Gorse Covert Mounds –When ‘Big Society’ Turns Into Megalomania

We’ve all heard of Cameron’s ‘Big Society’, it was a key element of the last general election and is essentially a ‘Do-Gooders’ Charter. It encourages the community to get involved in public work, often in place of local authority services that have had to be cut. A noble scheme for certain, it also recognises the significant work done by many previously unappreciated local charities.

We’ve seen many good things to come out of the ‘Big Society’ like local libraries being handed over to local (often retired) volunteers to run rather than just having them closed down. All good stuff, but what happens when these volunteer groups turn into something they were never meant to be, when certain individuals want to make a name for themselves and spoil it for everyone else? Cue the tale of Gorse Covert Mounds.

So What Are ‘Gorse Covert Mounds’?

Gorse Covert is a pleasant housing estate where I’ve lived for over 15 years on the edge of Birchwood in Warrington. The following description of the ‘Mounds’ comes direct from the Woodland Trust’s leaflet on the area.  

Gorse Covert Mounds form a long wooded ridge with superb views to Manchester and the Pennine Hills from Pestfurlong Hill. The area looked very different 100 years ago when it was an expanse of flat bog, often covered with mist.

During the Second World War much of the moss was drained and a huge bomb factory was built on the land. It employed 30,000 workers, mainly women, who produced over a million mines and 500,000 high explosive shells! It was a dangerous place to work with frequent explosions. Many lost limbs and a few their lives. Detonator assembly was particularly risky and the women who did this were known as the Suicide Group.

The Mounds are man-made, created from spoil heaps formed when the bomb factory was demolished in the 1960s. They were landscaped in the 1970s and are now an attractive mixture of woodland, ponds and meadow. In addition, Pestfurlong Moss contains remnants of bog. The varied habitats provide food, shelter and breeding areas for a wealth of plants and animals. 

The Woodland Trust were gifted this land by Warrington New Town Development Corporation with the agreement that it would be held in trust for the benefit of the community and maintained accordingly. Since they took over, very little has been done other than a little coppicing and thinning where the over-growth becomes a real hazard to visitors and neighbouring properties. Some remedial work was done to 'some' of the paths a few years ago when their condition became intolerable but, apart from that, zilch. In other words, the cost to Woodland Trust has been negligible.

So What’s My Beef?

Well to understand that, we need to go back a few years. The story is taken up by a neighbour and good friend of mine who has always used the mounds for exercise and walking their dog. “When I retired I made contact with The Woodland Trust as the area was a disgrace, lots of litter and the like. I asked if they would supply me with a litter picker and some bags. Out of that grew the idea of a small group of fellow dog walkers working together for the good of the area.  We managed to get the benches repaired, and a bench placed at the ponds by nagging and chatting to the bosses at the Woodland Trust” It all sounds good doesn’t it? And it was, improvements were gradually being made by a little gang of friends making a difference!

The Takeover

The Woodland Trust recommended that the dog walkers became an official group, as that permits them to apply for grants to improve the area. This coincided with Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ and the involvement of a local Tory Councillor who needed to raise his profile, coupled with that was the inevitable involvement of the ‘tree hugger brigade’. This little band of do-gooders took over the little band of dog walkers, insisting that they had to have a committee, a constitution and a bank account!

At this point, my friend one of the original instigators resigned, committees and constitutions wasn’t what they intended when they formed their little group, all they wanted to do was keep the area tidy.

The group now has a ‘Management Committee’ with a Chairperson (the Tory Councillor of course), a Secretary, a Treasurer and a Membership ‘Officer’. The Group has a ‘Purpose’ statement “The Group exists to provide a forum for and opportunities for involvement by the local community and organisations, who have an interest in the sustainable management and use of Gorse Covert Mounds. In so doing it aims to enhance the enjoyment, biodiversity, health, safety and education value of an important community resource” – Buzz word city hey? Problem is, it’s alienated the very people whose idea it was in the first place. 

Over Zealous Stupidity

As usual when these groups go all official they get very precious about what they see as their domain and oppose anything and everything they disagree with.  

A couple of years ago some lads built a small camp in the woods , set it up with seats and had some fun, it’s what lads do, it was harmless, and the local police said it was doing no harm, the chairman of the group wasn’t having this though, so he tore it down! Wasn’t it Dale Carnegie who wrote “How To Win Friends and Influence People” obviously this guy has never read that book? The results of his actions were to “piss-off” the original members even more.

A statement in the group’s constitution is the usual politically correct “everyone should have the right to the safe enjoyment of these woodlands that is consistent with these values, regardless of their sex, or sexual orientation, religion, culture, ethnic or racial identity, disability or age”

Good disabled access then will be allowed. Well I walked the mounds this morning and I challenge any disabled person to do the same. They can’t even get through the gate if they’re in a wheelchair. There was originally a perfectly good gate giving access near to the ponds, that was replaced with a metal swing gate that requires a "radar" key to open it, so if you are in a wheelchair or have a child in a buggy and do not have a key, your only way in is to go through the wooded area to the side which is thick with mud. In addition, to enable them to fit the gate they cut away at the slope of the small hill, so now the whole area is a flooded mud bath not only when it rains but through the whole of winter. So whilst saying all the right politically correct things what happens on the ground is something totally different, sounds familiar in the political world doesn’t it?

