POLITICS CORNER

[rossylass]

For many years it has bee the case that when an elderly person is admitted to a care home they needed to sell their home to pay for their keep. I don't believe that we need to own property anyway.

In the 1970's there was (I think), the Housing & Finance Act, which resulted in widespread opposition from councils which refused to implement it. Only Clay Cross Council stuck it out until the bitter end and the councillors were made bankrupt. There is a book, "The Clay Cross Story", which is a testament to socialism. I think it was in this book that it was argued that home ownership effectively castrated the working man, who could no longer strike, nor with hold his rent in protest for fear of losing his (or her ) home. I'm getting on my soap box now! My belief is that this system is dead is the water & the rich will mostly get richer & the poor will get poorer. A complete rejig is essential so that we all can live in a fairer, more democratic society.

[Bruff]

If I recall, one of those Clay Cross councillors was David Skinner, the brother of a certain Dennis Skinner.

Richard Broughton

[Stanley]

I'd forgotten Clay Cross. You're right Richard, David was brother to the Blessed Dennis. (And out of the same mould as well!)
I've not commented on the new c are arrangements because they are so complicated I can't make head nor tail of them. The 'hotel' costs aren't included? Sounds like a loophole to me. My first reaction was that this is aimed at the class who can pay anyway. I would like to see more money put into the care of those who are so poor they are automatically funded. But this is probably my political DNA poking through. There are many workers like me who were never on what we called superann, we lived hand to mouth and had no money to spare for private pensions to help with care in old age. We were always given to understand that our low wages were no problem as the State would provide when we got old and needed care. Never written down as a contract but that was the understanding. All that seems to have been forgotten now.
Obama has made a very powerful speech on his progressive agenda. He is asking for debate and votes on actual progressive bills because he can't force them all through. The Republicans should think very carefully of the possible consequences if they oppose everything. Just suppose in four years the US economy hasn't shown signs of strong recovery.... It will raise the question of how much they have hampered it by refusing to act moderately. Remember that in US politics the electoral campaign starts in January of the first year of the new Presidency. It could be the Republicans are on a hiding to nothing, if the economy improves the Democrats can take credit, if it stalls they can blame the Republicans. Interesting times for the Neo-Conservatives. (Same dilemma here of course....)

[Tardis]

Scutiny of the new security bill to take place today after the government wrote in some extra stuff.

I also wonder if Workfare really can be described as slavery. A person with no experience on benefit, is given the opportunity to receive experience whilst still in receipt of that benefit in a business where there may not be a vacancy. I admit it isn't ideal, but then the economy isn't exactly giving full employment.

Shame there really aren't that many jobs around when these people have been reskilled

[Stanley]

Some interesting questions are being asked in the search for the villains in the adulterated meat scandal. Under both New Labour and the Coalition local government funding, laboratory facilities and qualified food inspectors have all been reduced making it easier for the rogues to get away with bad practice. If you remember this was why the farmer who allegedly started the F&M outbreak got away with not boiling swill.
Not too sure about the validity of the raids on the horse slaughterer at Todmorden and the meat cutter at Aberystwyth. All the marks of a knee-jerk reaction . Slaughtering horses is legal as id cutting the carcasses for export to Ireland. Only question I can see is what happened to the trimmings and waste from the cutters in Wales. Not really a smoking gun. Could it be that ministers feel they have to show they are 'taking action'?
The bottom line is that the 'hands-off' inspection regime pursued by the FSA under which the food processors have been allowed to effectively police themselves gave the 'wriggle-room to use cheap fillers and thus raise profit levels. This will be one route by which contamination crept in. Remember that it was Irish state testing that first identified the fact that horsemeat was being used.
There is a wider question behind this. Think of the areas where professions like doctors, lawyers, accountants, police, press and armed forces police and investigate themselves. Then think of the number of times these procedures have been ineffective. Bit too cosy......

