John Steward - May 2007
A STORM IN A TEACUP looked set to get out of hand and cost local taxpayers a fortune to satisfy the hurt feelings of a council employee, who was allegedly taunted at her place of work.
At an internal investigation, a Bexley councillor is reported to have told her to “take office jokes on the chin”. I was not privy to the exact details and have no wish to influence any forthcoming tribunal. But I will say in general terms that it will be most disappointing if council staff are prevented from behaving like ordinary human beings which includes normal office banter that is often used to relieve boredom and engender mateyness among colleagues. This time-honoured behaviour is being threatened however because there are some people who have discovered there is good money to be made out of complaining about it. Their ears are finely tuned to every single word and nuance of speech as they closely monitor the body language and facial expressions of their colleagues in the hope that this may be interpreted as racism or sexism.
I say this has gone too far and now that it has reached Bexleyheath, this is MUCH too far. My advice to Bexley Council chiefs is don’t squander my money to satisfy the personal greed of disgruntled employees and don’t be intimidated into issuing silly guidelines to your staff, inhibiting what little sense of humour they are left with after dealing with the public all day. By all means stamp out genuine offensive behaviour. But this must also include opportunism.
THE GENEVA CONVENTION is quite clear about it. Military personnel who are taken prisoner by an enemy are only required to state their name, rank and serial number. Only in extreme cases of duress and torture has this rule been broken and even then, after long periods of brutal interrogation. Many heroes of World War 2 refused to capitulate and chose death before dishonour.
How is it then that we were treated to a stage-managed televised event put out by the Iranians, where two Royal Marine officers were seen giving a fulsome account of their movements before being captured, aided by a large chart showing the position of their assault craft in so-called Iranian territorial waters? And the female sailor praising her captors for their kind treatment whilst she was in captivity – as if she was enjoying a week at Butlins. Does ‘name, rank and number’ only exist in those old black and white war films that we see repeated on TV?
These military personnel, who presumably are all signatories of the Official Secrets Act, should be charged with conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline and bringing the service into disrepute. They apparently offered no resistance to capture and simply gave up their arms and equipment, another chargeable military offence in normal circumstances. Ask any squaddie who has been unfortunate enough to mislay his rifle. And another thing. There was a time when all ranks were required to take the demanding assault course to ascertain their fitness for duty. Without wishing to be unkind or sexist, I would be most surprised if the obviously overweight female member of the group had ever climbed higher than a bar stool, which is a rather worrying factor when fitness can be all important in combat conditions.
Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt added to the farce by stating she was very concerned about the female sailor, because she appeared smoking a cigarette. What a good thing this buffoon of a Minister wasn’t around during both World Wars, when our troops were actually supplied with tobacco by the government of the day. I would rather she had worried about the captives being shot or beheaded, which at the time was an unknown possibility.
I was never in any doubt from day one that the Iranian navy caught our own senior service napping. This was confirmed when the phlegmatic commander of HMS Cornwall, casually commented that the loss of fifteen of his crew “was all due to a misunderstanding”. These people were hapless victims in a territorial battle of wits between Iran and the West and regrettably no one comes out of it with any honour. They certainly were not heroes and should consider themselves fortunate not to be Court Martialled and Dismissed the Service. There was a time when Britain’s navy ruled the waves, when our fleet was a formidable sight to any potential enemy who had the audacity to test its strength. In times of Empire, the slightest hint of unrest would be resolved by sending a fast-moving gunboat or a mighty Dreadnought battleship to quell the uprising. Compare this with the latest situation where fifteen supposedly elite marine personnel were snatched from under the very bows of their mother ship
Incredibly, the official reaction to this outrage by the authorities was decidedly low-key. The ship’s captain suggested “it was probably a misunderstanding”, our fearsome Foreign Secretary must have put fear into the heart of the Iranian President, by stating she was “very concerned” and that “the position was completely unacceptable”. And our great leader publicly pronounced that “the action against these sailors was wrong”. Just compare these responses with that of Margaret Thatcher when told that the Argentinian’s had landed in the Falkland Islands. Within two days a massive task force had been assembled and despatched to repel the invaders. And her Foreign Secretary did the honourable thing and immediately resigned, because he reasoned that it was his overall responsibility to have protected the islands and their British inhabitants.
I have a theory. Could it possibly be that our Prime Minister connived with his friend in the White House to allow this small expendable group of sailors to be captured and therefore give the Americans an excuse for unleashing a bombing raid on Tehran? Considering how we became involved in the Iraq conflict, this is not as far-fetched as it may sound. Just a thought!
HAVE I DISCOVERED why there is still a shortage of policemen? Well, at this very moment we have four Scotland Yard officers in Jamaica, assisting in a bungled murder inquiry and another four in Barbados, acting as nursemaids to Prince Harry and his girlfriend. Many more are on secondment to other police forces around the world at any one time. So at least when you call for assistance and get no response, you will know why.
