Nothing changes

Rochdale, the town where children of all genders were at risk because institutional blindness, corruption and fear of racism or the authorities had child abuse happening on almost an industrial scale.
Mail.

In May 2012, nine men were jailed for horrific abuse committed against teenage girls in the town. It made headlines all round the world.
When the father of one of the victims called me to tell me how his daughter’s cries for help had been ignored by the authorities I started to make my own enquiries. I spoke to the director of children’s services, Cheryl Eastwood, and was staggered by her attitude. She implied that young girls who were being systematically raped were making lifestyle choices and said that this kind of abuse was ‘a new phenomenon’ on which they [social services] hadn’t received guidance. You don’t need guidance from central government to know that when someone is reporting being raped it’s seriously wrong, I told her.
A few weeks earlier, a police officer had told me fellow officers had suggested the victims on council estates should have been drowned at birth. It also emerged that when one of the girls reported her abuse to a police officer, the officer yawned.
The cover-up of abuse by Cyril Smith (former Rochdale MP), the failed police investigations into his crimes, had ensured the public cry of outrage that needed to be heard was silenced.
For Smith’s young victims it was because they were bad boys from troublesome backgrounds who needed disciplining.
For the young girls who were victims of grooming gangs it was because they were bad girls from troublesome backgrounds who were making lifestyle choices.

This is what happens when the people in power decide that they know best, this is what happens when dogma trumps decency. When protecting the perpetrators because of their position or religion or colour of their skin became far more important than protecting the victims of their abuse.
Yet not one single prosecution will be brought against the council, its social services department, the Liberal Democrat Party who connived with the police to cover up Smith's crimes, the police or anyone else connected to the wholesale abuse who ignored it or actually hid it deliberately because to them the victims were lesser breeds and deserved (somehow) what was happening to them.
Even today Rochdale and those in power there are in denial of what happened, there has been no apologies and there are still ongoing attempts to sweep things under the carpet. Those who ignored the victims were even allowed to leave taking golden handshakes with them and are still at work elsewhere in the same business.
These people ruined kids lives as much as their abusers did, yet they've gotten away scot free, the next scandal comes along and they hope we forget. The corruption goes all the way to the top and won't stop until we hang them all.

Maths or Reading doesn't appear to be your strong point does it?

One of the signs of a failing state is the government funding its own activities via the public sector to the detriment of the private sector (the part that actually generates income) so despite a so called wage freeze it comes as no surprise to discover that the public sector still is growing and on average earns 15% more than an equivalent job in the private sector (not to mention the pension and job security perks)
Still the figures from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) were seized upon by the TUC as proof that the public sector earns less than the private sector.
Express.

PUBLIC sector workers still earn more than private sector staff – despite three years of austerity-driven wage restraint, official figures showed yesterday.
On average, state-paid workers get nearly 15 per cent more pay, according to the Office for National Statistics.
The ONS based its data on its Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, which looks at one per cent of all tax returns.
Its calculations did not factor in the self-employed, overtime pay, pensions, company cars or health insurance.
On average, public sector workers in 2013 were paid £16.28 an hour – 14.5 per cent higher than the private company average of £14.16.
Comparing median pay – the middle range of pay rates being sampled – public sector workers got 35 per cent, or £3.67 an hour, more than private sector staff.
TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady said: “Not only do public sector workers now earn less than staff in the private sector, they also face greater job insecurity as hundreds of ­thousands are set to go in the coming years.”

Yes, Frances O'Grady seems to believe that 15% more or in certain instances 35% more actually means that the public sector workers are being paid less. One wonders what her school report card said for maths, probably something along the lines of 'could do a lot better' or somesuch.
Whilst there are some areas in which we need a public sector, you do have to wonder why we need one quite so large (although the EU has something to do with it) still it sucks the taxes from the areas which make a profit and distributes it to those who do not and in some cases are not good value for money.
Politicians often talk about pruning public sector spending, I maintain that taking a chainsaw to it (particular middle and higher management) would be the preferred option as they seem to be costing us an awful lot in order to see we get value for money.
Still it is interesting to see the leftard spin on getting paid less whilst actually being paid more.
For given values of interesting....

Not really a punishment

There's a hospital trust near me who is about to get a massive fine for exceeding its C.difficile quota which has always struck me as a bit weird as surely there should be no quota at all for such infections. The problem of course is the fine, who is going to pay for it and where is the money coming from?
BBC.

