London's burning

As we all know London has spent the last few days being on fire while gangs roam the streets looting shops and burning cars.

I haven't seen anything like it in my lifetime, but then I'm unable to recall the Brixton riots. Now apart from the fact our reletively civilised country has had images captured of it looking more like a third world pit, something else really troubles me; the reaction of the public.

Now most of it has been appaul at the behaviour of the looters and rioters. So far so good. People should be appaulled and I'd be more worried if they were not. But my concern rests largely with the reaction after that.

Rather inevitably as events are going on people are asking why this has happened. The disturbing thing is that people start looking for 'big' explanations rather than the small. Socio-economic factors being the obvious and easy choice. Essentially many of the looters (although not all) are from poorer economic backgrounds. In addition we're going through econonmic hard times, so I can see it is going to be exceedingly popular with some people to say that the reason for the riots is due to the economic climate. This is wrong, and dangerous.

To begin economic times are hard, but they aren't really THAT hard. When one can't get food for yourself and your family, I appreciate that a natural tension develops. This is because when a hard working man can't obtain sufficient food for himself and his family, it is highly likely (unless there is a famine going on) something wrong with the way society is structured. Riots usually result in unheaval and so it is almost a logical reaction. This isn't what is going on at the moment.

For all our economic hardship everyone still have food and clothes and the government is still doleling out the benefits are usual, no crisis there. This is further supported by what is being looted; bread? Oats? Clean water? No. What is being looted is DVDs, CDs, wiskey, wine, in other words luxuries, things that people don't need, but want.

People don't need rose wine any more than I need fresh pressed orange juice each morning. It is nice, but not essential. In other words, it is something one has to work for. If the work isn't around that is unfortunate, but that is how economics works. Give it a couple of years and there will be money around again... unless all your businesses have been burnt to the ground by looters, that is.

This is not the only thing that shows that the riots are not about economic needs. Swansesa, South Wales, is a bit of a dive. Not completely, but it certainly isn't Cambridge. There are few highly skilled jobs to work towards and the average income is quite low. So too in the Rhondda Valleys, so too in Glasgow, and yet no one in these areas are rioting. A quick glance at the BBC news website for Scotland reveals that it's main story is about roads being flooded. The only arrests in both Wales and Scotland have been to do with people encouraging rioting on facebook and other social media sites.

Now, when one considers that the Welsh and Scottish have just as many deprived areas as the English, clearly it can be seen that this is nothing to do with poverty.

There is one explanation and one alone, there are people, who want things that they haven't worked for and they have no concern for those who have. They are selfish and believe they have a right to things that other people have, even if those people don't really have them at all. After all does a shop keeper really 'own' the widescreen TV on the shop floor? Legally it is his, but it doens't mean he watches a good TV at home, it is his, but his to sell to someone else, it is his livelyhood. Further the retail industry has been sufferring of late, which actually suggests no one really has the money for these things at the moment.

So what is the cause of the riots? Greed. Pure and simple. I want, I don't want to wait, I want it now, and I don't care who suffers as a result. A similar but slightly different kind of greed that makes the banks try to stop the UK from regulating them properly, while giving themselves huge bonuses. I want, I want now, I don't care who suffers. Although at least with the banks the sufferring is slightly less direct than with the rioters.

This then is the first thing that needs to be acknowledged by society. Greed is what has caused this, greed and a desire to put 'me' first and screw anyone else, "stuff your neighbour" if you will. Any talk of lack of opportunity or feeling 'let down' by the government it looking in the wrong place. It also undermines the behaviour of those who are also poor, but aren't burning down their neighbour's shop.

The second issue society needs to, and no doubt will consider, is what to do to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen again. That is a good reaction. Self-reflection is an important requirement for improvement in almost any aspect of one's life. But the issue is that we have stopped 'self-reflecting' and started 'government blaming'.

Now don't get me wrong. Anyone can read the rest of my blog and see that I do my fair share of slating the government. There is no doubt there. However, there is a time and a place. This is neither the time nor the place.

The government after all have no interest in either ruining the economy or having riots in the street. Both look very bad on the government and so we can rule out intentionally damaging either. After all even if David Cameron is a millionaire, he has his money in shares just like everyone else and so he wants the economy to improve even if it is for no other reason than for his own bank balance to increase.

