Adam Brown

There is a Panorama on tonight that I am greatly looking forward to called May Contain Nuts which is all about Health and Safety Legislation. It follows the work of Graveyard "topple testers" who trawl graveyards looking for memorials that may be liable to toppling, and if they find one trussing it up like a crime scene, It also traces the rise of the No Win, No Fee lawyer and their propensity to be given details by insurance companies and advertise in A&E wards (Although how you find an A&E these days, would be a better question!)

This has been a bugbear of mine for many years my employers have an extensive Health and Safety policy which intersects in everything we do. Whilst I know the reason for this policy it does cause me considerable annoyance, for example we have a policy of holding the handrails when walking down the stairs, whilst I can accept the logical case for doing this it feels a little patronising, after all I have been navigating my way up and down stairs since I was quite small. And although I would admit that I have previously fallen down stairs (often due to being worse the wear for a drink or two.) I would also admit that in each occasion it has been my fault. Why then does the company believe it can interfere with how I go about my day to day life? Personally I think it is because we have lost track of taking responsibility for our own actions. If I fall down the stairs I will firstly ask myself why, and unless there is a defect in the stairs I will naturally assume it is my fault and head off wiser than before (and possibly more bruised.)  It is not that I disagree with people being protected; it is just that if we take away peoples rights to make mistakes it removes us of one major source of learning.

However all this is not to say that I am against Health and Safety legislation, however if we do not bring the focus back to where it should be, we risk missing what it was intended for Saving Lives.

For the last word I will add a quote from Quentin Letts the programmes presenter,

"Unless we resist pointless meddling, unless we start taking more responsibility, safety will continue to be a joke. A dangerous joke."

Panorama: May Contain Nuts...is on BBC One, Monday, 20 April at 8.30 pm.

I found myself watching one of the Television auction channels last night and I was instantly struck by the unfairness of Postage and Packaging charges. Whilst I am usually against bringing in legislation to protect a few people who can't regulate themselves (For example the limit on buying paracetamol) however I think that on these shopping channels in particular it is nothing but pure deception.

 The auction was for a selection of DVD's to teach yourself Microsoft Office, I think there were five discs and as the price went to £10 the presenter exclaimed in a shocked voice "That's just two pounds a disc." now had I not seen them two days earlier in a pound store for, surprisingly, a pound. I could have thought this was a good deal, however when you factor in the £8 for postage and packaging the discs actually work out at £3.60 per disc.

 It put me in mind of venturing into Tesco and seeing a sign up saying CD's £1, so you pick up the disc and get to the checkout only to be told.

Compact Disc £1

Transport to the shop £0.50

Staff Costs £1

Shop Costs £0.50

Box £0.25

Total Cost £3

I imagine there would be outrage, Surely the cost of an item is the price that it costs to get it from the seller to the buyer and should therefore include postage and packaging costs. Obviously I would accept that sometimes it is only right to include P&P for example if they offer one shipping charge for the entire order, or offer the chance to pick up the items as in those cases there is a choice or the costs are variable.

 But surely if you have to pay it, and you have to pay the full postage and packaging charges on each item it is not postage and packaging but is part of the cost of an item.

Maybe the government should look to stop this blatant misleading business practice and allow me to buy some paracetamol and a box of Lemsips!

On this other note an observation i made earlier, if I grabbed a supply of paracetamol to stock up our medicine cabinet and 8 litres of vodka for a party, it would be the paracetamol l I would be made to put back - Does that make sense to anyone else?

At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinborough) had this to say about "The Fall of The Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior:  "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.  A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.  From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship." 

Now I am not sure if this is true that a Democracy is unsustainable however the loose fiscal policy is starting to sound a little too real right now!

Saw this whilst out surfing, it is about the US tax system not ours but I still liked it so thought I would share it.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every
day, ten men go out for dinner.  The bill for all ten comes to $100.  If
they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like
this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy
with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the
cost of your daily meal by $20."