An NHS trust in Kent is to be fined at least £1.5m after missing its target for controlling the gut infection Clostridium difficile.
Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust was set a yearly limit of 49 cases of the diarrhoea-inducing infection up to the end of March.
With three weeks to go, 52 cases of the superbug have already been recorded.
The trust runs hospitals at Pembury and Maidstone and said it was disappointed to have exceeded its target.

I may be wrong, but the only way I can see a trust paying such a fine is by reducing its services (closing wards and reducing staff) or looking at other areas of its budget which might increase the chances of more infections taking hold. There's also the feeling that any fine will simply hit the people using the NHS trust and not those who are actually responsible.
Perhaps a clause put into the contract of senior management responsible for maintaining standards could be put in place saying that if they exceed their 'quotas' they get sacked or fined themselves with a sacking meaning they can no longer (ever) hold a post in public services.
It does strike me as a bit harsh, but on the otherhand if they realise that there will be direct consequences to themselves perhaps they'll make damned sure that the people they supervise are doing their jobs properly.

At least 90 patients died at Maidstone Hospital between 2004 and 2006 in a C.difficile outbreak.

Remember that the chief executive of the NHS trust, Rose Gibb, left her post by 'mutual agreement' prior to publication of the investigation's findings into this incident. And that controversy arose when the Department of Health subsequently blocked a £175,000 severance payment to Ms Gibb after a public outcry. However following a protracted legal wrangle, the High Court upheld the Department of Health's decision and denied the payment.This decision was later overturned by the Court of Appeal which re-awarded the payment. So there are no consequences at all for those responsible ultimately for killing people off due to neglect in the NHS.
There's too much of a culture of blame avoidance and not enough taking responsibility in public services, this needs to change, starting with a contractual severance clause with extreme prejudice if you get it wrong in a manner causing unnecessary deaths.
It's the only way they'll learn.

Not terribly comforting

On the day most of the UK heaves a sigh of relief at the extradition of hooky Hamza it comes as no real surprise that one of the very things the U.S. intends to question him about should wander blinking into the light of day...
BBC.

An airline security worker has been suspended after failing to spot a fake bomb as it passed through the X ray machine.
Manchester Airport said it had launched an investigation into the incident.
The Department of Transport carries out regular dummy runs at UK airports to ensure security is up to scratch.
A spokesman for the airport said: "We can confirm a security officer has been suspended but we cannot comment further as there is an ongoing investigation."
The Department of Transport spokesman said it conducts regular airport tests but could not comment further.
The spokesman said: "The safety of the travelling public is paramount, which is why the UK combines intelligence, technology and other measures to provide one of the strictest regimes for aviation security in the world.

One does wonder if the thing was a metal box with a few wires and 'bomb' written on it as I suspect a really professional terrorist would take greater pains to disguise an 'obvious' bomb. That's by the by though, we do to an extent rely on these guys as a means of last resort for boarding onto planes and put up with a lot of crap from them as a result. Mostly from what I can tell a lot of these terrorist plans are nipped in the bud by good intelligence and it's only the new or the random that gets through to cause us grief, though mistakes as in the 7/7 tube and bus bombings can be made too, not that those guys went through airport security of course.
Still you'd expect that at least the guys on the security desks would have a clue and are (hopefully) not minimum wage drones from Afghanistan with an axe to grind. However I don't know what kind of training these guys have and what they are supposed to look for, but it's not exactly comforting to know that in a test the buggers didn't find it.

Reinforcing a culture of failure

I was always under the impression that if there were a bonus scheme available, that it is a reward for success. I'm also pretty jaundiced towards any bonus schemes in the public sector as they seem to measure success by an entirely different criteria than the private sector, plus they pay out their bonuses from taxpayers money.
So this made my blood boil...
Express.

STAFF bonuses at the Met Office rocketed by a third to £3.3million last year – despite failing to predict the coldest winter in memory.
Workers at the Government-owned organisation were handed the perks despite a series of forecasting failures.
The big freeze of December 2010, the coldest in over 100 years, saw Britain grind to a halt, costing billions of pounds and jeopardising the recovery.
But staff still pocketed £3,368,000 in bonuses during 2010-11, up 30 per cent from the £2,593,000 handed out the year before. In the past five years, Met Office staff have been awarded £13.9million in bonuses – with last year’s payments averaging around £1,800 between 1,900 people.
Democratic Unionist Party MP Sammy Wilson, who obtained the information, said: “It’s a bit ironic that, in the week the Prime Minister has talked about ending the bonus culture and bonuses for failure, a Government body has awarded staff a 30 per cent hike in bonuses.’’ Business Minister Ed Davey, whose department oversees the Met Office, said payouts were “in line with reward principles”.

