeat.

The only thing that kept the “dead man walking” actually walking, were the electric shocks supplied by the Dark Lord and puppet master himself – Madleson.

Really it was a choice of jump or be pushed.

Someone had to be the fall guy for what they could see was coming. The Labour leadership was a poisoned chalice no one sane wanted before the election... once they decided they had little chance of an outright victory.

They must all have been thinking “Let's fight like hell for what seats we can save, let Gordon take the bullet and maybe let Dave Cameron make himself seriously unpopular trying to sort the mess we made out - Back in 5 years time”.

It didn’t work out quite like that and now it is a real mess.

Labour clearly had no chance of hooking up with the Liberal Democrats while Gordon was in nominal charge, given his reported relationship with Nick Clegg. Could not make a majority with the Liberals either, not without minority Nationalist parties - and that would be an unstable mess that would barely have any majority anyway.

Maybe on alternate wednesdays if they were lucky.

Unless the Liberals and Conservatives can come up with something that is not Schizophrenic any coalition they make will not be able to last, or function effectively either.

Maybe what we really need is a general election?

Democracy at work?

Earlier this month I posted on Lord Moynehan’s proposed bill to give the police the power to raid homes in order to search for so-called "performance enhancing drugs". Allegedly to prevent cheating at the 2012 Olympics.

I took my own advice and wrote to Eric Pickles Chairman of the Conservative Party and Conservative MP to voice my concerns. Nothing like going to the top.

He replied fairly promptly and actually answered the basic thrust of my letter, so good for him in that. The relevant section of his reply was as follows:

“I understand your concerns about this issue. Whilst I believe these measures are necessary to safeguard against the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport, it is important that they are not used unfairly against members of the public who have been prescribed these drugs for genuine medical purposes.

Please rest assured that my colleagues and I will press the Government to ensure that these powers are used for their intended purpose.”

Do you know... I really don’t think he did understand half my concerns about the issue based on his response.

Sports are a game. There may be money tied up in them, a lot in some cases - and prestige, but they are in the end still a game.

What’s more they are essentially a private arrangement between individuals, or groups of individuals, who agree a set of rules they will abide by. It may even go so far as being a contract, but that is still essentially between the individuals involved.

If someone cheats on those rules then it is a matter for all the other participants and the organisers. The governing bodies of the sports. The rest of us may form opinions about what was done and the people who did it, but that is it.

Even if the state decides to organise a sporting event it is still essentially a private matter.

I, like the overwhelming majority or citizens, have entered into no agreements. I am not involved in it, except possibly to be inconvenienced by it when travelling and directly, or indirectly, involuntarily having to pay towards it.

Also possibly watching a fraction of it on TV, after having paid again to do that too, either by means of the UK TV tax, or directly to one of the other content providers.

I don’t care particularly strongly about the games, not nearly so much as I do about how much I pay in tax. They let them use advanced materials and equipment in some events.

If they gave athletes carte blanche to use performance enhancing drugs as much as they liked the performances might even be more entertaining. They would certainly be on a guaranteed level playing field then… except some would not have so much money to put into training and equipment or time. Maybe they should insist on equal funding as well.

The thing is the staggering majority of us are not a part of it or involved in it in any realistic sense any more than we would be involved in horticulture if we had a day out and visited a country fair that had a vegetable growing competition.

It is simply wrong for the state to pass any law relating to the rules of a private competition. Would the government seriously consider making a law to ban overacting on the football pitch? Giving the police the power to curtail a footballer’s thespian leanings?

You can hear the catch slogan now… “Two to five for taking a dive? – It’s the LAW”

So… no Mr Pickles. If you believe for a second the measures are necessary then you clearly feel the state has far more right to interfere with my liberty than I do.

The state has no business whatsoever attempting to safeguard against the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport.

It is interesting to note the measures are proposed by an unelected Tory Lord who is completely unaccountable to the electorate. And that Mr Pickles, occupying a safe Tory seat as he does, is effectively only practically accountable to the Tory hierarchy.

