Greetings of the Season, my dear reader

I was going to wax lyrical about some topic that's hogging all the news agendas but then I had a re-think.
Basically, it's too close to Christmas for me to be too Bah-Humbug.
Mind you, our family will be glad to see the back of 2015. Those who know us well will understand the reasons for this comment.
So, whatever your beliefs, have a fantastic time with your family and/or friends.
For you never know when it will be the last Christmas with one of them.
So, have a good one and rest assured - there wil be plenty for me to moan about next year.
You see, I don't get out much.

Trump, the Chumpion of small-mindedness

You will have heard of the appointment by ISIS of its latest recruitment officer. Donald Chump*, front-runner for the Republican nomination for next year’s American presidential election and owner of the weirdest hairdo in the west, has filled the vacancy. Now don’t get me totally wrong, as I admit to being someone with a challenging hairstyle of my own, but what is this man on? Wanting to stop all Muslims from entering the US of A might be just some political gesturing but it simply goes to show that the man needs help. And quickly. I know he is out to appeal to a particular segment of the American population, namely the lowest common denominator – the white-collar workers. You now the sort – they feel that foreigners are taking all the jobs; they believe in the right to bear arms down at the local supermarket; some of them wear pointy white hats and, perhaps most worryingly of all, they believe Donald Chump would make a good President. But then there were some Germans who believed a Mr A. Hitler would make a good chancellor and some Iraqis that Mr S. Hussain would be a good leader. Let’s all hope that the good people of America see sense next November. This man has to be consigned to the history books. At the back. Near the index.

*Chump - someone who does not understand the basics of life on earth; confused easily; a person who is easy to trick.

I’m an egomaniac – get me out of here 

I have a confession to make. I watch I’m A Celebrity, get me out of here – and I enjoy it. Right, now that’s off my chest I can turn my bullying, sorry, attention, to Lady C.

Even if you haven’t seen one second of this year’s jungle programme you must have heard of HER.

She’s the Germanic-sounding, shameless, rude and foul-mouthed pensioner who feels the whole world, and Tony Hadley, is against her.

Georgie, as she now likes to be known, says she was bullied right through childhood and suffered so much that she swore “no one would ever bully me again”.

She says entrepreneur Duncan Bannatyne, Spandau Ballet frontman Tony Hadley and TV presenter Yvette Fielding started to bully her and it gradually got “worse and worse”.

Now I don’t know much about her background, just what she’s told the Mail on Sunday, but is it just me or are you, my reader, also sick and tired of yet another person who excuses inexcusable behaviour by blaming it all on their upbringing?

I realise that programmes such as Celebrity are edited heavily to make the most impact in the ratings war but I for one got the impression that we may have a case of pot and kettle and that the three rabbits caught in her headlights acted in a very restrained manner.

She believes that viewers will not have seen the true extent of the plotting against her. But then again, they might not have seen the full extent of her bad-mouthing of and downright rudeness to some of her campmates.

It was interesting that it was only the oldies who grated on her and reacted – not the youngsters. But then maybe that was because the youngsters in camp just decided to keep their heads down. After all, they’d probably read worse on their Twotter account or Friendbook page.

Mind you, Georgie does seem to have a heart. She told the MoS: “I don't care who people are and where they come from. In fact, years ago, I proposed my mechanic for the Royal Enclosure in Ascot."

What a lady.

The innocence of youth - and of an older gent

I’m still not really sure what came over me the other day. There I was, driving along the narrow country roads near our home, squinting through the windscreen as the rain came lashing down.

And then I saw him – a young guy trudging, head down, against the wind and precipitation. Now I’m no expert but it did seem he was not brilliantly clothed up for the inclement weather. Perhaps he’d seen a different weather forecast then me. You know, on one of those satellite thingy channels.

Only one thought came into my head – offer the poor, soaking wet chap a lift. After all, judging by the place we both found ourselves in, he must have been walking for quite a while.

So I slowed down, edged up beside him and wound down the passenger window. “Are you alright there?” I enquired. “Want a lift to the village shop?" Not sure why I said the shop as I had no idea where he was heading but it seemed better than saying Woodbridge, some 35 miles away where I was heading, or the local hospital.

“Naw, I’m alright” he said, refusing to make face-to-face contact with me. Then the penny dropped. Here was a 61-year old man with long grey hair and dressed all in black, as is my want, asking a young lad if he wanted a lift in my car. I might just as well have offered him a sweetie.

