Sorry Dave, Charity Should Begin At Home

I always thought we had things wrong in this country with the levels of foreign aid handouts we give to other countries, but this week’s report declaring we don’t even know where it’s going takes the biscuit!

The recklessness of maintaining every pound of our overseas aid budget while other ‘home’ departments are cut to within inches of their lives has been proved.

I’ve always held the opinion that too much of our cash intended to feed the World’s starving end up in the wrong hands, but now a report by MPs has revealed this wonderful, generous Government of ours can’t even be bothered to check the money is getting to the intended recipients.

Britain gives £4.9BILLION which is 60% of our aid (incidentally one of the highest levels in the World) through agencies such as, the World Bank, European Union and United Nations who then decide how to use the money. Well it seems that only FOUR out of THIRTY NINE of these aid agencies have been monitored to make sure us taxpayers are getting value for money. 

I can only draw one conclusion from this which is the simple fact that we don’t care where our precious money goes! If we were giving it away for genuine, humanitarian reasons we’d take plenty of care to make sure it got there. Which means we’re giving it away purely for vanity, to make the current Government look generous both to its voters and to the World in general – and that I’m afraid is just not acceptable.

So How Much Do We Give Away ?

Well these are the Foreign Aid budget figures for this Government:

2011/12                £8.55 Billion

2012/13                £8.81 Billion

2013/14                £11.56 Billion

2014/15                £12.16 Billion

To put that into context, this year’s figures amount to 0.7% of our National Income, this has risen from 0.56% in 2011.   

Considering the cuts that are still being forced on this country, these outlandish sums of money going abroad to countries - some that have their own space program, is just ridiculous. Going off this week’s report it seems to be entirely because Cameron wants to look good on the World Stage, just as his predecessor Tony Blair did.

It’s time his MP's either make him change course not only on this but the EU and a lot of other things as well or get rid of him, this country of ours can’t afford Cameron and his inflated ego. Is it any wonder traditional, lifelong Conservative members are defecting to UKIP in droves?

Why are we’re doing it and Why us ?

They claim that Foreign Aid leads to improved future trade and benefits the UK economy. We should remember the years of aid given to India in the expectation that we’d sell them Typhoon fighter jets, but then when it came down to it the contract went to the French.

They claim it’s a moral issue. Really? Why are we giving up to £12 billion in 2014-15 when the likes of Russia and particularly the USA are giving so much less? The example we are trying to set is not being followed by any of the other super powers. So is it just a shameless bribe to get third world business?

They say we should be wary of what happens in the likes of Somalia, Syria or Sierra Leone. Well ask the average man/woman in the street what they think about Somalia and you`ll no doubt get either derision or a mouthful of abuse about thieves, deadbeats and pirates! Cameron is so far out of touch it`s getting silly and the longer it continues the more he looks the incompetent fool.

To continuously give our money away annually when we are on the verge of bankruptcy is scandalous. In addition to give money to rich, developed countries like India, China, Brazil etc is out of order and should stop immediately.

Britain's aid commitments make us the 'soft touch' of the international community. Add to that our immigration policy, plus the human rights issues; it makes us the laughing stock of the world. We have lost all semblance of common sense in this country.

Why are we borrowing the morning to give it away ?

To make matters even worse, we’re still borrowing money for all this.

But this is all about personal kudos at the top table; the elite running this country don't care about the rest of us. How much is it costing us to borrow £12 billion every year? How stupid is it? If we had money in the bank that’s fine, but to mortgage our country's future by borrowing huge sums from the International Money lenders to give away while our own services crash-dive is lunacy.

You know what makes me laugh is that when these morons in the government (and Labour for that matter) talk about debt and how we as individuals racked up too much debt living beyond our means, getting loans to pursue a lifestyle we couldn’t afford, then they go and do the very same thing.

We should not be borrowing money to give it away. Foreign aid is a luxury that we can no longer afford. It’s no different to me going out and giving £100 to charity from a credit card that I can't afford the repayments on.

When you are in a hole the first rule is stop digging. When you are broke the first rule is to stop borrowing. The second rule should be to stop giving away the money you have borrowed!