This strikes me as paying out a bonus simply for doing your job and doesn't seem dependent on any results, after all the Met Office are still convinced that Global Warming Climate Change Global Climate Disruption is actually happening and is something humanity can do something about. Which is why their long term models are no longer published owing to the fact that they'd become a laughing stock over the sheer inaccuracy of them. In a sense here, what is happening is the reinforcing of a culture of failure after all, next day temperature predictions are only 87 per cent right and its daily forecasts are only right six days out of seven.Which essentially means that there's only a one in seven chance of the forecast being right on the actual day they pronounce it! With all the equipment they have you'd expect a somewhat higher percentage than that. As for the long term forecasts, well unsurprisingly enough they don't count in the bonus scheme as they are for research purposes only which rather suggest that the weather does not still co-operate with their climate models. Not that this or last years weather was particularly easy to predict, certainly the seasons seem slightly out of kilter with an unusual mildness over the last 3 months though it was pretty cold this morning with the first frost of the year in Kent.
A bonus scheme is only really suitable in a company that makes money not in the public sector, the criteria for success is not judged in the same way nor are the business models even slightly similar. If Cameron et al want to go after the private sector and their bonuses, they really ought to clean up their own acts first.

Greed

The public sector unions and their members who voted to go on strike are taking the piss, despite the improved offer from the government, which as far as I'm concerned is still mostly coming out of the taxpayers pocket. No, I'm not saying they don't deserve a pension, but, what I am saying is that if they do want something better than the state pension they should be funding it themselves and not asking the rest of us to cough up.
Express.

BRITAIN is set to be crippled by strike action after union leaders yesterday rejected a massively improved deal to reform bloated public sector pensions.
There was outcry last night at the damaging union move to deny any attempt to reform the system to help solve the country’s debt crisis.
The union refusal came despite the Government offer of concessions worth billions of pounds.
Under the offer announced by Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander, pensions of low and middle earners would be as good or better than now. Around a million workers within 10 years of retiring would not have to work longer and would keep their final salary pensions. There would be no more reform for 25 years.
A teacher on £37,800 would get a pension of £25,200 a year under the deal, compared to £19,100 now. A nurse on £34,200 would get a pension of £22,800 compared to £17,300 now.
Unions welcomed the improved offer but will press on with plans for a mass walkout on November 30 following demos in June.

Nowhere in private industry would you expect to see such pensions, they are simply unsustainable without massive contributions from the workers themselves. Only in the deluded world of the socialists controlling the public sector unions would you expect to see the rejection of such generous terms and still have the meally mouthed gall to claim that public sympathy would be on their side carefully mentioning nurses, teachers and policemen whilst carefully avoiding any mention of diversity co-ordinators, racial awareness officers and healthy living administrators who also expect those of us who create wealth to pay for their long term comfort whilst struggling to make ends meet today never mind saving for their old age.
Yes I realise there are certain professions that have short term lifespans owing to the physical nature of the job, but by and large most civil servant and public servants could cope quite well with working to 65+ like the rest of us poor buggers paying their way.
The unions should simply be told that it's take it or leave it, any strike will be a breach of contract and grounds for automatic dismissal, followed by re-application for the jobs at sensible contributions, oh and in a union free environment.
People need to learn, if you want something then you pay your way to get it, you should not expect anyone else to dip into their pockets to pay your way, ever.

Actions, not words please

Until the blogger Guido Fawkes (Paul Staines) took it upon himself to highlight the gross abuses of "Pilgrims" within the public services who do a full time union job at the taxpayers expense many of us were unaware at just how deep the rot of corruption and waste of money that Labour were prepared to cover up to allow the bloated public sector unions who bankroll them to feast at the trough of taxation. So far it's been estimated there are around 150 civil servants who are actually full time trade union officials, all on the public payroll and this does not cover those working at local government levels. More part timers exist as well soaking up revenue that could be spent elsewhere combating the cuts rather than encouraging strike action by public service staff.

Picture courtesy of Guido's blog

Express.

Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles slammed the role of paid full-time unionists as a “non-job” and pledged to crack down on them.
He told the Conservative conference yesterday: “They cost the public sector – that’s taxpayers to you and me – a quarter of a billion pounds a year.
“That’s money taken away from frontline services.”
He said Labour was too in hock to unions to take action, adding: “If unions want to raise money for Labour – do it in your own time, not on the rates.
“We’re going to call time on this last closed shop.” 

Indeed Labour are in hock to the unions, there were various scams in place such as the Union Modernisation Fund that saw a rebate for the money the unions paid to the Labour Party come straight out of government coffers for the development and advancement of the “movement”. In other words Labour were using public funds by what amounted to a money laundering scheme to top up their coffers.
Yet despite what Eric Pickles is saying and mostly I like what he says, I'm still waiting for deeds to match the words. We (the taxpayers) are being ripped off left right and centre by corrupt unions, corrupt local government and corrupt politicians in general. Their time is coming, the only thing that might save them is to pay back what they are stealing, something they are showing no inclination to do.
Someday they will hang for their crimes, it can't come too soon.

Sounds good in theory

Lot of things sound good in theory, but in practice are either very complex or don't work the way they were originally intended, like the UK benefits system, which was originally supposed to be a safety net for people between jobs, but eventually has turned into a comfort zone for some who see no point in working.
This idea also seems good in theory...
BBC.

Proposals to charge utility companies for digging up roads during busy times in England are being put forward by the government in a national consultation.

Ministers propose that companies carrying out roadworks at peak times pay councils to rent the road space.

They would be able to avoid the charges by carrying out works during quieter periods or, if appropriate, at night.

As the 12-week consultation begins, Transport Secretary Philip Hammond said such disruption was "expensive".

I'm thinking that this is a case of no one in the government using joined up thinking. Utility companies wont be bothered about renting the road space, guess where they'll pass any costs on too?
I suspect the next excuse for a rise in energy bills will be blamed on "road rental" The utility companies have no incentive whatsoever to stop digging up roads at peak periods with this plan, because they will be able to recoup their costs by passing them on via their billing system to consumers.
Or perhaps the government do know this and are just allowing the utility companies to screw us over again, like they have with wind farms and solar energy.
The easiest way around it would be to give local authorities the power to enforce 24 hour working on any work that needs doing or to prevent any disruption during peak periods. Though again, how do they cope with emergency repairs...
As I said it sounds good in theory, but in practice?

Living high on the hog

They still don't get it and it's looking increasingly unlikely this side of the revolution that they ever will, because there are no consequences really to their actions. I'm talking about various public bodies spending taxpayers cash like it's an inexhaustible fountain, which I suppose to them it really is as no government in recent memory has actually tackled the bastards and made them accountable to both the government and the public. Take the Audit Commission (please) in any ordinary set of circumstances you'd expect the people there to have a tight rein on what they are spending our cash on, after all it's supposed to be their job to keep an eye on what every other government department is spending our cash on.

Telegraph.

Senior figures at the Audit Commission, which polices spending at local authorities, NHS trusts and other government bodies, spent almost £20,000 of public money over the past two years on luxury goods and services.

The body is thought to be the first government organisation to release details of spending on taxpayer-funded credit cards. Thousands of other civil servants also have the cards, which have been used for spending of about £1  billion, leading to warnings of a public funds scandal.

The credit card receipts disclose that Audit Commission executives enjoyed meals costing more than £600 at L’Escargot and Coq d’Argent in London. Hundreds of pounds were also spent at a brasserie owned by Raymond Blanc, the French chef. In total, £11,390 was spent on fine dining in two years.

Executives also made 30 purchases at florists, costing more than £1,300, and also bought goods from HMV and Thorntons, cinema tickets and doughnuts.

The details were released to Eric Ollerenshaw, a Conservative MP, and will be officially disclosed to the House of Commons this week. 

A government insider said that another “MPs’ expenses-style scandal” could emerge if details of credit card expenditure across government were published. Senior mandarins are understood to be privately seeking to block such a release.

The government procurement cards are Visa cards issued by several banks for small office expenditure, including travel. Some Whitehall departments insist that the cards are used for all spending of less than £5,000, which is automatically paid off from public funds.

