Archive

In this century of uncertainty the UK has left the EU with the aim of forging its own international destiny, making Global Britain a welcome reality.  In our current chilled conflict with China and a resurgent Russia we need friends more than at any time since the end of the Cold War.  Thankfully the UK has a ready-made global network of friendly countries.

In this new era of Global Britain it is essential that we reawaken and reimagine our long forgotten links with the Commonwealth.  Our ancestors, indeed our relatives within our Commonwealth countries, would be ashamed of our lack of interest in and appreciation both of their past and present contribution to our country and what we can provide for them.  Safety and security providing peace and prosperity are what we can offer each other when we work together to protect and preserve our values and interests and promote open and free trade.

Our values and interests are in direct and diametric opposition to those who wish a global hegemony of authoritarian and autocratic rule.  We live in a century of uncertainty with a resurgent Russia, a challenging China, Brexit betrayal and now the COVID-19 crisis.  A Chinese curse is ‘May you live in interesting times.’  They see it as a curse, I see it as an opportunity.  We certainly do live in interesting times and I would have it no other way.  As we recover from the COVID-19 lockdown we face many choices, but none so stark as how to ensure our nation is ready to respond to the totalitarian threats of authoritarian autocracy, whether it be from Russia, China or North Korea.  Over the years our armed forces have been reduced until they are the smallest they have been for centuries, while the budgets for overseas aid and other less important areas have increased.  As our forces reduced so our risks increased.  We now need to invest in and increase our armed forces and our security and intelligence services in order to ensure the safety and security of our nation and our ongoing peace, order and prosperity.

It is essential that those countries who believe in democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, tolerance and respect both stand together and work together to counter, contain and challenge those who persistently disrupt and plan to destroy both our safety and our society.  Bullies, whether people or presidents, are only encouraged by a lack of retribution – this was the case in the late 1930’s for Nazi Germany and during the Cold War – it is the same now in this chilled conflict.  There must be red lines and there must be retaliation.  The National Cyber Force is a good example of a retaliatory force which must be used appropriately.  The lack of retaliation and retribution was a significant contributing factor leading to world war in 1939 but by the Cold War we had learnt our lesson and fear of retribution led each side to moderate their actions and staved off another world war.  We are playing for the same high stakes today.  Hitler did not believe the Western powers would go to war over Poland and it took the Berlin airlift and the Cuban Missile Naval Quarantine Area to convince the Soviet Union that there were red lines which would be resisted by the West.

The security of our nation depends on the safety and stability of our society.  Woke and cancel cultures confuse our children giving them no settled identity, purpose or sense of belonging, in contrast to those of China, Russia and North Korea who are building strong societies with identities promoting a sense of purpose and nationhood.  We need to protect and promote British values with a vision to match.  We need a Global Britain, engaged both at home and around the world promoting the traditional British foreign policy aim of ensuring a benign balance of power that does not allow domination by dictators or authoritarian aggression.  Our children are our future and need protected in a strong, stable family environment that will create the secure space needed to preserve, protect and promote peace, order and prosperity for the UK and our allies across the Commonwealth and beyond.

A strong military requires a strong society, a weak society will produce a weak military.  A woke culture is a weak culture.  The UK requires a strong, stable, resilient society that can adapt and adjust and not fold at the first sign of pressure or criticism.  We need a return to traditional British values that kept us strong through two world wars.  To counter disinformation and false media our education system needs to teach logic and reason to enable critical analysis of the propaganda pushed on our public.  British history and values, what we stood for and stand for, why we stand for it and our culture, values and interests.  It should be emphasised that our culture, and the liberty and freedoms it contains, rests on our Judeo-Christian roots and values.  As these values are undermined so will our freedoms also be undermined, as we can see those who are most willing to stop free speech and rewrite our history are those who attack our traditional Christian values.

Russia claims to be defending Christian culture yet, as usual with Russian claims, its actions are doing exactly the opposite.  Russian strategic support for China, actually acting as a Chinese force multiplier, means it is aiding and abetting the biggest threat to Christianity – authoritarian, atheist China in its quest for world domination.  The benefit of liberal democracies in a century of uncertainty is their ability to flex, not fracture.  Autocratic societies are brittle and brutal resulting in persecution rather than broad, beneficial democratic societies resulting in prosperity where views can coexist rather than conflict.  We can absorb differences, as is in the nature of democracies, whereas authoritarian structures have no outlet for expression and no tolerance for differences of opinion.  However, current culture wars are driving the UK apart and we need to ensure we unite to defend our country and ensure the Union endures.

Without the Union there is no United Kingdom.  Without the United Kingdom the constituent countries cannot defend themselves.  With no Scotland and Northern Ireland (NI) we lose the nuclear submarine, maritime and air bases necessary to control the Atlantic.  The Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap and the Atlantic are now back as a major strategic concern with Russian ships, submarines and aircraft constantly probing the area.  NATO has already reinstated an Atlantic Command in recognition of the new Russian reality.  The strategic location of NI and Scotland is now back in play.  It should be remembered that during WW2 Ireland was neutral and it was only the use of the 26 airfields and naval bases in NI that kept the Atlantic sea lanes open – as Ireland refused the UK the use of the Treaty Ports.  The second Western Approaches command bunker was in Londonderry, as was Base One Europe and various other important US bases – including an important US naval base which operated during the Cold War.  It has been said that if Ireland had been united and neutral during WW2 then Britain would have had to invade Ireland in order to provide the coastal bases necessary to survive.

What would be the UK and NATO’s strategic position if Ireland united – and not as I would prefer, as a British Irishman, in a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland – but in an independent republic which stayed neutral and not in NATO – as the current Republic of Ireland is?  Couple this with the threat of an independent Scotland whose current Scottish National Party government has declared it would make an independent Scotland nuclear – and hence NATO – free.  These should be alarming threats to NATO planners.  I would argue that the security of NATO and hence the US, UK and indeed Europe is strategically threatened by the forces of Irish, Scottish and Welsh nationalism within the UK.  The EU – which has been supporting these regional nationalisms through such mechanisms as promoting regional languages and cultures – has actually been chipping away at its own survival in the event of a world war.  A strong United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is essential in this century of uncertainty to the winning strategy of NATO in the – sadly not so unlikely – future event of a world war.

Without the UK there would have been no defender of democracy in two world wars as it was the UK which both times went to war without British territory being threatened or attacked, in defence of democracy against authoritarian aggression.  Twice the engagement of the US was necessary to win the wars, although twice they arrived late, only coming into the war once their national interest was directly threatened.  The lesson is that it is necessary for both the UK and US to both defend democracy and defeat dictators.  However, to contain China and restrain Russia a global alliance is required and it is here that the Commonwealth becomes ever more valuable.  The Commonwealth promotes the very liberal democratic and free enterprise society and culture that is under attack by authoritarian autocrats and it now needs to work together to defend democracy and preserve the path to peace, order and prosperity.

It is excellent to see the Australian and Canadian proposed purchases of the Type 26 Frigate and the AUKUS pact which will enable future interoperability and provide an opportunity for Commonwealth Carrier Strike Group participation alongside the UK, especially useful in showing our support for a free and open Indo-Pacific.  A holistic approach to national defence policy will create a mainstream manufacturing sector that continually generates secure jobs and orders, rebuilding our defence economy and ensuring synergy across our armed forces.  The AUKUS pact was an excellent step in this direction and it is great to see New Zealand interest in aspects of the pact.  In this regard it is crucial that the democratic states ensure a technological lead and the UK’s investment in space technologies and creating of space ports is welcome although we need to increase our overall research and development incentives and investments.  An important element of achieving a technological lead is protecting our assets, both cyber and physical, and the success of the NCSC and CPNI in protecting our infrastructure should be both recognised and realised by extending our support and systems to our closest allies.

A crucial task in enlarging our economy, as well as strategically supporting our allies and promoting free trade, will be the UK’s entry into the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and we should encourage the US and Commonwealth partners to join to enhance the economic benefits to all, but also for the security and diplomatic/political dimensions to the Indo-Pacific strategy.  Even if the US cannot join yet, starting the discussions will send an important message and will start to warm up US public opinion to a future membership.  We should also take further steps to ensure that UK and Western businesses remove all forced labour and inhumane practices from their supply chains, reducing the expansion of the Chinese economy and subsequently their military build-up.

As our government correctly works towards a resilient society we should also be careful in our rush toward climate change policies as they will lead to an overreliance on electricity in, amongst other sectors, fuelling our vehicles and home heating, which creates a resilience risk as well as increasing economic costs to our consumers, many of whom will not be able to afford the additional costs that current uneconomic green policies occur.  We need to grow our economic power, not inhibit and shackle it in ways that our competitors are not similarly encumbered.  This is an economic conflict as much as an ideological and geopolitical conflict.  We all want to protect and preserve our environment, and we can, but not at the cost of national security.  Our adversaries are not increasing their costs for their businesses and consumers and we should not be placing ourselves at a disadvantage to our strategic competitors.  As Kevin Rudd has declared, the 2020’s is the decade of living dangerously, and we need to ensure we do all we can to reduce our risks and realise our resilience.

Today’s fight is tyranny versus truth and repression versus righteousness.  This will be a conflict of Christianity and conscience versus communism and coercion, essentially choice versus control is at the centre of this conflict.  Two world wars were won because the English speaking peoples stood together and fought together, alongside our allies, to defend democracy and freedom and destroy dictators and fascism – today we must stand ready to do the same again.  For the sake of future generations we must ensure we win this chilled conflict to avoid another world war.

By Andrew Wright

Archive

The below article is by our loyal friend Sammy Wilson, DUP MP for East Antrim. I spoke to Sammy when the EU invoked Article 16 of the Northern Irish Protocol and created at a stroke a ‘Hard Border’ between Northern Ireland (NI) and the Republic of Ireland over a petty concern that vaccines would enter NI from the Republic.

First Minister Arlene Foster called Article 16 “an act of aggression” and such was the international condemnation the EU swiftly revoked the Article; however, the cat was out of the bag! After years of Brexit negotiations and the EU telling us that there would be violence if an Irish boarder was created, the EU pressed the nuclear option.

It is obvious that NI has become the EU’s weapon of choice when it comes to revenge over Brexit and Mr Wilson has detailed below the ‘on the ground’ issues being faced by our Northern Irish brothers and why the NI Protocol has to go!