The Empire’s Long Gone

Some of these basket case nations we provide aid to were once part of the "British Empire", but they didn’t want that, they wanted their independence and that means that not only are they politically independent of the old "Mother country" but they now need to be after 40 to 50 plus years economically independent too. The begging bowl is near to being empty. It's time to stop feeling guilty for things our forebears did, which by the standards of the day were acceptable.

There’s an argument about monies going as aid following major disasters and that has some validity, however in the actual event of a major disaster I believe that G8 nations and others should help equally.

Look after our own first !

In poor times, giving away our tax payers money is just wrong. I was always taught that charity should begin at home. We need to look after the people who have contributed to this country, the elderly who have paid their taxes all their lives and now struggle to pay heating bills and buy food.

We’ve got cancer patients being refused medication; children unable to walk refused operations to change their lives; the elderly having to sell their homes to pay for care; state pensioners dying from cold and hunger; parents queuing at food banks to feed their children; our NHS almost broke; our troops being made redundant and our emergency services being reduced, I could go on and on but this government still thinks it is better to either give our hard earned taxpayers money away or money we’ve borrowed (money that our great grandchildren will still be paying back) to other countries. All this just goes to show how little this Government thinks of the indigenous British people, preferring to make themselves look good instea

Armed Forces Cuts

Downsizing our armed forces whilst donating money so other countries can increase theirs and increase their nuclear programmes is just gross negligence. Why on earth should we cut our armed forces so dictators in other countries can buy weapons and gold taps with our money while starving their own people?

Stop the aid, withdraw from the EU and put all the money saved into reversing the cuts to our armed forces. Modernising our armed forces is a great investment opportunity, defence jobs, political clout on the world stage and the trickle down of business into private sector businesses such as BAE systems leads to more jobs, growth and more tax receipts.

In Summary

I had high hopes for Cameron after Blair and Brown, things had to get better, and instead we have more of the self promoting same.

What is Cameron and Gideon the boy-wonder attempting to prove with this aid policy? If it’s the impression we are a nation of giving and generosity I'm afraid they have failed, dolling out money to richer countries than us like India or Brazil is a waste and giving billions to countries with despotic regimes in the vain hope that some of it trickles past corrupt officials to the people that need it is desperate.

Britain has always been a generous country but we didn't expect huge job losses or food banks feeding our own or people committing suicide rather than lose their home. We have an out of touch leadership that despite public opinion just carries on regardless. Democracy shouldn't work like this

In my humble opinion we should now be stopping all foreign aid until we are truly able to afford it.

Warrington Council. Suffer The Little Children

The Labour run Council in Warrington is one which has well and truly lost not only it’s priorities but it’s way. No wonder the Central Labour Party itself feels the need to investigate them.

Whilst all this goes on, the top 15 executive officers continue to earn well over £100k AND get a pay rise and the local school children have their school buses withdrawn to save a mere £69k. As I say priorities ALL wrong.

So where to begin ?

Unlike Warrington Council, I’m going to put the school kids first. Here’s a potted history of how we’ve got to a situation where a significant number of school kids can no longer get to school come September.

For years Warrington, along with many local authorities, had a system of primary schools which were feeder schools for secondary schools. These were long established and though not guaranteed, if your child went to a certain primary school they would then move with all their friends and siblings to the same secondary school.

These relationships between primary and secondary schools had existed for years the links being created largely through similarly grouped communities rather than distance, though distances were never excessive.

An example of a linked community all going to the same secondary school is that of Croft, Kenyon, Winwick and Culcheth all feeding into Culcheth High School. Makes sense doesn’t it ?

School buses were provided to take the kids to their school, those within a few miles who could walk, paid. Whilst those from farther away like Winwick had a free pass. Again, nothing particularly unusual.

Lets save some money

In 2012, Warrington Council came up with an idea to save what they though would be a significant amount of money by withdrawing the free school buses. This on it’s own wouldn’t have been a major issue, yes it would have hit hard working families in the pocket, parents would have grumbled but they’d have ultimately paid. The kids would have just paid to get on the normal school bus instead of showing a pass and to school they would go.