The legislation in it’s very conception is anti democratic and authoritarian.

As for his assertion that “I will press the Government to ensure that these powers are used for their intended purpose”, at best I fear this simply demonstrates grossly misplaced optimism on his part.

We are all well aware that very little recent legislation that has been passed granting powers to the police of councils or virtually any public body has actually been used as they were allegedly intended. In practically all cases there has been creep. As I mentioned in my previous post on the subject and my letter to Mr Pickles.

So from his letter it seems he has a touchingly misplaced faith at variance with the observed facts that this legislation will, unlike most other recent legislation not be abused by those executing it. Plus a certain authoritarian belief that the state has a God given right to be intrude where it should not even be considering intruding.

Is it worth telling him do you think?

Crooked Lawyers

I was disappointed – but not surprised - to read that crooked immigration lawyers have been milking the immigration and legal aid system for all it’s worth in order to facilitate economic migrants gain illegal residence in the UK.

Apparently, according to the papers, they have even fiddled forms, prepared false stories and suggested to ‘clients’ how they can disguise their fingerprints. So much for the Government’s much vaunted - and largely pointless - Biometric IDs.

One quails to think how many of these parasites there are out there, but the report seems to suggest some £12 million extra may have siphoned out of the system in the past year. Presumably some are more cottage industry ‘extra pocket money’ types, rather less industrial scale than others.

One question that springs immediately to mind is: What is the real difference between these sleazebags and the human traffickers who smuggle migrants into the UK illegally? They are “white collar” is the only obvious one.

One suspects that the maze of human rights legislation introduced by this government can only assist these crooks in their schemes, as it appears to do for most other sorts of crooks and terrorists. If ever there was a case of the law of unforeseen consequences biting inept legislators in the backside the human rights legislation would appear to be it.

Clearly it didn’t escape some lawyers that the legislation - and specialising in it, might be a licence to print money. One must suppose it would have been more apparent to politicians who are also trained lawyers…

Will any politician have the intestinal fortitude to take this ill thought out legislation on? Health advice would be: ”Don’t hold your breath”…

Repent at leisure?

Apparently the Government are going to rush through legislation to ensure there will never be another “Baby P” case.

Ed Balls the “Children's Secretary” is planning to put forward legislation make local services more accountable forcing them to chart their progress in intervening at an early stage.

Now any right thinking individual would wish to prevent any such dreadful thing ever happening again. But one fears hurried I’ll considered legislation is not the solution.

It is almost certain there is perfectly effective legislation already in place that would be adequate to the purpose - if only it had been used. Similarly there was an enquiry after the last dreadful failure of Harringay Council with Victoria Climbié. An enquiry made recommendations, were they ever actually implemented properly? Were all existing guide rules adhered to?

One suspects not.

The last thing this country needs is yet another piece of New Labour legislation that only does what other legislation, if actually enforced, already does, or invents new subdivisions of existing offences.

You can be sure it will not be any better and will almost certainly eventually be found to have unexpected and detrimental consequences, in this case probably to ordinary families.

Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC) observed “Haste in every business brings failures.” This seems to have entirely escaped the attention of the current government, with their hatred of any history not post 1945 and not spun.

RoSPA warns of "health and safety" threat to freedom

It seems that even those with a vested interest in the Health and Safety industry are realising things may have gone just a little too far.

The chief executive of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) Tom Mullarkey warned safety experts they will be accused of constructing a nanny state and damaging freedom if they continue to meddle unnecessarily in people's private lives.

He pointed out the obvious fact that "absolute safety" is an unattainable goal in any case.

Clearly it is insane to mindlessly persue absolute saftey beyond the point where the persuit of it is a greater threat to public well being and quality of life than the original risk.

Unfortunately one fears things may have already gone too far to be recoverable.

Whilst Mr Mullarkey may have a real interest in safety it is difficult to credit that many of those behind the burgeoning compensation culture do not have their eye at least as much on the money to be had at the expense of the taxpayer and consumer - that and their lucrative jobs.