Destruction not Conservation

As with all tree hugging do-gooder groups, they like to do what they think is best for us. Well this lot have gone well beyond their self-declared remit. Their constitution declares they “will work with others to enrich and protect the woodland and its natural vegetation and wildlife and to encourage activities that are in harmony with nature”. How will they do this? Well destruction of the areas of rhododendrons has been one item, why? What will this really achieve? Rhododendrons are often used extensively as ornamental plants in landscaping; they are used for their structure, size, flowers, and the fact that many of them are evergreen. So a perfect fit you would think? Nope, the group are in the process of ripping them all out.

Just to the right of the main Pestfurlong Hill and before the area of woodland is a flat area, which over years has become dry and fairly flat, it is used by the young kids to play hide and seek, and by dog walkers as a good area for playing catch with their mutts.  It did have young seedling trees growing on it, but the chairman and his gang have cut them down, their intention is to allow it to flood and revert to what it was, a bog, they believe that it is in the area of the oldest bog in the area and therefore it is important for our futures. Utter rubbish, nothing round here was as it was, there are plenty of ponds around the mounds and in winter, off the paths it’s virtually all bog, so we don’t need anymore.

Yes, I admit some improvements have been made in recent years. About 3 years ago they re-topped some paths, but such a poor job was done that they are already breaking down! Blame seems to be being laid at the doors of the contractor however I suspect it should be laid at the door of the specifier.

The chairman is currently moaning about rabbits eating the willow he’s been planting which he wants to grow and sell it. He’s looking at purchasing metal fencing to protect them. So no natural order allowed here, the little bunnies are just doing what bunnies do, stop discriminating against them guys.

At The End of The Day

At the end of the day, this land is not an ancient moss land, it’s all man made, so why treat it like it’s something else. We have Risley Moss down the road if you want special interest.

It’s often said it’s better to do the small things well than the big things badly. This is a case in point. Most of the locals who I speak to just want a nice walk, with good paths, they are not wanting flooded fields and the chopping down of the rhododendron bushes or of nice trees just because they're not indigenous to the area. A quote from a local who uses the area regularly sums it up "Quite frankly, I don't give a toss about the greater crested newt or how invasive the rhododendrons are; I just want somewhere to exercise my dog and meet other like-minded people"

Instead of flooding fields to recreate old bogs sort the drainage across the site out so people can stray off the paths all year round; sort the disabled access out so disabled people can truly use this wonderful asset; don't replace gates that don't need replacing; sort the motor bikers out who wreck the paths riding them. These simple things will all make a bigger difference to the Big Society of Gorse Covert.

M&S Blue Harbour? F**k right off!

Traditionally clothing for middle-aged men wasn’t a problem, they all looked like their dads and they all looked like each other. Nowadays things are different, I just don’t know what to wear. You don’t want to look like your dad, and the only thing you want less than that is to look like your son.

I know an architect who’s about 52 yet he dresses like an 18 year old. The latest trainers (always Nike or Adidas); the latest style of pants or designer jeans. The latest labels in T-shirts and sweatshirts. He even wore those strange Puffa jackets when they were in fashion. His clothes have zips and Velcro in all sorts of unexpected places. His trousers have all sorts of pockets in them, some of them unusable. He has bomber jackets and leather jackets and a vast collection of trainers. Have you ever heard anything so daft? Now because he’s an architect he gets away with it, this eccentricity has become his trademark and probably suits his character. I do think this behaviour is halfway to certifiable though. Personally I’d rather join the Hare Krishna movement and shuffle down Market Street in Manchester chanting and ringing finger tambourines than go out in the street dressed like he does. What could possibly be more ridiculous than a man in his 50’s pretending to be a teenager?

I might not be in my 50’s yet, but I don’t want to dress younger than I am. On the other hand, I don’t want to dress like my dad. So what should I do? Should I wear what our dads wore, or the alternative, which seems to involve paying ridiculous sums of money for more comfortable clothes that have all those designer labels on the outside? At one time, labels were things that went on the inside and were a bleeding nuisance if they popped out. Why should I be a walking billboard for a multinational clothes business? I also object to the ludicrous difference in price of this reasonably okay plain black sweatshirt and this reasonably okay plain black sweatshirt with ‘Timberland’ written on it. So most of the time I just won’t go there, and if I have, it’s usually under duress, or it’s been a gift.

Marks & Spencer

So what do I end up with? I don’t particularly want to wear designer labels, and I don’t want to wear old git stuff. So I end up with one of those sub-designer, mass-produced but not quite total rubbish things like ‘Blue Harbour’ from Marks & Spencers. Now what could possibly be sadder than that?

Shopping in M&S feels like a sure sign that it’s all over. I find myself browsing the rails and the racks, desperately trying to find something I don’t actually hate. I glance up and all around me are a load of totally boring bastards, who look as though they have had their spirits ripped out of them with their barbeque tongs, almost always out shopping with their wives. He’s looking bored, depressed, repressed and generally hopeless, while she’s rifling through a load of stripy rugby shirts to try to find one that will make him look even more fat-headed than he does now. And then it all gets worse because I think, ‘Oh, my God, that’s how I look!’ and at this moment I hot-foot it out of the shop as fast as my fat little legs will take me.

So Where To Go?

I can just about stand to go into GAP or NEXT, but if I suddenly find myself surrounded by teenagers, I feel a cold sweat creeping over me and can’t get out fast enough. Top Shop? – Wouldn’t even dream of going in. Burtons? - Do they still exist? Anyway, too boring. I find the answer is to go into one of those big department stores like Debenhams where they have all the different ranges, so if I accidently stray into something too young for me; I can beat a hasty retreat without too much indignity. In Debenhams you can toy with the idea of buying something by Jasper Conran or Rocha John Rocha, without making the commitment of going into a dedicated store and looking daft when you see the prices they charge in them places.