Who would have believed it if they had been told that after, the UK leaving the EU on 1^st January, builders in NI bringing home their machinery from jobs they had completed in England would find that they had to abandon their machines at the ferry because there was soil from the English building site in the treads of the tyres? Or who would have thought that goods coming from suppliers in England to NI would have been turned away because the standard wooden pallet on which they were carried did not meet EU standards, resulting in the NI business paying twice for the transport of goods which they didn’t receive?

What is the justification for refusing thousands of gardeners across NI the supply of plants and seeds from Great Britain (GB) because the EU claims that any soil residue on these items presents a danger to the safety of the EU horticulture sector, even though on the 31^st December 2020 this soil was deemed to be perfectly safe and was freely allowed into EU member-states?

These are but a few examples of how the NI Protocol is affecting trade between the countries which make up the internal market of the UK. The freedom to trade across the UK is one of the fundamental pillars of the Acts of Union which bind together our country. Yet they have been torn down by the Withdrawal Agreement and the NI Protocol.

At the same time, all the promises made by the Prime Minister about never contemplating, let alone legislating, for a border between NI and GB down the Irish Sea, and businesses never needing to fear the additional paperwork or obstructions to their trade, have been broken in pieces. Understandably people, especially unionists in NI, feel betrayed and angry.

The examples above are evidence that the EU intends to fully impose every one of tens of thousands of EU rules listed in over seventy pages of the NI Protocol when it comes to trade between one part of the UK and another part of the same country.

The worrying aspect of all this is that we are still living in a grace period where NI is exempt from some of the most damaging EU directives. Also, we still haven’t experienced the impact of any new EU laws being imposed on NI, something which the EU is entitled to do because we have been abandoned as part of the EU single market for goods while the rest of our country has broken free. Should these new laws, and existing EU laws, not be followed in NI then the European Court of Justice (ECJ) will be able to decide on the penalties imposed on this part of the UK.

In fact, should the UK government act in a way which gives any GB-based firm an advantage over an EU firm in the NI market, then the EU Commission and the ECJ can penalise the UK. So, for example, subsidising Nissan in Sunderland to make batteries for electric cars could be ruled illegal by the EU because Nissan cars are sold in NI. As the full implications of the NI Protocol are unravelled, it is clear that the Prime Minister has broken promises to those of us who campaigned for Brexit and freedom from the EU, by his acceptance of the unreasonable demands of the EU in the Withdrawal Agreement.

Both the UK government and the EU claim that the NI Protocol was necessary to uphold the Belfast Agreement, preserve peace in NI and avoid a hard border between NI and the Irish Republic. The result has been the hardest of borders between NI and GB, i.e. a hard border dividing up the UK. As I write this piece, I am gazing down into Larne Harbour which is now one of the border crossing points between the part of the UK in which I live and GB, the coastline of which is clearly visible on this bright morning.

As for fostering peace, the checks on trade coming through the port have been cancelled for a week now because of threats to the inspectors. Both local and EU officials have been pulled out for their own safety. The outpouring of anger can only get worse. Unionists quite rightly believe that the promises about our place in the UK being guaranteed by the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement have been torn up as we find ourselves ostracised from the GB market by EU rules and look ahead with horror to the imposition of foreign laws rather than British laws.

The NI Protocol is a humiliation for those who call themselves Conservatives and Unionists and is a betrayal of those who voted for Brexit wherever they live in the UK. I become very angry when I listen to those MPs in Parliament who insist that the NI Protocol must be honoured and implemented, knowing that they would be incandescent with rage if their constituents were economically disadvantaged in the way NI citizens are as a result of an agreement designed to suit the economic demands of the EU and to punish the UK for daring to leave the EU.

What makes matters worse is that, in order to cover the embarrassment over her disastrous handling of the COVID vaccine purchase, another example of the folly of EU centralisation, Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the EU Commission, was prepared to set aside the NI Protocol to stop an EU firm fulfilling its contract for vaccines with the UK government and put checks on the Irish border in order to impose the export ban. Although she quickly abandoned the plan, it is significant there was no apology. Indeed, she has not ruled out taking such action again in the future.

If the EU can so easily set aside the NI Protocol to protect itself from criticism of its own bungling, then the UK government has a greater justification and obligation to do so in order to safeguard the economy of NI, the integrity of the Union and the honouring of the Brexit referendum. It should start legislating to do so now.

Archive

As the Covid lock-down restrictions continue unabated; with Government promises regarding easing of restrictions broken and no certainty as to whether the Government will actually ease these restrictions in July, small wonder that many members of the public and staunch Conservative Party members are re-assessing their commitment to the Party.

Although not written on ‘tablets of stone,’ the public quite rightly expected Covid restrictions to be lifted in England on 21^st June, 2021 instead of which they have been delayed by another four weeks; taking us into the middle of July.

Not only has this severely impacted upon the millions of people who had planned to travel abroad for their summer holidays; with ludicrous quarantine restrictions (unenforceable practically) suddenly imposed upon tourists returning from Portugal (meanwhile, it was this Government that allowed Indian citizens to travel to India and then return into the UK totally unchecked – some already infected with the Indian strain of the Covid virus – totally free to mix within the community), but anyone reading the financial pages of a newspaper will be in no doubt as to the financial impact on businesses, and the national economy, of this postponement of the easing of Covid restrictions.

We have an airline industry which is close to total collapse and a live entertainment sector near to extinction. Cafes and restaurants (thousands of which have already been forced to close) were just beginning to re-open and their summer trade is now in disarray as the current restrictions are basically more than halving the number of customers they may accommodate on their premises. The list goes on and on: with sporting events affected; outside festivals; weddings (many now contemplating further postponements), church services severely restricted…

Meanwhile, divorced from economic reality, we have a Chancellor whom it would appear, has his own personal printing press allowing him to throw money in every direction – many people on furlough haven’t worked for nearly eighteen months – some even saying they don’t want to return to work – I suppose you wouldn’t if you have become accustomed to a life of leisure and loafing around meanwhile the state is paying you to enjoy this lifestyle.

The economic state of this country’s finances in relation to Covid was highlighted graphically by Mr. Mark Littlewood the Director General of the Institute of Economic Affairs when appearing on GB News TV channel.

Mr. Littlewood, who has previously been a guest speaker at a Monday Club Dinner, highlighted the fact that the British Government last had a monetary surplus in 2002. Since then, the annual deficit has been racketing up by trillions of pounds. The impact of this being that if a government has a surplus; it can possibly cope with the extreme financial pressure caused by Covid. Unfortunately, this government does not enjoy that luxury borrowing money with the result that only severely increasing taxes will go any way towards reducing this debt.

Not only is the country under severe financial strain in respect of provision of current and future public services, e.g. three million patients still unable to receive treatment for cancer cases and other injuries, but many have become depressed and unable to see any return to ‘normal life.’

It is significant that the daily viewing figures for prime-time television news broadcasts have fallen dramatically. Initially, when Covid restrictions were imposed, the population watched television and were warned in no uncertain terms by the Prime Minister and chief medical advisors of the dangers of the transmission of the Covid virus and the stringent precautions that must be adhered to. The vast majority of the population, being warned that hundreds of thousands of subjects would perish, complied. They were bombarded by a mass Government orchestrated advertising campaign, again warning of the dire consequences of failure to adhere to the rules.

Eighteen months later, if you bother to watch the evening news on television, the same mantra is displayed in the form of warnings regarding social distancing and the difference between the rules relating to Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland – despite the fact that we have a very successful vaccine programme. The same presenter or one of the Chief Medical Officers will refer the viewers to a graph which is only discernible if you are in the studio as the text is too small and after thirty seconds of monotone recital by the presenter is incomprehensible. That of course, is for any viewers who have not already switched the television set off.

It would be fair to say, that a large majority of the population are at breaking point – can you blame them. They have had Government promises broken; holidays cancelled, their own Conservative Members of Parliament openly defying the Party by voting against them in the Commons; as 60 of them did on 16^th June, 2021, when the motion to delay easing of lockdown for another four weeks was debated.

One of many Conservative dissidents, Sir Edward Leigh MP (Gainsborough), decreed the Governments’ behaviour (Re. the delay) as “…a moral threat to the future of the Conservatives. There’s been too much shifting of the goal posts. There’s real danger that the public will increasingly ignore this. The Government will be government of the emperor without clothes.”

He was joined by Mr Tim Loughton MP (East Worthing & Shoreham). He stood and said, “I’m done with making excuses to my constituents for when their lives might just get back to some degree of normality.”

Mr Richard Drax MP (South Dorset), joined in the onslaught, saying, “What on earth is happening to our country? Muzzled, acquiescent and fearful.

Personally, I’m not surprised the nation has been beaten into submission, when day after day, hour after hour, we’re deluged with dire warnings of doom and gloom by Government advisors of one kind or another.”

One such former senior Government advisor – Mr Dominic Cummings; The Prime Minister’s former henchman or ‘Thomas Cromwell II,’ in his latest blog when he attacked the Prime Minister alleged, “Unlike other PM’s he does not want to go on and on in power. He has a clear plan to leave, at the latest two years after the next election – he wants to make money and have fun, not go on and on.”

I well remember, just after Boris Johnson became Prime Minister, a very well respected member of the Conservative Monday Club saying to me that The Prime Minister doesn’t want to do the job. He merely wanted to prove that he could become Prime Minster – get Brexit done and leave.

What I believe is certain is that his handling of the Covid crisis or as the Americans would put it, his ability as the Commander in Chief, has gradually become shambolic. Many people struggle to trust anything that he says and their patience is wearing very thin to say the least.

If, for whatever reason, the Government reneges on the proposed next lifting of lock- down restrictions in July, then they only have themselves to blame if certain sectors of the population turn to civil disobedience (not in any way advocating this but it may be inevitable).

One only has to observe the scenes at Brighton and Bournemouth beaches during the last period of hot weather. There was absolutely no social distancing – it was impossible anyway, as the people on the beaches were packed together like sardines. They had been cooped up for long enough and this may well be a foretaste for the remainder of the summer.

This was highlighted by a photograph in the Daily Mail on 16^th June, 2021 which depicts members attending Royal Ascot without wearing masks.