This in turn terrifies the likes of teachers, volunteers and local councils that they will be sued. Those that are still willing to take the chance they may arbirarily be accused of being a paedophile if they so much as pat a child on the head and are willing to undergo the bother and expense of often multiple criminal records checks.

Could it be about time there were much stiffer costs for bringing some of the more dubious cases for compensation to court, for both the party that brings the case and their attournies. Also it might be good if a much greater weight were given to their not having taken reasonable precautions, or if they are partly responsible.

More more rational limits on amounts awarded might also be a good thing.
It begins to look as if greed for un justified and undeserved compensation payments is gnawing away at some of the underpinings of a healthy society.

Another day, another New Labour Governemnt Database

The Nanny state, apparently deeply concerned that it is leaving us any privacy at all, is now turning it’s attention to the creation of a newsuper database to record when we make phone calls, or send emails and who to, oh and all the web sites we visit.

Of course this is purely ‘for our own good’, to protect us all from terrorism. That catchall ‘bogeyman’ excuse of the Authoritarian state, ‘protecting the citizen from the terrorist and criminal’. The same citizen that the State will not permit to defend themselves against criminals with the frequently used threat of prosecution hanging over them if they do.

A Home Office spokesman disingenuously attempted to claim that: "Changes to the way we communicate, due particularly to the internet revolution, will increasingly undermine our current capabilities to obtain communications data - essential for counter-terrorism and the investigation of crime - and use it to protect the public.

Now as far as I know it is still possible for the authorities to tap phone conversations and intercept post, within the law. They do not currently have a database of all letters sent and to whom as far as I am aware. Nor have they ever had one.

So when the spokes person claimed:"Losing the ability to use this data would have very serious consequences for law enforcement and intelligence gathering in the UK." it did not follow logically at all.

The simple fact is that the state already has access to this and more, such as emails and web useage if they suspect someone. It is going too far to monitor us all.
And we all know the State can be trusted to look after this information and not loose it on a bus, or sell it, or something.

And we all know just how much the promise of the State is worth when they say they will only use legislation only for the purpose it was framed.

...Or maybe we could ask Islandic banks about how anti terrorism legislation was recently limbered up ready to be used to freeze Islandic funds in the UK. Or how other legislation was used to silence and eject hecklers from a Labour party conference.

Now Shops that contain Post Offices may be forced to close

One wonders what exactly is behind the current round of post office closures.

There is evidence to suggest that the Defra is closing viable post offices. Now it seems they also want to ensure that those Post Offices they have earmarked for destruction, that they ‘withdraw the whip’ from, actually do go under and close.

They refuse to allow the shops to continue to act as Post Offices and are making any compensation offered for the withdrawal of the ‘franchise’ dependant on crippling their businesses by preventing them providing the likes of lottery tickets, Offering any bill payment services, foreign currency services, or reselling stamps, etc.

They appear to want to force as much as possible of the ‘business’, the soon to be ex Sub Post Offices, have, to use the remainder of the network - Regardless of the cost to the customers, or the Sub Post Offices they are casting aside. Or indeed competition laws.

Clearly if anyone cares about the Post Office’s customers it is the Post and Sub Postmasters and Postmistresses - The staff that interact with their customers, not the higher management of the Post Office, or New Labour.

They seem desperate to shuck off as much as possible of the actual service to the public that the Post Office, as an institution, has provided for us all for so many years.

It seems to be yet another example of a valued institution (probably unintentionally) ultimately destroyed by an inept state trying to turn it from something valuable to British society, part of the glue that holds it together, the hidden infrastructure, into something it never was, nor could be - and retain the value and values it had.

New Labour Back bencher threat to agency staff

One wonders if the MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston, New Labour's Andrew Miller, is actually intent on damaging the UK economy, or if it is only a side effect of his attempt to grab more influence for the unions.

Supported (of course) by the trade unions he has tabled a private members bill to force the same rights/benefits as full time employees receive on agency staff, such a sick pay.

The union said there should be a "level playing field" with permanently employed people.

I have often heard full time employees express slightly jealous amazement when they find out what agency staff are paid by comparison.

