School fete

Today was the school fete. I was on carparking duty. Health and Safety has decreed that someone wearing a high-vis jacket must be in attendance at the carpark throughout the event. For the first hour, I was that person.

The fete began at 1pm. By the time I arrived at the carpark at 12:59, it was just about full, parents having proven remarkably adept at parking their cars without my assistance. This is perhaps not surprising as most of them use the carpark on a daily basis when they are on the school run.

Over the next hour I waved a few latecomers away and sat in the sunshine reading the newspaper. My high-vis jacket was quite useful as a cushion. I must have turned away about ten cars, most of which were subsequently parked in the road outside the carpark. I wasn't sure if my remit extended to the street so I left them to do this unassisted. They too seemed to manage quite well without me.

Later I went down to the fete itself. The tents had red and white tape tied to the guy ropes. This is apparently a rule laid down by Health and Safety. The scones were unbuttered, since this is not permitted by Health and Safety either. There were no sandwiches,since these apparently pose an unacceptable risk to the public.

The risk assessment had concluded that a tug of war is too dangerous so we didn't do that this year. I was reminded of the school sports day last week when parents were asked if anyone had safety concerns over their children taking part in the three-legged race. Apparently Health and Safety will be angry if this question isn't asked.

Strange day really.

Just saying no

While we're on the subject of hyperactive government and that kind of thing, it's worth remembering that sometimes you just have to say "no" to the powers that be.

What the LibDems want to ban

To the person who just arrived at this site searching for "Things the LibDems want to ban", you're not in a hurry are you?

Burqas

Whether Muslims should be allowed to wear burqas in public seems to be the question of the moment. I watched the views of the panel on Question Time for a few minutes last night with a mixture of disdain and disgust. The panellists were split between those who would reintroduce sumptuary laws (does wearing a sack over your head count as sumptuous? Dumptuous perhaps) and those who would ignore the issue.

Obviously I'm against the former, but it has to be said that I do think there's an issue that shouldn't be ignored.

The problem is that there are vast numbers of people who feel threatened and alienated by people parading the streets in what amounts to a disguise. They don't like it.

I don't take any particular view on whether they are right to dislike burqas or not, but the fact is that they are not allowed to express their dislike, even in non-violent or non-agressive ways. People are banned from discriminating against the burqa-wearers. They can't turn them away from their shops and businesses, saying "I'm sorry I'm not serving you while you are wearing a disguise".  Society, in its wisdom, has decreed that these are crimes, and hate crimes to boot.

The ability to discriminate gives the host culture the ability to gently apply a cost to the wearing of burqa. You will probably still get served in the bank, but you might just have to go a bit further to find one that would rather have your money than enforce a burqa-free clientele. You might have to give up swimming because the pool won't take you. Perhaps the garage won't fix your car if you refuse to show your face.

I've blogged before about how the introduction of authoritarian laws often leads to a spiral of authoritarianism, with all sorts of unpleasant spin offs. The anti-discrimination laws are a direct affront to freedom of association and have encouraged emigrants to refuse to integrate and to develop a kind of apartheid, demanding, for example, muslim-women-only swimming sessions. When this cultural apartheid becomes resented by the host culture, politicians respond the only way they know how, with more authoritarianism - banning burqas and so on. This will no doubt be followed by bans on nuns' habits, no doubt in the interests of even-handedness, but just adding to the downward spiral of resentment.

But won't this lead to signs outside guest houses saying "No moslems" or "No burqas"? Possibly it will, and that would be ugly for sure. But the current approach is ugly too and the result, a downward spiral of apartheid and authoritarianism is vile in the extreme. Better to have an ugly approach with a happy ending than more and more ugliness.

Politicians' responses to the problem will lead only to resentment from Moslems banned from wearing burqas (there are apparently some who do so willingly) or from the host culture, forced to accept and deal with people with whom they want no dealings. Politicians can't solve this problem. They can only stand back and allow society to solve it on its own.

Causing trouble

I chanced upon this site, which puts up a daily photo of the police at work. This is a protest against the government's silly law criminalising the photographing of law enforcement officers.

This prompted a thought.  A policeman friend told me that there is a police open day at Fife Police HQ this weekend. Some awkward sod should report everyone who takes a snap of a copper to, erm, one of the coppers present.

This should cause complete and utter chaos, ruin the police's PR day and publicise what a terrible law Mr Brown and his legions of lunatics have put in place.

Just a thought.

The welfare state and drugs

I was struck by this comment in a thread at Heresy Corner on the subject of the NHS.

Of the many conversations I had with [NHS] staff, one in particular sticks in the mind. I asked a porter how he saw the future, and he said the drug scene was going to change dramatically in a decade or so. For now the grannies are holding the fort, caring for the grandchildren while the generation in between gets wasted. 10-15 years from now, those grannies will be gone, and the wasted mums of today will be the grannies, but grannies incapable of holding anything.

He said when that happens, the NHS in Scotland will either break down or would be forced to prioritise in ways now unimaginable. The one thing, in fact, everyone I spoke to there seemed to agree on was that the future is going to be very bleak.

State provision and the database state

I think we are probably heading, as a society, for a pretty major decision about our relationship to the state.  As things stand, the database state is starting to be rolled out and there may still be an opportunity to roll it back. Don't believe me? take a look at this:

This 21st century school system, which is beginning to develop, will look and feel very different to the one we have been used to. It will be one in which, to achieve their core mission of excellent teaching and learning, schools look beyond traditional boundaries, are much more outward-facing, working in closer partnership with children, young people and parents; other schools, colleges, learning providers and universities; other children’s services; the third sector, the private sector and employers; and the local authority and its Children’s Trust partners.