As Lord Digby Jones, former CBI Director General and Trade Minister expressed it so well when writing in the same publication on 17/06/2021, “We have to learn to live with Covid. So called Zero Covid is simply not an option. New variants will continue to reach our shores, for a long to time to come, maybe forever.

As a boy I would ask mum, who was 96 when she died, how she got through the bombing in Birmingham during the Blitz. She said: “We just got on with it, dear.”

“That is what we have to do today. Because if we do not, we are doomed to a fearful future in an inward looking society without the prospect of prosperity or joy.”

Hands, Face, Disgrace

For the past fifteen months the now former Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, has made appeals to the public to adhere to Covid regulations which so deeply impacted upon their lives that they were, in many cases unable to visit dying relatives; see loved ones in care homes and numerous other unprecedented social restrictions never before imposed upon a nation during peacetime.

Meanwhile, as has now been widely publicised, the same Health Secretary was conducting an illicit affair with one of his female assistants, who was also an old girlfriend – this behaviour was supposedly unknown to the Prime Minister but apparently common knowledge to many within Whitehall. He also broke the Covid regulations that he had imposed upon the nation; one rule for me, and another for the rest of us.

After this affair and the Health Secretary’s total disregard for the Covid regulations had appeared in the national press, his boss, the Prime Minister, said at 1.00pm on Friday 25^th June, 2021; “I have full confidence in Mr Hancock.” He had accepted an apology given by the Health Secretary and “…considers the matter closed.”

A snap opinion poll showed that a majority of the nation believed that the Health Secretary should have been dismissed from his post. It now transpires that some members of the Cabinet had stated that they would be unable to publicly support Mr Hancock and this was also expressed by Conservative Associations throughout the country.

Only the next day (Saturday 26^th June), Mr Hancock resigned. Watching him interviewed on Sky TV was more a political speech about the ‘great work’ that he had done for the nation than any form of sincere apology.

After receiving Mr Hancock’s letter of resignation, the Prime Minister continued to lord the glorious work done by Mr Hancock saying; “That he was sorry to receive his resignation and that he (the Health Secretary) can be immensely proud of his record…his contribution to public service is far from over.”

The sorry Watergate style cover up continued unabated when on Monday 28^th June, the Prime Minister was asked whether Mr Hancock’s conduct risked undermining confidence in lockdown rules, he replied; “That’s right. And that’s why, when I saw the story on Friday, we had a new Secretary of State on Saturday.”

Yet, as we know, on Friday, after Mr Hancock had supposedly apologised, the Prime Minister said that the matter was closed and he had every confidence in his Health Secretary.

As Richard Littlejohn wrote in the Daily Mail on 29^th June, if ministers won’t respect the rules, why should anyone else?

He further questioned that if the Prime Minister had allegedly known about Mr Hancock’s affair for months, the truth will come out and that his own position will start to look untenable.

As I wrote earlier in this article, there are parts of the electorate which now have very little confidence in the Conservative Party. During the Watergate scandal that brought down the Nixon Administration in America, one press caption with a picture of the President questioned?, “Would you buy a second hand car from this man?”

Nixon also made a television address to the nation when he stared at the camera and said, “I am not a crook.’ He was eventually forced to resign to prevent him being impeached by Congress.

As Richard Littlejohn wrote about the Prime Minister, “Playing the fool is one thing, taking the rest of us for fools quite another. Was this the weekend he started to run out of road.”

Archive

Listening to the radio in disbelief, one asks: why was any of the above the Government’s fault?

This is reminiscent of an interview with a successful entrepreneur who owns a large string of KFC take-away shops all over the country. He explained that his business model does not really change from shop to shop, “they are all the same, we sell fried chicken”. But when he hears of public events or holidays, such as a Royal Wedding, or England qualifying for the Football World Cup etc, he reacts to the news, “gears up” and bulk buys more stock to accommodate the increase in footfall. He does not have a stratum of middle management doing this for him, he personally calls each shop in turn and lets the individual shop manager know to expect the increase of chicken. Simple!

Of course, the KFC businessman is in the private sector – where salaries and profits to shareholders are dependent upon performance and commercial expertise together with quality and profitability-related assessment, which is vastly different from being an NHS manager who is in a salaried taxpayer-funded position.

What actually is the organisational structure of the management of the NHS? Does anybody really know?

Some years ago, there was a television interview between a senior Professor who specialised in the NHS and a well-respected and very successful leader of a large group of public companies. Utilising a very large blackboard, the Professor detailed on it the “organisational line-management” structure of the NHS. By the time he had finished, it consisted of something akin to a London Underground map but with another map superimposed on top of it with extra lines and circles added.

After concluding his “presentation” and explanation, the Professor asked the Industry leader if he now had a better understanding of the workings of the NHS.

He replied, “Haven’t a clue.”

Here’s a question the BBC would never ask: Why haven’t the NHS Trust Executives, (e.g. the CEO’s paid more than the Prime Minister), ‘geared up’ and organised an increase of Chicken!!!! i.e. the ventilators or PPE needed to run their hospitals during the pandemic?

Is this not their job?

Do they not watch the news and react to world issues that might affect an increase in footfall of the Hospital Trusts they are being so highly paid to manage?

The Covid19 pandemic was identified in Wuhan, China in December 2019. Surely those running our health industry, (those CEO Trust Executives mentioned earlier), would have had an up-front inkling of what was coming before the news was released for public consumption.

You can bet your bottom dollar they know when a priceless piece of art is coming up for auction to furnish their offices. (One NHS Trust boasted of being “the largest art gallery in Liverpool”.)

Here’s part of the problem. Post 1970s, there are certain subjects that our political representatives criticise at their peril: a particular Religion, lest one might be considered phobic; Race, lest one might be construed as racist; and Gender, lest one might be accused of being homophobic.

We are now experiencing a new subject to cast a total eclipse on all the above proscribed subjects – that sacred cow, the NHS. The greatest political Hot Potato of them all!!

You might be wondering why at this moment in time, when we are relying on the NHS to literally save the Nations lives, this article appears to be criticising our carers.

Well, it isn’t.

It is, however, prosecuting a case for some serious reform of the bureaucracy and culling of the middle to senior management, who obviously aren’t cutting it.

To say the NHS is broken as it is, is not to say there aren’t some fantastic people working within it, of course there are; in fact, the vast majority are caring, dedicated, professional people. The incompetence of the leadership in some NHS Trusts, appointed purely because of their left leaning political affiliation, are most definitely not.

The NHS is the largest employer in Europe and thought to be the 8th largest employer in the world at a cost of £140bn a year; that’s 25p in every pound of central government spending.

There are some 300,000 nurses, 270,000 doctors and another 1.2 million employees. This last figure is obviously made up of other essential workers such as biochemists, radiographers, pharmacists etc. There are other essential services such as cleaners, porters and catering, though a lot of these jobs are now contracted out and are not included in the 1.2m figure.

The bill for this outsourcing is massive, far more than employing directly, as are thousands of nurses who were previously taxpayer-trained and employed within the NHS, now rented out by agencies at huge costs way above the NHS employee rate. But hey, at least these are front line costs.

What there are a lot of in that 1.2m, and costing millions of pounds without any front-line experience, are MANAGERS. If ever there was use of the phrase “Too many Chiefs, not enough Indians”!!!

The NHS Careers website lists 78 categories of manager. Here are just a few from a quick search: Clinical management, human resources management, IT and Financial management, Communications management, Green management, Diversity and Human Rights management, Art Curator and Programme manager… the list is endless. Cost-wise, the NHS employed at least 826 public relations staff at an estimated cost of £34 million, at least 165 equality and diversity staff at a cost of more than £6.8 million and at least 86 ‘green’ staff costing around £3.5 million.

Here’s an example of job vacancies recently advertised (April 2020) showing where the priorities lie with the NHS Management cult, see the comparison of wages from a frontline Nurse to a “Manager”.

North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust put out two job vacancies on 21st and 30th April 2020 respectively. Communications Manager £43K to £49K per annum. Nurse £27K to £34K per annum.

Makes you think, doesn’t it!

On 19th April 2020, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation advertised for a….. wait for it…. Diversity and Inclusion Manager £44K – £50K per annum. Enough said.

The NHS needs a wholesale restructuring to cull these cosmetic positions and bring procurement and cost effectiveness up to the same standard as the frontline care. Trusts need to go and we should “KFC” centralise administration, saving a fortune on unnecessary managers and frivolous spending. You could pump another £20 billion into the NHS and it wouldn’t make a jot of difference. Most likely it would disappear on artwork to cover the diversity officers and procurement managers’ offices.

Why don’t we use the ‘DVLA’ as an example, who, as an executive agency of the Department for Transport, successfully run the country’s driving licences and collection of vehicle excise duty from a central base in Swansea, employing no more than 5,500 people.

OK, we’re probably looking at employing more than the DVLA to administrate our health service but let’s think about this. The Government could create a central NHS hub, somewhere in the North, bringing a much-needed boost of employment to an economically deprived area and save millions in the process.

Just think of the advantages for procurement, maybe then the NHS wouldn’t be spending millions on paracetamol, when the same drug is available to the public at a fraction of the cost over the counter.

The Coronavirus emergency should pave the way for our politicians to grasp the NHS Hot Potato once and for all; light a bonfire of all those non-essential managerial positions that have been created over years of political correctness; and have a full scale review of the financing of our health service. Maybe then the British Taxpayer would get the world-class health service currently being paid for.

One last thought…Why are we the second largest donor to the utterly useless, Chinese-controlled ‘World Health Authority’, an organisation that appointed Mugabe as a good will ambassador!

Archive

A Point of View – The Cloak and Dagger Civil Servants?

Ever since Mr. Dominic Cummings’ recent trip to the North of England from his home in London – coupled with his later “special eye test “ drive to Barnard Castle and the subsequent unprecedented appearance as a Special Advisor in the garden of 10, Downing Street – over 80% of the population have called for his resignation.

Even though Mr. Cummings was wearing, for once, a white shirt and long trousers instead of his customary later-day Californian beach-bum attire, he showed no contrition and denied that he had breached any of the lock-down measures that he had been instrumental in imposing upon the nation.

