IN THE WIDER WORLD

The Simple and Straightforward Versus the Complex and Intractable. In H G Wells' War of the Worlds the highly sophisticated aliens were ultimately destroyed by nothing more simple than the common cold to which ravages earthlings were largely immune. I say 'largely immune', because the common cold is still the excuse for the greatest number of lost work days than any other. It is the common cold that has thrown me over the last few days and lost me a week of work despite it also being a holiday period. I was fortunate in that my schedules were largely of my own devising and I was not forced to 'struggle in'. Though here again, what does 'struggle in' mean? Devotion to duty (for 'duty' read 'employer/customer/fellow workers/keeping job security).
             Would such people be truly appreciative if (were they to know) the price of your 'devotion to duty' was that someone else (perhaps they themselves) caught a cold they would not have caught otherwise, etc? All along we make ill-informed decisions as to the 'best course of action'. Is our delay that crucial, to whom, at what cost? Especially if it is at the cost of others catching the cold of mistakes being made (or accidents incurred) because one is not as alert as one might otherwise have been? Is it truly a 'sense of duty' or is it cowardice because we won't say simply, 'sorry, not coming in I've got a cold', which, let's face it,  sounds the lamest of excuses. Who hasn't said of someone else, 'oh yeah, quite, obviously needed some last minute Christmas shopping'.
             I know my body well enough by now to know there are times when I can bash on regardless and I will not even notice that I am ill and other times when I know that how ever much I am prepared to fight, I am ultimately going to lose, so I might as well 'keel over and 'die gracefully'. Usually I am back on my feet far quicker in the longer term if I take that pragmatic approach than if I had battled on regardless. I am sure I am not alone in this personal assessment but not all of us are in the social environment of being able to be so simple and straight forward—and in any case, what about the customer?
             In other words we make even our simplest decision based upon assumptions as to how other people will react, rather than logically, based upon all the facts as we should know them.
             What this says of the New Year is that we ring in no change at all. The social pressures are unchanged. According to the Prime Minister they are likely to get worse, but then, he would say that wouldn't her? If they do, its not his fault, its external circumstances. If they don't, it's because he was skilful in countering them!
           We remain in as much a moral maze as last year and the year before that. There is one light of hope, the new archbishop looks as though he not only has some moral scruples, bur the balls with which to deliver them! He raises the question  of church and state. Although perhaps not his intention, in my book he confirms the validity of bishops in the Lords. Provided that all states have secular control in the final analysis, it is crucial that clerics should have a say—but only a say. The Christian church, regardless of the complexities of other faiths, has shown too well the duplicity and treachery of priests, but as a moral arguing force they are an essential part of government, especially under Blair who knows all about spin and yet, despite his alleged personal beliefs, little about honest integrity. It is high time we had the highest integrity brought into the centre of our political life.
            In this, our doubtful cricketers wish to pass the buck as hurriedly as they would rush pass their most recent inglorious history. Morality is not beyond cricket it is a question for every man. Is it  unreasonable to expect those prominent in public life to address such principles and decide where they stand? How many 'ordinary' people formally address such questions to themselves? Why should we expect sportsmen (or other performers, etc) to set example outside the reason for their prominence?
           If we look at the the American tradition for promoting sporting people, we find their universities seek the 'all-rounders'. They are not interested in the student who simply runs or swims, or what ever is their declared sporting ability. They look for the A–C student in other subjects as well. They look for citizenship, which is where we are at last catching on to the importance of bringing forward the collective wholeness of society, a concept upon with the much derided public schools had been nurturing for several centuries and was a major contributing factor to their success!
