Should Foreign aid be dropped? - its time we looked after the UK.

Charity begins at home -

We should start spending at home

We could an awful lot with £12.2 billion -  that's our Foreign aid budget, put that with the £14 billion we will save fron EU donations post Brexit and that's a lot of money we can spend at home, in the UK.

They say charity begins at home and the time has now come to shut  our foreign aid budget down and start spending the money in the UK.

We have faced years of cuts to services  in the UK, yet at the same juncture, we are sending money to oil rich countries like Bahrain, how mad is that?

We give to countries that have space programs - why?

If they can afford this they don't need our money

If a country has a space program then they don't need our aid, yet thanks to external directives issued beyond our shores, we seem obliged to give where it is not needed.

We give aid to China -

This is madness!

Yes, you couldn't make it up, we give foreign aid to the second wealthiest nation in the world - China.

Africa should by now after trillions of dollars of aid be at a level of development equal to modern European nations. Yet we keep tipping buckets of the stuff out, unaccountable 'gifts' which are not administered, allow rife corruption, which seems to be the norm.

Giving to help with incidents is one thing, but we now need to put the UK first if we want a secure future.

A time to rethink Vehicle Excise Duty – the return to a lower overall blanket fee is overdue and fairer.

The Vehicle Excise Disc may have disappeared, but change to the system is needed

The welcome change back to a rolling 40 year VED exemption system by the last government was good news for our hobby, but why not adopt the French system of 25 years as a qualification where both the MOT and VED are exempt? The Road Traffic Act defines a vehicle over 25 years old as 'vintage.' Why do we not change to a fairer system of 25 years for nil MOT and VED?

When I was in the Police service, there was always this argument for doing away with the road fund licence disc and putting a bit extra on fuel cost. The Police argument was that a lack of valid disc displayed on a vehicle often hid things like no MOT, no insurance, which was a valid point.

But now that the requirement to not have to display a valid disc on the vehicle is the situation, we can look again at doing away with the duty or making it less costly to run a vehicle. We are stuck with having to use motorised transport as public transport is lacking unless you live in a town.

Indeed, when did you last see an 'F' prefix plate car on the road in daily use? Next time you are on the road, look around and see what the oldest car on the road is being driven. Likely it will be something from the late 1990's.

The MGB currently can be either exempt from VED or not

The anomaly is further compounded when you have a 1976 MGB that is currently tax exempt, yet a 1980 example, essentially the same car, has to pay £215 a year. Likely, the 1980 car is occasionally used like the 1976 car and may do less than 3000 miles a year, as might the 1976 one.

The current CO2 calculated VED rate scheme is unfair. It does not take into account the actual mileage covered annually, it is an ownership tax. So, by comparison a small car paying nil VED can do say 60,000 miles a year at no VED cost, yet a new Ford Mustang GT500 would pay likely £515 a year, £1520 if a first year registered car, yet it might only do 2000 miles a year, with the result of far less CO2 being output by the larger car, paying more because it might pollute more, but in real terms might not.

The real factor here is fuel usage and that is something that you pay for at the pump, the more fuel you use the more you pay in tax. There is no environmental argument for unfair VED when you look at aircraft, which pay nothing.

The Heathrow Expansion project will create more CO2

yet a Low Emission Zone for vehicles in the area is proposed

When it was suggested by a previous government to tax aircraft fuel, there was a hoo-hah about it and M.P.'s said that aircraft would avoid landing in the UK if they had to pay taxes and the lid was put on that suggestion quickly because it would have a financial penalty.

The recent Heathrow expansion will allow thousands more aircraft take-off and landing movements in the Heathrow airport area, which is ALREADY the UK's largest single source of pollution.

You couldn't make it up, but as a sop to the increased aircraft traffic, Transport for London (TFL) proposes a new low emission zone, in this same area, which applies to road vehicles only. Not aircraft, the main polluters.

Low Emission Zones - it has to be fair to all users

Lets do some maths shall we? A large airliner fully loaded can use up to 7 tons of fuel per take off. That's 1568 gallons, at 10lb to the gallon weight.

Now, your average MGB could at say 25mpg use that amount of fuel to travel 39,200 miles, which as a limited use classic, may give you ten years worth of travel.

The problem we have is that many of our classic cars such as the MGF and MGTF unfairly fall into the full tax bracket, although most of these are not in daily or high mileage use.

In which case, a half way compromise would be to peg any vehicle 15 years or more older to say £100 a year VED until it reaches the nil duty historic threshold, which I believe should be changed to a rolling 25 years entitlement from the current 40, as it effects relatively few vehicles from the 32 million or so currently on the road.

