How Language Hides a Multitude of Sins

Adrian Mole wrote in his diaries "It rained solidly all afternoon. How can it rain "solidly"? What a strange mistress is the English language." What "he" was referring to at that time was the construction of a sentence where the meaning, as a whole, is totally different to the individual components, the juxtaposition between the adjective 'solid' and the noun 'rain'. Obviously you can't have solid rain, but we do refer to it raining solidly.

I'm finding more and more that I'm listening to the language that politicians (of all parties) use. Sometimes, what is more telling is the language that they don't use, and choose to substitute in its place. You really do have to read between the lines. Sometimes it's quite subtle, other times - as recently - less so.

The classic example is when a politician talks of making "difficult decisions". What this translates to is something that the Government wants to do, which it recognises is universally unpopular - despised even - but remains determined to do anyway. This is usually something driven by ideology, vested interests of lobbyists, or the ego of the person who thought of the idea.

When a political leader is exhibiting "strong leadership" - that really means that the party leader is determined to press ahead with something that even his own party hates.

"We are where we are" is a tacit admission that the speaker (or their party/Goverment) has dropped an almighty bollock in the past, but isn't willing to allow the discussion to focus on whose fault it is, i.e. theirs. It reminds me of the old joke about a person asking directions in Ireland. "You want to go to Dublin? Ah, I wouldn't start from here if I were you."

In the 90s, a Tory minister who resigned from his job saying "I want to spend more time with my family." really meant "I've been caught shagging my secretary but the News of the World hasn't published the story yet."

However, the current Government are masters of scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to euphemisms to mask their naked ideology, devoid of any sustainable logic whatsoever.

What the listener or viewer really needs to keep an ear out for at the moment, are the key phrases of the moment: "reform" and "partnering". The Home Sectretary (yes, the one with a criminal conviction for Contempt of Court) and the Policing Minister are particulary fond of them. The Health Secretary is a particular fan of "reform".

The Tories might well use other terms - but basically it all boils down to one thing. It's the Tory version of the "love that dare not speak its name":-

Privatisation.

It's what they're doing to the police service. It's what they've already done to the NHS. Goodness only knows what they'll think of next for "reform". What I do know, is that it won't be "transparency of MPs expenses and tax affairs". There's also about as much chance of "reform" of MPs pensions, as there is of Nick Clegg growing a spine.

We're still being swindled, and lied to as well.

In an earlier blog post in January, "Guess What, We're Being Swindled" I wrote about the differential between the prices of diesel and petrol.

Brian Madderson, Chairman of RMI Petrol which represents independent petrol retailers and forecourt operators, said at the time "Demand for diesel has been growing steadily in the UK but our refineries haven't. We used to have 19 refineries but now have only 8. What's more, they are old and not terribly efficient. So we have to compete for diesel on the international market - and ultimately pay through the nose for it."

And yet, in today's news, it was announced that the refinery at Coryton in Essex is being denied state aid by the Department for Energy and Climate Change on the basis that since there was an overcapacity in the refining industry and a declining demand for petrol, it would be unsustainable for the Government to provide assistance even if the EU allowed it to do so. link

I was confused by this statement. In January we were paying more for diesel because as a nation we were under capacity for refining, yet by June we are now over capacity. Something doesn't add up here. Perhaps, I thought, Coryton only produces petrol, and that we might actually be over capacity for petrol and under capacity for diesel.

So I checked. Actually, it produces both. According to the Coryton page on the UKpia website, this refinery has an output of 10 million tonnes per year. Of that, 36% is petrol, and 27% is diesel. So the diesel capacity is approximately 2.7 million tonnes per year.

Two things bother me about this. Firstly, we were told that we were under capacity for diesel to justify high prices, yet when it comes to saving the plant (and the jobs) suddenly we're over capacity. Secondly, even with the diesel being produced there, if we were under capacity before, we will be 2.7 million tonnes more under capacity from now on. If the price differential is because of the capacity shortage, diesel prices are set to go up even further as the international markets realise we have less of our own diesel.