           In other words, to answer the question about whether cricketers should be expected to have a 'world view', I would say 'yes' and not just cricketers. How can we demand moral values of our elected representatives if we are not to demand the same of ourselves? So, not just cricketers but all of us should have a moral view on such matters. To say this is a matter for government or politicians is to evade the responsibility but also to misunderstand the mechanism of politics and the law. The law is not meant to be moral, its role is the interpretation  of statute, nothing more. Morality IS for politicians! They frame the purpose and intent of the law.
           Likewise for the rest of us. It is the cricketing council that should have had the initiative to see what lay ahead and to have ascertained opinions as to appropriate stance when the Zimbabwe question arose. This is not a failure of politicians, nor is it a failure necessarily of cricketers, other than in the immature manner in which they have sought to detach themselves from the debate. The responsibility for lack of leadership is the national and international cricketing boards. Now is the time to stand up and be counted.
           Oblivious to the now proven evil it has presided over during the last few years the Catholic Church continues to be the first to cast stones at every opportunity. I have not had a chance to more than glance at the article but I gather the Catholic church in America is betting agitated about Three Women, a film about three celebrated women all of whom became practising lesbians because of the failure of their heterosexual marriages.
           The Catholic Church would appear to be saying this. 'We insist on the unnatural state of celibacy for our priests in order that they may be better qualified to aid our heterosexual congregations in their usually heterosexual relationships so much better qualified by not knowing what the hell they are talking about! Further, we accept that as a result of the celibacy rule (except where we are cadging priests from elsewhere in which case we turn a convenient blind eye on the simple principle of numbers (we can't get enough priests)), coupled with our refusal to allow women priests, we have a three times higher proportion of homosexuals in the priesthood than is the natural proclivity in the real world. As a consequence we accept that many little children (whom our cause is vowed to protect) are completely and literally buggered, which is a damned nuisance as it causes administrative mayhem keeping tabs on which priest was last where and which parish doesn't yet know what he's like, so we can palm him off on to them. By the way we are completely opposed to sexual aberrations of all kinds even though it was our church that formally established unnatural relationships between heterosexual couples by promoting the missionary position, one of the least satisfactory and certainly unnatural methods of fornication. This crass cock-up on our part has probably gone a long way to spoiling many women's sexual enjoyment. Since this film is about sexually dissatisfied married women who turn to lesbianism because of their sexual dissatisfaction, we don't like the film! People might think we don't know what we are talking about and could be wrong. That, of course, would never do, we are the Church, so obviously we must be right!' Odd people the RCs.
              What is also disappointing, is that when looking at the remake needed for this site, I glanced through previous years' work. There is a boring repetitiveness in the lessons we continually refuse to take on board. The same mistakes, the same missed opportunities, year on year, which of course is how I started!
              I had perceived this to be the case for some time and started articulating such thoughts in late 1999. As I could not research the project at the time, I started what has become the weekly comment to assess the case as an ongoing project. Now the time has come to consider what can be done with the observations. My original concept, what ever title is used, remains valid, I believe. We have turned the millennium still plunging undirected in no certain direction, or perhaps many uncertain directions.
               This year we have several interesting juxtapositions. An American President with a personal salvation story heading a country 'Trusting in God' but carefully not defining any definition of God so state and church are separate entities. He ahs the support of a practising Catholic Prime Minister in a country firmly entrenched in the Protestant ethic where the official Church of England is a part of Church and State in an increasingly multi-cultural country that has not yet formally recognised that reality. At the same time we have a new Archbishop of Canterbury who gives all the indications he may well indeed be up to the job. That means sticking his oar in on state matters and bringing some semblance of moral leadership. Three years too late could this year see the new awakening the millennium years did not actually give us?