But the main issue is, and this really needs to sink into our consciousness as a society:
THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT CONTROL EVERYTHING.

If they could, then the thing that we really need to worry about is not a few rioters in the street but the fact we have a totalitarian government so powerful it can control everything and everyone. That would be far more dangerous and probably result in far more suffering event than what we have now.

Further just logically people forget that the resources of the government are finite. We seem to thing that government is an everlasting stack of cash. But really the governments resources is only what you and I earn. Which means their resources are only our resources. Are you feeling the pinch? So in the government then. Can you only just make ends meet? Well that means the government can't tax you any more and if they do that will decrease the amount you can spend and that will hurt the economy. So basically since the police resources depend on the government and the government on us... and we're all broke. We need to start thinking of the government as the people who keep the basics of life ticking over, not the people who solve all of lifes problems.

Further, money, contrary to popular belief, can't solve all problems. Sending someone to university doesn't make them more intelligent. Giving someone £20 doesn't make them more moral and paying someone to do A-levels doesn't make them more hard working. So throwing money at the the problem won't make it go away. Giving the police more money would just mean more people in prison. Which means we'd need more money for prisons. Then they are always going to come out of prison and some point and the cycles starts again. It is incredibly expensive. The Budget for national offenders is around £4Bn. The home office has a budget of around £11bn together that is more than all the devolved spending in Wales.

The people who caused this were individuals. As a society we need to choose whether we accept this sort of behaviour and make excuses for it or whether we realise that it is we who dictate social norms and it is we who decided what is acceptable. We do it as parents and/or friends and/or work collegues and/or partners.

Listen to the clip on this website, then ask youself one question. Have WE (the people) go this balance right?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/​uk-14458424

The (BBC) Empire fights back

Ironically, the one thing that has dominated the media recently... is the media.

Thanks to News of the World hacking peoples phones News International now has a giant "kick me" sign on its back and the BBC and other media outlets are determined to make the absolute most of the opportunity to do so.

I don't think the BBC could make a more wanton display of delight as it give 24 hour news coverage to the phone-hacking scandal.

But at least there was one commentator on BBC news who had the strength to say that it was looking like a media "cat fight" and that if they didn't start covering some of the other issues properly they would lose credibility.

He's not joking. I'm no friend of Murdoch, but the fact that the European Monetary Union has almost fallen out of the sky and there is a famine in Somalia (apparently?) would surely suggest that it is time to have other news stories on the front page (metaphorically and literally).

But while this whole episode is kicking off I have a completely different concern with the media. One of the few stories that did manage to filter through the "kick him when he's down marathon" was the story of a nurse who might have killed some of her patients.

What concerned me was how this was reported. When the media wasn't trying to stir up a lynch mob to take one Murdock or another to the gallows, they were explaining what they knew about this nurse who was being questioned by the police.

In summary what they knew about her was this:

nothing.


In a display of rather mind numbingly shoddy journalism someone had accessed her facebook page and taken down a few quotes.

That's right; facebook. The thing to which we could all gain access if we wanted. The system where by if you want, you can say your married to your best friend for laughs and where people can read about your favourite TV programmes.

Chances are if people thought this sort of thing was relevant they could have tapped the suspects name in and found the page themselves. I assume that the privacy settings were not very high since the journalists could view it and unless they hacked her account... which in this environment even the most delinquent, walnut brained mammal would know it avoid.

But on to the real issue; what did they find? Well two things, first she describes herself as 'happy-go-lucky' and second that 'she had complained about work in her status updates'.

This is where things get really ridiculous. The tone of voice and the intonation of the reporters when describing these facts made them sound like they were both relevant and sinister.

What shocking use of the media to demonise someone. Sure, they might be guilty, but equally they could be innocent. I have no idea, the media, they have no idea either, who knows at this point. The police may not even know. What annoys me is that instead of someone being innocent until proven guilty in the media, they are innocent until proven able to sell papers... or making 'interesting' news reports.

Is that really fair? That person has to continue living in society long after those news reports are yesterday's bin fodder. Those of their acquaintances who don't know them properly, even if acquitted, are they not going to remember what the news said about them? Of course, if they waited until the person was proven innocent or guilty it wouldn't be half as bad. I'm still not sure it would be ideal, but at least they were not risking a potentially innocent persons life in society.