I muttered OK and then raced off, mumbling things like “silly sod” and “idiot”. That’s two descriptions of me, by the way. Because I KNOW you never offer lifts to strangers nowadays.

We are not in the heady days of the 70s anymore, when teenagers like me hitched lifts around the county in order to save money to buy my next pack of 10 Players No.6. My older reader will remember them.

They were the ones with the coupons inside – smoke enough of the brand and you could eventually get a snazzy pair of multi-coloured swimming shorts. I’ve still got them. Can’t get into them, mind.

And those were also the days when drivers, predominantly upstanding citizens, felt duty bound to take any long-haired, flares-wearing, clog-clad young person to the nearest town/ bus stop/ station.

Then Stranger Danger came along and we were told that everyone who stops to give a hitchhiker a lift is a paedo sex maniac. Oh the innocence of youth. And the innocence of an old git. I won’t be stopping for any strangers again.

I just hope the rain was heavy enough to stop him clocking my car registration.

Spending cutbacks always hit those in need

As you know, I don’t get out much but once a week I do venture into our brave new world to meet up with my friend Sidney.

Sidney, which is not his real name, suffers from a mental health issue and I have been “linked” with him for almost a year now through a befriending charity.

He lives independently and although he receives good support from members of his immediate family, he does spend most of the time on his own.

Although it may not seem a big deal, our weekly get-together for a chat and a coffee (and sometimes a slice of cake – but don’t tell SWMBO) seems to brighten his day. Maybe I’m the only other person in the world who likes rock music as much as he does.

Just recently, though, Sidney has been bemoaning the fact that he does not see his community mental health worker as often as he used to.

Sebastian (again, not his real name) would meet up with Sidney at least once a week, to check he’s OK, chat through any issues, make sure he was taking the correct medication and generally just having a bit of one-to-one with someone who is lonely and needs support.

So, why has Sebastian cut back, or been forced to cutback, on his face-to-faces with Sidney?

Maybe the team he is a member of is short-staffed and the remaining mental health workers are stretched, meaning they cannot spend so much time with individuals?

Perhaps the much publicised spending cuts in mental health services could have led to leavers not being replaced.  A new report from the influential King's Fund think tank has warned that cash-strapped mental health services may be putting patients at risk due to “swingeing cuts”.

Or is the team taking advantage of a volunteer who is proactive and who they know will contact them if concerned about anything? Are they using volunteers to do the work of professional mental health workers?

We’ve really got to start getting our priorities right. The NHS, councils etc. need to start prioritising a bit better.

And we all need to bite the bullet and realise that if we want those less fortunate than us to have some sort of decent life we must start paying a bit more in taxes, be it income, council or other.

After all, people like Sidney didn’t ask to be born different.

Aren’t school holidays for holidays?

Is it just me or are you, my reader, also slightly incensed that so many schoolchildren are stranded in Sharm el-Sheik?

Obviously I am concerned about their safety but I’d like to pose a question – what were they doing on holiday when schools had already re-started after the half-term break?

Our newspapers and TV news broadcasts were red hot in the middle of last week with reports that flights back to the UK were suspended following the downing of a Russian holiday jet over the Sinai Peninsula.

Since then we have seen and read about many, many Brits lambasting just about everyone from the UK Ambassador to Egypt to the travel companies for the situation while clutching assorted school-age children.

But shouldn’t they have flown back over the weekend of October 31/ November 1 so that little Chardonnay or Quentin could return to school? A simple question, asked without malice but with a definite slice of frustration.

The cost of breaks in school holiday time has been a bugbear for years and parents have always been quick to take children out of school for a cheaper holiday. Even a fine of, say £100, imposed by the school is small potatoes compared with the savings to be made on the cost of the holiday.

Or, as some would put it, the educational visit. Just how much of an education they get from a purpose-built resort on the beach is not clear.

Mind you, those parents who are not too bothered about children missing school and who are more concerned about saving a few bob might fancy an all-inclusive week, departing this weekend, for £373 – a 49% discount says Thomas Cook.

But anyone tempted by such last-minute deals could find themselves touching down at an airport that thousands of British passengers are trying to leave.

SWMBO is a teacher so we have had almost 40 years of paying top dollar for our holidays. We’ve never complained – we’ve just got on with it, knowing that that’s the way the cookie crumbles when you chose a career in education.