Some Wholesome News about the Young. On Sunday, Sebastian Clover, a 15-year-old boy from Cowes, Isle of Wight, became the youngest person to sail the Atlantic Ocean single-handed, beating the previous record-holder by two years in age. This is the international face of clean wholesome youth as we used to know it as a matter of course.
            At a local level we have several youngsters, one in particular, who believes in kicking indolent-adult butts into being more receptive to young people and their legitimate needs. In Bovingdon several of them turned up at a parish meeting to protest that young people as a whole should not be disparaged just because some young people were anti-social. The reverse, of courses, is for young people to treat all adults as irresponsible at the least if not as downright paedophiles. Therein, of course, is the sour cream currently poured over community relationships.

Less Wholesome Community News. Pete Townshend's 'innocent interest' in child pornography has been condemned by child protection agencies as being wrong-headed.  This is both not surprising in principle but also not unreasonable. A simple Google search 'child porn' produced 132,000 entries. However, taking pages at random across the range what emerged every time was references to anti-child porn sites, or standard news reports. While America may be seen as 'the cause' or 'the means' of disseminating child pornography it is also the US that has the most detail regarding not only federal and state laws, legal definitions and case histories, but also provides sites for self-appraisal, socio-psychological analysis and above all treatment centres (SAs—Sexaholics Anonymous).
              Refining the search to +UK -Anti* the number is reduced to 22,400 entries. One of the first entries is a news report dated 10th November 1999 highlighting a Court of Appeal landmark judgement that 'Downloading or copying indecent material involving children from the internet onto a hard disc is illegal'. In this particular case it was accepted that the entire exercise had been carried out by one person for their own personal use and that no abuse of any child had been involved, although the person was a schoolteacher. The statement made was that any generation, such as printing out of a downloaded photograph created an image that had not existed in this country until downloaded and therefore fulfilled the definition of creating. This case was a breach of the 1978 Protection of Children Act, which says the making of an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child is illegal. In other words, without further legislation, the UK would appear to have had a sufficiently tight grasp of the problem from almost the point at which internet porn was taking off, twenty years ago. So why has it taken so long to bring the matter into the limelight?
                  Feeding a personal interest might be considered one thing but on 24th November 2002 it was reported that an IT technician at a £2,400-a-term girls' school has been jailed for distributing obscene images of children from 12 years old to new-born babies. 'Married Richard Emmerson, 22, of Wellesley Road, Sutton, who operated under the nickname Pee-Pedo-UK because of his sick interest in urination and defecation, was sent down for two and a half years on Friday', reported the This is Local London web site which accumulates feeds from 28 local London newspapers. 'Kingston Crown Court heard Emmerson, a father-of-one, used the computer network at the private school in Banstead to store 15,000 images. Since his arrest, Greenache School has spent £5,000 cleaning the computer system.
                 One of the most persistent sites appearing on Google was none other than www.Amazon.co.uk with the heading 'Porn - LOW PRICES and SECURITY GUARANTEED - CLICK HERE!' What it turned out to be was a section for adults of 'adult' DVDs etc. One assumes only adults could buy items since a credit card would be needed for an online purchase.
                  This is where we need to look at what could arguably be described as a very confusing grey area of pornography. First of all, what is meant by the term 'pornography'? According to the simple dictionary definition, this means a 'description of the activities of prostitutes'. As the author of 12 novels taken to 'various stages of incompletion' I do not regard myself as particularly sheltered or naive, but I certainly have not yet discovered what it is that prostitutes do that the reasonably wide-minded average adult doesn't!
                   What we then lead into is determining what is or is not acceptable 'adult' or sexually-orientated conduct between consenting adults. Therein lies the conundrum. Mary Whitehouse was the classic example of how to destroy the validity of your argument by being who you are. In any case, had she had as much influence as she might have done had she been less bigoted in her attitude and less singularly plain  nuts, what she might have achieved in moral rectitude will have been assuredly undone by our headlong progress into the EU! Although it is now noticeable that in France a puritan backlash is laying-in to 'dodgy' material with a determination to lay down the law on social mores.
                   As a committed amateur thespian and general arts visitor I am well aware of the absurdities of the Lord Chamberlain's licensing of plays, the latest Metropolitan police stupidities over gallery exhibition of 'family innocent' photographs and the Hays(?) Hollywood code that meant married couples did not share the same bed when there were bedroom scenes in a film. A fact that I feel contributed to my own confused state when an adolescent as to the exact nature of adult relationships. The fuss and palaver over the Lady Chatterley trial serves only to show the stupidity of authorities that would dare presume to tell us how we should behave socially and sexually.
                    Quite apart from the continuing escapades being revealed within the Catholic church, we cannot expect leadership there. After all, they consider themselves qualified to pontificate on how people should live by celibate priests totally divorced from the realities of everyday living and real-life relationships!
                    Then there are other branches of Christendom. It was a free church group that moved to have the film Life of Brian banned from Berkhamsted's Rex cinema. It was this that brought me into the debate on censorship and the criteria by which 'acceptability' might be defined and caused me to maintain a watching brief ever since, out of a very healthy fear of censorship.
                       However, what ever the debate about pornography and arguments as to whether anyone is being exploited in the world of adult participants, the use of children in any capacity but the preservation of their personal integrity and sense of dignity is paramount and there is no need to look for examples of it to know it is unacceptable. 'Pornography plus child' does not require Pete Townshend looking at samples to know that. The debate and confusion however deepens when one sees 'adult schoolgirls' and one gets into the complex field of adults role-playing as their childhood selves. Therein lies the diversity of argument as to what is 'adult behaviour' between consenting couples and what is socially acceptable or unacceptable, or where such role playing may be itself some playing out of deeply hidden child abuse suffered by the participants, of which even they themselves remain unaware.
                       One is then brought down to the question, why not straight sex and why should anyone want any titillation? From there one goes back to husband and wife not seeing one another naked even when making love and only doing so for the sole purpose of procreation! Somewhere we have to accommodate a wide sea of variety, or argue that the Taliban and Shari law intolerance might after all be a righteous attitude and we in the West really are as depraved as these foreigners claim!