Warrington though, haven’t created anything so simple. It’s like they’ve tried to be clever and failed abysmally. Here’s what happened.

Consultation

Firstly they go out for consultation very discreetly without much advertising during the 2012 summer holidays when the kids aren’t at school . Sneeky or what ?

They then decide that feeder schools are being abolished from Summer 2013 and if you want free buses, children must go to their nearest school rather than where they’ve traditionally gone. Note this is starting to split kids up from the same family who will end up going to different schools.

The Council then re-affirm the Government’s choice of school agenda but say if you choose to go anywhere except your nearest school then you pay yourself. So much for choice !!

Amongst these proposals was one whereby those children in Years 10 & 11 in 2013/14 can continue with their free passes but everyone else can’t. Thus having a Transport Zone for older children and another for younger ones both of whom were in the one Transport Zone previously. Is this not age discrimination ?

Parents have had to apply for free school bus passes if they felt they’re children were entitled to one. The vast majority of these applications have been declined by the Council. It has also presented a situation where certain children from the same family who go to the same school have applied, one being declined, the other successful – what an utterly stupid, inefficient system.

Some parents have appealed to the local ombudsman to get the whole thing overturned, this they were largely unsuccessful with, merely gaining minor changes which changed next to nothing for those actually effected.

We are where we are ?

You might think "so what ? We are where we are." Well actually we’re not.

Remember I mentioned about the kids just paying to get on the normal school buses? Well no they can’t, it appears they are free school buses and as the kids are not eligible for free school buses they can’t get on them. What about the normal service bus ? Again, no, apart from the timings not matching the school times the driver’s do not let the number of children involved on them, they either refuse to let them on or simply drive past.

So Warrington Council, you set up the feeder school’s system, we played by those rules, our children played by those rules, they went to the school’s through the route you set up. Please can you tell us how the many kids that are effected are supposed to get to school ?

• Car maybe ? I’m sure you’d welcome an additional hundred or so cars on the streets of Warrington during each rush hour, that’s safe and sustainable isn’t it ?
• Walk ? 5 miles is too far, and the route isn’t safe (your words not mine)
• Bike ? The route isn’t safe, we’ve already established that.

The point is Warrington Council has abandoned these kids. NOTHING has been put in place to help these children get to school.

Savings must be colossal to warrant this disruption to our children’s lives ?

Nope. A mere £69k in 2013/14, reducing each year thereafter.

Where else can they save this amount ?

Well this is where the truth about Warrington Council’s real priorities come out.

The local bus company is one of the few in the country still owned by the local authority. In 2013 it finds itself in the position where it is losing significant amounts of money and had to be baled out by the Council to the tune of a reported “substantial six figure sum”. Why are we baling out loss making operations that other local authorities got rid of years ago ? See the following previous blog for my thoughts on that one. Stagecoach in Warrington, Hopefully

The Big One 

Executive staff salaries.

During 2011/12 (Last published year of salaries) FIFTEEN Warrington Council officer picked up salaries of more than £100,000 a year. They picked up £3,825,305 between them.

That figure saw Warrington Borough Council among the top 38 local authorities paying the high-level wages to 15 or more employees in a year. The numbers were part of Taxpayers’ Alliance list of the highest paid council workers from across the country.

Makes you gasp with amazement doesn’t it?

They’ve made a few changes since then. The plans to alter the current structure, include the removal of an executive director post costing £113,025, BUT the remaining directors are in line for pay rises as they take over some of this work.

They’re pocketing nearly FOUR MILLION amongst FIFTEEN of them, whilst disrupting HUNDREDS of children’s education to save just SIXTY NINE THOUSAND. 

The answer to the funding problem lies here, NOT with the kids.

SUFFER LITTLE CHILDREN

So there you have it, Warrington Labour (Party of the people) stick two fingers up to the children of Warrington, looks like they’ll just have to suffer. 

We’re alright in the council though !! Another G&T councillor? Give that man a pay rise !!

I do wonder why they’re being investigated by their own party though? Hope it’s nothing trivial. 

Women In Construction. And Why Not ?