I wonder how parents would react if Chardonnay or Quentin came home from school on the first day of the new term/ half-term and said they’d had a lovely day playing and reading unsupervised as their teacher was still sunning herself/ himself on a Mediterranean beach?

Big Brother really will be watching you

So, internet firms will have to store details of every website visited by UK citizens in the past 12 months under planned new surveillance laws.

Apparently such data would consist of a basic domain address and not a full browsing history of pages within that site or search terms entered.

For example, police could see that someone visited mikealmond.blogspot.co.uk

- but not the individual pages of brilliant prose that they viewed.

Comfortingly, the police and security services will have to get permission to access the content - and councils will be banned from trawling the records.

Home Secretary Theresa May insists the powers are needed to fight terrorism and promises tough safeguards. The government recently dropped plans to give the authorities full access to everyone's internet browsing history amid fears it would not get through Parliament.

It is also set to give judges the power to block spying operations authorised by the home secretary. At the moment the home secretary and other senior ministers sign warrants allowing the security services to hack the computers of suspected terrorists and criminals - more than 2,700 were signed last year.

Under the new system, it is thought that a panel of 10 or more judges will have to review the warrants and have the power to overrule ministers.

I’m in two minds about all this. On the one hand I hate the infringement of my liberties that this will usher in. Why should the Government have the right to see which websites I have visited? It’s none of their business.

Then, on the other hand, I want our country to be as safe and secure as possible and there can be no doubt that serious plots have been halted in their tracks thanks to the country’s official snoopers.

My biggest concern is the Government. By that I mean the following – this legislation may come into force when we have a fairly stable and sensible party in power but imagine the scenario if we had some fundamentalist, wacky people running the country. Where would the surveillance stop?

Finally, I have to ask what we, the people, thought would happen when the wonders of the worldwide web became available to us all. It was always clear that the internet would be used as much for bad as for good.

So I guess we have to accept that some “bad” is needed to keep us good.

Time for the circus to move on
May 2007. It should have been a routine month for the Algarve Resident, a weekly English-language newspaper.
I’d retired in the autumn of 2006 from my publisher role with a regional newspaper company in the UK (yep, it is really nine years since I found the escape tunnel) and started work from my home office as Publishing Director for southern Portugal publication into which SWMBO and I had invested in 2003.
But it turned out to be anything but a routine month. Now you may not have heard about this before but a little girl called Madeleine McCann disappeared one evening from a holiday apartment in the Algarve while her parents were out for dinner with friends.

As soon as I heard the breaking news on breakfast TV I called the office in Portugal and we instigated an immediate plan – which in a nutshell was to report only the facts, never to give credence to speculation and to play everything to do with the case with a straight bat.
I immediately flew down to the office and we spent a couple of days camped out in Praia de Luz. Oh my, what a circus. Little did any of us know that the main act was to continue for the next nine years.

The circus in action at Praia de Luz in May 2007.

I mention this now as the number of UK police officers investigating the disappearance of Madeleine has been cut from 29 to four says the Met, which has spent more than £10million on trying to find the missing girl.

Madeleine's parents said they "fully understand" the decision and remained "hopeful" their daughter would be found.

Officers have investigated more than 60 persons of interest, the Met said, adding that a total of 650 sex offenders had also been considered as well as reports of 8,685 potential sightings of Madeleine around the world.
Having reviewed all of the documents, "7,154 actions were raised and 560 lines of inquiry identified", the Met said. It said more than 30 requests had been made to "countries across the world asking for work to be undertaken on behalf of the Met".
I have deep sympathy for Gerry and Kate McCann. It’s just not in human nature to give up on one’s child.
But after a nine-year, £10million cabaret featuring soothsayers, clairvoyants, vicious online trolls, massive libel pay outs, endless speculation, alleged police incompetence and more speculation than I can throw a stick at have we not reached the stage where enough is enough?
It’s very definitely time to move on.

Fake reviews and the Wild West of the web

Amazon has finally decided to act in recognition of the fact that its site is riddled with fake reviews.

The company announced on Friday that it is taking legal action against more than 1,000 people it claims provide false favourable reviews on its website.

The online retail giant said in the lawsuit that its brand reputation is being tarnished by "false, misleading and inauthentic" reviews.