But taking the issue of liability aside for a moment, what does the information provided actually tell us about the suspect? They describe themselves as happy-go-lucky. The inference of course is 'a nurse that is happy-go-lucky? How reckless! How terrifying, how can they sleep at night'. But of course, this is her facebook page, not he resume. She isn't describing herself as a nurse, any more than when someone states that they are 'single' on facebook it means they are seeking to date workmates or patients.

That sort of logic would suggest that somehow if you knew someone who was an undertaker, and on their facebook page they said they loved practical jokes, people would automatically assume that they put whoopee cushions under the seat of the deceased's wife when they are carrying out funerals. It is just the deliberate misuse of context.

The second statement, she has complained about work in her status updates. How dare she? That absolute soulless piece of... oh, no wait, everyone who has every used facebook status updates has put something like that as their status up-date.

I've just taken a look at the list of updates uploaded by my friends on my facebook page, no less than four can be easily interpreted as complaining about work, including the post at the very top.
Another two could be 'interpreted' to suggest that one of my friends has a serious drinking problem and another that they self harm... of course, that is all a load of rubbish, because they are joking, but if you're a press reporter who is willing to note someone has 'complained about work' then who knows what you will do.

I myself would rant about work on a regular basis, except for the fact that at least two of my work colleagues are on my facebook page. Does that mean I am going to commit violent crime? Not a chance. But I'm sure if read in a suitably malicious and sinister way the press could interpret anyone's updates are indicting. Why? Because that isn't the context in which they are intended.

I'm hoping that the public can see through such ridiculous and dangerous behaviour. But I'm not putting my money on it.

Recently we've found out that the media is willing to break the rules to get the story. This shows that they are willing not just to infringe the privacy of the grieving, but further to demonise those who may be innocent. I don't know which in the long term is worse, even though I know which one is getting the coverage.

I guess it comes down to the old adage of who watches the watchers. The government check the police, the media check the government and ............. no one is watching the media. The government can't do it as they are too busy trying to cosy up to the media. This much can be seen with the ex-editor of the News of the World becoming the communications chief for Downing Street... and thus we're left with a situation where the media scrutinises the behaviour of everyone... except themselves.

Maybe then it is a good thing that the BBC is giving such coverage to the mistakes of the Murdoch media empire. Maybe the various media outlets are ideal for holding each other to account. Maybe plurality of the press is working to keep each other in balance.

In that case, I wish they'd do it with a little more objectivity and with the professionalism of the massive corporation they are, rather than coming across as a five year old with a bitter vendetta, and a complete lack of perspective.

A crash course in the British economy

Made in Britain is a new show on presented by Evan Davies (of Dragon's Den fame). Unsurprisingly it is about the British economy the deficit and basically, whether Britain has gone down the pan.

It is without doubt an excellent programme. It explained relatively complex issues in such a way that anyone can understand them. It breaks some of the myths surrounding our economy such as 'manufacturing industry good, service industry not good' and ' low tech manufacturing is essential to our economy and its decline is the end of us'.

If I could, I would make it so that everyone gets shown this programme from an early age. Hopefully they would get the implied message, if you don't have a specific skill that someone in China doesn't have, then soon enough someone in China is going to be doing your job. Lets face it, that is what people in school need to be aware of. In the last few decades people could do unskilled work and get paid enough to live in the UK, but soon enough if you do an unskilled job, you will only be able to afford to live in China. Sure there will be exceptions, but that is the general rule.

One of the things that surprises me however is that when you look at manufacturing, which I accept needs to grow in the UK, some of the factories here are the most efficient in the world. In fact, Nissan's car factory in Sunderland is the most efficient in the whole of Europe*. Now that amazes me. The Germans are known for their efficiency, and the French have three big car firms. We don't have one, and yet we have the most efficient factory. How does that work?

Well, I think I have the answer. If you look at the all cars that are designed in the UK, Land Rover, Jaguar, Aston Martin, they are all owned by foreign companies. Generally they do not work well then they are owned by a UK firm, then they are sold and they do well. Japanese firms come over here and set up hugely successful factories, but British manufacturers fail. Why?