Just why is the construction industry still so institutionally sexist? Other single sex industries and professions have managed to move on, for example fire fighters, nurses and the armed forces have all now got healthier mixes and equal recruitment. The building industry, despite the odd encouraging initiative still remains unable to embrace equality beyond office based or secretarial roles. 

In Context

New figures show the construction sector made a positive contribution to the UK’s gross domestic product growth in the second quarter of the year. Figures released by the Office for National Statistics have showed construction output leapt 4.6% higher month-on-month in April and remained flat in May. The figures put the sector on track for growth of more than 2 per cent for the second quarter, which is set to contribute to overall output figures for the economy.

So within today’s climate, the UK construction industry is still one of the country's largest and most important employers. It is worth billions, provides 7% of the UK's gross domestic product and employs around 1.4 million people.

A recent report by the Equal Opportunities Commission found that while women make up 49% of the total UK workforce they hold just 9% of all construction jobs. This 9% breaks down into :

• 1%   Trades-people 
• 2%   Sole traders 
• 4%   Micro-enterprises (employing 1-10 people)
• 10% Working in design and management 
• 84% Secretarial

So at least 94% are non-site-based women without a trade.

Most of us are probably not shocked by these unsurprising figures. Most people, when picturing a building site have an image of a group of men wearing hard hats and yellow vests, perving over the occasional passing female with a complimentary wolf whistle or an equally endearing ‘alright love’, she is the only female in the image.  

Construction appears to be the industry that was left behind in a cloud of male preference and female submission. But why is it that there are so few females and what are the major deterrents for women entering the construction industry?

Dangerous

We’re well into the 21st Century now, so why is the image mentioned above of the construction industry still generally accepted as the norm. It can’t be the dangers of the job. If it’s okay for females to now make up over 10% of the operational army; for them to be fully fledged fighter pilots; for them to put their lives at risk putting fires out or to be right at the front in full riot gear during disturbances on our streets, then working on a building site shouldn’t be an issue.  

Recruitment

Do employers make a point of not recruiting women as they are seen as the ‘weaker sex’? Or is it just because women don’t see themselves working in a traditionally male dominated industry? 

Most construction industry companies make no special focus on recruiting more women to their company. But surely this is right, their sex shouldn’t impact on someone’s ability to do a job.

Talking to some women who have chosen a career in construction, 85% referred to an interest in building and engineering, some saw good career prospects; some it was simply the fact that they wanted to do something a bit ‘different’ with their life. These are all good indicators of enthusiasm and commitment for the choices they had made. They also show a willingness to work in the industry. 

So recruitment doesn’t appear to be the issue. Women can get training and jobs, just not enough of them are doing. 

It’s worth remembering that during the 1990s and early 2000s the numbers of women entering the construction industry increased dramatically to a stage where there are as many women construction managers as there are receptionists, however women still make-up only 4% of all construction managers.

Deterrents

When asked in an industry survey what deters women from working in construction, they themselves point to a mixture of the ‘male dominated environment’, ‘long hours’, ‘working conditions’ and ‘not child friendly’ culture.

So while it’s generally agreed that employers should and do recruit on merit (rather than ‘positively discriminating’ for women) it is clear that many women don’t apply for construction jobs in the first place because of the acknowledged deterrents. 

Companies that are addressing these perceived issues such as working hours and the working environment to improve things for their female employees need to promote this to future candidates if they want to benefit from a more diverse workforce.

Male Dominated Environment

This is true in the construction industry whether site or office based. Perception is that that all men in the industry refuse to work with women. This is not the case at all, the real issue is that a few men who don’t want to work with women can make the working environment hostile and potentially dangerous. That their behaviour is still tolerated, at best dismissed, does nothing to make the workplace safer.

Women acting as ‘one-of-the-boys’ in order to prove themselves can work but it shouldn’t have to. I found this quote from a female site operative on an on-line forum which seems to sum the reality up:-

“I recently started working on construction sites and I never feel welcome. As a result I am not very friendly, I am reluctant to talk to others. I am afraid if I am too nice men will take it as an invitation to flirt as a result I find I am always very short with people and sometimes quite rude. I guess I am confused with how to behave, in what I am quickly finding to be the most un-female friendly work environment possible. I never would have imagined it would be this uncomfortable”

My advice to this young lady would be to hang in there. It will get better, but you have to be tough. Focus on your work and with time you will see that your work ethic will guide you. The solution isn’t to ignore it or try to out do the men by effing and blinding and being overly aggressive.