Amazon claims the 1,114 defendants offer their false review service for as little as five dollars (£3.25), with most promising 5-star reviews for a seller's products.

Some people may be surprised at this but they shouldn’t be, as businesses that operate in the Wild West that is the web cannot possibly police the zillions of items they are responsible for.

Told you that you can't believe everything you see.

The internet, generally a wonderful aid, is also a technological cesspit, where anyone can say virtually anything. That’s the price we all paid when we signed up to worldwide web all those years ago, screechy modems and all.

There’s very little checking going on. But then again, how do you research whether the sender of a review from an email address like pony456@anymail.com is genuine? In my days as a journo, NOTHING went into print without being thoroughly checked – and then checked again. I’m sad to say that my profession is now more interested in clickbait on its websites and filling those print pages that still remain as quickly and cheaply as possible. Monitor monkeys seem to have replaced trained reporters. 

And what about all those reviews on travel sites like Trip Advisor? How many of them are genuine?

But at the end of the day, does it really matter? Only a fool would believe all the gushing comments. A realist, like wot I am, reads a selection, normally avoiding the five stars (who can EVER say this hotel or that resort was absolutely perfect?) and the one stars (some people will gripe about anything in the hope that a freebie stay will come their way). Hopefully, with fingers crossed and a fair wind, one can build up a reasonably accurate picture.

After all, ever since Britain became a nation of shopkeepers, the mantra has not changed – let the buyer beware.

Getting caught can have painful consequences

In case you have been in isolation for the last couple of days, Karl Andree, 74 and originally from south London, faces a public flogging in Saudi Arabia.

He was arrested in August last year when police found bottles of homemade wine in his car and jailed for 12 months as having any alcohol, even homebrew, is illegal in the highly conservative nation.

His family has now urged the Government to intervene amid fears the punishment of 350 lashes would kill him.

Now David Cameron has cancelled a multi-million pound prisons contract and written to the Saudi Government to protest about plans to flog the pensioner.

I’m no expert in Middle Eastern law or customs but you’d have to be an introverted, non-reading loner not to know what the Saudi authorities are like.

Let me say it clearly – Mr Andree knew exactly what he was doing and knew what the risks were. After all, he has lived in the Middle East for 25 years.

In another lifetime we lived in a more liberal (just) Middle Eastern state – the UAE.

Westerners who held managerial positions, like wot I did, received an alcohol licence which gave you a monthly allowance.

You couldn’t get your booze at the local supermarket – it was sold by, if I remember correctly, two companies, African and Eastern and Gray Mackenzie.

I am sure my reader will put me straight if I am wrong.

The steel-shuttered shops were discreetly located, with just the company name across the door. No window shopping, no window display, no posters to draw you in - no nothing in fact.

If you didn’t have a licence, you weren’t allowed in. Simples. That licence gave you permission to transport your alcohol from the shop to your home, so technically you were not allowed to take a bottle of wine to a friend’s house or a few cans of the amber nectar to the beach.

But people did it anyway. Because we, yes, I was one of them, knew the possible consequences. No lashes in Dubai but you could certainly get a jail term or be deported.

Saudi has never been as open-minded as some of its Gulf neighbours but every Brit who has gone to work there in the last 30 or 40 years KNOWS the rules about alcohol.

And most will have flaunted them. But there is no doubt that his prison sentence is more than enough punishment – and there is also no doubt that the Saudi authorities will eventually back down over the lashes.

After all, their barbarism is designed to keep the masses under check. Very 14^th century, I know, but the country has always been like that. As Mr Andree knows.

* I''ll leave you with the funniest photo to the week:

Football fan, hooligan; rugby fan, gentleman

I got a 24-hour pass from SWMBO last week and had a very enjoyable boys’ away day with both my BIL’s and good friend RC.

We met up at our cheap and cheerful hotel in Milton Keynes late afternoon and after much debate over a beer decided that the fare on offer in the hotel (“sorry, we only do sandwiches and pizza before 6pm”) was not up to our standards.

So, we set off for the route march to Stadium MK, with our tickets for the France v Canada RWC 2015 match safely deposited in my bum bag (why do they call it a bum bag when the item in question is carried at the front?)

And I mean route march. Not that the others felt it was more than a comfortable stroll, passing the time with idle chit-chat as yours truly lagged behind, a huffing and a puffing.