His actions during this National lock-down have so incensed voters that the Tory lead over Labour has crashed as Mr. Johnson battles to draw a line under this disgraceful saga. Mr. Cummings, not blessed with any humility and with an abrasive attitude, compounded by his refusal to apologise, has worsened the situation for the government.

Even though over 8.5 million people are still not working and are being paid to stay at home under the furlough system, the government’s action has been overshadowed by the misconduct of Mr. Johnson’s non-elected Special Advisor and further cements – in the public’s eyes – the failure of the Prime Minster to dismiss Mr. Cummings for his breach of the lock-down rules. Many believe there is a “them and us” rule, which several government officers have already flouted and, in some cases, subsequently been pressured to resign from their posts – except Mr. Cummings.

The Prime Minister’s defence of his Chief Political Advisor, and so-called Svengali, has led to the Tory lead being only 5 points ahead of Labour from 17 points at the end of March this year according to Mr. Joe Twyman, director of Deltapoll. He said, “The figures suggest at the next election it is perfectly possible that a much greater proportion turn away from the Conservatives because they perceive them to not behave fairly and to be untrustworthy.” His comments are endorsed by many voters in the north, who previously voted Labour but swung the vote to Conservative at the last election. Now they are saying, “They’re back to their old arrogant ways again.”

One, therefore, has to question who are these unelected Special Advisers to the Prime Minister and why do we need them when we have members of parliament and Cabinet ministers who have been elected and are accountable to the electorate.

Modern day political advisors probably first started in 1964 when Prime Minister Harold Wilson began to appoint political supporters in significant numbers. He appointed eminent economists Tommy Balogh and Nicholas Kaldor to consult the Government on stimulating economic growth.

Interestingly enough, these Special Advisors (as of December 2019, there are 109 Special Advisors working full time for the Government, including 44 Special Advisors who work for the Prime Minister alone) are not just some ad hoc appointment but are employed as temporary civil servants in accordance with Part 1 of the Constitutional Reform and Government Act, 2010.

The Code of Conduct for Special Advisors states that Special Advisors are a critical team supporting Ministers. They add a political dimension to the advice and assistance available to Ministers while reinforcing the political impartiality of the Civil Service by distinguishing the source of political advice and support.

All Ministerial departments nowadays have one or more Special Advisors (often abbreviated to “SpAds” or “spads”) who are personal appointments of the Secretary of State but employed as temporary civil servants. Their main role in practice is to give political, presentational and policy advice to Ministers; to help write political speeches and articles; and, if necessary, add a political dimension to speeches drafted by officials. They work closely with Private Offices and Press Offices and give advice in parallel with line decisions.

There are, in fact, a number of reasons why Ministers find it beneficial to have spads in their department. Firstly, it gives Ministers simultaneous access to a friendly and familiar face offering political advice to be considered alongside that given by mainstream civil servants.

A lot of Ministers prefer to have, working alongside them, the “devil they do know rather than the devil they don’t” – especially at the beginning of their time in government. They have chosen them (rather than have them imposed upon them) unlike their civil servants, and often their departmental Junior Ministers, and they are likely to have compatible personalities.

Is there any control over the conduct of these spads? What they may and what they may not do are regulated for in the Constitutional Reform and Government Act, 2010 but, suffice to say, it still leaves somewhat “grey areas.”

All too often in recent times, Prime Ministers have utilised spads as their “Chief of Staff” or “Director of Communications” and all enquiries are routed through them, affording a type of protected cocoon around the Prime Minister. This resulted in what was termed “a sofa government”, with one or two people making the decisions and other Ministers excluded from this process.

In 2019 when Boris Johnson became Prime Minister, he appointed spad Domiminic Cummings as his Chief of Staff and Mr. Cummings then insisted that the entire Ministers’ Spads should report to him and not to “their” Cabinet Minister. This immediately removed one of the advantages of employing spads – that they offered an independent political view of their departments’ and wider government policies.

It would be a gross understatement to say that Dominic Cummings has alienated millions of British voters and Tory Party supporters. This includes both Tory and Labour MPs; not forgetting, of course, a cabal of Remainers and Civil servants who are desperate to get rid of him. It goes without saying that he is despised by the BBC and pincko channel 4 TV News.

Mr. Cummings is not, however, without his supporters and it has to be acknowledged and remembered that it was Mr. Cummings who made a very significant contribution in the Brexit Strategy and also in the Prime Minister’s Tory leadership contest and subsequent General Election success.

His role as Special Advisor to the Prime Minister has made him many enemies in Whitehall, particularly with regard to his task of the long-awaited reform of the Civil Service.

The Civil Service appears to have its own agenda despite its supposed neutrality and lack of political bias. These reforms of the Civil Service have been mooted since Margaret Thatcher’s time but the plans have always been frustrated.

It would appear that Mr. Cummings’ two objectives for this year are to assist the “Reform” of the Civil Service and to ensure completion of Brexit.

Despite these good intentions, the position of Special Advisor to the leader of a country is a powerful one and very often embraces a form of “gate keeping” to protect that leader from “unnecessary” intrusions. In effect, this is a vetting process to prevent the Prime Minister being inundated with requests from everyone in the Cabinet Office and beyond. It can, however, in itself lead to the Special Advisor believing that his position of power is greater, or as great as, that to whom he serves and “advises”.

History is littered with so called special advisors who believed they were too indispensable to the leader that they served.

Nigel Lawson quit as Chancellor in 1989 after telling Margaret Thatcher that she had a choice between him and her personal adviser, Sir Alan Walters. Stunned by the decision, Walters also tendered his resignation the same day.

In recent times, one well recalls the eventual downfall of Prime Minister Tony Blair’s main henchman, Alastair Campbell, and the infamous Iraq ”weapons of mass destruction” dossier.

In 2017, Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, Prime Minister Mrs. May’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, both resigned amid calls for the Prime Minister to sack them over their role in the Tory Election campaign. The party failed to secure a majority and the Prime Minister was then left clinging to power.

In the United States, during the Watergate Affair, President Richard Nixon’s Chief of Staff, H. R. “Bob” Haldeman, had been a loyal servant to President Nixon for 20 years prior to becoming Chief of Staff and was complicit in the illegal wiretapping and subsequent cover up after the Watergate incident. Nixon resigned and was pardoned by President Gerald Ford but it was Haldeman who was convicted and sent to jail.

Although he had been “elected” as an MP during his earlier career, Thomas Cromwell (1485-1540) subsequently became King Henry VIII’s most notorious minister. The son of a brewer, he manoeuvred his way to the top by intrigue, bribery and sheer personality. Cromwell pursued Henry’s interests single-mindedly. Tasked with engineering the judicial murder of Anne Boleyn, he organised a “show trial” of Stalinist efficiency. He orchestrated the seizure of the monasteries.

Eventually, after assuming almost absolute power and riches beyond all those except the King himself and “the old money” of the Duke of Norfolk, he pushed his master too far. He was executed on 28^th July, 1540 at Tower Hill, London.

(It should be noted that, although Thomas Cromwell was beheaded, the King did later recognise his former “enforcer’s usefulness as he, Henry, was beset with political turmoil thereafter until his own death).

History sometimes has a habit of repeating itself (not Tower Hill).

Andrew Blick of Kings College, London, author of “People who live in the dark”, a history of Special Advisers, says, “It is the nature of the job that they are politically exposed. It is also in the nature of the job that they are there to do things that normal Civil Servants can’t and shouldn’t do, and which politicians want done for them. Therefore, you can expect there to be periodic issues like this.”

One is keen to note that a spad’s power is derived from the relevant Minister. Should they get above their station or become too influential, that is ultimately the fault of the employer.

Perhaps Mr. Cummings should reflect on the political damage that he has done to the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister and not delude himself that he is indispensable.

He might like to also remember that you meet the same people on the way down as you did on your way up.

All Lives Matter

As a predominately left-wing, anarchist mob continued, unabated or restrained by the Police, to attack what they deem to be racist statues, it is interesting and appalling to see the total inaction taken by the some senior police personnel to prevent wanton criminal damage.

When appointed to the office of constable in England and Wales, all officers are required to take an oath of allegiance which is…..“I do solemnly and sincerely declare I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable with fairness, dignity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people and I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept.”

That is of course, except Mr. Alan Pugheley, none other than the Chief Constable of Kent, who made a gesture of solidarity with the Black Lives Matter Movement.

He said, “It was an act of humility. It was important to me to take in this show of solidarity. We at Kent police stand with those who are horrified at the manner in which George Floyd lost his life.”

Millions of people throughout the world were disgusted at the treatment of the late Mr. Floyd but they were not a senior Police Chief supposedly setting an example to his men as how to be impartial, according to the oath he and his officers took upon becoming police officers.

Does that now mean that all his officers can forget their oath of allegiance – no longer being IMPARTIAL? It would be interesting to see his IMPARTIALITY towards patriotic black and white veterans of the services should they choose to protect public statues from wanton criminal damage because he, and perhaps his officers, are biased towards the Black Lives Matter Movement.

Surely, he should be neutral whatever his personal feelings may be, or do we now live within a police state that dictates what is criminal or democratic, or is he a racist and anti-white?

All lives matter, of whatever race, whether they are black, brown, Chinese or white – what’s the difference, Mr. Pugheley?

Mr. Johnson’s official spokesman said: “The PM’s view is that, in this country, where there is strong opinion there is a democratic process which should be followed.

“People can campaign for the removal of a statue but what happened yesterday was a criminal act and when the criminal law is broken that is unacceptable and the police will want to hold to account those responsible.

“The PM absolutely understands the strength of feeling, but in this country we settle our differences democratically and if people wanted the removal of the statue there are democratic routes which can be followed.”

Archive

When the Covid-19 pandemic hit the news, the lead story from our national broadcaster was (to paraphrase) “The Government haven’t bought enough ventilators, frontline NHS staff haven’t got enough Personnel Protective Equipment (PPE), The NHS can’t cope!!!!” Bla Bla Bla, etc etc.

Listening to the radio in disbelief, one asks: why was any of the above the Government’s fault?

This is reminiscent of an interview with a successful entrepreneur who owns a large string of KFC take-away shops all over the country. He explained that his business model does not really change from shop to shop, “they are all the same, we sell fried chicken”. But when he hears of public events or holidays, such as a Royal Wedding, or England qualifying for the Football World Cup etc, he reacts to the news, “gears up” and bulk buys more stock to accommodate the increase in footfall. He does not have a stratum of middle management doing this for him, he personally calls each shop in turn and lets the individual shop manager know to expect the increase of chicken. Simple!