Moral Values Elsewhere. The prohibition by the Israeli government of the Palestinian delegation to attend the London conference attempting to further the peace process is a classic example of downright immorality at national level. The announcement this after-noon, as I write, that the English cricket team consider morality a matter for governments not individuals also indicates the wider abandonment by society generally that such matters are not for individuals to consider themselves accountable for. Is it any wonder therefore that we have no sense of leadership at the grass roots level of 'normal life'?

English Cricket Board Admits It Is Wrong to go ahead and play in Zimbabwe!. Why else say they will not shake his hand (in public)? They simply should NOT go!

Death of a Policeman. We don't yet know the full details but that a policeman is dead at the hands of three North Africans shows again why we MUST control our immigration. The foreigners determined to get into this country simply do not understand nor give a damn for our standards of conduct and behaviour.

No, We Don't Want the Olympics Here! The idea is plain ludicrous. The underground wants major work. The traffic is jammed. No one seems capable of running the trains properly and they want the world to know what a third-rate state we are and to add further to the chaos with additional visitors! Quite apart from diverting essential monies away from our health and education priorities. We definitely don't want the Olympics!

Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit.  Shadow ? ? Jenkin considers the fireman unpatriotic to strike because of the potential war with Iraq. If the British Prime Minister wishes to take on Iraq when no one yet knows if it is necessary or justified, that is  his problem, not the country's and not the Firemen's. Whether or not they strike is their prerogative and nothing to do with British poodles snuggling up to American Rottweilers. However, Jenkin is correct in that they are incredibly stupid to strike. Common sense tells them it is is time to move butt and start earning their living! What is unacceptable is the closure of tube stations. This raises the question as to whether essential service workers should be allowed to strike. Clearly in these circumstances such a strike should not be allowed.

Common sense is not part of the Law, as usual! Elementary common sense tells you that the right to life means the right to a decent and proper life and failing that option, for what ever cause, means the right to a dignified death is a matter of choice for the individual concerned. Yes, precautions are needed to ensure such activity is not a over for murder, but that we have a right to die as we choose is as inevitable and irrevocable as the right to life itself. There is nothing to argue over.

Fantasy World USA. If we can't have the world as we want it, we will pretend we had the world as it wasn't seems to be the motto with the airbrushing out of Paul McCartney's cigarette in the famous Abbey Road Album cover. This is the trouble with the States. It does tend to live in Disneyland more than the real world.