Variations on a Theme

One little problem that I have is that I only tend to wear black, blue or grey, so I’ve got literally dozens of tiny variations on this theme. But then, just now and again, I find myself somewhere wondering if I should be daring and ring the changes with say a rugby shirt in maroon with horizontal black stripes. As I’m about to reconcile myself with what, for me, is the equivalent of coming out as gay, I discover that it’s got the number ‘12’ written on the back. I hastily return it to the shelf as though I’ve just been given an electric shock. The idea of walking around with a number on my back, or on my left tit as though I was some kind of pensioned off sportsman seems so utterly ridiculous to me that, now, I can hardly breathe when I think about it.

Going off subject a little, I do think it’s hilarious that the only people wearing tracksuits in the street are usually around 30 stone! They probably order Diet Coke with their large Big Mac meal too. What’s going on in their heads? Are we supposed to think they are Olympic medal winners in pie-eating, or maybe off-duty sumo wrestlers?

Anyway back to the subject in hand. Eventually I find myself back in M&S, where I finally settle for yet another black sweatshirt, with the slight concession that this one has a different coloured collar. It may also have that little tag on one side with the red flag or whatever it is on it, but at least I know I can cut that off when I get home. Blue Harbour? Fuck right off!

#UKIP – A Few Niggling Doubts

Let me first of all say I’ve been a UKIP supporter since after the last General Election. Our mate Cameron started to make fundamental changes which he never said he would (Top down NHS reform, Decimation of the armed forces etc). Basically, as a Tory supporter all my life I felt let down by them. UKIP stand for everything I believe, so since 2011 I’ve supported Mr Farage and his merry brand of Brits, I’ve even been to a few local UKIP meetings. In that time we’ve seen UKIP support consistently growing, getting bigger and bigger all the time. I still support them, but more and more I wonder if their popularity could ultimately  be their (and the country’s) downfall.

Europe

UKIP’s primary reason for existing is to get us out of Europe something I support. I’m proud that along with a little Yankee help this small country of ours has been the liberator of our continental cousins on two occasions. The sacrifices of our brave heroes on the battlefields of Europe must never be forgotten both by ourselves and the rest of Europe.

I don’t subscribe to the theory that we might have won the war, but we are losing the peace, and that Germany is now ruling the roost through the back door of the EU. Believe it or not I am not anti-Europe but I’m vehemently opposed to any of our laws, rules, defences or controls of our sovereignty being given over to Europe.

I want the UK to trade with our nearest neighbours but I definitely don’t want a single currency or our laws being made by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels or Strasbourg. I’m not old enough to remember Ted Heath taking us into the ‘Common Market’, but fair game, we did have a referendum over it. What I am positive of though is that most Brits who voted then, thought the vote was about joining a common market not forming a United States of Europe, which is what it’s become.

I don’t think wanting to keep control of your borders, your armed forces, your laws, your sovereignty and even your imperial measures is a sign of being either a racist or a little Englander. It’s just proof that you are proud of being an island race, proud of your culture and history and want to remain resolutely British. This is essentially UKIP’s mantra, and I support exit from Europe wholeheartedly. Europe will still trade with us whether we’re in the EU or not, we’ll still holiday there, we just won’t operate under their dictates.

Immigration and Asylum

This country has a proud tradition of inviting and welcoming other nationalities to join us and in fact I truly believe we are the most tolerant and welcoming nation in the World. This proud tradition extends to providing a safe haven for those fleeing persecution and long may that continue. Nigel Farage recently pushed the Government to take our share of Syrian refugees, which proves my point, UKIP aren’t a racist party. Of course it is true that in recent years through our chaotic immigration controls, we have let in people who are playing the system or abusing our hospitality but I would never want us to turn away genuine refugees.

What has gone wrong has been the unfettered, uncontrolled opening of our borders to all and sundry, to an extent where our infrastructure can’t cope, the NHS, social services, housing and education are all splitting at the seams with the population growth in a time of austerity. UKIP advocate controlled immigration to alleviate these problems, I agree, don’t shut the door, but only let in those who will benefit our economy, much like Australia does, nobody calls the Australians a bunch of racists for controlling who enters their country so why should we be classed in that way?

So again, with regards to immigration and asylum seekers I agree with UKIP and trust them to stick to what they say, unlike the other parties.

The Lunatics

UKIP has many members who are passionate about it’s policies and it’s common sense approach, which is great, just what I’m looking for. However it does have its share of ‘lunatics’, these are the people who the press and the other parties jump on to discredit UKIP. What’s worse is there appears to be yet another one appearing every week. They give the wrong impression of the party - or is it the right one ? I’m beginning to wonder !! Nigel Farage has said he wants to clamp down on the “Walter Mitty characters” that too often make UKIP look like a care home for fruitcakes. I’m afraid ““Walter Mitty characters” is too kindly, Nigel.              

Most famous was Godfrey Bloom. Remember the whole “Bongo Bongo Land” outburst and comments about women cleaning behind the fridge. His latest was asking a disabled student at Oxford if he was Richard III, the medieval king with a deformed spine. Bloom is not a Walter Mitty character, he is pond life in a bow tie.

Then there was UKIP Councillor David Silvester who wrote a letter to his local newspaper saying that the deluge of floods was caused because of David Cameron’s successful move to change the law about same-sex marriage. Fruit loop !!

Cast your mind back twelve months to Geoffrey Clark, this is the guy who suggested compulsory abortion in order to bring down the deficit. Another nut job tarnishing the UKIP name and cause.