[Nolic]

Stanley wrote "Could it be that ministers feel they have to show they are 'taking action'?" Strikes me as this is the main reason for all the fuss about the horse meat issue. It does seem there may be criminal duplicity about but there's no suggestion that the meat is any more contaminated than the other rubbish that goes into processed food. Nolic

[Tardis]

The self regulation simply puts the onus on the supplier to check and the paperwork to provide due dilligence. Without this the company will be prosecuted.

I do not agree about the labs. They did need to be shut because they could not be provided with a regular supply of work and the work is usually all done by the suppliers.

This all had to be done when I did my Advanced Fodd Hygiene back in the day and this paperwork is inspected regularly by the authorities

I still don't understand how Tesco and Findus have escaped raids and seizures of documents. They were caught red handed and under the Law they have to prove that their tests were adequate. They obviously weren't, so maybe they'll just plead guilty in a magistrates court to lower the fine.

[Thomo]

If people were capable of making their own meals, this problem would not exist. My local butcher has seen a marked increase in trade!

[Stanley]

Too right and I shall be down at Stewart and Kath's this morning. Funny that the lady speaking for the testing labs said that there wasn't enough capacity to do all the tests needed before April at the earliest.....
Self-regulation only works if it is totally objective and this is impossible by definition. That's how we got Leveson and look at his recommendations, he has the same opinion. How many times have you heard the phrase 'commercial confidentiality' whenever questions are asked? Food above all needs to have a transparent image.
Later at almost 08:00. Astonishing interview with the spoke-lady for the supermarkets who refused to answer the question 'Why has nobody from the retailers presented themselves for interview?' a question that was asked in Parliament yesterday. She spouted rhetoric and flim-flam and refused to answer. This is not public relations, it is either supreme arrogance or panic. Incidentally it was admitted that there will be delays in tests because of lack of laboratory capacity.
A quotation from the Bible comes to mind: "Beware, thy sins shall find thee out" (King James version of course!)

[Stanley]

I wrote a letter to BET a fortnight ago and when it wasn't published last week I began to wonder why. I was being paranoid. They pu8blished it this week.

BET LETTER 01/02/13

My thanks to Mike Warner for his letter last week for raising his concerns about the rise in child poverty which is expected to follow the coming benefit cuts including of course the changes to Council Tax Benefit. Like him I am exasperated by Mr Stephenson's 'good news' column which at times is so divorced from reality as to beggar belief. I also remember the source of the funding from the Noble Lord Ashcroft and the way it was transferred to ensure legality.
I also take note of the current proceedings in the Public Accounts Committee which is looking at how the major accountancy firms make a third of their global profits each year from cunning advice to companies on how to minimise their tax liabilities. I also note how active these same firms are in lobbying on tax matters, political funding and supplying free 'advisers' to politicians and ministers. This was ever the case of course, both Labour and Conservative governments have taken full advantage of these opportunities. These same companies are major beneficiaries from government contracts and one could be forgiven for suspecting that all these matters are inter-connected. If this is indeed the case it raises the question of who exactly is controlling the formulation of government economic policy. Far too large a subject for this letter but it would appear that the PAC shares my misgivings.
Despite all the reassuring words we get from Mr Stephenson's column each week the disposable income of the lower 85% percentile of the electorate is falling. The economy shows no sign of growth, the deficit is rising and the rise in the numbers of people relying on food banks is alarming. Economists are beginning to investigate the strange statistic whereby the number of unemployed falls while the economy is stagnant. They suspect this means that those in work are not as productive and one cause of this could be that the average wage is falling. In other words, the jobs that are being created are not paying a living wage as companies cut back on investment and seek the cheapest workers. The consequence is a meaningless statistic but one that is quoted time and time again to 'prove' that things are going well.
One last comment, remember that the full effects of the Public Service cuts has not been felt yet and I am sad to say I see no prospect of real, as opposed to illusory, improvement. On June 12th 2009 in this paper Mr Stephenson wrote: “If elected, I will act with honesty, integrity, openness and candour at all times.” Could we please see evidence of this in the form of some reality in his weekly column?