Oh God Its God! The caterwauling coming from some (hopefully) extreme members of Islam over the police raid on the Finsbury Park mosque illustrates how essential it is for true believers of Islam to cast out those not in their image. We have had the same problem with the Catholics over the centuries, priests abusing their position for their own bigoted self-glorification. Let us be unequivocal. The house of God of what ever denomination is a place for honour, honesty and integrity. The storage of CS canisters and stolen or forged passports is dishonourable, dishonest and criminal. Such are not matters to be found in an honestly and properly run house of God. Simple and straight forward. 

Yanks Getting Over Excited as is their way. My American friend (who holds dual nationality) rang shortly after my return home this after-noon all agitated that I should do something to 'stop this stupid war'. Apparently he has got himself into the local press for standing on a picket line and yattering against Bush. etc. Good for him. Shades of the Vietnam protestors. Apparently Blair is portrayed as the representative of the whole free world and 'international' opinion. Personally at this stage I am happy for matters to proceed. Without this pressure and clear intent we would not have got this far and it is high time we had a serious practical exercise to test our actual ability in war as opposed to 'playing at war' on various 'normal' exercises. From that point of view all is so far 'okay' for me.
                According to my friend, nine out of ten Americans don't support war. But then, as I pointed out to him, the American people recently confirmed a man about whom the world had been previously unclear as to whether or not he actually was President and whom himself made damn certain we will never know the truth of that because he stopped the count when it appeared he might not be, by ensuring a Republican majority in both houses. This may be because Bush wrapped himself up in the flag. If a President needs to wrap himself up in the flag then clearly he isn't much of a President in his own right and has no valid argument for his course of action, otherwise he would present it and not divert attention from it. Why start out against him now?
                  What one might reasonably ask is this. Is Bush's angst against Iraq a cover for the fact that any investigation into the circumstances behind nine eleven might show that had Bush not been so bigoted at ousting Clinton's philosophy nine eleven might have been prevented. What has happened to that enquiry?

Chirac Remains as Nutty as the French Usually Are. Apparently he wants to invite Mugabe to Paris despite an EU travel ban!

Travelling Around. Currently without a car because it is beyond economic repair I have been travelling on local buses to Hermel, Chesham and Tring. It has taken the day, including a stop off for lunch in the pub while waiting for one bus and an after-noon tea in an inn while waiting for another bus. It has cost me around £10 against perhaps £1.50 in diesel fuel, forgetting of course the depreciation, insurance, road fund and repair overheads of the car.
                     Two buses were late by nearly ten minutes but otherwise everything worked well and I was pleasantly surprised at the ease with which I travelled around. However. I am not certain that the lap type seat belts provided on private coaches are adequate and their total absence on a public vehicle I found disconcerting. I had never noticed this before with London buses where this may be due to their limited speed in the capital.
                     It was interesting to discover that apparently you have to stick your hand out at all stops and ring the bell to stop at every stop, although I can understand that this policy must speed up the time-table quite considerably.
                      Payment was another factor. Perhaps understandably there are signs saying the driver cannot change £20 or £50 notes. The point is no one wants to carry loose change because it is heavy and £20 notes are now every day currency. What was amazing that there was no provision for credit card use, which would surely have reduced (in certain areas) the risk of driver attack as there would be less cash being carried.
                      Finally, the ride was noisy and very bumpy. Was this due to Hertfordshire County roads, or utilitarian buses as opposed to decent coaches?

The Stupidity of Advertisers! An advert has just appeared on tv advising women to forget their wrinkles. Then it advises to apply cream to the wrinkles. How can you apply cream to wrinkles you have forgotten you have?

Labour Twisting and Turning and Lying as Ever! What the brouhaha over student grants and increasing indebtedness is all about is the need to raise money while reducing government commitment. In other words it is nothing more than another stealth tax. All education to first degree level should be free at the point of delivery. That is what a state education is about. End of message. At the same time it should be recognised that not all people are suitable for university. There should be equitable career advice and guidance into vocational training and qualifications as there is for academic studies. The present state of our lack of plumbers is a clear statement of the snottiness and sense of superiority  that has crept into modern society. This also applies to various levels of 'hands on' jobs. No one these days seems to want to get their hands dirty. 