Some days later, well, 30 minutes or so later, we arrived outside the stadium. Ah – plenty of gourmet food on offer to suit our tastes. We all agreed - you can’t beat a good burger with onions and a paper plate of chips. Plus, of course, plenty of ketchup.

It was as we were standing by the burger emporium that I first noticed something odd. There were thousands of people milling around. Vocal French fans, boisterous Canadian supporters, excited neutrals and RWC volunteers handing out French and Canadian flags – but not a single policeman.

I thought then that I’d play Spot the Cop as we walked around the outside of the stadium to get to our entrance on the other side of the ground. I failed miserably.

Now I am sure they were there, in the background, monitoring the CCTV but how refreshing not to see lines of police clad in reflective gear.

Yet it’s so different when attending a football match. For instance, the minute you walk out of the tube station in north London, enroute to The Emirates, you cannot help but notice the police. They are everywhere, and in large numbers.

It is so refreshing to see rival supporters having a chat and even sitting together in the stadium, without a violent intention.

That would never happen at a football ground. I remember some moons ago watching a Charity Shield game at Wembley between by beloved Arsenal and Man. Utd.

I was with some friends, all MU supporters, in the MU end of the ground. Arsenal scored. I cheered internally. Act cool, Trigger.

A fellow Gooner a few rows down, however, leapt to his feet in celebration – and promptly got jumped on by three or four blokes.

Could latest state plans go up in smoke?

No smoking on the beach, no smoking in your car. What next – no smoking in your own house?

Yes, I am a smoker – a professional who is trying to wind down his use of the weed.

From the heady, and wheezy, days of packing away 50 to 60 cigs a day I am now down to less than 10.

Mind you, the nicotine gum, nicotine lozenges and e-cig are just as addictive but probably (slightly) better for me.

We are now near the end of Brighton and Hove City Council’s 12-week public consultation to gauge people's views on banning smoking on the beach. I await the conclusions with bated breath. But I think I can second-guess the end result from this trendy council.

Meanwhile, smoking in the car, if there are also children present, is banned from today in England and Wales and punishable by a £50 on the spot fine.

The law applies even if windows or the sunroof is open, but not in a convertible with the roof down.

I have to say it’s a pretty sound idea, for obvious health benefits. Smokers should easily be able to do a short journey without lighting up and could even pull over (we are always reminded to take a break when driving long distances) for a drag.

But the police have said they do not have the manpower to enforce it.

So, it’ll be like the ban on using mobile phones while driving – it’s against the law but most people won’t be worried.

After all, a law is only as good as the way it is upheld.

That just leaves the major question – when will our beloved government start looking at banning smoking in homes where children are present? It’ll undoubtedly happen – but will be a complete waste of time because it will not, and cannot, be enforced.

Oh my, how weddings have evolved 

You become aware of Father Time knocking at the door when you start going to weddings not of your friends but of their children. It is amazing, but not unique, to attend the nuptials of someone when just a few months ago (well, 30 years ago, actually) you were cradling the new-born in your arms.

We were honoured, and I choose my words deliberately, to have been invited at the weekend to the wedding of Sarah and Jason (names have not been changed to protect their identities).

It was a wonderful affair – oodles of lovely people, all dressed in their finery, coming together to witness the beginnings of another family.

The hotel was good, the church magical, the wedding breakfast satisfying and the father-of-the-bride’s speech surprisingly good.

But several things happened that show just how much times have changed.

Firstly, the John Lewis wedding gift list. I have to admit I’m a bit of a conscientious objector to these things. If I want to buy the happy couple a toaster, I should be allowed to – from where I want and in what colour I want.

But that free spirit approach is of course why people like SWMBO and I, manacled almost 40 years ago, got two toasters, three fondue sets and four sets of kitchen utensils. So we got them something off “The List”.

Secondly, the speeches. In my day, a few words from the father of the bride, a few mumbled mutterings from the groom and then some witty riposte from the best man and hey presto, the serious drinking could start.

Nowadays it’s like being at a comedy club. The best man on Saturday strutted around amongst the tables, microphone in hand, using crib notes from his smart phone to entertain, inform and amuse. No nervous stammering from behind the top table – just an act, and a good, clearly well-rehearsed one at that.

Thirdly, the length of the whole event. Back in the Dark Ages, it took around five hours from the beginning of the church service to the end of the reception. So, noon kick-off meant an early 5pm bath.