Of course, the KFC businessman is in the private sector – where salaries and profits to shareholders are dependent upon performance and commercial expertise together with quality and profitability-related assessment, which is vastly different from being an NHS manager who is in a salaried taxpayer-funded position.

What actually is the organisational structure of the management of the NHS? Does anybody really know?

Some years ago, there was a television interview between a senior Professor who specialised in the NHS and a well-respected and very successful leader of a large group of public companies. Utilising a very large blackboard, the Professor detailed on it the “organisational line-management” structure of the NHS. By the time he had finished, it consisted of something akin to a London Underground map but with another map superimposed on top of it with extra lines and circles added.

After concluding his “presentation” and explanation, the Professor asked the Industry leader if he now had a better understanding of the workings of the NHS.

He replied, “Haven’t a clue.”

Here’s a question the BBC would never ask: Why haven’t the NHS Trust Executives, (e.g. the CEO’s paid more than the Prime Minister), ‘geared up’ and organised an increase of Chicken!!!! i.e. the ventilators or PPE needed to run their hospitals during the pandemic?

Is this not their job?

Do they not watch the news and react to world issues that might affect an increase in footfall of the Hospital Trusts they are being so highly paid to manage?

The Covid19 pandemic was identified in Wuhan, China in December 2019. Surely those running our health industry, (those CEO Trust Executives mentioned earlier), would have had an up-front inkling of what was coming before the news was released for public consumption.

You can bet your bottom dollar they know when a priceless piece of art is coming up for auction to furnish their offices. (One NHS Trust boasted of being “the largest art gallery in Liverpool”.)

Here’s part of the problem. Post 1970s, there are certain subjects that our political representatives criticise at their peril: a particular Religion, lest one might be considered phobic; Race, lest one might be construed as racist; and Gender, lest one might be accused of being homophobic.

We are now experiencing a new subject to cast a total eclipse on all the above proscribed subjects – that sacred cow, the NHS. The greatest political Hot Potato of them all!!

You might be wondering why at this moment in time, when we are relying on the NHS to literally save the Nations lives, this article appears to be criticising our carers.

Well, it isn’t.

It is, however, prosecuting a case for some serious reform of the bureaucracy and culling of the middle to senior management, who obviously aren’t cutting it.

To say the NHS is broken as it is, is not to say there aren’t some fantastic people working within it, of course there are; in fact, the vast majority are caring, dedicated, professional people. The incompetence of the leadership in some NHS Trusts, appointed purely because of their left leaning political affiliation, are most definitely not.

The NHS is the largest employer in Europe and thought to be the 8th largest employer in the world at a cost of £140bn a year; that’s 25p in every pound of central government spending.

There are some 300,000 nurses, 270,000 doctors and another 1.2 million employees. This last figure is obviously made up of other essential workers such as biochemists, radiographers, pharmacists etc. There are other essential services such as cleaners, porters and catering, though a lot of these jobs are now contracted out and are not included in the 1.2m figure.

The bill for this outsourcing is massive, far more than employing directly, as are thousands of nurses who were previously taxpayer-trained and employed within the NHS, now rented out by agencies at huge costs way above the NHS employee rate. But hey, at least these are front line costs.

What there are a lot of in that 1.2m, and costing millions of pounds without any front-line experience, are MANAGERS. If ever there was use of the phrase “Too many Chiefs, not enough Indians”!!!

The NHS Careers website lists 78 categories of manager. Here are just a few from a quick search: Clinical management, human resources management, IT and Financial management, Communications management, Green management, Diversity and Human Rights management, Art Curator and Programme manager… the list is endless. Cost-wise, the NHS employed at least 826 public relations staff at an estimated cost of £34 million, at least 165 equality and diversity staff at a cost of more than £6.8 million and at least 86 ‘green’ staff costing around £3.5 million.

Here’s an example of job vacancies recently advertised (April 2020) showing where the priorities lie with the NHS Management cult, see the comparison of wages from a frontline Nurse to a “Manager”.

North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust put out two job vacancies on 21st and 30th April 2020 respectively. Communications Manager £43K to £49K per annum. Nurse £27K to £34K per annum.

Makes you think, doesn’t it!

On 19th April 2020, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation advertised for a….. wait for it…. Diversity and Inclusion Manager £44K – £50K per annum. Enough said.

The NHS needs a wholesale restructuring to cull these cosmetic positions and bring procurement and cost effectiveness up to the same standard as the frontline care. Trusts need to go and we should “KFC” centralise administration, saving a fortune on unnecessary managers and frivolous spending. You could pump another £20 billion into the NHS and it wouldn’t make a jot of difference. Most likely it would disappear on artwork to cover the diversity officers and procurement managers’ offices.

Why don’t we use the ‘DVLA’ as an example, who, as an executive agency of the Department for Transport, successfully run the country’s driving licences and collection of vehicle excise duty from a central base in Swansea, employing no more than 5,500 people.

OK, we’re probably looking at employing more than the DVLA to administrate our health service but let’s think about this. The Government could create a central NHS hub, somewhere in the North, bringing a much-needed boost of employment to an economically deprived area and save millions in the process.

Just think of the advantages for procurement, maybe then the NHS wouldn’t be spending millions on paracetamol, when the same drug is available to the public at a fraction of the cost over the counter.

The Coronavirus emergency should pave the way for our politicians to grasp the NHS Hot Potato once and for all; light a bonfire of all those non-essential managerial positions that have been created over years of political correctness; and have a full scale review of the financing of our health service. Maybe then the British Taxpayer would get the world-class health service currently being paid for.

One last thought…Why are we the second largest donor to the utterly useless, Chinese-controlled ‘World Health Authority’, an organisation that appointed Mugabe as a good will ambassador!

Archive

I am sure that most of our members are well aware of the recent allegations made against senior Metropolitan Police officers, both serving and retired, regarding the “Stasi” type raids made by their officers on the homes of Field Marshall the Lord Bramall, the late Lord Brittan and Mr Harvey Proctor; amongst others. These raids were in respect of allegations made by Mr Carl Beech; the VIP child sex abuse fantasist known as “Nick.” He is currently serving eighteen years in jail having been convicted of twelve counts of perverting the course of justice and one of fraud.

Despite some of these officers being exonerated as a result of an independent inquiry, new allegations regarding the unlawful obtaining of search warrants are to be investigated and the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, is ordering a review of the new evidence.

It is therefore heartening, yet as the same time distressing, to read that after the brutal murder of PC Andrew Harper, killed whilst investigating the theft of a quad bike, the savage machete attack on PC Stuart Outten and other similar incidents against ordinary police officers, two Chief Constables have finally decided to afford greater protection to their “front line” officers.

The Chief Constables of Northamptonshire and Durham have stated that all front line officers who want to carry a Taser on duty will get one. Northamptonshire’s Chief Constable, Nick Adderley, stated that “…the risks his officers face had risen dramatically.”

Jo Farrell, the Chief Constable of Durham, endorsed this and said; “Sadly there are situations in which police officers need to take immediate action to subdue violent suspects to protect the public.”

As he was being attacked by an assailant armed with a machete, PC Outten, although severely injured, managed to Taser the suspect and by doing so probably saved his own life. His attacker has been charged with attempted murder.

As shocking and distressing as these recent attacks upon officers are, they are no longer a rarity. The crime epidemic sweeping the United Kingdom has seen the number of attacks on officers trying to arrest offenders increase dramatically. In 2018 there were 10,399 assaults on officers that caused injuries – this is a 32% increase from 7,903 recorded in 2015-16. The Office of National Statistics recorded a further 20,578 reported assaults without injury.

As the spiral of violence – particularly the use of knives to murder or injure members of the public and police officers – continues seemingly unchecked, what sentences are available to the Courts to deter criminals from assaulting police officers?

The Police Act, 1996 s.89 makes it an offence to assault a police officer in the execution of his duty and the Sentencing Council of England and Wales has determined a maximum level 5 fine or twenty-six weeks custody. Needless to say, these sentences are subject to numerous caveats regarding the age of offender, seriousness of the assault, previous convictions, income etc. As a supposed deterrent this is woefully inadequate.

As an example of how lenient our Courts are, a twenty-two year old man who spat blood at a police officer in the UK was only handed a community order.

John Apter, Chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales said, “There has got to be a deterrent. The overwhelming feeling from very many police officers is that the wider criminal justice system doesn’t rate assaults on officers with sufficient gravitas.”

Three months ago, new legislation came into effect – The Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act which made assaults on officers punishable with jail terms of up to twelve months. Contrast that with the United States of America, where spitting at a police officer carries a sentence of ten to fifteen years!

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has stated that he will increase the number of police offers by 20,000 (there has been a reduction in police numbers over the last 10 years of 22,000).

He is to be commended for his concern regarding the appalling rise in violent crime on the once safe streets of Britain. When these officers are eventually recruited and trained and a visible presence is once again on the streets of this country, it will certainly be a help towards restoring public safety and confidence.

Sadly, an increase in police numbers will not on its own solve the unchecked crime epidemic experienced across our towns, cities and in rural areas.

The mind-set and perception (if they perceive anything) amongst many of today’s violent criminals is that they can commit any crime they want completely unchecked and with the use of gratuitous violence. They have no conscience and are not even concerned about the prison term as the main thing that they do know is that it is highly unlikely that they will be apprehended. Indeed, they have no respect for the police at all (which has been graphically highlighted in this Club Comment); they will assault officers to avoid arrest.

Even if apprehended, their likelihood of receiving a custodial sentence is remote. If fined, fines remain unpaid and they are not brought back before the courts due to manpower shortages in attempting to locate them. In effect, as usual, in their mind, they have got away with their crimes. This only serves to encourage reoffending.

For many, many years, some sectors of society, in the form of the courts, the Howard League for Penal Reform and Human Rights charities such as Amnesty, have all managed to promote the, “softly, softly”, “use kid gloves” approach to the perpetrators of crime.

Painfully, for the majority of law-abiding members of society, this approach has not worked and this is graphically illustrated by the daily violence now taking place in our streets.

