National day of strike action: a winter of (puerile) discontent?

Image via Wikipedia

Irrespective of your views on the rights and wrongs in today’s national Public Sector strike, and whether or not you actually feel like “we’re all in this together”, as the government would want us all to believe, the strike is actually unlikely to result in much more than this; a grotesque enhancement and continuance of the puerile and immature divisive mentality in our society…

The have not’s are even more angered about the have’s, the north is yet further removed from the south and as for those who provide the services we all need, the Public Sector, they are being castigated and further alienated from their Private Sector brethren.

Most of the arguments, in numerous forums on the issues, along with any perceived or expected outcomes from the strike boil down to; little more than jealousy, personal greed and the usual liberal dose of self-centred self-importance. These are all traits that are at the root of and the mainstays of the situation we have arrived at today.

But are these continued social and class arguments really valid any more OR, are we simply doing what we always tend to do, Worshiping the God of Cash?

In a recent BBC Radio 4 program The Class Ceiling, Polly Toynbee* attempted to explore how possible it is to move up through British society… In short; Who gets to break the ‘class ceiling’? But does class really matter any more? If so, what does Britain’s ‘real’ class system look like today?

Getting on in the world is a priority for many but is social mobility such a good thing or, as important as many perceive it to be? Philosopher Mark Vernon says thinkers like Kant have mulled over such questions for centuries (see here). There are also many who continuously raise questions around the viability of the “narrow social elite” who run our country (see here).

Top Labour politicians are less posh than the Tories or the Lib Dems but they are increasingly middle-class, Oxbridge-educated and have done nothing but politics…(bbc.co.uk)

Polly argues that; while deference is long gone, and Prime Ministers have swapped ties and titles for first name informality, Britain’s class system is still going strong. Whether or not there is actually any need to break through that class ceiling is a matter of opinion and one which is (arguably) an “ever-more-pressing question.”

Boris Johnson (then a Conservative MP) previously described Toynbee and here views by saying; she “incarnates all the nannying, high-taxing, high-spending schoolmarminess of Blair’s Britain. Polly is the high priestess of our paranoid, mollycoddled, risk-averse, airbagged, booster-seated culture of political correctness and ‘elf ‘n’ safety fascism.”

Last night, on the eve of what is (arguably) a ‘monumental’ day of ‘public opinion’ and anger, I watched BBC Newsnight (see BBCiPlayer clip).

Jeremy Paxman started with a wholly appropriate “Woe, Woe and thrice Woe” comment to set the tone. As the program continued, the usual inter-party juvenile blame game rhetoric was evident. Danny Alexander returned to his mostly Muppet stance and tried to Beaker his way through the issues, answering little.

I also found it hard to comprehend how and why, the show chose to draft in yet another ‘expert opinion’ from an theorist.  Professor Mariana Mazzucato may be European (Italian-born), but she is a thinker who spent most of her mainly academic life in the USA. Don’t we need some reality in the mix? Why do we continue to take cognisance of and value their views? Isn’t it a case that; many of the economic problems we face today were actually born out of the financial and commercial raison d’être developed by her like in the United States?

Personally, I’m not convinced this continuous and unrelenting ‘class war’ type of argument is such a good thing for our country or society. Neither is it the important issue that so many suggest… Many of those who continue to argue the toss in this manner are often simply motivated by their own personal or political agenda, and a good measure of greed.

I also have to agree with Paxman’s comment about looking for answers to actually find the ultimate solution… It’s mostly “a vain attempt to find a £1 coin at the bottom of a septic tank!” An excellent analogy compounded by the fact; most of those actually doing the searching often aren’t prone to getting their bloody hands dirty in the first place, especially when they can avoid it…

By the way, whilst you’re having a pop at the public sector, please spare a thought for those who aren’t on strike (because it’s against the law), but are still serving you in your time of need, despite their own financial concerns for their family!

*Polly Toynbee is a columnist for The Guardian. She was formerly BBC social affairs editor, columnist and associate editor of The Independent, co-editor of the Washington Monthly and a reporter and feature writer for The Observer.

Related articles

• Strikes hit services as millions heed unions’ call to fight pension cuts (guardian.co.uk)
• George Osborne: strikes will weaken economy and cost jobs (telegraph.co.uk)
• Day of strikes as millions heed unions’ call to fight pension cuts (guardian.co.uk)
• Is Polly Toynbee right that social mobility is declining? (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)

Note to self: learn to bloody type faster!