With the more fuel you use the more tax you pay, the VED should be set at a blanket £100 a year for other cars not currently CO2 level exempt. As all vehicles are banded by CO2 output on the DVLA system, it would be a simple matter to administer. The more you pollute, the more fuel you use and tax you pay, it is that simple. Or is that too simple?

Using the Heathrow pollution example, the argument for taxing vehicles for climate change reasons is fatuous and indeed unfair, when massive polluters do not pay.

Why many men are physical victims of female abusers

Girl power - aggressive behaviour is now 'accepted'

It is no surprise to learn that there has been a rise in reported physical abuse against men by women.

In some cases, it has been largely unreported because of the shame felt by men, I have known of a case where someone was being abused by his wife, but that has now ceased as she passed away from cancer.

So what could be the rise in this phenomena? 

The 'ladette' culture is partly to blame

I think that there are two reasons for this coming to the fore. Firstly, more reporting of the incidents and secondly, the effects of the cumulative rise of the synthetic hormones of the contraceptive pill.

It has been noticeable that since the 1970's that women have changed from being thin and slim to more bulked out, likely some of that is due to diet and exercise levels.

But, there has been more aggression obviously displayed.

A third reason I can see is alcohol consumption. Perhaps this combines with the hormones to pump up the females into more punchy and less tolerant citizens.

Incidents of 'unladylike' behaviour are common place whereas in the past they would have been severely frowned upon.

Maybe I am wrong, but look at the statistical and behavioural evidence.

Dead end street: Why social deprivation was still prevalent in swinging 1960's Britain.

Dead end streets -

did not disappear with the advent of victory in WW2

With the end of WW2, there was no instant about face in the fortunes of Britain. In fact, it was almost tougher post war, for the country and its people.

Rationing continued post war, longer than the term of the war, lasting until 1954.If we were victorious, why was this so? The reason was simple.

As WW2 had ended, the Cold War started as relations between the Allies fragmented, largely over a fragmented Berlin, controlled by four powers, the UK, USA, France and Russia.

In Britain, a country ravaged for 5 years by Luftwaffe air raids, many houses were damaged or destroyed. This often meant families moving in with relatives whilst they waited for suitable replacement houses, or even temporary prefab buildings to live in.

The state of the UK economy post WW2 was dire. It was essentially broke, having borrowed heavily from the USA to finance the war against Hitler's Third Reich.

With the post war economy geared to earning US Dollars to pay back America, Britain's home economy struggled back to work, industry and financial health.

A friend of mine a few years older than me said that where he lived in Essex after WW2, was not a rich area, nor were many areas of the country by comparison. Even into the 1960's and beyond, social conditions were for some way below what the cosy adverts in magazines and on television portrayed.

Social deprivation has never really gone away, it has remained a constant in the background of our lives.

Reading a recent newspaper article, it was no surprise to see even 1960's London areas in poverty. Notting Hill, a trendy enclave today much as Islington and Kensington, were in the 1960's often very poor. These areas today boast house prices in the millions, in the 60's many of them were fleapits that were controlled by cruel landlords.

Will we ever solve this problem?

Putting the You in Euthanasia - is it a time we looked again at assisted demise and dropped the religious dogma?

Leaving your body is an incredible experience

I have done it, as many others have

It is a strange conundrum, but we prosecute people who allow an animal to suffer when nothing can be done for it, yet a human can be condemned to a miserable existence because no one wants to have the discussion about assisted demise.

We all know that 'assistance' is used to 'help' some patients, Morphine administered by  pumps to cancer patients OD's them in the end and ends their suffering, but why the hell are we using such a blunt instrument in this day and age?

Recently there have been cases publicised in the media about people choosing to end their lives in clinics where they can elect to die. If that is their choice, fine, but on the other side of this coin is that these people could also elect to help others to live.

They could however elect to donate vital organs to people whose lives could be transformed by this gift.

Does this not make absolute common sense?

Is it not better for maybe six persons to have their lives transformed by the gift from someone who no longer wishes to continue living, than for someone to simply choose to die and benefit no one? Or worse, perhaps denied legal demise, then goes out and commits suicide.

I mean to say, as a Train Driver or Lorry Driver, doing your own job, some desperate person decides to use your vehicle as a means to end their life? These drivers will never forget these incidents and will often be powerless to avoid them. This could all be so easily avoided.

Some people either with diagnosed or undiagnosed mental health issues may decide they are no longer wishing to live on this planet. They may be desperately unhappy for many reasons, to the extent that they feel condemned to life, they may view this world as some sort of open prison, from which death may be the only escape for them to reach peace in themselves.

For them there may be no treatment, no resolution to their plight and inner turmoil. If the core causations can't be resolved, what do they have? a medical cosh? or descent and collapse which ultimately may lead to suicide eventually anyway? This is only putting off the day that they choose to act.