The fact is that agency staff usually get a higher pay scale than permanent staff. This generally makes up at least the financial difference for sick pay and annual leave, etc. that they don’t get.

They usually also get a premium to make up for the lack of job security, as they generally fill posts where full time employees are off long term sick, having children, or the post is unable to be filled. They are also used when capacity suddenly and temporarily needs to be expanded for a project.

These people tend to be independent and avoid union membership. They also tend to take far less sick leave; so can spend that portion of their wage as they choose.

If they had the same rights and conditions as full time employees they would no longer be competitive, or of any use to an employer, in the capacity they are generally used in. It would not be economical to pay them the same rates as they get now.

If these rights were introduced then this sector would become much less competitive and be markedly reduced. The knock on is that all the businesses that make use of them to fill in would be less efficient and less cost effective.

This would in turn force them to look for redundancies more often and make full time employees positions a little less secure. It would of course strengthen the union’s position.

Private treatment initiative underutilised by NHS, rollout halted.

It seems that Independent sector treatment centres (ISTCs), created in a bid to cut waiting lists, to take care of minor surgery and diagnostic tests such knee and hip replacements, hernias and cataract operations, are being under utilised. Some are being passed only half the work they agreed to handle.

This is hardly surprising when you realise that it is not in the interests of cash strapped NHS hospitals to pass them patients - as they are paid per person treated and have to compete for the patients.

Under this arrangement It makes economic sense for NHS hospitals to hang on to as many patients as possible, even though this may disadvantage the patient, as it may involve, at a minimum, much longer waits for treatment.

Thus the contractual arrangements have the, presumably, unintentional side effect of sabotaging the initiative.

David Worskett, representing private health providers, pointed out that part of the problem was also due to GPs being reluctant to utilise them in some areas.

There have been two waves of ISTCs opened since they were announced in 2003. Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, has scrapped some of the second wave because of ‘lack of demand’, despite waiting lists. He has also pulled the plug on the third wave.

This may not necessarily be seen as entirely bad, or to be avoided, by NHS supporters who are vehemenently opposed to any private sector involvement on ideological grounds. It is also likely some employed within in the NHS may closely identify their interests with it’s remaining as it is.

Karen Jennings, of Unison stated: "This is money that should have gone into the NHS."

Is it really a myth that migrant workers do jobs UK workers wont?

According to the Telegraph a new report by Migrationwatch is claiming it is a myth that foreign workers are just doing work which UK workers don’t want, or filling newly-created jobs.

There is a suggestion that a generation of low-skilled British workers risks being ‘trapped’ in unemployment by record immigration.

They express concern that a combination of generous benefits and immigrant labour willing to work for low wages will create "an underclass of discouraged British workers."

A single person under 25, on the minimum wage of £193 pw is just £10 a day better off than if they were on the dole. A married person with two children is £30 pw better off than on the dole.

So what’s all this myth exploding nonsense then? The British worker would appear to be virtually as well off on the dole as doing these jobs. It is not surprising they don’t want to do the jobs. But it is still definitely a matter of them not being willing to do the jobs for the money.

It seems that Frank Field, the former Labour welfare reform minister interprets this as immigrant workers ‘trapping’ British-born people in unemployment, because the higher the level of immigration in an area, the ‘harder’ it is for the unemployed to come off Jobseeker's Allowance.

This is backwards logic at best. The state can hardly blame migrant workers for the fact that it pays such generous dole benefits that, by the time transport costs and the bother of getting up in the morning are taken into account, the recipients are unwilling to do jobs that would probably actually leave them worse off, while the more motivated migrant workers are willing to underbid them for work.

Surely the UK workers would be unwilling to work for these wages, doing these jobs in any case?

Is that not the reason why those jobs are available for the migrant workers to do in the first place - otherwise all these jobs would surely already be filled by British workers?

This situation primarily results from the level the Government sets it’s dole benefits at, combined with our membership of the EC.