So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay
their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So, the first four men were unaffected.  They would still eat for free. 
But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up
the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth
man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each
man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the
amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to
eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare
their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to
the tenth man "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I
got only $2? ! The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat
down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all
of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our
tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit
from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and
they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good
restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.

People who have read some previous entries will know that my wife and I are currently expecting our first child, this has led to many conversations and worries about what to do about childcare. This at a time where there have been a couple of recent reports into exactly that issue. firstly last month the Equality and Human Rights commission brought out a report claiming that Maternity Pay should be cut and Paternity Pay should be increased and then today the BBC reports that More parents will be able to ask for flexible working hours.

Whilst I believe that both of these ambitions are good and right I do think that the drive to keep more and more parents away from the workplace is a bad idea, personally I would gladly give up work and be a full time Dad when my baby is born, however I want my children to have the best possible start in life and that means working. There will be things I will miss in my childs upbringing but at least I will know that I have done everything in my power to give them the best possible start. I fully respect people who can afford to have one parent at home, and even more those who make very difficult decisions to stay at home with their child, but for me I would like less time away from the work place where I will not be earning money and more help to stay in work and bring up a child. for all our good intentions there is a chance that my wife will have to give up work and become a full time mum as we simply may not be able to afford childcare costs.

 Surely the fact that we are both working and without a break in working my wife will actually have higher earning (and therefore taxing) potential than before, as well as good to the economy as companies are not paying for people that are not there.

Perhaps more effort should be used to ensure that all parents can afford childcare and therefore get back to work as soon as possible without the worry and guilt of are they doing the right thing. If it is possible to give universal free childcare we may finally enable more women to achieve their full career potential as well as not leave men feeling that they are less connected to their children.

I would also like to see the government work with companies to enable more parents to work from home, whilst I appreciate that caring for a child is a full time responsibility it is not a fact that people could not get work done at the same time.

But I guess that is just a pipe dream so any Child Minder in the crawley area please let me know your costs

I have never been a fan of the word Awsome which our american cousins use far too readily however it is the best way to describe how I felt looking at this site.

 here is the body of the e-mail it came with

 This is a photo from the 2009 Inauguration, In which you can see IN FOCUS 
The face of each individual in the crowd !!! (not strictly true, but you have to go a long way back to find the out of focus faces!)

You can scan, double click and zoom to any section of the crowd. . wait a few seconds. . . and the focus adjusts.

The picture was taken with a robotic camera at 1,474 megapixel. (295 times the standard 5 megapixel camera)

Makes you wonder who's watching us right now !!!!!!!!

Personally I just think it is very cool.

The Sun is not really my website of choice (I am a http://www.bbc.co.uk/ man myself, after all I have already paid for that.) however I was attracted to this article on the G20 Protests/Riots as the son of a police man who was a young child during the Miners Strike in the 80's I have very little compassion for the concerns of anyone who will attack the police and as soon as I see a protest turn violent it loses all legitimacy in my eyes. However the above article was a very funny read, open the slide show and just take a few seconds to laugh at the mindless and ignorant idiots who were at the rally, whilst I doubt very much that the people they pick are a true representation of the protesters there are some hilarious examples.

The first picture shows an old man with the slogan "Consumers Suck" written on a bed sheet (Assumingly hand made at home, not shop bought) I am sure you will agree this is clearly the work of a bard, isn't the poet laureate position available at the moment? 

Picture three is an equally lyrical "Balls to the Banks" held up menacingly out of a sea of over stimulated rent a mobers.

But pictures 8 and 10 are the funniest picture 8 features Mr Muscles grandson trying to look tough with his t-shirt tied around his neck as his pre-pubescent face is contorted by his oversized novelty chin, whilst 10 shows a man who at least could be scary only because he looks like the kind of man you would expect to see drunk outside a local pub during the middle of the day, his nicotine stained teeth bared in anger.

Whilst I respect everyone's right to protest "Peacefully" the very inclination that these people are speaking for all of us (Which is a comment I have heard.) is something I personally feel is very insulting.