In a road accident, as an organ donor, you automatically elect to help others in the case you are pretty much finished.

It is time we put the 'You' into Euthanasia, that we had an adult discussion and addressed the ridiculous religious dogma of the sanctity of life, when these same religions often condemn people to large families by prohibiting contraception, having families endure poverty, less quality of life, hardship and problems to our environment from overpopulation.

I mean where the hell are they coming from? That they do not allow someone to make an informed decision about themselves and their life and when they can end it if they so choose, but refuse to accept that change to some self imposed dogma such as no contraception and all the problems that entails needs to be made?

Its not about THEM its about their followers. We are the most educated and informed that we have ever been, we are not children but are being treated like them.

My discussion here essentially covers two issues, one that people should be allowed to choose if they want to live or not and secondly, that we need to define some guidelines to prevent the abuse of the situation if assisted demise became legal in the UK, as assisted demise is already legal in some other European countries, at institutions like Dignitas.

With advances in neural interrogation, we can record video of our dreams, so it won't be long before we can perhaps get into the mind and get a definite answer from someone incapacitated as to their wishes. Or perhaps be able to delve into someone's mind to get a definite point of view, when they are mentally incapacitated or comatose.

If as an active person, you suddenly lost all your limb use and became dependent on carers, would you want to live on? Would you see yourself as a burden? Would you decide that your quality of life was nil and pointless to continue with? But be powerless to act?

There is the counter argument that 'there could be a cure, tomorrow, or next week, a month, a year.'

Might.

Might not.

You would have to weigh up the situation on a case by case basis, a person with a sound mind but disabled body might be best placed to decide their outcome.

It is 'their' quality of life that is the issue, not some out of date and perhaps spurious dogma that the law adheres to, grasping desperately to, like a drowning man grasps at a passing twig.

Have you ever left your body? The out of body experience is amazing. I have done it.

What are you seeing now, hearing as you read this? That is your consciousness. That is your spirit. Ask anyone who has had a near death experience in a hospital, where they have left their body and observed the medical staff operating on them.

Yes, they are fully aware, they can feel, see, hear. Out of your body, just as you are now in yours.

When you leave your body and look down, you will see yourself leaving your body, you will see an almost transparent version of yourself emerging from your earth body.

It is a bit scary at first, but then you realise you are still conscious, thinking, aware, feeling.

You are not dead.

When you are 'dead' the earth body is dead, but you are not. 

A friend of mine has advanced dementia, but even though she is now completely reliant on carers and has lost all communication, bed bound and just 'existing' one could ask, what is the point of living on?

I wouldn't want this.

Cases like Dementia have obvious legal implications as to mental capacity. A person who might seem 'normal' and able to function, loses their right to make decisions immediately they are diagnosed, even if this early onset dementia.

But, at this stage, you might be absolutely clear-minded enough to make your own decisions, clearly, logically and surely.

You may be fully aware of your demise and what it will entail, so should you then be able to decide that you should be able to plan your own way out?

I think so. Provided established guidelines are set and met, this would be an adult way of dealing with something we all eventually have to experience.

That's funny - BBC comedy used to be in the days of Not the Nine o'clock news and Monty Python, is it now?

Not the Nine o'clock news -

the great comedy enterprise of the early 1980's

Turn on your radio at 6.30pm on BBC Radio 4 and it's comedy time, or not.

Apart from the 'I'm sorry, I haven't a clue,' a stalwart program that started in the 1970's and attracts a wealth of high calibre guests, the remaining offerings of today are frankly, crap.

The 'Now Show' on Radio 4, used to be funny, it is not any more. A move to a more 'diverse' cast line-up has let it fall in to the puerile rubbish trap.

I could go on, maybe the golden days of BBC comedy are gone, having been replaced by a 'diverse' and politically correct-friendly bland and tepid, unfunny mush.

With all of our once comedy greats now dead or retired, will we see the like of the Not the Nine o'clock news team again? I remember willing the days to go round until Monday night to enjoy as a young teenager, their anarchic style of comedy.

Great songs, great comedy, parodies and impersonations, a wealth of talent and writing, which later led to post NTNON careers, including acting, writing and production.

Where is the new comparable, clever talent now?

The Goodies - why no repeats for so many years?

Another great talent team was The Goodies, producing hilarious and sometimes bizarre comedy, some of it probably judged too 'sensitive' to re-broadcast today?

Rutland Weekend Television - Eric Idle's post Python series

The post Monty Python Eric Idle project 'Rutland Weekend television' based on a mythical small budget TV station in England's smallest county, is in itself a parody of television of the time and now, cash starved, shoe string, least cost option, staffed by proud people, trying to do their best in trying circumstances.

RWT never really got the publicity it should have, but like all these shows featured here, has attracted cult status.