It won't be easy, but suffering in silence is not the best option. It may take a while to find your voice, but you shouldn’t be afraid to speak up for yourself. Part of the issue is that many men on construction sites don't even know when they’re being intimidating, too forward, or insulting.  If you don't feel comfortable speaking up right away, find a friendly co-worker and talk to them about what you are going through. Even one experienced colleague can make a world of difference and don’t forget, companies have processes to address these issues head on.

Women deserve to be respected not just in a male-dominated place, but in any industry as well. Be it discriminatory remarks, sexual harassment or bullying, women should not be afraid to stand up because it is their right to be treated equally.

Architects, Engineers and Contractors

It's not much different back in the office where women are still the great minority. I’ve seen examples in a recent meeting of a female being ignored by a director despite her saying exactly the same as her male colleague. The director would only engage in conversion with the male, the female being viewed merely as admin. 

As a massive generalization, women do tend to be more methodical, more pleasant to deal with and they have a better eye for detail in design. Big growth could come in more office based but technical roles for females, though I'm still not sure how we encourage more young women to become architects, engineers, and contractors.

Woman’s role within the industry is further inhibited by the fact that there are few women in positions of seniority within the construction industry. Women are often overlooked for promotion in favour of ‘jobs-for-the-boys’.

I’ve always actively encouraged women in the industry having taken on and mentored three, all have whom have gone on to grow their careers further. I also actively encourage a very capable colleague who works alongside me to push herself further, including attending ‘Women In Construction’ events. 

What Do I Think ?

Well I’ve worked in construction for nearly 30 years and I’d like to say women have been a fantastic addition to the industry. I also think that if the best person for a job happens to be a woman, so what? I’ve worked (and still do) with extremely talented women at various levels within various companies. Success should always be based on how well you do the job not whether you're male or female.

The construction industry can be a great career choice for men and women who enjoy being active in their job.  Don’t forget, that for every man that demeans women colleagues, there are dozens more who support them. For every man that makes a sexist comment, there are plenty who respect women and value their work. For every man that harasses a woman, there are hundreds more who protect their colleagues.

The issue is not that all men refuse to work with women, the issue is that a choice few don’t, make the working environment hostile and dangerous for women. Those few that harass women have the power to ruin their day, mess with their mind, and destroy their self confidence. To combat this, we need to increase the number of women in the construction industry so that they are not a rarity. We must also encourage the unions and construction employers to include sexual harassment training as part of their health and safety plans and employees to encourage more flexible, ‘family friendly’ working hours. Women deserve to have access to skilled trades, and they deserve to be respected as an equal fellow colleague.

Society Needs To Change

Of course the solution doesn’t solely lie with the construction industry to make changes to accommodate women. We must change the way we bring our daughters up! If we continue to encourage our daughters to be ‘girly-girls’, all meek, quiet and passive then yes, discriminatory practice will continue. But, if we raise our daughters to be female and tough (and I don't mean raise our girls to be boys), we will certainly see the shift in these fields to accommodate more women!

Today’s world is a time characterised by freedom of speech and supposed equality in the developed world. However, it appears that the construction industry is stuck in a time warp and still has a significant amount of catching up to do.

Human Rights Yes, But No Common Sense

In recent months there have been a significant number of cases that most of us view with incredulity. Examples include :

The hate campaigner, Abu Qatada with his constant appeals then the European Court of Human Rights backing him.

Psychopaths like Jeremy Bamber who have a proper ‘Life’ sentence for their despicable crimes going to the European Court of Human Rights to have it reduced and winning.

There was a ruling by the European Convention on Human Rights that found the Human Rights Act applies to British soldiers while on both British military bases abroad and on the battlefield.

Another ECHR ruling is that we must give prisoners the vote as not doing so denies them their Human Rights.