Something about this whole issue does not add up. At least one of the parties involved has to be wrong. Whoever this is, it can only mean this: higher diesel prices, higher inflation, higher food prices and 850 jobs lost in Essex, with the knock on effects to that local economy.

Can the Government really not justify investment in modernisation of Coryton, for the short term and long term benefits which are surely obvious?

Tory Doublespeak on Debt

You might have noticed, as I have, that whenever David Cameron or George Osbourne are challenged on economic policy by Labour, they consistently ignore the question at hand and revert to the same lines about "the mess we inherited from the party opposite" or "Labour are the only people who think the answer to a debt crisis is more debt".

Usually the use of comments such as these is a reliable indicator that the person speaking doesn't have an answer to the point being raised, so they seek to undermine the credibility of the person asking the question. This is standard practice for politicians of all stripes and always has been.

However, there's a little more to this diversionary tactic at present, as it actually contradicts the Government's own economic policy.

In the news this morning, it was announced that the Government, in conjunction with the Bank Of England, will provide billions of pounds to cheap credit give to banks on the understanding that it is lent to companies and to consumers in the form of mortgages. link

This sounds like it might be a workable plan, but as the BBC's Robert Peston says, companies and households that are financially viable are unlikely to want to burden themselves with further debt in the current climate, leaving only the insolvent (or almost so) who are desperate to borrow, and the banks don't really want to lend to them anyway.

So we now have a policy which is not only impractical and likely to fail, but one that goes directly against the Governments own rhetoric.

Never again let the Tories say "Labour are the only people who think the answer to a debt crisis is more debt". The Tories think that's the answer too now.

Prisoner Votes: The Definition of Irony

Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that prisoners should be allowed to vote. For many years in this country, successive UK Governments have upheld that people in prison should not be allowed to vote. The reasoning is that if you have committed a serious enough offence to warrant a custodial sentence, then you forfeit your right to vote. This proposal has had broad support, anecdotally, across the country.

The UK Government launched an appeal against this ruling, which was overturned.

The story has recently had another development this week, as now Governments will be given some leeway to decide how to implement such measures, but it is my understanding that the status quo, a blanket ban on all prisoners voting, is not acceptable.

There doesn't seem to be much comment, either politically or in the press, that this is all the ultimate definition of irony. Why? Let me spell this out.....

A group of unelected, unaccountable people from another country are overruling the desires of a democratically elected Government to intervene in the "democratic rights" of criminals.

If this was a script for a sitcom lampooning the European institutions, it would be derided as being exaggerated and not credible. This is no joke.

FAO Nick Herbert - An Officer's Tale

For the attention of Tom Winsor, Nick Herbert, Theresa April and David Cameron.

Much has been said by certain sections of the press and public, as well as by politicians, about the sustainability of the current system of policing in the UK. The most spectacularly cynical and inaccurate article appeared in the Telegraph. You can read it here if your stomach can stand it. It is crammed full with fallacies ranging from straw men to question begging. Sadly, it's exactly this type of thinking that the police service is up against. I could write an entire blog posting on the flawed logic and bias of Palmer's article, but I won't do that here. Another time, perhaps.

Regular readers of this blog will know that I was a Special Constable for a period of about 8 years before I left, mainly due to the introduction of PCSOs. Demoralizing and undermining police officers is not the exclusive position of the Tories. Labour have also put the boot in over the years.

I usually don't care much for war stories, but I'm going to give you one of my own now. It seems a fitting time to do so, as Policing Minister Nick Herbert MP is currently at the Police Federation Annual Conference, and Theresa April, Government Office of Incompetence, is due tomorrow. That's if she gets the date correct.

It was 2002. I had gone out for the evening to Milton Keynes with my wife, and another couple who were friends of ours. John (not his real name) was a "regular" Constable and "Rachel" was another Special Constable.

We'd arrived a little early so were standing outside our venue waiting to get in. We stood chatting for a while, when I became aware of an argument breaking out behind us. I turned around and saw that this was a row between a male and a female. As the row escalated, the female drew a knife and said to the male in no uncertain terms that if he didn't go away, she would attack him with the knife.

