GrumpyDaddy

Amidst the stupidity of a government intent on ruining the economy, our education system and our health service the Tory/Liberal Anchluss did get something right. The decision to abandon plans for a jump-jet version of the F35 advanced naval strike fighter was a very sensible move.

This more complicated version of the F35 has a reduced range and reduced weapons payload compared to the regular version of the aircraft. The jump jet is also more complicated to build, fly and maintain with all the extra expenses that follows. For obvious reasons the Royal Navy hasn't been keen on receiving this version. However defence contractors that are friendly with the Tory party are.

Abandoning the jump jet wasn't entirely a pain free choice. Flying the conventional version of the aircraft would require our two new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers to be fitted with costly catapult launching and tailhook recovery systems.

Once again the subject of wearing crosses in the workplace has reared its head again following the government's decision that there is no automatic right to wear one.On this rare occasion I agree with the government.

The sort of people who get annoyed by this kind of thing have already been getting worked up about it. How can we show we are Christians, they demand of the government, if we can't wear our execution-based jewelry?

Here of course is the irony. The sort of person who needs a bloody great cross to show that they are a Christian, the sort of person who rants and raves about their rights to wear a cross, needs a heck of a lot more than a piece of jewelry to convince anyone they have anything to do with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

The Tory Party conference is never really a source of joy to right thinking people as it is often the source of stupidity, selfishness, racism disguised as immigration policy and general fuckwittedness. But they've outdone themselves this week - as have the business leaders present.

We live in a time where we are all being asked to tighten our belts. VAT is at 20 percent which is a huge burden on the lower paid and poor who it affects disproportionately. Sure Start centres are closing, as are libraries. Councils are cutting back on services. The armed forces are being decimated by a shortsighted and dangerous foreign policy. Our nation is being stripped bare in the name of the Tory defecit reduction plan.

Someone somewhere has really fucked up our nation and we're now having to pay for it. But who is to blame? Well you'd think, given the policy ideas coming from the Tory conference, that workers are to blame. Yes the poor workers of this country are to blame for wanting things like access to legal redress, support when ill or pregnant, somewhere safe to work and a workplace free of discrimination. If only we could return to the days of toddlers working under spinning machines then the economy would grow and all would be well. And while we are it, can we cut the top rate of tax down a bit, some execs are down to the last three or four luxury cars.

Parents, I imagine that unless you're loaded you aren't exactly keen on the Coalition's efforts so far. The massive real-world cuts in public spending - particularly on education and children's services - certainly worry our family. Surestart has been crushed and the scandal of £9K per year university fees is hard to forget.

But why has this happened? Why has an electorate full of so many parents allowed a government to be formed that seems to be the enemy of young families? That's down to the demographic issues and the make-up of the Tory party.

I read this shocking story this afternoon about negligence in Essex maternity units. The story struck home with me because the case is very similar to our own - to the death of my beloved wife Lanie in 2007.

I've never really felt able to tell the full story. The horror of the events that left me widowed with newborn twins is/was so powerful that it kept me from raising the issue in a more public manner. It also prevented me launching a legal case - which I should have done before three years were up - and then perhaps been able to secure a financial legacy for the children whose mother was taken from them.

But reading the story I've linked to above has flicked a switch. I really want to tell the story now. The complete and full story of how a hospital's negligence from the management at the top to the nursing staff on the wards was so appalling that it lead to the neglect and death of my wife.

Today I received a phone call from a company called Accident Assured regarding a motor accident I had recently. Fair enough you might say, but I've never heard of this Liverpool-based company before, nor have I had a motor accident.

So what's going on? Well recently I've had some phishing SMS messages regarding an insurance claim - which I didn't reply to - and now I've had this phonecall.

Today the dummies guide to the AV Referendum dropped through the front door. I read it - and I'm still undecided which way to vote.

One the one hand I really do feel like we need to change our unrepresentative electoral system. But I don't think AV is the right way. I also fear that if AV wins then it will be a long time before we get a proper and important change to our constitution. One could see the AV Referendum as an impediment to change, offering just enough to make reformers go away.

But on the other hand the campaign from the No camp has been particularly nasty. I wouldn't want to vote No just to hand these bunch of reactionary gits a victory. The result is I feel somewhat trapped - I don't like AV, I think it doesn't go far enough, I think voting for it will prevent further change but at the same time if we don't have some change now then when will we?

Really our voting system isn't the real problem. It's the party system. Over the next few years we will return to a two party system - the Liberals' willingness to get into bed with the enemy will destroy the party for years to come - and AV won't be of great use. The problems with our nation are many and until we get people brave enough to deal with them - people who could be elected - then what's the point?

Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/8510091.stm

A primary school in Weston-super-Mare has banned Valentine cards to save pupils the "emotional trauma" of being rejected.

Now before you send the Eco-Stazi round I just want to make clear that I believe that it's more likely than not that mankind is having an adverse effect on our climate. But my beef is the way that views on climate change are being forced on people and the way language is being used to do so.

We're well used to hearing phrases like "holocaust denier" - and rightly such people are pilloried for being ignorant racist fools. But when similar language is applied to people who are unconvinced by what continue to be a lot of contradictory arguments, bad science and total nonsense it's not surprising people remain sceptical about the concept of man-made climate change.

To describe such people as "climate change deniers" is disingenuous, unfair and really a Godwin'a Law own-goal. It also displays a Newspeak style attempt at controlling thought through language.

Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8382584.stm

I'm not at all surprised by these problems found at Essex hospitals. I'm waiting for St. John's in Chelmsford to join the list - the lazy nursing, poor management standards and an incompetent consultant there led to a tragedy in my own family.

I've made it pretty clear in the past how I feel about the increasing dumbing down of the once great BBC News presentation - the silly pointless live linkups etc.

One other thing that's getting on my goat is the way the news deals with people who wish to retain their anonymity. Often these people are filmed from behind, in shadow or without the camera pointing anywhere near their head.

So far so good. But what's really odd and rather irritating is how these people are given a name. For some reason, "This man, who wishes to remain anonymous told us..." isn't good enough.

Instead the reporter usually says something like, "We spoke to Dave...not his real name...about his experience..."

I received an answer phone message today from Barclays Fraud Prevention, asking me to call 0800 389 1652. I'm glad I actually called the bank before doing a Google search of the number.

If I'd done the search I wouldn't have been able to confirm the attempted (but not successful) fraudulent activity on my bank account. Why?

Well as you may know UK is chock full of complete idiots, most of which seem to be online. And doing a Google search for 0800 389 1652 will lead you to many websites owned by such idiots which claim that this is not a genuine Barclays number.

These people who claim the number is false are either deeply stupid or are actual bank fraudsters, I think the former is most likely. So let me make it quite clear - 0800 389 1652 - really is Barclays Fraud Protection.