It really beggars belief at times the profligacy and corruption of taxpayers cash at the top of the public services, if anyone tried that in my company their feet wouldn't even touch the floor as they were kicked out and means set in motion to recoup the money through either civil or criminal courts. Though most expenses wouldn't even be allowed to reach the stage that these troughing pigs have managed, they'd just look at the receipts and say we're not paying that. But in the weird world of the public services such basic safeguards don't seem to have a place in the culture of waste and mismanagement at the top of the tree, though I suspect the junior ranks might just struggle to get a replacement paperclip from the stationary store such would be the paperwork involved.
It will be interesting to see if senior mandarins in the civil service do manage to block the release of credit card expenditure on their Visa government procurement cards after all, they can spend up to £5,000 on them and it's paid off automatically no questions asked, well at least until now, people like Eric Ollerenshaw MP are asking and seem to be trying to get to the bottom of the foetid stink of corruption that emanates from senior civil servants.
Will he succeed? We can hope so. Will heads roll? We can hope so too. What we can be sure of is that the senior mandarins will fight like trapped rats to prevent even a hint of their largesse ever coming to the attention of the public or even MP's if they can help it. It's one of the reasons they have to go, or be strung from the lampposts as and when we get around to them after hanging the MP's and lawyers etc.
It's a long list and it just keeps getting longer and possibly always will at least until they show a lot more respect to the long suffering taxpayer and really start giving value for money.

Jobsworths (again)

Step up to the Plate Brent Council in North London who have decided to ban a 13 year tradition of doing an Easter March by the local Christian Churches.

Mail.

Every year the Christians from different churches get together to march a 400-yard route to celebrate Easter.

But this year their Good Friday parade has been banned – because it breaches health and safety laws.

Church leaders say town hall bureaucrats are refusing Christians rights routinely afforded to minority groups, and have vowed to defy them.

Last night Brent Council told the worshippers to walk on the pavement.

A spokesman added: ‘Brent Council was not contacted about the march until around a week ago. 

‘There is a strict legal procedure we have to follow to issue a traffic order closing roads so people can march in the highway, which includes advertising and consultation, and this takes about five weeks. 

‘We are very sorry to say there is now not enough time for us to legally facilitate this march.’

I'm sorry, but the not enough time to facilitate the march doesn't cut the mustard with me, the churches have been doing it for 13 years and I'm fairly sure that the council knows about the parade and where and when it's likely to take place. Can you imagine the furore if the GLC decided on health and safety grounds to ban the Notting Hill carnival in August because no-one had asked them about it? Not going to happen is it? This is just a piece of posturing by Brent to discriminate against Christians after all if they can hold and promote a massive Diwali festival as well as asking local mosques about Eid so they can promote that festival too...

Brent Council hosts a Diwali street celebration every year. Last November it boasted it had held the biggest Diwali event in the country, after more than 60,000 people turned out. 

And in July last year the council appealed to the Muslim community to notify it of any Eid events so it could promote them free of charge.

If they can recognise those other newer festivals then surely they can recognise Easter and the traditions in Brent that go on around that celebration that oddly enough have gone on for 13 years without until this year interference from the council.
Personally I think this is just a religiously motivated attack against Christians something that I'd bet good money on that Brent would never try against any other religion, I rather expect they'd move heaven and earth if the local Mosques wanted to do a parade at short notice and would allow them to have their way.
I'm still trying to decide whether it's idiocy or malice that defines all these attacks against the indigenous law abiding people of this land, though I'm starting to come down on the side of malice and a deliberate attempt to wind us all up into attacking a scapegoat for all the problems we face, rather than the political classes as they deserve.

Descriptive or insulting?

I don't really know any homosexuals, well I do know one, but I've never discussed the issue with him, I don't even think he knows I know, certainly his parents don't. I have discussed various issues they have online in a few debate forums I haunt and mostly found them to be nice guys, level headed and not at all bothered that some feel uncomfortable around them so long as they aren't actually being abusive about it. The EDL have a Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, Transgender division which has always struck some as odd, well at least until you discover what Islam has in store for gays, they are treated well on demo's most people being of the opinion that what you do in your bedroom is your business, they don't mind being called gay either, it's all in context really...

Daily Mail.

Jobcentre bosses are investigating claims that staff taunted a couple with homophobic abuse during weeks of discrimination - calling them 'gay boys'.
Steve Mellor, 23, and Roy Pearson, 28, say they were victimised for being homosexual whenever they went to claim their benefits.
The Department for Work and Pensions is now looking into claims that staff abused them and labelled them with the derogatory term.