Then we have the unnecessary case of Sgt Danny Knightingale the former SAS sniper being found guilty of illegally possessing a gun.

Madness

Common sense has gone out of the window these days. The Human Rights Act needs to be re-written to get rid of the abuses and abusers of the law.

Theresa May said in a speech a few months ago that: "We need to stop human rights legislation interfering with our ability to fight crime and control immigration. That's why, as our last manifesto promised, the next Conservative government will scrap the Human Rights Act, and it's why we should also consider very carefully our relationship with the European Court of Human Rights and the convention it enforces. When Strasbourg constantly moves the goalposts and prevents the deportation of dangerous men like Abu Qatada, we have to ask ourselves to what end are we signatories to the convention?"

A rarity! A Tory Minister from this Government actually talking sense. Is our membership of the ECHRs really limiting human rights abuses in other countries? I'm sceptical. But I have to ask, are we restricting our ability to act in our own national interest? Are we conceding that our own Supreme Court is not supreme?

I'd like to see the UK pull out of the EU so we have sovereignty to make our own decisions, but the current breed of spineless Tories are the last people I'd trust with human rights, employment rights etc as they appear to be amoral and on the side of the rich and wealthy. They're out to divide & rule, whilst us ordinary Brits are bled dry. Cameron has previously said he would scrap the Human Rights Act and change it to Human Responsibility, so far though nothing has happened as usual with him.

Decide ourselves

I'm sure, that we can unilaterally decide issues of genuine Human Rights. Too many cases in the UK are having ridiculous ECHR edicts thrust upon us. All this garbage such as, "it's an infringement of a prisoner's human rights" to not be allowed to vote. As far as I'm concerned if they can’t behave as a law abiding citizen then they lose that right.

The European Court has stated that it is supposedly an infringement of our human rights to have our DNA taken. If there was a DNA database of every British national from birth or for anyone choosing to live here I guarantee lives would be saved and it would be a huge weapon in the fight against crime. It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if the Police had my DNA on file because I don't intend in engaging in criminal activity.

Before the dreaded Human Rights Act reared its ugly head, life in the UK was pretty much the same as it is today. The only difference was that terrorists could be easily deported to face swift justice overseas. We are now having our hands excessively tied by Europe when it comes to deporting terrorists and criminals.

  

Family Life

One of my big bug bears with the Human Rights Act is that everyone is entitled to a family life. That’s fine, I totally agree, but only to the point where you become a criminal. At that moment you should lose your rights while you complete your punishment.

  

Amending not abolishing

I’m not saying do away with human rights, just that the UK should be in control of deciding what constitutes as a genuine human rights issue. We need to cut out all the loopholes that smart defence lawyers use to their advantage, and which frankly make a mockery of true justice.

We need to ensure we’re not in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The convention needs amending so toxic individuals like Qatada cannot hide behind it and we can get shut of them without it costing millions, but at the same time I would like to think we are still a civilised country with a respect for human rights and all that entails.

If someone is found guilty by due process then they have the right to appeal, that’s fair enough. If the appeal fails, after due process then that’s it. They should be either banged up or deported. It’s the endless exhaustive appeals dragging on for years and exploited by greedy Human Rights lawyers that cause the problem and why I believe the convention needs changing because without doubt, it is being abused.

The Human Rights Act should be retained but rewritten to take out most or all of the abuses of it. We have all heard of the ways in which this legislation has been abused. From Afghan hijackers to denying heroin to convicted criminals, the list is endless and needs to be brought to a halt.

Asylum Seekers

Human rights laws say asylum seekers must stop and stay at the first country they reach where they feel safe. Yet they all still come here.  So asylum seekers don’t consider places like France, Italy or Spain are safe? Please! The sooner we wake up to the fact that they have a perception they’ll get all our benefits if they come here the better. Personally, I think sending the asylum seekers back to the first EU Country they come to by using those laws would answer the problem.

 

There again, just about every other country sticks up two fingers to those rulings, anyway, while we accept every tiny aspect.