Still with me? Read on...

[W]e will further incentivise co-location of wider children’s services on school sites. Better use of the opportunities provided by modern technology will enhance all of the dimensions of a world-class education system.

Do you see where this leads? In the not-so-very-distant future, you will pack little Jonny or little Jill off to school and you will be handing them over to a surrogate parent. Suddenly real parents will start to look rather peripheral to their children's upbringing. In this brave new world, every aspect of their lives will be interfered with by the school: they will be inspected by social services, they will be examined by doctors and nurses and dentists and opticians and child welfare officers and the NSPCC, every detail being written down and recorded on the database from where it can never be removed. Your children will grow up the state knowing everything about them. The school will become the foundation upon which the database state will be built.

This is why state provision of anything is dangerous. So terribly, terribly dangerous.

This is why we must privatise the schools.

The quotes are from here, which I found on a HomeEd Facebook site.

Medics ignore their own guidelines

The Longrider is not impressed with the latest bout of bansturbation from the medical profession.

It seems barely a day passes without someone – frequently a medic – thinking that it is their place to tell us how to live our lives.

How right he is. They are a blight on society, are they not? Today's frenzy of bansturbatory frottage is all about chocolate and obesity and whether proles can make decisions about calorific intake without a team of doctors and nurse practitioners being on hand.

Why, I thought, do these grossly-overpaid people waste their time on ephemera like the diet of the general public. Haven't they got better things to do?

Well, here's what they should be doing, according to the General Medical Council. A few excerpts:

Treat patients as individuals and respect their dignity

It's hard to see how they square this with blanket bans on smoking, taxes on things they deem bad and so on. Perhaps these words mean something different to people earning £100k a year.

Listen to patients and respond to their concerns and preferences

So taxing chocolate counts as "responding to patients' preferences" does it? Or perhaps doctors just feel they can ignore the GMC?

Respect patients' right to reach decisions with you about their treatment and care

They seem to be ignoring this one too.

Support patients in caring for themselves to improve and maintain their health

But if they won't listen, just give 'em the treatment anyway eh? Make 'em do as they're told. After all, they're proles.

Never abuse your patients' trust in you or the public's trust in the profession.

What trust is that?

Know your enemy

Frank Field, writing in the Mail, reminisces about his meetings with Margaret Thatcher while she was PM. It contained this interesting point, which rather seems to support my pet theory that it is the civil service which is the real enemy:

There wasn’t much in her record as Education Secretary in Edward Heath’s Government to suggest she would be a great Prime Minister.

But when she entered No10 she understood she had to get control of the Whitehall machine – and not be bypassed by it, as had occurred with so many of her predecessors.

There's no doubt that both Blair and Brown have been unable to introduce any meaningful reform of Leviathan. They have been ignored by the mandarins and have proved powerless to do anthing about it. The country is therefore left with the slender hope that David Cameron can do any better.

Oh dear.

Perhaps our best hope for salvation lies in a sudden collapse of government finances, sweeping aside the whole state edifice overnight. Painful, perhaps, but quick and decisive.

Getting round the smoking ban

Taking Liberties:

Hawke and Hunter has only been open a few months but the owners have created a "smoking room" that is even better than Boisdale's famous cigar terrace in London. It has its own bar, comfortable furniture, tropical plants and no shortage of heaters.

I still hate smoke, so I don't suppose I'd go, but you can't help applauding.

Urine tests for welfare recipients

From a reader:

I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to earn that pay cheque, I work on a cruise ship for a major shipping line. For the safety of all the passengers and the crew with whom I work, I am required to pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare cheque because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand that I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sit on their ass drinking beer and smoking dope and making babies, that they do not want, cannot feed nor look after properly. Could you imagine how much money the government would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a benefits cheque?

Do your volunteering overseas

The Independent says that VSO are receiving record numbers of applications, apparently giving the lie to my theory that CRB checks are destroying volunteering in the UK.

Except that when I search for CRB on the VSO website I get nothing, and when I search for VSO on the CRB website I get nothing either. It looks as if CRB checks are not required for VSO applicants.

Does this mean that everyone is going their public service in other countries now?

Guardian fantasy land

Iain Dale points out that the US state now employs more people than manufacturing.

Meanwhile, over at the Graun, Jonathan Freedland gushes in the general direction of Barack Obama and welcomes the end of what he calls the 30-year grip of the notion of limited government.

It seems clear then that Freedland is living in la-la land, like so many of his colleagues. Is there actually anyone at the Guardian with even the slightest idea of what happens in the real world?

Reforming the public services

I have a new post up at Labour Home. (Yup, you read that right).

Smoking bans - bad for UK sport.

It's not just the UK and US which have introduced smoking bans. Australia has followed suit, and the effect there is similar to that back home in Blighty. The difference is that Aussies are now spending less in rugby clubs (rather than pubs), according to a recent report.

The report found that while [rugby club] membership had increased by 25 per cent in the past five years, revenue was down.

The report found the drop in revenue was due to a number of challenges, including changes in gaming laws and the recent smoking ban.

So membership is up, but revenue is down. I conclude that Aussie rugby players are drinking and smoking less. This would appear to augur pretty badly for the future results of British rugby teams against the men from down under.