Stanley Challenger Graham
East Hill Street
Barnoldswick

[Bruff]

I think 'self-regulation' has a specific meaning. I think it means at a basic level, those in control of risks are charged with managing those risks as they are best placed to do so on a day-to-day basis. It also means they are assumed to be complying with this by a regulator unless and until matters arise suggesting otherwise. Folk are left to get on with it. The alternative is premissive regulation, where those in control of risks have to justify for want of a better word, their safety management systems to an appropriate authority. These regimes exist - the nuclear industry for example where plants are licensed to operate - but they are reserved generally for the most hazardous environments/activities and/or where public concern may contribute to demands for a tighter regulatory framework.

Unless the supermarkets have somehow colluded with suppliers to pass horsemeat off as beef, I struggle to see what enforcement action can be brought against them, certainly in criminal law. I suppose there may be evidence that their arrangements with respect to supplier standards may be lacking, but I don't know whether any good practice standards exist. It would seem unreasonable to me to expect every single shipment to be checked for the presence of equine DNA. As I say above, simple periodic checking but an assumption of compliance by those who control the risk.

Either way, this is all the dreaded 'red-tape' is it not, that scourge of enterprise and barrier to growth? And the FSA is one of these blessed Quangos which I thought were due to go up in smoke on Mr Maude's bonfire some time ago.

Richard Broughton

[rossylass]

Sounds like people are already boycotting processed food. If so this will hit the whole chain of supply where it hurts - in the pocket & Tesco etc will be forced to convince shoppers that their processed food isn't contaminated. I wonder if Macdonalds sales have dropped, or the sale of sausages....what would tests reveal there? I know I'm repeating what has already been said, but the only sure way is to buy food which is clearly identifiable & stay away from the processed stuff in any shape or form. I won't hold my breath as regards people living in poverty; I spent years trying to persuade poor families to buy cheap cuts of meat rather than processed food. I must admit though, that I am the first to grab a dinky pie & a sausage roll at a buffet!

Just a thought....I'll bet that the contaminated stuff tasted just as "delicious". Another thought...who tests eggs for salmonella now???

[Stanley]

These food scares crop up regularly. Remember the recycling of condemned poultry meat a few years ago? I agree about the difficulties Richard and this leads me to think that instead of concentrating on sanctions at the end of the chain using the courts we need to look at the sources and also to look for other problems besides horse meat (which I doubt is dangerous). Things like frozen chicken portions from Thailand, Recovered trimmings used as fillers and extenders. All these scams have one thing in common, reducing raw material costs and increasing profit. The recent initiative to re-introduce cooking as a subject in schools is quite possibly the best long-term route to improvement. Remember the boot polish dye in spices?
More than a hint of what is almost collusion between FSA and food industry, the same criticism was levelled at the old Min of Ag and the new quango was supposed to cure this. Compare this use of power by the largest industry in the UK with the similar power exercised by the big accountancy firms in economic policy and tax evasion.

[Tardis]

Understand that Tesco may be about to be charged for their compliance failure, I heard about some legal arguments

The regulations have actually worked. The companies have failed to abide by those regulations, they have been caught & because they broke the Law, it would look like they will be prosecuted.

On another bit, it also looks like the people at the Staffs hospital, the report that was hushed up by the horsemeat scandal are going to be prosecuted under H&S legislation. Another 8 hospitals also under investigation

[Tardis]

Since the horsemeat has now been traced to a French supplier and not the Romanian's initially implicated. It does actually sound like individual greed, and no matter what the regulations had been, the Law is only there to catch transgressors.