No Common Sense in Society – The Bigger Issue

Society today has put a disproportionate emphasis on the Human Rights of each individual and eroded the importance of the individual’s responsibilities to their society.

Because of this, people, particularly, some of the younger generation appear to have less or no respect for authority, older people or other people’s property and are generally less courteous and well mannered.

Running parallel to this is the Claims Culture. We are now almost conditioned not to go to someone else’s assistance in case we fall foul of the law or are sued for trying to help when something goes wrong. How did we get here? This just shouldn’t be the case, surely it’s both common sense and neighbourly to go to some else’s assistance and help where we can.

Schools which used to send children abroad on exchange trips are obliged to ensure that everyone, at home and abroad, offering accommodation to the visiting children is police checked, furthermore that all the accompanying adults have first aid training, however, before applying any medication they must have the child’s consent. So in the case of a diabetic child who becomes hypo-glycaemic and falls unconscious and therefore unable to request assistance, the first aid trained accompanying adults are unable to provide what could be life saving insulin injection, for fear of being sued or prosecuted.

Similarly, if we make a mistake and have an accident we should accept full responsibility for our actions, we shouldn’t be looking to push the responsibility all the time to a third party in the hope that we can sue them for compensation. To err is human, it’s common sense.

When I was young, if a youth did something wrong in public, a policeman might give them a clip round the ear and tell them off and that would be the end of it. Nowadays, this would be construed as assault and police officer would be suspended and charged. The youth wins and continues to do wrong because they know they’ll get away with it. Bad behaviour that was simply nipped in the bud years ago is now left to fester and grow.

Will we ever get back to having strong, close knit communities looking out for one another with the full protection of the law behind them? We should, but I can’t see it.

We are all responsible

We all have the common sense responsibilities to behave well; not be aggressive; violent or harm others; not to be cruel; not to be anti-social; to help and assist others; not to drop litter; to uphold the law for the good of society and the local community in which we live; not to steal or be dishonest; and to protect other people’s property as you would protect your own.

Two World Wars were fought to defend this freedom of ours, today people are just giving it up without even batting an eyelid.  It’s an insult to the people who have died protecting this country.  That lack of gratitude makes them unworthy of the sacrifices made on their behalf.

If a political party stood up and said what I’ve said I’m sure they’d get the vote of a majority of the general, law-abiding population. But they won’t, it’s not ‘Politically Correct’ to say it, but that’s another issue for another day.

Mine's a Beer...Or It Used To Be

Flicking through the pages of the Saturday papers this week, I was surprised to come across a story buried away on page 19. It was a very small article, almost inconsequential within the context of the whole paper, but it was an incredibly sad piece, not only for the ‘victim’s family but for society as a whole.

The story was about the death of a guy on his stag night in Benidorm in 2010. Paul Tobutt died after ‘necking’ a litre of spirits in around 20 seconds. He had it ‘poured down his throat’ by a barman in a “dentist’s chair” stunt. 

(You may remember Paul Gascoigne making headlines doing something similar in Bangkok in 1996). 

His ‘Pals’ carried Paul to his hotel room but found him dead the next morning. The inquest which has just announced its findings confirmed that alcohol killed him.

Why did this story attract my attention you may ask, he was just another young binge drinking lout giving it large ? Well actually he wasn’t, and that’s what made me notice it, he was actually almost 40 and was a Trading Standards Officer from Weymouth in Dorset. Not exactly you’re typical stereotype.

So what brings a guy (or a girl these days) to think they can still drink like they did in their twenties when they’re nearly forty ? Well the answer is, because they think they can and more so.

Decisions Decisions

The story I read of Paul’s death brought home to me that a decision I made two years ago was the right one. In August 2011, at the age of 43, I took a momentous decision that after over 25 years drinking I would become ‘tee-total’. This wasn’t a decision I took lightly, but if I hadn’t, who’s to say I wouldn’t end up like Paul did.

History

Let me take you back 25 years. In 1986 I started an engineering apprenticeship, the design office I worked in had its daily traditions which were common throughout the construction industry. These included going to the pub at lunch, two pints each day, three on a Friday. I ultimately kept this going ‘till around 1999 when it started to become frowned up on in the industry. After that my lunchtime pub visits became only a couple of days a week.

