A Letter to America

Here is the text of a reply I made on a US web site regarding "helping the poor"

Private Good: Public Bad

After three decades in the public sector I get a bit tired of hearing how we've all got it soft. We all need the discipline of business. We need to be more "customer focused".

Despite my ennui, isn't their criticism reasonable. Is it not the case that big business does it better, else they simply would go out of business?

Michelle Mone (you know her that got lucky flogging a few bras) berated the Scottish Government over the recent snow crisis. She said that if she ran her business as badly, she would go bankrupt.

Maybe she has a point. But how have the public and private sectors reacted to this crisis and its possible return. Well the Government, local authorities and police have joined together to produce a plan to keep the country moving. At the same time, Tesco, ASDA and Sainsbury's have simply halted online deliveries in Scotland. Can you imagine the reaction if the public sector did that?

"Oh sorry we can't send an ambulance to deal with your husband's cardiac arrest; we've suspended services in your area".

I had a personal experience which illustrated how well the private sector responds.

A couple of days ago the rear windscreen of my car shattered. My insurance company connected my wife through to their windscreen repair partner. They then said they could fit a temporary windscreen in THREE days. Yes that's three days. The appointed day is also the day I have a major operation. This cut no ice with the company's operator who simply said that was the earliest appointment available. The proper windscreen will be fitted in 10 days and our appointment is for 4.00 a.m. Yes, you got it four o'clock in the morning; in December; in Scotland. In the meantime my car is covered in polythene to protect from the elements. It cannot be used, so just as well I can't get to work. I could go elsewhere of course, but that would cost me hundreds of pounds, instead of getting my dues from the insurance company.

At a course, I was told that we shouldn't treat the public like customers. I said no; they are citizens. Asked the difference, I replied that citizens have a RIGHT to service, whereas customers are served or not at the whim of the provider' the only discipline being that of market competition. Others at this course poured scorn on this notion and indeed insisted that they had a legal right to service from a private company.

This week's events prove that this is not true. Whilst Tesco et al have given up the ghost, public sector workers will continue their heroic efforts to ensure that the public receive their services and that the vulnerable are protected.

Private good; public bad? Are you !"£$%^& joking?

Sexual Apatheid?

Listened to a Radio Scotland phone-in on domestic violence this morning. Unfortunately I only caught the tail end.

I was astonished however to hear a commentator (Morag, sorry I didn't get her full name) say that she felt that she did not like men and that all of my gender did not really act in a decent manner (I apologise for paraphrasing slightly, but I cannot recall the exact words).

I immediately bridled at this. I don't think I am a sexist. I abhor domestic abuse and do think it a serious issue. I think I treat people in a decent manner. Why should I be labelled in this way?

Let's get a few things straight. Most perpetrators of domestic violence ARE men and most victims are women. There are exceptions but given this it is only right to concentrate on the gender politics relevant to the majority case, whilst ensuring that we do not ignore victims who happen to be male.

I can also understand that women who work in this area may develop a cynical view of my gender, to put it simply the "all men are bastards" slant on life.

There are dangers in this approach.

It is important not to alienate all decent PEOPLE. this may reduce support for the cause. As well as this, the proposition is so absurd to most folk that it makes it easier to dismiss the whole issue, which would be a most unfortunate unintended consequence.

Ultimately the view could lead to sexual apartheid. This parallels oddly the view of the most sexist man I have ever known who proposed that men and women should lead entirely separate lives and only meet for recreational and procreative intercourse. There is a parallel here where the views of Afrikaner nationalists and the Nation of Islam end up at the same place (albeit for different reasons); that the races should be separate.

What an awful world this would be. We must accept that there are decent men; indeed I would argue the majority are. You should harness the support of the decent majority rather than alienate them through extreme rhetoric.

Employer Coercion

We are in the middle of the biggest snowfall for 40 years in Scotland. Strathclyde Police have told people not to travel.

Yet at the same time some employers (I'll name no names; OK Glasgow City Council) tell staff to take annual or flexi leave if they can't get in.

So what happens? People gpo to work. They drive or walk through treacherous conditions.

Yet every employer has a duty under Section 6 of the Health and safety at Work Act to protect the Health, Safety andf Welfare of employees.
How do they square that with the leave policy.

Tell you what, why not have a carrot rather than a stick. Those brave souls who can reasonably make it should get a wee bonus (Day's extra leave) rather than penalise those who don't risk their lives.

These are extraordinary times which require an extraordinary response. Given that local authority workers have had to put up with a lot over the last few years then a wee gesture like this would not be unreasonable.

So come on then folks. Just try a little generosity

Let The Punishment...

The hysteria over the woamn who put a cat in a wheelie bin has reached alarming proprortions.

Don't get me wrong. What she did was cruel and she should be subect to due process of law. But she now apparently has to get a Police escort everywhere and some customers of the bank she works at are demanding that her employer sack her.

And why this reaction? The power of the the Internet that's why. Having been captured on CCTV her crime then appeared on You Tube. So she becomes an instant celebrity. And one of the most infamous people in the land, or possibly the planet.

As I said she was wrong and deserves to be punished for what was at best an unthinking action and at worst downright cruelty. But many people will have committed worse crimes and not have their jobs and personal safety put at risk.

It is time we put a little perspective into this and offered the crime the punishment it deserves; no more and no less.

I got quite scared the other day. I thought I had started agreeing with David Cameron.

The occasion was when he condemned comments made on the a Facebook page called "RIP Raoul Moat You Legend".

However, to my great relief I found that I differed form the Prime Minister. He demanded that Facebook should close the page down.

As for me I found the contents absolutely hideous. Let's start with the basics. i cannot agree with Moat being deemed a legend. His actions were despicable. He murdered a man in cold blood. He injured two others and appeared to absolutely reckless as to whether or not they survived. The most generous description I could apply to Moat is that he was just sad.

Quite apart from the inappropriate hero worship of the man there was also the contents of many of the posts on this page. They were vile and contained many sexist, racist rants. They made hideous comments about the Police and Moat's ex partner.

I really do wish this tribute page had never existed. But at the same time I did not want it to be closed down.

Yes, I found it horrible, but then perhaps some people think that of some of my views. If I decide that other people should be censored, then why should I not be censored too.

Freedom of speech is a liberty which our ancestors fought and died for. Yes there are times when it has to be curtailed, but we should defend this freedom as vigorously as we can. We shouldn't let a few wackos on the Internet threaten freedom for the rest of us.

And let's face it, our PM simply provided the oxygen of publicity. The page has been closed by its original controller now and there's a part of me which is relieved. There is however another part that feels the oppression of the orthodox view has won over yet again.

Anyone but England?

"The furore over the “anyone but England” t-shirts must puzzle the rest of the world.

See the story at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/8533791.stm

Is it racist? I don’t think so, although I cannot deny there are people in Scotland who are racist about the English. What it is though is a bit pathetic. I have to admit that I personally do not want England to do well at the World Cup, but maybe that says something about me. What I am not daft enough to do is buy one of these silly shirts.

We need to get over this stuff and concentrate on promoting ourselves rather than doing others down. Let’s face it; they qualified and we did not."