Terrorism, Illegal Immigrants and a Panicking Home Secretary. Mr Blunkett appears concerned that the country is like a 'coiled spring' over asylum seekers. The only person responsible for this state of affairs is Mr Blunkett who has failed to control illegal immigration! Sort that and there isn't a problem, but he does not seem to understand that sorting it is why he is Home Secretary! The manner in which his department continually fails to cope with any type of immigrant is a clear statement that we are taking in far tool many immigrants and we need ot put up the barricades—now.

Failing a Valid Argument Insult Your Opponents is Bush's philosophy having failed to win the unwinnable argument that American troops are justified to charge into Iraq. American troops are not justified in charging anywhere outside the United States at the present time and telling your opponents they are 'old Europe' (true in fact in terms of the revival of the Franco-German axis) serves only to highlight the fact your argument is weak. Clearly daddy is still breathing down Junior's neck!

The Stupidity of London Underground Management is Unbelievable. Just because there is no formal specification as to how many people a rail car on London Underground is supposed to hold it is impossible to determine when, if at all, it is overcrowded. Consequently, according to representatives before a Commons committee, the London Underground is not overcrowded. It really is time all this money on State education started showing results! The simple, straight forward Oxford  English dictionary defines overcrowding as 'to crowd together in excess, or too great a number'. One can only conclude that London Underground operatives do not travel on the London Underground which is as clear a statement that they know they are mismanaging the situation as you could wish—they clearly don't think its a good enough service for them to travel on!.

That Bloody Hindley Woman. We have columns of newsprint detailing the manner of her dying following the inquest on her death. The woman's dead, thank goodness, so why so much attention? She is one of too large a number of people of whom it might reasonably be said it would have been better if they had never been born. Five children at least would be alive now if she had not been.
                       Having said that we must remember that at one time Moira Hindley was a little schoolgirl, like any other. Did her mother not love her enough? Did her parents fail her? Did society fail her that it did not control or influence sufficiently her home background and the way she grew up? All mass murderers, any murderers, any criminals, start out as little boys and girls who should have been loveable and loved. That they existed as they did and chose the paths they did from innocent children must surely condemn us too, as part of that society that enabled them to develop the way they did and commit the crimes they did?

Another Catholic Priest Paedophile Gets Away With It. Apparently a priest, one Yousef Dominic, accused of indecent assault on a nine-year old boy has fled to Pakistan where there is no extradition treaty. Once more the Catholic church cries, 'do as we tell you not as we do'! What is extraordinary is that he was out of prison on bail on the surety of a parish priest of £25,000. From where does a parish priest gain £25,000? Has he misused church funds? Criminal offence! Has he been underwritten by a rich worshipper? If so that too is illegal for I believe only the person giving surety may pay surety, no one else? Has the whole Catholic Church gone criminal as some kind of Catholic mafia? In any case, what is stopping this priest coming back to face the music as he preaches and his church claims is the correct procedure? How come the Catholic church does not order him to return?

But The Catholic Church Still Punishes The Little Ones—Perhaps That's Part of Their Continuing Paedophilic Tendencies?  In Enniskillin in County Fermanagh, Mount Lourdes Convent Grammar schoolgirl Margaret McCluskey was banned from sitting her GCSE exams because she was pregnant! Fortunately the local college allowed her to sit her exams there and she is now a Cambridge University student with a four-year old daughter. She has just been awarded £6,250 compensation and the Convent has apologised, promising to review its policy. Now review needed, wake up and change! It is typical that one aspect of the Catholic church allows criminally-inclined priests to escape the wrath of the law while breathing the heavy wrath of Catholic bigotry upon little girls! There, in  a nutshell is the entirety of the Holy Roman Catholic Church!

But Muslim Codswallop Is No Different! Apparently a class of teenage boys was promised 72 virgins in paradise if they died as religious martyrs against Jews, Hindus and 'unbelievers'! I thought they either didn't like sex or otherwise respected virginity and the sanctity of womanhood? Apparently he claimed that if in war they were hit by a cruise missile they would feel it as no more than a mosquito bite. Has he ever been bitten by a mosquito, never mind hit by a cruise missile?