It could be that the management are retarded, and so when foreign management come along they run the factory well and everything works and the world becomes a better place. But I highly doubt it. For a start most of the management will be British too. Sure the very top might be Japanese, or the owners might be Indian, but most of the management are realistically going to be British. So it is unlikely to be that.

It could be that the principles by which companies are run are superior outside of the UK. I'm sure that is part of it. But generally such principles, once they have proven their worth, are adopted throughout the world.

No, I'm willing to bet there is an entirely different reason why British companies fail and foreign firms succeed in the UK: Unions.

When you think of the last time we had a car industry, back in the 1970s what characterised that period? Strikes. If you think of British Airways, the flag carrier of the country, which is making a loss, why has it been in the news? Best service? Huge profit? Award winning? Nope, strikes. What about transport for London? Is it known for its efficiency? No, it is known for its 1970s style 'fire a single person and we will bring London to a standstill' negotiation tactics.

So lets look at companies based here, Nissan, Honda, no strikes there. Easy Jet? Don't think so. Hmmm, a pattern here?

The thing is, no one is going to strike against these companies because they are foreign. There is no reason they have to be here tomorrow, and no reason why they can't up sticks and head to France, Germany or the Czech republic. Which means if a factory started striking, it would quickly be closed. As a result, the workers don't strike and the factories are a paradigm of efficiency.

In contrast to this when it comes to a British company the Unions assume that they can strike as much as they want and it doesn't matter because:

a) a British companies will no close its operation and move abroad;
b) the British gov will bail out the company when it is losing money hand over fist... because it is British.

The problem with this, mainly, is that it is a load of rubbish. Premise 'a' might be reasonable, but 'b' is undoubtedly completely false.

For a start the rules of the EU forbid state aid, second the country is bankrupt and three the government learned in the 1980s that it is cheaper to let inefficient companies die than to eternally prop them up with subsidies.

Union leaders however, appear rather thick, and haven't quite grasped this fact. So instead of getting what they want with BA for example, they are just going kill off another big company and when they do, it will take quite some time for them to work out what happened... or they will just blame it on everyone else for not capitulating to their demands.

I don't know if other countries have this problem, but judging but the fact that the most efficient European manufacturer's factory is owned by a French company.... and based in Spain I'd say this might be the case.

Then you look at MG, this company failed in the UK. It is now being made in China, I imagine it will do quite well too. While it was UK owned they could not cut costs of staff, although this was partly due to the lack of capital, now that it is Chinese owned they can design it in the UK and build it in China and no one can complain. Can you imagine what would have happened if they had tried this before Chinese ownership? Exactly, chaos, whereas no now one bats an eyelid. No doubt the price will be more competitive too.

Going back finally to the programme "Made in Britain", there were a couple of companies that were held up a British success stories. One of those was GSK, or GlaxoSmithKline. One of the things that the representative of GSK said really resounded with me. He noted, 'there is no reason why there should be a British company based here or called GSK. Therefore if we don't innovate the next generation of products successfully then we won't exist in future. That is what drives us'.

I guess that explains why GSK is still here. They don't think the gov will always back them up because they are British, or because they are a big employer or because they have a right to do what they do. And I'm happy to suggest, that they day they think that there will/should always be a GSK... there won't. But at least then a foreign firm can buy them and make them efficient again.

*although this was on output, units per worker which seems unfair when comparing bigger cars with smaller, less complex ones.

May I order some decent music, please?

Before we start I think I should point out I don't think I'm autistic, neither do I have aspergers. But for some reason I take song lyrics slightly too literally, with the result that they really annoy me.

Don't take this too seriously, but I'm not going to reel off a load of lyrics to get them out of my system.

"I can do it like a brother, do it like a dude" Jessie J

Most catchy song every, also the most annoying. No you can't do it like a brother, neither like a dude. Someone please give her an anatomy lesson.

"Russian roulette is not the same without a gun" Lady Gaga

Profound. For those who don't know Russian roulette is where one has a revolver with a bullet in one of its six chambers. The chamber of the gun is then spun randomly so that the user of the weapon does not know whether or not the weapon is loaded or empty. So Russian roulette isn't the same without the gun... it isn't possible without the gun. Who writes this stuff?

"The boys they wanna sex me" Black eyed peas.