Is "gay boys" a derogatory term though? It does depend on context, certainly it is descriptive, but was it meant to be insulting, or just that a description of the two guys and not meant to be insulting. I can certainly think of worse insults, though they claim they had no problems in in previous Jobcentres, just in this one when they declared themselves to be a couple. So, were the Jobcentre staff being rude and insensitive? I doubt it, no more than they treat pretty much everyone the same, the places tarnish the soul of pretty much everyone who works or attends them. Nothing quickly gives you a lower opinion of the general public than actually having to deal with them after all. I suspect this is just another compo claim, the guys being "professionally offended" I may be wrong of course, they may just be sensitive souls. Either way they should no more be upset about the designation "gay" if they are gay than I would by the designation "breeder" (I have the kids to prove it)
Personally I'm of the opinion that they should be told to "grow a pair" and be less sensitive, but I think that about most offended by insult cases anyway.

Letting go of the past

3 years ago now I was diagnosed with cancer, an aggressive malignant tumour had taken residence in my right upper arm near the elbow and was growing fast. It took a few weeks to realise it wasn't a haematoma or a sports injury and by January 2007 I had an appointment with a specialist consultant in the Royal Marsden Hospital in London. 7 weeks of radiotherapy then an operation successfully removed the tumour, but left me missing half my bicep and some radial nerve damage, but still alive and still with an arm.

I used to be pretty good with a guitar, still would be if it wasn't for the nerve damage, I can still do the fret movements for chords and pick work but what I can't do anymore is strum properly or finger pick, the fine motor control is gone along with full control over the wrist (don't hold anything for me if I attempt to hammer it, really just don't!)

So tomorrow I have decided to sell my guitar, it cost a lot of money at the time and is still "as new" the case is a damned good one too in mint condition, yet I doubt that I'll get  as good a price, not that I expect too.
Yet still I'm reluctant, I know I can't play and yet I feel bad about selling it. Mind you I am a bit of a packrat, I still have boxes of tools in the loft that I doubt I'll ever use again, this is on top of my now unused working tools.

Still I am going to take up a new hobby, though I haven't quite decided yet what it will be, probably ornamental wrought ironwork, so the sale of the guitar will cover the cost of a welder and some bending tools and I'll give that a go. Just hope the world is ready for another faux artisan with a weird taste in plantpot holder design and candlesticks.

Others that can't seem to let go of the past though are the public service unions.

Telegraph.

Civil servants go on 48-hour strike over redundancy pay
Civil servants have started a 48-hour strike in protest at cuts to redundancy pay.

Up to 270,000 civil servants are taking part in the action, which will hit courts, ports, jobcentres, benefit offices, tax centres and emergency police call centres.
The walkout by members of the Public and Commercial Services union is the biggest outbreak of industrial unrest in the service since 1987, with further disruption planned in the run-up to the general election.
The union is protesting over changes to the Civil Service compensation scheme, which it says will ''rob'' civil servants of up to a third of their entitlements, worth thousands of pounds, when they leave their jobs.
MPs warned there was ''growing consternation'' on the Labour backbenches over the dispute, especially as it had flared so close to the election.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) said: ''The Government has severely under-estimated the strength of feeling among civil servants and the anger that's built up and led to this dispute.
''It is critical now that the Government returns to the negotiation table to avoid further disruption. This dispute could be resolved easily with flexibility from the Government.''

I doubt the government can resolve it, they've run out of money, the unions don't seem to realise this so they're striking, not to stop the redundancies but to hold on to the redundancy money. I doubt they even realise that the average wage for a public sector worker is around £25K a year which is about £70 a day. They're striking for 2 days for which they'll get no pay saving us, the taxpayer, around £30 million roughly, wonder if that might cover the payments.


I don't think the public service unions have moved into the present yet, they still live in the past and act like it, the private sector rarely strikes because we can't afford too, all the public service unions are showing is that they  don't live in the same world as the rest of us. Nor will they win, the cupboard is bare, the government has wasted it all on administrators and civil servants to the point where they can't even pay them redundancy to get rid of them.


Sooner or later though the public services are going to have to realise, like me and my guitar that the world has changed and holding on to something that's past is counter-productive and does them no good at all. The world has changed, not necessarily for the better, but the rest of us have adapted and moved on, we don't strike, we don't automatically get pay rises and we don't get protected pensions and we don't sympathise with them either.

My world has moved on, time they did too.