Then, the most recent – and potentially most damaging – the issue of Mujeeb Bhutto, A man who served as UKIP's Commonwealth spokesman for a year and is the former leader of a kidnapping gang in Pakistan. Bhutto's gang were behind a high-profile kidnapping in Karachi in 2004 and he then took a £56,000 ransom payment in Manchester. In 2005, Bhutto admitted being the gang's "boss" and was jailed for seven years by a UK court. It’s not like UKIP could plead ignorance to this. He may have now resigned but the media have leapt on him therefore soiling the UKIP name further.

Yes, it is better to root out the "loonies" early than to tolerate them only for them to bring the party into disrepute later on. However it’s getting closer to the General Election and they’re still coming out the woodwork. It would be a tragedy if UKIP’s common sense credo were derailed by a gaggle of loony bins like this lot.

A Vote for UKIP is a vote for Labour

This is my biggest concern of all with UKIP. The party and its supporters are largely made up of disillusioned Tories like myself. Admittedly the meetings I’ve been to have had a lot of ex Labour voters there however predominantly its ex-Tory.

My big fear is come the General Election next year, UKIP will split the Conservative vote to a point where neither get in, leaving the door wide open for another Labour Government. This would be a catastrophe for the economy, especially the anti-business rhetoric coming out of Labour at present, penalising high achievers with the higher tax rate, talk of taxing businesses on turnover instead of profit, not forgetting the Unions getting a foot hold back in Number Ten.

I’m confident there is nothing remotely mad about UKIP’s belief that the future of Britain should be decided by the British, that’s a given.

So this is my issue, do I stick with UKIP as they match my beliefs and end up tainted with the loony brush and a Labour government for the next five years, or do I listen to Cameron and his insistence that we’ll have an EU in/out referendum when the country can speak.

A big decision and a year to decide?    The clock’s ticking !!   

NOT BREAKING NEWS : Time For A Change at the BBC

The BBC is one of our great British institutions and I never want to see it scrapped, however it does need cutting down to size. In the multi-media platform world we live in, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to justify the funding, The BBC has become a British Leyland of broadcasting funded by means of a punitive poll tax which you must pay or face prison.

In effect, the BBC should only be providing services and programmes that the market can’t or won’t produce. They also have no right to infest every sector of broadcasting with their soft-leftie over funded propaganda.

In an age when it is easy to watch the news, be entertained, follow sport and surf the internet without ever using the state monopoly’s services, why on earth should we still be forced to pay for this dinosaur? In an era of austerity the saving of the licence fee, which essentially is a tax on each household would be wildly popular, but it’s probably not the answer.

I’m not calling for the BBC to be completely privatised. I just want the BBC to concentrate on providing a value for money service to us, its funders. I want them to be dragged, kicking and screaming if necessary into the real world, and I want it to be forced to both earn and justify its existence.

A very recent example of this over blown, unnecessary spending of tax payer’s money was the BBC coverage of the death of Nelson Mandella. Yes it was an important event, but didn’t need the uprooting of the entire BBC News team to go on a junket to South Africa for a fortnight then making it the main news item everyday for that period to justify the trip! Did Question Time really need to broadcast its edition that week from South Africa? How many important UK news stories can no longer be investigated as they’ve spent the budget on Mandella?    

Of course, the BBC is held in high esteem around the world and it has obviously produced some brilliant radio and TV over the years. But unfortunately at home its presence in all media areas is too dominant. As the state broadcaster it has tremendous privileges and rights, but it should also have enormous equal responsibilities to us, the very people who are forced to pay for it.

A particular bug-bear of mine is the left wing angle you constantly get on certain, so called impartial news programmes. The Today Programme on Radio 4; Newsnight; Question Time, to me, are all very impartial. Indeed a recent Question Time edition came from Boston in Lincolnshire, a town that has an extremely high population of immigrants, it also has what’s probably the largest UKIP following of any town. Strange then how the audience seemed to be made up of immigrant supporting, anti-UKIP people.   

On top of all this is the cover up of the whole Jimmy Savile; Dave Lee Travis; sex abuse issues that lead to Operation Yewtree. Many senior people in the BBC knew what was going on, yet did nothing about it. Was this to protect Savile or protect the BBC? The one thing it didn’t protect was the victims !

Lose BBC3 and/or BBC4?

Let me say I wouldn't miss BBC3 for a moment; it’s a repeats channel really. BBC4 costs the licence payer a mighty £50m a year; however it does have some great programmes on. But being a fan of BBC4 and having no interest in BBC3 is exactly the reason why both are important, but are they affordable? Maybe a solution would be to merge them into one, taking the best bits of each.

It also depends on if they were to do anything with BBC2, though. If the documentaries and arts programmes (and high quality foreign imports) move there, then that's acceptable. If however BBC2 continues to show a diet of cooking, gardening, Dad's Army and talent show spinoffs, then no thanks get rid of BBC2 instead.

Sponsorship

Can anyone give me one good reason why popular BBC programmes such as EastEnders; Strictly; Casualty or The One Show can’t be sponsored in the same way as Coronation Street is by Compare The Market? I’m not suggesting advertising interrupting the shows, but surely they could flog credits at the beginning and the end? Again, revenue brought in this way would free up cash.

BBC Radio

Radio 1 and Radio 2 should be sold off to the highest bidder. The BBC’s argument that both stations bring on new talent and champion minority causes can be easily satisfied by opening up sections of the licence fee for both private companies and the BBC to bid for to put on these types of shows.