This is wrong for two reasons. One, grammatically, it sounds like someone with an IQ of 25.5 has been writing songs (hardly the ideal example). I know they were just desperate to fit something into the line to make it rhyme but could they really not think of anything better? Lets face it Black eyed peas songs sell in their millions, could they not afford just to spend an extra minute trying to think of an ACTUAL sentence.

Two, the tacit agreement between song writers and the public at large is that when writing popular songs they are only ever to use innuendo. This is a fundamental rule that ought never be broken. It is a courner stone of radio broadcasting. Why? Because when people follow the rule the the only people who hear the intent of the writer are those who are already aware of the concepts being sung. Those who are innocent of such concepts remain so, and thus songs can be played at 9 o'clock in the morning without causing too much harm. This song totally and utterly bins this rule and forsakes the tacit agreement and for what? A really quite terrible line in a 'not particularly good song'. Come on writers, you're paid a wage, do your job and start writing lyrics that at least meet the lofty standard of someone who can just about string a whole sentence together.

Rihanna... where to start, first, shouldn't your name be spelt Rhianna. Otherwise it would be pronounced "Ree-hanna" which just seems wrong.
Second, when Rihanna first started she had a song with a line that I actually liked:

"cause in the dark, you can't see shiny cars " Rihanna

Now, least inportantly it makes literal sense. Yes, in the absence of light it is not possible to perceive a shiny car using the visible light spectrum. Check.

Next I like the metaphorical meaning too. When things are going badly material wealth doesn't really make much difference and therefore becomes rather unimportant. Wow, was that actually something deep in a pop song? I nearly fell off my chair.

Since then though, Rihanna has apparently given over her song writing duties to someone who it appears confuses his work for that of a lyical pimp.

I would quote a few lyrics but frankly I don't have the time and I wouldn't want to repeat them in case I offend someone with taste. Out of 5 of her songs that have been played on the radio, two of them refer to sex explictly and two others refer to riding (maybe she's an equestrian fan), but in fairness there is nothing in the song with Eminem about sex. I guess the focus there was more on beating your partner, so presumably Eminem thought that the mood shouldn't be ruined with sexual references.

I started this rant talking about stupid songs, but I have to admit sometimes I actually am greatful for them.

"Cause I'd get a thousand hugs, From ten thousand lightning bugs" Owl City

Now this is a pretty absurd line of a song. Getting hugs from insects? Right, someone has a vivd imagination, but when this comes on, I think so myself, great, a song that doesn't involve show jumping or domestic violence. What a refreshing change!

And maybe that brings me full circle in this argument. Yeah, there are some seriously retarded lyrics out there, but frankly I'm grateful for them if them give me a break from the monotony of sex, violence and cocaine. I even heard one DJ complaining that for a time Eminem was producing songs that didn't include the 3 topics mentioned above. Instead he was rapping about how he felt about his family. Yeah, because there are just so many songs like that out that Eminem was just flooding the market?

I guess I'm just asking for a bit more. Sure a song with a catchy tune is great, but is it that hard to think of something a little bit deeper, about which to sing, than basically a Friday night in a dive end of town?

Who knows, maybe if they can get their head around that then the lyrics might even start to make sense and we won't have to listen to what someone scribbled down in their lunch break.

In the mean time maybe I'll just have to spent more time hangin' with my hommes Mozart and Beethoven, or maybe Tim Hughes...

I can finally fire my Butler

Yesterday, I was astounded. This was because I was given a tea maker.

Why was I astounded by a tea maker, you may ask. Well this particular tea maker is to be set by your bedside so that in the morning when it is time for you to wake up you wake automatically to a fresh cup of tea. You don't even have to turn it on, it is on a timer so when you wake up, it does too.

So why is this amazing? I just can't believe how good the standard of living is at this point. The idea of having hot tea when you wake up is something that, years ago, would have been reserved for the landed gentry, those who could afford a gentleman's gentleman: a butler.

Now in today's Western modern world a veritable nobody of reasonable economic standing can be presented with such a gift.

This raises a couple of questions in my head. The main one being, do we all realise how blessed we are to have such a life style? Am I the only one who wakes up in the morning and thinks to myself I can't believe that I have such an astoundingly high standard of life, I cannot count my blessings if I had all day.

It also raises another question however.

Why isn't every Westerner really happy?
I guess there are a few reasons, one being that there are other big issues such as health (even if we have the best health care too). But I guess the fundamental point is what we knew already: having 'stuff' doesn't make you happy.