For Boris Johnson to turn the tide of leftist social policy towards criminals, it requires a complete change of attitude by our Courts; particularly towards the sentencing for violent crime. Yes, if we have to build new maximum security prisons to house these dangerous individuals who have to be removed from the streets to protect their fellow subjects, then so be it.

There will, of course, be cries of where does the money come from to build these new prisons?

Perhaps the government, now led by a new dynamic Prime Minister, will utilise some of the £14.5 billion of taxpayer’s money that is so shamefully handed out in the form of International Development Aid to wealthy countries such as India and China and others with despotic rulers who pocket the money for themselves.

Surely, allowing the Queen’s subjects to walk down the streets of this country without fear of being stabbed or assaulted is a mandatory obligation? Why must the majority of society be subjected to wanton violence?

Some members of society may even start taking the law into their own hands to more proactively defend themselves. Dare I suggest that we may eventually encounter this sort of rule by the mob.

This may seem like overstating the case but when Amnesty has stated that the public “…should resist the drum-beat of calls for all police to carry Tasers,” it indicates the up-hill battle we are facing.

Perhaps members of Amnesty would like to patrol unarmed in some of the most violent areas of the country and adopt a softly, softly approach to a violent drug-fuelled individual wielding a machete or shotgun?

The lawlessness across our land has not just occurred. Over the last forty years, a general malaise, financial cut-backs, apathy, rapid decline in normal standards of conduct in a civilized society, leftist ideology in our courts, a breakdown of parental control, lower standards of education amongst the socially deprived – we still have sixteen-year-olds leaving school unable to read, write or do multiplication. There are 8 million adults (18 plus) in the UK who are functionally illiterate and therefore unable to obtain well-paid work.

Unless robust action is taken now by this Government, violence on our streets will escalate. If the police are unable to contain the daily stabbings and murders then society has allowed the criminals to rule the streets.

The Courts, and the government must have a completely different mind-set – otherwise, eventually the country will reflect saying “How DID WE EVER LET IT GET TO THIS??”

Archive

On Tuesday 5^th March 2019, The Daily Mail newspaper published on its front page the photographs of 27 teenagers, all of whom had been stabbed to death during the last 12 months.

Last year, there were more fatal stabbings since records began with knife crime being at its highest since 2011.

Since The Daily Mail’s publication, the slaughter of young people by stabbing has averaged one per day and, sadly, appears to be continuing with no immediate prospect of these statistics being reduced. While some of the stabbings are in the poorer estates of our cities and are undoubtedly gang-related, no town in this country is now immune from such senseless murders of young people.

In some areas it is almost de rigueur for youths to carry an assortment of bladed weapons for self-protection from dominance and intimidation by rival gangs. These youths have become desensitised to the realities and dangers and act with total impunity.

By their own admission, many have no fear; or any respect for any form of authority, whether it be their parent/s or the police. Their “status” in their own territory is enhanced by the carrying of an offensive weapon or, in an increasing number of cases, a firearm. These lethal weapons enable them to conduct their drug dealing and, by violence and intimidation, coerce other youths to assist them in their illegal activities. Non-compliance in the majority of instances results in yet another teenager being murdered.

What has been so lamentable has been the Government’s response to this nationwide carnage; particularly that of the Prime Minister, Mrs May.

Treating the population as if we are all unintelligent idiots, she stated, “…that it was a mistake to link the knife epidemic with police cuts,…” insisting that, “…there was no direct correlation.”

This is the same incompetent individual who, when she was Home Secretary, prevented the police from addressing the rising incidents of knife crime, by reducing their powers to use Stop and Search to detect young people carrying offensive weapons.

She was too concerned that their actions might offend any members of minority racial groups subjected to these searches. Perhaps Mrs May should ask the bereaved parents of children slaughtered in Brixton and other areas of the country what their views are in regard to Stop and Search – the majority, it appears, are in total favour, provided it is conducted by officers using tact and courtesy.

Former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Lord Stevens, repeatedly warned the Prime Minister when she was Home Secretary about the continued escalation of violence on the streets of London. He said that he questioned whether Mrs May understood policing and he further criticised her decision to make Stop and Search more bureaucratic. He advocated less political correctness in forces and a return to proper hard-edged policing to strip thugs of their confidence.

He added, “Mrs May hasn’t listened to what’s being going on and it is not good enough.” Later, asked if he thought Mrs May was up to dealing with the knife crisis, Lord Stevens said, “I doubt it.”

In direct contrast to the Prime Minister’s inaction, the present Home Secretary, Mr Sajid Javid, has hosted a “knife crime summit” with senior police officers and has committed to working with the police and has stated that the government has to listen to them when they talk about resources.

Yet again, the Prime Minister interfered and clashed with the Home Secretary when he demanded changes to Stop and Search powers. Mrs May wants these powers restricted to so called “hot spots.” (The Chief Constable of West Midlands Police, Britain’s second largest Police Force, Mr Dave Thompson, takes a totally different view and has requested “blanket cover” regarding Stop and Search in respect of the whole of Birmingham as the situation there with murders and violent crime is spiralling out of control.)

As I am sure Monday Club members will have read in newspapers and been informed on daily news bulletins, police numbers and resources have continued to fall and, according to the National Audit Office, they have fallen 19% in real terms from 2010-11. Mrs May does not seem to grasp the point that the reduction of over 20,000 police officers has had a dramatic effect on the deterrent and detection capability of our police officers to reduce violent crime on the streets of this country.

Mr John Apter, National Chairman of Police Federation of England and Wales has stated, “policing has been stripped to the bone and the consequences are clear, splashed across our newspapers – children being murdered on our streets. This is the true cost of austerity that we warned of but were ridiculed for doing so. Those consequences have become a reality but still the Prime Minister fails to accept the truth.”

Let us forget the suggestions put forward of having a Knife Crime Tsar and analyse the reality of the current situation.

When he was Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, the late Sir Robert Mark suggested that the greatest deterrent to committing any crime was the percentage possibility in the mind of the offender at being apprehended.

At present, without quoting figures from individual Constabularies, that certainty of being apprehended is below 10%.

To greatly increase the percentage of crimes being reduced, we should start with the physical presence of more foot patrol officers in our towns to act as a deterrent and their ability to quickly “nip in the bud” any anti-social type of behaviour immediately. Such unlawful behaviour if left unchecked – as it most certainly is currently – inherently leads to the offenders’ “certainty of NOT being apprehended.” Therefore, why would such individuals be deterred from committing even more serious crimes?

Law-abiding members of the public would feel comforted that there is a uniformed police presence in their towns and city centres, whereas in many areas of the country there are currently “no go areas” which have become the territory of the unchecked lawless.

There is no doubt that, if the above suggestion were put to the majority of the population, there would be a resounding vote of approval for the immediate implementation of such resources.

Sadly, if and when the perpetrators of violent crime are placed before our Courts, the judicial system seems to favour the accused rather than consideration for the victim.

Despite the fanfare, when David Cameron was Prime Minister, that knife crime and possession of an offensive weapon would be dealt with robustly and harshly by our Courts, the reality couldn’t be more different.

Under current Ministry of Justice guidelines, the offence of carrying a knife or offensive weapon in a public place of a school is:-

At Magistrates Court – 6 months’ imprisonment and/or a fine.

For a second offence – (unless there are extenuating circumstances) 6 months’ imprisonment.

At Crown Courts – on indictment 4 years’ imprisonment and a fine.

In reality, Magistrates have been directed by The Justice Department not to send offenders to prison as Mr David Gauke, the Justice Secretary, believes such sentences are ineffective and is advocating community order instead and new tagging procedures to enforce such orders.

Mr Gauke believes that tougher sentences are not the answer to knife crime, “The idea that tougher sentences provide the prominent answer to knife crime – I just do not think the evidence supports that.”

To date, no information has been published as to who and where the resources are coming from to monitor the tagged offenders, as currently, the Probation Service is in a state of crisis and cannot even cope with monitoring recently-released inmates from prison. Currently, a large proportion of young offenders sentenced to community service don’t even turn up and, even if and when they are placed before a Court for breach of these orders, they are not penalised. In effect – they have received no sentence for their crimes.

Contrast this laissez-faire attitude to the vigour and zeal being employed by the Government to hound and pursue members of the Parachute Regiment who were carrying out their orders when they opened fire in Northern Ireland on “Bloody Sunday.”

“Many veterans, now in their mid-seventies, are being made scapegoats to placate the so-called Peace Process.

Writing in a letter to The Daily Telegraph on 9^th March 2019, a reader questioned when will the Northern Ireland Secretary, Karen Bradley, report on what progress is being made into the murders in 1972 of the 27 members of the British Army, Ulster Defence Regiment and officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary by members of the Derry Brigade of the Provisional IRA?

Contrast these soldiers and police officers who served their country with that of Mr Kyle Davis, 18, who appeared at Magistrates Court in Birmingham the day after The Daily Mail’s publication of the photographs of the 27 murdered teenagers.

Davis received a suspended sentence, despite being caught with cocaine and a knife – his second weapons offence. He was pictured apparently laughing and swaggering as he walked out of Court taking a “selfie” of himself.

If the Conservative Government – whose conservative Party prides itself on being the Party of Law and Order – had the will to support the police, protect the public from offenders committing crimes and – as has been discussed in this Editorial – deter young people from acts of violence, would it not be more effective to prosecute knife crimes at Crown Court instead of at Magistrates?

As prisoners normally only serve half their custodial sentence, the minimum sentence should be increased to 6 years in gaol and a second offence to 12 years.

The next excuse from the Chancellor will be but where does the money come from to build new gaols?

Perhaps some of the wasteful £14.5 billion of taxpayers’ money spent on foreign aid would be adequate for several maximum-security prisons, staffed by Prison Service personnel and not contracted out to private companies who have proved to be an utter disaster.

Why should we donate £90.1 million to India – a country with more billionaires than Britain and one of the largest Defence Forces in the world?

Like India with its nuclear weapons, its neighbour Pakistan is in receipt of £402.5 million of taxpayers’ money, with Turkey – another country with a massive army – benefiting from £137.9 million, supposedly to help their farmers improve their techniques.

A spokesman for the UK Government stated: “Our aid commitment increases Britain’s global influence and allows us to shape the world around us, which is firmly in the UK’s interest.”