Radio 3 has lost its way as well. It’s nothing more than an expensive fig-leaf for the whole operation. Lousy programming, lousy sound, tiny audiences too, for whom they have little but contempt. Yes, the Proms are fun but they’re hardly a duty of the licence-payer to the tune of millions.

And when it comes to BBC Five Live, I like it, but should they really be allowed to use our money to bid for Premiership football rights and effectively outbid commercial stations? They then use the football to build their brand!

Six Music is a really good station, its programming is unique amongst the whole radio network and its successful, but only a few can hear it as it only broadcasts digitally. With a wider audience this station could fulfil the gap left by Radios 1 and 2 being sold off whilst fulfilling the BBC’s diversity ethos.

Local Radio

All of this money saved could then be used to fund BBC core activities that will not be provided by the private sector, such as ‘proper’ local radio which sadly, no longer seems to exist in the UK anymore.

The best, truly local radio station I ever listened to was Manchester’s Piccadilly Radio. It had everything, popular music; specialist music; news; debate; investigative shows; sport etc. It had huge listening figures and created many local personalities that ended up as national figures such as Chris Evans. Piccadilly disappeared when big corporate business started buying up local radio in the 80’s, their descendant; KEY103 is a dire, chart music, playlist station with nondescript, identikit presenters. It appeals to teenagers and that’s about it. They could be broadcasting anywhere in the country, the output would still be the same.     

BBC Radio Manchester is a fairly good local talk station with brilliant news and sport coverage, however with a bit of investment it could be so much more. If the BBC were to take the Piccadilly Radio model and merge it with what Radio Manchester does they’d have a perfect offering, listenership would go through the roof.

Put It In The Manifesto

I don’t think it’s helpful to call for the abolition of the BBC. I think it’s a reductive, if not nihilistic game whereby abolition plays into the hands of the likes of Murdoch and a wide variety of extremists. However something needs to be done.

The BBC is rightly seen as a great symbol of all that is great in Britain but it has to be cut down to size and made apolitical. It needs to be made more accountable to the British public if we are to continue to be forced to pay for it. It also needs to stop being a supporter of minorities first and foremost and be more supportive of the British way of life instead. It should reflect our shared values and not be an organ of propaganda for those who seek to destroy our way of life or change it without even consulting us.

All the political parties will be drawing their manifestos shortly ready for the General Election next year. Times are changing. They should put some serious thought into what the BBC needs to look like in these modern times. It could be a vote winner !

Manchester Canal Deaths – Too Many, Too Often

Another Monday morning, another report of a young man fighting for his life after being rescued from a canal in Manchester City Centre. This one, a lad in his 20s, was pulled from the Rochdale Canal on Dale Street near Piccadilly Station at around 10.30pm last night. He was taken to the Manchester Royal Infirmary where he's described as "critically ill".

It seems that every time I look at the Manchester Evening News website there’s another body in a Manchester canal. 2014 is only three weeks old and this is the FOURTH one so far this year. The first died on the 7^th in the Ashton Canal, the second, died on the 10^th in the canal near Great Ancoats Street and the third was rescued on the 14^th from the canal in Princess Street. What’s going on ?

Chilling Statistics

This isn’t a recent thing either, It seems to be happening more and more frequently with young men going missing after a night out in Manchester. A quick internet search reveals the official numbers from Greater Manchester Police are that between 1^st January 2008 and 18^th March 2013 there have been 61 bodies retrieved from Greater Manchester waterways. That’s almost one a month. I know it's not a particularly useful comparison, but if a particular stretch of road was that dangerous, I'm sure they'd be looking at safety improvements.

Why Manchester?

Why does Manchester seem to have so many young males meeting a watery grave. It does happen elsewhere in the UK, but not at anywhere near the same frequency. Are we really to believe that young men in Manchester are just phenomenally clumsy compared to the rest of the country? It all seems very strange to me.

Birmingham, has a large canal network around bars and clubs but there’s no reports there of men falling in canals after a night out and being killed. Indeed, Birmingham has more canals than Venice, so you'd expect if it was just drunk people falling into them (and some of the Manchester victims had relatively low levels of blood alcohol), you'd expect it to be a weekly occurrence there – but it’s not!

With all these young men’s bodies being dragged out of Manchester canals/rivers in the space of a decade you do wonder is something else going on here? Of course, it may just be coincidence, but the first thing the police seem to say in all these cases is "no signs of anything suspicious". That's pretty dismissive really isn't it?

No Suspicious Circumstances

As I say, most of these incidents seem to eventually get dismissed as "no suspicious circumstances". I suppose part of the reason for this is that if there's no CCTV near the canals (which there isn't near most of them in Manchester), then how are they supposed to prove anything untoward has happened? Even if the body has cuts, bruises and they can see that something has happened, water can wash away any DNA and other evidence. Still, there’s no way on earth this many young males are falling into canals though.

Why Is It Always Young Men?

The one thing that really bothers me is the age and type of person that keeps slipping into the water and drowning. With only a few exceptions, these victims are all young males in their late teens or early twenties. Why should that be the case? They’re usually leaving a party not even in the area of a water way late at night. It seems females don't slip or leave party's late at night in the Manchester area.

If there is ‘no suspicious circumstances’ and they’re not being pushed in or thrown in then one way to help prevent more deaths is some sort of fencing around the death black spots on the water ways, or is that too simplistic?

It may sound a bit of an obvious, even silly thing to say, but it really should be impressed upon young people, never ever walk along close by a canal or waterway at night. It's too easy to trip, when tired, when stumbling in the dark.