I guess it goes back to a fridge magnet I've seen, it said "the best things in life aren't things".

It is sort of strange that if you took a poll in the UK to see who was happy it would probably yeild the same results as in Africa or Asia or anywhere where the 'standard of living' would generally be considered lower.

The other thought is that is life so good because we work hard or because we're in so much debt we've just taken all the money the next generation is going to make and spent it on ourselves?

Strangely at this point I don't think I have an answer to that question. Still, if we are going to spend the next 70 years paying high tax with low public services at least there is this consolation; with less money and more time to focus on the things of life that really are important (God, family etc) we'll probably be a lot happier.

Are long haul flights managed by Guantanamo bay?

After the previous post that had been sitting in my mind for some time, slowly percolating away, concerning me about the serious nature of the British public's mind set, I find myself on a more trivial topic today.

Recently I had the pleasure of visiting a beautiful country far, far away. But in order to reach this sun kissed paradise, first I had to get there. This as you may guess involved not walking or sailing, but flying.

There was a time when air travel was considered glamorous but since the 1920s things have changed a little. Budget airlines are functional and practical even if the cabin crew wear suits so shiny I can actually see my face in them and we accept that our experience on them is going to be pretty dull. But I was flying on a major carrier so you'd expect the time spent flying to be a little more enjoyable.

To an extent it was. On the flight out they had recent movies and plenty of entertainment. The staff were very friendly and always helpful. I could watch a film, play my friend at battleships or just read if I wanted. All very nice.... on the flight out.

The flight back was exactly the same except for one difference: it was at night. That meant that I really wanted, nay, needed to get some sleep. Things started well. I had a free seat next to me so I could try to lie down across two seats and the kind woman behind me didn't mind me putting my seat back to recline a little more. All this meant that as 1:00am rolled up I was read to start trying to drift off.

At first it was reasonably successful. I can't quite tell how successful, one never can when you're in that 'inbetween state' of not quite fully asleep but not completely awake either, but I think between 2 and 3 I was in a sort of sleep state.

At this point however the carrier apparently decided to go from luxury airliner to prison cell 'wanna-be', because at 3am the lights came on in glorious style waking me up and making sure there was little chance to go back to sleep. I've heard that in Guantanamo Bay and in other POW camps it is standard practice to leave a light on in the cell 24 hours a day to sleep deprive and disorientate the 'visitor'. I didn't realise that this ideas had now been incorporated into the airliners service agreement. Presumably it was in the small print.

Second are the seats. Now I get that the seat has to conform to a million different requirements and by the time they're adhered to there is little in the way left for comfort, especially when you want to squeeze as many people onto a plane as possible but isn't there someway to make it possible to sleep on them? Lets be honest, take out the luggage bins and I'd be able to sleep in the overhead space, its long and flat which is pretty much all I'd need since they had already provided a pillow.

Third, and this is on the one that really gets me: air conditioning. I say air conditioning although this feels like the wrong word, unless it is used in the same sense as 'North Korean spies are conditioned by the state'. So basically ruined.

Air is a pretty plentiful commodity, admittedly not at 30,000ft but it is generally and so I think we take it for granted. This complacency is easily removed for my by a trip in a Boeing.

First of all the air was cold, which was a welcome break from the oppressive heat of paradise. However after 5 hours of flying its far less welcome. The air was not cool but cold and since when you're trying to sleep your body temperature drops, a cold breeze is the last thing you need to help you sleep and yes I had already turned the vents off, but the pressure was so high it was getting through anyway.

Second, the dryness of the air was, is and always has been, horrid. I don't know what the engineer of the system knows about human beings but apparently they think that we're used to air that seems to have come across the Sahara and as a result has been striped of every last bit of moisture. The result of which is that you're constantly dehydrated and your nasal passages dry up. This is particularly bad as drying out your nasal passages makes you more likely to catch colds and other airborne infections. Which isn't what you want when sharing the same air with 280 other people.

Thanks to the complete lack of moisture even though I had several drinks through an 8-9 hour flight I never used the toilet once, not once. Is this a ploy? Less toilets? More drinks sold? I don't know, all I do know is that the moment they start a service for 1st class air in your cabin, I'll give serious though to an upgrade!