 Yesterday a group of 20 world leaders met in London to announce a 1 trillion dollar stimulus pattern to kick start the world's economy. Let's ignore the fact that just about every commentator has said quite publicly that the UK has not got any money left. Bankrupt Britain however will still attempt to take a central place in this agreement after all Prime Minister Brown is the saviour of the world.

Firstly I must state that I am not anti-stimulus (if that is a phrase.) however surely the time has come to start cutting back on spending. Whilst I doubt if during a recession is the best time to remove support for people I am sure that it can be done in a much more efficient way.

Perhaps the time has come to stop funding quite so many unelected regional bodies. Dare I say that EU membership could be scaled back? And while we are at it a few less wars this year would be very nice.

A more radical idea which I will probably be attacked for but which seems to make sense to me (If you disagree please leave a comment to let me know why.) How about changing the Benefits system? Whilst I fully support the welfare state and believe that it is the duty of any caring political system to guard against poverty for its citizens I like the millions of hard working, tax paying members of society get fed up with having the system abused. Why not instead of paying cash give claimants ID Cards (if the government are so desperate to bring them in.) which can be used in shops in the same way as a debit card and exchanged for essential goods up to the limits that are agreed. The benefits of this to the exchequer are:

• 1) No cash changing hands would mean that drugs and other contraband items could not be bought.
• 2) Limits could be placed on levels of certain products such as Alcohol which could also have an extra beneficial effect on public health and disorder.
• 3) By entering a partnership with a chain such as Tesco and other large supermarkets the government could probably get a discount on what they are spending.

Now whilst I understand that these idea's may not be well received times are going to be very hard in the coming years and it is time we started to think outside the box, if not only to save amounts of money where we can but more importantly there is a wide spread feeling of disquiet spreading across this country of what the tax paying public see as the injustice of having to work longer and longer hours to pay for people contributing less and less. If this is not addressed and soon you will find a backlash that no one will be able to stop, sometimes in politics it is not as important to be doing something as to be seen to do it.

Finally let me finish that like most of my random idea's I come out with this is meant to start a debate so if you have an opinion please leave a comment to start a dialog, it is what makes politics work.

The phrase "get away with murder" was given another new lease of life by the UK judiciary service yesterday as Murderer and apparently all round evil "human being" Tony Virasami was sentenced to just 4 years for an unprovoked killing of a shopper in Sainsbury's.

In case you don't know the story here is the link to the BBC page, but it basically goes that Addict Antonette Richardson pushed in front of a fellow customer at a Sainsbury's store, when that customer objected Antonette called Virasami who entered the store and hit and killed Kevin Tripp a different shopper entirely (So the genius can't even get his victim right.)

Due to the fact they have already spent a year in prison on remand it is widely believed (although I must stress unconfirmed) that Richardson will have none of her sentence left to serve whilst Virasami may walk free with an electronic tag. I am sure that his tag and curfew may well help law abiding citizens to relax were it not for the fact that at the time of this unprovoked murder Virasami was already on a tag and under curfew for an earlier offence instead of in prison where he clearly belongs - at least the system works!

And what of the wonderful Ms Richardson well after arranging the Murder of an innocent bystander she was heard by witnesses saying "We need to find the right guy." So clearly a lot of remorse there, clearly no longer a menace to society. Perhaps the message the courts are trying to give to the law abiding majority is that if someone wrongs you in some way just keep quiet and put up with it as Justice doesn't live here anymore.

Question: What do you do when everyone is struggling to make ends meet?

Answer: Raise the price of fuel which will in turn raise the price of everything (as most things travel by road at some point.)

I know this seems like an April fools but today petrol goes up by 2.12p a litre, I know that this does not seem like much but when you consider that VAT was reduced by 2% to help the economy (although this was only passed on by some of the larger stores) the fact that a 90p litre of petrol is going up by 2.12p (which is over a 2% increase) makes you wonder if the government have lost touch not just with the general public but with their own common sense.

of cause there are always two sides of the story, the other side I want to talk about is not the environmental issue but that when you bankrupt a country I guess you have to tax as much as possible, so perhaps Labour are looking to the future when they may have to put an extra £2 or maybe £20 a litre to try and cover their record borrowing.