Politics

Every weekday morning, I attempt to come out of my semi-comatose state buy popping the TV on and listening to BBC Breakfast. Not much really stuns me nowadays - the government and its associated quangos make daft decisions all the time, and I sit there thinking about what I would do if I were running the show.

I was flabbergasted at a recent decision concerning eggs...

The British Egg Industry Council celebrates the fiftieth anniversary of the Lion Mark (showing that hens have been immunised against salmonella) so they wanted to do something special. What I hear you ask? Recycle the old "Go to work on an Egg" adverts.

Oh dear - it all went down the pan pretty quickly - one of the government quangos have gone up in arms over this as the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) has banned them citing that "they fail to promote a varied and balanced diet".

Well - what a load of tosh I say - I urge you to sign the Egg industry's petition to get this fantastic piece of Television history back on our screens!!!

I was listening to the radio yesterday, and there was this huge debate about those little mini-motorbikes and the fact that people have been riding them round the streets and causing a bit of a nuisance. Now, I'm going to be the first to admit that if a bunch of eleven year olds started spinning round on the green outside on these little things, I'd be pretty peeved, but the government's solution of dishing out ASBO's and crushing the bikes grates with me.

The reason these kids (and adults) are getting hold of the bikes is because they are cheap, and quite probably imports. If you want to stop people getting hold of them, you need to put them out of the reach of the ordinary person by making them more expensive - perhaps whack a huge import duty on them, or charge a duty/higher rate of VAT on them?

Now, it's clear that the bikes are popular, and that the government intervening too heavily will be unpopular, so the government's solution is to pass a bill. I'll be honest, people need to make choices, and people have made the choice to enjoy these bikes. Perhaps the government should actually sit down and think "how can we work with these children rather than against them?"

Let's go back a few years, when skateboards were the issue. In the end, kids challenged the government and councils, and had skate-parks constructed. The government didn't crush the skateboards, so maybe the real issue here is that there's not enough provision of suitable places to ride mini-motorbikes? Perhaps this is where government needs to look? Mini-motorbike parks?

I get a bit annoyed sometimes by the approach that our government takes to issues. It always seems to be that when there's a problem, legislation and taking enjoyment away from people is their answer, rather than working with the people concerned and the NIMBY's who object to come to a rational, well thought out solution to the problem.

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned?

I was listening to PM on Radio 4 on the way home today, just as I usually do. It was indeed an interesting show - several of the articles covered got my attention, but rather than pick the one about the Home Secreatry visiting a mosque in Central London, I'll cover Terrorism Victims abroad.

The general gist of the argument is that if a terrorist attack happens in the UK, compensation is typically available from the UK government. I'm sure that there are terms and conditions attaching to my generalisation, but in general, this is true.

The complaint that has sparked the debate is that families of UK victims of terrorist activity abroad aren't entitled to compensation from the UK government, and the families and a Member of Parliament have started to lobby the government stating that this is unfair. Let's look into this in a little more depth...

Firstly, let's identify WHY is the UK government compelled to pay compensation to UK victims of terrorism that happens in the UK. The government is there to protect the general public, and therefore, one would assume have a duty of care to the people living in, and visiting the country. Where an indiscriminate terrorist attack happens in the UK, we can say that the government failed to prevent such an attack, and therefore failed in their duty of care, thus giving a good reason to pay compensation to victims and their families.

BUT, what's the situation if you're sunning yourself on a beach in the Costa-del-Sol, or perhaps skiing across Mont Blanc when an attack happens and you get caught up in it? Yes, the government in the UK should afford you all of the assistance possible, but why should it compensate you? It's not responsible for the policing of these places, it doesn't pay the army, nor any security services, so really it doesn't have much, if any input into the way that terrorism is handled in other countries. On 7/7, a number of people were killed or injured on the tubes, and the bus that were targetted by islamic extremists. Whether the people killed or hurt were British, Estonian, or American, they have a right to claim against the British Government.

So where's my point you ask? If you're in another country, and get caught up in a terrorist situation, you should be subjected to the compensation rules of the country in question, as the British Government has no control over other countries. If the government of the country in question doesn't provide compensation or has complicated rules, that should be a part of the risk that you take by travelling to that country.

I know it's going to be an unpopular point of view, but that what I think.

I was listening to Radio 4's PM programme with Eddie Mair yesterday, and I was amused by a story which was attempting to decipher the new five levels of threat from Terrorism that the Government will be publishing.

The problem seems that the Government has decided to issue the five levels of threat, but no explanation as to what they mean. So if today is a "Severe" day, and tomorrow was a "Critical" day, what should I do differenty? Perhaps I should avoid public transport, or even leaving the house? The problem is that the spokesman that was on the show couldn't actually define the five levels and the public's expected associated behaviour.

Useful or pointless? We'll see.