Controversial and bleeped out!

Strangling animals and golf was deemed ok,

masturbating, not so

The Monty Python's flying circus team

The title of the enfant terribles of comedy must surely go to the Monty Python's flying circus team. Perhaps, collectively, the greatest waste of university education in one sitting, this band of refugees from the university Footlights reviews, evolved their talent in shows such as 'Do not adjust your set', before hitting the jackpot with Monty Python.

Their cocktail of the absurd rubbing shoulders with the normal, should serve as a master class to the writers of today and tomorrow.

Their comedy broke new ground, made up of writing teams within the program cast, their sketches sometimes barely worked, seemed to truncate without an obvious punchline and to some were just frankly, bizarre. Many are brilliant and revered today.

There was some real genius and their university education often peppered the comedy sketches with highbrow snippets, that if researched showed a level of education that is way beyond the puerile crap of today's so-called comedy.

Mary Whitehouse - the self appointed guardian of the nation

and a thorn in the side of many Broadcasters

Although Monty Python broke ground and pushed boundaries, they faced like many program makers, the scrutiny (and for some the wrath) of the late Mrs Mary Whitehouse.

Mrs Whitehouse, a suburban housewife from the Midlands, decided that boundaries of decency were being pushed too far in the liberal 1960's. Her ill advised 'Clean Up National Tv' campaign name, which if used as an acronym spelt something rather unfortunate, a word that she was unaware of apparently, was changed into the National Viewers and Listener's association, a far safer name, unlikely to get the local vicar hot under the dog collar.

Her crusade against immoral broadcast output often aided careers, to be 'blasted' by Mrs Whitehouse was often seen as a badge of honour to some broadcasters. History has shown that Mrs Whitehouse was often right in her arguments, she could see that the 'permissive society' of the 1960's would lead to later social problems. The 'progressives' disagreed and she was often lampooned, but history has proven her right.

It may seem that we have embarked upon a rose tinted journey into the past, but the past was better for comedy and television. They great days were the 60's and 70's, the like of which we are unlikely to see again.

Demand TV availability has meant that broadcasting schedules are largely irrelevant as is the BBC licence fee, in an era of commercial broadcasting.

Home deliveries Small Beer? Heineken doesn't think so, is this another blow to the High Street retail model?

Heineken, deliveries now reaching the parts other beers are apparently not

We have seen recently the demise of BHS, from a High Street presence to an ethereal on-line business model.

The loss at BHS of 164 stores and 11,000 staff, replaced by likely a single large warehouse and perhaps 100 staff in an Amazon-like model, shows how the jobs market is contracting and business is changing.

The writing is on the wall, you need an on-line presence or you are unlikely to survive, unless you have exclusivity and a loyal customer base. But you'd be in the minority.

The way business is changing its operating mode, is all contributing to the 9 million job losses by 2026 we are faced with, thanks to automation, robotics and changing business practice models, retail included.

The late Sir John Harvey Jones

an opponent of 'least cost option' business models

Lean practice 'least cost options' are the barrel scrapings that should be a wake up call to businesses, if they are in that state, then they are in trouble. If they are not growing and retaining staff, they should take note.

I see a fair number of the same jobs advertised time and again and the question is why? Is the company that prosperous and growing it needs to meet demands, or is it a crap place to work for and managed by tossers with no idea what they are doing?

Anyway, back to the script and here's a new business model for the on-line age.

Now Heineken is proposing home deliveries in the London area within 20 minutes of order, direct to the customer's home from direct sales on-line. Will other manufacturers follow suit?

So what impact will this have on the retail drinks trade, which I worked in many years ago and for other companies and retailers, how will this impact on their markets?

If successive drinks brands for example adopt this model, the small, independent wine and spirit retailers could be faced with the choice of going totally on-line or hanging on to their walk-in trade model, if that is viable.

My old drinks trade employer did home deliveries in the shop locales and also to local businesses and restaurants, this was back in the pre-internet era when life was so much less complicated. This business has since ceased trading.

We have seen chains such as Threshers, one of our old customers, cease trading too, perhaps due to the availability of drink sold through supermarkets, who have better purchasing power and greater opening hours availability.

If this High Street trade ceases, the questions will be what will happen to the old premises, the people who have lost jobs and the future for the High Street?

The answers look to be a growth in on-line living, proxy living will order your food and drink for you, jobs will be lost and alternatives needed and the High Street will cease to exist as we know it.

Basic Income Guarantee payment will have to come in to provide the financial safety net, perhaps people will be freed up to cottage industry styles of work.  

So we are now seeing the tangible results I have long been predicting coming into play. We must without delay review our way forward so that we can have some idea how we will live in the future.

These changes may like small beer today, but we are only seeing the start of things.