Lock-Ins

While all this was going on, I was also going out almost every night of the week with ‘lock-ins’ in the local till 3am on Friday and Saturday nights, sometimes on a Tuesday too after quiz night for which I was the host. On nights I didn’t go out, I usually had a bottle of wine at home.

Changes

Marriage and kids then came along, though we still went out, I continued to drink more at home averaging a bottle of wine a day. Divorce came around ten years ago along with a change in job. The drinking at home continued but moved on to both wine and sometimes gin, not good !! The job involved travelling all over the country staying in hotels (more drinking), it also involved a considerable number of big drinking business and social events.

100 Units a week

I was averaging over 100 Units a week, but this wasn’t really a concern as I’d averaged probably more than this over the length of my ‘drinking career’. The other big thing that drove me on was I never really suffered from hangovers. Sure, when I was in my late teens/early twenties I suffered some absolute momentous ones but since then, as my drinking got more and more, my body got used to it and coped quite admirably.

The New Dawn

What made me give up ? Well the decision wasn’t sudden, it was a gradual dawning that if I didn’t, the consequences might not be pleasant.

There was a series of ‘events’ that lead up to my decision, they included :

• My boss at work changed to a new director who I got on really well with (and still do). Three or four months after he joined it was our Christmas do. He wanted to come across as being a sociable boss and asked the team who he needed to ‘keep-up with’ to make sure he was still there at the end of the night – there answer was me !
• On said Christmas do, which was in Leeds, I was first to start the drinking at 11.20am in the hotel, finally finishing as last man standing at 2.30am next morning, a 15 hour session. I was then up at 7am and in Warrington having breakfast in my local café by 10am. No hangover or ill effects.
• A team night out in Manchester which started at around 3pm and finished around 3am in a late bar with me having a drinking competition against a student 20yrs my junior drinking JD & Cokes, needless to say I beat him and suffered no ill effects the next morning.
• A temp I was working with was also in a band and he actually wrote a song called “Mark’s Bad Week” about a particularly heavy week of shall we say socialising I’d had, when we calculated I’d consumed around 225 Units. He later performed the song at an ‘open mike’ night in a music club.

These things started to gel in my head that maybe I was drinking too much, maybe I should cut down, I quickly realised that if I cut down it wouldn’t take long for me to get back where I was so I took the momentous decision to give up all together.

Not an Alcoholic

I never once considered myself to be an alcoholic, I still don’t, but the point of all this blog is that you get to an age where drinking is natural its part of your day-to-day life instead of an occasional pleasure or for weekend relaxation with friends. It was only after I stopped I realised just how much I’d needed it to simply help me sleep.

I never drank to forget , or to mask things out, or because I was depressed or worried or anxious, I drank because I liked it. Because I knew I wouldn’t get a hangover, it encouraged me more.

Which brings me back to Paul in the dentist’s chair, did he think ‘he could take it’ ? I suspect so. He couldn’t - and I’m glad I never got to that stage - but it wasn’t far away.

The Future ?

I’ve not drank for nearly two years now, but I’ve never said I wouldn’t ever again. At the moment I’ve no compulsion to start again and as long as I feel that way, I won’t. 

The Message

Firstly it’s not just about men, women are succumbing too.

Some simple stats published last year:

·     For women in high-flying roles such as chief executives, doctors and lawyers, the number of deaths caused by drinking has risen by 23 per cent.

·         At lower management level, those losing their lives to liver disease and other conditions caused by alcohol rose from 247 to 290 – a 17 per cent hike.

·         These numbers of alcohol-related death among career women has soared over the past decade and is now rising faster than among men.

·      Among men, the number of deaths in both categories were higher but rose less sharply – the toll for 2011 was 15 per cent higher than in 2001.

My message is quite simple, if you’re in your forties or fifties and drinking was always part of your life, have a look just how much you’re actually drinking, a few pints at lunch, a large whiskey or a gin when you get home, bottle of wine at night, it all adds up. Whilst you may not suffer hangovers, the day may come where you might not actually wake up.