Sperm donor fights CSA demands for cash

Two Lesbians Terri and Sharon Arnold got ‘married’. They decided they wanted children and being unable to come up with it themselves canvassed for sperm donations amongst their male acquaintances to avoid costs of £3 to £4 K.

They conned London Fireman Andy Bathie into donating sperm on the understanding that he would never have any responsibility financial or otherwise. After having one child they asked Andy to donate again, so a second child would be full genetic siblings.

Now Terri and Sharon have gone their separate ways and Sharon has left Terrie ‘holding the baby’. It seems that Sharon can walk away from the relationship Scott free and the Child support Agency (CSA) is rather unjustly holding poor old Andy responsible instead of Sharon. They are confiscating £450 each month from his pay.

The CSA’s view is that, unless a child was legally adopted, both biological parents are financially responsible.

They state "The Child Support Agency legislation is not gender or partnership based. Only anonymous sperm donors at licensed centres are exempt from being treated as the legal father. This does not apply to men who donate sperm as part of a personal arrangement."

Now Andy is to fight the CSA in court over the matter.
So there you are folks. Never ever donate sperm without taking into account you may be held financially responsible.

Harriet Harman plans to make it illegal to pay for sex in the UK

Why is it with our current government that if there is bad way of doing something, amongst a host of other choices, they will inevitably make a beeline for it - and then compound the problem with incompetence.

Harriet Harman is at it again. Last heard of in connection with concealed donations. This time she wants to make it illegal to pay for sex. Her motives would appear to be reasonably honest, but her reasoning is certainly open to question.

Firstly you can pass as many laws as you like (and New-Labour frequently abuse this privilege) - but that won’t stop it happening if it is something people refuse to give up, or want regardless of the consequences. All you do is bring the idea of the law into disrepute and leave whatever it is you are legislating in the hands of criminals.

Take prohibition in the US – It is arguable that absolutely made organised crime in the US and effectively criminalised vast swathes of the otherwise law-abiding population. It failed and left a detrimental legacy felt to this day.

The ‘War on Drugs’ that is obviously highly effective. It has clrearly absolutely eradicated cannabis use in the UK – Not!.

Illegal drugs are even more lucrative than legal ones and almost certainly maintain an increased level of real crime to support habits. More to the point the illegality of it sucks people who are tying to deal with a habit into a world of crime that they might otherwise never have become involved with.

So paying for sex. How will you define it? What exactly is payment? Cash? Payment in kind?

When all is said and done under the ‘moral questions’ it is a ‘service industry’. The government should be more interested in protecting those who provide sex for money, ensuring that they aren’t forced to, that they will be reasonably safe and able to complain to the police if they are abused. That it can’t be concealed in the shadows.

The English Collective of Prostitutes are certainly not in favour of Harriet’s crusade/jihad. Their spokes woman pointed out that forcing prostitution further underground would only make women more vulnerable to violence.

With this government the first reaction always seems to be towards thoughtless reflexive additional ill-conceived legislation, with little or no consideration of the likely consequences - and a sound bite to go with it, to attempt to justify their existence.

Environment Minister seeks to increase UK Cod Quotas

Jonathan Shaw, UK Environment Minister is planning to lobby the EU for an increase in cod quotas for the UK next month when they meet to decide 2008s quotas.

Predictably researchers, including the EU's advisers, say stocks are still too low.


Helen MacLachlan of the pressure group WWF UK complained: “I would say that 'business as usual' in the North Sea is not an acceptable position for a minister to be taking,"
"To be looking for an increase in cod quotas without changing fishing practices is unsustainable and untenable."

Callum Roberts of York university critiscised him saying; “If he's suggesting increases in cod quotas then he doesn't seem to be fully in control of his brief yet”

Their comments go with the ‘accepted wisdom’ of those who never actually do any fishing and rely entirely on theory.

Shaw may well have a point though.

Although it is seldom spoken of the UK has done rather badly out of the EU over fishing.

In order to be allowed the dubious ’benefits’ of joining the EU, the Government gave away fishing rights over the UK’s territorial waters it had formerly enjoyed - to allow them to be effectively plundered by European fishermen, to the detriment of our own. This over use helped damaged the stocks and devastated the UK fishing industry.