I nudged John. Rachel had already been watching events unfold and the three of us made our way over towards the female, while my wife went to fetch the venue security officers, so that they could call the police. We could not afford to make a call and stand back as we could not be sure how the situation would develop. If we had remained where we were, and someone had been stabbed, then we would have been investigated for not doing our duty. As it turned out, the female surrendered the weapon without any argument, as no force was required to detain her until the local officers arrived.

Not exactly dramatic, I know. My point is that there is NO OTHER JOB in the UK where someone who is off duty would be morally and legally obliged to step into such a situation of potential danger. That situation could easily have become life threatening to any of us, and we'd have had no protective equipment (e.g. baton or CS spray) or radios to summon assistance.

Nor do I claim that this was a special case. Any officer you choose to speak to will have some such story to tell. Most will have several.

Of course doctors, nurses, fire officers and other workers will have encountered situations where they have had to unexpectedly get involved in a situation when not at work. What make this different, for me, is that nearly all the scenarios we deal with are, or have the potential to be, confrontational and pose a significant - sometime life threatening - risk to the individual. Myself and Rachel weren't even paid for the responsibility that we held.

The office of Constable is a special, unique institution. Turning officers into mere employees erodes that position. Short-sighted ideological changes, which contribute NOTHING to eliminating the UK debt, destroy it totally. The Police Service in the UK has operated on the goodwill of its rank and file officers for too long. This government is going to irreparably damage the service. People and communities will suffer.

The Government stopped respecting and appreciating the police many years ago, at some time in the 1990s. However, this current Government is the straw that broke the camel's back.

10 Reasons Why Police Reform is on the wrong track

10 Reasons why the Winsor reports are wrong, from the point of view of a member of the public.

1. Winsor's report says that police officers are paid about 10-15% more than other emergency service workers. I am not in a position to say whether or not this is true, but assuming that it is, it is to compensate for the following:-
• Total lack of any employment rights. Police officers are legally prevented from striking or otherwise withdrawing labour, the ONLY sector of employment (aside from Prison Officers) so restricted.
• Restrictions on private life, including being required to be apolitical and never being off duty.
• Directed overtime, which police officers cannot refuse.
• 30 years of mostly working shifts, in dangerous and confrontational situations.
• Rest days and annual leave can be cancelled at any time.
2. The report suggests that officers who are deemed to be in the bottom 10% of the performance range are subject to dismissal, whether their performance is actually sub standard or not.
3. The execution of police duties should never be subject to targets or performance related pay, if the public are to have faith that the actions taken by officers are necessary and not simply for the achievement of targets. The oath that officers take at Attestation says that they will carry out their duties without fear or favour. Further, once you have target-led anything, let alone policing, you simply end up with more forms, more bureaucracy and less actual time focused on the activity at hand.
4. The report claims to encourage performance related pay, and yet at the same time removes Competency Related Threshold Pay (CRTP) from specialist officers such as firearms teams, whose role is especially demanding, and other officers who are able to demonstrate high levels of skill & competence. Similarly, officers who are currently Public Order (i.e. "riot") trained who receive CRTP will only do so in future if these duties are required six times per year. Imagine six separate occurrences of last summer's riots! In all practical terms, this means these officers will never receive that payment. How can that be fair? In fact, Winsor suggested scrapping CRTP in his first report, "Winsor1". This was rejected by the independent Police Arbitration Tribunal. This didn't deter Winsor. He simply repeated the proposal in his second report, "Winsor2".
5. The report made several factual errors, such as claiming that 75% of male officers in the Met were overweight. The truth is that the Metropolitan Police ran a health scheme for officers concerned about their weight. Of these officers who attended the clinic, 75% of these were indeed overweight. This is far from saying that 75% of the total officer numbers are overweight. This is either gross incompetence (reason enough to dismiss the entire report) or it's deliberately misleading.
6. Under the terms of the report, officers who are injured in the line of duty, and unable to carry out warranted (i.e. full police officer) roles or meet the fitness test standards, will have their pay reduced by 8% or £2922 (whichever is lower) and by the second year of this injury, they will be sacked. That's a great reward for an officer isn't it? Remember PC David Rathband? Under Winsor's report, he would have been sacked by now.
7. The report suggested regional pay for officers from different areas of the country, because of the different costs of living across the regions. This already exists to some extent in London. Officers serving here already receive more than officers from other areas. As a result, areas bordering London like Essex, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire find that they are recruiting and training officers, only for them to transfer to the Met for the higher salary for doing the same job, and living in the same area. If this is implemented all over the country, this will lead to chaos. Besides, you don't hear MPs in favour of regional pay for MPs, do you?
8. Winsor proposes that candidates should be able to enter the police service at higher ranks, such as Inspector, up to and including Superintendent. What this does not appreciate, is the unique nature of policing. Using the NHS as an analogy, you could have someone "manage" a GP practice or even a hospital trust from a financial and administrative point of view, but they would not be suitable for setting healthcare policy or critiquing the work of doctors, nurses and surgeons. In fact, find someone who works in a hospital, and ask them how popular these "parachute" bosses are, and how "in touch" with the front line they are. It is possibly the worst suggestion in the entire report. Watch an episode of The Apprentice, and now imagine those same people in charge of your local police station, or even a whole policing division. That is a truly frightening thought.
9. Winsor says that he wants to make the service more "professional" and as such, wants to raise the educational requirements for entry, but at the same time reduce the starting pay for the office of Constable to less than that of a PCSO. Recently during a debate on MPs salaries, they said that it was necessary to keep the salary of an MP at the current (£65000) level "to make sure that the right calibre of people were encouraged to become MPs". How can it be right to increase MPs wages to increase professionalism, yet reduce wages to increase professionalism in the police? It seems that this suggestion is simple market economics. Each police officer vacancy is vastly over-subscribed. The logic seems to be to reduce the starting wage to discourage more people from joining.
10. Winsor says that a role which does not require the warranted powers of a constable should be paid less. What this does not account for are roles where the actual knowledge and experience of the role are absolutely crucial, such as training, control room supervisionand, perhaps to a lesser extent, call handling. Officers will not volunteer for these roles if it is going to mean a sizeable cut in pay.