Image via Flickr

Have you ever had one of those weeks where so much is going on, you simply don’t have the time to keep up with the things you want to do? This has (so far) been one of those. “Better Time Management Required” I hear you cry and that’s fine, there may be some of that required however; good time management necessitates putting some things off to another day, especially if not a priority or important in the real scheme of things…

I’ve come to the conclusion that, the very subject of ‘time management’ is often at the root of so much that causes my angst about public sector failures. I also suspect many managers within the public sector actually use it to their advantage, whilst we the public are usually disadvantaged by it.

How many times have we witnessed the delivery of some new missive or policy proposal from the government, or other public agency for that matter, only to find the ‘public consultation’ phase was often announced as an after thought, and often at the eleventh hour in any case? Is it any wonder that so many things get approved and implemented because there was “no public concern” when really, the ‘public’ actually had either no time or (more worryingly), no inclination to voice their concern or challenge any issues in the first place?

Some managers, who in effect are actually public servants (a fact they would do well to remember sometimes), will come up with some half-baked theory or idea, often simply to further their own career prospects, than wham! Before you know it, you’ve had another piece of inane legislation or superfluous service delivery requirement that impacts upon your miserable existence, suddenly but stealthily rammed up your shit box whilst you weren’t looking or otherwise engaged.

The public sector manager sits wholly contented, with a smug face of job well done whilst the remainder of us, we the recipients of that public service, sit and ask why? Try to accept something they don’t agree with and work out ways to get it changed, if they can actually be bothered that is.

The whole process is one of the main reasons many of us don’t actually receive the quality of service we want and/or require. Too many of those we, the taxpayers, fund within the public sector have very little cognisance of the meaning of the word ‘service’, unless it relates to self-service and/or self-importance that is.  

Rant over (partly)!

I read recently that North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) are finally going to do something about parking problems in the area – fandabbydozy!

BOSSES at a county council have agreed to take on responsibility for parking enforcement for the first time in the authority’s history after rising complaints about illegal and inconsiderate parking…(Read more)

After some public consultation which showed “almost 60% of residents thought parking was a problem” moves are now afoot to deal with the drivers who flout on-street parking restrictions. All I, and many more in the area can say to that is; about bloody time! It’s only taken the local authority three plus sodding years to get their heads around that which we the residents advised them of originally. And people think these public servants don’t listen to their communities, it appears they do, it just takes a long time to sink in with people who are so busy fecking-up our lives in advancement of their own!

I have to wonder however; after the years of waiting for some action, is this simply just another breeze of hot air rhetoric, designed to appease a complaining and despondent local electorate or, will we actually see some tangible results, for a change?

The quoted article highlights how proposals agreed by the council’s executive, will lead to an application for civil parking enforcement (CPE). But, the ‘action’, effectively transferring responsibility for the regulation of on-street parking from the police to the local highways authority, won’t actually come into force until 2012/13.

Undoubtedly a good move however; who enforces the restrictions during the interim period? Indeed, who has been enforcing them up to now? To my knowledge, at least locally, North Yorkshire Police haven’t actually taken an active role in parking regulations enforcement for several years now.

The simple answer to the enforcement question is no one, and in this period of local authority cut-backs, is it likely they will employ resources to do so in the future? Also highly unlikely! So after 3+ years and in real terms, we are no further forward and to cap it all, this morning I received notice that my resident’s parking permit was due for renewal. Another year of paying for the privilege of, not being able to park my car outside my house, great.

And, to add insult to injury, the demand notice was signed (in facsimile) by someone designated as an ‘Improvement Manager’ on behalf of a ‘Corporate Director’… Despite their high and mighty titles, many would have to question their actual ability and service delivery… I’d sack ‘em all, sanctimonious self-important muppets!

FFS Mr Bean: show some respect…

Eff Off M' Lud!

So what about the recent Court of Appeal ruling by the Hon Mr Justice Bean QC? – ‘Swearing at police is not a crime because officers hear foul language “all too frequently” to be offended’ - (telegraph.co.uk)…

Social networks and the media have, quite understandably, been full of vociferous debate on the matter, most of it born from the myriad of differing issues involved. For what on the face of it is a fairly simple ruling, it also has the propensity for some substantial and mostly negative impacts upon our society.

Whether you agree with the ruling or not, it’s not just about the shouting of  ”fuck off” at a cop, it also raises a raft of additional questions. Important ones that revolve around the whole concept of law and order, and the stability/framework of our society.

Not wanting to formulate or express any stereotypical image, based simply upon ethnicity, or even the statistical information (see here) which implies; young black people are overrepresented at every stage of the criminal justice system, my initial question raised by this case is simply, why?

Why is there often so much friction and/or conflict during interactions between the police and young people today, but especially (although not exclusively), those of Afro-Caribbean origins, or indeed any other non-white ethnic background? It’s not so much about the actual words used per se, it’s all about the tone and delivery of the language used or delivered, that and one simple word…Respect! 