On Saturday, kick-off was at noon but with even more extra time looming, us Oldies toddled off at 11.30pm and left the youngsters partying.

Where do they get their stamina from? And how can they consume so much alcohol without embarrassing themselves or their loved ones?

Answers on a postcard, please.

What’s going on in the voluntary sector?

Is there something amiss in the voluntary sector?

I ask because of the attitude of some involved in this increasingly important part of our society. And I don’t mean other volunteers or the voluntees (ED: is that a correct word?)

I mean the people who run some charities and voluntary organisations.

A while back I called a local “umbrella” volunteer group to express my interest in helping in any (well, almost any) way. After all, a man cannot survive on golf and Angry Birds alone.

I was duly asked to pop into the office for an interview and that seemed to go well – I explained what I was interested in, they explained what they needed, we discussed my skills and all seemed a perfect fit. With plenty of positive noises from my interviewer, I felt useful.

Except I never heard from them again. To my knowledge, I have no criminal record (subsequent Disclosure and Barring Service Enhanced checks bore this out) so it couldn’t have been any criminal tendencies.

And I wasn’t reeking of booze and Old Shag, for a change, so presumably it wasn’t that either.

I concluded that they did not know where to fit me under their umbrella and, while slightly peeved, decided not to let it get to me. After all, SWMBO assured me I had plenty to offer other people and told me not to worry. Not that she’s at all biased.

So I didn’t. And despite the set-back, I persevered. Next stop was the local branch of a national charity. Same basic procedure – pop in for an interview, get on well, sort out their computer problems while there, hear loads of positive comments etc. go home and wait for the phone to ring.

Apart from one call asking if I would stand outside a supermarket on a Saturday morning to shake a tin, I never had contact again.

Now I know there are many marvellous charities and volunteer groups out there but my overall view has been soured somewhat.

I could have accepted a straightforward call to say I was not needed or not suitable but were they just overly worried that I would sue them? Or upset me? Me, upset?

Or, as I think is more likely, were they just run by salaried people with their own interests foremost in their minds?

I should add that I now volunteer successfully (?) for one local charity, one national organisation and have even started editing my local parish magazine.

So, some of the more disappointing experiences I have encountered can’t be all down to me.

Discuss.

Other reader’s views on the refugee crisis

As promised a couple of days ago, here’s the response from AD of west Suffolk to my post about refugees.

AD recently celebrated his 90^th birthday. I’m sure he won’t mind me saying you can teach an old dog new tricks – AD shops online, emails family and friends and checks out where people live on Google Streetview.And he knows how to read blogs.

I have now read your epistle for last Saturday. While I sympathise with the plight of these refugees, this country, compared with say Germany, is already overcrowded.
Also, we cannot produce enough food for ourselves - a fact proved in World War
2 when there was severe rationing. I think the U.N. ought to do more. Aren't they supposed to maintain peace in the world? I will now vacate my soapbox!
Thanks, AD.

      *************************************************************************************

Now for something completely different. I like living in the country. Long walks across fields of swaying crops; cycling adventures down narrow lanes.

Those are two of the things I might try one day but at present I’ll stick to the car.OK, I know you are waiting for it so here’s the gripe.

Why do farm vehicles have to chug along narrow lanes and roads during rush hour, holding up us mere mortals as we try to go about our business?I know they have an important job to do but does it always have to be between 7.30am and 9am and 5pm and 6.30pm, when many people are trying to get to and return from work?Coming home from seeing Mil yesterday I was one of many vehicles trapped behind a huge tractor pulling a trailer laden with a – combine harvester. We ground to a halt on every bend as said tractor and trailer, which covered three-quarters of the width of the road, had to avoid oncoming traffic.Yet during that six mile section of my journey, which took 35 minutes rather than the usual 10, there were at least three opportunities for it to pull over and let the queue behind it pass.Before you ask, there were no alternative routes along that stretch of road. Trust me, I’d have taken one.Finally, please don’t get me going about my journey earlier in the day to see Mil – let’s just say sat-navs and Bulgarian HGV drivers are not a match made in heaven.

The route through picturesque Suffolk villages may look shorter, and certainly will have better scenery, but surely there must be some reason why the UK has spent so much on building four-lane A roads?

Going for a lie-down now.