North Sea cod numbers appear to have experienced a small recovery in the last few years.

Also the fact is that the current EU quota system results in the needless killing and dumping of tons of cod. Thanks to the law of unintended consequences. When fishermen go hunting for prawn they often catch cod as well. If they are over their cod ‘quota’ these dead cod have to be dumped back into the sea.

So in fact many more cod are caught and killed than those setting the quotas realise and the quotas actually result in the appalling waste of tons of cod.

UK think tank wants to Downgrade Christmas to be 'even-handed' to non-Christians

The Institute of Public Policy Research in all it’s think-tanky ‘brilliance’ has decided it might be a good idea to downgrade Christmas.

I know it’s become too commercial over the last few decades - but why? To help make the UK more multi cultural. That’s why?.

Just when the consensus amongst the ‘great and good’ had worked it’s way round to the conclusion that ‘multiculturalism’ does not work, is devisive and causes more harm than good. The IPPR is marching the other way.

They are suggesting it in the interests of even-handedness and argue we should mark other religious festivals in the same way.

Some problems there – Exactly how many of them?

If you are not going to accord all religions the same treatment what ones do you ignore and how do you justify it?

Should they all be Bank Holidays? When will anyone work if they are?

Their ‘solution’ looks rather more like just another opportunity for the law of unintended consequences to wreak damage and cause ill feeling, just another bunch of cognoscenti eroding of social cohesion…

UK Police Chief demands Government Targets be scrapped

Chief Supt Ian Johnston of the Superintendents Association is to attack the whole concept of Government crime fighting targets and demand they be scrapped.

He has a point. Government and Nu-Lab in particular seems to have a sort of 'Midas touch' in reverse, where every thing it touches turns to crap – but without the redeeming possibility of it being composted and therefore of some use.

Government crime fighting targets are yet another example of where in the galloping pursuit of yet another sound-bite, or unexamined quick-fix policy, the full ramifications are not properly thought through and the law of unintended consequences bites NU-Lab on the backside yet again.

What actually happens is that the limited targets are concentrated on, often to the exclusion of actually doing the job properly.

In the case of the police that can mean, instead of responding to the needs of their local population, in a given area, they can end up arresting victims, as well as perpetrators to get extra ‘detections’.

End up arresting, or reporting people, that would be more effectively dealt with differently, or do not actually need dealing with in the first place.

Thus producing the ‘right’ figures becomes a ghastly parody of what the public actually wants and the police begin to loose the general support of the public.

Government needs to consider much of it’s policies and legislation very much more carefully than it does.

It is in far too much of a hurry to legislate and ‘reform’ to bother to make sure what it does is not seriously flawed. It has weakened scrutiny further by weakening/pulling the teeth of the House of Lords. Consequently much of what Nu-Lab have done since they came to power is flawed.

Some of the chickens are taking longer than others to come home to roost, but come home they inevitably will, sooner or later. As they do Nu-Lab tries to cover it with spin where they can.

There is of course little they, or any of us, can do about the increasingly large proportion of legislation and directives imposed on us by Europe and it’s court.

EU Directive further erodes UK’s control of it’s borders

So now we have it. The UK no longer controls who can and can’t reside within it’s borders. Not if they are Nationals of an EU member State.

A European Union Directive agreed in 2004 by Nu-Lab’s Jack Straw covering freedom of movement within the EU ensures that it is virtually impossible an EU national who has lived in the UK for 10 years or more.

Much the same way as we can’t deport our own nationals - That tells you something in it’s self.

It is interesting to note here that Gordon Brown is hoping to be able to sign away even more of parliament’s powers to the EU in October, if he can successfully avoid a referendum, when he agrees the EU Constitutional ‘Treaty’.

Then there is Nu-Labs 2000 Human Rights Act, nursemaided by the then home secretary – you guessed it Jack Straw that makes it pretty difficult to deport anyone at all.