Respect denotes both a positive feeling of esteem for a person or other entity (such as a nation or a religion), and also specific actions and conduct representative of that esteem. Respect can be a specific feeling of regard for the actual qualities of the one respected (e.g., “I have great respect for her judgment”). It can also be conduct in accord with a specific ethic of respect. Rude conduct is usually considered to indicate a lack of respect…(wikipedia.org)

‘Respect’ is a word which by necessity, means it must be applied in a tolerant and two-way manner between individuals however; ‘respect’ also relates to our society as a whole. Respect for the legal framework which holds it all together. Unfortunately, that type of respect is also so lacking that it is almost non-existent.

Whether or not there was any element of that old Ali G retort, “you is picking on my coz I is black” (as partly alleged by the mother of Denzel Cassius Harvey, the appellant - see here), is mostly irrelevant to the bigger issue here. Another question that begs to be asked is; was the case actually ’Harvey’s'  legal challenge and, was it an action taken by him for being wronged by the police, or was it taken to appease the neo-liberal PC brigade? Or even worse, simply the actions of a legal team having a pop at the system? A case randomly ‘cherry picked’ by lawyers in furtherance of their own importance and legal careers.

In light of the Stephen Lawrence murder in 1993 (news again) and the subsequent MacPherson Report, there is often an inherent ’fear’ held by many police officers, of getting anything even remotely wrong, when dealing with non-whites. Due to that factor alone, I would be highly surprised if there had been an Ali G element, at least not from the officers involved I would hope, unless bigoted or totally stupid.

I do fully appreciate that it could have been possible, after all, our police supposedly reflect our society. A society that is often intolerant, inherently self-interested and mostly rude however; I suspect it more likely that the appellant (or his legal team) actually chose to play the race card, in furtherance of their debunking any charge from the incident. It would be interesting to have seen the outcome of a case involving a caucasian appellant, if it ever actually reached court in the first place?

That said, there is no doubt the legal team would adopt the moral high ground and defend their right to challenge our legal system. In part I would agree, no one wants to see any travesty of justice or indeed, someone convicted of an offence they didn’t commit. However, as I’ve said previously, this case is about so much more than the actual offence committed, one that was mostly proven and still remains largely unchallenged.

Racial issues aside, but wholly relevent to the case all the same, Janet Daley writing in The Telegraph recently pointed out: Would a judge like to be told to eff off in court? She also highlighted how ”permitting people to swear freely at police undermines the rule of law and civilised society.”

“If the police are not worthy of civility in the streets, and teachers cannot command respect in the classroom, and conscientious parents are not supported by the community, we are on the way to creating a country that is not worth living in.” – (Janet Daley)

One of the fundamental and overriding principles of law enforcement in the UK has always been ’Policing by Consent‘ a system whereby – “the police are the public and the public are the police” – however and partly due to this case, we now have to ask; is this still the accepted and fully understood foundation stone that it once was? More importantly, with the current levels of disrespect for authority of any kind (not just the police), is it a principle that’s actually working any more? In addition, is it an ideology still fit for purpose in the 21st century? All questions being raised (and partly answered) in the piece below…

Why People Obey the Law: …Normally, we ask the question round the other way, trying to understand what it is that causes people to break the law. But it is just as interesting and potentially informative to invert the proposition and consider the reasons citizens have for staying on the straight and narrow…(bbc.co.uk)

Although our system of appeal is also a fundamental cornerstone of our legal system, unfortunately it’s also a system that is often abused. Too often, and not without considerable expense to the public purse, lawyers are bringing actions which not only challenge a particular piece of legislation but also, actually have the ability to undermine the whole fabric of our (mostly) law-abiding society. 

The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe is not alone when he says that he is “deeply disappointed” by the court ruling. Thankfully (and rightly) he intimated his force would continue to arrest people who direct foul language at police officers.

I believe the police must continue to apply the law as written, until it is changed by due legal process, and not just at the whim of one judge. The public must also accept and respect that legislation along with those tasked with law enforcement, so long as they are operating correctly and within the law. Failure on either part leads us down the unsavoury road to anarchy, and the possibility of legislation more akin to the martial laws of dictatorships.

In my opinion, the ruling delivered by Mr Justice Bean QC is probably more worthy of being attributed to Mr Bean, as opposed to a respected and (supposedly) intelligent member of the British Judiciary.

Related articles

• Policemen shouldn’t have to put up with abuse from foul-mouthed yobs (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)
• Met Police chief: officers will still arrest swearing suspects despite court ruling (telegraph.co.uk)
• Judge: it’s no crime to swear at police, they are used to it (telegraph.co.uk)
• Police are regularly sworn at – but it’s not the words that matter | Ellie Bloggs (guardian.co.uk)