There. Ten reasons, written quickly, by a member of the public. It didn't need a great deal of analysis or time to come up with these reasons why the reports should be rejected. It's simple logic and common sense.

I haven't even mentioned the cuts to officer numbers which will risk the safety of the public and officers alike. The Government will tell you that these "cuts" are necessary. Let me tell you something. This isn't about savings. It never was. How do I know? Have a look at the full speech by David Cameron on 16th January 2006. The speech can be found here. He's been itching to get his hands on the police for years. Even before 2006, in fact. Cameron was a major contributor to the Sheehy report in the early 1990s. Some of the suggestions in Winsor's reports are simply Sheehy re-heated and served on a nice plate.

Oh, by the way, Policing Minister Nick Herbert, and the Minister for Government Incompetence Theresa May, will tell you that this report by Tom Winsor was "independent". Read Cameron's speech from 2006, and decide for yourself how independent it is.

Politics from a vegetarian's point of view

Imagine, for a moment, that you're a vegetarian. If you are a vegetarian, this won't be hard.

You go out for dinner, and your host has thoughtfully cooked two dishes so that you choose whichever option you prefer.

"Chicken or beef?" says your host. You'd be horrified, wouldn't you? You might choose one or the other, out of necessity and perhaps politeness, but for anyone to say that you actually wanted either of them would be ludicrous.

Yet this is the choice we are faced with in politics today. Today is Local Elections day, and as I mentioned in my blog yesterday, the major parties are campaigning with typically cynical double standards. Many people feel that it is important to vote, and it is. The problem is that if you vote, however you vote, that party will take it as a vindication of their conduct and policies. This, often, could not be further from the truth. How many people today have voted Labour just to make sure that the Conservative candidate didn't win, and vice versa?

The truth is, there is a growing section of the electorate which is not voting for the candidate that they actually want. They're voting so that they don't get the candidate they really hate.

In an earlier blog, I suggested a "none of the above" or "no vote" option. Perhaps if we had that, politicians of all stripes would realise that, by and large, we think they're all useless.