Of course CFD does hope that mention of this does not make Learco Chindamo who murdered Philip Lawrence in 1995, feel unhappy, as it is NU-Labs pathetic failure to deport him back to his native Italy that raises the problem in the first place.

This must make one question the point of the Human Rights Act, or indeed much of the pointless and duplicating legislation Nu-Lab have foisted on the nation since they came into power.

It is time to very seriously consider revoking the Human Rights Act.

It is a classic piece of poor and pointless legislation that takes what is actually useful to the nation in it from pre existing rights and laws, then foists much that is an inconvenience, or worse, on the nation because those that drafted it never followed the ramifications of it through to their logical conclusion.

The trouble with Greens...

The trouble with Greens in general and especially Green toadying politicians, is that they don’t think through what they are doing and will almost certainly end up having their rear ends thoroughly savaged by the ‘law of unintended consequences’ time and again…

The latest instance? The EU, desperately stampeding like demented green lemmings, set a target of ensuring 10% of petrol and diesel is sourced from renewable sources by 2020 – in other words bio-fuel.

Presumably an attempt to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide - Sounds ok if you don’t think about it too deeply.

If you do think about it more deeply though, like say a UK-based team of scientists who published those thoughts in Science.

Then you might think that reforestation and habitat protection are an enormously more preferable direction to go in because forests absorb up to nine times more CO2 than the production of biofuels could save, using the same area of land.

Dr Righelato one of the authors pointed out that: "In all cases, the amount of CO2 sequestered (by forests) over a 30-year period is considerably greater than the amount of emissions avoided by using biofuels,"

If you want to make biofuels then so-called second generation biofuels are better, made from waste products like used cooking oil or feedstocks such as straw, grasses and wood (lignocellulosic material) rather than grains or palm oil.

A major problem with the growth of biofuels is that it is actually leading to increased deforestation.

Apart from being counter productive in reducing carbon dioxide, something that will bother many, it is also contributing to deforestation of rainforests in Malaysia and Indonesia, as the land there is turned over in massive chunks to palm oil production to feed the increasing demand. Something else that should cause concern.

On top of that those forests are the only home of the Orangutan and as their natural environment is destroyed to feed the demand for palm oil the poor Orangutan is being driven towards extinction.

Orangutan rescue centres in Indonesia are having to cope with an influx of orphaned baby orangutans saved from forests cleared to make way for oil palm plantations. Significant areas of Tanjung Puting National Park, the world's most famous protected area for orangutan, are under threat from oil palm plantation.

And that should concern us all.

It is a hideous irony that the well meaning blundering of Green Politicians, who really don’t think further than the end of their noses, are actually busy ‘paving the road to hell’ by actively harming the environment and contributing towards driving a great Ape towards extinction.

Parents left with limited options now make more use of A&E

This one is an absolute classic. Dr Patricia Hamilton head of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, is complaining that parents in the UK are now more willing to take their child to A&E with a minor problem, such as a fever, instead of dealing with it at home or calling their GP.

Oh really! She might try the experiment of calling NHS direct out of office hours herself. She could claim she had a small child and they were running a fever. She would find that the advice she was given, especially if it is filtered through non-medical parental perceptions, was effectively to go straight to A&E, do not pass go, do not collect £200.

Now most people are very reluctant to go to A&E. Despite the frankly untrue claims of being seen within some fictitiously tiny amount of time, we all know that it can only be counted as a personal miracle if you are really seen within 2 hours, as opposed to being assessed by someone - possibly a cleaner :-) - and then put to the back of a very long queue behind a retarded thug barely retraining their natural urge to random violence and a 15 year old single mother with a flat head and one continuous eyebrow. Recent personal experience you will no doubt deduce…

So the average parent, or indeed anyone sensible, would have to be pretty desperate to use the average A&E at all and would probably be more that happy to take even advice from their own GP as an alternative if it were actually possible to speak to them.

So then not more willing then, just faced with fewer opportunities to avoid it.