'I Feel Worthless, Therefore Someone Else Must Do Something About It! 'Bollocks!' says Professor Frank Furedi, Professor of Sociology at Kent University. 'Simply get off your butt and pick yourself up!' I have had this attitude for years so it is reassuring to find someone with a greater academic authority than mine saying the same thing, in effect. 'Sense of self-esteem' appears to be the latest catch phrase for failing to lay responsibility where it truly lies—with the individual concerned, who is unquestionably responsible for their own outcome!

Computer Nerds Are Still Not Taken Seriously by the Courts. Simon Valler (22) was jailed for a paltry two years for creating and spreading three viruses infecting hundreds of thousands of computers in 46 countries. Some people have estimated the cost of cleaning up computers after him runs into many millions of pounds. This man should have been sent down for a minimum of five years. We cannot and must not tolerate such utterly reprehensible and totally irresponsible conduct. 

IN THE HOME COUNTIES

A reasonably hard frost this morning showed the town in all its winter glory. A brilliant dawn glowed warmth into a cold, largely frost-covered landscape, its almost searing brilliance of crystal-clean air adding an intensity of perspective to the three-mile view I have from my windows when the trees lack leaf. This was seasonal weather at last and it was good to walk free and to enjoy.

This morning the shone brightly and I abandoned the day's schedule for a walk over Ashridge. The leaves of daffodil clusters are poking through, as are the leaves of the fox glove and lords and ladies. No primroses as yet, although on the verge across the way cultivated snowdrops are beginning to bloom. Clear, harmonic bird song declared the mating season and the weather was more late March to early April than the last week of January. Then I return to The Gazette and its mournful headlines 'What a Shambles', referring to both court and local government.
                    In the courts compensation was paid to accused people for their cases being delayed because the Crown Prosecution Service ran out of photocopier paper! Meanwhile it is claimed a minimum of £700,000 has been squandered by the Conservative controlled Dacorum Borough council on achieving absolutely nothing! This was as a result of  failed attempt to offload various services to private enterprise which in the end decided it liked the money but not the responsibility that came with it and went home. Apparently they have a responsibility to their shareholders.
                  But that is just the point about private enterprise in the public sector! Working in the public sector is a matter of rendering public service. Such ideas cannot be compatible with the money-grubbing self-interest of directors for ever worried about what their share-holders might say! The concept was ludicrous from the start. Why was time wasted going down that route? Is it that the Conservatives just hate success? Aladdin at the Pavilion drew 10,000 people in 2001. Under 'Dacorum Live!' this year's pantomime drew 1,600 people, lost £16,000 and had to cancel 4 of the 29 performances which were held in a college community hall.
                      The arguments about whether the Pavilion should have been refurbished or rebuilt (if it is) are complex. What is certain is that there was a golden opportunity for Dacorum to have a modernised arts centre in Berkhamsted at the former cinema The Rex. The Conservatives thought it made more sense to convert this facility into flats, retaining the cinema (but under a private company which means it is unlikely to be successful, not a charitable trust which more likely would have been) and whose foyer was made over to a restaurant! On top of which they built more flats over the car park when the town is crying out for a multi-storey car park.
                        Most importantly of all, the Town Centres forums have been a great success—which is doubtless why the Conservatives decided to do away with them! Fortunately in this, sufficient people made a fuss that they are now having to re-engage what they dismantled! Then we all wonder why no one is interested in local government!
                         The most incredible aspect of all this is that the council this year is likely to spend £750,000 on consultants against £160,000 in the financial year 1999/2000. Are the consultants getting it wrong? The wrong kind of consultants are being employed? Or these were the decisions made by councillors or council staff without referring to consultants? Hasn't it occurred to anyone that they are all employed (key councillors are paid substantial sums nowadays) to run the council, not delegate it to people who appear not to know what they are doing either?