More Sinister?

Personally I feel there's something more sinister happening with all these canal deaths; there’s far too many of them in Manchester, and the lads are rarely intoxicated. Most incidents happen around the 'Gay Village' - Canal Street and its environs - quite a civilised place until the small hours, and the towpaths there are also seen as a short cut home for some. How many people have died in that canal after being thrown in? Canal Street breeds drugs and violence late at night. Are these young men’s drinks being spiked (rohypnol etc) disorienting them to a state where they end up falling in the canal? Is something sinister going on in the gay community there? Something's going on for sure!

I begin to wonder if this is just a host of coincidences or is there a serial killer at large? This theory never even entered my mind when I started writing this blog and I don't see why there is any reason to believe there is one at this point, but I do think it's chilling and very sad that cases of young men disappearing and later being found dead are on the increase.

I don't really think I believe that serious, organised  foul play is occurring, it's just that if these deaths were young women people would be sympathetic and worried. I find the total lack of reaction about the increasing number of young men dying (whether they die innocently or because others have done them harm) sinister and sad.

Doesn’t Make Sense

None of it makes any sense. Why the hell are there so many young males going missing, then being found dead in water in Manchester? What are Greater Manchester Police doing about this? Something quite dodgy and disturbing is going on. If I'm thinking there's a possible serial killer about, and I know I'm not the only one thinking this, then maybe the likes of the Manchester Evening News should be doing some ‘investigative’ journalism rather than ignoring it.

A question to Greater Manchester Police. What are you doing about this? Why are there so many 'not suspicious circumstances' when you can't get any more suspicious than a load of young men being found dead in canals? What is going on?

Whether foul play is involved or not, these deaths and disappearances need investigating and reporting on a lot more. Maybe if a little more awareness was raised, these young men could avoid harm. There again, I suppose because they aren't blonde haired, blue eyed middle class girls the media just doesn't give a shit.

Religion. Sorry, I Just Don't Buy it

Happy New Year one and all, the season of greed and madness has passed and we're into another year, another year of experience and progress and another year closer to shuffling off this mortal coil.

What's changed then ?  

Well nothing really from what I see, the economy is finally picking up, can't say I've noticed it in my pay packet though. The Government still aren't listening to us about all sorts of things, like immigration, HS2, EU Membership etc. The fracking debate goes on and I'm still not clear where I stand as the messages are so mixed, maybe the subject of a future blog. The Labour Party are still un-electable in their current form. 

What else ? 

Oh yeah, our under equipped soldiers are still fighting other peoples wars. These wars, and to be honest virtually all modern wars are a result of one religion's people trying to eliminate an opposing religion's people. Oh and there was all that appalling weather, the flooding, people without power on Christmas day, the deaths as a consequence of the weather. There's a link between wars and the weather and that's religion. People fight wars for their religion, people also believe that the weather is an 'Act of God'. So it seems we have a deity that is happy to willfully murder people by causing terrible weather conditions, either that or by allowing them to murder each other in his name. I'm not really buying this, are you ?

Nice Architecture, that's about all though!

I quite like good architecture, churches are generally fine, attractive buildings, they do have those monolithic stained glass windows though; all those images in them of Jesus Christ being crucified on a cross. That just gives me the horrors, sends shivers down my spine. I can't understand the way God is represented in church. He's not exactly a barrel of laughs, is he? I thought the whole idea is that religion is meant to give you comfort and happiness yet the God Squad are always so terribly dour and serious.

I honestly can't see that religion gives much pleasure to people at all. If someone genuinely believes that they're going to end up in heaven, surely they should be spending their entire lives with a huge smile on their face. I don't go along with any of it. It seems so patently obvious to me that the whole this is one big con, one giant delusion of wishful thinking and all it does is pit people against each other and creates at least as much damage and bad feeling as politicians do.

The world would be a much safer, happier place if people embraced the idea that death just might be the end, so why not try and do good while they're here on earth, not get away with hatred and murder in the expectation that they'll be forgiven in the next life.

Religion is Control

Religion and control seem to go hand in hand, much as communism and control did. When you're a Christian, or a Muslim or a Jew (or whatever religion you may be), your beliefs are taught to you. In a sense, you are told what to believe and most people just do what they're told. The result of this is that you live in a controlled society, only accepting what you're told to accept because you think that your beliefs are better than other people's and you will accept no other opinions, you only have to look what's happening in the Muslim world to evidence what I'm saying. 

Atheism

As you've probably guessed, I'm an atheist, I've developed my own opinions. I don't feel pressured by religious teachings to accept thoughts that may not really be what your heart wants you to believe or head tells you is just plain impossible. Being an atheist allows me to be free to examine multiple sides to arguments, and be open-minded on others' opinions. I control my own life. 

I might be an atheist, a none believer, but I'm not against God or people believing in God. I am merely against people who use their religion as a weapon, and who use it publicly trying to force it on other people. Beliefs should be private and sacred. In general, globally, religious people try to use what they've been taught to be above other people where atheists don't. In my opinion, atheism is about being open to learning and developing, whereas religion isn't. 

Does God Exist ?

If God actually existed we would ALL believe in him or her. But the evidence points more to the fact that the reason God was invented was because thousands of years ago, they did not know how to explain our existence. Today however, our origins are somewhat clearer.   

Romania and Bulgaria Unite !!

I see in various reports over the weekend that the Unite union is offering to teach unemployed Romanians and Bulgarians how to claim benefits in Britain. That’s very good of them isn’t it, just what this country needs !!