Surely, “The UK’s interest” is at home to fund the resources to prevent the tragic life-changing and emotional upheaval experienced by families as a result of the on-going knife crime plague rather than squandering vast sums of money on overseas countries.

In the long-term, obviously prevention is better than cure but such prevention can only be successful if the police – with very much enhanced personnel – are able to work with communities and turn young people away from violence.

Many of these initiatives are already in place and have resulted in a different attitude by young people towards the police.

Sadly, for those who continue hell-bent on drug-dealing and being part of a gang culture or committing anti-social behaviour, then only a very visible police presence and a Justice system that punishes the offender will succeed.

Archive

Britain’s Brexit is being betrayed by Brussels bureaucrats whose primary purpose is to inflict pain and punishment on our people.

There is a deep and distinct disconnection between British politicians and European Union (EU) politicians. The majority of British politicians appear to prioritise the economic interest of the nation above the political interest. For example, the UK Government is content for naval support vessels, and for other arms and defence vehicles, to be built overseas as it is cheaper and therefore seen as better value for money. Many pro-Brexit politicians were not won over by arguments of national sovereignty but rather by economic free trade arguments and, consequently, they place a higher value on economic interests rather than political interests.

This is in direct contrast to most EU politicians who prioritise the political interest over the economic interest of the nation. For example, to continue the defence analogy, France mostly buys its military material from French companies even though this is a very expensive exercise. This is because their definition of value is not just economically defined but encompasses national security, social values and the public good i.e. political concerns.

The prime example of this prioritisation of the political interest over the economic interest is, however, most clearly seen in the euro zone. In the many recent euro crises, it would have been in the economic interest of most countries to come out of the euro zone and adjust their currencies and policies to best suit their economic conditions. However, unlike the British who withdrew from the Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992 after it became economically unviable, all the euro zone countries have put their political interest – that is the EU project – above their economic interest and remained a part of the euro zone.

Consequently, there appears to be an inability among British politicians to understand that, even if the EU will suffer economically, – e.g. German car manufacturers, as they have recently shown with Mini production – due to not having a trade deal with the UK, it will accept that as part of the political price to be paid to ensure both the survival and growth of the EU and as a visible punishment to the UK in order to frighten off other potential leavers.

Essentially, this analysis leads to the conclusion that the whole approach of the EU to the Brexit negotiations is to ensure that the UK does not end up with a trade deal and that it is, essentially, an exercise in punishment designed to be as long, protracted and costly for the UK as possible – with a secondary aim of lessening support for Brexit among the UK population and attempting to ensure that the UK either stays a part of the EU or as a significant contributor to EU funds – as they will sorely miss our billions in their budget.

This is why the EU is trying to get the UK to pay a bribe for a trade deal – what they euphemistically call a settlement of our obligations. What obligations are these I wonder? The UK has been a net contributor to the EU since it joined in 1973 – that is 45 years of more than paying our way. The EU’s own negotiation rules state that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, yet they now insist that we legally owe them tens of billions before they will agree to even discuss a future trade deal.

Of course, if any other country or company demanded a large payment before even discussing a trade deal it would correctly be called a bribe i.e. corruption. We should not be surprised at corruption in the EU as its own audit watchdog has refused to sign off the EU’s own budget for many years due to endemic fraud and corruption. Should we – the UK – pay a bribe? No, of course not. The UK has long taken a stand against corruption and this should not change now. We should simply not pay the bribe the EU is demanding. We are not legally obliged to do so, according to the House of Lords Financial Affairs Sub-Committee. When we leave the EU, our financial obligations to the EU end. Simple as that.

It is instructive in these negotiations that we have seen the UK time and again compromising when the EU has made no such compromise at all. Such a one-sided negotiation process will inevitably end up with a one-sided agreement – a one-sided agreement that is not in the UK’s interest. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing every time and expecting a different result every time. Why are we continually wasting our time and taxpayer’s money? The problem was that British politicians thought they would get a bespoke deal that will ensure access to the single market for the City – however, the EU has consistently stated that the single market and its four freedoms are inviolate. We need to realise this – the EU has stated that there will be no bespoke deal for the UK outside of the rules of the single market.

This point has been proved by the PM’s Chequers attempt at an agreement which, partly acknowledging the City point above, tried to stay in the single market for goods but left the City – i.e. services – out of the single market. Yet again the EU said no, that would violate the single market – a lesson our politicians have still not learnt.

For the EU, there can be no dilution of the four freedoms of the single market as this would lead to calls from other countries for a relaxation of the rules to suit their economies – this would lead to an unravelling of the ever closer union policy which is driving the federalisation agenda of the EU. For the EU to benefit politically from Brexit – i.e. the removal of the strongest voice against federalisation – it is essential that there is no relaxation of rules but rather that they are more strictly enforced in order to ensure that federalisation continues apace. We have seen this in the renewed push for an EU army and a common defence and security policy, which we were assured during the referendum was not on the cards, but was immediately pushed after the Brexit result.

On the economic front, Barnier’s Chequers presentation almost gave the game away by revealing that releasing the City from the red tape of the single market would allow the UK to grow this economic sector at the expense of the EU. If you follow the logic of this argument, then the best outcome for Brexit would be the UK also freeing goods as well as services from the red tape of the single market – strictures of the single market would be more appropriate than freedoms, it would appear, by the EU’s own admission. Far from convergence, it would appear, even the EU recognises that divergence is the best Brexit policy for the UK. So damaging was this presentation that our Prime Minister even had to ask the EU to try to hide it in order to lessen the media exposure of these truths, which were – quite rightly – undermining support for her disastrous and damaging Chequers proposal. The presentation was viewed by our Prime Minister just hours after Barnier presented it, yet again displaying the effectiveness and efficiency of our intelligence service.

The EU will sorely miss the expertise and world class outcomes of our security and intelligence services as a part of their common security and defence policy. This issue of security is, perhaps, one of the best examples of how the EU is determined to punish Britain both politically and economically, even at considerable cost to themselves. The UK has passed on much high-grade intelligence to the EU – saving lives and protecting the public; while not one-way traffic, the information flow comes much more from us than to us.

Following Brexit, it is in the interests of the EU to ensure security co-operation, which benefits all. However, the example of Galileo has proved beyond a doubt that the EU is just not interested in co-operation but rather confrontation and punishment.

The fact is that, by excluding British technology, geographic locations and funding, it means this project will be much more difficult for the EU to complete – yet this proves they are willing to harm themselves in order to punish the UK. Yet more evidence they are not interested in any deal except no deal.

Another example of the EU playing fast and loose with security concerns is their using Northern Ireland (NI) as a political weapon. We are told the Belfast Agreement (also called the Good Friday Agreement) means there has to be EU law across the island of Ireland. Quite the opposite is, in fact, the case. The Belfast Agreement – endorsed by a vote across the island of Ireland – actually accepted the partition of Ireland, removed the Irish constitution’s territorial claim and accepted that NI is a part of the UK, unless and until its people vote to accept a united Ireland. That has not happened. Therefore NI remains a part of the UK and, like the rest of the UK, will leave the EU on 31st March 2019. It is unacceptable that NI would be treated like a part of the EU and not a part of the UK. To force NI to remain a part of the EU and not the UK would, in fact, be against both the letter and the spirit of the Belfast Agreement. Our Prime Minister is right to insist no British Prime Minister could accept anything other than NI remaining a full part of the UK. To do otherwise is to dismiss democracy, both that of the people of NI in their desire to remain a part of the UK and the result of the UK Brexit vote to leave the EU.

To those who say, “Why should NI remain a part of the UK?” and, “What is the matter with it staying in the EU and becoming part of a united Ireland?”, I would recommend a history lesson. In two world wars, the UK came very close to being starved into submission. Winning the Atlantic wars against the U-Boats was crucial to the UK’s survival. Essential to keeping the Atlantic sea lanes open were the Irish ports. Denial of use of the Treaty ports in neutral Ireland during WW2 only emphasised how essential NI was with its 26 airfields, important naval bases and back up Western Approaches command bunker in Londonderry, where the U-Boat fleet surrendered in 1945.

Command of the waves around the UK is now even more essential in today’s century of uncertainty, with the rise of a resurgent Russia and a challenging China, with both showing increasing interest and activity in the Atlantic in recent years, forcing NATO to re-instate an Atlantic Command. A united Ireland would be a neutral Ireland and, hence, a threat to the security of the UK and NATO. It has been said that, if Ireland had been united and neutral during WW2, then Britain would have had to invade Ireland in order to provide the coastal bases necessary to survive. The strategic importance of NI to UK security is now apparent and we need to ensure the EU does not break up the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We need to remember our history, as we can be sure Berlin\Brussels remember theirs.

As if more evidence of the EU’s intransigence is required, we have the Irish border issue, used by the EU to drum up fear of a return to the Troubles. Let’s examine this issue. We are led to believe that, because of a democratic decision – the Brexit vote – republicans in NI will now return to violence to achieve their political aim of a united Irish republic. However, there is not the capacity nor appetite to return to widespread violence among the NI population. The US is a vastly different place than it was before 9/11 – there would be a lack of support there too, both in moral and monetary terms, for Irish terrorists. Yet it was the democratic decision to endorse the Belfast Agreement that ultimately led to the 2007 St Andrews Agreement, which allowed terrorists into Government in NI – i.e. the deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness and others. The law-abiding people of Northern Ireland had to accept, as a result of democracy, that a terrorist was now a Minister in their Government. Republicans have declared they have laid down their arms and now support democracy and the rule of law. Now is the test of the truth of their declarations; if they cannot accept a democratic vote to leave the EU, then they are not democrats.

Democracy is, of course, feared by the EU, hence its lack of respect for, and avoidance of, democratic actions. This is why the EU demands that any agreement must be final and binding and that it cannot be changed by any future British Government. This breath-taking arrogance shows complete disrespect for our democracy and for the sovereignty of Parliament. This, of course, should come as no surprise to us as the EU has also demanded that there is a legally enforceable backstop, which is just another way of trying to tie us down to an agreement which would not be in our interest. The EU does not want a deal, instead it wants to ensure there is no deal; therefore, it is desperately trying to ensure that, when the inevitable no deal occurs, the UK is then locked into a legally enforceable agreement. The UK should ensure it does not agree to a backstop, which will not be in our interest but will only work to ensure the ongoing political and economic punishment of the UK.