So perhaps she really needs to direct her comments to the incompetent Governmental department in question or ditto hospital ‘manager’. Then she could be given duff advice and told to wait uncomfortably for and indefinite period.

Whilst complaining about parents actually using A&E she also took the opportunity to get in a plug for the Government’s propaganda line on the (probably soon to be crime) of childhood obesity and on the ever encroaching ‘menace’ of child binge drinking.

At least the latter has regulations and laws, that if actually enforced would work well enough to prevent it, though this is unlikely to stop the government from passing a whole raft of entirely pointless unnecessary legislation that will cause some unexpected consequences far worse than the so-called problem.

English Smoking ban likely to double Patio heater use

The Health Nazis seem to have accidentally shot their Green Brethren in the foot.

It seems that the use of patio heaters (the new 4X4 of the non wheeled domestic world) is set to double over the next year.

Why? The good old law of unintended consequences rearing it’s head again - that's why.

The pointless and unreasonable ban on smoking in English Pubs has meant that smokers must go outside to indulge. It seem that this in turn has led astute landlords to provide patio heaters to make the environment more pleasant for the smokers and thus retain business.

Philip Sellwood, of the (Government established and funded) Energy Saving Trust is complaining: "People are also influencing the larger, more damaging commercial sector, with a third of pub-goers choosing pubs where there is a patio heater.”

"Landlords are helping to make patio heaters desirable - which they are not.", he bemoans.

A survey the trust conducted indicated 31% of people indicated they actually enjoyed sitting outside pubs and would choose one with outdoor heating by preference.

There is also the suggestion that, having discovered the joys of sitting outside having a drink and a ciggy, may be leading to increased sales of the heaters to the private market even amongst non smokers. The number of patio heaters in gardens in the UK is expected to almost double over the next year, a report by the trust suggests.

The largest take up is expected to be in the Yorkshire and Humberside areas. It is not clear if this is because there are more smokers there, it is a little colder in the evenings there, a combination, or some other factor.

Mr Sellwood is calling for “responsible retailers to reconsider the sale of patio heaters in light of the substantial amount of carbon emissions they produce." and the rest of us to wear an extra jumper.

What next? Extra tax on patio heaters, restrict the sale to ‘deserving’ key individuals in the political patrician classes?

Even the Mayor of London ‘Red’ Ken Livingstone is echoing him, betraying his authoritarian leanings and calling for a halt in the spread of "wasteful" patio heaters and urged retailers not to promote them.

How long before he considers forcing a licensing system on Londoners? Maybe one with a sliding scale of costs based on emissions? Though probably entirely unnecessarily, as the expected lowest rate of heater take up was in the East of England.

New Licence law harms small gigs

The UK Government (surprise surprise) brought in new laws in 2005, introducing a single licence covering entertainment and alcohol, aimed at easing restrictions on live music.

Where would the law of unintended consequences be without good old Nu-Lab and their constant regulating and meddling.

The Live Music Forum is complaining that small local venues staging acoustic concerts are being put at risk by the new licensing laws and should be exempt from the regulations.

The forum, set up by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, recommended that acoustic performances and performances that are not the main attraction at a venue should be exempt from licensing.

Without unknown bands playing at small gigs you will eventually run out of more successful groups, as they will find it much more difficult to ever develop in the numbers we are used to. What will that do to the music industry, or the aspirations of young hopefuls.

Apparently in one instance a brass band was told it could only perform religious songs if their performance was for charity. They were told they needed to apply for a licence which would cost more than they actually expected to raise.

There was also a case where a pub landlady was told she must obtain a variation in her licence so regular gatherings of a group of elderly men who sang folk songs together could continue.

Licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe welcomed the "interesting and challenging" findings. Oh-Oh - weasel words alert!

He continued: "We will now look at each of the recommendations, discuss with stakeholders and will respond fully in due course." Why do politicians talk like this? To avoid actually saying anything at all? To avoid committing themselves to anything.

Why can’t they say something like: “From what you say, it does sound as if things are not quite working as we had intended. Give me the report and I’ll look into it to see if it can be improved. “?