Reader offers his views on the refugee crisis

My last post (so to speak) elicited a flood of responses – well, two. I feel I must share them with you as they are thought provoking and epitomise the difficulty of the current refugee issue. Here is the first from my reader RN of east Suffolk – full name supplied but withheld to protect the innocent.

Such an emotive subject and my first reaction is that we should be offering a helping hand to these desperate people but how best to achieve this is clearly the dilemma.
It's true the west has contributed to current problems but the issues run much deeper than that and we have to deal with things as they are today.
I don't think just letting hundreds of thousands of people just walk into and across Europe and be given citizenship by one or more countries is the correct way. It has an impact of the rest of Europe given that once citizenship is gained I believe they are then free to relocate to any European country.
I don't think that Germany's approach has been very wise, but on the other hand if they have the jobs, housing etc. to cope with these refugees over the next decade or so without internal disruption or help from other European countries then their decision is more understandable.
Insofar as the UK is concerned, we need to be reasonably sure that any refugees we allow to settle can be looked after, provided with accommodation, jobs, health, education etc. and this is where the head has to rule the heart otherwise we could be heading for problems.
It is a fact that we are experiencing quite large numbers migrating, quite legitimately, from other countries in Europe and only a few weeks ago, people were voicing their concerns and were urging the government to seriously reduce immigration on the basis the UK does not have the resource to cope. Now that's been turned on its head and we have people, many  of whom are MP's suggesting we should welcome more, probably many more than we can sensibly accommodate.
It is a fact that we are currently more densely populated than Germany and twice that of France, Spain etc. and as such perhaps helps to understand the issues surrounding the "pressures on services" that are often talked about.
What is the correct number, I am not sure but as far as the UK Government response is concerned I think, at the moment, it has just about got it right.
Firstly, by supporting refugees closer to their home countries as they have done for a considerable time and secondly by accepting refugees from the UNHCR settlements.
It has to be noted that many countries now responding to the crisis should have done much more in previous months and years in this respect just as the UN should have been working even harder to ensure more safe areas for these families to live.
The European Union Parliament has been once again been totally useless over this issue, (I just wonder at times what they actually do contribute).
It is also a fact that this isn't just a problem for Europe it's a problem for the world, a problem where the UN should be at the forefront and encourage the USA, Canada, Australia, et al to offer help.
Thank you, RN. The second offering, from AD of west Suffolk (we are an insular lot in these parts) will be published later this week.

Where do you stand on the refugee crisis?

To celebrate my 50^th post on IDGOM, I thought it might be fitting to adopt a more serious attitude to my ramblings.

But don’t worry too much, dear reader, as it probably won’t last very long.

My subject is one uppermost in the minds of the majority of us this sunny day – what ARE we, the civilised Western world, to do about the stream (notice no swamping on this blog) of people seeking a new life in good old Europe?

Well, consider these views:

Wouldn’t we be better off helping resolve the issues at source i.e. in Afghanistan, Eritrea, and Syria etc.? Or did we cause the current situation in many of the mentioned countries by sending troops in to counter people/ organisations we didn’t like or share a philosophy with?

Shouldn’t we differentiate between a refugee (to my mind someone who is in mortal danger of losing their life) and a migrant (someone looking for a better life in another country)?

Why should someone simply looking for a better life be able to enter whichever country they wish without any form of authorisation? I can travel freely within Europe, and a select few other countries, as I am a European but I still need to go through several hoops just to visit many other states, let along move there.

Have we tried to close the stable door long after the horse has bolted? Our inability, or even reluctance, to tackle serious issues in unstable parts of the world has led to the current crisis. We reap what we sow.

Should we let a photograph of one of very many victims, however young, drive the debate? Emotive images have helped set the agenda throughout history (who can ever forget the iconic and powerful image of the screaming young victim of a napalm attack in the Vietnam War) but they cannot be allowed to dictate it. Mind you, sometimes we all need a kick up the Arsenal to get things moving.

Shouldn’t we stop blaming Germany? Yes, I know that country started two world wars and always beat England on penalties but come on, give the country some slack. That said, there can be no doubt that Angela’s open-door policy is encouraging more and more refugees/ migrants to head west. But isn’t that policy better than ignoring the situation?

Hasn’t our glorious leader got it right for once when he says, a little belatedly, that we will start taking more refugees from the camps in countries bordering Syria? Then proper checks can be carried out. Without these, and a few rules, even more chaos will lie ahead.

Discuss.