PRIVATE MICHELLE NORRIS is the first woman to be awarded the Military Cross, one of the highest honours for bravery in combat. As a 19 year old newly-qualified member of the RAMC sent to Iraq, within weeks of her posting, she braved constant sniper fire to rescue a seriously injured soldier from a highly dangerous situation.
It must have been a proud moment for her and her family when she went to Buckingham Palace to receive her medal from the Queen. Somehow though, the occasion was diminished and the honour devalued. Why? Because at the same ceremony, medals were also dished-out to a well-paid actress and an overpaid footballer. Private Norris deserved a special ceremony quite independent of these celebrity show-offs, who were not fit to be in the same room as her.
I do wish society would sort out its values – starting with the Honours system. There was a time when you were only honoured for carrying-out a valuable act of work or bravery, above and beyond the call of duty. Now, just being there, holding a rank or position, or long service, can be sufficient to earn a gong. And please don’t get me going on the subject of Sir Elton, Sir Mick, Sir Tom and Sir Terry!
When Michelle Norris is made a Dame (DBE) then I shall believe the system is fair.
DESPERATE TO REDUCE their massive deficits, some NHS Trusts are cutting back on the amount of beverages served to patients. There’s one thing that has always puzzled me. Why is it we are not charged for the food we consume in hospital? We quite rightly expect to receive medical treatment paid for out of our National Insurance Contributions, but should we reasonably expect to be fed from this fund? If we had been at home, we would have to purchase our own food, as well as other domestic expenses.
Considering the parlous state of Health Service finances, I would have thought this is one area where enormous cost savings could be made and perhaps even balance the books. A reasonable surcharge for meals would be acceptable to most fair-minded people, provided it IS reasonable and fairly applied – and the savings ring-fenced for medical costs only.
I’VE YET TO SEE a better example of OPTIMISM than the 102 year old Sussex man who has recently taken out a 25 year mortgage.
“WE ARE HITTING THE CRIMINALS in the pocket to make sure crime doesn’t pay and their victims receive the services we all want them to have”. This was the laudable statement made by Home Office Minister Baroness Scotland – and few would argue with her sentiments. That is until you discover that the criminals she has in mind are the motoring public, who have received more than one fixed penalty fine. From now on, they are to be hit with a £15 surcharge for each motoring offence if challenged in court. Eventually this will apply whether challenged or not. It is estimated that this will rake in an additional £16 million a year.
But of course, like almost everything this government does – it is grossly unfair. The intention is that this money will be spent on expanding the number of domestic violence advisers, whilst the REAL criminals and perpetrators of domestic violence pay nothing towards their victims. This is yet a further blatant example that the motorist is seen as a never-ending source of cash, because the majority of them are law-abiding and will just pay up on demand. How much longer are we going to stand for this highway robbery?
AS A CONSEQUENCE of last summer’s hosepipe ban, the water companies made less money out of us metered customers. How do they repay us for our loyalty? Why – put up their prices of course, to make up their shortfall. I suppose this is what’s called sound economics! If a private business was to attempt such devious tactics, it would now be desperately searching for customers.
I COULD HARDLY BELIEVE IT when I read that 5747 inmates in Yorkshire’s prisons are issued with their own cell door keys. In fact I had to check the date to make sure it wasn’t April 1st. It wasn’t. As I have said on so many occasions – just WHO is it that actually gives the orders for the introduction of such absurd arrangements? We rightly admonish the government and the minister responsible, but it must eventually come down to one person who signs the orders.
Why is this person allowed to get away with it when such things are clearly not in the public interest? Is this individual allowed such freedom because the Home Office is so inept it doesn’t realise what is going on. Or is some high-up civil servant actually making up the rules as well as implementing them? Before you next place your cross on the Ballot Paper, find out just WHO is running the country?
I’ll make another of my regular predictions. This time, see how long it takes for a prisoner to sue the prison service for his loss of human rights, when his key is taken away for an infringement of prison rules. Remember – you saw it in the Bexley Chronicle first.
JOHN PRESCOTT (yes, him again!), wants a seat in the House of Lords and a rôle as international ambassador for Britain. I can think of no better candidate to represent the yobbish, selfish, boozy, thuggish, arrogant culture that Britain has become under his government’s stewardship.
AT LAST a judge with some common sense and original thought. Judge Robert Doyel included an additional punishment when sentencing a reckless driver for killing a 17 year old girl. The convicted man must display a large poster of his young victim with the caption “I’m sorry I killed you”, when he comes out of prison. I’ve long thought this should be common practice in our courts. Then I read on and discovered this was in Florida.
CCTV CAMERAS incorporating loudspeakers are being fitted to lamp posts. Some dogs are going to be in for a nasty shock!