I don't know what to suggest for the airlines really. Obviously the aim is to stop people sleeping and its seems they have it down to a tee. Perhaps maybe they could also employ someone to occasionally kick you in the head just as you're about to drop off to sleep, just to get the fuller experience?

Either way I can happily say for all my ramblings that those points I've mentioned aside, the flight was prompt, the service was great, the destination was simply staggeringly beautiful and the company (that is the people present, not the airline corporation) was incomparable.

Is it David Cameron coming in shining armour?

The Government must solve all our problems.

Is it just me or is that basically the attitude that is adopted today by everyone. And I mean, pretty much everyone. There was a woman on the radio the other day complaining because as an alcoholic she had been given an ASBO. But that didn't make any difference she claimed. She was banned from drinking in pubs but she could still drink at home and then go outside and cause problems.

What sort of attitude is that? It is almost like complaining because she hasn't been locked up and sent to prison. Oh, they haven't totally stopped me doing what I want, so there is no point trying to give me a nudge into the right direction.

This is prevalent in other areas too. If too many people get knifed, then the answer must be in legislation making a the sentences higher for people carrying a knife.

Look people the government making the sentence higher for carrying a knife will have no impact at all. What will, parents sitting their children down and saying to them in a loving tone "I love you very much, but if you ever carry a knife I'll break your fingers", ok not literally that, but you get the picture.

As a result we have to pay high taxes so that each time society fails to do something properly the government can 'look' like it is doing something.

As a lawyer we see this all the time. The mortgage repossession pre-action protocol. What effect did it have? Well, not much. Maybe some extra paper work for the banks, a bit more paper work for the lawyers (so basically higher fees for everyone) and some extra work for the government.

Each time they have to run around, pretend the law has changed, or in some other way spend some money to make everyone feel better, because after all that is what the government does, it solves every problem and controls everyone, except of course, we all know it doesn't.

Sadly criminal behaviour is more controlled better by one sentence of a Mum or Dad than a several sentences from a Criminal Court.

Banning things also rarely solves a problem, after all, an air rifle is less dangerous in the hands of someone responsible than a brick (availble from all local builders merchants) in the hands of someone who isn't.

We're starting to see this in the economy too. Governments must make some program to get people back on their feet and in their next job. Great idea I'll grant you, but do you really think that the government, if it had a way of getting more people into jobs wouldn't have done it already?

Getting people in jobs is a gold mine for a government, it means people love you and your tax revenue goes up. Everyone's a winner! So why do people believe that a government wouldn't do it if there really was a way to make it happen.

Looking around the world we can see that the US has the best growth most of the time. This isn't down to government initiatives, it is down to letting people keep the money they earn and not taxing it all away, ironically to pay for silly initatives that make the public feel like its all going to be ok, now that there is a minister being paid to think up some scheme.

Paying people for what they do and not paying them much for what they don't is the best back to work scheme the world has every known. Sadly well intentioned programmes tend to just be misused by companies to get free labour and then fire the person at the end. Valuable experience? Maybe, but these aren't usually law jobs, or accountancy where experience is useful, they are jobs where being competant and commited is more valuable than experience.

Government does have a purpose, and a very important one, don't get me wrong.

With a good road network, business prospers. So directing investment is part of the job. Likewise the government should act as a moral compass when it comes to new laws. Should murderers be jailed? Should certain drugs be illegal? Should there be a television campaign to tell people about the risks of smoking and promiscuous sex?

It is a bit of a sliding scale, so you can understand how the government can quickly be expected to deal with everything. But as the public, I think we need to start to recognise something. The real influence in life, the real unit of community that will make a difference to the next generation is not the Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom, but rather it is the family.

What Mum and Dad say (or doesn't say) to little Timmy will have more impact on the next generation that what David Cameron says, what Jonathan Ross says, what the Kasier Chiefs say or even what the local Magistrates say.

Until then the idea that the government can sort everything out is sadly misguided. To think that just means more of our money taxed and spent on people feigning activity and action to make us all feel like 'its going to be ok, the government will sort it out with their huge pot of money'.

Such an almost emotional dependance isn't good. But maybe I'm just confused and some would say I too need to look to central government for salvation. But for many reasons least of all looking at what happened in Russia and what still goes on in China I'm going to go with "no".