Realising this, we should, instead, be promoting trade deals with other growing economies around the world – as the Financial Times recommends – rather than wasting our time on an EU that is deliberately being awkward and obstructive for a political purpose. A clear timescale of when we would leave would provide essential certainty and clarity to UK businesses and allow them to prepare for withdrawal. This is, of course, the Government’s fall-back position in 2019 if no deal is reached; however, all the time between now and then is just a waste of time, effort and taxpayers’ money and we should skip this unnecessary persistent pain and punishment and just leave – as per the referendum result. Do we need an immediate trade deal with the EU? No, neither China nor the US has a trade deal with the EU but both rely on World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, as we should, in the interim.

If you agree with this analysis, then the only logical approach is for the UK not to play the EU’s dangerous game – where they make up and amend the rules to suit them – but rather to pull the rug out from under them and just ignore the Article 50 divorce process – which is so obviously designed to run to the EU’s advantage, as its drafter has acknowledged – and just repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and revert to WTO rules. A trade deal could then be hammered out with the EU in our own time, rather than forced around an arbitrary timeline designed to put pressure on UK negotiators and force UK compromises, which in any case will not be acceptable as the EU requires a no deal in order to be seen to punish the UK and deter other potential leavers. What the Government needs to realise is that no deal is coming and it is time to start the public messaging that not only will the UK survive, but it will also thrive, as no deal at this time is actually our best deal.

Archive

Of the hundreds of Charity organisations in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I am sure that most people will have, at some time, donated money to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI).

To many people, their donation and in numerous instances, their legacy will contribute towards the daily running costs of maintaining lifeboat equipment; the purchase of new lifeboats and, of course, the provision of the safety equipment for the crews themselves.

At this point in this Newsletter, I have to declare a “financial” self interest in the RNLI, as I have been a regular donor for many years; believing that the money would be used for the purposes as outlined above – so, I am sure, have millions of other donors thought likewise.

When you have had time to read this Newsletter you may well wish to consider other Charities which you believe may be more in need of your generous donation.

Perhaps we have all been a little too trusting and naive – thinking that the men and women at the sharp end – those volunteers who, at a moment’s notice, leave their regular occupations or beds during the night to put their lives on the line to rescue those in peril on the sea – were the people we were assisting and what a worthy cause.

The men and women of our lifeboats are to be applauded for their self-sacrifice; unpaid commitment to providing a volunteer service unrivalled in the world. Sadly, to use a military expression rather than nautical one, it appears to be yet another case of “Lions led by donkeys.”

The Financial reality of the RNLI is somewhat different. Since its foundation in 1824, the public, as mentioned, has been more than generous in their repeated support and donations for the Charity.

So much so that, in 2016, the income for the RNLI was £191 million, which is apparently £177 million more than it takes to run its 238 stations (not forgetting that, apart from some full-time mechanics, the lifeboat station personnel are unpaid – unlike the army of administrative personnel, which we will come to later.)

According to a recent report in the Daily Mail newspaper, the Charity’s overall assets (including property and boats) have grown to £712 million, of which £271 million is now held in “investments”.

Some major companies in the private sector would rejoice at this yearly income and a “war chest” of £271 million.

In some ways, the RNLI is similar to a major corporation as, in 2016, it had on its payroll 2,366 employees with 35 senior executives earning more than £60,000pa, and its Chief Executive Paul Boissier on a total package of £162,705.

This cosy, well-off institution, with all its executives and full-time employees, has, however, a major problem – that is, the volunteers who actually risk their lives doing the rescues at sea.

They are currently, it would appear, a thorn in the side of the otherwise financially prosperous charity with its state-of-the-art website, explaining how to leave a legacy, how to donate and resumés of its Executive Team.

In recent years, despite protestations to the contrary by Mr Paul Boissier, or I should refer to him as Vice Admiral; his naval rank when writing a letter to the Daily Mail on 15/05/2018, the relations between the “management” and the volunteer crew members has reached crisis point.

In July 2016, 12 volunteers at the New Brighton Station were sacked by the RNLI as a result of a dispute with the Station’s Management over them refusing to sign a new “code of conduct” agreement.

In 2017, Andy Hibbs, the Coxswain of the St Helier lifeboat in Jersey, was sacked for allegedly launching the lifeboat without authority. He had joined the lifeboat in Jersey aged 21 and, now 45, had spent most of his adult life putting his life in jeopardy to save others – unpaid of course.

After many months, the claim was found to be untrue and Mr Hibbs was reinstated. He was furious that the RNLI had not believed him and that they refused to inform him who made the allegation. He angrily (Edt. understandably) emailed an RNLI manager saying “the whole thing was b****cks” and was sacked for breaking the charity’s “code of conduct.”

As a result, local public protests followed and Mr Hibbs was reinstated but with the RNLI insisting that a full-time employee from HQ had to be stationed in St Helier to oversee him.

After months of friction, the total crew resigned and St Helier was effectively without lifeboat cover. It transpired that the original complaint against Mr Hibbs was made to RNLI Chief Executive Paul Boissier by Phil Buckley, then the harbour master at St Helier, whom it appears was a longstanding acquaintance of Mr Boissier; both having served together on Royal Navy submarines.

Still devoted to serving the public. Mr Hibbs and his lifeboat team have now formed the Jersey Lifeboat Association and will shortly be launching their own boat totally separate from the RNLI.

The sorry saga of mis-management by the RNLI continues unabated.

Earlier this year, as members may have read in the press, the Whitby lifeboat crew were the latest volunteers to be the subject of RNLI “management” when some saucy mugs were found in the lockers at the lifeboat station and 2 crew members were sacked for what was termed “pornographic images” even though it was joke.

The mugs were in a cupboard but the RNLI alleged that “they could have been seen by visiting schoolchildren”. Four other crew members resigned and 11,000 local people have signed a petition for them to be reinstated.

In Scarborough recently; on the same stretch of wild coast line, Tom Clark, the coxswain with 34 Years of life boat service, has been sacked for allegedly breaking health and safety regulations when he went on a sea exercise with unauthorised passengers on board. A petition to reinstate him has gathered 5,000 signatures.

The “Politically Correct Night of the Long Knives” storms on with the Coxswain of the Arbroath lifeboat being sacked for an incident at the last Christmas party which was deemed to be practical joke. Two other crew members left in protest, resulting in Arbroath being without a lifeboat for months.

Next – over to Anglesey, North Wales, where the coxswain resigned together with a fellow crew member.

We move to Cleethorpes, Lincolnshire, where two senior helmsmen were sacked for allegedly taking incorrectly-trained staff on a rescue.

Apparently, last year, there was a restructuring of management implemented by recently resigned Director of Community Lifesaving and Fundraising Leesa Harwood. This new “restructuring” created 42 “area lifesaving managers” responsible to supervise 6 lifeboat stations each. Apparently, in the past, “regional managers” responsible for dozens of stations would visit every six months. Now, volunteers are inspected monthly or even weekly in some instances.

To quote Tom Clark, who was sacked after 34 years’ service: “Too many area managers, including the one who got rid of me, are young graduates who have never been to sea and have no idea of the skill and effort required to be a lifeboat man”. Mr Clark did admit swearing, which was one reason for his dismissal, but stated “Yes I did swear but being at sea is a rufty-tufty sort of place” (Edt. Most people may well be forgiven for swearing in a force 10 gale.)

Some months ago, I wrote, in my personal capacity, to Mr Paul Boissier regarding the fact that the sacking of the Jersey lifeboat Coxswain was utterly ridiculous and pointing out to him that, without volunteers, there wouldn’t be a lifeboat service in this country.

In fairness, he did reply very promptly to my complaint and stated how much the work of the volunteer crew members was appreciated but that they had to abide by health and safety regulations.

One could facetiously argue that Mr Boissier is being complicit in the crews’ breaking any health and safety regulations by them putting to sea to rescue stricken sailors when the sea state is above force 5, as this may endanger their safety when manoeuvring near a stricken vessel.

If you should visit Whitby Lifeboat Station, which is located in the harbour, it has the name “George and Mary Webb” inscribed on the side of the vessel. A crew member informed me that they had bequeathed the cost of purchase of this vessel to the RNLI.

Further down the East Coast of Britain, at Aldeburgh in Suffolk, is located the Aldeburgh lifeboat. In 1993, the boat was named “Freddie Cooper” funded by the legacy of Mrs Winifred May Cooper.

So devoted to serving voluntarily at sea to save perhaps fellow sailors, are generations of the Cable family. In 1954, Patrick Cable, aged 16, went out on service. James Cable was a famous Coxswain of the 19^th century; serving for 30 years from 1888 to 1917.

He was awarded the RNLI Silver Medal three times for bravery. Today, 8^th generation James Cable is the full-time mechanic at Aldeburgh Life Boat Station.

One wonders whether, with its ever growing “fleet” of administrators and managers, the RNLI, will eventually have any volunteers left to man the lifeboats. Perhaps the currently advertised “Safeguarding Officer” post, earning up to £41,926 and responsible for “health, safety and wellbeing”, won’t mind being called from his/her bed at 2am to venture into the North Sea in a Force 9 gale.

Surely, the time has come for this utter nonsense of volunteers being drowned in paperwork should cease and allow them to do what they volunteered for – saving lives; pathetic treatment of some of the nation’s unsung and unpaid heroes to be recognised; and for Mr Paul Boissier to have the dignity to resign and make space for a Chief Executive who has common sense and who will employ like-minded individuals who have the welfare of the crew foremost and “ticking boxes and diversity” last.

A person drowning needs a lifeboat, which this country has a long proud history of providing – but for how long?

Of course, the health and safety of the lifeboat crew is of paramount importance and this has been acknowledged by Mr Boissier both in his personal reply to me and in a letter dated 15/05/2018 which he had published in the Daily Mail.

Nevertheless, once the alarm is sounded, every second is critical and there is no spare time for unnecessary “management” procedural delays.

Perhaps Mr Boissier would have been wiser when implementing radical changes, to invest in professional Change Management and inter-personal skills training for his HQ Implementation Team.

Perhaps, if there had been more patience and forbearance shown, then it could have been proved that “Old dogs can be taught new tricks.”