Surprisingly, I actually think that the regulations have worked, but what I would like to see is prosecutions which will re-inforce compliance within the industry. I really do hope that Tesco sales suffer, because I think their 'Every Little Helps' slogan now has a totally different meaning

[Nolic]

The regulations have failed. Regulations are supposedly there to protect the public and the current arrangements have singularly failed. Effective regulation in any field is preventative and prosecution merely highlights the shortcomings. Nolic

[Stanley]

Not just the regulations Comrade but the testing regime as well. Everyone seems to be forgetting that it was the Irish State testing service that first identified the adulteration. One question that needs asking is where was our Public Analyst? Even sophisticated DNA based testing isn't enough. It wouldn't identify crap recycled beef trimmings and as I have been saying for twenty years, the basic problem is the recycling of what was food waste back into the food chain. One thing I suggested was that all processors and large retail chains should be able to prove what happened to their waste, I haven't seen any mention of this during the present kerfuffle.
I'm not impressed by politicians saying it's appalling or knee-jerk prosecutions, keep an eye on these because previous experience shows that they often peter out when it is discovered there was no case to answer. Our Leaders want to be seen to be 'doing something'. Question is, will they look at all food ingredients and assess whether they should be allowed to enter the food chain? I doubt it because there is serious money lobbying to damp down speculation. This leads you to ask who is actually running the quality control on the food chain?

[Tardis]

The regulations have failed. Regulations are supposedly there to protect the public and the current arrangements have singularly failed. Effective regulation in any field is preventative and prosecution merely highlights the shortcomings. Nolic

Only if you actually believe that the companies involved, like Tesco did it deliberately.

Regulations will never ever pick up someone who sets out to break the Law, until they actually do. Which they have

Plus the regulations have meant that there is a full and clear travel path all the way up along the chain which has identified the possible offender.

If Cryptosporidia appeared in your water supply, you wouldn't know about it until a few days later as it takes time to culture the samples. Then you'll get a "boil your water" warning. That's what regulations do.

Without the regulations, what would you investigate? In fact, where would you start? Plus all those regulation costs have been bourne by the companies, and ultimately the consumer who buys the products, not collected in tax.

Simple fact remains, all food is on trust if you haven't grown it yourself.

[Tardis]

Very happy to hear that there could be some serious NHS prosecutions in the pipeline, and a whole re-evaluation of the culture within the service.

It is of no comfort to the relatives of the people who have suffered and possibly died, but at least the state seems to be finally aware that if public taxation funds the service then it should be delivered in a humane manner and the providers not exempt from prosecution.

I am somewhat alarmed by the new commissioning though, as it would appear that choice may now be restricted to East Lancashire, as Burnley, Pendle & Hyndburn NHS join together. I'd rather stay with Airedale for my care if it is supposed to be a National service

[Nolic]

Simple fact remains, all food is on trust if you haven't grown it yourself.

and part of the answer is that companies who process food cannot be trusted. Nolic

[Tardis]

Simple fact remains, all food is on trust if you haven't grown it yourself.

and part of the answer is that companies who process food cannot be trusted. Nolic

I wonder if you ever buy any food?

[Tardis]

Best quote I could find:

due diligence refers to precautions that are supposed to be taken by a person or company in some context. For example, did the company thoroughly check their product beforehand to ensure it was non-toxic or was not a strangulation hazard? If they do not, and bad results come of their negligence,they can be held criminally liable.

If you want to learn more the Hospice shop has "Hygiene for Management" which is all about food production and the regulations.

[Stanley]

Comrade, the only modification I would make to your statement that food processors can't be trusted is to add that the main area of trust they fail in is that we can never be sure they will put quality before profit. All the evidence with both processors and supermarkets is that profit rules. Consider the way suppliers are paid less than the cost of production and forced to accept rules on cosmetic appearance. Consider use of trans-fats to extend shelf life.
Some very pertinent questions are emerging about the quality of 'advice' that is given about nutrition. The canards about ingested cholesterol and saturated fats are still being used even in government guidelines when research has proved that they are totally wrong. Indeed, there is a good correlation between the advent of vegetable oils to replace saturated fat and the growth of the obesity problem. High time we had a proper body investigating nutrition and promoting good practice. Again, much of the 'research' promoting mistaken views is funded by the food industry. If you want a current example look at the defence being put up by the soft drinks industry against and sanctions like taxing their products.

[Tardis]

The new politics, appears to be to blame the OBR for the numbers coming out

[Tardis]

Yes, by your reckoning profit is bad, but that does pay taxes occasionally

The alternative does not

It is consumer choice to buy the product