It seems Unite, who are Labour’s biggest funder, is courting foreigners from the two countries as part of a membership drive. It is offering the advice as a reward for signing up to the union. It has even issued membership forms in Romanian and Bulgarian, this despite both the Government and Labour saying immigrants should learn English. The unemployed immigrants are being offered the chance to join the union for just 50p a week. In return, Unite says it will offer new arrivals with advice on how to maximise benefit claims.

Ministers have refused to estimate how many immigrants will arrive from these two Eastern European impoverished countries but history has already proven that it will probably run into hundreds of thousands in the coming years.

Tory MP Priti Patel has called Unite’s behaviour “shameless”, adding, “It is incredibly irresponsible and I’m afraid it just sums up the attitude of Labour and the trade unions towards EU immigration.”. Can't disagree with you there Priti !! 

Let Down

I’m sure every existing Unite Member who thinks his job could be at risk in the near future really welcomes this initiative. More likely Unite is recruiting abroad to make up for all those who have abandoned their membership in the UK as they feel they have been so badly let down by the people they thought were there to actually protect their interests.

Once upon a time, not so long ago, the unions looked after the British workers. Read my blog of the 28^th November, where I cover how Labour and the Unions were opposed to our membership of the EU until the late 80s. Not anymore.

If you belong to Unite you are helping to finance the Labour party. Unite is promoting immigration so immigrants can come here and take British jobs. Labour is also staying very quiet because they are making a very good living out of their union contributions. If you’re a Unite member and are against the Labour party policy's and you are against mass immigration you need to question whether Unite are traitors and are taking your money under false pretences.

I think the populous now recognise that Labour is no more than the political wing of Unite. Milliband is boxed in and must dance to McClusky's tune or his party is bust. As they might say, McClusky has him by the Balls. Milliband has yet to learn that there is no such thing as a free meal and if you are going to drink with the devil then use a long handled spoon.

The Elephant in the Room

The real elephant in the room is the funding of our political parties. Both sides are funded by organisations with a vested interest in that party’s success. What can we do ? Well, we either bite the bullet and agree to them being funded by the state, or we accept that they must continue to beg for cash as and where they can; with all that that implies. 

State funding has much to recommend it.  It would do away at a stroke with the vested interests buying influence, in theory at least. The problem as I see it is that it would soon become an open ended commitment, costing the taxpayer more and more.   No matter what controls the state tried to impose, the politicians would find a way round it, it's the nature of the beast.   In addition, there is little appetite for state funding among the electorate.

If it seems we maintain the status quo, that we’re not going to provide state funding, then we have to accept the current flawed system. We have to accept that nobody gives large sums of money away without expecting a quid pro quo.  There is no such thing as a free lunch, after all.   Ed Milliband faces problems, but what else can he do?  If he gets tough with Unite, the taps will be turned off.  The phrase ‘a rock and a hard place’ springs to mind.

Maybe they should be funded by their party members and supporters only and what money they can raise from them should be open to public scrutiny? If a Political Party cannot find the necessary funding from its members then it shouldn’t exist. If we were to cut all state support, we should also limit contributions to say a maximum of £10k per member, just watch MPs and their party change the way they behave if we did that. It would also be essential that any politicians that are being backed by organisations, institutions, business or religious interests, should have, by law to declare those interests.

Back to Unite and the Romanians and Bulgarians

It feels like I’m watching a terrible car crash in slow motion, powerless to stop or influence the oncoming tragedy. Our politicians continue to serve nobody but themselves, deaf and blind to the electorate.  I suppose it’s a case of welcome to the world of dirty politics. It truly feels that these people will do anything to get the votes these days.

New Labour admitted this was Labour's plan to stay in power all along. Unlimited immigrants claiming benefits and voting Labour. Today’s Labour party has long deserted their traditional "working class" supporters by importing immigrants to steal their jobs or claim benefits.

What about the unemployed British working class and their jobs? The Unions used to fight for the British-working class, and in trying to improve working conditions and pay, now they are just an extreme-left political organisation determined to bring Britain down. Unite should think of what will happen when the same Bulgarians and Romanians they help, start taking their members jobs for less money.

At The End of the Day

All the prospective immigrants want, is to come here for a better life. The fact that them coming, harms those here already is ignored, whether they be indigenous or other immigrants. 

I also want a better life. David Cameron has a better standard of living and house than me and I want to move in with him but I suppose it's too much to hope that he will take me in. At the end of the day, it's the same thing as the poor of the EU coming here, isn’t it?

MP’s 11% Wage Increase – Controversial Or What ?

So the plans to award MPs an 11% pay rise have been criticised across Westminster and throughout the media, indeed MPs from all parties are going out of their way to vocalise their opposition to it. However the Parliamentary watchdog IPSA are still recommending a rise of £7,600 to £74,000.

Now the strange thing about IPSA is that it doesn’t need to get the agreement of Parliament to bring in the changes. It was set up as an independent body in 2009 after the expenses scandal. This rise, which doesn’t come into effect until May 2015 (after the next General Election), comes as part of a package of changes to MPs' salary and benefits which would see some allowances scrapped.

Now our MP’s maybe thick but they aren’t daft, they know the public oppose this rise, they know it has the potential to get them voted out of their seats but they also know it’s probably justified. They’ve realised they can make all the right noises saying they don’t support it and don’t want it because they’ll get it anyway.

Hazy

MPs currently earn a basic salary of £66,396 however IPSA say their pay has fallen behind ‘comparable jobs’ in recent years and a substantial "one-off" rise is justified. They’re probably right too, It’s a salary that’s considerably more than I get but it’s not enough for me to even consider standing for Parliament with all the hassle that entails.

But that’s where things start to get hazy for me. How can they say MP’s pay has fallen behind comparable jobs? What other jobs are comparable to an MP? You don't have fixed hours. You don't clock in, the things you show up to you claim expenses for. You come and go as you please. You don't even have to go to the House of Commons if you don't want to. And if you do bother to show up there’s bars and restaurants there selling cheap food and drink. All your expenses are covered including ones which HMRC won't let Joe Public like us claim for. And finally not a single qualification required. Name me one other job like this !!

So I have no problem with MPs being paid more, I'd say £150K a year would be about right, but that should be it, no more expenses, second jobs, money paid by lobbying firms, or unions, no more memberships on boards. That way it'll all be more transparent and they'll be able to concentrate on the job their supposed to be doing. They should also get rid of the ludicrous "parachute payment" that they get when they lose their seats as that’s part of the risk you consider when you first decide to stand.

So with rewards should come greater accountability. Attendance at Parliament, MPs' record on dealing with enquiries from their constituents, how often surgeries are run, notification of outside interests, full breakdowns of all constituency expenses etc. should be available in one place to voters. They love their league tables so how about an annual league table for them? Who was the worst MP, and who was the best?

Poor Timing

One issue for me, and it appears for them is the timing of this announcement and the message it sends out. Public sector pay rises have been limited to 1%. Why aren't MP's treated the same? As I’ve said, I actually agree that there pay is a little low, but they can't have a different set of rules to the rest of the tax payer funded employees. This is also not going to put them in a strong position for negotiating with the unions over the rest of public sector pay, “we've just had 11% but everyone else get 1%” is not a good position to be coming from.

Just Who Are IPSA ?

They are the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. They were set up under the previous Labour government as a response to the MP’s expenses scandal. They were also set up to take the decisions about MP’s salaries out of MP’s hands so they couldn’t be accused of awarding themselves inflated pay rises.

Members of the authority include 

• Sir Ian Kennedy (Chairman) - £700 per day
• Andrew McDonald (chief Exec) - £110,000 PA
• Phillip Lloyd (Director Finance & Corporate Services) - £105,000 PA
• John Sills (Director Policy & Communications) - £90,000 PA

Interestingly these people aren’t like the common man they purport to represent and they’re all paid significantly more than an MP. So they really have plenty in common with the rest of the plebs like you and me don’t they ?

Other Representatives of ‘The Working Man’

The other representatives of the working man are the unions so how do their leaders compare? Well a definitive union ‘rich list’ was published twelve months ago and revealed that the total pay and perks of the highest-paid union bosses totalled £4.6million.

Thirty-six general secretaries and chief executives received remuneration in six figures, including the heads of many of the big public sector unions.

Christine Blower, of the NUT, enjoyed total remuneration of £142,363, a rise of £13,353 (nearly 11%) on the previous year, according to the report. Brendan Barber, head of the TUC, was on £139,634 (up £17,040 – or 14%), while Len McCluskey of Unite was on £122,434.

Paul Kenny, of the GMB, had a package worth £121,000, a £4,000 rise, while Bob Crow, of the militant RMT, was on £121,687, up £3,586, the report says. Mark Serwotka, of the PCS, had total remuneration of £116,429, it added.

On that basis, the MP’s increase is very much aligned with what the Union leaders have been awarding themselves, but that’s probably another blog all by itself.

Old School v Career Politicians

For me the major issue today is that of career politicians (see a previous blog for my thoughts on that one) who see politics as a career option with a salary commensurate with their expectation. It’s no longer a vocation or a public service for them.

Up until the mid 1950’s MP’s were paid very little, we got candidates with political fervour and vision. Now we get career servers, carrying out a relatively well paid job, and mostly towing the Party line. Back then we had better ‘Politics’ for the Nation when MP’s were either openly sponsored by big business or by Unions. At present we get posh graduates with a politics degree looking for job security. Maybe it’s time for a change.

I preferred the older system of low paid MPs because they were doing it more out of duty than as a “career”. I think Tony Blair himself, and the changes he made are evidence enough why “career politicians” are a backwards step – that is of course unless you’re a career politician.

So What Do We Do ?

People are saying on various forums and in the papers, if you do not like the fact that your MP will get an 11% pay rise then make sure you vote them out at the next General Election. Well what use is that, the salary of new incoming MP will have already had the pay rise applied and will be on the higher rate from the start. So that arguments floored.

It’s the whole system that needs to change. Getting rid of career politicians is a start.  Why does this country continue to keep faith with and vote in these clueless people who just tow the same party line, usually promising things they are incapable of delivering. It baffles me as much as it would had I lived in medieval times believing the world was flat when someone told me it is round.

An obvious one is that MP’s pay should be set for the life of a Parliament - when they put themselves up for election, they then know the Terms of Employment. If you don't like these terms then don't stand for election.

Until we change the whole system the MP’s snouts will remain firmly in the public trough.

Apathy

Most of the population in this country just don't get it, do they? Or perhaps they do, they just don't care and know that the their fellow countryman will do absolutely nothing about it. In other countries this kind of change causes protests and potentially even a peaceful revolution, in the UK we whine and go back to work like the obedient little plebs we are.

People in the UK just don’t complain or protest about politics anymore. Most of the chav’s probably don’t know what an MP is for a start, now if they took X-factor off we’d probably have a riot !!

This country has it all wrong and it’s largely thanks to the politicians of all parties..